New York Voters Won't Back Hillary For President

[otterinbham 0]

Here's the link.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/398267p-337501c.html

With Dean as Party Chair and Hillary as the Presidential Nominee, the Dems are risking another disaster at the polls. And, as a guy who mostly votes Republican, I think that's a rather bad thing.

Because we need a viable two party system in this country, where different ideas compete. Instead, what we have is the Republican Party with a mediocre idea of governance and a Democratic Party with a discredited one.

Now, I keep having this argument with my Democratic friends: When is the Democratic party going to stop regurgitating up these party hacks and nominate a candidate who is more aligned to the center? If they did that, we would actually have a two-party system again, which would ultimately be good for the country.

The essential flaw in Democratic thinking is that they really think tactically in their nomination process. They nominate policy wonks and candidates who can secure various blocs of votes. Never once do they ask themselves "Is this a candidate with whom middle America can identify?"

Personally, I voted for Bush over Kerry during the last year. Not because I was enthusiastic about Bush, but because I was much less enthusiastic about Kerry. And God help us if Gore had had the reins of power during 9/11.

[Tigermike 3,048]

Here's the link.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/398267p-337501c.html

With Dean as Party Chair and Hillary as the Presidential Nominee, the Dems are risking another disaster at the polls. And, as a guy who mostly votes Republican, I think that's a rather bad thing.

Because we need a viable two party system in this country, where different ideas compete. Instead, what we have is the Republican Party with a mediocre idea of governance and a Democratic Party with a discredited one.

Now, I keep having this argument with my Democratic friends: When is the Democratic party going to stop regurgitating up these party hacks and nominate a candidate who is more aligned to the center? If they did that, we would actually have a two-party system again, which would ultimately be good for the country.

The essential flaw in Democratic thinking is that they really think tactically in their nomination process. They nominate policy wonks and candidates who can secure various blocs of votes. Never once do they ask themselves "Is this a candidate with whom middle America can identify?"

Personally, I voted for Bush over Kerry during the last year. Not because I was enthusiastic about Bush, but because I was much less enthusiastic about Kerry. And God help us if Gore had had the reins of power during 9/11.

224456[/snapback]

It has seemed that the dems have been drifting farther and further to the left every year and their base is largely comprised to the left. If the dems were to make a concerted (and legitimate) move to the center, do you think their supporters would stay and vote for a moderate or go on and make the move toward a third party?

Kerry is currently working up the far left in the hopes of another run at the White House. His move toward the center was met with skepticism during the last election. He knows if he is to have any chance at all it will have to be with the far left supporting him.

[DKW 86 7,439]

This is really for the political Wonks. Otter, we are sssooo on the same wavelength. I too see the two party system in jeopardy. As the Dem Party eased ever leftward, many Dems (Reagan and myself) were shut out. They are now at a full fledged rush to the Left. While they celebrate the "Peace of being of one mind for once," they are also getting slaughtered in elections. In 2004, with more money than ever in their coffers, they lost more ground and even more real leadership. Daschle et al were run off in 2004.

As a party, they now seem intent on staying the course on their stale ideas with the intent that they will be proved correct eventually. Now as the fickle finger of human conventional wisdom moves back and forth, someday they will be back in power, or at least should be. However, WHEN this will happen is anyone's guess.

The Reps are splitting apart right now. The real Conservatives are much like you and I. I NEVER voted for Bush 41, and only cast 2 votes with Bush 43 more AGAINST the losers the Dems were running. (Is Gore sane?) (Is Dean sane?)

The true Conservatives are looking for a break with Bush at present. They see the budget and want to proactively PUKE! The old line BUSINESS-as-usual group had better wise up and rethink their policies because if you read the press lately, the true Conservatives are not supporting Bush and the Bushies anymore. We want our Party back.

Will this benefit the Dems? Only for an extremely short while. They have no new ideas. They have no charismatic leadership. They are being lead down the path to destruction. They are happy about it for some odd reason. Maybe they think we are all too stoopid to understand them. The real truth lays in the facts that the leaders of the Dem Party are (for the most part) uneducated, untested, and unproven businesswise. Think about that. The Party is direction is determined by people from inherited wealth (Kennedy, Kerry, Rodham-Clinton) and the huge influx of cash and views from the Hollywood crowd that have been shown repeatedly to be totally uneducated and about as shallow as they come. Why do you think they call it "Tinsel Town?"

