Explain the likely US presidential candidates

[Dauphin]

Re: Re: Explain the likely US presidential candidates

Originally posted by Lorizael


It's interesting to see that Giuliani is known outside the country. Is that from 9/11 or...?

Almost certainly lasting notoriety because of it, although he was in the media here for his actions of 'cleaning up' New York before 9/11.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Re: Re: Explain the likely US presidential candidates

Originally posted by Lorizael


It's interesting to see that Giuliani is known outside the country. Is that from 9/11 or...?

After the President/VP, probably the best-known position in US politics this side of the pond is the Mayor of New York. Ed Koch had a high profile here, and so did Giuliani even before 9/11.

[Lorizael]

Then you probably know more about the New York mayor than I do; he's just not an important figure to me.

[Sava]

Discussing the candidates is irrelevant. In modern American politics, it's all about the party. Each respective party is a conglomeration of groups with interests. People are fooling themselves if they think the individual who gets elected has any significant impact on the policies. The person who becomes President is the one who gets to make the decisions. But the irony is: for all the power, they are both a prisoner and a scapegoat.

Candidates are figureheads. It doesn't matter which candidate from whatever party gets elected. The policies each party puts forth will be the same. An Obama presidency will look almost exactly identical as a Clinton presidency as far as policies are concerned. The individual may influence the process to an extent, but the overall effect would be minimal. The same support staff (bureaucrats, advisers, etc) would be in place regardless of who gets elected to the top position.

The primary process is more about feeling out the public's receptiveness towards specific policies. Certain candidates may represent their own interests in an independent manner, like a Kucinich, but the front-runners are all largely supported by the party elite. It's a matter of open competition to see who the strongest candidate is.

For me, I've become largely annoyed at the whole process because in the end, we aren't choosing between two independent leaders with distinct policies. It's a choice between two parties and all the baggage that comes with them. The unfortunate thing about this is, both parties are largely under the influence of interest groups and corporate moneys. Neither party cares much about the public's interest.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
The unfortunate thing about this is, both parties are largely under the influence of interest groups and corporate moneys. Neither party cares much about the public's interest.

Interest groups are those sections of the public that have taken collective action to sway politicians towards doing what they want.

Its great to think that politicians should think of the public as a whole, including the masses of people who show no interest in politics and do nothing to further their interests in this area, but that will never happen, because its not human nature.

The problem with democracy is that its a form of government that demands participation from the people. If the people are the sovereign, then they need to get off their ass and act like it. Democracy does not work with lazy citizens.

[Sava]

Originally posted by GePap


Interest groups are those sections of the public that have taken collective action to sway politicians towards doing what they want.

Its great to think that politicians should think of the public as a whole, including the masses of people who show no interest in politics and do nothing to further their interests in this area, but that will never happen, because its not human nature.

The problem with democracy is that its a form of government that demands participation from the people. If the people are the sovereign, then they need to get off their ass and act like it. Democracy does not work with lazy citizens.

Unfortunately, in modern American politics, participation requires money. When average citizens are struggling to make ends meet, how can they be expected to contribute to the political process? It's easy to accuse the public of being lazy. But to do so would be to completely ignore the reality of the situation.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava


Unfortunately, in modern American politics, participation requires money. When average citizens are struggling to make ends meet, how can they be expected to contribute to the political process? It's easy to accuse the public of being lazy. But to do so would be to completely ignore the reality of the situation.

Having been involved in elections, people can volunteer time instead of money, and while a lot of working poor work lots of hours, even if they volunteered just say two hours to help set up a mailing, or do some phone banking, they can make a small difference.

At the least, they can actually write letters to their representatives, because a politician will assume that anyone willing to take the time to write them a letter is someone who will be voting next time (again, having worked for a politicians and having read such letters, I am speaking with some experience on the issue), and while on the level of Federal senators, Governors, or the Precidency such letters don't matter much given the vastness of the voter pool, for House of Representative races, and for state legislative positions and local positions these letters do matter because politicians know that not that many people vote (sadly) and therefore they want to maximize their popularity with the few that do vote.

