Zeb wrote:
“I would love to see Rice take over the VP slot right now! Even perhaps Elizabeth Dole, or Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. If you nullify Hillary’s strongest asset, her being a woman, it makes it easier to run on the issues.”
I give women more credit than this.
I just don’t think the majority of women are stupid enough to vote for the most powerful position on the planet based on genitalia.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Zeb wrote:
[quote]I give women more credit than this.
I just don’t think the majority of women are stupid enough to vote for the most powerful position on the planet based on genitalia.
JeffR
[/quote]
It’s more than that Jeff.
Look around, there is a female revolution going on! In fact, it’s so strong that it has even influenced some men (meterosexuals). Seriously, From title 9 to the almost non-existent “all male” clubs. The age of the woman is here and if the republicans underestimate her she could become the first female President.
I say take away her status by also nominating a woman. I have given a few suggestions. If the republicans don’t do this, at least put a woman on the ticket.
It’s not a matter of “genitalia” it’s a matter of females flexing their political muscle. When this happens you will see many middle of the road republican women sacrifice their political beliefs and vote for Hillary just to make a statement.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Zeb wrote:
"It’s more than that Jeff.
Look around, there is a female revolution going on! In fact, it’s so strong that it has even influenced some men (meterosexuals). Seriously, From title 9 to the almost non-existent “all male” clubs. The age of the woman is here and if the republicans underestimate her she could become the first female President.
I say take away her status by also nominating a woman. I have given a few suggestions. If the republicans don’t do this, at least put a woman on the ticket.
It’s not a matter of “genitalia” it’s a matter of females flexing their political muscle. When this happens you will see many middle of the road republican women sacrifice their political beliefs and vote for Hillary just to make a statement."
You may be correct. However, I hope you are not.
If this was the early to mid 1990’s I would be more apt to agree with you.
However, the attacks on our homeland and around the world (in my opinion) make it more likely that people are going to vote based on the ability to wage the War, rather than on who newsweek thinks is the fashionable pick.
I’d feel much more comfortable nominating Condi/Libby Dole because they are the best candidates.
It’s a lot like the John Roberts nomination. He’s the best person for the job, period. Conversely, Condi is the best person for her current position.
You didn’t see George Bush (ala billy boy) stand up there and make a big point about “the first…” I think that insults and cheapens the accomplishments of the person being nominated.
I hope the Republicans choose the finest candidate for President.
JeffR
Honestly, I don’t even see how an Allen/McCain (yes, i have the order right) ticket could even be challenged.
Being as my father is an aquantince of Allen, I’d campaign for him myself (Not that I’d need to do much in either Virginia or Indiana, but it’s the thought that counts!)
My only concern is wether or not McCain would take the lower ticket. I think he’d be smart enough to do it.
Allen has the respect of the Rep party, and McCain as a VP would sway all those libs who would not want to vote for Hillary or Howard “YEAAAAAAHHHHH” DEAN
It would be a landslide of epic proportions. A virtual golden age for the rep party would ensue as well.
[quote]hoosierdaddy wrote:
Honestly, I don’t even see how an Allen/McCain (yes, i have the order right) ticket could even be challenged.
Being as my father is an aquantince of Allen, I’d campaign for him myself (Not that I’d need to do much in either Virginia or Indiana, but it’s the thought that counts!)
My only concern is wether or not McCain would take the lower ticket. I think he’d be smart enough to do it.
Allen has the respect of the Rep party, and McCain as a VP would sway all those libs who would not want to vote for Hillary or Howard “YEAAAAAAHHHHH” DEAN
It would be a landslide of epic proportions. A virtual golden age for the rep party would ensue as well.[/quote]
I like Allen. I liked his dad - even though he coached the damn Redskins.
Even so, unless the Republicans are just whoring for the center/slightly left of center vote, there is no reason at all to allow McCain a spot on the ticket.
