Not Sure Who To Vote For In Presidential Election?

[houstonmacbro]

Considering most analyses show Clinton leading in the Super Tuesday delegate race, your assertion that she "does not have a chance" seems a bit optimistic.

Yeah, and Obama can't count his chickens just yet. The verdict is still out on how this country will really vote.

[crunchtastic]

"America's angry old man"

ha. I don't know why, but every time I look at McCain, I think he's about 10 seconds away from a violent psychotic meltdown. Seriously---bad vibes. Is it just me?

[TheNiche]

Pretty much how I feel with the Republicans. But, with "America's policeman" Giuliani gone, and "America's preacher" Huckabee fading, the suckage is reduced to "America's angry old man" and "America's trickle down theorist".

Romney isn't a very good "trickle down theorist". I'd label him "America's used car salesman".

[Mark F. Barnes]

Romney isn't a very good "trickle down theorist". I'd label him "America's used car salesman".

More like a junk bonds salesman!

ha. I don't know why, but every time I look at McCain, I think he's about 10 seconds away from a violent psychotic meltdown. Seriously---bad vibes. Is it just me?

You don't know just how close you are with that statement. He's definately a self serving POS.

[RedScare]

Romney isn't a very good "trickle down theorist". I'd label him "America's used car salesman".

More like a junk bonds salesman!

I will concede that these are each better descriptions than mine. I have read that Romney made most of his millions by purchasing companies and disassembling them and selling them off piecemeal. I have not researched this assertion, but if true, I am not sure that this is what Americans have in mind for a president who "know's the economy".

[Gary]

Perhaps Gary meant abysmal meaning very bad, dreadful, awful, terrible, frightful, atrocious, disgraceful, deplorable, shameful, hopeless, lamentable; informal rotten, appalling, crummy, pathetic, pitiful, woeful, useless, lousy, dire, the pits.

Sorry for the misspelling, but that is exactly what I meant.

[TheNiche]

I will concede that these are each better descriptions than mine. I have read that Romney made most of his millions by purchasing companies and disassembling them and selling them off piecemeal. I have not researched this assertion, but if true, I am not sure that this is what Americans have in mind for a president who "know's the economy".

Sometimes companies just don't make sense, and its better to have some entrepreneur come in and reorganize how capital and labor is put to use in an economy. That's good! When I hear about stuff like this, it makes me want to vote for him because he's clearly a competent guy that knows how to make the most out of prevailing circumstances...but when he says he can bring the old manufacturing jobs back to Michigan in a debate, that's where I apply the 'used car salesman' label.

[BryanS]

...He's definately a self serving POS...

Even Ann Coulter, riding in on her broom, stated that she would vote for Hillary over McCain on H&C. That's right. The evil witch woman is a Hillary supporter (if the contest came down to Hillary vs. McCain). If it comes down to Obama vs. McCain... She'd probably back McCain, would be my bet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2JoSo17Azk

Obama has a lot of young supporters. It looks really good on TV, but that demographic has never, in any given election, been able to "out vote" more traditional demographics (older people). Maybe this one will be different. Maybe not. It sure is nice seeing a fresh face though.

Romney is a big fat loser, for one reason: Massachusetts. The liberal of most liberal states (not that there is anything wrong with that - just most of the country is not there yet). It has a history of churning out real winners such as Dukakis and Kerry. It's home of Jabba Ted Kennedy, who also failed in his presidential campaign bid. Not in a million years could Romney have ever won the governorship of that state, given his current positions on almost every issue. His reversal of where-he-was-then on the issues and where he is now is mind blowing. Did he really think people would buy it? And in terms of this nonsense "I am businessman" crap - news flash - the United States Federal government is not operated like a business (and you're fooling yourself if you think you can transform it into one in 4 or 8 years). Your skills bring nothing to the table.

We talk about McCain spontaneously combusting, at any moment, but I think Romney is more at risk of that would-be spectacle. You're the most well-financed candidate in the race, have out spent your opponents by wide margins, but the most you can do is finish up in second place (once all this over).

[dbigtex56]

Took the poll: Hillary (80%), followed by Obama (70%). Mitt was dead last.

Anyone surprised?

