A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

I'd been wondering how the McCain/Giuliani differentiation was going. Then I followed a link about what's been happening with Rush Limbaugh.

Quote:

Just because one is a religious conservative doesn't mean we expect our leaders to have lived perfect lives. We would have no leaders then, because no one is perfect. We have all sinned. To me, it isn't about past mistakes, it's about how a person moves forward, how they coped or dealt with the problems they had.

There is a world of difference for example, in how McCain handled his divorce, and Giuliani handled his. All you have to do is ask the ex-wives to find that out.

one faction starts to check in

0 Replies

Liberals and conservatives both have their imperfections. Limbaugh is no crook in my opinion, but apparently had a problem with a prescription drug for a physical ailment, which has apparently been treated and corrected. I do not defend his actions, but I do think they need to be put into perspective as a problem not comparing to more serious ones, and we can give credit for his admission of the problem and subsequent treatment. The frustrating problem is a double standard, as applied by politicians. Both liberals and conservatives need to condemn immorality and corruption, not only on the opposite side of the political spectrum, but on their own side as well. Sorry to bring up Clinton again, but we never saw any condemnation from the left for the corruption the country tolerated for 8 years. Only now is corruption perceived as a problem.

A significant factor in this double standard is the definition of morality. I've heard some liberals define morality as determined by their public morality, what they advocate politically to help the poor and so forth. Under that scenario, virtually anything can be justified personally if the person thinks they are doing something wonderful as a politician for their country. Hitler thought he was creating utopia. What a wonderful morality. How could it be any better.

I realize the above comments might bring the wrath of liberals down on me, but let the criticism start. I just think the definition of morality is extremely important, and a very slippery slope if we lose our conscience for our own personal actions in our personal lives. If we cannot trust our politicians, our bankers, our teachers, our policemen, our neighbors, or each other in our personal relationships, how can we trust them with the country? I think morality begins at home, not in public office.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

A significant factor in this double standard is the definition of morality. I've heard some liberals define morality as determined by their public morality, what they advocate politically to help the poor and so forth. Under that scenario, virtually anything can be justified personally if the person thinks they are doing something wonderful as a politician for their country. Hitler thought he was creating utopia. What a wonderful morality. How could it be any better.

So, "some liberals" have told you the liberals' nasty little secret--that the ends justify the means! The liberals' secret security forces must find these traitors and shut them up--forever...

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I would be delighted to find that the Left bashes Hilary as much as the Right but it will not happen.

Finn, has it completely passed you by that Hillary evokes a deep distaste among a bunch of liberals here? Distinctly more so, in fact, than the ideologically perhaps indeed more distant Bill? There's a bunch of us hoping and praying that it wont be Hillary, running as the Democrat presidential candidate in '08.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I would be delighted to find that the Left bashes Hilary as much as the Right but it will not happen.

Finn, has it completely passed you by that Hillary evokes a deep distaste among a bunch of liberals here? Distinctly more so, in fact, than the ideologically perhaps indeed more distant Bill? There's a bunch of us hoping and praying that it wont be Hillary, running as the Democrat presidential candidate in '08.

I'm glad to hear that for sure. So who would be your chosen Democrat candidate or candidates?

0 Replies

I don't like Hillary one bit. I think she's a guaranteed loss for the Dems.

My candidate? General Wesley Clark. In 8 years from that, Edwards or maybe Obama. Feingold, but I don't think he's electable in this modern climate.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Woe, cycloptichorn, you need a reality check. Are you dreaming?

Clark is a lightweight. No charisma. No common sense. No consistency.

Edwards and his two Americas mantra? So thats leadership? Give all of us a break. He has trouble getting elected in his home state.

Obama? Hillary and the party powers that be will never allow it. Not now at least, unless theres something big in it for them.

Feingold? Hes good at hating Bush and Republicans. But where is the positive solutions or common sense for anything? Tapping terrorist phone calls should get a man impeached? What other dead end path or agenda would this guy lead us all down for no good reason?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

nimh wrote:
There's a bunch of us hoping and praying that it wont be Hillary, running as the Democrat presidential candidate in '08.

I'm glad to hear that for sure. So who would be your chosen Democrat candidate or candidates?

I've no idea... <sighs>

Warner perhaps?

0 Replies

I have said it before,and I'll say it again.
I am a conservative,but if Evan Bayh (D.-IN) runs he will get my support.And he is a liberal.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I would be delighted to find that the Left bashes Hilary as much as the Right but it will not happen.

Finn, has it completely passed you by that Hillary evokes a deep distaste among a bunch of liberals here? Distinctly more so, in fact, than the ideologically perhaps indeed more distant Bill? There's a bunch of us hoping and praying that it wont be Hillary, running as the Democrat presidential candidate in '08.

<bold and color mine>

count me as among those not wanting Hillary. - a sure, painful, dramatic loss.

but...

Okie:

Quote:

Woe, cycloptichorn, you need a reality check. Are you dreaming?

Clark is a lightweight. No charisma. No common sense. No consistency.

Edwards and his two Americas mantra? So thats leadership? Give all of us a break. He has trouble getting elected in his home state.

Obama? Hillary and the party powers that be will never allow it. Not now at least, unless theres something big in it for them.

