OK OK, I'm voting for...........





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: OK OK, I'm voting for...........
By Mom101 (Mom101) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 01:17 am: Edit

Fill in the blank--whose your perfect candidate?

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 01:19 am: Edit

That's who is...., it's late

By Sepi11 (Sepi11) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 01:25 am: Edit

There is no perfect candidate, although Kerry is the more perfect of the two

By Patient (Patient) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 01:27 am: Edit

I'm not sure, but I think it is a woman. Men get us into the biggest messes.
(Oh boy, am I in for it now. Probably Fundingfather and Thedad will join forces on this one).

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 01:40 am: Edit

I'd vote for Rudy Guliani. I love what he did for NY. He is totally no BS. No religious agenda. Socially liberal in general. A pragmatist.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 01:57 am: Edit

I second Guliani.

By Mahras (Mahras) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 02:17 am: Edit

Pataki would have my pick. I like him. COnservative yet liberal on social issue. Guliani I do not believe wants the nomination. Thing is Paraki and Guliani are moderates borderline republicans and would not be considered to be the traditional conservative. Thus getting their own party's support will be hard for them.

By Megofou (Megofou) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 03:22 am: Edit

Me! Someday. At LEAST 5 races from now. Look for my name.

I'll pretend I'm joking so I don't get slammed. :-)

By Escafandrasteve (Escafandrasteve) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 04:00 am: Edit

As a NY resident allow me to say that Pataki is terrible..

seriously how can you like him? he has 0 personality and has 0% effectiveness due to the split ny senate/house

in a nutshell.. he has done nothing for ny..

By Escafandrasteve (Escafandrasteve) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 04:00 am: Edit

As a NY resident allow me to say that Pataki is terrible..

seriously how can you like him? he has 0 personality and has 0% effectiveness due to the split ny senate/house

in a nutshell.. he has done nothing for ny..

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 10:31 am: Edit

In no particular order: Rudy, McCain, Powell

I'm also impressed with Romney, but don't know enough about him yet.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 12:14 pm: Edit

Rudy>Powell>McCain>Rice

By Songman (Songman) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Can I vote for Howdy Doody? He was my hero growing up! Either way voting for Bush or Kerry IMHO is like voting for Howdy...sorry that is the way I feel this election year

By Feuler (Feuler) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Bill Clinton (f*** the 22nd amendment).

Of course there is no such thing as perfect, but I sure wish we could put Clinton back in. Mainly because he:

1) Is highly intelligent.
2) Is charismatic.
3) Is a leader figure.
4) Is not a right-wing nutjob.

To summarize: Clinton is a master pimp.


I also think McCain would be a great president, despite the fact he is conservative.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 12:25 pm: Edit

Colin Powell.

By Digmedia (Digmedia) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 12:30 pm: Edit

The latest issue of WIRED magazine had a very interesting article about the future of US politics. The basic premise of the article is that both parties have been taken over by their extremists and that most Americans actually fall somewhere in the middle. They tout Ah-nold as the "Radical Centrist" with his "liberal" social views and his "conservative" economic views. His surprisingly decent job as the Governator and his unwillingness to play partisan politics is bringing him more and more admirers from this Radical Centrist majority.

By Optimizerdad (Optimizerdad) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 01:18 pm: Edit

I'll go with Candi - Colin Powell.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit

It will be interesting to see if Arnold survives. In a CA paper today, he's accused of being the girly man of Fortune 500 companies. He just came out against making CA companies give all employees health insurance and supported legislation that would stop many law suites against CA corporations. Will CA sit still for a pro business gov?

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 02:12 pm: Edit

McCain will probobly get the nomination in 08 instead of Guiliani, because McCain is conservative socially, as well as economicly and foreign relations-wise.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 06:51 pm: Edit

For all you folks who choose Guiliani, I have a question. Most people who don't like Clinton cite his adultery along with lying to the grand jury.

Are the Guiliani supporters okay with adultery in a president, or is that a drawback?

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 07:42 pm: Edit

I don't think you can compare the situations. I was certainly uncomfortable with a pres who had the poor judgement Clinton displayed, especially having an affair with a young, vulnerable girl. The former Mrs. G was a difficult women who refused to move out of Gracie mansion long after the marriage collapsed. She then went to court to stop their children from meeting his present wife and harassed the guy in any way she could for years. She was nuts. Rudy wasn't going around doing anything like what was, and still seems to be, routine for Bill.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 10:15 pm: Edit

That rationale sounds suspiciously like "my wife doesn't understand me". Adultery is adultery. If Giuliani's wife was so terrible, why didn't he divorce her first, then have his affairs?

One certainly can compare situations. It is not an adequate defense to say Clinton committed adultery because he was bad; but Guilliani committed adultery because his wife was bad.

As for "Rudy wasn't going around doing anything like what was . . . routine for Bill." I don't think that is true. Giuliani was linked with multiple women while a married mayor.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 10:19 pm: Edit

The best of the best: Guiliani, McCain, Lieberman. These people should be running the country. Oh, yeah, Powell too. It took a lot of tennis balls to say what he said about Sudan.

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Even though I'm voting for Bush (for lack of a better option) I would have voted for Lieberman or Giuliani. I don't know why the democrats didn't back Lieberman...he was the perfect candidate. He was moderate enough to sway some conservatives unhappy with Bush. He might have been a little too moderate for some liberals, but they certainly would have voted for him over Bush....

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 03:06 am: Edit

Yes, I am a Bush supporter. I was upset when dean lost because he would be easily killed. I wonder if the dems would be ahead now if Lieberman was chosen. I dont think so, because the dean people would not support him. He is too honest to take a position he does not agree with. He was and is a strong proponent for the removal of saddam, and wouldn't be afraid to have a solid opinion, like kerry.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 03:59 am: Edit

lieberman does not represent the ideals of most democrats and is a DINO. that is why he isn't the nominee. he seems to appeal to republicans, so why don't all of you republicans nominate him?

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 11:36 am: Edit

He represents jfk/truman dems, and then there was a trasition to very liberal dems, except for clinton, and now they are back on track with a liberal control with kerry/edwards/dean/moore/. Luckily, they do poorly when they have a liberal running.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 02:02 pm: Edit

luckily, the bush administration is doing poorly as well.

By Masterchris (Masterchris) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 03:40 pm: Edit

It is impossible to have 2 poorly performing candidates in a basicly 2 party race. It is either tied or one is ahead. In this case, Bush is ahead.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 04:35 pm: Edit

what makes it impossible?

By Northwestlover (Northwestlover) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 11:21 pm: Edit

Dave Chappelle
I think having Fake Canadian ID and get a cheaper healthcare is a good idea.

By Masterchris (Masterchris) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 11:47 pm: Edit

because in a race, no matter how bad two runners are, one is the winner. Bush is ahead of kerry, so how is Bush doing poorly. Also, kerry is not dead yet, so he is not doing that poorly either.
Please use some logic.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 12:02 am: Edit

CONDOLEEZZA RICE

Rudy is too centrist for me
McCain is too busy worrying about not hurting people's feelings that he doesn't get the job done --i dunno, i just can't see him as a President.

I really like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist...he's an amazing politician, but an amazing human being as well. He is a doctor, has lived in and visited sub-saharan African countries annually throughout his career and has even gone as far to have given free open-heart surgeries. (LoL, okay so that isn't an essential quality for being President)

but

I do like his record, and I can totally see him as a leader.

I also don't think Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is out of the question. Just not in '08...

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 02:21 am: Edit

masterchris,
what you just said doesn't sense at all. in a race just because someone wins doesn't mean they performed well. they only had to perform better than their opponent. either kerry or bush will win the election, but whichever the outcome does not automatically make him a great leader or politician. after all, bush won the 2000 election and turned out to be a pretty crappy leader. i think YOU need to use some logic. but then again... you "don't know much about American politics..."

By Masterchris (Masterchris) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 03:17 am: Edit

You were not answering someone who was commenting on performance as a leader, but you answered bunmushroom's comment about how the dems do poorly in races when they nominate a liberal. Here is what he/she said: "Luckily, they do poorly when they have a liberal running."

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 03:25 am: Edit

shortcakefairy, I agree with you about McCain. I think he is too honest and not politicly savvy and agressive enough to be effective.

I like him, but I think Guiliani would be a more effective executive.

By Curiouskatie (Curiouskatie) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 07:06 pm: Edit

hillary clinton all the way

By Joev (Joev) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 11:25 pm: Edit

If Hilary Clinton gets elected to anything that represents where I live, I will move from that place. The perfect candidate is LeBron James, but he will have to wait another 16 years to run for President though. So everyone remember to vote LeBron for President in 2020!


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page