You're thinking like a true modern conservative... thinking about the "who," rather than the "what." If you dig deep enough on any politician, you'll be able to put together a personal picture of that politician that's unflattering. However, what matters to me is what that politician would do and would fight for while in office. While I find Bush's pre-presidential history and personality really upsetting to me, that has NOTHING to do with the way I'd vote these days. I vote against him because I disagree with 95%+ of what he stands for. I'll vote for/against the others based on their stances on the issues:
>Feingold? Mr "527"? No thanks.
He's against the Iraq war, against the Bush invasions of privacy, for the minimum wage hike... we share a lot of views in common, and he's one of my favorites at the moment.
>McCain? Sold out our Vietnam MIAs with Kerry.
Not far from Bush on most issues. Thumbs down.
>Kerry?
Similar to Feingold's stances, but not nearly as soundbite-articulate... I think he's fine, but ran just an OK campaign with some serious lapses in 2004 against a great Bush campaign.
>Hillary? Too many dems have already started attacking her.
I can't separate most of her positions from Bush's... thumbs down.
>Like I said in a previous post, the 2008 democrat primary will be uglier than today's democrat attacks on the republicans. Why? Because they have already started cutting each other's throats.
Not really... I haven't seen much of that; maybe on Fox News and in the NY Post. I don't think that the primaries for either party will be much dirtier than we've seen in the past. However, the general election could be nasty, especially if it's Allen vs. Hillary (though I still don't see Hillary getting the nod).
You are forgetting Edwards, and of course Warner, who's probably the most serious Dem nominee in '08.
I like Edwards a lot, not so sure on Warner yet.
-Z |