[RedScare]

Sometimes companies just don't make sense, and its better to have some entrepreneur come in and reorganize how capital and labor is put to use in an economy. That's good! When I hear about stuff like this, it makes me want to vote for him because he's clearly a competent guy that knows how to make the most out of prevailing circumstances...but when he says he can bring the old manufacturing jobs back to Michigan in a debate, that's where I apply the 'used car salesman' label.

While true, these are not qualities that make an effective government leader...unless Romney would decide that the United States as it is currently constituted is bloated and inefficient, and proposed breaking it up into several smaller countries. In that case, he might be onto something.

For some reason, I don't see that plan being publicized prior to the election, though.

[memebag]

Romney isn't a very good "trickle down theorist". I'd label him "America's used car salesman".

I label him Guy Smiley:

[HtownWxBoy]

I label him Guy Smiley:

But seriously... although I am really dissipointed that Rudy dropped out (he was my #1 choice), I am really excited about how the election is turning out. I like Hillary, I like Obama, I like McCain.... I don't like Romney or Huckabee (too religious), so I am hoping they both drop out. I really don't know who I could choose then. I have always voted Democrat in the past, but I won't rule out voting for McCain.

Pros...

Clinton... experience, Bill by her side, she really ticks off those on Fox News

Obama... extremely charismatic, younger / newer blood (not the same old D.C. crap), comes across as very genuine

McCain... called people like Jerry Falwell bigots (yea he took it back but he had to to get their support... you know he still thinks they are bigots), seems very genuine, would work w/ both parties, more moderate, ticks off Hannity, Coulter and Limbaugh (that's good for America!!)

Cons...

Clinton... a little to much of a socialist for me, not as friendly/likable... seems kind of two-sided, would have a harder time uniting everyone

Obama... little experience

McCain... he's a Republican... could put conservatives on the Supreme Court... getting up there in age

What to do???

[musicman]

Clinton may be willing to tap wages for health care

WASHINGTON

[TheNiche]

While true, these are not qualities that make an effective government leader...unless Romney would decide that the United States as it is currently constituted is bloated and inefficient, and proposed breaking it up into several smaller countries. In that case, he might be onto something.

For some reason, I don't see that plan being publicized prior to the election, though.

Reorganizing how labor and capital are put to use in society would be great experience for a reformer interested in trimming the fat and realizing efficiencies. I'm not sure where you get the idea about breaking up the U.S. into smaller countries, though--unless by that you're hyperbolistically talking about eliminating a lot of federal programs and returning those matters to the states, in which case I'm on board with that and don't see why it'd have to be hidden from the public.

My point stands: he'd be a great candidate if only he were willing to tell people the truth. McCain is just better at that.

[plumber2]

Niche, you are a real fool. The economy of this country is fueled by entreprenuers that build wealth by starting companies, that in turn purchase other products from other companies. The risks that these people take are snuffed away by people like you that sit back and pontificate on the merits of this company or that company. Wall Street may serve a purpose for creating capital, but the real risk takers are the guys I'll put my faith in, not the Romney types.

Mitt should look at this father's career, in the auto industry and take a few lessons from him. George Romney saved American Motors during it's most vulnerable days, and it wasn't by selling off the company assests. George did it by creating a sellable product, the Rambler, and creating job growth as a by-product of it's success. You and Mitt would have taken the low path and sold the plants, land and assests to the highest bidder, justifing that an independent automaker doesn't make sense.

[houstonmacbro]

But seriously... although I am really dissipointed that Rudy dropped out (he was my #1 choice), I am really excited about how the election is turning out. I like Hillary, I like Obama, I like McCain.... I don't like Romney or Huckabee (too religious), so I am hoping they both drop out. I really don't know who I could choose then. I have always voted Democrat in the past, but I won't rule out voting for McCain.

Pros...

Clinton... experience, Bill by her side, she really ticks off those on Fox News

Obama... extremely charismatic, younger / newer blood (not the same old D.C. crap), comes across as very genuine

McCain... called people like Jerry Falwell bigots (yea he took it back but he had to to get their support... you know he still thinks they are bigots), seems very genuine, would work w/ both parties, more moderate, ticks off Hannity, Coulter and Limbaugh (that's good for America!!)

