Cyan,
Remember he’s a Baptist Minister running in the Bible Belt.
My 2 cents right off the bat: I think that Guiliani’s “9/11” buzz has finally worn off.
GG
I gota say I would have loved to discuss a “caucus” with someone who has been to one, especialy a Democratic one.
if any thing this seams to me to be more political then Jen’s statment as you brought a perticular party up. is it because you would want to go to the Dem Caucus because you support the Dems or because you would get a good laugh out of it. ether interpritation would be political.
I mentioned the Democratic Caucus, because it is different than the Republican style. The Republicans just vote and go home. The Democrats have a series of votes from what I understand. But Like I said I havn’t been to one…
i’m not an expert on how Caucus’ work, i’m sure most people arn’t, so with out knowing how they work exactly it looks like what you said was politically backed. now if what you say is true (i have no reason to doupt you, i’m just saying) then it’s not political in the way i thought it sounded before. but it dosn’t change that with out knowing how caucus’ work accuratlly it did look that way, and with that it did look wrong that you were asking another to tread carfully when it looked like you your self did other wise.
@Guerrilla:
My 2 cents right off the bat: I think that Guiliani’s “9/11” buzz has finally worn off.
GG
I don’t think it “wore off.” It works great in New York where you have to see the location multiple times a year, sometimes twice or more times a day.
Maybe, but it was the rallying cry that started his campaign and kept him a front runner for most of '07…
GG
True. But as we know, even front runners can get knocked out for seemingly innoculous things. Look what happened to Dean. He got excited, then lost the primary and the Democratic Party had to wait four years longer with Bush. (Yes, I think Dean could have beaten Bush.) And that was pretty tight along the line, so it’s still anyone’s game, even Guilliani.
That said, i don’t think Guilliani has a chance, to be honest. He was “front runner” because the media wanted him to be. Now they want McCain to be. (Though, I think McCain will win in New Hampshire, I don’t think he’ll get the nomination.) Honestly, I think it’s between Huckabee and Romney with a possible upset by Thompson if either of them gaffes.
On the democrat side, I think it’s between Obama and Edwards with Hillary posed to steal the election if either of them gaffes.
he did how ever prove that he can take charge, not blame others, and do a good job in a crisous situation. those are good trates in a person who may be the next leader of the US. he may have problems, but these are things you can’t deniy he has done.
Actually that is the reason I wouldn’t vote for him. His rationale seems to be too hasty. If he was in Command During the Cuban Missile Crisis we would have had a Nuclear Holocaust. Also when he mentions “freedoms” at any time we have his list only includes Freedom of Religion from the First Amendment and not Freedom of Speech or Freedom to peaceably assemble. But besides my personal dislike for him, I would have to say that he really doesn’t have a shot because of his beliefs on Abortion and Gay Marriage. He can’t get the base…
GG
I’m much more concerned with his social policy ideas then his ability or inability to lead in a crisis. When we have a crisis, we have police chiefs, fire chiefs, generals and high level bureaucrats that can easily step in to take charge and give the mayor/governor/president credit. But they won’t step in when times are peaceful and low stress because they are not needed.
you are right, he can’t get the base because of those areas, and that makes him not a seriouse runner although the media would like us to beleive other wise… also his stance on gun laws adds to that.
his ability to lead in a crisous is a big deal though, compair it to Hurican Katrina, the local and state government fell threw and it was instantlly passed to the Federal level, who also took the brunt of the blaim. not just that, he reacted in the proper way for his posision at the time to 9/11, he did not stand by for federal assistance, but he took the bull by the horns and lead right there. i’m not a huge fan of the guy, but i do reconize his strong point. he can lead as he has proven desisivly in a stressfull situation.
What I find to be disturbing is not the candidates and their messages but the voters and what they are prioritizing as what is most important. While we have TWO wars still going on, the people seem to be more interested in their personal lives with domestic issues and the nations economy. All polls are suggesting as much…
To me, it is of most importance that our nation at war should be what we should be voting about. Not how to make our wallets thicker. It sickens me while we still got troops dying out there.
