Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Let's Be Honest About Our Candidates

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Girlieman Donating Member (399 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:22 PM
Original message
Let's Be Honest About Our Candidates
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fenriswolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. actually you are right on that part
Edited on Wed Jan-23-08 01:46 PM by fenriswolf
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
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)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fenriswolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. factors
(eg media portrayed image)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. snicker
I think the Know Nothing party is still around....ever notice all the Ron Paul signs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. this is one of many reasons
why Kucinich has my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fenriswolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Done.
Just added my two cents to your thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fenriswolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. cool now read
the "many" issues alot of people have and help me defend kooch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. Honest about our candidates! What, are you crazy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Girlieman Donating Member (399 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC