Totally naive opinion: I'm leaning toward Obama because I want a change. I confess I am influenced by the good doctor.
I'll tell you what does not appeal to me (well, one thing): the Repub contest to claim Reagan's mantle. I mean, if I wanted that, I would have voted for Bush/Zombie Reagan.
I'm with CKR and CGW on Edwards. He just doesn't pass the smell test.
McCain is just too crabby and combative for me (and perhaps too old).
I tell you what: that Bush/Zombie Reagan site still makes me laugh and it's been around for more than four years!
11 comments:
I think that after all the money Republicans have spent in the last 40 years to position themselves as the dominant party, it's pretty sad that the current crop of presidential contenders is the best they can come up with. I'm for Obama, but I plan to suppport whoever gets the Democratic nomination this year because I'm so disgusted with my party.
your take, as a registered Repub, is so interesting, Benet!
A Zombie Reagan could probably outpoll most of them even whil ganawing on a human brain.
Mark: LOL. Zombie Reagan in 2008! ;-)
Yes, many Republicans are wishing for the second coming of Reagan.
However, many Democrats are looking for the next JFK. But since JFK would be in the GOP if he got into politics today, they'll settle for young and good looking: Obama. (Nautical and decorated didn't work too well in 2004.)
Sorry, you guys are going to have to come up with more than an abstract concept of "change" to get me to abandon all the social issues I care about and vote for the guy. He isn't just against how Iraq was managed, he's against the Big Bang altogether. I haven't seen a supporter of his cite any policy positions they're excited about. They just want to send the world a message about how "open minded" we are. I don't knock the notion entirely. I was excited about him when he first came on the scene. Well, that was until I actually heard some of his speeches!
The only tangible example of "change" I've heard about in this cycle is the possibility of McCain winning the GOP nomination and then picking Lieberman as his running mate. Repub's would pop a gasket over the idea, but it would change politics as we know it for sure! It's a little less "zero-sum" than the other options out there. ;) That's change, not emotion.
geez, Brad. i hate to call baloney on you after you just said such nice things about me, but ... ;-)
your approach on this is too partisan for me, for starters.
second, i don't disagree with your JFK critique (though the Kerry shot is a little cheap).
i don't have to come up with something less abstract because i'm not trying to change your mind. heck, i'm not even sure of my leaning myself. your brush back of his policies is too brusque; it's not just 'open-minded'ness.
nothing that happens in this election is going to change politics as we know it, even if McCain ran with Lieberman. i'll lay you any odds on that you want to give. your preference is 'change' and there's is emotion? come on.
of course, you did stumble onto Tom from Hugh, so maybe we're still wearing off your arch-conservative edges ;-)
hehe, well Hugh is losing influence daily. I still podcast him, but now it's only for the guests he has. And that list of guests I like is shrinking by the week as I tire of some of their commentaries! Victory to Tom on that one considering he's a major influence in that direction.
I fully admit to being partisan when it comes to certain social issues. If I have strong views on something like abortion, taxation or gun rights, I'm going to lean a certain way. So unless I either change my views on those subjects or stop caring about them, I'm going to seem partisan I suppose. When it comes to foreign policy/security issues, I'm far more open minded. If it works, I'm for it. I left my idealism with my neo-con membership.
My comments regarding Obama support were more generally directed towards the people I hear talking about him all the time - not towards you and not towards Obama himself. (Although, you only cited "change" and Tom's nod as factors). I wasn't discussing his policies, but was instead discussing what motivates his voters. I never hear them talk about issues. Just "change", "sending a message" and "symbols." Maybe I'm not listening to the right supporters!
And to clarify, I'm not backing a McCain/Lieberman ticket, so I don't get your, "your change / their emotion" comment but maybe it was just misunderstanding. I do however think that a 2 party Presidency would be change in itself! It might change how some people "run for" vice-President. It might change some of the Bills sent to the White House for signature. Yeah, the change would likely be minor, but it'd be historic.
brad
ps - get anything in the mail today?!
ok, i feel less combative, now ;-)
a 2-party presidency would certainly be a change (though Lieberman isn't a true Dem anymore), though not 'change itself'.
oo! nothing in the mail yesterday, but i'll keep watching! :-)
There's a lot of change among the Republicans. I don't know why people can't see it. For example, the change in Romney's views, in those of Huckabee's, in those of McCain.
Obama represents change; however, I don't think he will necessarily deliver. When I look through the candidates positions on issues, Obama, and Clinton are not that far apart.
The Clinton's bug me because they are so slick, and so politically savy. That seems as important as the issues to them. (Is that as it should be?)
On the other hand, Hillary has been a respected member of congress. She worked hard, and was known for getting results. Many Republicans in the Senate like her. I understand that even Newt Gingrich likes her! That says something to me about someone who wants to be President. I'm still undecided though.
Paul: thanks for the comment. you're right, of course.
Jim: you're right: representation and delivery are two different things. but even a different attitude in the White House would be nice right now.
if it's any consolation, Hillary's not as slick as Bill ;-)
she'd probably be fine at getting things done. but let's get a new last name in the presidential list.
Post a Comment