Which would you prefer?

[Antilogic]

This is about as bad as some of the "eff, marry, kill" games I've heard.

Does Edwards resign in this scenario and do we end up with President Richardson?

 

[Cutlass]

For those of you who don't like Bush but are freaked out about Edwards, let's keep in mind the real long term legacy of Bush's second term: John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I was 2 years too young to vote in 2004, and already opposed to both major parties enough that if I could vote I'd probably ignore your restriction and either vote for a third party candidate or make up a write-in.


I recall that something about Edwards always struck me as extremely untrustworthy. There is no way I would have supported him even before the scandal broke.

I used to think that Richardson was one of the better democrats though.

 

[Antilogic]

For those of you who don't like Bush but are freaked out about Edwards, let's keep in mind the real long term legacy of Bush's second term: John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

When adding up the bad Bush stuff, the wars and tax cuts are first term, the courts are second term. I'd like to see a different balance on the court, so I'm thinking a little more carefully about the Edwards option than some of the gents above.

I'm also trying to follow the rules of the OP, but that's somewhat difficult to do.

 

[azzaman333]

Lol Bush.

 

[LucyDuke]

PATRIOT act was already in place and Iraq had already begun, so the point seems moot. It depends somewhat on what Kerry would have been able to accomplish were he president, given that the Congress we elected in 2004 was conservative. I wonder how the rise of the right-wing populists in the tea party might have been affected by the prescence of a psuedo-populist in the white house.

Yeah, I don't remember which of the Bush problems were before 2004 and which were after.

 

[JohnRM]

Kerry/Edwards

Two good years of policy with Kerry and, remember, Kennedy wasn't exactly perfect either, but he was still a great president.

 

[Ajidica]

This is about as bad as some of the "eff, marry, kill" games I've heard.

True that.

I would probably have voted for Kerry reluctantly and hope the GOP holds it together well enough for the Teahadists to be relegated to obscurity to McCain could chose a normal VP.

 

[History_Buff]

Two good years of policy with Kerry and, remember, Kennedy wasn't exactly perfect either, but he was still a great president.

Yeah, Kennedy is perhaps the best guy to relate this to. He was pretty much a sleazebag through and through, but faced with some pretty tough spots, he did an acceptable job.

But then he gets glorified for the Moon Landing Pledge and the whole assassination thing, which I think means very few people remember what all happened under his watch.

 

[GhostWriter16]

PATRIOT act was already in place and Iraq had already begun, so the point seems moot. It depends somewhat on what Kerry would have been able to accomplish were he president, given that the Congress we elected in 2004 was conservative. I wonder how the rise of the right-wing populists in the tea party might have been affected by the prescence of a psuedo-populist in the white house.

The PATRIOT Act is my #1 biggest issue with Bush, and Romney supporting it is one of the biggest reasons I am once again not backing Romney and am praying for some kind of a miracle when Ron Paul or Gary Johnson takes just enough votes from Romney to screw him over and give Obama the White House. Obama sucks, but in my mind a good democrat at the National level simply WON'T happen. A good Republican probably won't either though, the last one was Reagan, and I still even have my issues there.

Then again, I'm pretty much of the viewpoint that "What should have happened" is that the Federalists should never have managed to get John Marshall to use tortured logic on the constitution to destroy states' rights and local privledges. I pretty much can't like any President that came after the first ten, although I do have a soft spot for Abe Lincoln in spite of disagreeing with almost everything he did (Somehow he did manage to get rid of slavery even though he didn't try to. That counts for something.)

In that context, our constitution has been screwed over ever since. The fact that anyone at all accepts things like the Patriot Act can be blamed on this same tortured logic of the constitution.

Bush's court appointments, I don't know much there, but if he appointed people who disagreed with the "Living Constitution" crap that is pretty much contradicted in the constitution itself, I want those guys on there.

The reality of Bush is, somewhat uniquely, he was actually pro-life. In spite of the other reasons I think he was awful as a President, I admire him on a personal level for that. Kerry, in spite of being a member of a church that REQUIRES him to be pro-life, wasn't. When faced with two horrible choices, that alone would make it for me.

I see no GOOD reason to pick Kerry unless you want bigger government, considering the bigger government stuff done by Bush was already done by this point.

Granted, we don't KNOW what Kerry would do. But based on our record of Democrat Presidents lately, I see no reason to assume Kerry would buck the status quo. especially in two years.

 

[History_Buff]

Bush's court appointments, I don't know much there, but if he appointed people who disagreed with the "Living Constitution" crap that is pretty much contradicted in the constitution itself, I want those guys on there.

JR would be the one to know for sure, but I'm pretty sure there aren't any Supreme Court Justices who see the Constitution the way you do.

 

[Ramius75]

The correct question will be. Should Bush be voted in 2000 ?

maybe, just maybe the world will be a better place for all.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The Supreme Court thing is certainly something to consider, but if Edwards/Richardson gets caught in a scandal or really bones things up, there is a good chance they don't win in 2008, and the Republicans add the next two supreme court choices, basically making all this a wash. Remember, 06-08 is when the economy was starting to tank again, and people wouldn't be able to run against Bush nearly as well as they did from 2008-onwards...

Since I know basically nothing about Kerry and not much about Edwards - and everything I do know, I don't like - who's had worse scandals thus far... John Kerry, John Edwards, Paul Ryan, or Mitt Romney?

Cheating on a dying wife is something that would be a dealbreaker for me in a municipal or provincial election. Federal? Depends on the party and what kind of local candidates I'd have to choose from among the three non-rightwing parties I do support federally.

