The Iowa Thread

[MightyFighting]

Evo, you're sounding like one of those middle-aged social democrats who would celebrate the election of a Trotskyite, despite not having really believed in communism for decades

 

[CharlieG]

Only to students who can't see beyond the term 'progressive'

Pfft.

Because the state is bigger than the individual,right?

No. Because for many individuals, the state is necessary for them to stay healthy and for their kids to receive an education. That's what is bigger than the individual.

You aren't seriously playing the "Paul is only looking after number one" card I hope.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=83665295-1de6-4571-af9c-0a90f6d1fde0

20 years of following politics,and I can honestly say he is the first viable politican I've ever come across whose self interest pales in comparrison(to any other politician)

Frankly I don't know enough about the man himself to make any comment about his motives. Most of his supporters, however, are looking after number one. You don't find many people opposing public education, health care and social security who can't afford private health care, college tuition whilst still having a retirement nest egg hidden away.

Surely you don't honestly believe Bilary or Obama is interested in the working classes.They wan't to get elected.Period.

I'm sorry. So it's okay to be cynical about any candidate but your guy? Interesting.

I think Clinton is the most jaded, cynical and opportunistic candidate on the Democratic side. I can't stand her, I don't believe in her and I've made that very clear. I think Obama has much more credibility. Read about his career prior to politics and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Also, if Obama is willing to do anything to get elected, he's doing it in a very unorthodox fashion. He's not afraid to piss powerful people off without just pandering to what people want to hear (as Edwards does).

Are you appealing to the intelligence of the average American' According to you those "dumb rednecks" barely should be allowed to vote.

First of all, the insinuation that I believe that anybody should be deprived of their right to vote is insulting. You should know me better than that by now. Save the slogans for others.

Second, too many of the Americans I'm talking about typically don't vote at all. There's a direct relationship between class and political activity, for a huge variety of reasons (from access to polling booths to education to the basic difficulty of voting on a working day).

Yeah so? What's the deal,you actually like America when they are fighting causes you approve of?Rather convenient position.

I'm not anti-American. I'm opposed to wars of aggression. I support multilateralism, whenever possible. America is a necessary part of any international effort. Again, I thought my position on this was fairly well known.

I don't give a **** if he's likable.Since when was that a criteria for approving or disapprovaving of a potential candidate.

Lets make Eddie Maguire the next PM,eh.

Having a bad day, are we? I thought it fairly straightforward: I don't find his positions likable. Frankly, I wouldn't have thought you would either.

Funny, Evo. You don't mind sinking the boot into other pollies, but you're remarkably touchy about your boy, aren't you?

I hope your LINO (Libertarian In Name Only - do you like it?) brethren in the States enjoy their tax cuts if he gets in. Of course, they'd better buy the new car and home entertainment system before he sacks a few million federal employees and armed forces personnel and plunges the US and world economies into depression.

 

[evo]

Evo, you're sounding like one of those middle-aged social democrats who would celebrate the election of a Trotskyite, despite not having really believed in communism for decades

I don't see the analogy.I've always believed in the libertines since I was uni age.It would be like Contra seeing an anarcho-sydncalist getting a sniff.It's a refreshing turn of events.Thats all.

 

[evo]

Frankly I don't know enough about the man himself to make any comment about his motives.

But you did, anyway.

Most of his supporters, however, are looking after number one. You don't find many people opposing public education, health care and social security who can't afford private health care, college tuition whilst still having a retirement nest egg hidden away.

I gave you a link that mentions the range of his supporters.It's not so easy to categorise as you've outlined.An easier way would be to group them as 'less government'.This may seem like an anachorism now but I can envisage a time when the majoritywill actually become sick of big brother.BB may seem like a slogan now,but his popularity amongst the internet community speaks to an ever growing group who have had enough.I'm just glad I'm still around to see the early stages of a revolt.

I'm sorry. So it's okay to be cynical about any candidate but your guy? Interesting.

I've never seen him change message in 20 years.

I think Clinton is the most jaded, cynical and opportunistic candidate on the Democratic side. I can't stand her, I don't believe in her and I've made that very clear. I think Obama has much more credibility. Read about his career prior to politics and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Where as Bilary changes positions every time the latest polls come in.

