• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Election Breakdown From A Canadian Viewpoint

StorminNorman

Avenger
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
30,513
Reaction score
2
Points
33
Found this interesting...

Democrat or Republican? The question is shockingly easy
Theo Caldwell, National Post (Canada) Wednesday, December 26,
2007

An obvious choice can be unnerving. When the apparent perfection
of one option or the unspeakable awfulness of another makes a decision seem too
easy, it is human nature to become suspicious. This instinct intensifies as
the stakes of the given choice are raised.

American voters know no greater responsibility to their country
and to the world than to select their president wisely. While we do not yet know
who the Democrat and Republican nominees will be, any combination of the leading
candidates from either party will make for the most obvious choice put to
American voters in a generation.

To wit, none of the Democrats has any business being president.
This pronouncement has less to do with any apparent perfection among the
Republican candidates than with the intellectual and experiential paucity
evinced by the Democratic field. "Not ready for prime time," goes the
vernacular, but this does not suffice to describe how bad things are.

Alongside Hillary Clinton, add Barack Obama's kindergarten
essays to an already confused conversation about Dennis Kucinich's UFO
sightings, due ling celebrity endorsements and who can be quickest to retreat
from America's global conflict and raise taxes on the American people, and it
becomes clear that these are profoundly unserious individuals.

To be sure, there has been a fair amount of rubbish and rhubarb
on the Republican side (Ron Paul, call your office), but even a cursory review
of the legislative and professional records of the leading contenders from each
party reveals a disparity akin to adults competing with children.

For the Republicans, Rudy Giuliani served as a two-term mayor of
New York City, turning a budget deficit into a surplus and taming what was
thought to be an ungovernable metropolis. Prior to that, he held the
third-highest rank in the Reagan Justice Department, obtaining over 4,000
convictions.

Mitt Romney, before serving as governor of Massachusetts,
founded a venture capital firm that created billions of dollars in shareholder
value, and he then went on to save the Salt Lake City Olympics.

While much is made of Mike Huckabee's history as a Baptist
minister, he was also a governor for more than a decade and, while Arkansas is
hardly a "cradle of presidents, " it has launched at least one previous chief
executive to national office.

John McCain's legislative and military career spans five
decades, with half that time having been spent in the Congress.

Even Fred Thompson, whose excess of nonchalance has transformed
his once-promising campaign into nothing more than a theoretical possibility,
has more experience in the U.S. Senate than any of the leading Democratic
candidates.

With just over one term as a Senator to her credit, Hillary
Clinton boasts the most extensive record of the potential Democratic nominees.
In that time, Senator Clinton cannot claim a single legislative accomplishment
of note, and she is best known lately for request ing $1-million from Congress
for a museum to commemorate Woodstock.

Barack Obama is nearing the halfway point of his first term in
the Senate, having previously served as an Illinois state legislator and, as
Clinton has correctly pointed out, has done nothing but run for president since
he first arrived in Washington. Between calling for the invasion of Pakistan and
fumbling a simple question on driver's licenses for illegal aliens, Obama has
shown that he is not the fellow to whom the nation ought to hike the nuclear
football.

John Edwards, meanwhile, embodies the adage that the American
people will elect anyone to Congress -- once. From his $1,200 haircuts to his
personal war on poverty, proclaimed from the porch of his 28,000-square-foot
home, purchased with the proceeds of preposterous lawsuits exploiting infant
cerebral palsy, Edwards is living proof that history can play out as tragedy and
farce simultaneously.

Forget for a moment all that you believe about public policy.
Discard your notions about taxes and Iraq, free trade and crime, and consider
solely the experience of these two sets of candidates. Is there any serious
issue that you would prefer to entrust to a person with the Democrats'
experience, rather than that of any of the Republicans? Now consider the state
of debate in each party. While the Republicans compare tax proposals and the
best way to prosecute the War on Terror, Democrats are divining the patterns and
meaning of the glitter and dried macaroni glued to the page of one of their
leading candidate's kindergarten projects.

