View Full Version : Republican Senator Chuck Hagel looking at Unity08 as an option
Mike Smash!
02-27-2007, 07:22 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-25-hagel-nebraska_x.htm
I'm not sure if you all have seen this, but Republican Senator Chuck Hagel may be launching an independent campaign for President of the United States with Unity08, (http://www.unity08.com/) a group that wants to run a bipartisan independent ticket for president and vice president.
He'd be particularly led to do so if a bid for the GOP nomination - already a longshot - were to be unsuccessful.
What do you think? Any conservatives or moderates who could back an independent Hagel campaign, if he had a Democratic or independent VP?
I honestly think that Guiliani would be smarter to go with Unity08 than the GOP, as he could bipass the crap he'll have to deal with in the primaries with the religious right.
BlairH
02-27-2007, 07:37 PM
The thing is, Guliani actually as a shot at the top job, provided he runs on a GOP ticket. Unfortunatley that means he'd be loath to consider running for Unity08, even if their platform is in-line with his rather moderate principles.
Way I see it, the GOP has to run a moderate in '08 anyways (same goes for the Democratic Party) meaning Rudy will be ripe for the picking
Samurai
02-27-2007, 07:39 PM
I'd never vote for Hagel, no matter what party that idiot ran under.
Guiliani I'd be very likely to vote for, no matter what party he ran under.
Either way, there is a massive benefit in terms of money and exposure for running under one of the 2 big parties rather than a 3rd party nobody has ever heard of.
Idiot = disagrees with Bush/Limbaugh/Hannity on Iraq
We'll be finding those WMDs any day now
Calybos
02-28-2007, 05:52 AM
Interesting... and anybody Samurai hates that much must be worth looking at.
I expect the big-party machines to crush him within seconds and spread his remains as a fine powder across New Hampshire and Iowa. Can't have any threats to the oligarchy, ya know!
Typo Lad
02-28-2007, 05:57 AM
I think it's an interesting idea.
moebius
02-28-2007, 09:17 AM
He's welcome to do it, but he's not independently wealthy in the way Perot was, so expect him to get buried by the Big 2.
Right now it looks like Clinton/Obama vs. Giuliani/Southern Social Conservative?. Which will be an interesting race, even if it won't make a lot of people happy.
Typo Lad
02-28-2007, 09:21 AM
Yeah - I'm not seeing Clinton and Obama sharing a ticket right now. Just not happening.
I'd actually put money on it.
Mike Smash!
02-28-2007, 11:32 AM
He's welcome to do it, but he's not independently wealthy in the way Perot was, so expect him to get buried by the Big 2.
Well, Perot had Perot's money and he got buried in 1996. The onlyt reason he was allowed to debate in 1992 -- above the protests of the Commission on Presidential Debates (co-owned by the big two) is that the Bush and Clinton campaigns thought they could use him as a weapon against each other.
Even when he was allowed to debate, he wasn't allowed to negotiate for debate format the way that the Clinton and Bush campaigns were.
The big two campaigns control the debates and have since 1988, that's why they've gotten successively lamer with shorter response times and less spontaneaity -- and no follow up questions.
Right now it looks like Clinton/Obama vs. Giuliani/Southern Social Conservative?. Which will be an interesting race, even if it won't make a lot of people happy.
I certainly wouldn't vote for either of those tickets, but I -- like Typo -- am willing to wager that the Dem ticket won't be Clinton/Obama. It'll likely be Clinton/somebody.
And I don't think Guiliani will take the GOP nomination. My money is still on McCain, who's proven he's willing to get into bed with anyone to win.
It'll be the battle between the candidates that Rupert Murdoch has held massive fundraisers for: Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain.
They're the only two I know whose money is guaranteed to hold strong until their conventions and it's truly sad that that's the biggest factor in winning these things.
Typo Lad
02-28-2007, 11:42 AM
W Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain.
Dear G-d that's depressing. Talk about your lose-lose situation!