He is not a Republican. He is not a conservative. I would never vote for him by himself.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
hoosierdaddy wrote:
Honestly, I don’t even see how an Allen/McCain (yes, i have the order right) ticket could even be challenged.
Being as my father is an aquantince of Allen, I’d campaign for him myself (Not that I’d need to do much in either Virginia or Indiana, but it’s the thought that counts!)
My only concern is wether or not McCain would take the lower ticket. I think he’d be smart enough to do it.
Allen has the respect of the Rep party, and McCain as a VP would sway all those libs who would not want to vote for Hillary or Howard “YEAAAAAAHHHHH” DEAN
It would be a landslide of epic proportions. A virtual golden age for the rep party would ensue as well.
I like Allen. I liked his dad - even though he coached the damn Redskins.
Even so, unless the Republicans are just whoring for the center/slightly left of center vote, there is no reason at all to allow McCain a spot on the ticket.
He is not a Republican. He is not a conservative. I would never vote for him by himself.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s a terrible idea though (McCain as VP). Landing someone as centrist as McCain in the VP slot will have little effect on policies IMHO, if anything he’ll be a public figure head shouting out messeges of moderation and all that other hoo-haa whilst Allen quietly goes about the GOP agenda. McCain would benefit the party because it would garner alot of votes from not just moderates come presedential election time, but down the road during house elections. By letting the those of the masses who are liberal think that the republican party has become more moderate, I’m willing to bet we’d land even a few more chairs.
Yes, I do think that they are that stupid.
Thompson is an interesting candidate. He certainly has polish and is an outstanding public speaker. The TV gigs would propel him.
I read the Truth About Hillary a few weeks ago. It’s pretty light stuff and lots of gossip. The author does make a serious point though. Who is the real Hillary? She has reinvented herself a number of times so who is the real person behind the facade? Is she a die hard liberal? A moderate centrist? A militant lesbian career driven politician or a devoted wife and mother? Everyone close to her has a different opinion, which is what the author pointed out.
Once the people decide who is the real Hillary, you’ll know if she can win or not.
Pataki seems to be interested in running, and as a native New Yorker and life long Republican, I’d rather vote for Ralph Nader than this idiot. He acts like he wants to increase job groth in NY state, and yet has done practically nothing to make it easier for small business in NY. Ny is one of the most prohibitive states in the country in terms of starting a small business, and small businesses are where the vast majority of new job growth comes from these days. Also, he keeps trying to increase tuition at the state universities, this is retarded as well. I could go on for hours about this man’s out of control stupidity, but i’m hungry, so I won’t.
[quote]PCH wrote:
If Hilary keeps giving speeches like the one yesterday, God help the Democrats!
But who are Republicans going to run in '08? That’s the connundrum:
Guliani (sp?) - Your prototypical opportunist, back-scratching, hand-shaking politician…he’d lose.
Are you kidding? This man used to call press conferences just to call people names. He’s a lot of things, but 'back-scratching" and “hand-shaking” ain’t two of them.
McCain - hell no! he’d lose (is he even are real conservative?).
Yes, he is a real conservative. He believes in fiscal responsibility, service, the right to life, and a strong military. He even served in said military. Unlike some people.
Jeb - come 'on, nepotism issues aside, he’s a worse orator than both W and Hilary.
The only reason Jeb Bush is not the stupidest Bush is because they haven’t taken Neil fishing on Lake Tahoe yet.
Please Colin Powell, please, please run for President in '08. You’re our only hope!
Colin Powell? The man who lied, boldfaced, to the UN about WMD? The man who clearly disagreed with the Bush Administration about the “War”, but said nothing–to this day–like a coward? Great choice.
[/quote]
Good Article by Barone re: Bush bashing. I think it also points to the direction the electorate is moving…away from the Democratic party.
