Next US Prez
- Thread starter 2cents
- Start date
yeah right...Well, he is a protectionist for one - he voted to maintain sugar price supports and the tariff on imported ethanol. Using government force to take money out of the pockets of most working americans, then giving it to a tiny number of sugar barons & their associates for their personal enrichment.
He is either corrupt, economically illiterate, or both - regardless of his other policies or personal qualities.
Oh, and as for the support/admiration, Rearden you should know better. Political leaders are usually not made by good policies - otherwise practically no one in human history would ever have been elected to office. Political leadership is determined mainly by personal charisma (you don't have to be liked but you have to be respected & taken seriously), oratorical skills, and sensibility towards the public's shifting opinion on issues of the day. Only a small portion of society is open to having its vote changed. Most people will vote Republican or Democrat regardless. So a good candidate must have the skills that will convince "floating voters" (who are largely non-partisan) to go for them. Guys like Bill Clinton, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, Eisenhower etc had more personal charisma and/or leadership appeal than their competitors. Some people naturally draw "normal" people towards them, make them want to follow & support them. Obama shows signs that he may have this quality to some extent, whereas people like Kerry, Edwards, Hillary Clinton etc definitely do *not* have this quality in any way whatsoever.
Now there is a question of inexperience, lack of national profile etc which stands against Obama. Also he has no standout policies other than Iraq withdrawal, it's mostly just slick words so far. But given 2 years and a decent campaign team, he can easily cover up those cracks. The fact that he is generating a buzz based on nothing whatsoever is exactly why he is a potentially strong candidate. The fact that John Edwards can talk all he likes and never be popular is why he is a weak candidate.
Excellent Commentary.....
................................................................................
These are very astute observations....and the winner is ....as always the one with the best overall presentation who can buy the most sound bytes and video clips....
Reagan was a Hollywood product...and delivered the idea of a good president by his public showing capabilities...
People vote on what they feel they want and like ....and have a very narrow choice....2 people....
The person with the best appearance and talking abilities is going to win....
This is a rather simple process whereby the horse race has 7 or so prospects per side...that is quickly narrowed down to 2...
..............................................................................
The internet will provide a good tool for better election rationale....The history of the individuals are more transparent and easily attainable...and is a cheap delivery vehicle....
The internet has the potential to make democracies more like real democracies...as the importance of lobbies...special interest groups....cronyism....can diminish as better informed voters can wield a big internet stick...
Financial transparency....categorical financial summaries....voting issues...and just good general information that is free to view and understand by all....can make for a better democracy...
................................................................................
These are very astute observations....and the winner is ....as always the one with the best overall presentation who can buy the most sound bytes and video clips....
Reagan was a Hollywood product...and delivered the idea of a good president by his public showing capabilities...
People vote on what they feel they want and like ....and have a very narrow choice....2 people....
The person with the best appearance and talking abilities is going to win....
This is a rather simple process whereby the horse race has 7 or so prospects per side...that is quickly narrowed down to 2...
..............................................................................
The internet will provide a good tool for better election rationale....The history of the individuals are more transparent and easily attainable...and is a cheap delivery vehicle....
The internet has the potential to make democracies more like real democracies...as the importance of lobbies...special interest groups....cronyism....can diminish as better informed voters can wield a big internet stick...
Financial transparency....categorical financial summaries....voting issues...and just good general information that is free to view and understand by all....can make for a better democracy...
these guys just gotta break ranks and run together... they've got the right stuff...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a13PlJXInKPQ&refer=home
Obama, McCain Make Pledge on Campaign Funds, Pressuring Others
By Kristin Jensen
March 2 (Bloomberg) -- Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain pledged to accept public financing of the 2008 presidential election if they win the nominations of their parties and their opponents agree to do the same.
The two U.S. senators reacted yesterday to a ruling by the U.S. Federal Election Commission that candidates can solicit donations for a general campaign and still qualify for a public grant by returning the money later. Obama, who requested the opinion, said he will keep the funds in a separate account.
The moves may shore up the three-decade-old public funding program, which was in danger of collapse as candidates opted out to avoid spending limits. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton led the way in rejecting the system by beginning to raise funds for the general campaign right away.
``This is now a real issue in the 2008 presidential campaign,'' said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a Washington-based group that is calling on all the presidential hopefuls to agree to do the same. ``Every presidential candidate is going to have to deal with it.''
