Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: We Must Have Order 46

Journal by pudge
Order the Democratic candidates with the candidate you like the most (in terms of policies, not ability to govern or temperment or personality etc.) first, descending to the one you like least, last. Bonus: if you could select any person -- any at all -- to be President, who would it be? You can joke if you like, but I think serious answers (noting especially people eligible for the job) might be more interesting. My list (feel free to add notes at the end):
  1. Lieberman
  2. Kerry
  3. Dean
  4. Clark
  5. Gephardt
  6. Mosely-Braun
  7. Edwards
  8. Kucinich
  9. Sharpton

It's hard to arrange some of them toward the middle, as let's face it, their policies are all quite similar in some cases. Kucinich gets the edge over Sharpton because I admire some of his policies on trade. Dean ... I want to put him lower because he is so damned vague on the details. Same thing with Clark. If I knew more about them, I might bump them below Gephardt.

If I could pick any person to be President, it'd be Newt Gingrich. Give me a better answer!

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

We Must Have Order More

We Must Have Order

Comments Filter:
  • It seems like the democrats major platform has disintegrated into simply being anti-Republican. Especially Dean. His whole campaign seems to be replace Bush, and not much more than that.

    In the end I'll end up voting for Bush.

  • If we could cure alzheimer & the 22nd admendment, I'd pick Ronald Reagan.

    (Seriously.)

    My 2nd pick would be Colin Powell, although I wouldn't mind Newt either.

    -Bill
    • I think we should look into a way to make Ronald Reagan immortal, and amend the constitution so he could lead America forever. That would be great. I consider him out greatest president. BTW, is there still any chance that he could still be added to Mount Rushmore, he deserves it. The day he dies they should go on ahead and put his face on some sort of money, maybe he could replace Lincoln on the $5 bill.

      I liked Newt too. When he was speaker, he came very close to making speaker of the house the top govern
  • My list goes mostly from libertarian left to authoritarian right [f2s.com], with penalties for (1) being a convicted felon and (2) supporting an anti-flag-burning amendment:
    1. Kucinich
    2. Kerry
    3. Mosely-Braun
    4. Dean
    5. Gephardt
    6. Lieberman
    7. Edwards
    8. Clark
    9. Sharpton

    My support and endorsement for Dean is entirely pragmatic, in that he seems to be the most likely to defeat Bush.

    If I could have anyone for president, it would be Peter Camejo.

    • I've seen that graph, and I think it's sorta off on a few people. I think Edwards is quite a bit further left, and Kerry further right. Gephardt is definitely to the left of Kerry, IMO.

      Camejo is a good choice. I mean, I disagree with him on almost everything, but that aside ... :-)

      I think you're way off that Dean is likely to beat Bush. I think he is the least likely. Dean is the dream candidate for Bush; Gephardt is the nightmare. Kerry is closer to Gephardt than Bush. If you really like Kerry bet

      • I think you're way off that Dean is likely to beat Bush.

        Well, you know I disagree, if for no other reason I'm a whole lot more likely to believe the polls [gopusa.com] on the subject [pollingreport.com] than someone who thinks Newt Gingrich should be president.

        Dean is the dream candidate for Bush; Gephardt is the nightmare.

        Again, as much as you and Newt might want us all to believe that DEMOCRAT candidates are supposed to be POLITE and DEFERENTIAL [speedera.net], what we need is actual debate instead of a bunch of brown-nosing. Gephardt knelt do

        • Well, you know I disagree, if for no other reason I'm a whole lot more likely to believe the polls

          What I am saying is irrespective of the polls today. I am quite sure most of the likely voters in this country have never seen Dean in a debate or interview. If he gets the nomination, he will get hammered when it comes time to get exposed to the nation.

          Again, as much as you and Newt might want us all to believe that DEMOCRAT candidates are supposed to be POLITE and DEFERENTIAL, what we need is actual deb

          • I am quite sure most of the likely voters in this country have never seen Dean in a debate or interview.

            Why? I've seen him on FOX, and I don't even watch TV if I can help it, let alone FOX. Right now he's on two of the three major U.S. newsweeklies; about a month ago he was on all three at the same time.

            refusal to back a candidate who thought we should go after Hussein is #1 on the list of why Dean can't win.... This country still supports the war at better than 50%

            Well, if you don't think most

            • I am quite sure most of the likely voters in this country have never seen Dean in a debate or interview.

