June 21, 2005

Totally Unscientific Polls

I'm curious where you all stand. Help me out.


If you could vote right now in the Democratic primary for 2008, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Nancy Pelosi
Hillary Clinton
Evan Bayh
  

Free polls from Pollhost.com

If you could vote right now in the Republican primary for 2008, who would you vote for?
Rudy Giuliani
Condoleeza Rice
John McCain
Bill Frist
Jeb Bush
  

Free polls from Pollhost.com
Posted by Michael J. Totten at June 21, 2005 01:15 AM
Comments

Guiliani and Bayh. Both would be credible candidates for me. By the way, Obama? Are you kidding? Give the guy 15 years or so. What the heck has he done?

Posted by: spc67 at June 21, 2005 02:12 AM

I don't really know about the Democratic nominees, but I don't see a single viable Republican nominee in the list you provided. Rudy and Condi would be an interesting ticket, but they are both pro-choice. McCain blew his chances for a successful Presidential run with "the deal". Frist, as majority leader is not even able to bring his fellows in "the club" together to get his work done. That leaves Jeb Bush and I don't think he'll run. If he does, he may mount a serious campaign, but I don't think he'll get the nomination. Take a look at the Governor of Mass. Also, Newt is going to run. There may be others, but it's early yet. I expect to hear more grunting noises after the 2006 midterm elections.

Posted by: Joel (No Pundit Intended) at June 21, 2005 02:15 AM

Would it be too much to ask for someone sane on either ticket?

Posted by: Michael Farris at June 21, 2005 03:00 AM

Strange lineup. What about Romney and Allen for the Repubs and Bredesen and Vilsack for the Dems?

You know, people who might actually be nominated.

Posted by: someone at June 21, 2005 03:44 AM

I would sooner poke my eye out than vote for a Dem.

Posted by: Dave at June 21, 2005 04:17 AM

Obama and McCain. All the way.
Obama has ideas and is motivated. Evan Bayh is an incredibly nice guy, but he's no policy wonk or visionary.
Bayh was a good steward for Indiana, but the state remains one of the most backward in the nation. Bayh is a manager. He'd make an excellent VP. But President? No way.
I like Jeb. Maybe I should have voted for him in your poll. Giuliani is far too authoritarian. His behavior during the New York Mayoral primary after 9/11 confirmed that he is a demagogue. Giuliani is the guy to head an organization during a crisis. He's swift and decisive. But he is not the guy to have around during peace because he's going to stomp all over people unnecessarily.
Let's hear it for Bob Riley of Alabama or the current governor of Indiana.
One thing I hope doesn't happen: Haley Barbour, national candidate.

Posted by: lebanon.profile at June 21, 2005 04:33 AM

Indiana is sooooo not backwards, bitch!

Posted by: Grant McEntire at June 21, 2005 04:45 AM

Okay, yes it is. It totally absolutely is. It's just like my little brother, alright...only I can pick on it since I live here.

About Evan Bayh, though: Look, he's not the perfect candidate. He wouldn't be the perfect President. He would be wonderfully mediocre. Hillary would be near-perfect in my opinion, but she's every bit as polarizing as Bush is. For the sake of the War on Terror, the country doesn't need 4 to 8 more years of a President half the country hates (no matter which side it is that's doing the hating). We need to be unified. Evan Bayh is exactly the guy to do it.

As for these polls: Yeah, if Barack was running, you could forget everything I just said. I wouldn't care if half the country hated him, though I doubt they would. There's a liberal greatness in that guy that's been missing on the left since Robert Kennedy died. He's undeniably liberal and he undeniably gives liberalism a good name. Go read his commencement speech to Knox College. You'll see what I mean.

...also, why is McCain getting so few votes?

Posted by: Grant McEntire at June 21, 2005 05:05 AM

John Edwards in his post-election attempts to stay visibile is saying all of the things that are dear to my heart as a Democrat, and good for the country in my opinion.
http://www.oneamericacommittee.com/

I still don't think he can win the perception game that he is more than an ex-one-term-senator and failed vp candidate. Seems like he gambled and lost, and in retrospect he should have instead focused on winning a second term in 2004, and establishing himself as the Bill Clinton of the Senate. A southern populist, after all, isn't much use if he's not popular enough to win reelection.

