The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

That brings up an interesting point, Snow. If a dem is elected, I wonder how much their own difficulties will be blamed - whether by them or their supporters - on the Bush Presidency. The President doesn't exist in his (her) own Presidential bubble, but is obviously affected by the policies of the predecessor.

That being said, I have rarely (if ever) been permitted on this board to get away with saying "Bush has problem B because of how Clinton dealt with situation A". Rather, there has been a "happens/happened on his watch" sort of mentality, and i wonder if I'll get away with a "happens/happened on the dem's watch" attitude, or if anyone that doesn't let me get away with it will try it with a dem President.

In other words time began in January of 2001 but will not actually end in January of 2009

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

That being said, I have rarely (if ever) been permitted on this board to get away with saying "Bush has problem B because of how Clinton dealt with situation A".

Not that my position will hold sway, but I see it as a sliding scale. At this point, even if the problem was initially inherited from Clinton then I'd generally argue that Bush has had more than enough time to make it uniquely his responsibility. And similarly, Clinton/Obama/Thomspon/et al. won't get much blame from me in March 2009 but that will start to increase as time goes by.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Alex

Not that my position will hold sway, but I see it as a sliding scale. At this point, even if the problem was initially inherited from Clinton then I'd generally argue that Bush has had more than enough time to make it uniquely his responsibility. And similarly, Clinton/Obama/Thomspon/et al. won't get much blame from me in March 2009 but that will start to increase as time goes by.

I think you hit the nail on the head Alex. If the problem in question is inherited and not owned as time goes by, the blame grows, no matter which party, I guess.

I realize my opinion of Bush is what it is, I may be overstating, but I do hold him responsible for a heck of a lot that is wrong, going wrong or has been blown up. I know, I could not do the job, I'm not political at all (not even in my line of work, I steer clear of office politics), I don't envy anyone who steps into Bush's doo-doo covered shoes.

I will await the nominations by both parties with interest, but I am certainly in no position to decide, I'm mired in quandry.

[Alex]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I won't vote for Hillary...for reasons related to her being a woman.

It is completely unfair to her but I will not support for president any person married to a former president. I think it is a very bad idea to bring presidents, even in such a capacity as Bill will have, back to the White House.

This is horribly unfair to her, but that is simply the way I feel about the principal of it. As for her actual policies, I find myself surprisingly amenable to the idea of her presidency. But the "former president back at the White House" thing is a deal breaker for me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

I won't vote for Hillary...for reasons related to her being a woman.

That's related to being a woman, but not unfairly so, in that you would presumably have the same policy were the roles reversed.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex

But the "former president back at the White House" thing is a deal breaker for me.

Oh, and see, that's the clincher for me.


And I'm sure for a great many others who, at this point in time, look back wistfully on the Clinton presidency as a comparative paradise of bliss.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Oh, and see, that's the clincher for me.


And I'm sure for a great many others who, at this point in time, look back wistfully on the Clinton presidency as a comparative paradise of bliss.

I most certainly do.

and since this is my forth post in this thread, I need to get outta here!

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And I'm sure for a great many others who, at this point in time, look back wistfully on the Clinton presidency as a comparative paradise of bliss.

Yes, Clinton was a much better president than George Bush. But it is still a horrible idea, in my opinion, to put a former president that close to the office again.

There were a lot of people 8 years ago who derided the idea of a hereditary presidency but they seem to be quiet this time around. I was uncomfortable with it but viewed it as a historical curiosity, but doing it two times in a row begins to feel more like a trend and at least with the Bushes the former president wasn't wandering the halls (and there were 25 years between the Adams administrations and the first was dead for most of the second's; and 48 between the Harrisons and the first could barely be said to have been president).

Snowflake: Yes, I'd be more likely to vote for her then. But I'm not saying it is directly sexist any more than a policy of sterilizing any person sent to prison would be directly racist. It is, however, a discriminatory viewpoint that at this point in time can impact only women. In 9 years (not 11 like I said the first time) maybe the first man will be on that list.

That said, it is not a piece of sexism that particularly bothers me.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Oh, and see, that's the clincher for me.


And I'm sure for a great many others who, at this point in time, look back wistfully on the Clinton presidency as a comparative paradise of bliss.

I miss Newt too

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Alex

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I won't vote for Hillary...for reasons related to her being a woman.

It is completely unfair to her but I will not support for president any person married to a former president. I think it is a very bad idea to bring presidents, even in such a capacity as Bill will have, back to the White House.

This is horribly unfair to her, but that is simply the way I feel about the principal of it. As for her actual policies, I find myself surprisingly amenable to the idea of her presidency. But the "former president back at the White House" thing is a deal breaker for me.

I don't see this as sexist, it's merely unfortunate in your opinion that Hillary is married to Bill. If, let's hypothesize, she divorced him after the whole Monica thing, (1) would she likely be in the Senate today and (2) gunning for the democratic nomination, would you vote for her then?