2
   

2008 = Hillary versus Jeb

 
 
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 10:42 am
That's what I'm thinking....
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,009 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 10:46 am
the newesst saying in the whitehouse will start with
EEE daWGIES.
i caan see the Bush dynasty continuing if the dems dont staart thinking aabout someone whose a fighter .

I dont want Hillary to run, shes got no credibility. There are governors out there.

jeb is, how do you say / a douche bag
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 10:48 am
I'll drink to that.... a vinegar and water on the rocks please....
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 11:55 am
News item today...Newt is considering a run. Hard to know what to make of that. Frist likely to be a front runner with Jeb, I think.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 01:30 pm
Oh great....................what a choice. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 01:37 pm
I think the Dem candidate will be someone not on the radar right now. All the usual suspects are damaged goods.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 01:38 pm
Unfortunately, that is what the smart money is saying these days. If I were a Republican -- Heaven forbid! -- I'd think that Rudy Guiliani is a better choice. But what do I know? My major problem with Hillary is that she has so much baggage, I doubt she could beat any credible GOP candidate.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 01:49 pm
I would not be surprised by a Bush-Clinton contest in 2008 (I've been saying for quite some time that Jeb was being groomed to succeed his brother). Sadly, the nation has seemingly entrusted its entire political destiny to two families, and we are all prey to these modern Guelphs and Ghibellines.
0 Replies
 
graffiti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 04:07 pm
snood wrote:
I think the Dem candidate will be someone not on the radar right now. All the usual suspects are damaged goods.


I believe that is correct. Given past Dem successes, think governors: Richardson of NM?

As for the republicans: perhaps Giuliani.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 04:10 pm
Rudy, or anyone else advocating a pro-choice position, has zero chance of succeeding in gaining the nomination. That's a given. No other issue is as certain to split the republican conglomerate apart, pitting the religious wing (under Roy Moore or someone like him) against the rest. That would mean certain electoral loss to democrats.

And if there is anything this modern republican crowd is interested in, it is POWER - maintaining it through co-operative compromise and increasing it through strategic initiatives at all points where they don't hold controlling power (media, unions, universities, the courts, and with blacks, latinos, jews, etc).

The building up of this functioning political unit has taken a few decades. Disparate elements have been brought and held together through constant on-going liason operations (Norquist's weekly meetings a key example). Institutions with quite singular missions, short term and long term, have been funded into being, eg Swift Boat Vets, Heritage Foundation, the impeach Clinton campagin, Godly Americans Against Homos and Peace, etc.

This existing conglomerate serves a lot of very powerful interests, both electoral and financial. I'm hoping circumstances will rip it apart, but the folks who are gaining from it wish quite the opposite.

So, no Rudy and no Arnold. And not McCain, though he wants it and I'd love to see him get it, if only because I think he'd work to dismantle much of the truly ugly stuff that his party has come to represent. It will be Jeb or Frist almost certainly.

Hilary, a competent and bright individual, has the misfortune of carrying around 12 years of dedicated, purposive smear. The dems cannot reasonably expect her to recover from that to the point where she'd have a chance. Not unless some really significant and damaging whistle-blower event came around the corner (Colin Powell tells the truth, or some such) or the entire modern right project falls into broad disrespect and mistrust (financial collapse would do it).

For dems to win back seats in two years and the presidency in four, things will have to continue to go wrong and the public's awareness of that to increase. And they'll need someone who really does represent hope.
0 Replies
 
graffiti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 04:17 pm
blatham wrote:
Rudy, or anyone else advocating a pro-choice position, has zero chance of succeeding in gaining the nomination. That's a given. No other issue is as certain to split the republican conglomerate apart, pitting the religious wing (under Roy Moore or someone like him) against the rest. That would mean certain electoral loss to democrats.


I don't believe that is true in certain cases, one of which is Giuliani. Yes, Giuliani is pro-choice, however, he has done some horrible things in NYC before 9/11. Wanting to keep the White House in republican hands might just trump your view.

Quote:
Hilary, a competent and bright individual, has the misfortune of carrying around 12 years of dedicated, purposive smear. The dems cannot reasonably expect her to recover from that to the point where she'd have a chance. Not unless some really significant and damaging whistle-blower event came around the corner (Colin Powell tells the truth, or some such) or the entire modern right project falls into broad disrespect and mistrust (financial collapse would do it).


