democratic hopefuls

[Sabresque]

Alright guys, this poll will probably be flawed-- but out of these three current front runners what do you think??

[scrapinpeg]

out of these three current front runners what do you think??

I try not to.

[Shi no Tenshi]

I'd say it's only flawed if you don't do the same for the republicans.

[Sabresque]

I would but I don't know anything about them, or who's the frontrunner. I'd actually like someone to go ahead and do it who knows more.

[Mr BadGuy]

Meh. If Hillary gets the nomination, then I can definately say, 100% sure, she will not win presidency. I'd bet all of my personal belongings on it.

[Sabresque]

Me too Mr. Bad Guy.

[Shi no Tenshi]

I hope to God she doesn't get it. I'm sorry, but Bill Clinton was one of the most overrated presidents, and she would be even worse. Didn't think a guy could cut back on medical funding and aid to the poor so much, as well as effectively be a total kiss ass and be praised for it.

No worries about the other poll, most of the candidates for GOP are pretty weak anyway. I think Giuliani currently is leading, with McCain trailing, but it could have changed.

[Inquartata]

I'd go with option #2 as well. The Clinton Machine will probably get her the nomination, but not necessarily the White House. The electorate has shown a great distaste for Senators and former Senators ( and Representatives ) over the last few decades. With approval ratings for Congress so low I doubt that that is going to change in 2008. That leaves all three of them out, as well as McCain and a few others in the R camp...including as-yet undeclared Fred Thompson.

Personally I would rather see Bill Richardson than any of them, and that includes all of the Republican candidates at the moment. Which for me is saying something. Even if he is not exactly a beacon of charisma.

Alas, with Democratic control of Congress I feel constrained to vote for some Republican for President, in order to maintain the stand-off and to prevent the government from getting too much done...

[larkmaj]

Alas, with Democratic control of Congress I feel constrained to vote for some Republican for President, in order to maintain the stand-off and to prevent the government from getting too much done...

That could be the most damaging thing Bush accomplishes. Turning people against the Republicans so much that we have a rubber stamp going the other way, and they really don't know what they're doing.

[jeff]

Personally I would rather see Bill Richardson than any of them, and that includes all of the Republican candidates at the moment. Which for me is saying something. Even if he is not exactly a beacon of charisma.

Oh my god, we actually have leanings towards the same candidate. Truly the apocalypse is nigh... (very little chance he'll be nominated, though)

[jeff]

That could be the most damaging thing Bush accomplishes. Turning people against the Republicans so much that we have a rubber stamp going the other way, and they really don't know what they're doing.

Hm, I would say that it's the only remotely useful thing he might wind up doing...

[Inquartata]

Oh my god, we actually have leanings towards the same candidate. Truly the apocalypse is nigh...

I am getting my horse ready. You?

[scrapinpeg]

I'm busy in southern Africa and northern Korea right now. Why don't you go grab a bite till I'm finished here.

[jeff]

I've got the horse labeled "Tech Support", for true 21st-century calamities!

[Inquartata]

Hah, so you're Pestilence, then---only with computer viruses instead of the other kind.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Alas, with Democratic control of Congress I feel constrained to vote for some Republican for President, in order to maintain the stand-off and to prevent the government from getting too much done...

I would like to point out that the supreme court presently has 7 members appointed by a GOP president, and only 2 (Ginsburg&Breyer) by a Dem president. Furthermore, several of the GOP nominees are relatively young as far as SCOTUS judges go, so the balance will not tip anytime soon (barring quite unexpected deaths).

If JP Stevens retires immedieatly after the next Prez election, and replaced by a DEM-leaning judge, there will then be 3 DEM-appointed judges. If the DEM holds the presidency until 2017 AND the two oldest GOP nominees (Scalia&Kennedy) retire at age 80, there will be a majority of 5 DEM-nominated judges by then. At that time, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be 84, and Breyer will be 79. So, there will in all likelyhood be a GOP majority in the SCOTUS for quite some time.

(As an aside: What if the 2008 elections produce a DEM president, and both houses with a DEM majority? Do you think that the then 75-year old RB Ginsburg will resign, in order to make it easy for the new president to appoint a liberal, young justice that can sit on the bench for decades?)

So, you can still vote for a DEM president, and be sure that all branches of govt. do not pull in the same direction. There will still be checks and balances.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[larkmaj]

So, you can still vote for a DEM president, and be sure that all branches of govt. do not pull in the same direction. There will still be checks and balances.

Checks and balances usually don't go full circle. In the passing of laws, deciding government funding, and the like, only the legislative and executive branches are really involved. The Judicial branch pretty much just determines if something is constitutional or not.

[Inquartata]

Right...plus, even a "conservative" court may not act all that predictably. Witness Sandra Day O'Connor and her "swing vote" power.

The real danger to the citizenry is not the laws a government may pass, but the uses to which it puts their tax monies. A liberal President and Congress could spend, spend, spend on existing social welfare programs and other costly boondoggles without ever creating a new program. It could reenact laws which already passed judicial muster, like the "assault weapon" ban...and expand others without substantially altering them and attracting judicial attention.

And lastly, it generally takes a long time for SCOTUS to weigh in. First some party with "standing" must be found. He must then bring suit in a court of original jurisdiction ( usually ) and wait for it to be decided. Then appeal and wait again. And so on. This can take rather a long time, during which interval a great deal of mischief can be accomplished. Delay is the deadliest form of denial.

[grotto]

... A liberal President and Congress could spend, spend, spend on existing social welfare programs and other costly boondoggles without ever creating a new program.

Unlike the current admin military spending boondoggle eh? at least social welfare spending has a chance (yes I know miniscule) of actually helping AMERICANS....

[Inquartata]

Not sure I see how military spending doesn't. Contracts for military TOE are let out to American businesses after all. Economies near military bases reap the benefits of the spending of soldiers and civilian employees. Etc. Not to mention the protection provided to the economy as well as the citizens themselves...

In fact I'd say it's a lot more efficient than spending on welfare, health care and education---not to mention bizarre art projects and scientific studies of dubious value.