Mike Smash!
02-28-2007, 11:43 AM
Dear G-d that's depressing. Talk about your lose-lose situation!
Oh yeah. Suck city.
Typo Lad
02-28-2007, 11:50 AM
"Lesse... on the one hand we have a political opportunist whose been bought more times than a Hedie Fliess girl... and on the other we have a two-faced waffler who panders so hard he leaves sucker marks on the voters.
...
"Honey, pack your bags, we're moving to Canada."
I want Bloomberg to run, damnit.
An interesting point about Giulliani -
Polls show that a majority of Americans have no idea what his position is on abortion and that most of those folks believe he is pro choice.
I also wonder how many Americans outside of New York and those who follow politics closely know about Giulliani dumping his wife through a press conference while he moved his mistress into the mansion?
Right now Giulliani is nothing more than what people project on the images of him walking around Manhattan on 9/11. He will not survive as his reality comes out into the open.
Oh yeah. Suck city.
I think that Hillary has peaked. And every time somebody takes a shot at her she whines - she whined about Geffen and she whines about people bashing her Iraq vote.
The more I see, the more I think Obama is going to take the nomination. He is smarter, more charismatic and more natural than Clinton. And much of the country is also in love with the idea of him. Too many Democrats have to hold their noses to support Clinton for her to win.
Typo Lad
02-28-2007, 02:19 PM
The sad thing is, I do know what a reprehensible human being Mr. Giulliani was and still think he'd make a better President than McCain or Clinton, who I feel barely even qualify as human.
I'd still like someone better to vote for. Giulliani has the benifit of actual ability to lead, competance, and a backbone. Yet he does lack much in the way of actual heart.
Ray R.
02-28-2007, 02:32 PM
I'd vote Hagel in a heartbeat over Clinton, McCain or Guiliani.
Hell, I'd CAMPAIGN FOR HIM, if those are my choices.
I still like Bill Richardson for the Dems, and haven't looked particularly hard at GOP candidates, other than "Flip-Flop" McCain and "Drag Queen" Guiliani (can't wait for those pictures to circulate in South Carolina.....).
JeffreyWKramer
02-28-2007, 02:34 PM
Dear G-d that's depressing. Talk about your lose-lose situation!
It's hard to imagine a worse choice, unless your choices are something like "Hitler or Dracula" or "Bundy or Manson."
Sir Tim Drake
02-28-2007, 02:52 PM
It's hard to imagine a worse choice, unless your choices are something like "Hitler or Dracula" or "Bundy or Manson."
I would prefer Dracula to most of the people mentioned in this thread. At least Dracula is an experienced and effective administrator.
Paul McEnery
02-28-2007, 04:09 PM
At this point, these are the people I think have no chance of even the nomination:
McCain
Giuliani
Clinton
Edwards
The exposure each of them is getting is killing their candidacies nearly as fast as Vilsack's went down.
Michael P
02-28-2007, 04:12 PM
I would prefer Dracula to most of the people mentioned in this thread. At least Dracula is an experienced and effective administrator.
Tough on crime, too.
Although, what would be wrong with having Al Bundy or Shirley Manson as president?
Mike Smash!
02-28-2007, 05:17 PM
I think that Hillary has peaked. And every time somebody takes a shot at her she whines - she whined about Geffen and she whines about people bashing her Iraq vote.
The more I see, the more I think Obama is going to take the nomination. He is smarter, more charismatic and more natural than Clinton. And much of the country is also in love with the idea of him. Too many Democrats have to hold their noses to support Clinton for her to win.
But most of them will hold their nose, much the way they held their nose for Kerry and Gore before her. Voters that don't like her don't matter as long as she can count on to fall in line after the convention.
She's got the two things you need to win the party nomination of the Ds or Rs: A shitload of cash and the support of the party bosses, fundraisers and kingmakers. And she'll be smart enough to have her husband campaign for her.
Obama's got the charisma, that's for sure, but I see his campaign not as a winning one, but as the one that finally crushes the myth of "a black man will never be president" as he comes in a strong second.
Mike Smash!
02-28-2007, 05:20 PM
At this point, these are the people I think have no chance of even the nomination:
McCain
Giuliani
Clinton
Edwards
The exposure each of them is getting is killing their candidacies nearly as fast as Vilsack's went down.
McCain and Clinton have the one thing going for them: LOTS of money. Which is precisely the lack of that sunk Vilsack's candidacy.
Money buys ads and attention and gets you the media exposure that forces media companies to put you on the cover of their magazines and even include you in their polling.
Look at Kucinich and Paul. Whenever they do a montage of faces or campaign buttons on the cover of a magazine, they're never included. But Hillary and McCain -- who haven;t even officially announced yet are.
(but then, they've both gotten big time fundraisiers for them put on by Rupert Murdoch)
Mike Smash!
02-28-2007, 05:25 PM
I want Bloomberg to run, damnit.
The rumor in third party circles is that Unity08 was set up for a Bloomberg independent run.
Paul McEnery
02-28-2007, 05:28 PM
McCain and Clinton have the one thing going for them: LOTS of money. Which is precisely the lack of that sunk Vilsack's candidacy.
Money buys ads and attention and gets you the media exposure that forces media companies to put you on the cover of their magazines and even include you in their polling.
Look at Kucinich and Paul. Whenever they do a montage of faces or campaign buttons on the cover of a magazine, they're never included. But Hillary and McCain -- who haven;t even officially announced yet are.
(but then, they've both gotten big time fundraisiers for them put on by Rupert Murdoch)
Yeah. And that exposure is exactly what's going to kill them.
If Iraq is still an issue at the convention -- and what do you think? think it might be? -- they're both really really dead in the water.
And yeah, Rudy's got too many character negatives, and Edwards -- well, he doesn't even have any character.
Joe Rice
02-28-2007, 05:39 PM
BLOOMBERG?!?! SERIOUSLY?!? That incompetent idiot would be worse than BUSH!
But most of them will hold their nose, much the way they held their nose for Kerry and Gore before her. Voters that don't like her don't matter as long as she can count on to fall in line after the convention.
I see your point. But Dean and Bradley were no Obama - they were smart enough but they did not have the public persona. Bradley's turkey waddle was enough to cost him the election - sad but true. And while Gore and Kerry might not have been too exciting, they didn't produce the negative feelings amongst folks the way Hillary does.
Hillary does have the party boss advantage but I don't think she is going to have a cash advantage. Yeah, she might raise more money than Obama but he'll raise enough. And Obama is exciting all kinds of people - not the far left or netroots or Deaniacs - but the rank and file. Plus, Ed Schultz loves Hillary and he's the worst progressive ever. Yuck. From Franken to that putz on XM...miserable.
Now, whether Obama can win the big election is another question. But I have bigger questions about Hillary. Too many people hate her - really hate her - for her to get far.
My two cents anyway.
BLOOMBERG?!?! SERIOUSLY?!? That incompetent idiot would be worse than BUSH!
Good gosh he would literally have to burn down the country after punching my grandmother to be worse than Bush.
Typo Lad
02-28-2007, 06:01 PM
BLOOMBERG?!?! SERIOUSLY?!? That incompetent idiot would be worse than BUSH!
I disagree. He's done a great job...except with education I suppose.
Joe Rice
02-28-2007, 06:35 PM
I disagree. He's done a great job...except with education I suppose.
. . .and crime. And the economy. And housing.
I can't stand Guiliani but even he at least DID something.
Mike Smash!
02-28-2007, 06:49 PM
Yeah. And that exposure is exactly what's going to kill them.
Yeah, but the majority of Americans really aren't paying much attention to this yet and people have frighteningly short memories and tend to give their particular "lesser evil" nominee far too much leeway and give them too much elbow room to retcon their past.
