Here is my main reason for not wanting Hillary. It would be like electing two presidents. I foresee a power struggle if Bill and Hillary went back to the big house

I think Hilary knows how to put Bill in his place

I recall that Mrs Clinton remarked about Internet that unfortunately nobody edits it.

So if she is elected is it going to be the end of free speach?

She probably is just now running out of the cash they made from all her husband's pardons, so shes trying to line that up for her planned expenditures 4 years from now. Probably owns more shoes than Imelda Marcos.

I can tell you who is not going to run for Pres this time around.
I forgot his name, oh ****.
You know, that 9/11 guy, Gulimany or Jellyany. Whatever his name ...




fastreplies

Originally Posted by fastreplies

I can tell you who is not going to run for Pres this time around.
I forgot his name, oh ****.
You know, that 9/11 guy, Gulimany or Jellyany. Whatever his name ...




fastreplies

Is that a joke?

I think he is referring to John Kerry. Funny that he says he "considered" running in 2008. I wonder if he really thinks he would have had a shot.

He doesn't have a loyal bone in his body. He just threw his endorsement out for Obama, when it was Bill Clinton's endorsement that made his previous run possible. And then you have John Edwards, his old running mate. Had he endorsed either one of those people, his stock would have ticked slightly higher in my book. He hasn't changed much from the day he got out of the military and immediately went in front of congress calling all his brothers in arms "Baby Killers".

"Seared in my memory". What a Joke. Hes a man without a memory.

So, with McCain surging and the top Democratic candidates being within a few percentage points of him, what do you all think?

My feeling is that McCain will actually be an easy one to beat in the general election because of his unfettered support for the war -- even though Bush's force-without-diplomacy tactic is now getting some results.

If American troops start coming home from Iraq prior to November, there are less troops killed per month, and the Iraqi's actually make progress towards a political solution, Iraq will play less of a factor in the election. Then the economy, health care, and immigration will take even more prominence and there the Democratic candidate may even have a bigger chance to beat him.

@joder: I was reading along and thought that you'd end up concluding that the Repubs would win because of those alternative issues, but was delighted to see that you led to the Dems winning. It used to be, as far as I recall, that the Repubs had the lead in those areas, but again we can see just how much Bush and the unwavering Republican support of his tactics has seriously crippled their party.

Oh, and yes, I'm aware that many repubs didn't support Bush on the immigration issue, but neither did they have the 'nads to stand up to his veto threats.

The Repubs can't win on health care. I have had good health care through various employers for years but this year my current one only offers plans with a large deductible where you pay 100% of everything before you can get coverage. The company has 25,000 employees in the U.S. So, I'm essentially without health care. Republican and Libertarian candidates don't care about me or anyone else so why would I vote for them?

Immigration. The Repubs have been trying to swing the hispanic vote away from the Dems but looks like with some of their candidates more hard line, the will put the hispanic vote in the Dems favor.

The Republican candidate will get the die hard Republican voters, the Democrat the die hard democrats. What wins elections is the swing voters and the vein threats regarding national security will have less weight this time. Unless Bush starts a war with Iran that is.

If Bush starts a war with Iran, the Republican party will never see the light of day again, especially given the most recent, public NIE.

You may find this interesting: Before Bush, I was "independent" and voted primarily Republican!

Is it too late to jump in? Not too sure where to start :P. I think the Republicans have no chance this time around.. No matter what you guys say about "The networking media", or your graphs and charts things are worst now than they where before. Look at how life is now.. Housing has gone to hell, the value of the dollar is falling, fathers/husbands are dieing in a desert thousands of miles away and the ones that survive will be forever scarred, we went into a country to find "weapons of mass destruction" and ended up overthrowing a country, etc. No matter what anyone says those are all true and no matter what the stupid news says that's how real life has gotten worst.. What has gotten better?.. Well I did save I think $10, $15 on my taxes. So to everyone arguing taxes will be risen please explain how you plan on getting us out of debt without raising them or hurting healthcare/social security/etc. more than Bush already has.

So funny to see pundits build on their own BS. For instance, the most recent rant above me here started with the false presumption that McCain will win the Republican nomination. Then a following cap up that the Republicans will loose on the Economy being the issue of importance. Then gross speculation that the U.S. will wage war on Iran and this will be the permanent death of the Republican party. And to wrap it up, Matt pours out the Liberal talking points sheet which completely ignores all the surrounding data.

Presto..... Black is White, Up is Down, and we can all sleep cozily in our liberal dream, regardless of the reality which surrounds us.

Let me serve you up some nice black coffee.
1) Economy is already polling higher than Iraq as issue of importance
2) Giuliani or Romney > any Democratic candidate on Economy
3) While McCain is polling higher right now, just last week Huckabee was polling higher.
4) If Romney wins Michigan this tuesday, likely he will poll higher.
5) Giuliani still leads Florida polls, a winner take all state, which will likely wipe out most previous polling data.

I'm not saying the Republicans are a shoe in, but the silly rhetoric which counts them out is just that. Silly. Reminds me of 2004.

Originally Posted by cbwm

For instance, the most recent rant above me here started with the false presumption that McCain will win the Republican nomination.

Actually, it started with

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

My feeling is that McCain will actually be an easy one to beat in the general

Also, since it's in the future, one cannot declare any presumptions to be false -- he might win; he might lose.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Then gross speculation that the U.S. will wage war on Iran and this will be the permanent death of the Republican party.

