Airman1270 0 #1 October 16, 2006 Ahh October: 'tis the season for dirty politics. To What extent are you distracted by such tactics? So often we are told we should not support a candidate who has been divorced, had an affair, was arrested many years ago, belongs (or once belonged) to a politically unpopular organization, is wealthy, receives contributions from this or that group, goes to church, goes to church and really means it, does not go to church, is not hostile to business, is not hostile to gun rights, etc.... In most cases this information, even if true, has zero effect on our lives. However, our lives ARE affected by a candidate's political philosophy and legislative intentions. What does he think government should/should not be doing? Which policies does he support? How does he think they should be implemented? Does he have the courage to say "No" to well-meaning feel-good ideas that would cause harm to people? Does he value basic principles of freedom & liberty, or will he support a constant stream of new legislation in an effort to prove he "cares" about (insert issue du jour here)? I did not oppose Bill Clinton because of his immorality, nor because his entire adult life has been a continuous pattern of deception; I opposed him primarily because he supports policies which result in my losing more money and more freedom. While I am a Bush supporter, I can cite some examples of where I think he messed up. All of these examples involve policy decisions, and have nothing to do with his drunk driving arrest 30 years ago. Your thoughts? Cheers Jon S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #2 October 16, 2006 It's much more difficult to tell people why they should vote for you than it is to tell people why they shouldn't vote for the other candidate. It's hard enough to get candidates to say what they thinkabout issues! Look at the Kerry "Waffler" thing that was such an issue with so many. Most candidates puff on issues, "I am for truth, justice and the American way." Rarely is the question asked, or answered, "What do you mean?" The sad truth is, most people couldn't care less about a lot of these issues. So they puff on something that sounds good. "I will fight for better schools." When asked "How?" the candidate will muddy the details. The last honest national candidate out there was Mondale, who admitted he'd increase taxes. Look where that got him. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #3 October 16, 2006 Few issues I think are important will be addressed in the national level campaigns - or the state ones for that matter. They include: - Mandatory Spending - Discretionary Spending - Tax Code Structure - Education - Civil Service Reform - Personal Property Rights (Kelo abomination) - International Trade Regulations - Meaningful environmental reform Instead, the elections will focus on abortion, racial discrimination under the guise of affirmative action, Iraq, who will increase mandatory spending the most, and raising or lowering taxes (not addressing the flawed structure of the tax code). I've been so disgusted with politics lately sometimes I wonder why I even read political news/commentary. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #4 October 16, 2006 QuoteFew issues I think are important will be addressed in the national level campaigns - or the state ones for that matter. They include: - Mandatory Spending - Discretionary Spending - Tax Code Structure - Education - Civil Service Reform - Personal Property Rights (Kelo abomination) - International Trade Regulations - Meaningful environmental reform Instead, the elections will focus on abortion, racial discrimination under the guise of affirmative action, Iraq, who will increase mandatory spending the most, and raising or lowering taxes (not addressing the flawed structure of the tax code). I've been so disgusted with politics lately sometimes I wonder why I even read political news/commentary. Why isn't Iraq important to you? 3000+ American boys dead, 20,000+ maimed, and it's not important to you (but your taxes are)? How about DEBT?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #5 October 17, 2006 Iraq is important, but the focus of the campaign will not be on the long term effects of it, but instead will focus on who knew what when and how. Truth be told, the American foreign policy in Iraq will likely remain the same regardless of who takes office. Sure, there would be differences, but I believe the reality of the situation would keep those differences to a minimum. With regards to debt, see my first two points. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 October 17, 2006 QuoteIraq is important, but the focus of the campaign will not be on the long term effects of it, but instead will focus on who knew what when and how. Truth be told, the American foreign policy in Iraq will likely remain the same regardless of who takes office. Sure, there would be differences, but I believe the reality of the situation would keep those differences to a minimum. If the Democrats reclaim the House next month, I expect to see change in a hurry. Already prominant GOP members have started hedging on the Iraq issue, pledging to 'do something' if it's still like this in 3 months (2 months after the election.) If they lose part of Congress, they will change to save the 08 race. On the original question, I think marital infidelity is a very important issue - for a GOP candidate that likes to talk up the family values bullshit, or talks about why gays will ruin the sanctity of his now expired marriage. If he won't live it himself, he isn't qualified to be in Congress. (Same applies to people like Feinstein who talk about stiff gun control yet holds one of the incredibly rare conceal carry permits for San Francisco) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #7 October 17, 2006 >Already prominant GOP members have started hedging on the Iraq >issue, pledging to 'do something' if it's still like this in 3 months . . . Well, they've been saying that for three years now. "The next three months will be pivotal." "The war will be decided in the next six months." That works well - if nothing changes, those predictions are forgotten. If something _does_ happen, well - their predictions were correct! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 October 21, 2006 Quote>Already prominant GOP members have started hedging on the Iraq >issue, pledging to 'do something' if it's still like this in 3 months . . . Well, they've been saying that for three years now. "The next three months will be pivotal." "The war will be decided in the next six months." That works well - if nothing changes, those predictions are forgotten. If something _does_ happen, well - their predictions were correct! They've been claiming success is just around the corner, but this is the first time some have implied that they'll pull out forces. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #9 October 21, 2006 I don't think there will be very much change at all should the Dem's reclaim the House. Nor do I think the Republican party will change very much if they do lose part of Congress. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #10 October 23, 2006 ...On the original question, I think marital infidelity is a very important issue - for a GOP candidate that likes to talk up the family values bullshit... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ To a degree I think there is some validity to this point. Given a shared set of political philosophy, I would sooner choose the candidate who has never done drugs, had affairs, been arrested, gossiped, or drives in front of me going 10mph below the speed limit while yakking on his cell phone over the guy who has done these things. But if the choice is: 1) A guy who used to deal drugs and is currently in the middle of an ugly divorce, but supports freedom and limited government, vs.... 2) A fine, upstanding perfectly moral guy with a clean record who wants to raise taxes and impose more legislation on "free" Americans, further criminalizing things that used to be okay, then... I'll take the first guy, baggage and all. Just think of the dirty reelection campaign in a few years... Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 October 24, 2006 Quote 1) A guy who used to deal drugs and is currently in the middle of an ugly divorce, but supports freedom and limited government, vs.... 2) A fine, upstanding perfectly moral guy with a clean record who wants to raise taxes and impose more legislation on "free" Americans, further criminalizing things that used to be okay, then... So #1 is a Libertarian, right? And 2 is a member of Congress? There's nothing resembling limited government in the GOP these days. I picked Bush over Gore on the premise that he would keep government expansion in check rather than spend that paper surplus - boy was I taken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