Feingold? Hes good at hating Bush and Republicans. But where is the positive solutions or common sense for anything? Tapping terrorist phone calls should get a man impeached? What other dead end path or agenda would this guy lead us all down for no good reason?

...who, then? or are you just trying to cagily advance the idea that you think the Dems have no chance at a viable candidate at all?

0 Replies

Among the Democrats, Bayh, Lieberman, Gebhardt all have the right stuff and while I might or might not vote for any one of them depending on who their opponent turned out to be, I wouldn't be alarmed if any one of these was elected.

0 Replies

I'd vote for Bayh or Gephardt if I were American... not Lieberman tho.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I have said it before,and I'll say it again.
I am a conservative,but if Evan Bayh (D.-IN) runs he will get my support.And he is a liberal.

Now, there is a puzzling statement! Vote for somebody that is the supposed opposite of your philosophy of government?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

...who, then? or are you just trying to cagily advance the idea that you think the Dems have no chance at a viable candidate at all?

No, I remember how totally flummoxed I was when I watched the returns of the first election wherein Clinton was elected, so I would not be surprised at anything anymore. But I am encouraged by some of you being turned off by Hillary. I really do not know who the Democrats have. The most reasonable possibilities do not currently control the power structure behind the party, so in order for them to do any good, they need to kick out Howard Dean, the moveon.orgs, ACLUS, the Clintons, and all the other like minded types, and I don't see it happening. Remember, the party wants to get rid of Lieberman, let alone support somebody similar to his philosophy for president.

I just hope the cream rises to the top, if there is any.

0 Replies

You guys like Lieberman because he is a Republican.

Okie, your opinion of Clarke's charisma is immaterial to his ability to govern. He has good common-sense ideas and knows a lot about war, which will be important for the next 8 years.

You also are making a big mistake by claiming that Dean is part of the 'old establishment' for the Dems. He isn't. Most of the establishment Dems hate him, because he has the balls to speak his mind about the corruption of Republicans. He started the Democracy Bond program to try and get the Democratic party out from under the thumb of corporate and lobbyist interests. His 50-state strategy - contest every election, in every district, all across the nation, instead of focusing on just a few - is going to kick you guys' ass this fall, at the very least forcing the Republicans to spread their money thin. He has invested a ton of money in the State Democratic parties, in hopes of building up a solid machine all around the nation.

Do you forget all the articles about how he clashes with Reid and Hillary? About how the lobbyists don't like him, because he's trying to shut them out? I guess your prejudices against him have gotten in the way of you actually paying attention to the things he has done since he was elected head of the DNC.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Hurray for Dean if he actually does something good, but yes I am biased because I think he is kind of a kook and a radical. I think he is somewhat of socialist, if not a communist in sheeps clothing for the moment. He suggested that Bush possibly knew about the specific plot of 911 before it happened. That is an insult to peoples intelligence. I think hes a nut, plain and simple.

Do you forget about Clarke singing praises of Bush before he decided to run for president? I think his support is weak even in the Democratic Party. The Hillary's and Howard Deans probably laugh at him in private. He's an oxymorin, a military man in the Democratic Party. They will use him but will never abide him winning the primaries.

We'll just have to wait for the elections. I wouldn't start planning how the Democrats will decorate their congressional offices yet.

0 Replies

If Dean is a Socialist or even close to Socialism, I'm a Buddhist monk.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

If Dean is a Socialist or even close to Socialism, I'm a Buddhist monk.

Happy meditating! Smile

Walter, when I make comments about politicians being socialists in the United States, please do not believe that I think they have the power to institute all of their ideas and their own chosen government if elected. People that lean to an idealogy as socialism here cannot really advocate 100% of their true beliefs because they would not be elected, so they are often not completely honest. And we still have a constitution and a set of laws that they have to work within.

Politicians are difficult to assess here, and you often need to read between the lines concerning not only what they say, but how they say it, their past political activities, and what they do. From my observation, I think Dean leans toward the ideas of socialism. After all, we already have some elements of socialism incorporated into our capitalistic system, not to a dominating extent by any means, but the basic push by the left in this country, as represented by Dean, would like alot more. Just my opinion, but I am certainly not alone.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Walter, when I make comments about politicians being socialists in the United States, please do not believe that I think they have the power to institute all of their ideas and their own chosen government if elected. People that lean to an idealogy as socialism here cannot really advocate 100% of their true beliefs because they would not be elected, so they are often not completely honest.

Thing is, as governor of Vermont - arguably the most liberal state of the union - you would have said he did have the power to institute more of his supposed "socialist" ideas, if he'd wanted to. Instead, he steered a safe centrist course throughout, and was actually heavily criticized by the leftists there for being too business-centred, having a blind spot for environmental policy, etc. He is no Bertie Saunders - the Congressman from Vermont who is actually a self-described socialist.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
I have said it before,and I'll say it again.
I am a conservative,but if Evan Bayh (D.-IN) runs he will get my support.And he is a liberal.

Now, there is a puzzling statement! Vote for somebody that is the supposed opposite of your philosophy of government?

Thats because I never vote party.

Also,I have met Senator Bayh,I like him as a person,and I trust him.
I may not agree with all of his politics,but he is an honest man that means what he says.

When he talks to you he looks you in the eye,man to man,and doesnt mince words,or mouth silly platitudes just to be popular.
While I agree that his political ideas are polar opposites of mine,its the intangibles I like about him.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know