Who are you planning on voting for?

[martha]

Originally posted by anitram
I can't vote.

It would be so good for the US if Canadians could vote in our elections, but the reciprocal would fuck you guys up so bad.

[Irvine511]

what i think is making Hillary so appealing has been the total disaster of the Bush years.

instead of a dick-swinging cowboy who governs with his gut and don't need no focus groups (nor facts) to make decissins, i'd much, much, much rather have a poll-driven, cautious, measured, meticulous, kind of boring leader who's simply not going to fuck up. i doubt she'll accomplish anything great, but she's not going to continue to drive the country into the ground the way Bush has. i feel fully confident that she'll hold her own on the international stage as well -- no one fucked with Thatcher, why would they fuck with her?

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally posted by Irvine511

you mean like being pro-choice, and then not?

like being pro-gay marriage, and then not?

Guess that doesn't count, or just doesn't count only if you're a really hot (allegedly) Mormon guy with a perfect family.

Romney Muddles Abortion Stance
2008 Republican Backs State Abortion Leeway Until Federal Ban Possible
By TEDDY DAVIS

Aug. 22, 2007
LOS ANGELES, Calif. —

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Tuesday in a Nevada television interview that he supports letting states "make their own decision" about whether to keep abortion legal.

"My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation," Romney told Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston in a televised interview. "Instead, I would let states make their choices."

Asked by Ralston if it was "OK" with him that Nevada is a "pro-choice state," Romney said, "I'd let states make their own decision in this regard. My view, of course, is I'm a pro-life individual. That's the position I support. But, I'd let states have this choice rather than let the federal government have it."


Romney Shift?

In his interview with Ralston, Romney was not asked about his support for a Human Life Amendment or federal legislation which would bring unborn children under the protections of the 14th Amendment.

The former Massachusetts governor endorsed both positions -- which would effectively ban abortion nationwide -- during an Aug. 6 interview on ABC News' "Good Morning America."

Asked by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos whether he supports the Republican Party's 2004 platform on abortion rights, which states, "We support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children," Romney said, "You know, I do support the Republican platform, and I support that being part of the Republican platform and I'm pro-life."


Romney Campaign Pushes Back

When ABCNEWS.com reported Wednesday that states like Nevada would be unable to keep abortion legal if Romney's ultimate vision were implemented, a Romney spokesman sought to explain the discrepancy by saying that while Romney supports the Human Life Amendment and 14th Amendment legislation contained in the Republican Party's 2004 platform, he does not view either measure as "achievable" at this time.

By contrast, he views overturning Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court case which legalized abortion throughout the United States, as a goal which can be achieved more quickly.

If Romney succeeds in overturning Roe v. Wade through his Supreme Court appointments, states would once again be empowered to make their own decisions about abortion rights.

States would retain this power, under Romney's vision, until it is possible to outlaw abortion at the federal level. At that point, they would lose this power.

Romney's camp, however, does not see this day coming any time soon.

"We should aspire to passing a Human Life Amendment when the country as a whole is prepared for it," Romney spokesman Kevin Madden told ABC News. "The American people just aren't there yet."

[CTU2fan]

Originally posted by Irvine511
what i think is making Hillary so appealing has been the total disaster of the Bush years.

instead of a dick-swinging cowboy who governs with his gut and don't need no focus groups (nor facts) to make decissins, i'd much, much, much rather have a poll-driven, cautious, measured, meticulous, kind of boring leader who's simply not going to fuck up. i doubt she'll accomplish anything great, but she's not going to continue to drive the country into the ground the way Bush has. i feel fully confident that she'll hold her own on the international stage as well -- no one fucked with Thatcher, why would they fuck with her?

Or to put it simpler, if we can't go back to our successful President who did an overall good job despite getting a little head on the side, we'll settle for his wife.

[LemonMelon]

Originally posted by phanan
I really like Obama, but quite honestly, I just don't think he's ready for the job. When the NH primary comes around, I'll probably register as a Democrat to vote for HRC.

A lot of people seem to think Clinton should pick Obama as a running mate if she wins, and while I don't know if he'd do it, I think it would be a great ticket.

Agreed. A Hilary/Obama partnership would be close to impossible to top, especially considering the entire Republican party is basically shot thanks to Bush. I would never vote for HRC because of our differences in opinion on many important issues, but I'll give her credit; she's definitely looking to be the most appealing candidate at this point to the masses. Which is why she will not only get the nod, but probably get elected. The GOP isn't helping themselves by having very few appealing candidates.

