And Then There Were Four- Edwards, Giuliani To End Presidential Bids

The field is thinning in the presidential campaign. Following big losses yesterday in Florida, Democrat John Edwards and Republican Rudy Giuliani have announced (or will soon officially announce) that they are throwing in the towel. And while there are still several “fringe” candidates for each party, the race for the presidential nominations have been winnowed to four. Funny how politics turns.

Giuliani was once the Republican front-runner, but his inability to overcome his 9/11 Tourette’s syndrome and his “liberal” positions on things like abortion and immigration didn’t endear him to many Republicans outside of the Northeast. Of course, by pulling himself out of the initial primaries, Giuliani also pulled himself out of the headlines and voters minds, which was bad for him and his campaign, but pretty good for America, IMO. Giuliani was never presidential material in my eyes. Of course, neither was George W. Bush, so what the hell do I know? (Oh, right- hindsight has proven me right on that one…)

I like Edwards in many ways, and was all set to give him my primary vote in 2004, but he pulled out just before I got a chance. He wasn’t going to get my vote this year, but I think the man has the right attitude and some good ideas for solving some of our domestic problems. If we end up with a democratic president, they’d be wise to try to include Edwards in their administration. But I think that Edwards, and his non-stop campaign since 2005, created some voter fatigue, relegating him to “wanna-be” status instead of “real contender” status. People like the man and like what he has to say, but like a professional student who has a zillion degrees but never a job, one who never leaves the campaign trail seems to lose the aura of leader and becomes more of a cheerleader for the cause.

Clinton. McCain. Obama. Romney.

One of these four will likely be our next president. I like Obama. I like his message of change. I’ll be voting for him in the primary, and if he gets the nomination nod, I plan to do more to help him win.

Looking at the four above, who would be your choice for president? Why?

17 Responses to “And Then There Were Four- Edwards, Giuliani To End Presidential Bids”

  1. Required Name Says:

    Ron Paul.

    The convention is in September. That is an eternity in the political world. All candidates lead to Hillary, except Ron Paul.

    He is the only one addressing the economy and the Iraq War that is suitable to the American people, the real change we need in Washington.

  2. Ken Grandlund Says:

    Ah Required Name, you don’t like to play by the rules. I can respect that in a person…sometimes.

    Ron Paul wasn’t on the list of four, so you lose the prize. Seriously. I had sights set on other candidates too, but after Super Tuesday, the chips will have fallen and these will be the four left standing. I suppose you can always do a “Ron Paul write-in” in the general election in November, but that won’t change the reality that he won’t likely get to sit in the Oval Office.

    Oh, btw- have you listened to any other candidates? I think that they have offered ideas about the war and the economy that are suitable to the American people too.

  3. Tim Hibbard Says:

    You forgot Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Please right a fair article and not influence the masses.

  4. Tim Hibbard Says:

    Oh I would not vote for any of the above. All of them would raise my current taxes from 30% to 40% - 70%. All want more government which means more taxes.

    All the republicans, except Ron Paul, are for the war on terror when terror can not be stopped. Jesse Ventura said it best: 4 snipers across the USA would cause terror and mass chaos. You can not stop an event like this. The war on terror is a war that can not be won.

    I put my vote on Ron Paul to bring all our troops home, have a strong national defense, entangle with no nations, trade with all, no more preemptive wars, competing currencies and restoring our liberties and freedom. If all the above would not change our economy and the faith of United States I do not know what would.

  5. Ken Grandlund Says:

    Fair? Are you saying that the MSM has been fair to all the candidates? Get real…

    What about Mike Gravel? Or Alan Keyes? They both still seem to be in the race…at least they’ve not officially dropped out. Any MSM coverage of them?

    Don’t talk to me about fair here…especially when you won’t answer the question asked fairly. Ron Paul isn’t one of the four who still have a real shot at the nomination from their respective party.

  6. rube cretin Says:

    ken…i have to agree with you. Obama is now my favorite to win it all. Damn, i hope he is up on the issues, because tomorrow night he will be going up against one smart and tested lady. (O shit, the fed just cut the key interest rate again. better convert you cash to gold, land, or whiskey. (about the only things that are going to hold value. ) anyway i am looking forward to the debate tomorrow.

  7. the good doctor Says:

    You can’t count. I’m surprised you can operate a website.

    Ron Paul FTW!

  8. Ken Grandlund Says:

    good doctor- you can’t read. I’m surprised you can type a response.

    For the rest of the Ron Paul Revolution out there…I admire your drive to keep your dream alive. But face it folsk, at this point in the game, the only way Ron Paul will be on the general election ballot is through write-in or third party candidacy.

    Keep in mind that there are dozens of other third party candidates on the ballot who get no recognition or media exposure. I could include them too, but you’d say I was crazier than you already think I am. If we count them, the post could be called, “And There Are Still Dozens…”

    Get a grip folks…root for Paul all you want to, but he’s not one of the four in the post. If you prefer none of the four mentioned, fine…Just say so. Or are all of you implying that is Ron Paul isn’t on the general election you won’t be voting? Then why not just say that???

  9. me Says:

    Ken,

    I can’t agree with one part of your analysis on Giuliani. He had no need to overcome what you sneeringly refer to as his ‘9/11 Tourette’s syndrome’ in order to endear himself to Republicans outside of the Northeast. He was the national front-runner for months based upon little else than the nation’s respect for his connection to 9/11’s aftermath and his record of reducing crime in New York City. He didn’t want or need to overcome it and, in my opinion, it had nothing whatsoever to do with his drop in the polls. Most Republicans still know that there are terrorists out there who want to attack us again and know that we need a leader who knows the danger and is credibly positioned to meet that threat. Giuliani was one such candidate but he was not the only Republican so positioned. In my opinion, it was his other many weaknesses in the eyes of the various segments of the Republican base, his decision to largely stop campaigning in early primary states (except to debate), and the rise of other candidates as credible presidential material in the base’s eyes that doomed Giuliani.