Posted by: at June 21, 2005 06:53 AM

I'm guessing we'll see Giuliani/Rice vs Hillary/?????.

Rice just makes too much sense. She's brilliant and articulate and will get credit for democratizing the Mideast, and if Repubs take more than 30% of the black vote they walk away with the election.

Posted by: TallDave at June 21, 2005 06:58 AM

Why would anybody even think of picking Pelosi, unless they are trying to assure a Republican victory?

Posted by: exhelodrvr at June 21, 2005 06:59 AM

Oh, and Obama might make in 2012, for much the same reasons, though he seems a bit young. 2016 perhaps, or VP in 2012?

I live in IL and see a lot of Obama. While I disagree with most of his views, he is (to this point) a stand-up guy. The character issue that usually plagues Dem Presidential candidates would work in his favor for a change.

It would definitely be good for America for either Condi or Obama to make it to one of the highest offices.

Posted by: TallDave at June 21, 2005 07:06 AM

I put in my votes, but I think it is waaaay too early to even make a guess at the candidates. By the way, where was the "none of the above" button? Forcing us to pick among the offerings is certain to bias the results.

Posted by: chuck at June 21, 2005 07:28 AM

Voted for Byah as he's the only Democrat on the list that I could bring myself to vote for in the general if the Republicans nominated a complete nitwit, and decided to go with Condi over Jeb mostly because one family shouldn't have three of the last four presidents. I expect we'll actually get Hillary vs. someone not one the GOP list (who picks Rice as his running mate).

Posted by: Dave at June 21, 2005 07:40 AM

White liberals go gaga over an articulate black man like Obama who professes all the appropriate liberal pieties because this makes them feel better about themselves (conversely an articulate and astute black woman like Janice Rogers Brown who speaks libertarian heresy is demonized) but this is not a measure of Obama's fitness for office. He is regarded as a Presidential contender much too prematurely and high hopes may be just as quickly disappointed. I agree with sp67 above: give the guy 15 years.

Posted by: Ray Zacek at June 21, 2005 07:57 AM

Voted for Bayh, as most people did. He's the only one who hasn't shot himself in the foot so far. Give him time. A few Nazi analogies and he'll be on his way to the upper echelons of the Democratic Party!

Voted for Giuliani, simply because I don't think a woman could win. In a Hillary v. Rice race, I would sign up to work for Rice 24/7 (and I used to be a Democrat).

Posted by: Patricia at June 21, 2005 08:14 AM

Can't do this.

The issues of 2005 will not be the issues of 2008. And the candidates in each poll are going to have to adjust their political stances as a result of coming changes. There's too many variables that will take place in the next 3 years to make voting for these people have any meaning today.

Posted by: Marcus Cicero at June 21, 2005 08:27 AM

McCain's getting so few votes because REAL people in the Republican party, moderates and those on the far right, don't like him, despite what those in the media would have you believe.

Sadly, Rice and Giuliani don't have a shot to make it past the primary.

Pelosi? Dear lord. You might as well hang a sign announcing a Clearance Sale on the furniture at DNC. The woman practically screeches with hatred. For some reason I've been getting DNC mailers and, on paper, she sounds worse than Dean.

Hillary's got an uphill battle, but I think if anyone can overcome those odds, she can.

Posted by: ken at June 21, 2005 10:06 AM

patricia, "i don't think a woman can win" is a sexist thing to say. the vast majority of the country disagrees with you. it's the third millennium, dear. catch up!

Posted by: jami at June 21, 2005 10:11 AM

Obama because, as Grant McEntire pointed out, he makes being Liberal look good. (The others will run from the label or, in the case of Pelosi, make it look like a disorder.)

Marcus Cicero:

The issues of 2005 will not be the issues of 2008.

Good lord, I hope you're correct.

Posted by: Mark Poling at June 21, 2005 10:33 AM

“The issues of 2005 will not be the issues of 2008.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. The war on terror will be the number one issue for at least the next ten years.

Posted by: David Thomson at June 21, 2005 10:38 AM

Michael,

Off the D list, if forced to choose, it would be Evan Bayh. But that's based on an historical appreciation for his father...not on anything in Evan's career that sets him apart.