Take Bush. In 2000, he was opposed to nation building, called Roe v. Wade "settled law" and called for a more "humble" foreign policy.
By the time the 2004 election came around, most of his supporters seemed to willfully forget that he'd ever said such things.
I expect Hillary voters to do the same thing with her ever-changing rhetoric (but not position) on Iraq.
Very few people are asking hard enough questions and too many people are accepting bullshit evasive answers.
And post-Iowa, remember that many folks in the Dean camp went from blasting Kerry as Republican-lite to being terrified that even criticizing him or demanding he change his positions would make Bush win.
They'll do the same for Hillary.
It's the job of political nerds like you and I (and hopefully the media) to keep asking those embarassing questions and demanding answers.
Sure, she hasn't convinced us, but most people won't pay any real attention to this race until next summer. And that's a long time for her to retcon herself and for people to forget.
Sure, she hasn't convinced us, but most people won't pay any real attention to this race until next summer. And that's a long time for her to retcon herself and for people to forget.
They won't forget that they've thought she is a witch for the past 15 some odd years. I can't think of any candidate with this much built in bad will in recent history. I think it is almost impossible for Hillary's poll numbers to go up from their current position. Everyone has an opinion on her. Everyone feels they know her. Clinton consistently logs in at the 40% margin in the Dem polls and she trends worse than Obama in general election polls versus the Republicans. If Obama performs well in the debates - which he will - she's toast.
Not every election is going to be a replay of 2004. A good strong candidate can throw conventional wisdom all out the window. Heck, Hillary's husband did it in 1992 - despite the fact people hated her. If someone can connect with people on a fundamental level they can gain alot of the big "mo". Dean wasn't a connector - the more people knew him the more put off they were by his brash manner and ackward persona.
I certainly wouldn't vote for either of those tickets, but I -- like Typo -- am willing to wager that the Dem ticket won't be Clinton/Obama. It'll likely be Clinton/somebody.
I'd love to make a bet with you on this.
Especialy if Guiliani gets the republican nod, theres no way obama isn't going to be on that ticket. Maybe as the head of it.
Polls show that a majority of Americans have no idea what his position is on abortion and that most of those folks believe he is pro choice.
The majority of americans don't vote in primaries, and they don't really start caring until about 6 months before the vote.
I've heard part of hannitys shows 3 times in the last two weeks, each time he happned to mention that giuliani said he wants to put judges like scalia and alito on the bench.
Hannity is a show for republicans who vote in primaries...work is being done.
The majority of americans don't vote in primaries, and they don't really start caring until about 6 months before the vote.
I've heard part of hannitys shows 3 times in the last two weeks, each time he happned to mention that giuliani said he wants to put judges like scalia and alito on the bench.
Hannity is a show for republicans who vote in primaries...work is being done.
Could be. Fox is definitely in-love with Giulliani and that will go a long way.
Amazing - a cheating, pro-choice, pro-gay New Yorker being the Republican nomination. It might be worth it just to see Dobson's head explode - because his gang will definitely be supporting McCain.
However, I'm starting to get a feeling it might be Romeny for the Republicans. The guy is likeable as all get down - good looking - smart - and if McCain implodes and the choice is between Giulliani and Romeny I like Romney's chances.
Typo Lad
03-01-2007, 07:04 AM
theres no way obama isn't going to be on that ticket. Maybe as the head of it.
No way will there be a ticket with both "Clinton" and "Obama" in it, with either in either capacity. Not gonna happen.
No way will there be a ticket with both "Clinton" and "Obama" in it, with either in either capacity. Not gonna happen.
Dems aren't going to risk losing the black vote, and not including obama isn't going to win them any points.
Especialy if the republicans run a moderate republican like guiliani, they will need every bit of help they can get.
Could be. Fox is definitely in-love with Giulliani and that will go a long way.