    I, for one, am sorry it turned out this way. Giuliani was my #2 choice after Thompson. Boy can I pick the winners or what? :^P

  10. the good doctor Says:

    Relax, I read the whole thing.

    The unfortunate thing is that with headlines like this, you become part of the problem. We all know how politics work. We all know about the horrible corruption in our corporate media. Your headline doesn’t help matters. We have this. We have the internet. We have new media. We are committed to the idea that even though the powers-that-be and the shiny-happy-media are locked in a death embrace, it’s …not always going to be this way. Your realism comes across as fatalism. You seem resigned to defeat. That is the outcome they are aiming for, and by your article, you are helping them to reach.

  11. rube cretin Says:

    damn…i got to go take a shower. i never been in the presence of so much delusion and greed. guliani and tompson supporters. i never met any of those. An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity. o well. there is a time and place for everything.

  12. me Says:

    “[Ron Paul] is the only one addressing the economy and the Iraq War that is suitable to the American people, the real change we need in Washington.”

    True, perhaps, in some alternate reality but in this point in the time-space continuum, most American people do not appear to find Ron Paul suitable for much of anything. Reality check, people, Ron Paul’s polling numbers are respectable for such an out of the mainstream candidate but he’s not getting the numbers needed to be the Republican presidential candidate. He’s getting too little exposure (I don’t know what he’s doing with those millions he’s gotten in donations from internet donors but he doesn’t seem to be spending it on effective public exposure of his message) and attracting too many white supremacists, neo-Nazis, anti-government hard right militia members, and conspiracy theorists and refusing to reject either their support or their money (based, I believe, not on his agreement with these people but on his respect for the rights of even such people to participate in the political system) to be seen as a viable candidate by the majority of Americans.

  13. Ken Grandlund Says:

    Craig (me)-

    I suspect that Giuliani was the front runner for so long only because he announced so early. Yes, he may have had more to say, but by recusing himself from the early primary states (in campaigning) he effectively shut the door on himself. And let’s not kid ourselves about “the nation’s respect” based on 9-11. Bush had the whole country in a handbasket after 9-11 too, but then he proceded to screw things up very, very badly. Giuliani couldn’t get past 9-11 and what it might have meant to him personally, but this nation has more worries than rogue terrorists and their designs to destroy us. By listening to Giuliani on the stump, you’d be hard pressed to discern that. McCain was written off as dead and done early on, but Giuliana’s mis-steps opened the door for him to emerge as the new frontrunner. Frankly, for my money, I’m not sure which of those two is actually a better choice for GOPers.

    So, yes, there are still terrorists out there, and they still want to attack us. But the world can’t operate on fear alone, and better candidates seem to realize this fact.

    good doctor- Resigned to defeat? Fatalism? How about resigned to reality. As for the MSM and the outcome they desire…seems to me that they crowned Giuliani and Clinton months ago as the ‘inevitable” nominees. I never accepted that opinion so early in the game and said so in posts here. In fact, only recently have I come down so clear cut as this. Believe it or not, I was curious early about Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. I liked some things about both of them, but they aren’t in a position to be a credible candidate at this stage of the game. Too bad they didn’t get more press and coverage when it could have mattered.

    And further, how can I be resigned to defeat when one of the Final Four is someone I have great hopes for? My guy is in the top four, not yours. So who’s basking in defeat here really? If the final two standing are Clinton and McCain, that, IMO, would be a defeat because it would signify that politics WILL go on as usual for at least another 4 years, and that’s 4 more years than we have to waste.

  14. steve Says:

    I like when all the Ron Paul wackos run in here.

    I am going McCain first, Obama second…

    What did I stutter? I can vote for Democrats!

    The McCain/Obama ticket has a nice ring to it too, just to fuck with the Clintons. Can’t wait until that mayor from New York jumps in on the independents. That screws Hillary… Anything that screws Hillary out of winning is serious vindication…

  15. Matthew O'Keefe Says:

    I’m not drinking the Steve Kool Aid! There will never be a mixed ticket in this run for the White House. I do however see anyone in the Dem’s beating Hillary is better. Obama better start crossing his T’s and dotting his I’s if he wants the Oval Office. Hil/bil will not play fair and you have to fight fire with fire.

    Ron Paul whacko’s Steve??? LOL!

  16. the good doctor Says:

    “Too bad they didn’t get more press and coverage when it could have mattered.”

    That is quite the point; press coverage. But it is much worse than “too bad.” We have the press and their corporate handlers selecting and de-selecting who the candidates should be. All I’m saying is that we have TV for all of the viewpoints you have expressed. Don’t make this, the internet, merely an echo of the ideas that are on the tube. We can make this media work for us.

    FWIW, I intend to vote for Paul in the primary and Obama in the general election. Obama has his CFR and his bundlers, but he does seem to offer hope. After eight years of the crap we’ve put up with we could use some of that, even if it is just lip-service. I don’t have any illusion that Paul could win the nomination or that my vote will actually matter (as I live in Indiana and we tend to vote like a bunch of drunk, inbred, flag-waving monkeys), but I like what Paul brings to the possible future of American politics. Maybe we’ll get more people reading up on the constitution before it is completely reduced to novelty toilet paper.

  17. manapp99 Says:

    I agree that Ron Paul is a nut case. I find it very interesting the number of lefties that support him though. Even with my libertarian bent I know that Pauls isolationist approach will not work in todays global economy.
    Steve, I do not think a McCain/Obama ticket is a possiblilty (though I like the sound of it) however how would you feel about a McCain/Lieberman ticket?

Leave a Reply


Fish.Travel