Hilary will never get the nomination and Colin Powell will never tell the truth.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 04:24 pm
and Americans will never again open their eyes and seek the truth...too much work.....
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 05:11 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
and Americans will never again open their eyes and seek the truth...too much work.....


Pity none of you liberals count as Americans...
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 05:38 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
and Americans will never again open their eyes and seek the truth...too much work.....


Pity none of you liberals count as Americans...


as I said.....
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 05:41 pm
and if I don't count as an American even better...I can take advantage of the system while real patriots like you do the fighting..... but wait!!! You were deemed unfit for military service I forgot...well that's okay, you can hang out with us liberals while the men do the work..... :wink: Laughing
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 05:55 pm
mcg, my vote cancels your vote. ALl I have to do is get 1.6 million to agree with me
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 06:11 pm
According to Bear, "Americans will never again open their eyes and seek the truth". I always thought that was a liberal thing. That must mean he is discounting all you liberals. I'd be pissed if it were me.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 06:19 pm
It won't matter who the dems nominate. Unless they're willing to move to the right (they're not) and take the MSM with them (they won't go willingly), they'll continue in their losing streak. The following is but one reason. The Democrats are losers. Period.
Election protest shows why Dems don't count

January 9, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Thought for the day, from a gloomy party member on the Democratic Underground Web site: ''Reality sucks. That's the problem. We want another reality.''

Well, they're doing a grand job of creating their alternative universe. At midday Thursday, as George W. Bush was about to be confirmed formally as the winner of the presidential election, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, described by Agence France-Presse as the ''Democratic former presidential hopeful,'' led 400 other Democrats in a protest outside Congress. Presidential-wise, they may be former but they're still hopeful. So they were wearing orange, the color of the election protesters in Ukraine, who overturned their own stolen election with an ''orange revolution.''

Now, on the one hand it's very brave for the Rhymin' Reverend to lead an orange protest. There is no rhyme for the word ''orange.'' Irving Berlin tried and the best he could manage was ''door-hinge,'' which just about works in certain boroughs of New York but would make an unreliable jingle for the Rhymin' Rev to bellow at Bush from outside the White House:

''We're here, we're orange

We're pushing at your door-hinge . . .''

On the other hand, what's he really saying? That Americans are in the same situation as Ukrainians? That their election was stolen? In Ukraine, the one side poisoned the other side's candidate. His face broke out and his hair turned gray. John Kerry's hair is fabulous and for much of the campaign his glowing moisturized skin looked like an orange revolution all by itself. He was obviously worried about being poisoned, which is why he nibbled so tentatively during his pretend lunch stop at Wendy's and only took a couple of sips when he was doing his impression of a regular guy drinking beer at that sports bar in Ohio. But he managed to dodge that bullet and Jesse Jackson never got a chance to channel Danny Kaye: The pellet with the poison's in the Brahmin with the Botox.

But I'm beginning to wonder if Karl Rove didn't manage to slip something into the whine cellar at Democratic headquarters. It beggars belief that Rev. Jesse on the steps of Congress, and the Congressional Black Caucus in the House, and Barbara Boxer in the Senate would start the new term with yet another reprise of the same old song from the last four years -- that Bush, the World's Biggest Moron, somehow managed to steal another election. That makes three in a row. The GOP's obviously getting better at it.

As usual, the media did their best to string along with the Democrats' alternative reality. For the most part, the press now fulfill the same function for the party that kindly nurses do at the madhouse; if the guy thinks he's Napoleon, just smile affably and ask him how Waterloo's going. So Alan Fram of the Associated Press reported with a straight face that Sen. Boxer, Congressman Conyers and the other protesting Democrats ''hoped the showdown would underscore the problems such as missing voting machines and unusually long lines that plagued some Ohio districts, many in minority neighborhoods.''