Does this decision not become unsettling simple?
 
wow, that's a lot of republican rhetoric. lemme guess, the national post is canada's answer to the weekly standard, right?
 
I thought that was a pretty fair write up. :)
 
wow, that's a lot of republican rhetoric. lemme guess, the national post is canada's answer to the weekly standard, right?

His points are quite valid.

There is far more experience with the Republican candidates than there is on the Democratic side.
 
His points are quite valid.

There is far more experience with the Republican candidates than there is on the Democratic side.

Experience is not the only qualification for a presidential candidate; if it were, then Nixon, not JFK, would've won the 1960 presidential election. And candidates who have more experience do not always make the best president. W. Bush was perceived as having alot of experience as the governor of Texas, but look how he turned out in these 8 years.
 
There is far more experience with the Republican candidates than there is on the Democratic side.

Well, of course there is.

When you have 436 candidates running, you're bound to have more of it somewhere :o
 
I thought that was a pretty fair write up. :)

aside from the snarky comments and exaggerations about the dems (edwards' $1200 haircut??? wasn't it $400?). and the extremely favorable comments on the reps, yeah it's fair. :whatever:

His points are quite valid.

There is far more experience with the Republican candidates than there is on the Democratic side.

the dems had plenty of experienced candidates (richardson, biden, dodd), the media just didn't go down on them like they did for hillary and obama.
 
Experience isn't everything. Just look at Gordon Brown.
 
Biden and Dodd were both favorites of mine.
 
aside from the snarky comments and exaggerations about the dems (edwards' $1200 haircut??? wasn't it $400?). and the extremely favorable comments on the reps, yeah it's fair. :whatever:
I agree, when I read that, that's what I thought

the dems had plenty of experienced candidates (richardson, biden, dodd), the media just didn't go down on them like they did for hillary and obama.
Again, I agree with you. If I had to vote for a Dem this election cycle, it would have been Richardson. He actually cut taxes, unusual for a Democrat.
 
Experience is not the only qualification for a presidential candidate; if it were, then Nixon, not JFK, would've won the 1960 presidential election.

Nixon was a better President than JFK.
 
Nixon was a better President than JFK.

Because Nixon wasn't shot less than three years into his presidency.

Though I agree, in terms of policy, Nixon did a hell of a lot more than Kennedy did. Though at the same time, he completely damaged the face of the American presidency.
 
Nixon's Presidency is horribly tainted because he's a criminal, but he was a great President regardless.
 
Because Nixon wasn't shot less than three years into his presidency.

Though I agree, in terms of policy, Nixon did a hell of a lot more than Kennedy did. Though at the same time, he completely damaged the face of the American presidency.

Kennedy's Presidency was made by his assignation.

Think about it - what did Kennedy really do?

He is known for:
Civil Rights (a bill passed after his death)
Space Programs (realized after his death)
Being Sexy

Look at the Bay of Pigs, the failed assassination attempts on Castro, etc. etc. He wasn't a very successful President.
 
Kennedy's Presidency was made by his assignation.

Think about it - what did Kennedy really do?

He is known for:
Civil Rights (a bill passed after his death)
Space Programs (realized after his death)
Being Sexy

Look at the Bay of Pigs, the failed assassination attempts on Castro, etc. etc. He wasn't a very successful President.

Kennedy is the most overrated President EVER.
 
Agreed.

FDR is second :o

I wouldn't call FDR overrated. The New Deal was necessary for its time and he had a great hand at leadership during World War II.

He's right up there with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, and Ronald Reagan as one of the best Presidents.
 
I wouldn't call FDR overrated. The New Deal was necessary for its time and he had a great hand at leadership during World War II.

He's right up there with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, and Ronald Reagan as one of the best Presidents.

The New Deal increased Government ten-fold, added to the deficit at the time and did almost nothing to help the Great Depression (ended by World War II).

He did nothing for Civil Rights (in spite of pressure by Truman) and completely under-appreciated the threat of Communism.