              Why? I've seen him on FOX, and I don't even watch TV if I can help it, let alone FOX.

              Because we will have over 100 million people vote in the next election, and I can't imagine that 50 million people have seen an interview or debate with Dean.

              Well, if you don't think most people have heard from Dean, how many do you think have heard what the few military leaders, including Republicans who speak out

              • I can't imagine that 50 million people have seen an interview or debate with Dean.

                Time and Newsweek have a combined weekly readership of about 70 million. I'm not sure about U.S. News, but more than 30 million people must watch TV news shows, don't they?

                Bush ... approval rating has never dropped below 50%.

                On the contrary [pollingreport.com]: CBS had him at 49% in November. Zogby had him at 45% in September, under 50% October through December, and 47% back in July of 2001. Harris had him at 48% last December and in

                • Time and Newsweek have a combined weekly readership of about 70 million. I'm not sure about U.S. News, but more than 30 million people must watch TV news shows, don't they?

                  Nightly news? Probably. But I was talking about debates or interviews, not 10-second soundbytes. And I am not talking about print, either. I was very specific: seeing and hearing him in debates and interviews.

                  On the contrary ...

                  Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was going by THE Presidential approval rating poll, Gallup
        • Interesting. This is off topic, but it looks like all the dem candidates peaked in the polls individually against Bush and then dropped off after the thanksgiving propoganda trip. Politically motivated! Haha! (Oh, just ignore me, I'm just a tad cynical.)

          Anyway, it's too close to call right now. Seriously, Dean could beat Bush(I'm not sure if I want that, can we resurrect Teddy Roosevelt or something?).

          • Frankly, I'd rather have different parties in charge of the presidency an the congress than the same party in charge of both.

            If it looked like the Democrats had a chance at the House and Senate, I'd probably be supporting Nader or some other left-wind spoiler at this point. The fact that the Republicans are clearly going to hang on to both houses is why I'm so gung-ho Democrat at the moment.

            I prefer my government fairly deadlocked, as that makes it much easier to follow and get sunlight on legislation i

      • Dean is the dream candidate for Bush; Gephardt is the nightmare. Kerry is closer to Gephardt than Bush.

        Heh, interesting, I was beginning to think I was alone in the world with this hypothesis. Gephardt is the only one of the bunch that could possibly give Bush a run for his money. He supported the war, he has a decent presence, he comes off as a moderate (absolutely critical these days), and he hasn't stuck his foot in his mouth recently (however, I do remember the older, more populist, Gephardt). I susp

        • And you forgot to mention that Gephardt has the most consistent -- and these days, popular -- message on jobs and foreign trade, one that he's held for a couple of decades (a favorite with unions, opposed NAFTA, etc.). Those are issues the Democrats can really win on, if the candidate is strong on the issue.
  • I have a hard time separating policies from ability to govern and personality. Character is key. If I don't trust a candidate, I don't see why I should believe any of their platform positions. Similarly, if I don't think they can govern effectively, why should I care about policies they won't be able to push through?

    But, I'll try to rank them on policies alone:

    1. Lieberman
    2. Gephardt
    3. Edwards
    4. Clark
    5. Kerry
    6. Sharpton
    7. Dean
    8. Mosely-Braun
    9. Kucinich
  • Here's the list from a moderate Republican:

    I'd sleep comfortably at night of these 3 were in power:
    1. Lieberman
    2. Edwards
    3. Gephardt

    I think these 3 aren't bright or experienced enough to be president, which is why they'd let their advisors do all the work. Perhaps that would mean they'd be ok?
    4. Clark
    5. Mosely-Braun
    6. Kerry (well, he has the mind and experience, but his flip flopping nature would mean he'd still lean almost totally on advisors)

    The world would be and endless, bitter, ideo
    • From another moderate Republican:

      1) Dean: I wouldn't vote for him but he's the only one I can imagine _anyone_ being enthusisastic about.
      2) Gephardt: Basically inoffensive, although protectionist.
      3) Edwards: Also inoffensive, and I know nothing else about him.
      4) Lieberman: Combines rightist coercion and leftist coercion into a single smug ideology.
      5) Clark: He'd go higher, but that repeated lie about the White House calling him on 9/11 creeps me out, maybe more than it should.
      6) Kerry: Did you see that Was
      • Gephardt "inoffensive"? Oh dear. He personified the angry white Democrat before Dean was known outside of Vermont. :-) He made twisting his opponent's record and statements into an art form. He's toned it down to contrast with Dean, but if he moves past Iowa, just wait.