Also, if Obama is willing to do anything to get elected, he's doing it in a very unorthodox fashion. He's not afraid to piss powerful people off without just pandering to what people want to hear (as Edwards does).

Shrug.

First of all, the insinuation that I believe that anybody should be deprived of their right to vote is insulting. You should know me better than that by now. Save the slogans for others.

Lets not be too literal.It's fair to say you don't rate the average voter,American or Australian.Thats the impression I get anyway.

I'm not anti-American. I'm opposed to wars of aggression. I support multilateralism, whenever possible. America is a necessary part of any international effort. Again, I thought my position on this was fairly well known.

Well every action the US has been involved in since WW2 could be construed as an 'act of agression'.It seems to me most people outside of the States love to have a bet each way.Either you approve or hegemony,or you don't.

Having a bad day, are we? I thought it fairly straightforward: I don't find his positions likable. Frankly, I wouldn't have thought you would either.

No,good day.You made an appeal to populism.It doesn't interest me ,thats all.I get you don't like his policies,thats painfully obvious.

Funny, Evo. You don't mind sinking the boot into other pollies, but you're remarkably touchy about your boy, aren't you?

Guilty as charged.

I hope your LINO (Libertarian In Name Only - do you like it?) brethren in the States enjoy their tax cuts if he gets in. Of course, they'd better buy the new car and home entertainment system before he sacks a few million federal employees and armed forces personnel and plunges the US and world economies into depression.

Yawn.

 

[MightyFighting]

I don't see the analogy.I've always believed in the libertines since I was uni age.It would be like Contra seeing an anarcho-sydncalist getting a sniff.It's a refreshing turn of events.Thats all.

He's not a generic libertarian, Evo, and you know it (and he's certainly no "libertine).

He's just another socially conservative Republican who's read too much Aynn Rand, and has a Confederate-esque obsession with state's rights.

 

[evo]

Well I disagree,MF.Clearly he's not the perfect specimen,but who is the perfect example of any political theorem?

He rates the Austrian school of economics,he fights big governement tooth and nail.He's wary of the Fed and worries for the future in regards to that and wants to return to the gold standard.

If he's not an idealogue,I'd love for you to provide an example of one who is (in western politics.)

 

[CharlieG]

But you did, anyway.

I gave you a link that mentions the range of his supporters.It's not so easy to categorise as you've outlined.An easier way would be to group them as 'less government'.This may seem like an anachorism now but I can envisage a time when the majoritywill actually become sick of big brother.BB may seem like a slogan now,but his popularity amongst the internet community speaks to an ever growing group who have had enough.I'm just glad I'm still around to see the early stages of a revolt.

Ha. You sound like one of the gaggle that follows the WTO around from city to city speaking on behalf of the repressed masses.

I've never seen him change message in 20 years.

I didn't say he had. I just noticed the double standard. I haven't seen Obama change message either, have you? For that matter, do you give the same credit to Dennis Kucinich?

Where as Bilary changes positions every time the latest polls come in.

Can I make myself any clearer? I'm not backing Hillary. I'll back her if she wins the nomination - but only because the worst Democrat in the field is better than the best Republican.

Shrug.

You're on shaky ground, Evo. Do you believe that Obama is pandering to the polls/donors or not? Please be clear.

Lets not be too literal.It's fair to say you don't rate the average voter,American or Australian.Thats the impression I get anyway.

I give them more credit than I did a couple of years ago. That's not to say that I think many voters give their votes the consideration they deserve, I admit.

Well every action the US has been involved in since WW2 could be construed as an 'act of agression'.It seems to me most people outside of the States love to have a bet each way.Either you approve or hegemony,or you don't.

I don't like hegemony, Evo. You're making this up as you go along. I want a responsible and sensible President in charge of the country with the greatest capacity to do good (and do bad) in the world. I want a President who will act in concert with world opinion. I don't want a President who will vacate the field because he doesn't like paying taxes.

No,good day.You made an appeal to populism.It doesn't interest me ,thats all.I get you don't like his policies,thats painfully obvious.

