The Next Prez.
Who would you like to see in the oval office next time?
Why?
Who would you like to see in the oval office next time?
Why?
MRambler Central powered by
WordPress. LetoPrime theme. Wordpress Themes.
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
October 28th, 2005 at 1:53 am
Do you mean real or ideal ? How about Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Ben Cohen or Martin
Sheen–not his character on The West Wing, but the real Martin Sheen. Or maybe
Sodom Clinton Powell–“If elected, I refuse to serve”. There are probably only
a hundred million or so Americans that would be more qualified than the ignorant
little pecker-wood that sits there now. And no, we’re not going to change The
Constitution so Arnold can run. Opinionated ? Me ?
October 28th, 2005 at 2:00 am
I think a robot should be elected president. That way, whenever he
came to town we could all take a shot at him and not feel too bad.
-Jack Handy
October 28th, 2005 at 6:00 am
J.J., you sure like to stir-up trouble, don’t you?……. I have to agree with Randalf in that anyone who would be qualified and good for the country would not want anything to do with it…..
Big politics are really mean and nasty….. There are a lot of really low-lifes at the top who have serious interests to protect….. These are the people behind the politicians, whose names we don’t really know, and control big business and the country…. i.e. – They don’t have to worry about being elected….. All they have to do is keep enough power to control who and what they want……
You do buy their oil products, don’t you, J.J.?……
October 28th, 2005 at 11:08 am
That’s a hard question. Believe it or not, I think Al Gore might be the one who “gets it” the most at this point — he’s changed a bit since his last candidacy. I really like Barack Obama, too — an inspiring figure.
It depresses me that our country seems to have collapsed into a mockery of itself in the last 5 years. Wars based on forged evidence? Cutting Medicare so that the ultra-rich can have more money? Torture and indefinite detention with no chance to argue your case in court all in the name of “freedom”? This is America?
October 28th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Eeeeewwwwwwwww.
I would consider voting for Harry Truman.
Neither side is up to the tasks we’re facing, and it seems sometimes that the marketplace of ideas has dried up. Torture and indefinite detention for enemy combatants or reading them their(?) Miranda rights? Something in between? Denying any possibility of human’s influencing the environment or apocalyptic environmental emotionalism? Gag. Trying to impose democracy missionary-style or believing that other cultures will like us if we only “engage” them with “dialogue.”
Although he frustrates me at times, some of the things John McCain says indiciate to me that he has a good perspective on some of these problems. (Do I hear somebody gagging?).
October 28th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
No offense intended with the Eeeeeewwwwwww. It’s certainly easier complaining or barfing on others’ suggestions rather than defending one’s own.
October 28th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
I’m not saying we have to allow detainees their own country club. But the foundation of our country is the rule of law and habeus corpus. Meaning, if you are charged with something, you are told the evidence and given a chance to rebut it in front of a judge. This administration is saying “you’re an enemy combatant” and not giving them a chance to rebut that. These kangaroo courts they have them going to say “the evidence is secret” so the defendent, not being allowed access to the evidence against them, is unable to rebut it (Kafka-esque in the true sense of the word). Our government has admitted themselves that over 100 (or was it 400?) of them have now been determined to NOT be enemy combatants, but they’ve still not released those people, such is the state of legal limbo there.
Barack Obama rules, by the way. Check out this commencement address.
October 28th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
I’m kinda leaning toward Obama myself, How bout McCain/Obama?
I’m just getting tired of the whole party crap.
Guess you figured out i’m an independant, The only reason I did not vote ind. last time I could not get behind Ralph Nader.
Not because of his politics or what the Green party stood for, just him personally. Three words Corvair- Seat Belts. Sorry MR
October 28th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
Well geez, I don’t think seat belts are such a plague. I can’t stand Nader because he
single-handedly put Bush in the White House. I support the platform and principles of
the Greens, but hey, it’s a two party system. If all the energy that went into Nader’s
last two campaigns had been spent making the Democratic party more Green, we would be
getting more of what we want instead of the exact opposite. Sorry MR.