        And Kerry: I dunno, I put more stock in his abilities than most of you seem to, but I know him well (his personality and record, not personally), for he served as my Senator for about 10 years. I don't think he's the greatest guy in the

  • It really is. "Libertarian Left" indeed.

    Send 'em all to hell and put Dave Barry in the White House.

  • Frankly, I can't stand any of these guys. Not one straight-shooter in the bunch. All I have heard is a bunch of whining about Bush and the other Democratic candidates. None of them have shown they understand the basics of macroeconomics. None of them have demonstrated they have the ability to make a hard decision. I haven't seen any of them speak for more than five minutes without pandering to the audience or waffling on one issue or another. Hell, I wouldn't let any of them walk my dog, let alone run
    • Bah, that's what I get for relying on old bookmarks without checking. Try this [cypress.com] link instead.

    • All I have heard is a bunch of whining about Bush....

      Were you around in 1998? There was this intern, named Lebinski or something.

      and the other Democratic candidates.

      How about 1999-2000? Remember McCain's drug addict wife and his illigitimate (oh! adopted) black daughter?

      None of them have shown they understand the basics of macroeconomics.

      As if balancing the budget wouldn't halt the devalution of the dollar [slashdot.org]. As long as we have a trade budget deficit, the weak dollar is even more of a taxati

      • Re:None (Score:2)

        by pudge ( 3605 ) *
        A lot of us believe Bush lied about Iraq, which is at least hundreds of dead soldiers worse than lying about sex to begin with

        Well, not according to the law. But that's not your point, I know.

        The problem with this argument -- and I am not criticizing your personal opinion of the matter, just analyzing it in terms of the general public and election -- is that there were a LOT of reasons, many of them good, for going into Iraq and taking out Hussein. Even if we accept that Bush lied, every one of our all

        • anyone but Bush (Score:3, Informative)

          by js7a ( 579872 ) *

          every one of our allies also thought [Iraq] had illegal weapons, the UN thought he had illegal weapons, Syria thought he had illegal weapons.

          Please correct me if I am wrong, but I can't find a shred of evidence that anyone believed Iraq had illegal weapons after around 1995 (including the Bush administration [slashdot.org]), until the U.S. started lying about it. I don't know what you're referring to with the mention of the U.N. and Syria, but as for the U.N., it is a well-known fact that the inspectors didn't find a

          • Please correct me if I am wrong, but I can't find a shred of evidence that anyone believed Iraq had illegal weapons after around 1995

            Wow, you are out of date. Clinton bombed Iraq in December 1998, with the support of the UK, because the UN said Iraq had weapons and was failing to cooperate with the inspectors. Perhaps you meant "1998", not "1995"?

            I don't know what you're referring to with the mention of the U.N. and Syria

            Resolution 1441 clearly stated that all the members of the Security Council, in
            • Newsflash: economics texts are often wrong

              Oy... if I can't believe the text books, what can I believe? Next, you're going to tell me that just because my professors taught me that humans are destroying the earth doesn't mean it's true. Without that, I have no hysterical phobias left...
            • Just a few corrections; since the thread is offtopic I'll try to stick to facts only, not opinions:

              Clinton bombed Iraq in December 1998, with the support of the UK, because the UN said Iraq had weapons and was failing to cooperate with the inspectors.

              The UNSCOM reports in October and December 1998 [un.org] indicated that inspectors had been able to eliminate all of the nuclear weapons and all but a few non-working remants of chemical and biological programs. The U.S. was opposed to continuation of the weapons

              • The UNSCOM reports in October and December 1998 indicated that inspectors had been able to eliminate all of the nuclear weapons and all but a few non-working remants of chemical and biological programs

                First of all, I hope you realize that if you believe this, you contradict Clinton. :-) Second, Blix asserted last February that Iraq had NBC materials, including anthrax and botulinim toxin IIRC, that were left unaccounted for since the last time the inspectors were in Iraq (around the time of these reports
      • I believe that you will find www.democratunderground.com more receiving to your conspiracy theory filled rantings.
        • You think I'm trying to preach to the choir?
          • :-)

            BTW, my general rule here is that discussions stay on topic, and this discussion is about ordering the Democratic candidates. I've allowed it to go way off that topic, because you're new here and I am interested in your thoughts, but just a note for the future. And I am going to be way busy today and the rest of the week, so I won't respond much more than I've done already.
  • 1. Kennedy.
    2. Carter.
    3. That Clinton guy.

