The 2008 Elections! (da da da dummmm)

359 replies [Last post]
troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Ok, so it's early. The media are still in the "let's try to whip up a frenzy" stage and most people could really care less at this point.
The exercise at this point is to pick your dark horses, your wild cards and give youself the ability to say I told ya so later.
For myself... Something that I said here or elsewhere back when he and Hillary went out on tour. Newt's the Republican to beat!
What's more he's going to be HARD to overcome (I'm a lifelong Dem and I think that I would vote for Newt!) At the same time, Newt is NOT a Ronald Reagan Republican! Not even! Forget what you think you know about Newt as a far right politician. Newt has learned under the foot of the master (Bill Clinton, who is by far the greatest Politician of our generation, regardless of what you think of him as a person or as a President) and has crafted programs for increased education spending, enhanced entitlements including a nationalized health care system, infrastructure spending in the galore range and other traditionally Democratic positions.
Newt is a brilliant politician, always has been even though he made some terrible blunders. He's strong in the south (not that this means as much as southerners would like us to think) and has international name recognition. The fact that he is not an "Attractive' candidate gives him a gravitas unavailable to someone "Pretty" like Barack Obama (who could be strong in the south if he leaves enough space on his bumper stickers that they can be easily converted into "Go Bama!" bumper stickers!)
Hillary's great liability is that controversy is attached to her like velcro. She's the opposite of Teflon. Even when there is no controversy, the media knows that it's the easiest shot to get aired. Still in all, she'll mop the floor with Obama.
Gore.... I do not know... He could be the Teddy Kennedy/ Mario Cuomo of this generation. Waiting waiting waiting...
His strong point is that he has the ability to bring the Ralph Nader sensibilities back into the Democratic party. Nader is absolutely right about an awful lot of things we don't want to face, but he's not an electable guy. Gore IS (if he had gotten the Green Votes in 2000 in Florida, he'd have won). 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

 Newt's the Republican to beat!

 
Hillary's great liability is that controversy is attached to her like velcro.
Her problem is she isn't likable. Newt has the same problem, thus the laughter after you claim that he's the guy to beat.
 
His strong point is that he has the ability to bring the Ralph Nader sensibilities back into the Democratic party.
IMHO, it's Nader "sensibilities" that are unelectable, not just Ralph himself.
 

silouette's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-13

Nice analysis. Bill is bright, even if he thinks with his pecker, Hilary is not. Being conservative, how can I not like Obama who has to give up smoking to run for president.
Newt has the ability to transform himself, give him a lot of credit. Global warming makes a few social programs look like an inexpensive trip to Disneyland. Demographics will dictate some $$$.
Environmental and energy issues along with demographics will evolve into "the moral equivalent of war", maybe along with Jimmy's interest rates and sweater as uniform.
But human self interest will prevail (thankfully) and unprecedented wealth will continue to be created, even as we cook ourselves in overpopoluation.
So whether it's Newt, or Obama, or Al, pay your taxes now and put your money in a good federally tax exempt municipal bond fund and stocks and real estate. "Savers" will be punished by conservative and liberal, male and female  president alike.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Well, that's what I put it up for. So that we could handicap the long shots.
Speaking of shots, apparently Ahnold and the Rushtur are at odds these days.

silouette's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-13

...handicap the long shots.
Gore wins, seven to one odds ( at virtually no risk ). There is another freak hurricane at a critical time, and the masses sweep him into power to "fix" our climate problem.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

That's actually pretty good... Regression to the mean would indicate a medium heavy Hurricane season this year... (unless you toss Tornados into the mix, which then means we've been about even 05 and 06)

silouette's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-13

Tornados get to count, according to Big A.
Whoa, I like the regression to the mean idea.
Hillary: 4 to 1. She starts taking a prescription that makes her feel genuine, and it is regulated in the right dose.
Newt: 3 to 1. Already been through the learning curve, will he be derailed by the conservative intelligence curve.
Colin: 5 to 1. Wife says what the heck, run, and Obama slips but American likes the idea.
O'Reilly: 2:1. Folks decide his Masters Degree is as good as any credentials and his current anger management campaign is successful.
1:1 The anchor on liberal cable that talks baby talk: propelled by the litigous lawyer from Carolina's good looks ( who fell into a pile of hog dung), he sweeps a kinder, gentler dumbed down America.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Fred Thompson

