(10/07) Who would you like to see as the next President of the United States?

[DragonLensmanWV]

[quote=Pete Hanlin;209780]"Conservative-dominated media"
Yeah, isn't it disgusting how pro-right the mainstream media in this country is? (Drip, drip, drip)

yeah, that Rupert Murdoch sure is a commie pinko. And who own more media than him?(drip drip drip):D
Also, to conservatives' dismay several studies and media member polls show quite the opposite. It seems that loudly proclaiming the "media" as biased allows the conservatives to feel that they're the ones being discriminated against and are the underdogs, battered by an unfair media.
There have been several inquiries into this.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505110005
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...7/b873695.html

[1968]

But the extreme radical Bircher far-right wing and conservative-dominated media will crucify her, as they already have, and never support her in anything.

I'm not sure that I believe the claim that the media is "conservative-dominated". What is for certain is that the media is not dominated by followers of the John Birch Society (who have been very critical of the Bush administration and the "War on Terror"). They certainly will not support Clinton, but any "crucifixion" is likely to come from the neocons (e.g. Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.).

[1968]

Halfway through October and it looks as though Hillary Clinton is moving ahead.

I was referring to the Optiboard poll, by the way.

The worst thing that can happen to the GOP is the nomination of Guliani (sp?). He's the one candidate I can see being defeated by Sen. Clinton.

I imagine you got a kick out of Giuliani and Romney arguing about who is the most conservative! (They should be arguing about which one of them flip-flops the least.)

[Pete Hanlin]

Yeah, I noticed the Clintonian dominance of our latest poll (apparently OptiBoard isn't part of the mainstream media- since we seem to be swinging left).

Romney and Giuliani both give me the Willy's (pun intended- its about the same feeling). Perhaps I'm just naive, but I'm inclined to trust an actor more than these two posers. I'm most thankful that McCain has faded to gray (although in an election against Sen. Clinton, McCain would probably have the best shot- but I'm not sure which would be worse... a liberal who claims she's not or a liberal who claims he's a conservative).

As for the bias of the media, I don't know how anyone who has watched the previous two Presidential elections can seriously claim the mainstream media (at least the talking heads) don't actively "root" for Democrats. Heck, in the last election, it looked like some of them were going to puke right on set when it became evident that the exit polls hadn't told the whole story (of course, there are those here that still hold that they did tell the true story- but the GOP managed to fix the election).

[chip anderson]

Actually I think polls and survey's have been done on the "mainstream median" and found it to be 90%+ Democrat and far left Democrat at that.

But as I have seen on Optiboards, leftist and Democrats seems to view everything from a certian angle. Right wingers and Republicans seem to view everything from another. No matter how the material is presented and no matter who is presenting it, we seem to view it in our spectrum.

In the matter of the media, us Right wingers tend to view all media (with a few exceptions on radio only as a great conspiracy against us. Left wingers tend to interpret the same writtings by the same people as biased toward the great right wing conspiracy.

Could it be that all our minds are poisioned?

Chip

[GOS_Queen]

i will support Clinton if she is the nominee, but I think it's a shame that money is still the deciding vote in the elections. Simply put I think she is the least good candidate, but she will win because she has the biggest warchest.

I know a lot of people think like that ... vote for the party's choice ... I have had a political epiphany this year and have decided that I will NEVER vote for someone I don't fully believe in ... I will never again vote for the lesser of 2 evils ... just my personal belief (now)

[GOS_Queen]

I don't know what most people want, but I thought Bush did a good job of warning the nation of his timeline 10 days after 9/11.

And, apparently, 10 days after his first inaguration (sp ?) he revealed his plan to invade Iraq ... (9 months before 9/11).

I thought he ran on a "humble foreign policy ... no nation building" type of platform ...


(grumble grumble grumble)

[GOS_Queen]

But the extreme radical Bircher far-right wing and conservative-dominated media will crucify her, as they already have, and never support her in anything.
I have finally made my choice, thanks in large part to Gemstone's quotes.

I just met some JBSer's a couple of months ago and right now their focus is an awareness campaign on the North American Union (NAU) which is similar to the European Union.

[Andrew Weiss]

Are the candidates listed with those with the most left (communist) leanings first and the ones with the most right (conservative) last?

It still awes me that anyone with a left-of-center political oritentation is labelled a communist. Are we back in the bad old days of Joe McCarthy and HUAC, or did I miss something?

[DragonLensmanWV]

It still awes me that anyone with a left-of-center political oritentation is labelled a communist. Are we back in the bad old days of Joe McCarthy and HUAC, or did I miss something?

I think some have never left that era. My dad was one like that. Made him comfortable having someone to hate.

[1968]

I don't know what most people want, but I thought Bush did a good job of warning the nation of his timeline 10 days after 9/11.

And, apparently, 10 days after his first inaguration (sp ?) he revealed his plan to invade Iraq ... (9 months before 9/11).

That's true if we are to believe Paul O'Neill, but that's not the point I was making. Certainly many people are against the war because they believe Bush directly misled others as to his true intentions and Iraq's capabilities. Others are against it because it appears to be taking too long; Bush never said it would be a short battle. (On this point, I like Pete's analogy to Moses "wandering in the desert".)

[1968]

Romney and Giuliani both give me the Willy's (pun intended- its about the same feeling).

