US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
2861U2 said:
Yeah, I think Obama really got beat up last night by both of them. Makes me wonder if he could hold his own against someone like McCain.



i actually think he did well, and i dont think McCain is some kind of debate champion. if he were the nominee, and if he were to win in the general, it would be because of the distance he's placed between himself and the Bush White House and their destructive policies while touting his experience and ability to work with Democrats and reach independents.

in an actual debate, i think McCain would be completely destroyed by both Hillary and Obama. but just because you're a better debater -- i.e., John Kerry -- doesn't mean you're going to win.
 
Irvine511 said:


while touting his experience and ability to work with Democrats and reach independents.

That's another thing that frustrates me. I hear all the Republicans on TV saying how they want someone who can unite the country and reach across the aisle, but when the fact that McCain has done just that comes up, they seem to condemn him for working with Democrats. I hate McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy as much as anyone else, but at least he has proven he can work with EVERYBODY,
 
2861U2 said:


That's another thing that frustrates me. I hear all the Republicans on TV saying how they want someone who can unite the country and reach across the aisle, but when the fact that McCain has done just that comes up, they seem to condemn him for working with Democrats. I hate McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy as much as anyone else, but at least he has proven he can work with EVERYBODY,


and this is why i think, if we must have a Republican, please let it be John McCain.
 
2861U2 said:


I hear all the Republicans on TV saying how they want someone who can unite the country and reach across the aisle, but when the fact that McCain has done just that comes up, they seem to condemn him for working with Democrats.

Republicans don't want unity, they never have. They are dividers by nature, it's part of their platform; tax cuts for the rich, the religious quotes by Huck and Romney are great examples, they are against any social movement that may bring equality to minorities, they hold on to the status quo of division with every last breath they have...
 
There is some speculation that he was a stalking horse for McCain.

To make sure Huckabee would not win SC and take
McCain out.

It was the S C loss in 2000 that ended McCain, then. :shrug:
 
deep said:
There is some speculation that he was a stalking horse for McCain.

To make sure Huckabee would not win SC and take
McCain out.

It was the S C loss in 2000 that ended McCain, then. :shrug:

if that is the case freddy really isn't a true conservative, but only a puppet for someone.

dbs
 
phillyfan26 said:
Is there someone in this election who is a "true conservative?"

based upon what I have been reading on various sites

many GOPers believe Fred was their best choice

and many are discouraged with what remains
 
I've got two questions:

(a) How many elections have their been without a current VP in the mix (I mean, obviously, of those years where there could be one, ie not when a sitting President is going for a 2nd term)?

(b) Imagine if Dick Cheney weren't VP (but still in some highly powerful advisor type position whispering satans dark word directly into the ear of the President) but instead there was a more youthful/ambitious VP who in any other Presidency would just naturally be taking a shot now.

I just think it would have been interesting. Would it be a first? Where a sitting VP is generally essentially handed the nomination and often a tough one to beat in the general, but this time around would not have stood a fucking chance, perhaps even with the nomination?
 
2861U2 said:
I was hoping/expecting he'd endorse McCain. Maybe in the next few days. :shrug:

he does not need to

he did McCain a huge favor in SC


endorsements don't really mean much


does Limbaugh's anti-endorsement affect you?
 
Earnie Shavers said:
I've got questions:



(b) Imagine if Dick Cheney weren't VP (but still in some highly powerful advisor type position whispering satans dark word directly into the ear of the President) but instead there was a more youthful/ambitious VP who in any other Presidency would just naturally be taking a shot now.

I just think it would have been interesting. Would it be a first? Where a sitting VP is generally essentially handed the nomination and often a tough one to beat in the general, but this time around would not have stood a fucking chance, perhaps even with the nomination?


dan%20quayle%20bush.jpg
 
phanan said:
It was a terrible debate. Edwards was probably the best. The continued sniping between Clinton and Obama made both of them look fairly pathetic last night.

:yes:

I'm liking Edwards again.
 
2861U2 said:


He didn't? I wasn't aware of that.

To be fair
he did not vote for the other guy, either.
in the 70s and 80s he was never bothered to register to vote

his grandfather being a judge and all
and him bragging about his conservative family,
and he doesn't even take the time to vote :no:
 
Last edited:
joyfulgirl said:


:yes:

I'm liking Edwards again.

I don't necessarily like any of them or any politician

but, i do believe it makes a huge difference
if a W or a Al Gore was our President

so, I will vote for the best option
I always vote, not that it matters (f*cken electoral college)
 
Earnie Shavers said:
How many elections have their been without a current VP in the mix (I mean, obviously, of those years where there could be one, ie not when a sitting President is going for a 2nd term)?
Fifteen (out of a total of fifty-five elections).
Would it be a first? Where a sitting VP is generally essentially handed the nomination and often a tough one to beat in the general, but this time around would not have stood a fucking chance, perhaps even with the nomination?
Actually, after Martin Van Buren's win in 1836, no incumbent VPs managed to win the general election again until Bush Sr. in 1988, so it's by no means unusual for them to lose. And both incumbent Presidents and VPs have failed to win their own party's nomination before--multiple times. 2008 is, however, the first time since 1952 that no incumbents are in the running, so it's been a while.

The most recent prior example of the situation you're describing would probably be 1920, when Woodrow Wilson's VP Thomas Marshall declined to run--he never publically stated why, but it's generally been assumed that it was because Wilson was so unpopular by the end of his term, due to the domestic aftermath of World War I. The opposition (Republican) candidate, Warren Harding, won by a landslide.
 
deep said:


I don't necessarily like any of them or any politician

but, i do believe it makes a huge difference
if a W or a Al Gore was our President

so, I will vote for the best option
I always vote, not that it matters (f*cken electoral college)

Yes. I'm thinking about the upcoming NM caucus. You know I'll vote for the Democrat candidate in November. But on Feb. 5 I can vote for whoever I want to and now I'm leaning towards Edwards again. I changed my IND status to DEM just so I can vote in the caucus and primary. I got my new voter card in the mail last week. :)
 
Irvine511 said:




a lot of Republicans are thinking this as well.


Well, the neo-cons may well be, secretly or otherwise.

Hillary is hot on the Iraq war.

Loves the thought of all those dead terraists.

(Did someone say Bush-lite?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom