Let's Be Honest About Our Candidates

[Girlieman]

It's being widely reported that a study by the Center for Public Integrity shows that Bush told hundreds of lies about Iraq in the run up to the war. This should surprise nobody. It is hardly controversial, certainly not in these parts, to say that the Bush administration is perhaps the worst and most corrupt in U.S. History.

I think a threshold question for any presidential candidate is "What have you done to oppose the crimes and excesses of the Bush Administration, when you were in a position to do so?" and "What have you done to investigate and hold Bush accountable for his crimes and excesses?"

None of the leading candidates gets a passing grade on this threshold question. The complacency of both Hilary and Obama should disqualify them from holding the Presidency. Edwards gets a partial pass, but I he can't really be proud of his record either.

The only candidate who can withstand this scrutiny is Kucinich.

[cobalt1999]

1. No such thing as a single "threshold question" when picking a president.

Even if we tried to determine a threshold question, we'd never agree on one.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Historically, however, there are precidents

For example, Lincoln won in 1860 on the single issue of slavery and how he would handle it. And FDR came to power in 1932 on the single issue of the economy. It will be interesting to find out if there comes a time when there is a pressing national "threshold question" this time around. Could very well be the economy for many.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. LinKKKoln supported slavery in 1858!

He will say ANYTHING to win!

He will NEVER get my vote!!!!!! I will vote Whig before I vote for Abramary LinKKKoln!!!!!!!

:evilgrin:

--p!
Vote your conscience -- Know-Nothing in '60!

[fenriswolf]

11. actually you are right on that part

while lincoln may not have supported slavery it was not a very important issue with him. Only when it seemed like england was going to give its support to the confederate army was when lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation. Thus if england supported the confederate army then england supported slavery. England was forced to sit our civil war out and it probably cost the confederacy the war.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Lincoln was in favor of colonization

but couldn't get black leaders at the time to go along with it. Comparing Lincoln to modern times, he'd be considered a bigot. But for the times, he was more liberal than the Fire Eaters of South Carolina who not only wanted slavery made legal in all states and territories , but also wanted slave trade with Africa reopened.

[cobalt1999]

16. He may not have supported it, but he ran on a platform of keeping it.

He repeatedly promised the South he would not do anything to abolish slavery.

However, my point is that there are so many factors in choosing a president, no one "threshold question". Even FDR wasn't the most progressive candidate of his time as Al Smith not only had a better track record but was promoting a more progressive agenda.

True, there have been dominate issues in historical elections, but there has never been a single "threshold question".

Even Kucinich, who is right on many issues, isn't in the mix due to other factors (e.g. perceived effectiveness and ability to actually accomplish anything)

[fenriswolf]

17. factors

(eg media portrayed image)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. snicker

I think the Know Nothing party is still around....ever notice all the Ron Paul signs?

[Silent3]

13. The problem is, if you judge Lincoln by contemporary standards...

...he's quite racist. He was ahead of his time compared to the average white American, but hardly alone in his fairly middle-of-the-road opposition to slavery when he was first elected.

If the Civil War hadn't occurred during his term, Lincoln was content to disallow slavery in new states and territories, and to hope that over time slavery would die out in the states where it was already practiced. The move to free the slaves later in his term, in the midst of the war, wasn't pure benevolence -- it was in part a strategic move to encourage blacks to fight for the Union.

If Lincoln had run on an anti-slavery platform that would be convincingly anti-racist as well, by today's standards -- supporting full equal rights, mixed race schooling, mixed race marriage -- he'd never, ever have managed to get elected, and never would have had the chance to issue the Emancipation Proclamation (which in and of itself wasn't a complete measure to end slavery).

The point of what I'm saying is this: in politics, purity and tests of purity don't often count for very much. It's wrong to assume that, for example, an ideologically pure pacifist, or someone who didn't vote for or support the IWR, is necessarily the best person to bring the war to an end.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. this is one of many reasons

why Kucinich has my vote.

[fenriswolf]

3. maybe you guys can help then

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4159217

thread I started and was just asking for trouble in, did my best but maybe you guys can help add your two cents.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Done.

Just added my two cents to your thread.

[fenriswolf]

6. cool now read

the "many" issues alot of people have and help me defend kooch.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. did an contributed

I'm wondering if that one chap realizes there is an Astro Forum right here on DU? You know, if he went there and followed the rules there, he'd find those folks are very nice and kind. Makes you wonder if being a "w-- w--" is all that bad.

[damntexdem]

7. Honest about our candidates! What, are you crazy?

[MADem]

9. You might like that question, but the country wouldn't. And I'll tell you why.

Elections are less about REHASHING the fuckups of yore, they're more about what we are going to do, and where we are going to go, as a nation, in the FUTURE.

No one gets "disqualified" from the Presidency. Anyone meeting age and citizenship requrements can take a shot at it.

When you start putting ideological litmus tests into the mix, you end up supressing voter participation. What's to prevent someone else from coming along and putting in the "If you aren't a Christian, you can't be President" rule or "If you don't believe that life begins at that gleam in daddy's eye, you can't be President" threshold?

There are no thresholds, save those established by current law. And that is, like it or not, how it should be.

Kucinich, woe for him, doesn't pass the "Looking Good" litmus test. It is a shallow test, one that reflects poorly on the 'depth' of the American voter, but it is one that is VERY difficult to overcome when running for President--like it or not, it just is.

He has a few good ideas, but America simply doesn't want to hear them from a garden gnome--the polls, the number/amount of political contributions he receives, and his results in primaries bear that out. You might not like that, but it is the truth.

Dick Cavett, this morning on Imus, said as much, and wryly noted (I am paraphrasing but the sense is entirely accurate) "If Dennis Kucinich had Mitt Romney's body, he'd be a contender."

Politics, aside from being about the future, is local...and superficial. It just is.

[Blarch]

10. Edwards gets a partial pass ?

He voted for war, after the lies were exposed, and didn't even read the NIE, he was the only one on the committee to do so, repub or dem. Just handed Bush the war he wanted.

[Girlieman]

18. Edwards gets a pass for 2004-present

When he wasn't in the Senate. I am most critical of democrats from 2006 elections onwards, because we have a majority and Bush's crimes and misdeeds have become all the more apparent.

Where are the investigations? Where for that matter is some good old fashioned rhetoric?

I certainly agree with your comments about Edwards' short tenure in the Senate. I think he and Hillary have horrible records from that time period.