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Yeah, I heard about that...
Without Newt, I'd give him a pretty good chance (but I'd not vote for him.) But he's essentially just "more of the same". that's s far as I know, if you can tell me different, I'm listening.
What Newt has that NO OTHER candidate (aside from maybe Nader) is a solid established platform. The fact that it goes against the twisted platform of the neoconnotic Republican party (the one that got hammered, by Democrats, of all people, in the last election and need to do something different if they're going to) makes it stand out and get recognised.
 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Newt is not going to appeal to the middle of the road , blue dog  Democrats and will galvanize the wild eyed lefties and the MSM who are their lap dogs poodles. They hate his guts to the ground.  Newt will most certainly not appeal to the right of center Repubs and has a lot of ugly personal baggage to carry around not to mention the interminable dredging up of every claim logged against him when he was Speaker of the House. 
I personally like Newt and his platform very much.  I think he raises the IQ points of the room by just being there but I have no hope that he can win the race.
In order for the Republicans to win, they have to have someone who can appeal to the right of center Repubs and I don't think that either Rudy or Newt will be able to do this as well as the mainstream of the party.  The mid center and slightly to the right of center, Dems and especially the Independent voters who I think are mostly moderates and pragmatists would (IMHO) be swayed by a Fred Thompson. To my mind he comes across in a very much Reaganesque manner both in personal delivery and in philosophy. 
 
 

Philo Kvetch's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-17

What about Jim Cramer? Wouldn't he be shoe-in when America learns that
he's so adept at manipulating the markets.

silouette's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-13

That idea may not be far Kvetched, since America seems to be warming to ads for day trading seminars once again. Does he get away with making us feel bad for not being as successful, and then just get to be another shmuck.
Loonie's point about Newt being able to hunt point left of the right Right makes sense, though. How about a nice cabinet post as reward for pulling it together.  Any one better known than Thompson, though?

Big Taco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-16

You know, I even watch C-span occasionally...but who the hell is Fred Thompson?

Bamzor's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-14

Have you ever watched Law and Order, The Hunt for Red October. He's a former US Senator from Tenn.

Philo Kvetch's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-17

The last actor-turned-POTUS did pretty well.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Fred Thompson is a conservative Senator for Tennessee.  What I like about him is that he doesn't seem to waiver back and forth on issues to appear popular with each crowd he is speaking to.   He is true to his principles without being dogmatic about them.
I think he has a good chance of pulling in the swing voters who are not knee jerk Democrat or Republican voters.  The uncommitted swing voters will be the ones to carry the election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson
http://masonconservative.typepad.com/the_mason_conservative/ 2007/03/fred_thompson_f.html

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

What I like about him is that he doesn't seem to waiver back and forth on issues
Except for that, 'I'm an actor, I'm a politician, I'm an actor, I'm a politician' thing (I think that'll weigh him down considerably, people will be like, "what, is the presidency the best you could do? Couldn't get the Ameritrade gig 'cause Waterson won't give it up?")
I'm not a fan of Thompson's I think that he's perceived as a hard line right winger to northern middle roaders. Rightly or wrongly.
I'm not saying he wouldn't be a good candidate, but I don't think that he has built the sort of internal political base that many other candidates have. Newt has people in all 50 states who will work HARD for his organization.
This is also why Hillary is going to crush Barak, she has the infrastructure and she has a lot of  "Peckers in her pocket" (as LBJ used to refer to it as when someone owed him his political existence). She built it during her Senate Campaign in NY (the first one being against relatively gigantic odds, and she won by winning in traditionally Republican areas of the State).
At this point in the political process, what the "people" want is irrelavent, the candidates will be chosen by the powers that be in the respective parties.
This means that Hillary will be attacked from all sides as others try to show that she can't win.
Unfortunately, for the Republicans, they really have nobody. Rudy? Fuggedaboudit! (aside from the longstanding curse on NYC mayors, not one in modern history has gone on to ANY higher elected position no Govs, no Senators, no Presidents) He's sort of the worst of both parties. Yeah he's pro choice but he's pro Il Duce too (he ran NYC like a tyrant) so both sides find lots not to like about him (and don't get me started on the botch job of 9/11 he made).