    Sorry. Bad Dayton.

    Ok, serious now. I like Clark. He's straight forwar, seemingly honest, and a good speaker. And he doesn't talk trash about the other candidates, like one Mr. Liberman. Jesus, does Liberman hate all of the other candidates? Every time I see him he is speakly ill of Dean or Clark. Of course, that leaves him little time to actually say anything about what he would do as President.

    Dean. Well, jury is still out on him. Not sure how I feel abou
  • If I could pick any person to be President, it'd be Newt Gingrich. Give me a better answer!

    Are you on crack? I'd vote for Newt, only if Ted Kennedy was his VP. Yup. Two crazy bastards in the White House. Woooooo hooooo!
  • Newt Gingrich!? Mickey Mouse all the way! Steamboat Willy in '04!

    I'm not a registered Dem, so I haven't been following things too much. I sorta, kinda liked Dean back before he started doing his open foot insert mouth style of late.

    Kucinich is a man with a plan. What that plan is, I don't rightly know, but my mom's was raving about him over christmas, and she's generally fairly reliable.

    If anyone deserves it, it's Gephart.

    Lieberman, ok, no, if I want a right-leaning faithful man with a religious sym
  • Is that a pun?

    Order the Democratic candidates with the candidate you like the most

    I'll just list the ones I can stand:

    1. Kucinich
    2. Dean

    There's probably a couple others I could stand, but need to know more about them. I think Dean has the best chance against Bush because I've heard that he is Pro gun rights, and fiscally conservative. I do not like the fact that Gore endorsed him.

    I like Kucinich because he voted against the "PATROIT ACT" and the Iraq war among other things.

    I tend to lean towards l
    • I think Dean has the best chance against Bush because I've heard that he is Pro gun rights, and fiscally conservative.

      His gun rights record is, among gun rights advocates, shaky. He is in favor of extending the Brady Bill, and he consistently wavers on states' rights.

      As to fiscal conservativism: he wants to repeal the entire Bush tax cuts and use the money to pay for costly universal health care. That's the antithesis of fiscal conservatism.
      • OK, I guess I should actually read up on what Dean has said instead of just listening to his supporters. Is issues2000.com [issues2000.org] a good site?

        His gun rights record is, among gun rights advocates, shaky. He is in favor of extending the Brady Bill, and he consistently wavers on states' rights.

        OK, I was told that Dean had an A rating from the NRA. I tried to search the offical NRA websites but was unable to find any information, and www.nra.org seems to be down right now. When I googled for NRA Rating Howard
        • When I googled for NRA Rating Howard Dean it turned up serveral articles stating that Dean has an A rating from the NRA.

          Yes, from when he was governor. Times change ... and "no new federal laws" is good, but to continue to get the support of the NRA, he will need to go further than that, I'd wager. He will need to get rid of some of the bad federal laws, and affirm that the 2d Amendment applies to the states. In saying "leave it to the states," he has also hinted strongly that states could -- like MA a
          • The second sentence, which I essentially agree with, does not follow from the first. They don't have to spend the money they are spending in Congress, that Bush is signing into law.

            Money is already spent. Apparently the dept is about to reach 7 trillion. [brillig.com] We should be paying that down, and we can't do that by cutting taxes. We either pay it now or pay it later. If we pay it later we pay more. However, I am not saying that I would not prefer a smaller federal government.
            • Money is already spent

              Yes, and the taxes are already cut. We can cut the spending in the next budget. Note that Bush will try to put a cap on spending increases in next year's budget; he'll probably announce it in the State of the Union address next week. I think they need to actually cut spending, not cut the rate of growth of spending.

              And yes, we can cut the debt while cutting taxes. When the economy is doing well, if we cut spending just a little bit, we will have surpluses with the existing taxes

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hey Ivan, check your six." -- Sidewinder missile jacket patch, showing a Sidewinder driving up the tail of a Russian Su-27

Close