Pardon me? We're not talking about minor details here, Evo. We're talking about where he stands on the death penalty, abortion and homosexuality. Things that you 'libertines' (you get inverted commas until you back away from him on this) should care about.

Guilty as charged.

Yawn.

I think it's a legitimate criticism, Evo. What effect would abolishing the Departments of Homeland Security, Education, Energy and Housing and Urban Development as well as agencies such as the IRS have on the American economy? Do you agree with him that public schooling should be abolished? What effect would that have on long-term productivity?

I don't think you've really thought this through. He's a flat-earther.

 

[skipper kelly]

The most relevant question is, after Bill gets another 2 terms will Jeb be too old to get his go?

 

[skipper kelly]

I give them more credit than I did a couple of years ago. That's not to say that I think many voters give their votes the consideration they deserve, I admit.

Shouldnt that read a couple of months ago?

 

[evo]

Ha. You sound like one of the gaggle that follows the WTO around from city to city speaking on behalf of the repressed masses.

Come on.I'm no activist,it's never interested me.It's just an observation.It seems to me many people are fed up.Good.

Furthermore,it comes as no news to me that I'm not mainstream in my opinions.

I didn't say he had. I just noticed the double standard. I haven't seen Obama change message either, have you? For that matter, do you give the same credit to Dennis Kucinich?

I can't work out what Obama or Kucinich even stands for.Most middle politicians strike me that way though.Big on rhetoric,low on substance.

It's why I have a grudging respect for the Greens.I agree with little they propose but at least they have substance.

Can I make myself any clearer? I'm not backing Hillary. I'll back her if she wins the nomination - but only because the worst Democrat in the field is better than the best Republican.

Good,we both agree she's a fraud.

You're on shaky ground, Evo. Do you believe that Obama is pandering to the polls/donors or not? Please be clear.

Yes,the polls.

I don't like hegemony, Evo. You're making this up as you go along. I want a responsible and sensible President in charge of the country with the greatest capacity to do good (and do bad) in the world.I want a President who will act in concert with world opinion.

Well where does Tony Blair reside.Good/Bad?

I don't want a President who will vacate the field because he doesn't like paying taxes

Thats a simplistic portrayal of his position.Or for that matter any of his ilk in the past.

Pardon me? We're not talking about minor details here, Evo. We're talking about where he stands on the death penalty, abortion and homosexuality. Things that you 'libertines' (you get inverted commas until you back away from him on this) should care about.

His position on abortion I find dissapointing for a libertarian.On federal funding on same sex adoption I'm so/so about.

What's the other candidates position on that incidently?

I think it's a legitimate criticism, Evo. What effect would abolishing the Departments of Homeland Security, Education, Energy and Housing and Urban Development as well as agencies such as the IRS have on the American economy? Do you agree with him that public schooling should be abolished? What effect would that have on long-term productivity?

I don't think you've really thought this through. He's a flat-earther.

Don't you?Rightio then.

 

[CharlieG]

You didn't answer the question, Evo. What impact do you think President Ron Paul would have on the US and world economies?

 

[Richo83]

Are you appealing to the intelligence of the average American' According to you those "dumb rednecks" barely should be allowed to vote.

Evo, you benefit from the trappings social democracy has provided, you'd do well to realize this. This is a claim you've used against me in a similar thread long ago, that us lefties don't care about public voting. Sure we don't love the political thought process of the john smiths of this world but their needs are still important, and ultimately Paul would shaft the average American economically and socially.

Yeah so? What's the deal,you actually like America when they are fighting causes you approve of?Rather convenient position.

Unlike you, there are some people who think that there ideals and things that are worth holding onto, or fighting for. When the US fights a well planned war, for the right reasons, I support it. You're the kind of guy who would've chucked a big sook when the US decided to get involved in WWII.

I don't give a **** if he's likable.Since when was that a criteria for approving or disapprovaving of a potential candidate.

Lets make Eddie Maguire the next PM,eh.

