Who is going to run to replace Dubya?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 27 2006, 09:56 PM) [snapback]277776[/snapback]</div>

She'd rally them, all right. And the freaky right-winger women and men would come out to oppose her. My best friend (a right-wing nut job herself) would lead the pack. She thinks Hillary is evil. She can't tell me why, exactly, but she thinks she's evil nonetheless.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jun 27 2006, 09:27 PM) [snapback]277798[/snapback]</div>

I had this exact conversion and said the same thing to a co-worker.

 

...sure, but I firmly believe the women who vote for her will far eclipse the rabid righties... it's the fact she'll bring women to the polls who ordinarily might not give a damn, i really think that's a huge demographic... sure, there be the "stop the biatch at all costs!" crowd, but I think they'd be eclipsed....

 

The problem is that in todays political scene, you HAVE to lie to get elected. Therefore, the Presidency tends to go to the candidate that lies the best. Therefore, by definition, all our Presidents are dishonest. As long as Americans refuse to use that mass between their ears, we will keep getting the President we deserve. Frankly, anyone who WANTS the job, should not be allowed to have it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Salsawonder @ Jun 27 2006, 03:42 PM) [snapback]277628[/snapback]</div>

Arnie can't run. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural-born American.

 

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) wrote "In Mortal Danger" it's hot right now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jun 27 2006, 06:17 PM) [snapback]277744[/snapback]</div>

LDS and Southern Baptist voters are part of the "Religious Right" voting block and are almost indistinquishable in terms of social and political philosophy. Mitt might be too "moderate" to meet their demands. The history of early, early frontrunners is not that good ... the press loves to promote someone, then chronicle their demise as they attack them.

Condi polls as a favorite, but she has never held elected office and its unknown how well she could campaign. She does well in polls even against Senator Clinton. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are probably too moderate to make it past the Republican primaries in the fringe states of Iowa and NH, which are dominated by far right idealogues, but either one would be a strong candidate. Newt Gringinch would be a wonderful candidate; he's smart, and the Dems hate him so much they would simply explode.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 27 2006, 10:41 PM) [snapback]277920[/snapback]</div>

Hmmmmmm, Newt? Yeah baby! I could go for some of that...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 28 2006, 01:41 AM) [snapback]277920[/snapback]</div>

Ummm...I live smack-dab in the middle of the red state bible belt with many of the evangelical right...Baptists, Pentecostals, etc., etc. I gotta tell you...while they may vote the same, there is a huge divide between those guys and LDS. Frankly, many of them think that LDS is more of a cult than a religion. (I don't agree, btw, I'm just reporting what religious discussions have presented.)

And yes, Mitt is more moderate. One of the reasons I dig him (for a Republican).

And Condi has sworn to Tim Russert at least twice that she will NOT be running. I know it could be lies, but...puh-leeze...let's hope that she was being serious.

Newt? I would love it if he ran! The Dems would definitely win!

 

Hillary would garner 2% or 3% of the women's vote for being a woman. 1% of men would vote for her for being a woman. Meanwhile 10% of Democrats would cross over because they'd think a woman cannot be president. The other 86% or 87% of the electorate would vote just the way they'd have voted otherwise. A Condi-Hillary contest would of course balance out those numbers.

How about this: Condi and Hillary on the same ticket against Jeb Bush and Al Gore?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 28 2006, 05:38 AM) [snapback]277971[/snapback]</div>

Polling about 6 months ago showed that Hillary would garner all the black vote from any Republican except for Colin Powell and Condi Rice, and would certainly snag all of the women voters who normally vote Democratic. She polls well with independent women voters as well. Senator Clinton has done a good job as senator for the state of NY, and has distanced herself from the more liberal components of the party. I think she would have a hard time getting past the primaries, as the Democrats in the fringe states of Iowa and NH are the mirror of the Republicans ... they are dominated by the fringe left and don't represent the interests of the majority of Americans. But once Senator Clinton was past the early primaries, her next challenge would be the south, where the black vote for the Democrats matter the most (remember, there simply aren't very many black people in Iowa and NH). With her positioning of herself as a more moderate alternative to people like John Kerry and Al Gore in terms of national defense, I think she has a definate chance to win the southern primaries. The other Democrat I think has a real chance is Evan Bayh; he's not a northeastern liberal like so many of the Dems last candidates. He would carry his own state in a general election, I think.

Other than Condi and Powell, there isn't a candidate I can see that can break the monopoly on the black vote. Tom Tencredo is a one-issue Republican, and while his issue is hot right now, its not enough to have the folks outside of NH and Iowa take him seriously. Mitt Romney is the best of the Republican governors who have a shot at it, but livelychick may have a point about his LDS background being a problem (especially in Iowa, where the religious right dominates the cacuses for the Republicans).

I think Jeb Bush has to sit out a cycle or two ... he's probably the smartest of the Bush kids, but like Bobby Kennedy, he may never get the job (not because of assassination, God forbid, but because of "Bush fatigue").