goforbroke's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-02

nope...this country isn't ready for a woman president and the former President wouldn't look good in a dress or make a very good first lady either.  You'd know she was wearing an earphone and he was telling her what to do all day....talk about electing a President for a third term.  Most male egos can't handle a woman running and that's why they say she is a lesbian.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Newt has people in all 50 states who will work HARD for his organization
So did Nader and Perot... so what.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

I'm not saying she'd win the election, but right now her poll nums are actually going up and she has a 37 to 22% lead over Obama (who's the num2) and it's not like the campaigning has begun.
The presidential election is the democrats to lose at this point. The Rupubs will need to come up with a real good reason for people to give them another chance.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

babbling looney wrote:
Newt has people in all 50 states who will work HARD for his organization
So did Nader and Perot... so what.

Thompson DOESN'T.
Meanwhile both Nader and Perot were third partiers, not a very prominent position in the voting booth.
Thirdly, Perot could have beaten Bush for the nomination if he hadn't dropped out and flipped out and talked about digitally enhanced pictures of his daughter and other conspiracy theory talk that sounded like sci fi back in the mid 80's.

silouette's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-13

Candidate must be likeable and qualified. If there was a woman, or "minority", America as a country is ready. 
The reason they say Hillary is a lesbian is because her husband has a pecker in every pocket.  
Obama is intriguing because he is likeable, a real person who needs to sneak a cigarette.
Hillary is dumb and doomed, squeaky nails the chalk board won't do the job.
I have not seen the TV show, but if Fred can smile, he can win.
We just need to support someone who will not screw up the economy, our little straw poll debate here is really important.
I am starting to think that Tennessee is the key in a lot of ways -  the American heartland. If Al can maintain an old strip mine there, an actor can win the white house.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Candidate must be likeable and qualified.
Uhhhmmmm... Errrrr...
"Qualified"? Must be? Perhaps you've been asleep the last ....
I'll give you this.... A candidate must be qualified OR likeable.
Cheney was seen as Qualified (which was the fall back position to millions who knew the George Jr. was NOT!) but nobody has nominated Dick for the definition of "Likeable" (to put it as gently as I may).
Obama may well be this year's Howard Dean. The press LOVED Howard Dean before the Iowa Caucus. He was the front runner (far as they knew) and he was taking the world by storm. Then they turned on him. The Iowa cheer turned into an "angry outburst" and they harpooned him.
This is the media's favorite trick. Build someone up so they can roast them right! Obama is a calf being fatted as he's being lead to the slaughter. It's gonna be a "high tech lynching" as Clancy Thomas called it.
 

opie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-15

babbling looney wrote:Fred ThompsonI agree.  I think he could win the primary.  I believe he could be our next president.

silouette's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-13

A candidate must be qualified OR likeable.
Alright, agreed.
So now we are back to the old testament with the fatted calf thing, and the journalists. Say it, tough on terror.
Hence, your focus on the inevitability of Hilary. What a depressing thought. Pragmatism.
Entertain a little positive thinking here. In WHAT WAY, could, Hillary, also become a fatted and sacrificial calf?
She'll have the money, the machine, the political correctness.
The ONE thing - a charismatic, centrist, monied Republican. The Republican right better get smart quick.
Maybe this fellow Obama could switch parties and keep his mouth closed. If GW could do it...
 

Big Taco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-16

whomit,
I really like the fatted calf idea...  Still to this day, I don't see what was so wrong with Dean's scream.  Just seemed like fun exuberance to me.  I hope Obama's not lulling himself into a false sense of media security.  But then we all like to see the calf slaughtered.
Now that you mention Law and Order, one of my favorite shows in all of its forms (where's detectives eames and goram?), I know who fred t. is.  It's too early to tell, but I lean to the left, and I could see myself voting for Rudy.  I like how he made a lot happen in NY, a left leaning state, and if dems control the legislative, then there will hopefully be a Repub in the executive.  I think having no checks/balances has been a big part of our problems.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

silouette wrote:A candidate must be qualified OR likeable.
Alright, agreed.
So now we are back to the old testament with the fatted calf thing, and the journalists. Say it, tough on terror.
Hence, your focus on the inevitability of Hilary. What a depressing thought. Pragmatism.
Entertain a little positive thinking here. In WHAT WAY, could, Hillary, also become a fatted and sacrificial calf?
She'll have the money, the machine, the political correctness.
The ONE thing - a charismatic, centrist, monied Republican. The Republican right better get smart quick.
Maybe this fellow Obama could switch parties and keep his mouth closed. If GW could do it...
 