For those interested, here is yet another link of those two playing fast and loose with their "facts": http://www.factcheck.org/mitt_and_ru...y_orchard.html

Perhaps I'm just naive, but I'm inclined to trust an actor more than these two posers.

I'm not sure I view Thompson the way you do, but I share the sentiment of wanting someone that I can trust. To that end, I think I would prefer Kucinich or Gravel over Giuliani or Romney. My views are close to the polar opposite of the former two, however, if they say they are in favor of implementing the Fairness Doctrine or banning all handguns or giving benefits to illegal immigrants, then I know I could believe them. I'm tired of not believing our leaders.

I'm most thankful that McCain has faded to gray (although in an election against Sen. Clinton, McCain would probably have the best shot- but I'm not sure which would be worse... a liberal who claims she's not or a liberal who claims he's a conservative).

McCain definitely shot himself in the foot with his stance on immigration. Too bad because I think he is relatively likeable.

As for the bias of the media, I don't know how anyone who has watched the previous two Presidential elections can seriously claim the mainstream media (at least the talking heads) don't actively "root" for Democrats.

I did not notice it, however, I don't feel any allegiance to the left or the right. Although I initially thought poorly of the Democrat candidates for refusing to participate in FoxNews mediated debates (i.e. "If you can't handle FoxNews, how can you handle the country?!"), my mind changed quickly after seeing their deprecating treatment of Ron Paul at the September debate in New Hampshire.

[chip anderson]

Most of the people Joe McCarthy was after (and yes I hated him because like most congressmen he was rude and obnoxious during investigations and blocked things I would rather have watched on TV when when I was a child and TV stations were limited), actually turned out to be card carrying communist. Confirmation was made after the fall of the USSR and many of thier records were release in much the same manner as our "Freedom of information act". As well as many confirmations through the US's own records under the "Freedom of Information Act."

Appearently old Joe was on the right track, he just was too obnoxious about it.

Chip

[Andrew Weiss]

Most of the people Joe McCarthy was after (and yes I hated him because like most congressmen he was rude and obnoxious during investigations and blocked things I would rather have watched on TV when when I was a child and TV stations were limited), actually turned out to be card carrying communist. Confirmation was made after the fall of the USSR and many of thier records were release in much the same manner as our "Freedom of information act". As well as many confirmations through the US's own records under the "Freedom of Information Act."

Appearently old Joe was on the right track, he just was too obnoxious about it.

Chip

Yeah, Chip, most of them were people who had a brief flirtation with the CP in the US during the 1930's and 40's and dropped their memberships and affiliations when they realized communism wasn't doing the good they thought it was doing in the USSR. A lot of folks got smeared and blacklisted for past associations they had disowned. McCarthy and HUAC used the past associations to try to get more names; that these folks refused to name others who had been members with them "back when" is, to me, more honorable than if they had squawked. If you didn't squeal, you were smeared. Many lives were ruined. I speak from some personal experience because I met some of them.

[Pete Hanlin]

I thought he ran on a "humble foreign policy ... no nation building" type of platform...
I have to say, I've often reflected on this line (which came from one of the first debates with VP Gore as I recall) with the conclusion that "W" has been inconsistent on this point (I suppose in his rationale, 9/11 changed everything- but it would seem he was pretty determined to revisit Iraq from the start). The other thing from his original debates that causes me to go "grumble, grumble, grumble" is his promise to do something about Social Security- which has never been realized in any appreciable form. I'm firmly convinced its a horrible program that needs to be fixed or phased out (but that's a whole different discussion).

I'm not sure I view Thompson the way you do, but I share the sentiment of wanting someone that I can trust.
I know its sophomoric to trust one's "instinct" about people (especially when you consider the person is an actor whose very profession is to be believable)... but my instincts (and research) tell me Thompson is as genuine as a politician can be and still be electable. I don't really trust either Romney or Giuliani- because its blatantly obvious they just want to be President to run some agenda (which they may or may tell us about until they're elected). I think Sen. Clinton is the same way (except she repeatedly makes the mistake of tipping voters off to her agenda).

The other thing about Thompson I really like is his core political plank is almost identical to my own- namely, limit the federal government to truly federal issues, and turn state and local issues/spending to state and local elected bodies.

It still awes me that anyone with a left-of-center political oritentation is labelled a communist. Are we back in the bad old days of Joe McCarthy and HUAC, or did I miss something?
I'll have to agree with you on this point- I think associating liberals with communism is equivalent to equating conservatives with fascism (and we rarely see that equally unfair comparison being made).
In fact, most of the liberal concepts I notice being espoused on the left would probably be correctly described as being socialist in nature. Socialism isn't a bad thing- there's lots of countries that embrace this system to one degree or another (particularly on issues like health care). However, I think its pretty tricky to mix socialism and capitalism together in one society without perverting one or the other (cf. the Great Society and New Deal fiascos in our culture).

Personally, I'd like to see us stick to the individual responsibilities fostered by capitalism (then again, I'm doing fairly well as an individual in a capitalistic society... perhaps if I weren't doing well I would be more interested in a socialistic society concept).

[1968]

For those interested, Sam Brownback appears to be out of the race.* I wonder if that means an extra question or two for Huckabee, Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo in Sunday's debate hosted by FoxNews... Yeah, right!


*Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/...out/index.html

[1968]

Shall I place Stephen Colbert in the next poll?