Cons...

Clinton... a little to much of a socialist for me, not as friendly/likable... seems kind of two-sided, would have a harder time uniting everyone

Obama... little experience

McCain... he's a Republican... could put conservatives on the Supreme Court... getting up there in age

What to do???

Has anyone noticed how desperate Mitt Romney is looking and sounding these days. Absolutely scary.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Has anyone noticed how desperate Mitt Romney is looking and sounding these days. Absolutely scary.

Losing by a 2 to 1 margin this late in the game, panic and desperation is all that's left.

[BryanS]

Losing by a 2 to 1 margin this late in the game, panic and desperation is all that's left.

Get ready... spontaneous human combustion in 3... 2... 1...

[houstonmacbro]

Get ready... spontaneous human combustion in 3... 2... 1...

Full disclosure ... I am not a republican, but I give all candidates the benefit of the doubt. Romney sounded somewhat reasonable early on, but lately he just sounds ... manic.

[RedScare]

Reorganizing how labor and capital are put to use in society would be great experience for a reformer interested in trimming the fat and realizing efficiencies. I'm not sure where you get the idea about breaking up the U.S. into smaller countries, though--unless by that you're hyperbolistically talking about eliminating a lot of federal programs and returning those matters to the states, in which case I'm on board with that and don't see why it'd have to be hidden from the public.

No, I actually see the value of the US pulling a Soviet Union and splitting into several smaller countries, perhaps with a loose Euro style cooperation for defense. While everyone understands the economies of scale, where the unit costs are lower when spread amongst a larger group, there is also a limit to that theory, where administrative costs can become so large and inefficient as to defeat the economy of scale. I believe the US is reaching that point for several reasons, most of them related to security and defense.

Becoming a superpower creates two problems, one external and one internal. As the US economy expands into every corner of the globe, it creates enemies as it impacts foreign nations and citizens. As a superpower, it is hard to look benevolent, and the angrier of those offended tend to want to strike back. This causes the US to grow its military and security forces even larger, offending even more nations and citizens. The newest budget includes $515 Billion for the military, not including the additional $150 Billion needed to fight its ongoing wars, for a total military expenditure of $665 Billion.

The second problem is internal. As the military grows, the government tends to think it can go and do what it wants, as no one can defeat its military. This arrogances antagonizes foreigners, who look for ways to antagonize back, or even to terrorize the populace. This leads to further escalation of the military, as described in the previous paragraph.

By splitting into 4 or 5 smaller countries with a common defense, the big target of the United States is eliminated. Military expenses become a fraction of what they were. Because none of the countries is big enough to attack anyone without help, military expenses will only be used for defense, not aggression. Alliances with Canada, Mexico and Europe will still allow for defense against rogue nations or others with grand delusions.

Most other industrialized nations spend 1.5 to 2.5% of GDP on defense. Bush's new budget proposes 5%. With 4 or 5 smaller countries, none of which would now be targets, defense spending could drop to one-third to even one-quarter of our current spending, yet we would be at lower risk.

I realize that American nationalism would never allow it to occur. However, the cost savings are real and undeniable. The only problem would be deciding which new country to be a citizen of....oh, and trying to name them all.

Edited to add that an additional $21 Billion will go to nuclear weapons, and $50 Billion for Homeland Security. Best estimate is $716 Billion for defense and security spending for fiscal 2009.

[Guest danax]

All of the remaining candidates are going to be puppets/slaves for the New World Order, except Ron Paul.

Obama; foreign policy advisor is ZBIGNIEW BREZINSKI, founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller. Brezinski also got the original Taliban and Al Qaeda funded when he was in the Carter administration. Obams's wife is hooked into the Council on Foreign Relations, the major policy maker for the Order. Obama will keep the eternal war alive, add government health care if possible and give amnesty to illegals, all part of the globalist agenda. Those who swallow his vaque "change" lies will be disappointed.

Clinton; Same as above, but more ruthless. Clinton is not a CFR member, but her husband, Bill is. She has recently authored an article for the November/December 2007 issue of the CFR journal, Foreign Affairs, and has several times been a guest speaker before the council. Her policy advisers include CFR heavyweights Madeleine Albright, Samuel Berger, Leslie Gelb, and Strobe Talbott, to name a few.