[LemonMelon]

Originally posted by Irvine511
and since we're talking about negatives, and how people should just give up and walk away if someone doesn't like them, it's intersting to find Mitt Romney at a negative rating of 44%, even higher than HRC.

it seems that some in his own party won't vote for him no matter the circumstance.

probably due to religious bigotry.

Well, he's not only a Morman; he's a flip-flopping Morman. I agree with you that there is definitely some religious prejudice in there, but he is fake. Charismatic, but fake.

[diamond]

Originally posted by LemonMelon


Well, he's not only a Morman; he's a flip-flopping Morman. I agree with you that there is definitely some religious prejudice in there, but he is fake. Charismatic, but fake.

I think Obama is the most likeable fellow and this is what wins elections.

GW had it
Clinton had it
GHW had it over Dukakis barely.
Reagan had it
JFK had it
Nixon didn't have it but McGovern was too liberal for the 1970s.

And it it's Mormon, not "Morman", LemonMelon.

dbs

[u2fan628]

Obama

[hardyharhar]

Any democrat

[MissMaCo]

I'll vote for Ségolène Royal

[BostonAnne]

Originally posted by diamond


Excellent post, thanks for another example of what I was referring to.

Some folks here misinterpreted my criticizing Edwards (in another thread) trying to exploit his wife's illness for votes.

I don't have anything against Mrs Edwards at all. My mom died on Cancer when I was 2 and half years old.
I think she is unwittingly being exploited for polictical purposes.

After she passes, perhaps that would be Edwads' time to run.

The country needs a healthy President and at least a First Lady with a good or decent bill of health.

Family first is my view.


I think Edwards will do just about anything to seek public office-which is sad.

dbs

I think that John Edward's decision to run for President came while dealing with loss. He lost his 16 year old son in 1996 - before he was a politician. I totally agree with you that family is first - and maybe this is the way the Edwards family needs to go to put their family first.

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/john/

http://www.wade.org/AboutWade.htm

Anyhow, I think John is pretty genuine in his journey and there are a lot of people that get places through being inspired while dealing with the loss of a loved one.

I think it really stinks that Elizabeth Edwards has incurable cancer and will have a known shortened life. This could be a few years down the road and with some luck maybe even longer. I don't think it is right for us to expect them to go away and wait until the end and I admire their desire to live with the cancer instead of letting the cancer rule their lives.

[diamond]

Originally posted by BostonAnne


Edwards has incurable cancer and will have a known shortened life. This could be a few years down the road and with some luck maybe even longer. I don't think it is right for us to expect them to go away and wait until the end and I admire their desire to live with the cancer instead of letting the cancer rule their lives.

Well nobody wants Edwards to simply "go away", and yes it stinks his wife is sick.

We only differ in how one is to live with an incurable illness.

And yes Edwards has a "right" to run, but I don't think it's the wisest choices he's made based on the polling data and his placing in these polls-most Democrats would agree.

dbs

[BostonAnne]

Originally posted by diamond
After she passes, perhaps that would be Edwads' time to run.

The country needs a healthy President and at least a First Lady with a good or decent bill of health.

I felt that you were implying that they should go away because you don't think that is how they should live with an incurable illness.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Does mental health count?

How Mrs. Edwards lives with her illness is no one's right to determine but hers-same applies to Mrs. Romney.

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

My answer remains NOBODY!

[Diemen]

Well what a surprise.

[anitram]

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen

How Mrs. Edwards lives with her illness is no one's right to determine but hers

No kidding.

Who cares if you "differ" on how to live with an incurable disease? You're not the one living with it; she is.

[martha]

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Does mental health count?

How Mrs. Edwards lives with her illness is no one's right to determine but hers-same applies to Mrs. Romney.

But some people know better. They're fine telling complete strangers how to live. They just know better that the people who actually have the problem.

[diamond]

Originally posted by martha


They're fine telling complete strangers how to live..

Actually his constituents are by his polling numbers.

He will figure it out sooner or later and hopefully some of you will here too.

dbs

[martha]

Originally posted by diamond


Actually his constituents are by his polling numbers.

He will figure it out sooner or later and hopefully some of you will here too.

dbs

If you're happy telling others how to live.