On the R list, the exclusion of Sen. George Allen from your list means that there is no moderate Republican that has a sense of humor running. One thing Republicans have figured out that a self-deprecating sense of humor helps win elections. Jeb could do it, but he won't run. Rudy's jokes work in NYC, but not out here on the Left Coast. (Not to mention the Red South).

Just a thought...and "None of the Above" would have been interesting.

Posted by: OregonGuy at June 21, 2005 10:43 AM

Jami,
I suspect that the "a woman can't win" was not intended to indicate "a woman can't perform the duties", but a realistic assessment of whether a woman could be elected. There are still people who would not vote for a woman, just like there are people who won't vote for a minority. And political parties need to take that into consideration when they choose their candidates.

Posted by: exhelodrvr at June 21, 2005 10:53 AM

Incidentally, if Obama wanted to be President he'd leave the Senate and run for Governor.

Posted by: someone at June 21, 2005 11:26 AM

You might want to include the one Democrat who has actually declared his candidacy on your poll, unless you think that Senator Biden would pull absolutely no support.

Posted by: Kimmitt at June 21, 2005 11:42 AM

Kimmitt,

Did Biden declare his candidacy? I didn't know. I would add him, then, but that would reset all the numbers.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 21, 2005 12:04 PM

Well, jami, "dear," I meant that a woman, Rice, could probably not win against another woman, Hillary. So now acknowledging reality is sexist? (thanks, exhel)

I didn't know the PC speech police were out today, or I would have chosen my words more carefully.

Posted by: Patricia at June 21, 2005 12:17 PM

Rice couldn't win against Hillary? Ummm, a Rice candidacy has the serious advantage of making the Democrats' curent case of Bush Derangement Syndrome look like a cold put next to a case of bubonic plague. Nothing makes the nuttier fringes of the Left angrier than a natural constituent who has wandered off the plantation.

Words carefully chosen.

If Rice faces Hillary, Hillary's base drives evryone else to Rice.

Posted by: Mark Poling at June 21, 2005 12:47 PM

Sorry for the bad italics. Preview is my (neglected) friend.

Posted by: Mark Poling at June 21, 2005 12:48 PM

Obama's problem is that if he ran for something outside of Illinois, he might actually have an opponent. Alan Keyes doesn't count. (Crossing state lines to trash any integrity you may have and make an ass out of yourself should be a felony.)

Posted by: Zacek at June 21, 2005 01:19 PM

I am also very curious about the absence of Romney on the Republican list. He's the only Republican candidate who has the name recognition, the social conservative cred and the charm to woo moderates. If either Jeb Bush or Hilary get their respective party's nominations than it is a clear indication that celebrity culture in this country has reached new lows.

Posted by: Vanya at June 21, 2005 01:34 PM

At this point all Barrack Obama is is a 21st century Henry Cisneros, remember him?

Obama is bright, gives great speech, it telegenic, seems like a nice guy and to this point has beaten Alan Keyes, a fill in candidate. That's just about his entire resume.

Do I look forward to the day when he is seasoned, experienced and has some accomplishments under his belt? Sure. Is he a comer? I think so. But in 2008? Not remotely credible.

Posted by: spc67 at June 21, 2005 01:46 PM

Given your list I am torn between responding with "ICK!" and "EWWW!".

I may be crazy (or just hopeful) but I'm thinking that with all the partisanship and vitriole that seems neverending these days, if a strong, rational, centrist candidate were to emerge, he or she could win in a landslide.

Obama, Byah, McCain? Rice seems like more of a centrist on social issues (abortion, for example) and strong on security. Hillary has certainly been working to position herself for the center.

Damn! Now I'm back to ICK and EWW.

Posted by: too many steves at June 21, 2005 01:47 PM

"Obama's problem is that if he ran for something outside of Illinois, he might actually have an opponent."

If you think anyone in the GOP is optimistic about their chances of taking on Obama at this point you are misleading yourself. If Obama had been challenged by a legitimate candidate instead of a known psychopath like Allen Keyes, it might be possible(though I doubt it.) But since Obama has adeptly used the Keyes sacrificial offering to propel himself into political stardom, I estimate GOP chances as slim as do they.

The Democrats don't have alot of talented people in office right now, but even at this point I bet you if asked they would be willing to run Obama anywhere in the Union with comparable demographics to the Nation at large for any state-wide office against anyone the GOP could field from the current House or Senate and not look back. And if the GOP is smart (and they are) they probably wouldn't make a challenge to Obama a priority.

Posted by: Dustin Ridgeway at June 21, 2005 01:54 PM

As for me, I pick Obama. I know he's inexperienced at the National level, not to mention that he's more liberal than I am, but there's just something about the guy. He's an unabashed liberal in an era when Democrats can't run fast enough away from such a label, and he uses it to his advantage. He has the potential to be what John F. Kennedy could have been. He could be the Ronald Reagan of the Democratic party.

Posted by: Dustin Ridgeway at June 21, 2005 02:00 PM

Re OBAMA: a lot of horses look good from the gate, but they have to go the distance.

Posted by: Zacek at June 21, 2005 02:08 PM

Dustin,

By the time Reagan first ran for the Presidency, he had been a movie star, Union head, a TV personality, a two term Governor of a large state and had given national radio political addresses for several years.

Could Obama be Reagan?Sure, in about 20 years. At this point what could he run on? He hasn't DONE anything.

Posted by: spc67 at June 21, 2005 02:32 PM

When I spoke of being a Ronald Reagan, I was speaking of being an idealogically driven figure capable of amassing a generous cult of personality and achieving great things while in office.

Reagan's experience as Governor was certainly something to wrest your hat on, but by the time he was running for national and even state offices, he wasn't utilizing too many anecdotes about being on the set. I'm sure even getting into the Screen actors union is hard enough, but those types of achievments don't compare to say, radically simplifying the tax code. Reagan's movie stardom was a vehicle for his fame and name recnogition, not an achievement in and of itself worthy of even Barack Obama's achievments in the State Senate. And I say that with plenty of respect for Reagan.

Posted by: Dustin Ridgeway at June 21, 2005 03:12 PM

spc67,
Hasn't done anything? Ummm, no.
No, Obama has never been a national politician before, but I believe the good people of Illinois will beg to differ with you.
Obama was an adept legislator in the Illinois Senate who worked across the aisle and sponsored many measures for the benefit of workers and those without health care.
Before that, he worked on minority rights.
Besides that, he was a professor at the University of Chicago and head of the Harvard Law Review.
That sounds like a lot to me.

Aside,
The problem with Hillary's candidacy is that she is running against herself as much as she is running against her opponent.

Posted by: lebanon.profile at June 21, 2005 03:47 PM

On a somewhat related note, Kofi Annan has now jumped in with a positive editorial on events in Iraq. Just watch the Democratic leadership trip over themselves trying to follow suit. And it will also be to Hillary's advantage; she has generally been in favor of the war all along (at least publicly), which will be valuable now. (Although hard to tell how that will play out in the primaries.)

Posted by: exhelodrvr at June 21, 2005 03:56 PM

Lebanon

Obama was an adept legislator in the Illinois Senate who worked across the aisle and sponsored many measures for the benefit of workers and those without health care.

State level legislator, even a good one, isn't much of a grounds for a presidential run.

Before that, he worked on minority rights.
Besides that

Activist, again, not much related to being Prez

he was a professor at the University of Chicago and head of the Harvard Law Review.

Those certainly count for something, though college professor may cut both ways.

That sounds like a lot to me.

As a set up for a Senatorial or grubenatorial run, yes. For Prez? Find me a major candidate with fewer political or professional accomplishments since oh, say, 1964.

Again, I have nothing against the guy, but te folks pushing him NOW haven't thought this through.

Posted by: spc67 at June 21, 2005 04:13 PM

Bush 43 proved that one's experience can be extremely thin.

Posted by: Kimmitt at June 21, 2005 04:30 PM

Who's Evan Bayh? I picked Obama because he's the only name I recognized & didn't immediately associate with lunacy. I generally agree with the critiques of him; I think to suggest he's a good 2008 candidate is laughable, but given this specific list (and having no clue who Bayh is) I'm picking him.