I know of some rather passionate animal lovers and animal rights activists who have vowed that Romney strapping his dog Seamus on the roof of his car and taking a 12-hour drive is enough to prevent them from voting for him. This is probably the first time a dog who has been dead for over 20 years has influenced peoples' choice for the President of your country. If it's at all helpful in keeping Romney out of power, somebody should put up a statue to that poor dog and establish a veterinary scholarship in his name, or a no-kill animal shelter.

I am a firm believer that Bush will be somewhat vindicated by history. He was a domestic policy president who had his world flipped just like the rest of us did. Despite the unpopularity of a lot of what he did, I think, for the most part, he did what he thought was right, given the information he had. While I may not have agreed with a lot of it, at least I can respect it and I'll give him tons of credit for taking responsibility for it. Katrina is a great example of that. I'd go with Bush/Cheney in a heartbeat.

I'd rather deal with someone who has principles, even if I disagree with them, than someone who only believes in what is convenient today or tomorrow. That's the biggest problem with the two candidates we have. Neither of them really believe what they spout, but I'll go with Romney because I have seen what has happened with Obama and I don't think Romney could do as much damage in his first term as Obama could do in a second term. Obviously a lot also depends on how the Congressional elections go.

You mean, Bush did what Cheney thought was right... he and Donald Rumsfeld.

Honest question: What has Obama done that you think is so bad? What has he not done that you think he should have?

The correct question will be. Should Bush be voted in 2000 ?

maybe, just maybe the world will be a better place for all.

Bush wasn't voted in in 2000. He was appointed. What difference would it have made if he'd won honestly?

 

[AlpsStranger]

I'd vote for Bush, believe it or not. It would be safer than letting that moron Edwards damage the Democrats ( not to mention the country itself ) for years.

 

[Antilogic]

The PATRIOT Act is my #1 biggest issue with Bush, and Romney supporting it is one of the biggest reasons I am once again not backing Romney and am praying for some kind of a miracle when Ron Paul or Gary Johnson takes just enough votes from Romney to screw him over and give Obama the White House. Obama sucks, but in my mind a good democrat at the National level simply WON'T happen. A good Republican probably won't either though, the last one was Reagan, and I still even have my issues there.

Then again, I'm pretty much of the viewpoint that "What should have happened" is that the Federalists should never have managed to get John Marshall to use tortured logic on the constitution to destroy states' rights and local privledges. I pretty much can't like any President that came after the first ten, although I do have a soft spot for Abe Lincoln in spite of disagreeing with almost everything he did (Somehow he did manage to get rid of slavery even though he didn't try to. That counts for something.)

In that context, our constitution has been screwed over ever since. The fact that anyone at all accepts things like the Patriot Act can be blamed on this same tortured logic of the constitution.

Bush's court appointments, I don't know much there, but if he appointed people who disagreed with the "Living Constitution" crap that is pretty much contradicted in the constitution itself, I want those guys on there.

The reality of Bush is, somewhat uniquely, he was actually pro-life. In spite of the other reasons I think he was awful as a President, I admire him on a personal level for that. Kerry, in spite of being a member of a church that REQUIRES him to be pro-life, wasn't. When faced with two horrible choices, that alone would make it for me.

I see no GOOD reason to pick Kerry unless you want bigger government, considering the bigger government stuff done by Bush was already done by this point.

Granted, we don't KNOW what Kerry would do. But based on our record of Democrat Presidents lately, I see no reason to assume Kerry would buck the status quo. especially in two years.

Okay, I read this and immediately scrolled up to vote Kerry. The Supreme Court must be my overriding concern here.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I am a firm believer that Bush will be somewhat vindicated by history. He was a domestic policy president who had his world flipped just like the rest of us did. Despite the unpopularity of a lot of what he did, I think, for the most part, he did what he thought was right, given the information he had. While I may not have agreed with a lot of it, at least I can respect it and I'll give him tons of credit for taking responsibility for it.

Do you extend the same sympathy to all political leaders who do things because it was what they think was right, despite unpopularity?

 

[utgotye]

Do you extend the same sympathy to all political leaders who do things because it was what they think was right, despite unpopularity?

Depends on their sincerity. That's a judgement I'm entitled to make, just like you, assuming you are an American voter. When I listen to Obama speak, I don't get the sense that he really believes what he's saying. Same with Romney, though to a slightly lesser extent. Realistically, I know that both are empty suits, so I'll have to base my vote on the fact that I think the government should be streamlined and run like a business trying to make a profit. That means simplifying the tax code and not discriminating against people who have money because they have money. That means living within our means as best we can. If it's expected of the citizens, then the government could at least TRY it. It means curtailing the monsters that are the massive entitlement programs that account for over half the federal budget. It means term limits and public-only funding of elections. Obviously some of that stuff is a pipe dream but the status quo is unacceptable.

I haven't been impressed with Biden either. The only thing he has going for him is experience and that does little to cover for his rather uncanny ability to shove his foot in his mouth. Plus "experience" is part of the problem. There is simply no way someone who has been in Congress for 30+ years can have any idea how the average voter lives their life. And that means that they are trying to solve the problems of today and tomorrow with the tools and ideas of yesterday. Sometimes that will work, most of the time not so much. Unfortunately, with incumbent reelection rates what they are, turnover is far too small for my liking.

I will be interested to learn more about Paul Ryan though. From what I have seen and heard so far, he seems like a decent guy with a good head on his shoulders. I'm not overly familiar with his positions but he does remind me a bit of Bush in the sense that he seems approachable. We shall see.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Depends on their sincerity. That's a judgement I'm entitled to make, just like you.

Bin Laden seemed pretty sincere. Thoughts on him?

 

[Mise]

I'll take Bush/Cheney in 2004 and Obama in 2008 over Kerry for 2 years then a disaster for 2 years and a return to Bush/McCain-style big government militarism for the following 8 years. (Hope this makes sentence???)

 

[amadeus]

Good thing we averted big government militarism with Obama!