Hilary already is "fatted".  She could bear to skip a meal or two.

silouette's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-13

Exactly, as a big target there is hope she could miss the Big Meal.

Philo Kvetch's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-17

silouette wrote:
I am starting to think that Tennessee is the key in a lot of ways -  the
American heartland. If Al can maintain an old strip mine there, an actor can
win the white house.

An actor alrady has won the White House. His name was Ronald Reagan. It
was in all the papers.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Philo Kvetch wrote: silouette wrote:

I am starting to think that Tennessee is the key in a lot of ways -  the American heartland. If Al can maintain an old strip mine there, an actor can win the white house.
An actor alrady has won the White House. His name was Ronald Reagan. It was in all the papers.
That was good.

silouette's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-13

I campaigned for him.

goforbroke's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-02

Speaking of truth serum, maybe we need a good interviewer to get to the bottom of the Hillery lesbian conspiracy.  Or, Larry King needs to have Suze Orman&wife, Hillery & ???, Ellen Degeneres&wife and Rosie O'D&wife; that country female singer&wife on his show.  (Not that there's anything wrong with that).  In the case of male fa's not liking Suze: she's gay.  In case of alot of males not liking Hillery must mean she's gay, too.   (side note: Did you know that Hillery's 'girlfriend' is actually Monica Lewinsky?  She has Bill screen them for her.  What!  Sorry, thought I was posting on TGP! )
My vote is for Obamma and Hillery (VP) ticket.
Actually McCain might do a good job before the Alzhemizer's sets in.
Sad about Edwards' wife's health.  (Vote for the best lookin one and you can't go wrong.)  At least Al Gore got smart and won't run again...or will he? 

AirForce's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-10-12

When did more funds for education improve anything... Accountability.

MITT ROMNEY! He is not a Senator, since one has not been elected since the 50s.

He is not a life time politician.

He is a leader who saved the 2001 Utah Olympics.. He founded Bain Consulting.. He cuts government budgets and makes things happen.

I don't care what he thinks about guns, birth control, freedom of speech or any other liberal BS. Its all about kicking some A$$$$ and cuting this fat government budget. Why he's at it cut about 100,000, $80,000 jobs in Washington DC.

Philo Kvetch's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-17

John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon were all former Senators
and were elected post-1950s.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

What I don't get about these sorts of stats (like the one I used for Rudy) is "what difference does it make?"
"no Senator has won ..." as if this means that it ought to be a criteria. Am I overly impressed with the choices that previous electorates? Not really, they rarely make choices based on even their own self interest.
When I was a kid and ran for class president (or whatever) the question came up "Do you vote for yourself or do you do the gracious thing and vote for the other guy?" to which the answer is "If you don't believe in yourself enough to vote for yourself, then you shouldn't be running in the first place." I  feel this is the same reason that everyone should vote in their own self interest; If you're not going to look after your own self interest, why should anyone else?
Nor do I understand the fervent "belief" in the anti "Professional Politician" position. I want people who are passionate about the profession of politics. I want people who have studied the consequences of previous politicians' actions. (Remember when Newt drafted a bunch of Newbies who defaulted on the national debt?)
Nor do I understand the desire to believe that we live in a place where we choose our candidates. In most areas of this country there is an overwhelming majority to one party or the other. As a result, winning the Party endorsement is tantamount to winning the election(s) (it's rare that challengers win the primary against the party faithful, and rarer still that the third party player wins Lieberman being an exception that proves the rule).
Candidates are determined by their organization. It's all about who can get out their vote for primaries, and this is all about the "grass roots", infrastructure. None of these organizations are run by people who do it for free. They are business entities (however they are structured) and they go with the best candidate as determined by  who is paying what to whom.
As to Romney's "Olympic experience". Last time we had a guy from the world of display sport involved, he did "a heckuva job, Brownie!"
As to not caring what he thinks about Right Wing hot button issues... Unfortunately, the right got into bed with the Religious Reich. They now have a Fatal Attraction for you. They "won't be IGNORED by you!" They're gonna boil your bunny before you drown them in the bathtub!
"Know whadIMEEEEan, Doc?" 