October 29th, 2005 at 9:59 am
I don’t believe it makes a whole lot of difference. I think what we now have running this country is a “Wizard of OZ” scenario. A bunch of fat cats behind the curtain that are really running the show. An occasional “Wicked Witch of the East” pops up to throw us off course on our pursuit of the “Yellow Brick Road”. Maybe Elton had it right.
October 29th, 2005 at 10:24 am
From Randalf: “I canât stand Nader because he single-handedly put Bush in the White House.” This just isn’t true. Shouldn’t a person vote for whom he or she thinks is the best candidate? Perhaps if Gore had suited more people, he would have clearly won. Perhaps if Bush had suited less people, he would not have won. Hell there were even people who didn’t vote–should they be to blame too? Do you also blame Nader for a second term of Bush?
Should the energy from all would-be 3rd parties be sent to the Democratic party? This doesn’t make sense. The amount of money/energy of Nader campaign is certainly dwarfed by the two major parties. I don’t see how moving that around is possible or would have even helped. Let the Nader thing go. Instead, put your existing energy towards making the Democratic party more Green and maybe we’ll all benefit.
October 30th, 2005 at 12:20 am
I’ll stand by my Nader statement. I wasn’t too crazy about Gore either, but he would’ve been
a damn site better than our little Texas Napoleon. I wish our political system could bring
more than two parties into play, but it’s simply not set up that way and I’m not in favor of
a Constitutional Convention at the present time. Of course we SHOULD be able to vote for the
person we think is best for the job. But do any of you guys who voted for Nader in 2000 or
2004 feel like you accomplished anything ? Nader’s ego trip gave Bush the election in 2000,
and if that worthless shrubbery hadn’t been the incumbent, he probably wouldn’t have been
re-elected last year. The fact that he drew more votes than Nader and Kerry combined in ’04
had quite a bit to do with the blood-thirsty mood of the country since 9/11. I’m pretty sure
that Gore would have finished the job in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There were only about 90
members of al Queda on 9/11, and, we had the entire civilized world allied with us. But the
neocons “reasoned” that, if we got bin Laden too quickly, the orgy of military spending would
be over too soon. So Rummy said, “There are not enough quality targets in Afghanistan”, and
we were off to the Iraq distraction, and the Republicans can grease the palms of the military
industrial complex ’til the cows come home.
The majority of Ross Perot’s supporters gravitated back to the Republican party. And Ross put
Bill Clinton in the White House just as surely as Nader gave us Bush
October 30th, 2005 at 11:09 am
There’s no doubt that Nader had a role in the outcome of the 2000 election. But you say he is the single reason that Bush is in the White House. That statement makes the following assumption: Nader voters would have voted for Gore. What makes you think they would have voted at all? Nader gave a lot of people reason to bother to vote. The election was so close that any small change in a swing-state would have changed the outcome in the election. I’m talking a small change, such as not raining in a particular Florida county.
If anybody single-handedly put Bush in the White House, it was the Supreme Court.
October 31st, 2005 at 1:40 am
Jek I’m sure it’s true that many who voted for Nader wouldn’t have voted at all were he not
on the ballot, but, as you said, the election was so close that any small change in a swing-
state would (or could) have changed the outcome. And all of the analysis that I read and heard
on the 2000 election said that Nader siphoned more votes from Gore than from Bush. I’ve always
had a soft spot for Crusader Ralph and Public Citizen. And I was on the picket lines with MR
to protest the Green Party not being allowed on the ballot in OK in 2000. But running again
last year, knowing the effect his candidacy had four years earlier…unforgivable. I think
I’ll become an Obama Booster. Is there anyone besides Ralph that you’d like to see elected ?
October 31st, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Vonnegut was on P.B.S. the other night. He said there are two kinds of people in this country…winners and losers. The winners have divided into two groups….democrats and republicans. I dont know who I would vote for. Seems its always the lesser of to weevles.
