Refreshing or Stupid? Political Question

M

MBurnickas

New member
Anyone think that Barack Obama's confession about illegal drug use is refreshing? I personally appluad the man:clap: , but perhaps he sank his presidential ship by doing so. What's your opinion on this?
 
while not my political affiliation, Obama is a very effective comunicator. Probably the best we have had in 20 years since reagan.



from a political stand point i hope his ship sinks. I doubt it though.





Personally i want to see Rice/Giuliani run as a ticket.
 
Grouse said:
while not my political affiliation, Obama is a very effective comunicator. Probably the best we have had in 20 years since reagan.
Click to expand...



Totally agreed, but the question was about his admitted past drug use...



I don't think it'll sink his ship--it'll provide some ammo for his opponents, but if that's the worst of his past it won't really sway the public. I don't consider it all that refreshing either...more it's just getting his past out there so he doesn't get flamed for it.
 
Bush was a drunk and was elected twice.



Obama like a zillion other people tried and / or experimented with drugs years ago as part of growing up. Who cares?! It doesn't make anyone less of an individual or impact their ability to be effective in their job. The man is academically brilliant and has been an effective leader for his state.



How many here have tried drugs in the PAST as part of experimenting? Does / did that make you unable CURRENTLY to be good at your job, a good husband, a good father, a good friend a good co-worker?



Guiliani has had what, three marriages and divorces as a result of affairs? Does that make him unable to hold office? Or, do we pass judgment on him, like Obama, by their positions on issues and political philosophies?



This nonsense about people's past occurs on both sides of the political aisle. No party holds the moral high horse on ethics or morality. This is evidently clear.



So, in my opinion, I applaud Obama about being HONEST (how refreshing) instead of spinning it or waiting for some political attack ad to smear him.



Try not playing party line politics and be honest with yourself. If you're a Republican and it came out that the your nominee blew lines like 25 years ago in college, would you still support him. Visa versa if you're a Democrat.



I'm not supporting Obama, I'm a Guiliani guy myself as I watched him from Jersey (while working in NYC) be an effective, results oriented, Elliot Ness-like leader for a very diverse city. I applaud his pragmatic conservatism. But I feel this Obama drug issue is a total non factor.



Only dopey right wing talk show pumpkin heads would make an issue out of this.
 
I think that society at large is a bit more tolerant of recreational drug use than it has been in elections past, Clinton with his marijuana and Bush with his cocaine. I don't think it is the turning point in a campaign anymore.
 
Grouse said:
Personally i want to see Rice/Giuliani run as a ticket.
Click to expand...



:bow Same here, either order.



If someone has used drugs in the past but no longer does and hasn't for a long time, it isn't an issue with me.
 
Did it sink his ship? One simplistic, perhaps, way to look at it is that the last two elections have been very close, and historically, presidential elections are within a few percentage points. Again, if you don't get into voter turnouts, etc, and just take the simplistic view of about half the electorate from each party, that means a few percentage points that voted for W. last time would have to vote Democratic this time, without losing any, for the Dems to win. How many people that voted for W. last time are going to vote for Obama or Hillary? The Dems seem to put up candidates that THEY like, without thinking about that they have to sway the opposition vote.
 
Scottwax said:
If someone has used drugs in the past but no longer does and hasn't for a long time, it isn't an issue with me.
Click to expand...



yup, its not a question of if, but just whether they're big enough to own up to it. Obama is, I applaud him for that.



Do I hope he wins? I'm not sure. I honestly don't think he has the experience necessary, but then again, who am I to say that.



All I know is that there doesn't seem to be a candidate who really remembers what America is supposed to be about. "Democracy/Republic" my arse.
 
Scottwax said:
:bow Same here, either order.



If someone has used drugs in the past but no longer does and hasn't for a long time, it isn't an issue with me.
Click to expand...





I have always been a fan of Rudy Giuliani and would love to see him run.



As for drug use, I am totally against it but the past is past.



I also feel it is WAY to early to make any sort of conclusion on who I would vote for or even lean towards right now.
 
Now pair Dr. Rice and Mayor Giuliani together. That would make an excelent platform. I was sold on DR Rice when she spoke infront of the 9-11 commission. She will be an excelent canadidate, along with a powerful speaker.
 
Go Barack!! I think the real battle he is having right now are news casters and newspapers mis-printing his name as Osama!.



I think Barack will be the candidate of choice for many young people, and we will see an increased voting turnout for people under 25. Just my .02 of course :)
 
I love Guliani too (hey, I'm a New Yawka) but he's too liberal to win the primary. Red states hate him.



As for Obama, I think Josh is on the money. He's a very likeable and charismatic person, and we young people love his liberal views. However, as Paul pointed out--the man only has 2 years of experience in politics! Is he really ready for the Presidency yet?
 
Sherman8r44 said:
I love Guliani too (hey, I'm a New Yawka) but he's too liberal to win the primary. Red states hate him.



As for Obama, I think Josh is on the money. He's a very likeable and charismatic person, and we young people love his liberal views. However, as Paul pointed out--the man only has 2 years of experience in politics! Is he really ready for the Presidency yet?
Click to expand...