Bush Bashing Fizzles By Michael Barone
Wed Jul 27, 4:59 PM ET
This summer, one big story is replaced by another–the London bombings July 7, the speculation that Karl Rove illegally named a covert CIA agent, the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, more London bombings last week. But beneath the hubbub, we can see the playing out of another, less reported story: the collapse of the attempts by liberal Democrats and their sympathizers in the mainstream media–the New York Times, etc., etc.–to delegitimize yet another Republican administration.
This project has been ongoing for more than 30 years. Richard Nixon, by obstructing investigation of the Watergate burglary, unwittingly colluded in the successful attempt to besmirch his administration. Less than two years after carrying 49 states, he was compelled to resign. The attempt to delegitimize the Reagan administration seemed at the time reasonably successful. Reagan was widely dismissed as a lightweight ideologue, and the rejection of his nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 contributed to the impression that his years in office were, to take the title of a book by a first-rate journalist, “the Reagan detour.” As time went on, as the Berlin Wall fell and Bill Clinton proclaimed that the era of big government was over, it became clear that Reagan was a successful transformational president–something the mainstream media grudgingly admitted when he died in 2004 after a decade out of public view.
You think they’d learn. But for the past five years, the same folks have been trying to undermine the presidency of George W. Bush. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore was denounced as an outrage, and Democrats noted, accurately, that Bush did not win a plurality of the popular vote in 2000. The nation rallied to his support after September 11, but Democrats held up his judicial and other nominations even if they had to violate Senate tradition to do so. Coverage of Bush during the 2004 campaign was heavily negative; for months the mainstream media mostly ignored the swift boat vets’ charges against John Kerry and broadcast accusations against Bush based on forged documents eight weeks before the election. News of economic recovery in 2003 and 2004 was pitched far more negatively than it had been when Bill Clinton was president in 1995 and 1996.
Now the unsupported charges that “Bush lied” about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have been rekindled via criticism of Karl Rove. A key witness for the Democrats and mainstream media was former diplomat Joseph Wilson. Unfortunately for his advocates, he turned out to be a liar. A year after his famous article appeared in the New York Times in July 2003 accusing Bush of “twisting” intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a bipartisan report, concluded that Wilson lied when he said his wife had nothing to do with his dispatch to Niger and Chairman Pat Roberts said that his report bolstered rather than refuted the case that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa. So despite the continuing credulousness of much of the press, it appears inconceivable at this point that Karl Rove will be charged with violating the law prohibiting disclosure of the names of undercover agents. The case against Rove–ballyhooed by recent Time and Newsweek cover stories that paid little heed to the discrediting of Wilson–seems likely to end not with a bang but a whimper.
Court intrigue. So, too, with the political left’s determination to defeat Bush’s first nominee to the Supreme Court. Democrats, with much help from the press, argued successfully in 1987 that Robert Bork was out of the mainstream and in 1991 brought up spectacular charges that cast a pall on Justice Clarence Thomas. They seem almost certain not to have such success against the obviously highly qualified John Roberts. They may try to argue that Roberts is “out of the mainstream.” But the vote on Roberts’s nomination to the appeals court was 14 to 3 in the judiciary committee. Who is in the mainstream now?
The bombings and attempted bombings in London have brought home to the American public that we face implacable enemies unwilling to be appeased by even the most emollient diplomacy. Yet, mainstream media coverage of Iraq has been mostly negative. But mainstream media no longer have a monopoly; Americans have other sources in talk radio, Fox News, and the blogosphere. Bush’s presidency is still regarded as illegitimate by perhaps 20 percent of the electorate. But among the rest, the attempt to delegitimize him seems to be collapsing.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
…
Please Colin Powell, please, please run for President in '08. You’re our only hope!
Colin Powell? The man who lied, boldfaced, to the UN about WMD? The man who clearly disagreed with the Bush Administration about the “War”, but said nothing–to this day–like a coward? Great choice.
[/quote]
If Colin Powell lied, so did Clinton and every intelligence service in the world. I think everyone was surprised that he didn’t have piles of WMD’s.
I am glad he didn’t have many, because he probably would have used them.