As for preference on a candidate… I am indecisive. I’ve been leaning toward McCain. Not because I agree with him. Because when I see him, I believe him. Judging a person’s character far outweighs what a person “says” he or she will make happen if elected.
God knows I hated Bush. But I lived through eight years of him and I am still alive and functioning in society. So whoever is next, I will still be able to do the same. That is why I stick with characteristics over record or intent.
Records, as in voting Records are vital when you have them, if a person votes one way, but says another, that is important to know.
now i do think the economy is important and ties right into the war. the war is my personal priority, but if the economy colapses then we are going to have to pull troops back as we can’t afford to maintain the large millitary let alone over seas. so now national security is an issue as the war is not over seas but the terrorist can bring it back to us.
the boarder ties in with the war as the news has shown, there was a group of men who entered the US via Mexico that only some were cought and the rest not. these men were found out to be terorist. also we had the truck that was carrying 2 chemicals that when mixed explod, the driver and passanger disapeared, the truck wasn’t documented as carring ether matierial, and the truck was just south of the boarder heading north.
what i’m getting at on the last two issues is that we have things that are tied together even if not standing out or the media or governemnt down plays them.
I understand what you are saying however, I don’t believe that other voters are thinking that. The high volume of complaints due to high gas prices, housing slumps, and tax hikes speak of the personal preference of the average voter.
What you say about the economy related to the war is correct but it still doesn’t explain people’s priorities. Otherwise they would have said as much.
k, just wanted to make sure you were putting them together :wink:
accually i know what you mean, the media has droped the war as it’s doing much better now, the government and media arn’t publicly putting 2 and 2 together to show us how there is still a threat (media because they don’t want the war to look good, government because they don’t want us scared, or to close the boarder). so we are convinced because of the lack of covarage (atleast the vast majority of the sheepel) that the war is all but over, we are just waiting to bring our troops home, so onto new media pushed issues like our sinking economy and how bad our current president is doing there as you always have to find how bad he is doing, when he dose well we got to make sure we divert to some new “problem”
little do they talk about how terrible congress is.
it hasnt done 1 dang thing in a year. fantastic if thats what you want.
Neither of the two wars (Terrorism/Afghanistan nor Iraq) will be a central issue this election. Health Care, Sub-Prime Mortgages and Gay Marriage will be central issues this election.
I would, honestly, recommend picking a candidate that agrees with your stance on those issues because, unless Iran fires off a nuclear weapon, or the terrorists strike us on our home soil again, I just don’t see any further discussion on Iraq and, by extension, Afghanistan. The Surge is working too well, so much so we don’t even here body counts anymore.
I’m not sure if you read my post properly, Jen. I stated the war SHOULD be the central issue when thinking of a candidate.
By that logic of thinking, the body counts “they do not mention” are acceptable.
My thinking is that it isn’t. Our nation is still at war, whether you like it or not. And if Americans have bigger concerns with whether two people of the same sex are able to marry or “when can I expect to collect on my house” then it shows the now unpopular veterans that they are just a sideshow. And that is what I find disturbing.
But this is getting off topic. The caucuses are ripe for a good candidate (on both sides) to be nominated. I won’t keep my hopes up on it. Been let down before.
little do they talk about how terrible congress is.
it hasnt done 1 dang thing in a year. fantastic if thats what you want.
funney thing is we have a ton of congress members running and doing well in the primaries (even some new members), and yet this isn’t an issue. i think it’s because the media dosn’t want it to be an issue, although we also have a few canidents not in congress that should be using this as a big deal issue.
correct, the media protects its own. we all know what that means.
and also correct, now is the time where we may just get the best candidates for the nation from both parties. ie obama and mccain. whom mccain would slaughter.
just today, obama said democrats deserve credit for the war going well. the media wont call him on this….they’ll just stay mute and hope nobody noticed.