November 1st, 2005 at 12:35 am
anon, Hey. I didn’t get to see Kurt V. on the tube, so I don’t know the exact context
of that quote, but I’d bet dollars to doughnuts he meant that those who participate
in this democracy are the winners–not just Republicans and Democrats. I caught Kurt
live at the OCU Fieldhouse a couple of years ago. The place was packed and at least
3 or 400 people stood all the way through the speech. About ten minutes in, he
sufficiently insulted and pissed off the Republicans so that a couple of dozen of ’em
got up and left. Those seats were quickly filled, then we heard a truly great rant
about a man who would send American servicemen and servicewomen half-way around the
world to risk their very lives, based on lies.
November 1st, 2005 at 5:18 pm
I think what he meant was there is little difference between Democrats and Rebulicans. He also said he was thinking of sueing the ciggeret industry. Says right on the pack that it will kill you and it hasnt yet. He’s a crusty ole guy.
November 1st, 2005 at 5:21 pm
SThanks too Wrek four spill chick….
November 6th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
Nader says that both the major parties have few true differences, so he doesn’t feel he did any wrong in 2004, as Randalf suggests he should. Personally he fell off my list sometime before the 2004 election. Right now my list is a big empty. So I need to do some research. I can say that the little I have read about Obama is appealing.
November 7th, 2005 at 2:46 am
On the three or four issues that concern me most, there are GLARING differences between the
Democrats and Republicans. European-style parliamentary democracies are designed for multiple
parties–if no one gets over 50% of the votes, then two or more parties must form a coalition
for a government to be formed. In our system, if we don’t vote for the lesser of the two evils,
we get the worst of the two evils. But I, like Will Rogers, don’t belong to an organized
political party–I’m a Democrat.
November 7th, 2005 at 7:23 am
Now, it’s been many, many years since I sat in on an American history class, but wasn’t this country founded with a THREE party system?….. Anyone remember what happened to the third party….. Why and when….. Also, Randalf, I have pics of you and I on the picket-line in front of the County Election Board trying to get Nader and the Green party on the Oklahoma ballot in 2000…. And as far as the “Next Prez”, all I can say is that I will be voting….. I served my country for that right and will do anything to protect it….. As to who to vote for, it’s still a ways down the road, and hopefully someone outstanding will pop-up from somewhere…… We have the people, just not the “grassroots” power to put them on the ballot…….
(Step off soap-box and disappear into crowd of 1)…….
November 8th, 2005 at 12:02 am
Tarn looked this one up: Initially there were only two parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists are considered the forebears (via the Whigs) of the present-day Republican party and the Democratic-Republicans are the ancestors of the present-day democratic party. By the 1824 election, we were down to a single party. All four candidates of the 1824 election were Democratic-Republican and no one received a majority in the electoral college. This caused much frustration and ultimately lead to a revival of the two-party system. The Democratic-Republican party split into the National Republicans, later called Whigs, and the Democrats.
Oh and thanks MR for saving us from those vote-stealing commies!
November 8th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Apparently I need to brush-up on my American history…. Are you sure there wasn’t a National-Federalist-Democratic-Independents (wearing a whig) party hiding in the bushes (not GW a or b) somewhere?…. Oh well, thanks go out to Tarn for looking into our boring history…..
November 9th, 2005 at 4:01 am
Actually, the following parties have garnered relatively significant numbers of votes in
presidential elections:
Independence Party
Independent Democrat Party
Straight-Out Democrat Party
Prohibition Party
Socialist Party
Socialist Labor Party
Farmer Labor Party
Communist Party
National Democrat Party
Greenback Party
Populist Party
National Republican Party
Union Labor Party
Constitutional Union Party
Southern Democrat Party
American Party
American Independent Party
Free Soil Party
Liberty Party
Anti-Masonic Party
Texas Regulars Party
States Rights Party
Libertarian Party
Citizens Party
Reform Party
And all have been about as successful as Ralph’s Green Party. 3rd party boosters might take
heart from Teddy Roosevelt’s 1912 showing as a Bull Moose (Progressive Party) candidate—he
recieved 27.4% of the popular vote, outdrawing the Republican (Taft), and propelling Woodrow
Wilson into the Oval Office.