Obama's campaign took the first step yesterday, saying the Illinois senator would ``aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election'' if he were to win. McCain's campaign then issued a statement saying McCain also would accept public funds if he were to win the nomination and the Democratic nominee agreed.
Watergate
The public finance system was created after the Watergate scandal as a way of reducing the influence of big donors. While McCain, of Arizona, sponsored a 2002 law intended to rein in campaign fund raising, he hadn't yet committed to taking public funds to salvage the federal financing system.
Clinton's campaign is considering a change in its position after the FEC ruling, spokesman Phil Singer said. Former vice presidential candidate John Edwards, another top Democratic hopeful, said he won't make a decision at this time.
``The Republicans will stop at nothing to hold on to power,'' deputy Edwards campaign manager Jonathan Prince said. ``We'll make a decision at the time about the best way to ensure we have the maximum possible resources to win.''
Rudy Giuliani, the former Republican mayor of New York, hasn't made a decision on federal financing yet, though he will now start raising money for the general campaign, said spokeswoman Maria Comella. Kevin Madden, a spokesman for former Republican Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, said his focus ``remains on the primary'' though the ruling ``expands the universe of available financing options.''
Public Money
Until now, every major party presidential candidate has participated in the federal financing system since it began. It offers matching funds in primary campaigns and a one-time grant in the general campaign, funded by Americans who tick a box on their tax returns sending $3 to the program.
The problem is the public money isn't keeping pace with the amounts candidates can raise on their own through big fund- raisers or Internet appeals. FEC commissioners said they voted to allow Obama more flexibility to try to preserve the program even if the ruling raises more questions later.
``The public funding system rests on a very fragile base,'' said Hans Von Spakovsky, one of the three Republican FEC commissioners. He and fellow commissioners approved Obama's request on a 5-0 vote, with Commissioner Michael Toner absent.
Under federal law, an individual may donate $2,300 to a candidate for the primary campaign and the same amount for the general election, as long as the candidate doesn't accept public funding. The second donation must be returned if the candidate doesn't win his or her party's nomination.
2004
In 2004, Democrat John Kerry and President George W. Bush opted out of the public financing system in the primaries. They accepted the $75 million general election campaign grant and agreed to abide by the corresponding spending limit.
In this race, analysts expected the Democratic and Republican candidates to each raise and spend $250 million in the general phase of the campaign. Clinton, 59, a New York senator, began raising the maximum $4,600 donation for the primary and general campaigns from the start.
The pledge by Obama, 45, and McCain, 70, ``really opens the door,'' Wertheimer said. ``We can transform the presidential general election from one that was going to involve $500 million being spent in private funds to an election that will be financed fully with public funds.''
Bill Richardson -- a competent alternative to that repellent Hillary Clinton and Obama the pisher.
March 4, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Neither Clinton, Nor Obama
By DAVID BROOKS
So there I was, sitting in my office, quietly contemplating suicide. I was watching a cattle call of Democratic presidential candidates on C-Span. In their five-minute speeches, they were laying it on thick with poll-tested, consultant-driven clichés of the Our Children Are Our Future variety. The thought of having to spend the next two years listening to this drivel set me wondering if it was literally possible to be bored to death.
Then Bill Richardson walked onstage. He was dressed differently â in slacks and a sports jacket. He told jokes that didnât seem repeated for the 5,000th time. He seemed recognizably human, unlike some of his overpolished peers. He gave the best presentation, by far.
Then a heretical question entered my head: What if Richardson does this well at forums for the next 10 months? Is it possible to imagine him as a leading candidate for the nomination?
When you think that way, it becomes absurdly easy to picture him rising toward the top. He is, after all, the most experienced person running for president. He served in Congress for 14 years. He was the energy secretary (energyâs kind of vital).
Heâs a successful two-term governor who was re-elected with 69 percent of the vote in New Mexico, a red state. Moreover, heâs a governor with foreign policy experience. He was U.N. ambassador. He worked in the State Department. Heâs made a second career of negotiating on special assignments with dictators like Saddam, Castro and Kim Jong Il. He negotiated a truce in Sudan.
Most of all, heâs not a senator. Since 1961, 40 senators have run for president and their record is 0-40. A senator may win this year, but youâd be foolish to assume it.