Posted by: h0mi at June 21, 2005 05:25 PM

http://www.issues2002.org/Senate/Evan_Bayh.htm

Posted by: tagryn at June 21, 2005 06:08 PM

Kimmitt,

Two term Governor of a large state versus first term Senator is comparable? Um, ok. 6 years a Governor vs. 6 months (at this point) a Senator.

Posted by: spc67 at June 21, 2005 06:11 PM

I think Biden will be the democratic nominee. He will run as the ultimate warrior like Kennedy did against Nixon. He will lose.

Also by the year 2008 the mullahs who rule Iran will have either been hung like Musolinni(<-spelling?) or will have wisely accepted the demands of the majority of the Iranian people. Lebanon will kick ass and Iraq will be recovoring even though the US withdrew to early. Everything that goes wrong in Iraq will be blamed on the United States for another thirty years. The E.U. will still be a dream, but everyone should be cautious if they deal with Europeans. They will try to regulate the world's products instead of working forty hours a week. And last, if each country in the Middle East serves it's population instead of the other way around the Bin Ladinists will turn into what we in the states deal with in the form of Nader. Just another crazy old man who wants to regulate your life.( I am not suggesting that Ralph has ever killed anyone, just that he is irrelevant and as far as I know the bin ladenists are pretty much irrelvant in the Middle East.)

Posted by: Mike #3or4 at June 21, 2005 06:41 PM

Obama is young, charismatic, and handsome, but he is a legislator. He should be Governor of Illinois first, so he can be an Executive.

Jeb Bush is George's brother, and while I think George P Bush will have a shot in a generation, a brother shouldn't run (though Neil is the Billy Carter/Roger Clinton/Ted Kennedy type).

Guliani as Mayor of NYC is great, but he'll have it tougher than McCain in the primary.

Evan Bayh is a legislator but he was Governor so he cna sue his Executive experience as a Red State Governor.

The same can be said of Janet Napolitano and Phil Bredeson. Even if Janet is a lesbian, she is Governor of Goldwater country and tough on crime, so she can use that in her favor. Bredeson is Gov of TN and Instapundit can get him good backing among the blogosphere right, which is great for a Democrat to get.

Condi is my favorite for '08, though I can see a lot of ammo used towards her, but she can fight it all.

Bill Frist is retiring so he will have two free years, but I'm thinking potential Bob Dole factor, plus he will probably get linked to HMOs, and he has no Executive experience.

Hillary is not Bill, and Dick Morris shows her a likely Nixon in his book. Nancy Pelosi was against welfare reform and I doubt she'd get teh Demcoratic nomination unless Republcians switched parties to support her delegates so she'd get slaughtered in 08. I don't want her as House Speaker either...I'd like it if a cross party coalition made Gene Taylor House Speaker though.

Posted by: Green Baron at June 21, 2005 08:35 PM

I would consider Romney as well as Rice.

Given the opportunity to vote in a Democratic primary, I'd vote for Hillary.

Being it would be a Democratic primary - shucks, I'd vote two or three times!

I don't see any viable candidates in your Dem list, Michael. Bayh could run as a reality candidate, but I don't think he'd survive the moonbat round of early primaries.

Losing the cloture margin in the Senate in 2006 isn't going to be enough for the Dems to accept responsibility for their failures. They have no persons in leadership roles left who put the country before the power.

They are going to the cornfield, Micheal. In spite of the sterling lack of quality leadership in the Rep caucus, there's still no second option where national security, SS reform, or economic policy is concerned. People are working, and people vote FOR candidates more often than against- and until the other side comes up with reasons to vote FOR them, they will continue to fade.

Posted by: TmjUtah at June 21, 2005 11:15 PM

I echo that neither the actual nominee nor the people I would support are on either list, here. Both parties will nominate Governors or ex-Governors. I am hoping for, and expecting, Bredeson on the left, with Vilsack and Napolitano (neither of whom I expect to run) as backup. The Republicans should put up Sanford, Romney, or Allen. The 'bench' for 2012 is Owens, Pawlenty, and Mitch Daniels. I do expect the VP choice to come off the lists on these polls. Giuliani or Rice would make good second chairs to Sanford or Allen. Romney needs a conservative #2 - maybe Bush, maybe Allen or Sanford, to keep the right in line. Daniels would be a good VP to counterprogram a Bayh nomination. I'm concerned that the R's will be taken over by the right and put up a Santorum-type. (Santorum-Coburn is the nightmare ticket, and not as completely unlikely as one would wish.)

