|
|
#1
12-28-2006, 10:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
\"The lesser of two evils\"
It appears to me that the most likely matchup for the upcoming Presidential election is going to be John McCain and Barack Obama. If that occurs, that will be an interesting election and a great thing for democracy.
- IMHO, both of those men are fundamentally good people. - They care about the country more than their ideology or winning. - While firmly conservative and liberal respectively, they are capable of seeing the other side of the issue and are good at choosing when to cross party lines. - Unlike our current "Uniter", they both want to lead the whole country instead of pandering to narrow interests. If this matchup ends, it will be the best race between the two best people for the job since Jefferson v. Adams. Excluding differences in ideology, I can't imagine what else people would want in their candidates. If this race happens, I hope it will put to rest the concept of voting for the lesser of two evils and replace it with voting for two people who I don't always agree with. 
|
|
#2
12-28-2006, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"The lesser of two evils\"
A candidate with almost no relevant experience who is more of a media product than a leader, and a candidate who will be 72 when elected putting god knows who within a few heartbeats of the Presidency and is viewed by many in his party as a traitor, and you dont think its the lesser of two evils?
|
|
#3
12-28-2006, 11:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"The lesser of two evils\"
[ QUOTE ]
It appears to me that the most likely matchup for the upcoming Presidential election is going to be John McCain and Barack Obama. [/ QUOTE ] Sen. Clinton is still a relatively big favorite on Tradesports -- more than twice as likely than Sen. Obama to receive the nomination. I don't want to turn this into "Hillary vs Barack", but I think it's premature to call Obama the preemptive favorite. As for your bullet points about both Obama and McCain, I certainly won't call into question whether or not they're fundamentally good people or how they'll lead or what kind of interests they will or won't pander to, but I'd suggest no one quite knows what each will do and that a certain amount of pandering/realpolitiking is necessary to win the nomination. It's unreasonable to assume McCain won't have to make some concessions to the religious conservatives in his party, or that Obama won't have to appease both labor and environmentalists (groups whose interests can often be in conflict, but whose support he'll need to capture the nomination). Since there are only two major parties, these candidates are going to have to create and hold awfully large coalitions together, which often means tempering ideology in favor of not pissing anyone off; I think this is typically what we mean when we say 'pandering' -- and I would claim that successful pandering is a necessary skill for any viable Presidential candidate.
|
|
#4
12-28-2006, 12:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"The lesser of two evils\"
An election where I don't know who I would vote for because I ACTUALLY LIKE both of the major candidates? It's just so crazy that it might work...
|
|
#5
12-28-2006, 12:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"The lesser of two evils\"
[ QUOTE ]
...viewed by many in his party as a traitor [/ QUOTE ] 95% agreement with the party line not good enough for them? This reflects more poorly on "many in his party" than it does on McCain.
|
|
#6
12-28-2006, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"The lesser of two evils\"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] ...viewed by many in his party as a traitor [/ QUOTE ] 95% agreement with the party line not good enough for them? This reflects more poorly on "many in his party" than it does on McCain. [/ QUOTE ] I assume your 95% is related to votes. That isnt where his problems lie. It is in the issues that he has taken active leadership positions in, such as the gang of 14, his torture amendment, and Mccain-Feingold.
|
|
#7
12-28-2006, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"The lesser of two evils\"
[ QUOTE ]
Excluding differences in ideology, I can't imagine what else people would want in their candidates. [/ QUOTE ] You make it sound as though their policies don't matter.
|
|
#9
12-28-2006, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"The lesser of two evils\"
[ QUOTE ]
, it will be the best race between the two best people for the job since Jefferson v. Adams. [/ QUOTE ] I couldn't disagree more but i'll leave it at that. Actually, I'll just add that I think these two are two of the WORST candidates we could have in this election. To call them the best two candidates since jefferson vs. adams is shocking to me. natedogg
|
|
#10
12-28-2006, 07:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"The lesser of two evils\"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] ...viewed by many in his party as a traitor [/ QUOTE ] 95% agreement with the party line not good enough for them? This reflects more poorly on "many in his party" than it does on McCain. [/ QUOTE ] I assume your 95% is related to votes. That isnt where his problems lie. It is in the issues that he has taken active leadership positions in, such as the gang of 14, his torture amendment, and Mccain-Feingold. [/ QUOTE ] And he will sell us out on the illegal alien amnesty. Oops, too late, Bush will beat him too it.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