When it comes to policy positions, heâs perfectly positioned â not by accident â to carry liberals and independents. As governor, heâs covered the normal Democratic bases: he raised teacher pay, he expanded childrenâs health insurance, he began programs to stall global warming, he built a light rail line.
But he also cut New Mexicoâs top income tax rate from 8.2 percent to 4.9 percent. He handed out tax credits to stimulate economic growth. (Heâs the only Democrat completely invulnerable on the tax cut issue.) He supports free trade, with reservations. And he not only balanced the budget â he also ran a surplus.
On cultural issues, Richardson has the distinct advantage of not setting off any culture war vibes. He was in college in the late 1960s, but he was listening to the Beach Boys, not Janis Joplin. He was playing baseball in the Cape Cod League, not going to Woodstock. He idolized Humphrey, not McCarthy.
Richardson is actually something of a throwback pol â a Daley or La Guardia who doesnât treat politics as a moral crusade. That might appeal this year.
On the nuts and bolts of the campaign, he has some advantages as well. He wonât have the $150 million war chests that Clinton and Obama will have. On the other hand, he wonât have the gigantic apparatuses that fund-raising on that scale requires. While those campaigns may be bloated, overmanaged and remote, Richardson has the potential to be small and nimble.
Furthermore, he could generate waves of free media the way John McCain did in 2000. Heâs a reportersâ favorite â candid, accessible and fun to be around. âIâm a real person, not canned. I donât have a whole bunch of advisers. Iâm a little overweight, though Iâm trying to dress better,â he told me last week. So far, rumors of personal peccadilloes are unfounded.
Finally, there is the matter of his personal style. This is his biggest drawback. Heâs baggy-faced, sloppy (we like our leaders well groomed), shamelessly ambitious and inelegant. On the other hand, once a century or so the Democratic Party actually nominates somebody the average person would like to have a beer with. Bill Richardson is that kind of guy.
He is garrulous, amusing, touchy-feely (to a fault), a little rough-edged and comfortably mass-market. Heâs Budweiser, not microbrew. It doesnât hurt that heâs Hispanic and Western.
In short, when you try to think forward to next winter, you see that this campaign will at some point leave the âAmerican Idolâ/âCelebrity Deathmatchâ phase. The Clinton-Obama psychodrama may cease to fascinate while the sheer intensity of coverage will create a topsy-turvy series of revolutions.
I wouldnât bet a paycheck on Richardson. But I wouldnât count him out. At the moment, heâs the candidate most likely to rise.
March 4, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Neither Clinton, Nor Obama
By DAVID BROOKS
So there I was, sitting in my office, quietly contemplating suicide. I was watching a cattle call of Democratic presidential candidates on C-Span. In their five-minute speeches, they were laying it on thick with poll-tested, consultant-driven clichés of the Our Children Are Our Future variety. The thought of having to spend the next two years listening to this drivel set me wondering if it was literally possible to be bored to death.
Then Bill Richardson walked onstage. He was dressed differently â in slacks and a sports jacket. He told jokes that didnât seem repeated for the 5,000th time. He seemed recognizably human, unlike some of his overpolished peers. He gave the best presentation, by far.
Then a heretical question entered my head: What if Richardson does this well at forums for the next 10 months? Is it possible to imagine him as a leading candidate for the nomination?
When you think that way, it becomes absurdly easy to picture him rising toward the top. He is, after all, the most experienced person running for president. He served in Congress for 14 years. He was the energy secretary (energyâs kind of vital).
Heâs a successful two-term governor who was re-elected with 69 percent of the vote in New Mexico, a red state. Moreover, heâs a governor with foreign policy experience. He was U.N. ambassador. He worked in the State Department. Heâs made a second career of negotiating on special assignments with dictators like Saddam, Castro and Kim Jong Il. He negotiated a truce in Sudan.
Most of all, heâs not a senator. Since 1961, 40 senators have run for president and their record is 0-40. A senator may win this year, but youâd be foolish to assume it.
When it comes to policy positions, heâs perfectly positioned â not by accident â to carry liberals and independents. As governor, heâs covered the normal Democratic bases: he raised teacher pay, he expanded childrenâs health insurance, he began programs to stall global warming, he built a light rail line.
But he also cut New Mexicoâs top income tax rate from 8.2 percent to 4.9 percent. He handed out tax credits to stimulate economic growth. (Heâs the only Democrat completely invulnerable on the tax cut issue.) He supports free trade, with reservations. And he not only balanced the budget â he also ran a surplus.