Colin Powell was one of the men most reponsible for stopping us from taking out Saddam in 1991 and preventing the whole mess we are in today.
Overall he is a good man but he seems a little limited. His kid is a nut too.
I just heard for the first time, that Bill Frist is posturing for a run at the republican nomination.
That is why he broke with the President on stem-cell research - trying to appease the middle.
But wiht a total idiot like Spector backing him, how much sway can Frist possibly hope to have with conservative republicans? Probably not a very bright move, sine it is the far right that does the nominating.
Besides, he can’t even run the Senate how in the hell will he be able to run the country?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I just heard for the first time, that Bill Frist is posturing for a run at the republican nomination.
That is why he broke with the President on stem-cell research - trying to appease the middle.
[/quote]
Maybe. I suspect that a lot of it stemmed from using his brain. He is a physician after all. And all of those embryos were going to be destroyed. Hard to argue for not using them based on the sanctity of life when that is the case.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Maybe. I suspect that a lot of it stemmed from using his brain. He is a physician after all. And all of those embryos were going to be destroyed. Hard to argue for not using them based on the sanctity of life when that is the case.[/quote]
I’m not going to get into a stem-cell debate on this thread. But - the light didn’t just go off in his head wrt gov’t funded stem cell research. It was a calculated move. One that could very well give him the reputation of a flip flopper.
So either he was playing politics when he came out against stem cell research, or he is playing politics now in coming out for it.
Either way, he knew full well what he was doing when he did it. And to have Spector in your corner is like having Gin-Nosed Ted campaigning for you.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I just heard for the first time, that Bill Frist is posturing for a run at the republican nomination.
That is why he broke with the President on stem-cell research - trying to appease the middle.
[/quote]
But I suspect you’re right. Who knows how he truly feels about the issue? He’s just like Hillary or Kerry and most politicians of both parties. He’ll do what’s politically expedient.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I just heard for the first time, that Bill Frist is posturing for a run at the republican nomination.
That is why he broke with the President on stem-cell research - trying to appease the middle.
Maybe. I suspect that a lot of it stemmed from using his brain. He is a physician after all. And all of those embryos were going to be destroyed. Hard to argue for not using them based on the sanctity of life when that is the case.[/quote]
The whole stem cell issue is a relatively safe one.
Both positions are perfectly valid for a number of reasons. Frist is trying to get good publicity for a presidential run.
Anytime anyone differs with Bush he is assured of good publicity with the MSM.
An interesting handicap from Red State:
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/8/1/0524/21799
2008 Weekly Presidential Rankings - Week 10 - 8/1 to 8/7
By: Tim Saler ? Section: Diaries
Promoted from the diaries.
Here’s this week’s 2008 presidential rankings:
US Sen. George Allen (Virginia)
Gov. Mike Huckabee (Arkansas)
US Sen. John McCain (Arizona)
US Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas)
Gov. Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota)
Explanations for each pick below the fold.
Aug 1st, 2005: 09:14:32
Here’s this week’s 2008 presidential rankings:
Republicans
Allen is maintaining his solid conservative credentials, breaking ranks with many influential members of his party in opposing the Kohl amendment to S. 397, the gun manufacturer liability bill, which requires trigger locks to be issued with handguns. Only the most reliable conservatives voted against the amendment. Even Sam Brownback, often considered the ideal hard-core conservative candidate in the 2008 field, voted in favor of the amendment. This will almost undoubtedly come up in campaign ads during the primaries, since gun rights are a very powerful issue with conservative activist voters. More and more Republicans are coming to the conclusion that, at least at this point, Allen is the best consensus candidate who is sufficiently conservative to satisfy the base.
Since Huckabee doesn’t have a voting record, unlike the senators in the field, he is going to be able to shift his positions a little more. He doesn’t have to worry about people going through his votes and checking to see if he’s voted a certain way on issues that would be unpopular with the base.