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Jun 27 2006, 08:03 PM) [snapback]277708[/snapback]</div>

Not as long as the eight previous.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 27 2006, 09:56 PM) [snapback]277776[/snapback]</div>

Rallying them doesn't necessarily mean getting their vote.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 27 2006, 10:13 PM) [snapback]277788[/snapback]</div>

Squid, you crack me up. Ever since the Olympics that Romney headed up, I've thought the same thing. I'd swear there is a Twilight Zone episode where the alien looks just like Mitt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jim1eye @ Jun 28 2006, 10:16 AM) [snapback]278018[/snapback]</div>

I'm always a glutton for punishment, so I must ask: Why were the previous 8 so long? I only ask because most people that truly compare the last six years with the previous eight can in no way say the previous eight were worse. (Of course, then they lay blame on BC for all the problems of GWB...codswallop, I say.)

And please, please, please don't give me the "hummer in the oval office" bit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jun 28 2006, 10:30 AM) [snapback]278024[/snapback]</div>

Too late: Monica Lewinsky had more president in her than Dubya ever will...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jun 28 2006, 07:30 AM) [snapback]278024[/snapback]</div>

I don't know how you arrive at 'most people that truly' compare statement; can you cite a poll that exceeds 1,000 people or a long-term analysis by a disinterested 3rd party?

I personally have done well enough over both administrations, so it is a wash, except for ideologies. In fact, I did vote for BC as a backlash against the tax increase during GHWB watch. I was too naive to understand then that the president had little to do with tax increases and spending, so I 'took out' my ire on GHWB and voted for BC. Certain events of a military nature later soured me on BC, and I grudgingly voted for BD.

Just one person's experience with the past 57 years B)

 

Considering the polling for both the President and the Republican party, I think they are going to have to put John McCain on the ticket, either as President or Vice President. It will be very entertaining to see them backpedal on all of the smears and personal attacks they used on him to get Bush elected. (Oh, yeah, he wasn't fit to be President then, but he is now.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syclone @ Jun 27 2006, 10:41 PM) [snapback]277863[/snapback]</div>

No, that would be Fascism.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(David H. Hawkins @ Jun 27 2006, 10:30 PM) [snapback]277856[/snapback]</div>

I once read a science fiction story based exactly on this premise. A computer went through the qualifications of every American and based on that, chose a president for the current situation. It had to be someone that didn't want the job. And if chosen they were mandated by law to serve.

Now I read somewhere that highly ambitious people aren't the most intelligent and those with the highest intelligence aren't the most ambitious. Since you have to be really ambitious to be President, well, that means we aren't getting the brightest and best in a position that really needs it. And I certainly agree with the integrity aspect. He who lies the best, gets elected. That correlates to the higher the politican position, the more dishonest you are. "The most important thing is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 28 2006, 11:05 AM) [snapback]278130[/snapback]</div>

I'm in love with America, and so I often get in trouble with both sides of the political fence. Perhaps my love of the country has blinded me, but I'll go out on the limb again and say it again (and this won't please anyone):

America is bigger than the President, the Congress, or the Courts.

The Presidency is bigger than any man who has held it. The Presidency has held smart men and average men, but they have all been Great Men. Not because of who they are, but because of what America is, and because they choose to serve her.

One of the founders ... John Adams, I believe ... said that we stand on the shoulders of giants. It is no where more appropriate than for those who are elected to the Presidency. Each and every one has had their faults, some larger than others. Each and every one has disappointed some in a big way. But each and every one has served America. America is built so that a single man cannot destroy her, so the cumulative effect of even "poor" Presidents is that this nation becomes greater with each passing term.

When I hear the slanders against our representatives today I can give cynicism its due. But I don't believe most of it. So while I'll acknowledge someone's dissatisfaction, I view the extremely cynical statements as childish tantrums.

The President is not promoting cable TV to enable spying through your TV's cathode ray tube on you (as some alleged about Richard Nixon), Jimmy Carter isn't storing gold in a submarine, Ronald Reagan isn't "President Dumbell" and a cowboy, George Bush isn't in the pockets of the Savings and Loan people, Bill Clinton isn't going to declare a state of emergency and change the constitution so he can run again, and on and on. Know why I didn't include any of the invective and slander against GWB? Because we've heard it all before. And its childish babble, intended just for partisan political purposes, as if the tantrums will change our votes (please, will some of these people threatening to leave the country just GO.)

The Presidency is bigger than the person holding the office. It will not be a disaster if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, any more than it would be if Newt Gingrich wins it. Read our history. The Presidency is bigger than the person holding the office, even if the children telling you different appear to be adults. They are not. They don't know the past, so they are afraid of the future.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 29 2006, 12:06 AM) [snapback]278479[/snapback]</div>

Agreed 100%, it's a pity so many disrespect the office of the Presidency. Some very good points.

Wildkow

 

The best man for this job is a woman and her name is HRC