(There is a part of me that likes the heartburn a ticket of Romney and Huntsman(UT Gov) would create on both sides of the political spectrum, but two Mormons seems...unlikely. Huntsman seems a good Secretary of Commerce or Trade rep, though.)

The Dem VP should be Bayh, period. He's midwestern, moderate, and respected. The VP doesn't need to be charismatic. Obama is not ready - he needs at least a full Senate term and re-election, or else the Governors mansion, before he can even be considered. His win this time wasn't a full measure of his abilities - his opponents had this amazing ability to self-destruct, he just picked up the pieces. The rest are too divisive - Pelosi and Clinton can't pick up moderates, Edwards can't pick up Democrats at this point. Bredeson/Napolitano/Bayh in any combination is a ticket I would strongly consider voting for, esp. against a stupid Republican ticket (Santorum-Gingrich, anyone?).

Posted by: rvman at June 22, 2005 07:10 AM

White liberals go gaga over an articulate black man like Obama who professes all the appropriate liberal pieties because this makes them feel better about themselves

Why, would you prefer we tout the presidential aspirations of INarticulate black men? If that's the best anti-Obama argument you can come up with, then keep trying.

Posted by: Steve at June 22, 2005 08:33 AM

Why does it matter that Obama is black?

Posted by: Kimmitt at June 22, 2005 10:51 AM

SPC67,

"State level legislator, even a good one, isn't much of a grounds for a presidential run. Activist, again, not much related to being Prez Those certainly count for something, though college professor may cut both ways. As a set up for a Senatorial or grubenatorial run, yes. For Prez?"

I would agree with you that some of these things, while notable, are not suitable for a Presidetial run (senate possibly). But the remark lebanon was making was to the assertion that Obama hasn't done anything yet. We can debate whether these achievements merit as something, but in a context in which you listed Ronald Reagan's worthwhile achievments as constituting being a moviestar, I would defend them in the context.

Posted by: Dustin Ridgeway at June 22, 2005 12:19 PM

TmjUtah,

"Being it would be a Democratic primary - shucks, I'd vote two or three times!"

Were you referring to an incident in particular?

"Losing the cloture margin in the Senate in 2006 isn't going to be enough for the Dems to accept responsibility for their failures. They have no persons in leadership roles left who put the country before the power."

The second point is an assertion with no evidence, as for the first point, if you think the GOP is going to pick up 5 Senate seats in 2006 I'd like to inquire as to whether or not you'd like to place a wager on those odds.

"They are going to the cornfield, Micheal. In spite of the sterling lack of quality leadership in the Rep caucus, there's still no second option where national security, SS reform, or economic policy is concerned. People are working, and people vote FOR candidates more often than against- and until the other side comes up with reasons to vote FOR them, they will continue to fade."

If the polls regarding the GOP's atrocious handling of the war, social security and our appauling fiscal situation are anything to go by, they might not have a choice.

Posted by: Dustin Ridgeway at June 22, 2005 12:25 PM

I think Obama's path to the POTUS runs through either the cabinet or the Veep office.

Why does it matter that Obama is black?

Well, it matters because as things stand now the Dems can't win a national race without 80%+ of the black vote, so if Condi's on the GOP ticket there are potentially some serious problems for Dems. It's not so much that he's black as that he's black and not a nutty race-baiter like most prominent black Dems (Jackson, Sharpton, McKinney, Waters). The guy impresses me as having both charisma and character, rare in any politician.

Posted by: TallDave at June 22, 2005 01:01 PM

If the polls regarding the GOP's atrocious handling of the war, social security and our appauling fiscal situation are anything to go by, they might not have a choice.