Because of this, Huckabee can come out on the right side of virtually every issue that comes up in Congress between now and then. It’s a very enviable position, as one of the highest profile governors in the party. Huckabee’s impressive record with education reform in Arkansas is also something that will probably find its way into general election campaign ads, if Huckabee gets that far, because suburban swing voters regularly consider education one of their top issues come election time.
Fiscal conservatives are starting to come around with McCain, supporting him more strongly than any other base group within the party. McCain has always had a nose for pork, and he is a nearly constant crusader against it. It could be argued fairly effectively, actually, that McCain is the true heir to Barry Goldwater’s political legacy, rather than Ronald Reagan. Consider that they are both fiscal conservatives who have less than pleasant feelings for the “religious right,” which doesn’t like them very much either. Goldwater is still a hero to many Republican activists, and linking himself with Goldwater’s legacy might be a ticket to the nomination come 2008.
Conservative activists are upset with many Republicans for their support for federally-funded stem cell research. The most recent convert to the position is Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who, according to many, has completely blown his chances to be nominated for President in 2008. Brownback has been the principal opponent to the legislation in the Senate that would expand federally-funded stem cell research, and it’s paying off for him in political dividends. He is now in sole possession, based on voting record and political viability, of social conservatives now that Santorum has gotten out, and then gotten back in - kind of - the race already. Santorum won’t run, though, and Brownback looks just about set to walk away with social conservatives. His vote for trigger locks might hurt him with some NRA voters though.
In terms of the popular political rhetoric of the present, which will obviously change - perhaps dramatically - between now and the primary, most of the attacks on Republicans that actually resonate with voters simply don’t apply to Pawlenty. He has said that he believes it’s possible to be opinionated and strong in your beliefs without being a jerk, and that’s precisely what Pawlenty has attempted to do while in office. He faces a re-election battle in 2006 that he could theoretically lose if the backlash against the government shutdown comes his way, but with progressives in Minnesota often split between the DFL and a third party, Pawlenty seems reasonably assured to win re-election.
The only problem is that, in running for re-election, Pawlenty may be put on the spot when it comes to some national issues like the war in Iraq, gun control, and abortion - all of which could prove damaging, since the electorate in Minnesota is quite different than that of a Republican presidential primary. Mitt Romney is learning this lesson the hard way right now.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I just heard for the first time, that Bill Frist is posturing for a run at the republican nomination.
That is why he broke with the President on stem-cell research - trying to appease the middle.
Maybe. I suspect that a lot of it stemmed from using his brain. He is a physician after all. And all of those embryos were going to be destroyed. Hard to argue for not using them based on the sanctity of life when that is the case.
The whole stem cell issue is a relatively safe one.
Both positions are perfectly valid for a number of reasons. Frist is trying to get good publicity for a presidential run.
Anytime anyone differs with Bush he is assured of good publicity with the MSM.[/quote]
Yeah-I agree. You’re right.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I just heard for the first time, that Bill Frist is posturing for a run at the republican nomination.
That is why he broke with the President on stem-cell research - trying to appease the middle.
But I suspect you’re right. Who knows how he truly feels about the issue? He’s just like Hillary or Kerry and most politicians of both parties. He’ll do what’s politically expedient.
[/quote]
Exactly right!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Maybe. I suspect that a lot of it stemmed from using his brain. He is a physician after all. And all of those embryos were going to be destroyed. Hard to argue for not using them based on the sanctity of life when that is the case.
I’m not going to get into a stem-cell debate on this thread. But - the light didn’t just go off in his head wrt gov’t funded stem cell research. It was a calculated move. One that could very well give him the reputation of a flip flopper.
So either he was playing politics when he came out against stem cell research, or he is playing politics now in coming out for it.
Either way, he knew full well what he was doing when he did it. And to have Spector in your corner is like having Gin-Nosed Ted campaigning for you.[/quote]
You’re right. This is not the place to debate stem cell research. And it may not be the sole reason, but playing politics is HUGE part of it. Either now, before, or at both times.