Stop twisting evo, that's not what charlie said and you know it, Paul is shaky on social issues. His stance on abortion is a joke. I've said all of this to you before, but you wouldn't listen, you kept repeating how good Paul was, how wonderful his faux libertarian ideals are. But as charlie has illustrated, Paul is an anachorism. While he is the best of the republican candidates, that's not saying much. I say, go Obama.

 

[Man City Blues!]

You didn't answer the question, Evo. What impact do you think President Ron Paul would have on the US and world economies?

An absolutely disastrous one.

Can I point out, why do people think Edwards is surging in Iowa? He has been living there almost since the day Kerry lost the 2004 election. He has been ahead in the polls until about August this year in Iowa, and has spent probably the most time out of any candidate ever in the state. He is not surging. If anything he is simply regaining some of the ground he lost, but still remains in trouble as winning Iowa is probably his only hope at winning the nomination.

 

[GuruJane]

. He's opposed to abortion and has introduced bills that would allow states to prohibit abortion despite the decision of the Supreme Court. Most scarily, he defended laws against sodomy in Texas.

The guy is a nut.

It's quite hilarious that the "nut guy" is the only candidate in the field holding the Dem's supposedly principled anti war position!

Billary, as a liberal interventionist (like Gore, Blair), is the Dem candidate most likely to finish off Dubya's neo con mission in the Middle East, Iran and war on terror. For that reason I suspect that he privately won't be disappointed if she wins the presidency.

 

[GuruJane]

The most relevant question is, after Bill gets another 2 terms will Jeb be too old to get his go?

Heh, heh, I used to think that but the long term president and commander in chief of the US is likely to be President Petraeus or Odiorono.

 

[GuruJane]

I don't see the analogy.I've always believed in the libertines since I was uni age.It would be like Contra seeing an anarcho-sydncalist getting a sniff..

Aaaaaahhh ... you yearning romantics ....

 

[evo]

You didn't answer the question, Evo. What impact do you think President Ron Paul would have on the US and world economies?

I'm a 'flat earther'-clearly I see it as having a positive impact.

 

[evo]

Evo, you benefit from the trappings social democracy has provided, you'd do well to realize this.

And i think a reduction in bloated beauracracy would benefit all.

This is a claim you've used against me in a similar thread long ago, that us lefties don't care about public voting.

It's a fair claim.The opinion (generally speaking) of left leaning voters on this board are forever bemoaning the stupidity of the electorate then have the gall to lecture me on how great democracy is.

Sure we don't love the political thought process of the john smiths of this world but their needs are still important, and ultimately Paul would shaft the average American economically and socially.

In your opinion,I disagree.

Economically one of the greatest enemies,particularly of the poor, is inflation.

Unlike you, there are some people who think that there ideals and things that are worth holding onto, or fighting for. When the US fights a well planned war, for the right reasons, I support it. You're the kind of guy who would've chucked a big sook when the US decided to get involved in WWII.

Putting words in my mouth then rolling your eyes at it isn't an argument.When have i ever said the US shouldn't have got involved in WWII?

Stop twisting evo, that's not what charlie said and you know it, Paul is shaky on social issues.

Charlie said his social policies aren't 'likable'.Radical steps rarely are.Thankfully he's not too interested in being liked.He just interested in doing what is the right thing(in his opinion)

His stance on abortion is a joke.

I conceded i don't agree with position on that.

 

[CharlieG]

Well, now that you've answered a question of mine I'll answer a question of yours, Evo, although I'm only going to speak for Obama as he is the candidate I'm backing. I thought your answer was fairly simplistic and doesn't explain how basically shutting down the United States federal government would have a positive impact on the global economy, but you're evidently a bit crotchety when you're having to defend something you believe in.

Obama's positions on homosexuality and abortion are the diametric opposites of Paul's. In fact, the only position on any issue that he disappoints me on is the death penalty. Even so, his position is the best of a bad bunch amongst the candidates who can win the nomination.

Only Kucinich and Gravel (neither of whom have a chance) oppose the death penalty outright from across the 15 candidates. Obama wants to limit the circumstances in which the death penalty can apply without abolishing it completely. That's not good enough, but still better than any other candidate with a chance of winning.

