Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Who would you prefer from “the other side”

By

I’ll admit I still haven’t settled upon a favorite in the Democratic presidential contest. But a thought occurred to me yesterday: Who do I like among the Republicans? Most of the commentary about the GOP nominees is either of the horse-race variety (who can we beat?) or dirt-digging. This is different: if we lose the general election again and have to settle for another four years of a Republican-controlled White House, who do you think will do the best job? And I don’t mean “who will set us up best for a Democratic win in 2012”. Who is your “best” worst-choice?

And to our right-wing friends, turn it around and let us know the same regarding the Democratic candidates.

I honestly don’t have an answer yet. Each time I consider a particular GOP candidate seriously, I get scared.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. well not really

    <

    p>but he’s the only Repub who publicly acknowledges that there is a unfortunate disparity of wealth and opportunity in this country

    <

    p>he’s a Jesus-freak who seems to practice what he preaches

    <

    p>and, he is very defeatable  

  2. …followed by Biden.

    <

    p>They have more practical experience and personal integrity than the front-runners.

    • Biden, followed by Richardson.

      <

      p>And for similar reasons.   Richardson is the ONLY Democrat Governor running; all the rest are Senators.  While being a Senator give you Washington and legislative experience, it doesn’t give you decision making experience, as in the buck stops here, like being a Governor does.

      <

      p>Listening to them all speak, Biden appears to be the most intelligent.  Not the most charismatic, not the most articualte, but the most intelligent.  And for me, that is my ultimate requirement for any candidate.

              • “Rethuglican” is better invective than, say, calling the GOP the Republic Party. The latter is a sort of me-tooism. Rethuglican, with its pungent second syllable, refers to a narrative about the current Republican Party, i.e., they try to achieve their ends by bullying. What springs to mind here? Lots of examples. That’s why the invective is effective and sticks.

                • The suit riot after the 2000 election that Republicans mounted to stop the Florida recount. Very thuggish.
                • The phone jamming in the 2002 NH Senate election. Also thuggish.
                • The accusations of not being patriotic, possibly even treasonous, that Republicans hurled to get us into Iraq. Thuggish, as treason is a capitol offense.
                • The invitations Ms. Coulter, a pro-thug writer, gets to mainstream Republican events.
                • The voting suppression efforts in Ohio.
                • The way they effected or, in the case of the Republican Congress, allowed the politicization of the Department of Justice. 5.6 times as many investigations against Democrats as against Republicans anyone? And, no, state statistics are not so imbalanced. A civil rights division that doesn’t defend civil rights?
                • The stupid Bolton-style “diplomacy” with North Korea that gave them incentives to develop nuclear weapons. That’s thuggishness gone counter-productive.
                • The guys in the orange suits outside the Patrick residence at the last gubernatorial election

                Compared to all that, dropping a syllable? Pretty tame.

      • He is a Democratic Governor.  He governs Democrats, Republicans, independents, and all other manner of persons in New Mexico.

          • He is both a Democratic governor and a democratic governor.  What he is not is someone who governs only members of one party, i.e., a Democrat governor.

              • …elected governor as a Republican, but he never actually did any governing.  There’s a slight, but very real, difference.

              • isn’t our label, demo.  It’s a long-running annoyance campaign by the likes of Tom DeLay.  If you want to cast your lot with the now-disgraced termite exterminator, knock yourself out.  And in the unlikely event that you care to educate yourself, read up.

                • In the unlikely event that I want to educate myself oh comon David you’re bigger than that.

                  <

                  p>Furthermore, I’ll bet your a Democrat.  Democrat!  You are in a party of Democrats!  The Democrat party!  Democrat!  Democrat!

                  <

                  p>Ok sorry but this is just inane.  I’ll bet the reason people call it the Democrat party is because “democratic” happens to have another, relevant meaning, and if you say Democrat party its clear that you are referring to the Dems, the D’s, the bluestaters.  Any party whatsoever might be conceivably labelled a “democratic” party if it were either part of a democracy or perhaps democratic in its internal workings.  Then again, who knows?  Ahh, clarity aint it fine?

                  <

                  p>Goodness this is trivial.

              • If you are here to annoy, yes, definitely. Use “Democrat” in a way that annoys Democrats. If this is just a video game, that’s how you play it. “Democrat Senator” Democrat Governor” “Democrat President”

                <

                p>If some of us are thereby dismissive of what you say, don’t whine about it, then. You’re signaling that you don’t care to have a conversation so much as a snowball fight.

            • The word (big D)”Democratic” should always be used when identifying the party, and only then. It looks and sounds clumsy to use an adjective as a noun.

              <

              p>I will stipulate that some folks on the right do like to jibe Democrats by using the noun “Democrat” in place of the adjective “Democratic” when referring to the party.
              It’s petty, but both sides engage in it, so get over it.

              <

              p>When referring to an individual member of the Democratic Party, however, it is quite proper to use the term “Democrat” – not because it ends in “rat” or any of the other silly conspiratorial reasons that some Democrats like to imagine, but because it is grammatically correct.

              <

              p>Leave it to the Democrat Democratic Party to over-complicate something as simple as its own identity.
              đŸ˜›

  3. which member of the Yankees they’d like to sleep with…
    they are all on the wrong team, in more ways than one.  

  4. They all espouse bad principles. Best to have someone who doesn’t appear to actually believe them.

    <

    p>If I believed in bank shots, Rudy. The oppo research coming out on him is already devastating. He’d be a terrible president if he won, though.

  5. because he’s proven that he can be swayed any old which way.  If it has to be a self-proclaimed conservative in the WH, I want it to be an insincere one like him.

