It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
posted by marg6043
Well gentle men . . After following the political candidates and what they are up to lately . . . I will say that Obama and Hillary are killing each other’s chances of wining . . . neither of them will win against Giuliani’s growing popularity. [Edited by Don W]
posted by Justin Oldham
From a sociological standpoint, latent racism will always be with us. We need more societal evolution to wash away what we think of as racism today.
Incumbency is the bane of modern politics. I’ve known the senior Senator from my home State for more than twenty years. He's in his late seventies and I can't recall the last time he had a new idea about anything. It is my hope that the average American will be ready to talk about term limits . . I'm hopeful that after being dominated by two dynasties, the political scene will change. It won't be fun to live through, but I remain hopeful that we'll be more enlightened for the experience. I hope that term limits for members of Congress will be more likely. [Edited by Don W]
posted by Justin Oldham
Your point is well taken, Don. My own thinking is that however they are meted out, term limits for Senators and Representatives are now necessary for society's advancement. It's time to put an end to the notion that forty years in the House or Senate is "good."
The senior senator from my state has been in office longer than I've been alive. If he survives his next term in office, he will have put in 48 years. I'm not practicing age-ism here, I'm stating a simple fact. I've tried to explain desktop computers to him and it was like talking to the wall.
I understand politics can be addicting and I have yet to meet the human who could resist power - but - we can put safeguards in place that will benefit society by allowing for new blood at intervals shorter than 50 years. However they get implemented, I think term limits are necessary. And yes, I know that Mayor Daley of Chicago (either one, take your pick) would disagree with me. [Edited by Don W]
posted by Justin Oldham
I admit that my bias [favoring term limits] is due to time I spent in Federal civil service. I am partial to the advantage that 'turnover' grants to the private sector. I think the lack of turnover in elected Federal offices does harm to the nation’s evolution. The current status quo encourages corruption and it marginalizes civic virtue. They serve us, or we serve them.
posted by Justin Oldham
Hello laiguana, welcome to the discussion. As Xpert11 points out, the GOP candidates have a lot of baggage to carry. McCain seems to be fading fast in the polls. It may be fair to say the shine has come off his campaign wagon. I watched him on the news programs Friday and Saturday. He was showing his age. I was surprised his handlers let him get in front of a camera when he was so clearly run down from road fatigue. Ouch. As if that weren't bad enough, his answers to some pretty stock questions showed that he was clearly pooped. Again, bad handling. If Don is right and public performance matters more than what goes on in the bedroom, we may need to re-focus the question to ask what are the PR ramifications of those private lives. What say you?
posted by laiguana
McCain didn't make it a career priority to become a politician, that's what I look for most in a candidate. McCain has the background to make executive decisions regarding our current mission in Iraq and Bush jr should have listened to him. Hillary pretty much tagged along after her husband and is now trying to make a second hit like Bush jr did after his daddy. Obama seems shady to me, especially what his views are on issues and if he's serious about securing America from terrorism. Anyone who caters to terrorists isn't worthy to step foot in this country IMO.
posted by Justin Oldham
Okay. Let me try to get us going again. Bush43 returns from a moderately successful trip to South America in the next day or so. Today, he meets with the President of Mexico. He's coming home to some pretty bad news all the way around. If you are Hillary Clinton, you couldn't ask for a better storm. As long as she doesn't mess up, I expect Hillary to make some good gains in both money and infrastructure during the rest of this month. [All the foregoing was heavily edited by Don W]
posted by Justin Oldham
McCain appears to be fading. He is suffering from road fatigue. He seems to be glum. It must frustrate him to know that Rudy's standing is all based on better PR . . As I watch events unfold in the financial markets, I begin to think he's not eager to win the White House because of what's coming. Man, I'm gonna have to sit down and re-read my own book. Ha. [Edited by Don W]
posted by Justin Oldham
Let me put my thinking helmet on and see if I can guess what the postmortem will be on the McCain campaign, and its reasons for failure. *-think-* Why did the McCain campaign fail in 2008?
Future historians are going to decide that John McCain did not change with the times. His last "real" chance for the presidency was in 2000. Aside from being out of touch with the national mood, he associated himself too closely with the Bush administration's Iraq war policy.
The most significant factors come from two sources. Being unable to distance himself from the failed war policies of George Bush, he also failed to make the voter believe that he could be trusted to handle major issues like border security and the future of social security and larger health care considerations.
[As I write this] I'm watching the House, and Speaker Pelosi. Yikes, but they've got some cut-throat tactics going on. President Bush has asked for 124 Billion dollars in new war spending. The Dems are set to bring a out bill in the House that will have a timetable for withdrawal, and 20 billion in pork added on. Machiavelli would be proud. Bear in mind that this bill would still have to get through House and Senate conference, but hey; if it did?
Option A:
If Mr. Bush vetoes this bill, he loses funding for his war.
Option B:
If he signs this bill in to law, he is obliged to abide by the withdrawal plan.
Hillary has recently stated that she'd leave "some" troops in Iraq if elected to the Presidency. Her bets are hedged no matter which way this thing goes. [Edited by Don W]
posted by grover
I wrote this for another thread but I am tossing it in here because I think it bears repeating with some additions.
As for the Democrats not having a winnable candidate the only thing I can say is that the Republicans don't either. It really is a sorry mess on both sides. I am thinking what could happen on the Democratic side is that with this long run up Obama and Clinton will bloody themselves in infighting that neither of them will be able to get the nomination because no one will want either of them. That will open the door for the convention to finally become a nominating convention and a dark horse like Al Gore steps into the gap as the candidate . . he can definitely win especially if he gives all those "advisors" the boot and runs as himself. [Edited by Don W]