The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Iowa poll-
McCain 27
Giuliani 26
Romney 9
Gingrich 7
Rice 4

On the Dem side:

Edwards 22
Obama 22
Vilsack 12
Clinton 10
Gore 7

McCain, Edwards, Gore, Clinton, and Obama have history against them: Senators just don't win the oval office...not since 1960 anyway.

Governors, however, do have pretty good luck. Not too many governors up there but I suppose being Mayor of the largest city in the World could count

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Not too many governors up there but I suppose being Mayor of the largest city in the World could count

Of course, there are those pesky little facts that Giuliani is pro-choice, pro same sex unions, and pro gun control. How far do you think that will get him in the south?

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Of course, there are those pesky little facts that Giuliani is pro-choice, pro same sex unions, and pro gun control. How far do you think that will get him in the south?

Don't forget the unapologetic adultery.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Not too many governors up there but I suppose being Mayor of the largest city in the World could count

I doubt the mayor of Bombay is constitutionally eligible.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

I doubt the mayor of Bombay is constitutionally eligible.

....ok I stand corrected.

But......

To save face I have to correct you too.

Mubai is now the name of the largest City in the World.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

....ok I stand corrected.

But......

To save face I have to correct you too.

Mubai is now the name of the largest City in the World.

I guess you mean Mumbai. I had thought that Mumbai and Bombai was a "You say tomato . . ." kind of difference, but I guess one is the new name.

Still wouldn't want to live there.

[sleepyjeff]

I could get excited by Gingrich(the only true fiscal conservative on either list) save for my nagging doubt that he is really serious about running....probably just trying to sell more books.

[Nephythys]

Don't you think they should govern something before considering running?

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Don't you think they should govern something before considering running?

Nope. I think they should have appropriate experience for the job, which can be obtained through other political service, but can also be obtained through other avenues. I don't think there's a magic formula. Should candidates have to be a senator first? How many terms? Should they have to have been a governor? What about a 20-year member of the House of Representatives? At the state level, we've seen candidates from the Land of Business who are lauded for their success in the business world AND their lack of "contamination" from conventional political roles.

Heck, I think that philosophy applies to any job. There's rarely only one way to acquire the necessary skills and connection. If 1/2-term senator A can name that tune in 3 notes and 2-term governor B needs 5 notes, then senator A wins my game of Name that Tune.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Don't you think they should govern something before considering running?

Like, for instance, the Screen Actors' Guild.

If you're looking at executive experience, Gore is obviously the most qualified. You can say most Veeps don't have real power, but Gore was more involved in things than Bush Sr. (or George Bosh, as Reagan called him at the 1988 convention). Further, if kind of being around while the president makes decisions qualifies as experience, Hillary is the second most qualified. This is probably why voters feel comfortable voting for the wives of dead politicians (The Widows Bono, Carnahan, etc.) And let's not forget Edith Wilson, who really ran the show for a while.