See, this is why the Dems are going to remain in the minority for a long, long time. Merely claiming your opponents are doing badly doesn't do you any good if you aren't offering something new and better (as Newt Gingrinch did brilliantly in 1994). So far the Dem's alternate solutions are:

Iraq: nothing, except claim our troops are torturing people
Social Security: nothing, and obstruct anything GOP offers
Alleged appalling fiscal situation (the projected deficit shrank dramamtically this year btw): raise taxes, and oppose spending cuts

Not a great platform.

Posted by: TallDave at June 22, 2005 01:10 PM

Obama's biggest strength comes from an impression of freshness; the Democratic Party has become stale, and feels to me like it needs an infusion of new ideas and perspectives.

For heavens sake, the last Dem candidate thought he could win by running on Vietnam. Talk about using an idea past its expiration date....

Posted by: Mark Poling at June 22, 2005 02:51 PM

Dustin -

Tall Dave wrote, substantially, what I would have written.

Where do you want me to start with the long and distinguished history of Democrat vote fraud?

Canvassing prisons for felon votes, per 2004? Washington state's gubenatorial race, where the initial Republican victory was by a margin wider than the eventual tally that included the "new" votes discovered in democrat precincts after the fact? Indian reservations in South Dakota in 2002? Legal maneuvering to disallow deployed service memebers' absentee ballots in Florida in 2000?

And then there are the legions of dead Chicagoans that vote every election, of course.

Do I think that Democrats have a lock on fraud? No - but they have the overwhelming legacy of using it.

I want photo I.D. at polling places and thumbprints on absentee ballots. If you need one or the other to cash a check, there is no issue of civil rights or race. We acquiesce to these brutal invasions of our civil rights without blinking to keep a bank happy; where is honest basis to the great leap of outrage in using the same simple procedures to protect the most vital civic duty most citizens will ever execute?

Your mileage may vary. The last three decades of Democrats losing elections has been marked by a concerted, if hysterical, willingness on the part of the losers to impugn the very mechanism of voting.

This strategy is exactly the same as a kid tooling on down to the mall and finding himself short when he wants to buy a toy... then shoplifting it. If the shoplifting continues without remedy eventually the store will shut down. That's a pretty serious situation - no more toys for anyone.

Not that that situation would bother the kind of people that are doing the stealing now, of course. Short sighted, self centered, and oblivious to what happens beyond their foreheads...

I'd rather fix the system so NOBODY can abuse it, thanks.

Every state in the union (to my knowledge) provides photo I.D. independent of a driver's license. Or there's always a passport. It doesn't matter how much money you make, where you live, what color your skin happens to be, or who you usually vote for - you can get I.D.

If you are a citizen, or a resident alien, of course.

Requiring postive I.D. to protect the sanctity of the voting act isn't racist and benefits no party.

Just the nation.

Posted by: TmjUtah at June 22, 2005 06:26 PM

www.best-casino-online.biz
online casino

Posted by: casino at June 26, 2005 12:35 PM

TmjUtah has an interesting perception.

So apparently Democrats should just roll over, let Republicans continue to steal elections through fraud, because complaining about fraud undermines the election process.

Yep, that's Republican logic for ya.

Posted by: Steve at June 29, 2005 09:16 PM

canon canon aparaty sony sony
lg telefony gsm samsung samsung siemens siemens kuchnie philips philips creative sharp sharp telewizory plazmowe

Posted by: Telewizory Plazmowe at August 18, 2005 04:54 AM

Hi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker
online casinos
online casino
online casino
online roulette
online poker
internet casinos
online slots
online blackjack
online poker

Posted by: online casinos at October 11, 2005 08:15 AM

hi

Posted by: Kancelaria Prawna at October 16, 2005 04:32 AM

Take your time to check out some information dedicated to tamiflu purchase tamiflu purchase

http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami1

tamiflu without prescription

http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami2

tamiflu in canada

http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami3

tamiflu price

http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami4

cheap tamiflu price

http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami5

real tamiflu price

http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami6

buy tamiflu

http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami7

order tamiflu

http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami8

tamiflu online

http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami9

tamiflu

http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami10

tamiflu and no prescription

http://www.archipenko.co.il/flu

Posted by: online casino at October 25, 2005 02:56 PM

Very nice site sharp

Posted by: Kancelaria Prawna at November 6, 2005 10:12 AM