Ron Paul wants to abolish it at the federal level, without having anything at all to say about the matter at the state level (where the overwhelming majority of death penalty cases are). All of the other candidates (that's Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Dodd on the Democratic side and Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson and Hunter on the Republican side) are supportive of the death penalty.

 

[CharlieG]

Charlie said his social policies aren't 'likable'.Radical steps rarely are.Thankfully he's not too interested in being liked.He just interested in doing what is the right thing(in his opinion)

You know full well that you're misrepresenting my comment by picking on the word 'likable'. This isn't like you, Evo. You're usually fair-minded.

I was - self-evidently - criticising his social policies which are greatly at odds with his image as a libertarian. You can't claim to believe in individual rights when you believe it's okay to legislate against abortion rights and homosexuality.

To me he's the survivalist movement candidate. Doesn't like the Government, doesn't like gays, doesn't like women's rights, doesn't like internationalism but he does like guns.

 

[Elle]

Winning elections isn't supposed to be easy, and your opinion regarding Hillary Clinton is loud and clear. In my opinion though, the Democrats best chances of winning the election lay with either Edwards or Clinton for a number of reasons that go beyond issues alone. I can't see John Edwards winning the nomination though.

Well yes, however the upcoming election should be the easiest for the Dems to win in a significant landslide considering everything the worst administration in modern US history has wrought in the past 7 years. But if Hillary is the nominee then in my opinion it's going to be beyond difficult for the Dems to win back the White House. With all her baggage, coupled with the already intense hatred and distrust for her from both sides of the aisle, I'm afraid she may ensure another loss for the party. She is the candidate that the right are frothing at the mouth to run against. The GOP are absolutely counting on her to mobilize and unify their base, especially since there's still a large chunk of Republicans in disarray and very unenthusiastic with their party's crop of candidates. No one is going to motivate and maximize their turnout better than Hillary. Mark my words they will be out in droves.

I respect your opinion, even though I disagree with your candidate, but I think you are underestimating the strength of the anti-Clinton vote.

I'd be very happy with Edwards being the nominee, even though he's not on the top of my list.

I'd like to respond more to your post and your unabashed hatred of Hillary Clinton, but for now I'll just say that of course she won't fracture the party like never before. She will pick a VP running mate that will make everybody happy, and everybody will come together for the good of the party. It has happened before and it will happen again.

If she wins the nomination and chooses Wes Clark, then I can see that happening

But, there is quite strong talk that this will be the Dem ticket for 2008

Bayh bringing everybody together? I somehow don't think so.

 

[medusala]

Well yes, however the upcoming election should be the easiest for the Dems to win in a significant landslide considering everything the worst administration in modern US history has wrought in the past 7 years.

Worst? Daylight in front of Carter for starters.

 

[KissStephanie]

Well yes, however the upcoming election should be the easiest for the Dems to win in a significant landslide considering everything the worst administration in modern US history has wrought in the past 7 years.

Of course it should be the easiest, but it's still going to be difficult regardless of which Democrat leads them into the election. That said, I feel that Clinton, Edwards or Obama are capable of beating any of the current Republican options.

But if Hillary is the nominee then in my opinion it's going to be beyond difficult for the Dems to win back the White House.

I don't agree, and the current polls would support my opinion too. Clinton may have the most negative points, but it is also considered that she has the most positive points. A lot will come down to how well her campaign is run, which is the difficult part, but I believe that if she leads the Democrats into the election, then she will be the next president.

With all her baggage, coupled with the already intense hatred and distrust for her from both sides of the aisle, I'm afraid she may ensure another loss for the party.

Firstly, where is this "hatred" from the Democratic party that you speak of? Do you have a source about that? If you do, then I'd be interested in reading it. I have seen some hostility toward her from fellow Democratic candidates, but I haven't seen any "hatred," and this is just a normal reaction when the other candidates have been playing catch-up in the polls for as long as they have been doing.

She is the candidate that the right are frothing at the mouth to run against.

Good. I hope they do underestimate her because that will play right into the Clinton campaigns hand in my opinion.

The GOP are absolutely counting on her to mobilize and unify their base, especially since there's still a large chunk of Republicans in disarray and very unenthusiastic with their party's crop of candidates.