Roosevelt's greatest accomplishment was having some of the best Foreign Affair experts ever assembled in office.

FDR was a good President - but Truman is the true hero of the time IMO.
 
The New Deal increased Government ten-fold, added to the deficit at the time and did almost nothing to help the Great Depression (ended by World War II).

He did nothing for Civil Rights (in spite of pressure by Truman) and completely under-appreciated the threat of Communism.

Roosevelt's greatest accomplishment was having some of the best Foreign Affair experts ever assembled in office.

FDR was a good President - but Truman is the true hero of the time IMO.

The New Deal helped the people who were hurt by the Great Depression. It's a relic today, but it was needed then.

Civil Rights weren't the forefront at that time. And he had no choice but to ally with Stalin.
 
The New Deal helped the people who were hurt by the Great Depression. It's a relic today, but it was needed then.

Civil Rights weren't the forefront at that time. And he had no choice but to ally with Stalin.

If The New Deal was never implemented, the nation's economy would of been just fine. Also it wasn't just FDR's alliance with Stalin that was the problem - any President would of been forced to make it - he simply did not see Communism as a bad thing. He saw Stalin as friendly "Uncle Joe" and he had a few communist sympathizers very close to him.

FDR is a good President. I will not argue that. But he does not belong among the ranks of Washington, Lincoln, Regan and his Uncle-In-Law. Almost any President in office at the time would be recognized just as fondly.
 
Kennedy's Presidency was made by his assignation.

Think about it - what did Kennedy really do?

He is known for:
Civil Rights (a bill passed after his death)
Space Programs (realized after his death)
Being Sexy

Look at the Bay of Pigs, the failed assassination attempts on Castro, etc. etc. He wasn't a very successful President.

Not to mention getting the US into Vietnam out of pure negligence and corruption. :o

He's right up there with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, and Ronald Reagan as one of the best Presidents.

Take out Reagan, and I'd agree.

As for the article, it does gloss over the Republicans.

Rudy, while good economically, monumentally f**ked-up with 9/11.

Romney's comment about "freedom requires faith" still creeps me out and from the recent spat with the AP reporter he looks like he'll snap and turn into Mormon Hulk at the drop of a hat.

McCain, from when Blair left and until very recently, was George Bush's sock puppet.

Huckabee is a completely insane, racist, homophobic piece of crap.

Paul, while definately the smartest guy in the room, was negligent and let racist asswipes write in his newsletter, took dubious donations and screwed over groups after taking their donations (such as the 9/11 Truth Movement).

Really, there's not many canidates on either side that really inspires at this point.
 
Take out Reagan, and I'd agree.

As for the article, it does gloss over the Republicans.

Rudy, while good economically, monumentally f**ked-up with 9/11.

Romney's comment about "freedom requires faith" still creeps me out and from the recent spat with the AP reporter he looks like he'll snap and turn into Mormon Hulk at the drop of a hat.

McCain, from when Blair left and until very recently, was George Bush's sock puppet.

Huckabee is a completely insane, racist, homophobic piece of crap.

Paul, while definately the smartest guy in the room, was negligent and let racist asswipes write in his newsletter, took dubious donations and screwed over groups after taking their donations (such as the 9/11 Truth Movement).

Really, there's not many canidates on either side that really inspires at this point.

But what about Barrack Obama and his sexiness?














(that was a joke, by the way)
 
I wouldn't call FDR overrated. The New Deal was necessary for its time and he had a great hand at leadership during World War II.

He's right up there with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, and Ronald Reagan as one of the best Presidents.

Like MaskedMan, I also don't believe Reagan ranks as one of the best presidents in U.S. history. Cold War was ending because Soviet Union was getting bankrupt, and any president at that time would've "ended" Cold War. And Reagan's economic boom was rather short-lived, and he delivered a gigantic deficit that lasted until Clinton took office. He was a very charismatic president, but not one of "the" best.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,703
Messages
21,789,388
Members
45,617
Latest member
SuperheroWoman
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"