McCain: Same as above. McCain's CFR advisers include Bernard Aronson, Max Boot, Lawrence Eagleburger, and Henry Kissinger. War escalation, amnesty (which will provide more potential soldiers, both abroad and at home), pro North American Union (end of America),global warming (excuse to control nations via the Carbon Tax). His personality seems a little edgy too, probably a hands down Most Likely to Nuke.

Huckabee; Main foreign policy advisor is Richard Haas, director of the Council on Foreign Relations. He might not realize the extent of the globalist agenda he'll be fed if elected at this point.

Romney; Wrote an article for CFR this year has a circle of CFR advisers that includes Mitchell Reiss, V. Manuel Rocha, Steven Schrage, and Vin Weber.

Except for the minor issues, the two party system is a sham and a puppet show. Ron Paul (and Mike Gravel and probably Kuchinich) are fully aware of the elitist's agenda to meltdown America and remove the Constitution and are working in direct opposition to them. Paul gets virtually no corporate money and is as ignored as possible by the media, but would sincerely try to buck the system and save us. For those who think this is "conspiracy theory" stuff, spend some hours researching carefully while the internet is still open and free (Google HR1955 or S1959 for some liberty-threatening legislation that is almost law.) Rockefeller, the chairman of the CFR, has said (before 9/11), "This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

[TheNiche]

Niche, you are a real fool. The economy of this country is fueled by entreprenuers that build wealth by starting companies, that in turn purchase other products from other companies. The risks that these people take are snuffed away by people like you that sit back and pontificate on the merits of this company or that company.

You've mis-defined Entrepreneurs. You say that they "build wealth by starting companies, that in turn purchase other products from other companies," but you left out the part about selling products. A company cannot survive without revenue. Romney was an entrepreneur. At great personal and financial risk to himself, Romney bought assets from one company, reorganized those assets, and sold them to other firms that could put them to better productive use.

The merits of any individual company are reflected on the company's financial statements. The matter requires technical analysis, but little pontification.

Wall Street may serve a purpose for creating capital, but the real risk takers are the guys I'll put my faith in, not the Romney types.

I do not put my faith in Romney because he has pretended that all the jobs lost in Michigan can be brought back (to Michigan). He lost my faith because he's lying, and I know that he's too intelligent just to be naive...just like Obama doesn't appeal to me because he's too articulate to ever sound like a southern black preacher, which he tends to when he's appealing to a southern constituency.

Having said that, I'm not going to put my faith in an abject risk-taker that haphazardly pushes buttons to find out what happens. I want a cold, calculating administrator willing to utilize his powers (but never exceed his powers) to help government function more efficiently in the service of its present and future constituents.

[TheNiche]

By splitting into 4 or 5 smaller countries with a common defense, the big target of the United States is eliminated.

I find your ideas intriguing. But don't tell me that splitting into four or five smaller countries would discourage terrorism. Don't tell it to folks from Spain or the U.K., either.

[memebag]

I find your ideas intriguing. But don't tell me that splitting into four or five smaller countries would discourage terrorism. Don't tell it to folks from Spain or the U.K., either.

Splitting the US into 4 or 5 smaller countries could lead to terrorism between those smaller countries if some parties don't view the distribution of assets as fair and equal.

[BryanS]

I find your ideas intriguing. But don't tell me that splitting into four or five smaller countries would discourage terrorism. Don't tell it to folks from Spain or the U.K., either.

Very intriguing. You are correct. It will not discourage terrorism. What we need is a national defense that is more in line to combat terrorism, today's threats. That type of defense looks nothing like what we have today and would be pennies on the dollar vs. what we spend today. It would also be more effective. We need to trade in some of our B-2 bombers, and other high-dollar cold war era machinery for covert intelligence, covert operations. We're going about this thing in a way that is just too obvious. "Shock and awe" type of conflict just draws too much attention, and gives more cause to those who want to harm us. Not to mention it is incredibly expensive. We need to shift our tactics to silently... getting them in the night... and make no issue of it. There would be no "war" - that's what our enemies want. Instead... our enemies would just disappear off the face of the planet, with no fanfare.

