0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 09:53 am
What if, just by some weird fart in the space-time continuum, a Democrat beats Bush next year? She won't run against an encumbant, will she? That takes her out to 2012...she will be too old then...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 10:31 am
Italgato, Preparing a list of Chao's accomplishments is a moot effort in qualifications for Labor Secretary when the unemployment rate keeps escalating. Her primary job is to help people that work, to find work, and to keep their jobs. She's failed in all three as the Labor Secretary. Maybe, it's that you don't understand the difference; qualifications and performance are two different things. She has managed to increase the unemployment rolls by over three million during the past three years. If you think she is qualified to oversee the Labor Department of this country, you must also agree that GWBush is doing a good job too!
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 10:36 am
Molly Ivins' article is just first-rate. Covers all the bases and then some. Thanks VNN!
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 11:07 am
Good point, c.i., re the role of the Sec'y of Labor. Though, who knows, the role may have "evolved" under the current regime.

Today's news is of further erosion of the job market. The "H" word is now being used to describe the loss of jobs under Bush. And "H" would be Herbert Hoover.

Now there's a Republican name that I don't think Bush wants to be associated with!
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 11:40 am
Funny thing about the "qualification" thing. Last night, on the PBS Newshour, I watched an interview with Shumer and Sessions regarding the Estrada withdrawal. Sessions kept bringing up the qualifications of Owen and Pryor, and referred to their outstanding scholastic records, top of the class, etc. Now, how can that be a qualification when the guy who made it to the presidency did so without any of those top qualifications? How important then are they?

A reading of the Molly Ivins column (I think you can also find it in the Sacramento Bee and some other pubs) gives what is a probably accurate description of how Chao came to get the job, and just how she's done it. Political favors are usual. But Chao was a payoff to McConnell (to whom she is a second or third wife, and thinks he's cute), Powell of the FCC (Colin's son) is considered woefully inexperienced, Rehnquist's daughter resigned from her job before she was asked to leave (among other things, kept a loaded gun in her office), Scalia's sons were strategically placed - and more. Their qualifications? Not much. Maybe that's one reason we're in such terrible shape. It is of utmost importance that a president have very good people in place, with experience and knowledge. And respect in the fields they serve. Rumsfeld, as a civilian with a history in charge of what is becoming the Iraq nightmare, is another example.

It's very difficult to know about Cheney anymore, because he's disappeared. Which is probably for the best.

And isn't it wonderful that the democrats have such a wealth of candidates? Poor, poor republicans. They are stuck with Bush.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 11:45 am
Now that the admin is in such bad shape, Mamaj, I'm more and more convinced that the fault line lies between Bush and Cheney, with Cheney sustaining Rummy, and Bush left holding the bag.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 11:58 am
Regarding Hillary Clinton:

Graduate of Wellesley

Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Law Review

Interned with the Childrens Defense Fund (and went on to co-found several childrens' ervices in Arkansas)

Was on the faculty of the Arkansas Law School

Served on the Board of Legal Services Corp under President Carter

Was the first woman elected statewide in New York


This seems to indicate not only a high scholastic achievement (Law Reviews are generally held as prestigious places to be), but also an active participating role. And the election to Senate in the state of New York, statewide, particularly in areas like upstate NY, which have been solidly republican, is considered quite a feat.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 01:15 pm
Here's a different take on how Hillary won. When the Dems get a really key race they inevitably go out and bring their registrants to the polls. This often brings out some of the very lowest of the lowlife. Since you cannot legally carry a gun in the state of NY (you can't even transport one unloaded in your car), I imagine many Republicans were afraid to go to their own polling stations.

Someone had to say it.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 01:19 pm
And this comes from a person of a party that can do no better than Schwarzenegger - Question
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 01:25 pm
There's an interesting article in today's paper about how many GOP members are having a difficult time choosing between Ahnold and McClintock. They feel voting for McClintock will only let Butsamante win, while voting for Ahnold has a better chance for a GOP governor. What a dilemma! LOL
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 04:12 pm
No go, cjhsa. That is cheap and unworthy of you. Maybe that's how you do things where you are, but I live here. Would you be surprised to hear that Giuliani had been advised by the upstate and eastern NY repub party that Hillary stood a very good chance of taking the state. Further, they agreed it was due to basic hard political work. So he pulled out, because Giuliani could never stand not to win (yes, I know he had a health problem. but it didn't stop him from anything else), and the repubs had a problem. By now they knew how strong Hillary was, so they threw in a pretty boy from the Long Island area, and ran commercials of him, his wife and two kids running up and down the beach. He not only lost big, he couldn't win another local election.

What's more, this area thinks very highly of her. I have long thought it was envy on the part of the repubs, because we dems always seem able to come up with good women, respect them, and vote for them.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 05:05 pm
It was a jab at the stupid laws of the state of NY and nothing more. Well, maybe a little more.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 05:07 pm
Another dem woman I highly respect in the US Congress is Senator Diane Feinstein. I'm not a registered democrat; I vote for the individual I think best reflects my ideals. Wink
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 05:24 pm
I have really appreciated some of Carol Moseley Braun views that I have been hearing -
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 08:49 pm
I'm interested (just found out) that Feinstein is voting for the limited school voucher plan! I'd like to see vouchers tried.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 09:55 pm
cj - I'm not even a New Yorker. I pine for my home state of Pennsylvania. But not while Santorum's there.

And listen, Californians are in no position to make fun of anybody.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 10:04 pm
That's for dang sure!
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2003 04:57 pm
Will the "doh" vote come to age and have their first winner?
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2003 02:04 am
P Diddie apparently doesn't read all of the posts.

Mumajuana, evidently at the end of her rope and left with nothing to say since she had her foot in her mouth after I showed her how far off she was in her commentary on Zogby indicated that she felt I was an "ass"

I asked whether that kind of language was permissible on these posts.

If you can find any bad language used by me( except in response to Mumajuana's initial use of the term, "ass" in Spanish, then I will agree with him.

And as for my approach, I invite you to be alert in the future since I will doubtelessly destroy a few of your contributions with stellar research.

No Mumajuana type profanity needed!!!
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2003 02:15 am
It is evident that Mumajuana did not read the qualifications that I outlined for Elaine Chao.

Mumajuana( who might have a problem accepting Asians) did not notice that Elaine Chao had a stellar background.

Now, as for Hillary.

Quote from "Clarence Thomas" by Andrew Payton Thomas( no relation)

P. 138

"...Thomas's academic performance was very similar to that of Clinton's classmate and future wife, Hillary Rodham, who WASN'T EVEN THE BEST WOMAN STUDENT FROM WELLESLEY IN HER CLASS" in the words of Guido Calabresi, a law professor and later dean of Yale Law School. Calabresi observed that Thomas and Rodham "were both excellent students and had the same kind of reputation among the faculty."


Apparently Mumajuana knows little or nothing about Hillary. Imagine, Clarence Thomas( the dumbest of the Supreme Court Justices say the left wing) judged as being as smart as Hillary.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.46 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 09:31:47