Amazing - a cheating, pro-choice, pro-gay New Yorker being the Republican nomination. It might be worth it just to see Dobson's head explode - because his gang will definitely be supporting McCain.
However, I'm starting to get a feeling it might be Romeny for the Republicans. The guy is likeable as all get down - good looking - smart - and if McCain implodes and the choice is between Giulliani and Romeny I like Romney's chances.
Fox wants giuliani, hannity wants guilliani, i don't know who limbaugh wants, haven't heard him in a while.
Also, i don't beleive giuliani is pro choice. I heard his entire answer to the question, im not sure if its politics, but if a guy says "I hate abortion, i want judges like scalia and alito, thats who id put in...but i like a womans right to choose" the most important things are those first two coments, and thats what fox and hannity play up.
Mccain hasn't imploded, but his love fest is over for now, romeny isn't known by most people.
That can change, but if Giuliani comes into the debates with this much heat, its going to be a Dean at the primaries situation, where everyone jumps on him.
But that might backfire, the republicans are much more dissastfied with the parties direction then the democrats were in 04, where the entire party didn't care and just wanted Bush gone.
If they all dogpile on him and scream about gay rights and abortion, giuliani is going to get to the core of conservative beliefs with small government, low taxes talk.
They end up sounding like Bush, he ends up sounding like Reagan.
Ps, i heard a Romney for president ad today, "I love traditional families, war is good, blah blah" didn't work in the last election, i don't see why it would work in the next one.
JeffreyWKramer
03-01-2007, 07:48 AM
Hannity is a show for imbiciles
Fixed that for you.
JeffreyWKramer
03-01-2007, 07:51 AM
Amazing - a cheating, pro-choice, pro-gay New Yorker being the Republican nomination. It might be worth it just to see Dobson's head explode - because his gang will definitely be supporting McCain.
Actually, a few weeks back Dobson himself said he categorically would not vote for McCain. But a lot of the other fundy dingbats are, predictably, backing him, apparently impressed by how well he's been kissing up to Falwell and other such hatemongers and friends of ignorance.
However, I'm starting to get a feeling it might be Romeny for the Republicans. The guy is likeable as all get down - good looking - smart - and if McCain implodes and the choice is between Giulliani and Romeny I like Romney's chances.
If they pick Romney, they can kiss goodbye any chance of attracting moderate or crossover voters, plus a lot of the fundy base is iffy on him due to his religious affiliation.
Typo Lad
03-01-2007, 07:54 AM
Dems aren't going to risk losing the black vote, and not including obama isn't going to win them any points.
The Clintons think they own the black vote. There's a reason that the former president set his office up in Harlem.
Especialy if the republicans run a moderate republican like guiliani, they will need every bit of help they can get.
Not gonna happen. Mrs. Clinton has far, far too big an ego to put that "upstart" on her ticket.
The Clintons think they own the black vote. There's a reason that the former president set his office up in Harlem.
Not gonna happen. Mrs. Clinton has far, far too big an ego to put that "upstart" on her ticket.
Then Clinton is too stupid to run for president if she can't even understand a basic political move.
I don't think i've made it clear yet how much i friggen hate her. She is possible the most obvious politician i have seen in my lifetime, the woman can't even lie properly.
It's going to bite her in the ass.
Typo Lad
03-01-2007, 08:15 AM
Then Clinton is too stupid to run for president if she can't even understand a basic political move.
That would be my assesment, yes. Keep in mind I'm basing that on insider info.
The woman is an utter tit.
The Clintons think they own the black vote. There's a reason that the former president set his office up in Harlem.
Cause folks pooped a brick when he wanted to put his offices in lower Manhattan?
Then Clinton is too stupid to run for president if she can't even understand a basic political move.
I don't think i've made it clear yet how much i friggen hate her. She is possible the most obvious politician i have seen in my lifetime, the woman can't even lie properly.
It's going to bite her in the ass.