[TheNiche]

Very intriguing. You are correct. It will not discourage terrorism. What we need is a national defense that is more in line to combat terrorism, today's threats. That type of defense looks nothing like what we have today and would be pennies on the dollar vs. what we spend today. It would also be more effective. We need to trade in some of our B-2 bombers, and other high-dollar cold war era machinery for covert intelligence, covert operations. We're going about this thing in a way that is just too obvious. "Shock and awe" type of conflict just draws too much attention, and gives more cause to those who want to harm us. Not to mention it is incredibly expensive. We need to shift our tactics to silently... getting them in the night... and make no issue of it. There would be no "war" - that's what our enemies want. Instead... our enemies would just disappear off the face of the planet, with no fanfare.

One of the nice things about having a Cold War superpower legacy is that it strongly discourages nations from aspiring to the mantle of superpower. We do need to add to our repertoire of tactics, but I think that can be done effectively as a subset of our current command structure (and probably already has).

[RedScare]

Very intriguing. You are correct. It will not discourage terrorism. What we need is a national defense that is more in line to combat terrorism, today's threats. That type of defense looks nothing like what we have today and would be pennies on the dollar vs. what we spend today. It would also be more effective. We need to trade in some of our B-2 bombers, and other high-dollar cold war era machinery for covert intelligence, covert operations. We're going about this thing in a way that is just too obvious. "Shock and awe" type of conflict just draws too much attention, and gives more cause to those who want to harm us. Not to mention it is incredibly expensive. We need to shift our tactics to silently... getting them in the night... and make no issue of it. There would be no "war" - that's what our enemies want. Instead... our enemies would just disappear off the face of the planet, with no fanfare.

Absolutely agree. Two points, though. Some terrorism would dissipate, as the Imperialist US would disappear. There will always be some that see terrorism as a way to gain attention, but one of the bigger targets disappears. Secondly, the seemingly irresistable urge of US leaders to bully the world to its way of thinking would disappear, as the US disappeared. Just as Europe cannot be imperialistic, as it is several countries, neither could several former US countries.

Since there appears to be no interest in Washington for dismantling the Cold War military industrial complex, dismantling the Cold War US would be the next best thing. I have said over and over that the best way to combat terrorism is through covert operations. However, politics being what it is, politicans insist on bragging about what they are doing. This is absolutely counter-productive. If a terrorist leader drops dead from a late night hit on a dark street, the terrorists will know who did it. However, the publicity value of a dark alley homicide is nearly worthless...both to the terrorists, and to the politician. So, they aid each other by publicizing the fight, while the populace remains terrified. Since both sides are complicit in the terror, and both seem eager to escalate it for personal gain, it seems to me the best way to eliminate the incentive to both sides is to eliminate the big target AND the big budget. Ergo, disassemble the United States.

[HtownWxBoy]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politi...n_whacks_m.html

Hatemonger James Dobson won't vote for McCain... will sit out election if McCain is nominated... I am liking McCain more and more!!!

[houstonmacbro]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politi...n_whacks_m.html

Hatemonger James Dobson won't vote for McCain... will sit out election if McCain is nominated... I am liking McCain more and more!!!

Apparently a similar view from Ann Coulter. She will support Hillary if McCain is the nominee.

Of course, I find this hard to believe and I am sure she was just being ridiculous (as always).

[BryanS]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politi...n_whacks_m.html

Hatemonger James Dobson won't vote for McCain... will sit out election if McCain is nominated... I am liking McCain more and more!!!

...there is talk of this in the office, too... the whole idea that "real conservatives" don't back McCain, don't want to vote for him, will not vote for him, IMO, is just loud complaining. If Hillary is the dem nominee... her prescience alone will drive these "real conservatives" to vote for McCain, big time. He's gonna get their vote for free. He'll get even more of them when he promises to put more Scalia types on the Supreme Court. And since he's moderate on immigration... he'll pick off quite a few independent votes. If it really is going to be Hillary vs. McCain... I see the same close election as in 2000... Actually, its probably going to be near 50-50 again, no matter who wins on either side.