Why I want Hillary to win in 08!

Let's trot out the stock response, the deficit as a % of GDP:

[attachmentid=10170]

 

I think treating politics as a sport where you blindly route for your team is a Bad Idea. Unlike a football game, both sides can actually lose when the executive branch is manifestly incompetent. Double that if they have a compliant Congress.

I want a capable executive elected in 2008, and blindly partisan score keeping has just about zero to do with who I vote for or support financially.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jweale @ Jul 26 2007, 05:07 PM) [snapback]485808[/snapback]</div>

Fair - though as I've posted elsewhere, my primary focus is the Supreme court, so I'll forgive some incompetence if they can get the right justices in place. To do that, however, there must be at least enough competence to hold the White house until Justice Stevens retires.

 

I don't think we can sustain the war on terror beyond GW's term.... No matter who's next, the people won't stand for it.

So, trot up the dead Chihuahua.. um.. I mean Hillary... put her in the driver seat, pull out the troops, stop watching the gates to the country, relax security at the airports so we are all once again 'free' and watch Islamic terrorism grip this country.

Which should lead to a clean sweep of all 435 house seats and all 100 senate seats as well as a recall of the president within about 3 years.

Should be fun!! :lol:

 

I don't care who gets in, as long as it's not some brain dead Republican't.

You know, the type who can not see the value of stem cell research, or how being able to choose what one wants to do with one's own body is a freedom of choice thing, or still thinks that invading Iraq was a good idea.

Yeah, I don't want that kind of President.

 

Substitute "Republicans" for "Bob Rumson" in the following speech and this quote from The American President pretty much sums up how I feel.

"I've known <strike>Bob Rumson</strike> the Republicans for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason <strike>Bob</strike> they devote<strike>s</strike> so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that (t)he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. <strike>Bob's</strike> Their problem isn't that (t)he do<strike>es</strike>n't get it. <strike>Bob's</strike> Their problem is that (t)he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, <strike>Bob Rumson is</strike> The Republican are not the least bit interested in solving it. (T)He <strike>is</strike> are interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character."


Too bad the movie came out in 1995 and not 2000.

George Bush is so Bob Rumson.

 

Logically, if you know the other side is going to win, you want the person who you believe will do the best for the country. The good of America trumps the good of my party. I would never cross lines to vote for a person unqualified in order to bet that person won't win and will help my party. To do so is to bet against my country, and that I cannot do.

In a couple of respects, Sen. Clinton is a good choice. She has the advantage of knowing, personally, the men and women who served the country admirably during President Clinton's term. And she has the advantage, much like a Vice President, of seeing the workings of the job close up. Her skill in not running to the far left extreme position makes her more electable in a general election (she almost looks conservative up there with the rest of the candidates). So, while I think its a disaster if the Democrats win, if Sen. Clinton gets in, the republic will surely survive.

While not on anyone's radar, Sen. Biden is also smart, experienced in foreign affairs, and seems willing to say that bumper sticker slogans won't do the job ahead. He isn't pandering to the far left, and has excellent left of center credentials that the country seems to prefer right now. Much too liberal for my taste, but then I'm not in the driver's seat this election.

Were I a young Democrat, I would be excited by Barack Obama. He communicates well, he is charismatic, and it would be exciting to have a younger person in the office again. As an older Republican, I can say that I like him personally, but think he's faltering in a way that makes him look like an "empty suit". He needs to show some caution about things like saying he'll meet with three dictators on the planet in his first year. Sen. Clinton had the best response to that question, borne of her experience. It IS a big deal to speak to the US President; we should always get the most bang for the buck.

 

i have a great reason. she's already got like 8 years experience in the white house.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(smackoww @ Jul 27 2007, 02:08 AM) [snapback]485991[/snapback]</div>

true, but she is not really good at cleaning up stains

what type of white house experience does she have - btw?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(smackoww @ Jul 27 2007, 01:08 AM) [snapback]485991[/snapback]</div>

Will she use this experience to steal yet another set of silverware? :lol:

 

Thats a lot of information for the Libs to diseminate there it may be next year before they can trump/ I mean come up with a good excuse for each one.

I find it really impressive with the graph/chart that MH included!

Wildkow & Mad Hatter:
Special thanks to the both of you, for your investigative skills & posting the data.!

 

I thought this graph was pretty interesting:

 

Maybe she too can get a Blow job and hire a dry cleaner on the spot!!!

Go Hillary go
Would be better than any Republican't
maybe we can cut down the huge deficit$$$$$$ that Junior made

 

Just so things don't get too serious here...

The bumper sticker "Run Hillary Run" is considered to be the first truely bipartisen sticker.

Democrats put it on their back bumper

Republicans put it on their front bumper

:lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 26 2007, 08:51 PM) [snapback]485832[/snapback]</div>

The people won't stand for a GW Bush-style war on terror, that's for sure.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Jul 27 2007, 01:57 PM) [snapback]486259[/snapback]</div>

The dead chihuahua is going to get a smack up side the head from islam about 10 to 20 months into term. Should be interesting..

Once that happens, the people (who are very stupid) will forget these 7 years of wanting to get out of Iraq, and only remember how 'cowboy Bush' kicked nice person and kept them safe after 9/11 while your highly effective european friends have been hit by this same terrorism how many times since 9/11? Spain... London... Well, more than you can count... The people will be wondering where that cowboy style war on terrorism went.. We have the greatest fighting force on the planet, why aren't they fighting this war instead of it happening in our cities?

Just a little view into the future for ya...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 27 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]486267[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I distinctly recall the first Clinton's years, you know the ones when he listened to the professionals in his government (handed off to him by Bush Sr, a very sharp man) from day one, went after terrorism directly (even when the Republicans derided his "Monica missiles" - chosing to play politics with a matter of national security), and kept America very safe. Based on the first-person accounts available (Tommy Franks, Richard Clark, Christine Todd Whitman, etc.), Bush Jr was asleep at the switch on 9/11. And his Iraq fascination has led to us to liberate a harmless dictatorship at the cost of letting the real problem fester and grow worse (Pakistan, you know where that insignificant Osama Bin Laden guy is).

Islamic fundamentalism is very dangerous and needs to be dealt with harshly. The intelligent administrations of Bush Sr and Clinton were doing so. Bush Jr couldn't be bothered to attend a serious meeting on the issue until after 9/11. This is not a partisan thing, it is a review of the best facts available to the public (although I'm sure the multi-administration spanning Richard Clark is "a partisan liar" while the pro-Bush Tommy Franks, who also says very damning things about Bush Jr's inept 'leadership', is a bastion of honesty). I think it is best summed up by the bombing of the World Trade Center in '93- you know, the murderous criminal act where the perpetrators, including the blind mastermind, were tracked down responsibly, actually caught, and brought to justice. Compare to 9/11 where the mastermind is left to roam free recruiting in a lawless Islamic region while the US government invaded a loathsome but unrelated country, spied illegally on US citizens, made an executive power grab, and pushed the Orwellian-named Patriot Act through? Are you paying attention to reality? Unfortunately for the Republicans most Americans are.