    • Mr. Right Wing Romney could easily morph back into Mr. Moderate Romney if that were more advantageous politically.

      <

      p>It would be worse if he actually beleived anyuthing he says.

  6. My first policy choice is honest left-of-center, but I still find honest right-of-center preferable to dishonesty of any stripe.  Dishonest moderation is what we’ve had with Bush, and what I think we’d get from Giuliani and Thompson (McCain, who knows).  After all the noise and fury, I still believe that Bush’s actions are dictated by greed and corruption, and the “bottom line” for them and their circle.  From Iraq to S-CHIP, the common thread in most policies seems to be making rich white men richer.  This guides them much more than conservative principles.

    <

    p>I think Huckabee’s an honest guy, largely, and would put a stop to a lot of that crap.  A true conservative president would do less damage to the country that a continuation of the “sophisticated looting” that we’ve suffered the last 8 years (Krugman’s phrase there).  And yes, his devotion to Christianity does worry me, but then again so does Obama’s, so what of it?

          • i used them in the grammatically correct way.  the noun to which the adjective “reverend” was applied was implied.  this is a common usage.  for example, “the reverend” is the informal version of “The Reverend Hucksterbee”.

            <

            p>if you think you have something else to add to this lesson, spill it.  otherwise your comment is worthless.

            • Probably Huckabee is neither a reverend or a minister…which is why I mentioned “preacher” above.

              • is that he is a liar. and a liar about his theological credentials, no less!  this is something that should give pause to those who like him because of his “rock solid” religious credentials.

                <

                p>the quibble over clerical terminology was a nice attempt on Joe’s part to not address the core issue.  maybe he will still rise to the challenge of saying something meaningful on this issue.

                • …and cannot begin to explain the difference between the American Baptists, the Free Baptists, the Southern Baptists, etc., etc., but one thing to consider is that these various denominations have different requirements for their pastors.  A theology degree, while desirable, may not be a requirement.  There is nothing sinister in this – it isn’t like law school or medical school for lawyers and doctors.

                  <

                  p>I have never heard Huckabee claim to be anything other than Ordained.  He’s not my guy, but this seems an unfair rap.

                • What certifications baptists require of their clergy is irrelevant to Huckabee’s lie that he has earned a certain degree.  If you haven’t heard him making these claims, it’s only because you have (deliberately?) failed to read the article I linked to above.  Here, let me help you.  I’ve highlighted the important parts for you, since I hear that porcupines have sucky eyesight.

                  In November, while appearing on the Christian Broadcasting Network, Huckabee said, “People look at my record and say that I’m as strong on immigration, strong on terror as anybody. In fact I think I’m stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamofascism. These are people that want to kill us. It’s a theocratic war. And I don’t know if anybody fully understands that. I’m the only guy on that stage with a theology degree. I think I understand it really well. And know the threat of it is absolutely overwhelming to us.”

                  Last month, during the CNN YouTube debate, Huckabee responded to a question to the candidates about their belief in the Bible: “Sure. I believe the Bible is exactly what it is. It’s the word of revelation to us from God himself. … And as the only person here on the stage with a theology degree…”<.blockquote>

                • …I haven’t read his stuff that much.  I DO remember the YouTube remark, but more joshing with Rudy.  I had to leave the room when Bible Boy started in, I was so angry with CNN and Anderson Cooper for selecting that crap.

                  <

                  p>BTW – consider that candidates only get to answer questions THAT THEY GET ASKED befoe you sneer about them being ‘obsessed’.  Mitt NEVER wanted to talk about Mormonism, but he gts asked about it over and over – been going on since Joe Kennedy attacked him with it.  Before that, it never came up.

                • can’t be mine, because in that context it makes no sense.  “sneer?”  “‘obsessed’?”  you have a penchant for putting words into people’s mouths, but you top yourself on this one.  better just tuck yourself in and call it a night, eh?

        • …is he another of the many itinerent Baptist preachers who seem to populate Baptist churchs in the mid-west?

          <

          p>I’m disappointed.  That leaves his only claim to fame as being that he lost 100 lbs, a point that he seems to trumpet at every opportunity.  No mean feat, but hardly a reason to vote for him as president.

      • That said, Obama is pretty far out there for a Democrat.  About the only line that’s survived from his hyped speech at the 2004DNC (I was there for it, and not exactly blown away) was “we worship an awesome God in the blue states”. I do find it notable that Obama talks up God more than Giuliani, Thompson, or McCain.  He’s running into the GOP’s arms on this, and I’m less than thrilled with that.  

        <

        p>I’m just saying if that my choices are between God-heavy candidates on both sides, why not go the full distance?

      • The only viable Democrat who isn’t guaranteed my loyalty is Obama.  I don’t like Hillary’s stance on whether we should have invaded Iraq, and her recent vote on designated part of the Iranian military as a ” terrorist organization”.  However, outside of that I like her.

        <

        p>I think Hucky is kinda nuts, but at least he’s honest, which is better than nutty and dishonest.

  8. He’s the only candidate with both domestic administrative and foreigh affairs experience.  His record isn’t perfect, but he’s actually done better than most of the people running.

  9. I think the original post asked which candidate from the other party would make the best (or least bad) president. Instead someone got snarky and did the old “Democrat” Party stunt.

    <

    p>For the record, the official name of the party is the Democratic Party. That’s what it calls itself, that’s what it’s always called itself. No one has the right to rename it to fit their political whims. Doing so just marks you as an asshole. Of course, we could take suggestions for what to rename the Republican Party.

    <

    p>Oh, and Romney to the original question, but only because there’s a slight chance he’s lying about his politics now and might suddenly revert to his 2002 version if elected.
    And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

Archives