Most of the rules and regulations that affect people's lives directly are made at the local and state levels. Its sad that it is these levels of government that Americans ignore the most.

But anyways, this is irrelevant to Laz's thread.

[Elok]

I don't follow the Republicans that much, but I'm told Guiliani's too liberal on social issues to fly with the GOP's base, and McCain, uh, is McCain. As for Romney, I can't see a Mormon in the oval office. It's just a matter of time before somebody in the press brings up the magic underwear he's supposed to be wearing.

For the Democrats:

-Kucinich is a bad joke. The other candidates laugh in his face. I concur.
-Biden can't STFU. Even when he isn't patronizing the black candidate, he rambles incessantly. Don't know much else about him, he seemed to be typical party-line only more boring. Yawn.
-Clinton is refusing to apologize for her Iraq vote. You think we're PO'ed about Iraq now, just wait until another two years have passed and W is still dragging his feet about pulling out. I just don't think she's going to make it unless she changes tactics fast. Also, she tries to appeal to "moderates" (the right-wingers who currently hate her and always will) by pandering. Anyone else remember her support for a ban on flag-burning? Blech.
-Edwards is playing a psycho-liberal populist this time around, even more than he did in '04 when he had Kerry's bland, lukewarm pap balancing him out. I'm sure Dean is pleased to see someone else following his footsteps down into the political gutter.
-Obama has intelligence, charisma, an apparently genuine faith, and the appearance of sanity and optimism amidst a sea of partisan hatred. He has good anti-war cred and a boatload of powerful supporters. He's my favorite by far of the Dems' offerings, but I don't know if that will make up for his being black and inexperienced. Probably not. Four more years under a loser, anyone?
-There are others, but I can't even remember their names. I hope Sharpton isn't running again...

[Jon Miller]

Umm, I disagree with you Sava. I think that the president has a lot of control over his administratin, and can determine which portions of the party actually have power (because many parts of the parties disagree with eachother).

JM

[Sava]

Originally posted by GePap


Having been involved in elections, people can volunteer time instead of money, and while a lot of working poor work lots of hours, even if they volunteered just say two hours to help set up a mailing, or do some phone banking, they can make a small difference.

At the least, they can actually write letters to their representatives, because a politician will assume that anyone willing to take the time to write them a letter is someone who will be voting next time (again, having worked for a politicians and having read such letters, I am speaking with some experience on the issue), and while on the level of Federal senators, Governors, or the Precidency such letters don't matter much given the vastness of the voter pool, for House of Representative races, and for state legislative positions and local positions these letters do matter because politicians know that not that many people vote (sadly) and therefore they want to maximize their popularity with the few that do vote.

Most of the rules and regulations that affect people's lives directly are made at the local and state levels. Its sad that it is these levels of government that Americans ignore the most.

Most people aren't aware of how to participate. And even if they were, if people were educated and articulate enough to write letters and petition government officials or even organizations that lobby the government, then they probably would be in a better position in life and wouldn't require assistance from the government.

Representative democracy can only benefit the public if the representatives look out for the public's interest. That's the whole reason why representatives are needed... because the public can't be bothered with the day to day issues at hand that the government should be trusted to take care of. The problem with the ideal of representative democracy and how it is practiced in America is that the system is set up so that private interests can exert much more influence than public advocates.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
-Kucinich is a bad joke. The other candidates laugh in his face. I concur.

[mrmitchell]

Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee was the governor of Arkansas from 1996 to this year. He enjoys a fair amount of popularity in the state and was term-limited from running again. He first became governor when Jim Guy Tucker, the former governor, became caught up in the Whitewater scandal and resigned. Huckabee was lieutenant governor then and therefore was the next in line of succession. (Jim Guy Tucker is a Democrat, and Huckabee a Republican; Arkansans elect governor and lieutenant separately so they can be of two different parties.)

Before entering politics, Huckabee was a Southern Baptist preacher. He is pro-life and supports Creationism, but he hasn't drawn any criticism on either topic because he has wisely avoided them. Huckabee's years as governor saw northwest Arkansas continue to explode in economic growth, fueling much of the state's $845 million surplus.

During the past ten years, the Arkansas education system has finally gotten off the ground, brought on by the Lake View court case, in which basically the state Supreme Court ruled that the system of public school funding was inadequate, unequal, and therefore unconstitutional by the Arkansas Constitution. The remedies for this were:
* consolidation of rural school districts, and
* spending more money on schools by the state.
Spending more money is self-explanatory. The rural districts were too small to provide a broad, in-depth education to their students.

Huckabee was for much of Arkansas policy only involved because he there, and he certainly did not start the fire on education. But one positive thing about him is, against the prevailing public opinion, he proposed that any school district with less than 1,500 students be merged into a larger one. In many rural communities in Arkansas, the only things that are left are the school and the post office, so of course this was fought fiercely by the legislature. In the end, the number was whittled down to 350 students, which still forced dozens of consolidations.

Education was the hot issue of Huckabee's reign, but he has become nationally famous for being the health nut governor. In 2003, he was diagnosed with diabetes, and warned his obesity was significantly shortening his life expectancy. He jumped into action and started following a strict diet and exercise routine, so that by one year later he had lost 110 pounds.

This urgency in health has extended to public policy. All these things are already happening in slow motion across the country, but Huckabee put Arkansas in the fast lane on designing healthier school lunches, expanding state-provided health insurance, promoting healthy lifestyles, etc.

That is pretty much all of what Huckabee's done. Now for his baggage:

Wayne Dumond was convicted and jailed in the 1980s of raping a girl in Forrest City who was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton. Now, I'm sure even a Brit is aware of the disturbing Clinton-hating hysteria that goes on amongst conservative circles here. They said that Dumond was framed for the crime.

While Jim Guy Tucker, an intraparty political rival of Clinton's, was in office, he reduced Dumond's sentence from life in prison to 39 years, making him eligible for parole. Governor Huckabee (who, in the interest of balance, denies this) then pressured the state parole board into letting Dumond go free, on the condition another state took him. Dumond moved to Missouri, and raped and killed another woman.

That is the black mark on Huckabee's career, but it is too early to see if he will be able to overcome it in the race.

If you have any more questions about Huckabee, ask. My personal opinion is that he's a decent guy and would not make a bad President unless he let the Presidency get to his head and start trying to crusade against abortion and evolution. But I don't think he could get nominated, just because of how non-Republican he acts - Dumond and several other pardons, major support for tax increases, and a 2/3 increase in state spending during his term, in addition to avoiding the use of the social wedge issues.

[Meticulous Man]

On December 11, 2006 in a speech delivered at Cleveland City Hall, Kucinich announced he would seek the nomination of the Democratic Party for President in 2008. [6]

His platform[14] for 2008 includes:

* Creating a single-payer system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans.
* The immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq and replacing them with an international security force.
* Guaranteed quality education for all, including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.
* Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
* Repealing the USA PATRIOT Act.
* Fostering a world of international cooperation.
* Abolishing the death penalty.
* Environmental renewal and clean energy.
* Preventing the privatization of social security.
* Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
* Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"
* Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
* Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.
* Protecting a woman's right to choose while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.
* Ending the war on drugs.
* Legalizing same-sex marriage.
* Creating a balance between workers and corporations.
* Restoring rural communities and family farms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich#2008_Presidential_campaign

Kucinich is my man. What exactly has given him the reputation of being a bad joke?

[Lorizael]

wtf does

Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"

mean?

[LordShiva]

Wow, Kucinich sounds like an absolute nut-job.