now_indy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-28

I think Fred Thompson could beat Hillary right now.  If he keeps his nose clean, and doesn't say anything incredibly stupid, I think he's our next president.  As for not having an infrastructure out there, I don't see that as a problem, especially if Hillary is on the ticket.  I have been VERY disappointed in the Republican candidates (Rudy, McCain, Newt, etc.).  When I heard Thompson might run, I was ready to send him a check immediately.
Fred Thompson is like your nice grandfather, Hillary is like the wicked witch of the East.  No contest.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

I can't help but think that Thompson's "bid" is a gambit.
L&O is a huge franchise that fills out the schedule of several channels. If FT runs for President, those shows that have him in them will have to be pulled from the TV. The lost revenues to Wolfe, and the other actors (assuming they have a taste of the residuals) is huge!
Fred Thompson is negotiating with the producers of L&O, not with the voters of America. (Probably.)  

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017150.php
The push for Thompson is getting stronger.  I do believe he has a real chance at winning the primary if not the actual election.  What I like is that unlike some of the other candidates I don't think the idea of running was "his".  He is being begged and pressured to enter the race.
Please oh please. Let Hillary run 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

I don't care who gets elected as long as they turn Iran into a sheet of glass.

BankFC's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-27

I saw John Kerry and his wife on this morning on the "Today" show.  She looked like she was a zombie.  Maybe I'm just out of the political hoopla loop, but is she okay???  I knew John Edwards wife was ill, but what the deal with John Kerry's wife anyway?

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Bobby Hull wrote:I don't care who gets elected as long as they turn Iran into a sheet of glass.
Just when I think we can't get along, you go ahead and agree with me. 

AirForce's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-10-12

Kerrys wife forgot to Botox.

My point about the Senate is that its been about 50 years since one has been elected. They have a trail that is hammered.

Anything but Moveon.org or lets be softer with the enemy. One month ago the push was on the world is ending due to N Korea, Iran and IRaq. Now Iran is about to have a revolution, N Korea gave in for 10000 tons of food and Bagdad is improving. Notice I did not say IRAQ since 80% of it is doing very well.

Either way both parties are full of $hiT. They both play politics and really dont get much done. At the same time 8 years ago the borders were wide open, taxes were high and we were being attacked around the world. As our enemy grew we were more passive. This did not work and 9/11 was the point that forced change.

As for global warming and GORRRREEE. Well its nice that nothing was accomplished over their 8 year term. Now all the political morons say Nuclear. NO crap, why did you not take a stand 10 or 20 years ago.

God bless us... Mitt is the only light.

Mandoman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-07

God bless us... Mitt is the only light.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

babbling looney wrote:
Bobby Hull wrote:I don't care who gets elected as long as they turn Iran into a sheet of glass.
Just when I think we can't get along, you go ahead and agree with me. 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the sexual tension between us.

AirForce's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-10-12

I'm sorry I meant Hillary.

She is such a great actor. Her speach about the southern gentleman was very inspiring. I am sure even Obama is going to play that a thousand times.

Go Brownback...

Its always a political hotspot here.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Bobby Hull wrote:babbling looney wrote:
Bobby Hull wrote:I don't care who gets elected as long as they turn Iran into a sheet of glass.
Just when I think we can't get along, you go ahead and agree with me. 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the sexual tension between us.

uuuurp!! I was eating breakfast. 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

babbling looney wrote:Bobby Hull wrote:babbling looney wrote:
Bobby Hull wrote:I don't care who gets elected as long as they turn Iran into a sheet of glass.
Just when I think we can't get along, you go ahead and agree with me. 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the sexual tension between us.

uuuurp!! I was eating breakfast. 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

