fansince62 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 can you say McGovern?!!!! Let's hope the ideologues in the democratic party win out. Dean would be easy pickins....... meet John Doe....right.......or is that......left......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Dean is defiantly out there in left field, pun intended, and will prove to be no match for Bush. Dark horse candidates like Dean have trouble raising funds so sadly (said with tongue lodged firmly in cheek) his campaign won't go far. Bush on the other hand is a master fundraiser and will have a huge war chest going into the next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 tex....it's almost comical......Bush is very vulnerable....but the dems are once again captive to the very ideological extremism Clinton tried to reign in....I'll give this to Clinton....he was brilliant in the way he maneuvered the party to a more centrist position while using the less democratic levers of power (e.g., judicial appointments and presidential PDs) to achieve the more liberal policy ends of the democratic party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Dean could be good for the democratic party. Maybe he could force some of the big boys to grow a spine and actually oppose the current bumbling President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I think JAck has a good point. Dean cant beat Bush, but nobody can. What he can do is lay some groundwork for 08. One thing though, he should learn what the definition of "unilateral" is. It's easy for him to sit in Vermont and cry his liberal tears, but the big boys of the party have to go on the record to the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Kilmer, If lightning strikes again and Bush is (god forbid) elected in '04 (not reelected because he wasn't elected the first time) you and I both know who runs in '08. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Kilmer, If lightning strikes again and Bush is (god forbid) elected in '04 (not reelected because he wasn't elected the first time) you and I both know who runs in '08. Yup. In fact, I'd say she isn't running this time around because she knows Bush is too strong a candidate. Incumbents are much more difficult to defeat and this election's dem candidate will simply be a lamb to the slaughter. HC is too savvy for that, for better or for worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 she's smart to wait....she knows that as long as foreign policy and national security is on the agenda she is not trusted by a large majority. her "strengths" play entirely to a domestic agenda....... but she has too many negatives.....I doubt that she can ever win an election..........will be fun to watch......it will be great gearing up the Clinton smear machine once again!! so much material...so little time!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Watching her and AlGore beat the snot out of each other for a year and a half will be true entertainment. Neither will be able to beat Guiliani/Rice in 08 though. They may have a shot at Jeb in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I expect to see a Clinton/Jeb Bush faceoff in 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I wouldnt be surprised to see Rice replace Dick Cheney in 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 wow!...Rice in 2004....I doubt it....but wouldn't that be problematic for the Martha Burkes and Johnny Cochrans of the world!!!! How much you wanna bet we'ld see these folks crank up the ole Uncle Tomasina racism ("you aren't black if you don't agree with us") card?! this would really force some of these closet bigots to take a good look in the mirror....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Black is no longer a race related term. It's a politcal term. In the lefts mind, Clarence Thomas isnt black. Estrada isn't HIspanic, but Loretta Sanchez can change her name to a Hispanic sounding name and she is instantly Hispanic. It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode were the Dentist converts to Judaism for the jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Clinton was indeed brilliant for all the reasons you stated fansince62. Bush is also very beatable especially if the economy fails to improve by the next election and the war effort goes badly. Assuming Dick Cheney does not run again in 2004, either for health reasons or because he becomes further embroiled in the Enron fiasco, Condoleezza Rice would be the first African-American to run on a major party's presidential ticket. A Condoleezza Rice candidacy would almost certainly excite the black vote. In such a campaign, African-Americans may well see a historic opportunity to move one of their own into position for the presidency in 2008. If Condie does run it may force the dems to counter with Hilary. Hilary stands well with African-Americans and women voters but as you pointed out she carries so many negatives the dems will find themselves in a real conundrum with her on the ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Hillary get's trounced in every poll out there. Ironic because she constantly polls tops when pitted against other Dems. I hope she waits, mostly because I want to see her have her *** handed to her in the Senate race of 06. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by luckydevi I wouldnt be surprised to see Rice replace Dick Cheney in 2004 Oh yeah the GOP will nominate a black women! When donkeys fly. I wonder if she could win the South Carolina primary without going to Bob Jones Univ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 John Q. Adams, son of John Adams, lost the popular vote in 1824, but was elected president. Benjamin Harrison, grandson of William Henry Harrison, lost the popular vote in 1888, but was elected president. George W. Bush, son of George Bush, lost the popular vote in 2000, but was elected. Neither J. Q. Adams or B. Harrison were re-elected. In each respective election, the opponent they beat came back to win the next election. Jackson defeated Adams, and Cleveland defeated Harrison. Gore in 2004? No president with four letters in their last name served more than one term: James Polk 1845, Howard Taft 1909, Gerald Ford 1974, and George Bush 1989. George W. Bush has four. No president whose last name began with the letter B was re-elected: Buchanan 1857, and Bush 1989. No one with a B in their first name has served two terms: Abraham Lincoln 1861, Herbert Hoover 1929, and Benjamin Harrison 1889. No one who used the middle initial B served a second term: Rutherford B. Hayes 1877, and Lyndon B. Johnson 1963. Don't forget one-term president Martin Van Buren in 1837. George W. Bush's last name begins with a B, and Gore's first name is Albert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Yeah, those racists. They'll never appoint a black person to the Supreme Court or to Nat Sec Advisor, or Sec of State, or appoint a hispanic to the fed bench or................. They are much better at electing former Klansmen as their leaders. oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 now now Kilmer....not nice to confront bluster with the facts....remember...minorities were created for democrats to patronize....not to treat as equal partners........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Kilmer, If lightning strikes again and Bush is (god forbid) elected in '04 (not reelected because he wasn't elected the first time) you and I both know who runs in '08. Jack,because you Dems are so in love with legal loopholes, does this mean that the answer to your question would be "Bush", because he wouldn't be a two-termer at that point? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 What would you guys think of Colin Powell as the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, with Rice lined up to be his Secy of State or VP? I know that he's poo-poo'ed this possibility, but I have to believe that they'll make a serious push for him. I'd love that ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Powell would be a great candidate, but he's pretty well put those rumors to rest. BTW, I would LOVE to see Bush state in 07 that he was running again because according to the Dems he had only been elected to 1 term. Although I think the Constitution states that a Pres can serve 2 elected terms PLUS the continuation of a previous Presidnet NOT to exceed a total of 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Yeah, those racists. They'll never appoint a black person to the Supreme Court or to Nat Sec Advisor, or Sec of State, or appoint a hispanic to the fed bench or................. They are much better at electing former Klansmen as their leaders. oops. Apples and oranges my friend. Those postions are not elected ones. It really reflects more on the folks that vote in the GOP primary than the party itself. You and I know it will be a long time before Rice or Powell could ever be on the GOP ticket. To be fair I have my doubts about Lieberman being able to win the Dem nomination either. The GOP may not be a racist party but all racists sure vote Republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 "all racists sure vote Republican." Jack, surely you dont believe this. Look simply at the Flag issue in GA and look who opposed removing it. It was the Democrats from south GA and the Democratic voters in those areas. Id bet you a dollar the GOP has a black candidate for P or VP before the Dems do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 26, 2003 Author Share Posted February 26, 2003 The GOP may not be a racist party but all racists sure vote Republican among the more stupid things you have said - on an ever growing list..."our friend"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.