That is why i like the Rice/Giuliani ticket. She is far more conservitive. It would be an interesting race then.
 
I think from an honesty standpoint, it is kinda nice to see a potential candidate be honest about his/her past before it has to be dug up. I mean, it happens all too often that this kind of thing comes up during the heat of an election (as opposed to upfront/beforehand) as digging up dirt only to have a huge mudslinging fest, which grows tiring on both sides very quickly. But, I am completely against drug use of any form, past or present. People can say, well it was in his past, it's behind him now, but IMO, it also defines your character and who you are and what you come from and believe in. I realize noone is perfect, but I'd rather vote for the candidate with a cleaner history. Whether a person does something 10 minutes ago or 10 years ago, it still defines who they are, and the choices they make. If history shows you are capable of making very bad choices, then what other opinion can we form. History is often a predictor of the future.



I think Giuliani has substantial character, from what I know about him and what he has demonstrated in times of need/crisis. I would vote for him. I hear Newt may be running, but I'm not sure he has the charisma to win, plus his past issues that would undoubtedly be a mudslinging festival.
 
Grouse said:
That is why i like the Rice/Giuliani ticket. She is far more conservitive. It would be an interesting race then.
Click to expand...

I should probably know better than getting into a political thread, I hope I don't wind up regretting this. ;)



I think Rice is brilliant and well-qualified in a lot of ways. She plays her role well enough of "following orders" (not sure how to best put that, it's not meant in a derogatory way) that I'm not sure of her personal position on a lot of things. She might be interesting, but I just don't see her running, at least not now.



McCain is an obvious leading candidate, but there's a large segment of the voters in his party that view him as too liberal.



Guilani has a lot of strengths as well, but as was mentioned he may not play well with a lot of conservatives. Also, though this seems to have largely been forgotten since 9/11, he has a past of a few "Clinton-esque" proclivities that I really don't want to risk clogging up American politics again.



Romney impresses me as a strong candidate so far. He seems to have done well as a conservative Republican governor of a fairly liberal state, he turned around a huge deficit in a short time without raising taxes, he seems to have a solid character, and when he was called in to take over the SLC Olympics he overcame considerable odds to turn things around and make it into a success in spite of all the scandals and corruption that had been brewing. All-in-all he seems to have exceptional leadership skills.



Yes, I vote Republican more often than not. I'm certainly not a party line voter, actually for the 2004 election I had 1 Republican and 2 Democrat signs in my yard. I won't say here who they were. ;)



As for the 2 leading Democrat candidates, Obama and Clinton, I have serious misgivings. Whatever anyone thinks of Clinton, she's a polarizing candidate. Admittedly, for a variety of reasons, I can't support her.



Obama has some good ideas and like any other candidate some I don't agree with. His biggest momentum appears to come from being the "wunderkind" of his party. I don't see the experience and and proven performance record that qualify him to lead the country.



Yeah, there's number of other candidates out there, but those are the ones I see as the current front-runners. I won't put down anyone who disagrees with me and frankly, I'm confident most folks have a different view.
 
For me mccain is to much of a hothead reactionary figure. Though this has tempered in the last year or so.



I'm all for partisain polotics. I however think this nation needs poloticians that exemplify statesmenship. ) I think Rice has that quality, I think Giuliani has it also. Of those two i think Dr. Rice is a far more competent and effective speaker.



Obama seems to be the media darling of the moment. I am still on the fence as to if this is the media's way to distance themselves from the clintons, or if this is their way to burn Obama's candle out faster. In the latter i think they will have a hard time. He is very charismatic, a far more effective speaker than most of the media that reports on him. Obama is here for the long haul. It may not be this election, if not this one then one of the next 2. If the media is doing this to distance themselves from the clintons, they should be very careful. If hillary pulls nomination she will not forget the slight they have put upon her. On the note of her getting the nomination i am not sure she has enough flowing political capitol in the democrat party and base to get the nomination.



So how would my dream ticket face off against these two?



Rice/giuliani (or vice versa) would trounce hillary. Why? better speakers, effective policy makers, and both have gotten things done. Plus voters do not like the idea of a senator as a pres. Hillary would not choose obama as a running mate because he outshines her on a visual, spoken, and presense level.



Rice/giuliani versus Obama would be a much more dificult race. The reason why is Rice and obama are excelent speakers. Giuliani is better than most but not a great orator. Obama can pull competent senators and congresmen as running mates. He could pull Lieberman, who is very well thought of by moderates. Or he could pull edwards/bradely who are far better thought of by the moderates than Hillary. Any of those three would be a difficult team for the republicans to face.
 
Sherman8r44 said:
I love Guliani too (hey, I'm a New Yawka) but he's too liberal to win the primary. Red states hate him.



As for Obama, I think Josh is on the money. He's a very likeable and charismatic person, and we young people love his liberal views. However, as Paul pointed out--the man only has 2 years of experience in politics! Is he really ready for the Presidency yet?
Click to expand...



2 years of experience > a turnip > Bush.
 
I'd love to see Newt Gingrich run, he is as close to Reagan politically as anyone today. Plus he'd be near impossible to beat in a debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top