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/smarter.asp

Verifying the educational accomplishments of film stars is less easy:

Barbra Streisand had already embarked on a show business career by the time she was a teenager and did not attend college.

Cher left home at age sixteen to pursue an acting career and did not finish high school.

Martin Sheen did fail his college entrance exam for the University of Dayton but maintains that he did so on purpose so that he could pursue an acting career over the objections of his disapproving father.

Jessica Lange studied art at the University of Minnesota but left school before the completion of her freshman year.

Alec Baldwin spent three years studying political science at George Washington University before switching to New York University's drama department to pursue an acting career, and he eventually returned to NYU and received a BFA degree in Drama in 1993. (Could not find any information about a "scandal" prompting his departure from George Washington University.)

Julia Roberts moved to New York after finishing high school to pursue an acting career and did not attend college.

Sean Penn joined the Los Angeles Repertory Theater after finishing high school and did not attend college.

Susan Sarandon graduated from Catholic University in Washington, DC, with a degree in Drama.

Ed Asner enrolled at the University of Chicago, but his education was interrupted by an Army hitch; after his discharge he embarked on an acting career and did not return to college to complete a degree.

George Clooney studied Broadcast Journalism at Northern Kentucky University   but left school before completing a degree.

Michael Moore briefly attended the University of Michigan at Flint before leaving school.

Sarah Jessica Parker was already a professional performer before starting high school and did not attend college after graduating.

Jennifer Aniston graduated from New York's High School of Performing Arts and pursued an acting career without attending college

Mike Farrell joined the Marines after finishing high school and afterwards embarked upon an acting career without attending college. 

Janeane Garofalo studied history at Providence College in Rhode Island. There is conflicting information about whether she completed her degree or left school during her senior year; most biographies indicate the former.

Larry Hagman attended Bard College in Anandale-on-the-Hudson for one year before leaving school and pursuing an acting career.

Where will this end? There may be some bumps in the road, but...

1) The Dems cannot win elections while discreditting and and ignoring half of the electorate. This is a terminal disease for them I fear.

2) The Republicans are either going to shift back to fiscal Conservativism in a big way or we will have a three party sytem erupt. True Conservatives are sick of the same ole-same ole from the Party Masters. We will do it ourselves if they do not respond.

So either the Reps get it back together SOON or we see three parties I think. The Dems are self inflicting their wounds. The Republicans are going to do corrective surgery in 2006, at least I hope so.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I won't back Hillary either. I'll vote Republican before voting for her. She's dangerous at any speed. I realize we must pay for the deficit sometime in the future, but not with her in office. Conservatives realize the err of their ways and are about to correct the mistakes of this flawed administration. There is hope for the Republic.

[otterinbham 0]

The way I see it, we need to consider a couple of different facets of conservativism:

1) Economic conservatism (I.E., the size of government as a percentage of GDP, levels of taxation, functions and responsibilities of a central government).

2) Social Conservatism (Public morality, prayer in schools, Ten Commandements, gay rights, etc. etc. etc.)

With this in mind, I think it's quite possible to be one kind of conservative without being the other. For example, I am a fiscal conservative...Yet I am very leery of government mandating prayer in school, etc. etc. What's more, I am seriously worried about the far-right wing of the party and its dalliance with Christian fundamentalists (Sorry boys, you're not the only strain of Christianity out there).

Personally, I think the Republican party would be far stronger if they stood for the first set of values, and spent less time dwelling on the second set of values.

Of course, with McCain, Giuliani, and Romney running, I don't think Hillary stands a chance. If a candidate as tepid a level support as Bush could prevail in both 2000 and 2004, then any of those three will mop the floor with Senator Clinton in 2008.

Essentially, we have some difficult history ahead of us. Which candidate do you want in your foxhole when it hits the fan in the Persian Gulf, the 48th Parallel or the Formosa Straits? That being said, I think McCain and Giuliani are the only logical choices.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I would support a McCain ticket. Guliani, uhhh, I don't know. I like Congressman Ron Paul ® of Texas. Fiscal Conservatism is something I perfer in a candidate. That's why i believe I am more a fiscal conservative myself. In 2000, after looking at Bush's record in Texas, I knew then he was no fiscal conservative, and eventhough Clinton raised our income taxes, the Democratic party seemed more fiscally conservative at that time. I am no advocate for Big Government, period. Hillary is a dangerous foe to both parties adn the nation. She even borderlines communism.