I think not. What it underscores is that the Democrats are losers. Speaking as a foreigner -- which I believe entitles me to vote in up to three California congressional districts -- I've voted on paper ballots all my life and reckon all these American innovations -- levers, punch cards, touch screen -- are a lot of flim-flam. I would be all in favor of letting the head of Bangladesh's electoral commission design a uniform federal ballot for U.S. elections. But that's not the issue here. What happens on Election Day is that the Democrats lose and then decide it was because of ''unusually long lines'' in ''minority neighborhoods.'' What ''minority neighborhoods'' means is electoral districts run by Democrats. In Ohio in 2004 as in Florida in 2000, the ''problems'' all occur in counties where the Dems run the system. Sometimes, as in King County in Washington, they get lucky and find sufficient votes from the ''disenfranchised'' accidentally filed in the icebox at Democratic headquarters. But in Ohio, Bush managed to win not just beyond the margin of error but beyond the margin of lawyer. If there'd been anything to sue and resue and re-resue over, you can bet those 5,000 shysters the Kerry campaign flew in would be doing it. Instead, Boxer and Conyers & Co. are using a kind of parliamentary privilege to taint Bush's victory without even the flimsiest pretext.

And that's sure to work, isn't it? Another two years of Tom Daschle obstructionism and Michael Moore paranoia. You don't need to run a focus group to know that's the formula that will sweep Dems into office on Election Day 2006, right?

A Democrat chum said to me on Thursday, oh, well, they're just doing this to toss a bone to the base. But they're running out of bones to toss, and the base needs a reality check, not more pandering. One reason why the party has shriveled away to Greater New England plus the ''minority neighborhoods'' of a few cities is that it's all fringe, and no mainstream. The base is out of control; the kooks still holding their post-election vigil outside one of John Kerry's mansions sound no loopier than the big-time senators. The party has no urge to move on from moveon.org.

I say all this -- takes out onion and starts to peel -- more in sorrow than in anger. Two plausible parties are necessary for a functioning democracy, especially in war, especially in a long war which will inevitably have to be fought by presidents both Republican and Democrat. The Dems might get lucky. The GOP might nominate some freaky goofball in '08, and the other fellow will win by default. But, as the 2004 field reminded us, this isn't a party exactly brimming with talent and fresh faces. And, as for ideas, when was the last time you heard a fresh policy from a Democrat? The serious arguments about war, social security, immigration and pretty much everything else are all within factions of the right. The Democrats' only contribution is to insist that someone in Halliburton has figured out a way to get the touch-screen voting machines to make Democrats' votes vanish. Democrats' votes are vanishing because Democrat voters are vanishing because Democrat intellectual energy has all but vanished. Or as Republican Congresswoman Deborah Pryce summed up Thursday's Boxer rebellion: ''Their objection is a front for their lack of ideas.''

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn09.html
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 08:06 pm
Clinton vs Bush...

I can't think of a better reason to vote Libertarian.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 10:12 pm
I'm thinking Mary Landrieu might have what it takes to be a democratic frontrunner for president or vice-president in 08... http://members.aol.com/ourprez08/landrieu.html
Quote:
Age on Jan. 20, 2009: 53

Family: Husband Ernest Snellings. Two daughters.

Education: B.A., Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, 1977.

Career highlights: Louisiana state representative, 1980-88; Louisiana state treasurer, 1988-96; unsuccessful candidate for Democratic gubernatorial nomination, 1995; Senator from Louisiana, 1997-present (next campaign 2008), serves on the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees.

Political pluses and minuses: Landrieu's last reelection win over a Republican candidate stumped for by every stumper in the Bush Family/Administration/Junta, was a big one for Democrats. While it did not end up affecting control of the Senate, it had importance strategically and in terms of morale. Landrieu campaigned hard and found cutting issues, taking on Bush where she disagrees instead of emphasizing her commonalities to win the run-off, the only Louisiana candidate ever to do so after not reaching 50% in the primary in their unique system. Landrieu is the daughter of former New Orleans Mayor Maurice "Moon" Landrieu. She is the first woman elected to the Senate for a full term from Louisiana, and the first woman reelected to a second term. She has served on the Armed Services Committee since 1999, and also serves on the Appropriations Committee, two of the top committees in the Senate. Overall, only her lack of executive experience in a top job hinders her, but she's a strong, articulate speaker and campaigner. Landrieu could conceivably run for president, or be an excellent vice presidential choice in 2008
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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 2008 = Hillary versus Jeb
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2019 at 06:47:32