On cultural issues, Richardson has the distinct advantage of not setting off any culture war vibes. He was in college in the late 1960s, but he was listening to the Beach Boys, not Janis Joplin. He was playing baseball in the Cape Cod League, not going to Woodstock. He idolized Humphrey, not McCarthy.
Richardson is actually something of a throwback pol â a Daley or La Guardia who doesnât treat politics as a moral crusade. That might appeal this year.
On the nuts and bolts of the campaign, he has some advantages as well. He wonât have the $150 million war chests that Clinton and Obama will have. On the other hand, he wonât have the gigantic apparatuses that fund-raising on that scale requires. While those campaigns may be bloated, overmanaged and remote, Richardson has the potential to be small and nimble.
Furthermore, he could generate waves of free media the way John McCain did in 2000. Heâs a reportersâ favorite â candid, accessible and fun to be around. âIâm a real person, not canned. I donât have a whole bunch of advisers. Iâm a little overweight, though Iâm trying to dress better,â he told me last week. So far, rumors of personal peccadilloes are unfounded.
Finally, there is the matter of his personal style. This is his biggest drawback. Heâs baggy-faced, sloppy (we like our leaders well groomed), shamelessly ambitious and inelegant. On the other hand, once a century or so the Democratic Party actually nominates somebody the average person would like to have a beer with. Bill Richardson is that kind of guy.
He is garrulous, amusing, touchy-feely (to a fault), a little rough-edged and comfortably mass-market. Heâs Budweiser, not microbrew. It doesnât hurt that heâs Hispanic and Western.
In short, when you try to think forward to next winter, you see that this campaign will at some point leave the âAmerican Idolâ/âCelebrity Deathmatchâ phase. The Clinton-Obama psychodrama may cease to fascinate while the sheer intensity of coverage will create a topsy-turvy series of revolutions.
I wouldnât bet a paycheck on Richardson. But I wouldnât count him out. At the moment, heâs the candidate most likely to rise.
I can't see Democrat primary voters drunk on the idea of Hillary or giddy about Obama falling all over themselves for richardson. He may well be the best qualified, but primaries are decided on who has the sizzle. Of ocurse, anything can happen in a long campaign. Hillary could get into an unscripted situation and blow up. Obama could be revealed as an empty suit. Neither is likely however, not with a supportive media doing its best to cover for them. Richardson's biggest problem will be scrounging enough money to stay in the race.
You forgot to mention that socialist, Edwards. He could sneak up there, but he'd get slaughtered nationally. WAY too far to the left. The US wants a centrist.
Hillary is somewhat centrist, but still wants to expand government. Besides, too many people despise her. Barak, too left and inexperienced. Edwards, left. So that leaves Richardson, but as stated, hardly anyone knows the guy. Romney has the same problem in the Republican race except that he's loaded to the gills with his own money, even if he doesn't raise enough funding. He is doing pretty well there though.
I think somehow Hill will sneak through the primaries after MUCH bashing. Then she will take on Romney or Giuliani and get crushed. McCain will be toast by primary season due to his war views.
Hillary is somewhat centrist, but still wants to expand government. Besides, too many people despise her. Barak, too left and inexperienced. Edwards, left. So that leaves Richardson, but as stated, hardly anyone knows the guy. Romney has the same problem in the Republican race except that he's loaded to the gills with his own money, even if he doesn't raise enough funding. He is doing pretty well there though.
I think somehow Hill will sneak through the primaries after MUCH bashing. Then she will take on Romney or Giuliani and get crushed. McCain will be toast by primary season due to his war views.
inexperienced? even so, since when is that a negative for being elected in the USA mate???
as for the US needing a centrist, Obama-McCain seems a pretty strong centrist-type combination to me... all the other guys you're referring to represent nothing but old entrenched ideological party apparatus stuff (GOP, Dems etc)... time to move beyond that stuff don't u think?
as for the US needing a centrist, Obama-McCain seems a pretty strong centrist-type combination to me... all the other guys you're referring to represent nothing but old entrenched ideological party apparatus stuff (GOP, Dems etc)... time to move beyond that stuff don't u think?
Obama is not centrist. His positions are standard issue liberal/left. I'm not saying he doesn't have a ton of appeal, just that when you see what he has actually supported, it is same old failed Democrat policies.