They won't match the Republican voter turnout of 2004, while the Democratic voter turnout was disappointing, even though Kerry received the second most votes ever.

No one is going to motivate and maximize their turnout better than Hillary. Mark my words they will be out in droves.

I don't agree. Karl Rove was able to get them to the polls in record numbers in 2004 on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and I don't expect those record numbers to be matched, let alone beaten, in 2008. Despite those record numbers, John Kerry was still able to receive the second most votes in election history after a poorly run campaign.

Clinton will run a better campaign than Kerry did, and will generate a record Democrat voter turnout according to the current polls, and there will not be the amount of Republican voters as there was in 2004. Mark my words.

I think you are underestimating the strength of the anti-Clinton vote.

But I think you're underestimating the strength of the Clinton support vote. The Democrats need to have a candidate that generates their base to the polls in record numbers, and the polls would suggest that it is Clinton. The Republicans won't match the voter turnout of 2004 with their current list of candidates, even with Clinton winning the Democratic nomination.

If she wins the nomination and chooses Wes Clark, then I can see that happening But, there is quite strong talk that this will be the Dem ticket for 2008. Bayh bringing everybody together? I somehow don't think so.

Maybe it will be Elvis Costello? Yes there is talk of Bayh, but still stronger talk for Clark, and I expect him to be her preferred choice.

 

[GuruJane]

Clinton may have the most negative points, but it is also considered that she has the most positive points. A lot will come down to how well her campaign is run, which is the difficult part, but I believe that if she leads the Democrats into the election, then she will be the next president.

Billary's big strength in the presidential election - as compared to Obama and Edwards - is her credentials to be Commander in Chief. Another Billary plus is that s/he has "recent" Admin experience of dealing with islamic terrorism and fighting other interventionist wars. Normally it's the vice president who is the candidate of "linkage" but in this case it is Billary.

Putting Wes Clark on the ticket would on the face of it strengthn these credentials even more although Clark's performance, judgement and character when commanding the forces in the Kosovo war was appalling by most accounts and he was eventually drummed out of the Brownie pack.

Clinton will run a better campaign than Kerry did, and will generate a record Democrat voter turnout according to the current polls, and there will not be the amount of Republican voters as there was in 2004. Mark my words.

I think you are underestimating the visceral loathing for Billary in the Republican base? Am not so sure about Romney (seems too bland so far), but Guiliani or McCain would have to run a very incompetent campaign indeed not to get a maximum turn out in an election that will be just as polarised as '04 if the choice on offer is Billary.

 

[KissStephanie]

Billary's big strength in the presidential election - as compared to Obama and Edwards - is her credentials to be Commander in Chief. Another Billary plus is that s/he has "recent" Admin experience of dealing with islamic terrorism and fighting other interventionist wars. Normally it's the vice president who is the candidate of "linkage" but in this case it is Billary.

Her experience will be the reason that she would receive more votes than Kerry did in 2004. Her husband will be a big part of her campaign, and that will be a huge asset in battleground states such as FL, OH, and PA.

Putting Wes Clark on the ticket would on the face of it strengthn these credentials even more

He is highly respected by Americans, and I think Clark would be her best choice.

I think you are underestimating the visceral loathing for Billary in the Republican base?

I'm not underestimating it, because I have not ignored her high negative factor amongst Republicans. I just don't think that any of the Republican candidates, Guiliani and McCain included, will be able to attract the record number of votes that Karl Rove was able to generate for Bush in 2004. I do feel though that Clinton will receive more votes than Kerry did in 2004.

I think that she would hang on to all of the states that Kerry won, including Pennsylvania, and at least pick up Ohio and/or Florida as her husband had done when he won two elections. Either state would be enough to send her to the White House and she is leading all other Democrats in those states.

Am not so sure about Romney (seems too bland so far), but Guiliani or McCain would have to run a very incompetent campaign indeed not to get a maximum turn out in an election that will be just as polarised as '04 if the choice on offer is Billary.

I don't agree. I don't think that either of those candidates will be able to get the number of votes that Bush was able to get with the campaign that was run by Karl Rove, even with Clinton as the Democratic candidate.