AirForce,
Yeah yeah yeah, whatevs.
At this point we're more interested in the inside game of the political scene. We all know that politicians blah blah lies lies lies blah blah Democrats blah blah blah... We really don't need to be told (but thanks anyway).
The public will be swayed to any position their party wants them to be swayed. They'll convince themselves that their way is what's best for America, even if it does mean jettisoning those closely held beliefs of the last election cycle (especially if they didn't work).
Case in point. It was Nixon who said that in order to win the nomination you must run to the right (in the case of the Republicans, obviously, the left for the Dems) and then you must run to the center to get elected.
(The dreaded words!)
This time it's different!
The right has said that it's going to sit on its hands this time (its the conservative's favorite move and it used to be ineffectual until Reagan made "Liberal" a dirty word*) which means that the candidate must run away from the right into the "anti administration moderates" (With a 24%- approval rating and the Justice dept issue and Republicans of the stature of Chuck Hagel hinting at impeachment this is not the ranting of a left leaner) in order to win the nomination.++
This is a problem for Thompson in that he is a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the Neo Con think tank that thought up Neo Conservativism. It'll play poorly with the above group.
Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans seem to want to annoint a candidate before they hit the primary scene. The problem with this is that there are too many Republicans that figure that running AGAINST the party has a better chance of being a successful strategy. Second problem being that it looks like a party in disarray and so political donations are going towards the winning party, and it looks more and moore like that's the case when the Republicans can't even get a candidate put together. (Again, I'm just talking about the politics of it, not the emotion.)
 * Reagan and Conservatives were witting recipients of the false logic of "A is equal to B, therefore NotA equals NotB", Which translates into "Liberal = Evil, therefore Conservative = Everything  Good"  the same "logic" appears here in these forums all the time. This "logic" almost always produces a false answer. 
 ++ This point somewhat discounts the tactic of single issuing the primaries. If the Republican leadership can find (or if the left hands to them on a silver platter) a single issue (like Gay marriage, or Abortion, or Flag Burning, or Terror, or lower taxes, or something new because those old ones are worn out) that can incite the righty right rights out of their pews and into the voting booth in numbers. problem with this being that the primary season is a bad time to divide up the party thusly.  

AirForce's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-10-12

Chuck Hagel is an interesting selection.

The dems have Hillary. Do you think Obama or Edwards has a shot?

Leiberman stuck to his guns and won. He to me is someone who I respect. If you look at the rest of them all they do is point to Bush and talk crap. At the same time Hillary just said we will stay in IRAQ through 2009. Then the next day she says if you want two presidents in the office vote for me. Is that a leader?

I want someone like Mitt, but maybe not him, who has proven results inside and outside of politics. Someone who worked with both parties. Hillary has not even had a challenger in an election. Can you name the people she went against for Senate? She is not from NYC and talks a different speech for each group she addresses. Half the country can't stand her and she is and has been the #1 2008 canidate for the dems since 2002. She also will have at least 2 times more money then all the other dems.

Now on the Republican front I think there are question marks on who it will be.

I think we both agree both parties need to change, but I hope this past election woke up the republicans.

AirForce's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-10-12

Best thing about this site is you guys/ladies make me think.

I am surpised that people need more information to vote on. Like what is Billary or anyone else going to promise that will change ones mind.

I see it is now best to just adjust as you go. Like Senators like McCain and Billery do. This way instead of leading you can just go by public opinion. I guess that is politics 101. Screw the facts and just blame the other party or president, while you switch sides on your positions.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Like what is Billary or anyone else going to promise that will change ones mind.
Good question (because it is one that I happen to have an answer to.)!
What the Dems ought to do is get behind the single issue of taking on the Banks!
The banks bought the Republican party and they are squeezing the life'sblood out of this economy. Nobody, and I mean NO BODY loves banks.
The "credit score" issue is a very sore point to many many Americans. Not only northerners, but guys with Union Jacks and shotgun racks in their pickup trucks are getting tagged daily by banks charging interest rates that would make Tony Soprano blush.
Banks spend 7/8s of their advertising budget on bashing other banks over fees and poor service etc etc... They have done most of the work convincing people that this is a rigged game.
Dems can make it a "People versus the corporations" issue. And they should.
If the Dems took that play from the Ronald Reagan playbook and, nationwide, ran on the issue of taking the country back from the bankers. They'd ride in on the crest of a mandate they haven't seen since Roosevelt.
 

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×