Actually it was simply discussing a "what if" which is what this whole thread is based on to begin with -- speculation. I see you disagree.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Presto..... Black is White, Up is Down, and we can all sleep cozily in our liberal dream, regardless of the reality which surrounds us.

Ah, the Republican attack machine going full force. Do they train people at all levels to attack others who disagree? I know Bush likes it and the Republican party is good at it and Rush Limbaugh harbors more hate than the mass of the oceans, but everyone? I'll smile today, just to add a little more happiness to the world.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Let me serve you up some nice black coffee.

Just the way I like it, actually. (Had to add another smile in here to help offset the negativity.)

Originally Posted by cbwm

1) Economy is already polling higher than Iraq as issue of importance

Point? BTW: I'm paying MORE taxes now since Bush was in office.

Originally Posted by cbwm

2) Giuliani or Romney > any Democratic candidate on Economy

Claim without reasoning? I thought you said you didn't like claims without reasoning -- Oh, wait, that was claims with reasoning provided whose sources you don't like, so I guess claims without reasoning are enjoyed more? Just having some fun here as you are asking for it.

Originally Posted by cbwm

3) While McCain is polling higher right now, just last week Huckabee was polling higher.

Hence my reason for careful usage of words as quoted at the start of this post. Again, it's a "what if" game here, so 100% speculation. What's wrong with considering all the viewpoints? Oh, I know, Republicans only want to consider their viewpoint! How do I keep forgetting this!? One would think that since Bush hasn't considered any viewpoints but those from his pipe dreams that I'd never be able to forget this little bit about Republicans, in general -- I'm sure there are some nice Republicans out there; just hiding for now.

Originally Posted by cbwm

4) If Romney wins Michigan this tuesday, likely he will poll higher.
5) Giuliani still leads Florida polls, a winner take all state, which will likely wipe out most previous polling data.

So, let's discuss those possibilities. What's so darn wrong with discussion?

Originally Posted by cbwm

I'm not saying the Republicans are a shoe in, but the silly rhetoric which counts them out is just that. Silly. Reminds me of 2004.

Uh, reminds me of the last election where the Republicans said that there was no way they'd lose the Congress. Then, when they lost it, they said it wasn't a referendum on the war. But, hey, memories vary.

Have a good day and please feel free to smile a bit today. Hell, you might even change your avatar to the other side of the force.

Not until CNN announces that: The war is over and today is the last day when the last American soldier needlessly killed in Iraq; Republicans will ever have any chance to win anything including Carnival balloons

Of course Fox will announce that America victorious and that America is living country to its true owners Alcaida to which Russians will reply : tell us about it, we were victorious in Afghanistan too




fastreplies

Originally Posted by cbwm

So funny to see pundits build on their own BS.

Good joke there cbwm.

Jeremy, I think you misread my post, despite the fact you dissected it. I was not referring to your post (any one of them) specifically, but rather to the escalating conversation which, even as I re-read it now, is funny as hell.

Sure the conversation starts out with a nice reasonable discussion topic like, "Looks like McCain might win the Republican Nomination, and I think he'll be handily beaten because of his war-mongering record. Comment and discuss."

Of course the conversation escalates to:

"If Bush starts a war with Iran, the Republican party will never see the light of day again, Especially with the most recent NIE"

and

"Look at how life is now.. Housing has gone to hell, the value of the dollar is falling..." as if it is all Bush's fault, when even Learning Newbie, ranking liberal on campus, is willing to admit you cant exactly credit the sitting president with every twist and turn the economy takes.

I think you mistook my post as hostile, when really it was nothing more than a humorous observation. Throw a bunch of right wingers on a topic and you'll see similar escalation in the opposite direction.

Example:

CBWM: "Looks like Hilary pulled her campaign back on track with those crocodile tears of hers. I think she'll have a hard time winning the general election if she gets the Democratic Nomination due to the many criminal investigations into her past, as well as her abject lack of experience"

Cheshire Cat: "It seems pretty obvious that with over 40% of the American public saying they will vote for anyone but her, she hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell".

CBWM: "Not to mention her economic plan will bankrupt the country, and drive us into a depression. Did you ever read any of the Hilary quotes, from the many books written about her? Talk about an elitist trying to pose as a populist. Her pathetic husband couldn't even win the vote of the state he governed"

Repub123: "Yeah, the Democrats have been busy lining their pockets for years on the backs of the poor. Democrat Pork Barrel spending is what created the poor people in the first place!"

CBWM: "So true. Without Democrats, there would be no poverty!"


@Fastreplies - Funny you should mention Fox declaring any result in Iraq a victory. From the sounds of it, you would declare any result in Iraq a failure. Which is more clever?

CBWM serve me the "surrounding data" that has to deal with my points..
Now that I see your latest post (we both posted at the same time I guess :S) can you please tell me where I mentioned Bush in my post? Why do you keep jumping to Bush? Shut up and read the freaking post before you tell other people to do the same.
One last note.. I really don't like your style. I just simply state my opinion and you attack it and then you call my the hostile one.. Can't you just like.. **** off?

Originally Posted by cbwm

"Look at how life is now.. Housing has gone to hell, the value of the dollar is falling..." as if it is all Bush's fault, when even Learning Newbie, ranking liberal on campus, is willing to admit you cant exactly credit the sitting president with every twist and turn the economy takes.

You can't "credit every twist and turn of the economy" to the sitting president whether they are Republican or Democrat. But a significant part of the population VOTES for a person/party based on how the economy is going at the time of the election. If it is going bad for the individual they are likely to vote against the incumbent or incumbents party.