Which is why I think she's peaked and will soon disappear. When you put her and Obama on the same stage she'll begin to fall apart. Especially with Edwards shooting at her from the left on domestic issues.
Obama/Edwards in 08. The Scrawny Ticket.
JeffreyWKramer
03-01-2007, 09:02 AM
Then Clinton is too stupid to run for president if she can't even understand a basic political move.
I don't think i've made it clear yet how much i friggen hate her. She is possible the most obvious politician i have seen in my lifetime, the woman can't even lie properly.
It's going to bite her in the ass.
Clinton getting the Dem nomination would be tantamount to the Democrats handing the election over to the Republicans. It almost wouldn’t matter who the Republican candidate was, because people won’t vote for Clinton.
Yes, she has a certain degree of support, but like Hoss pointed out, she also has a lot of people that very much hate her. It’s hard to find a politician that has as high a negative rating as she has – around 40% is the number I’ve seen come up multiple times. About the only ones are Bush, Cheney and Rummy, and unfortunately for the Dems, none of those folk are gonna be candidates this time around.
Assuming he doesn’t implode in some way, or get on camera fucking kids while smoking crack, their best bet right now is to go with Obama, with someone like Edwards or Richardson as the VP. Clinton had better get used to her role being more or less the same one as Ted Kennedy – elder statesperson, a power in the Senate but no chance of being President.
I like Richardson. Smart and natural. But he's got no "mo."
Oh and another thing about Rudi
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/323/giulianidragtw5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Gordon Smith
03-01-2007, 09:15 AM
Richardson should be a much better canidate for VP than Edwards, considering he has more experience as a legislator, possesses Cabinet-level experience and is a two-term governor. It's a shame that he may end up playing second fiddle to someone like Obama who has no business whatsoever running for president.
Ray R.
03-01-2007, 09:15 AM
Clinton getting the Dem nomination would be tantamount to the Democrats handing the election over to the Republicans. It almost wouldn’t matter who the Republican candidate was, because people won’t vote for Clinton.
Yes, she has a certain degree of support, but like Hoss pointed out, she also has a lot of people that very much hate her. It’s hard to find a politician that has as high a negative rating as she has – around 40% is the number I’ve seen come up multiple times. About the only ones are Bush, Cheney and Rummy, and unfortunately for the Dems, none of those folk are gonna be candidates this time around.
Assuming he doesn’t implode in some way, or get on camera fucking kids while smoking crack, their best bet right now is to go with Obama, with someone like Edwards or Richardson as the VP. Clinton had better get used to her role being more or less the same one as Ted Kennedy – elder statesperson, a power in the Senate but no chance of being President.
I agree 100% with everything Jeffrey says but the Obama recommendation. I know I come off as a liberal moonbat at times, but I can't overstate enough how many Democrats, across the entire Democratic ideological spectrum, hate Hillary Clinton. Openly. Passionately. And even though I'm ostensibly Independent, I still lean Democrat most of the time, and to see her steamroll her way to the nomination by outspending everyone and using party infrastructure to bully the rest of the candidates, it makes me ill.
She's a political opportunist, a panderer who sees every word of criticism as a personal attack, and she doesn't represent any interests other than her own. Regardless of gender, she's a terrible choice.
I think it's way too early to start making bets and naming sure things yet, personally.
Ray R.
03-01-2007, 09:17 AM
Oh and another thing about Rudi
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/323/giulianidragtw5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Yup. How many car windshields in South Carolina do you see that tucked under the wipers? Or New Hampshire. Or Iowa.
Michael P
03-01-2007, 09:19 AM
Oh and another thing about Rudi
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/323/giulianidragtw5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
What the hell is the story behind this?
Ray R.
03-01-2007, 09:19 AM
I like Richardson. Smart and natural. But he's got no "mo."
Yet. He's my first choice. And it's still early yet. At this point in the 2004 race, noone knew Howard Dean from Jimmy Dean. And John "Frankenstein" Kerry was being castigated as a terrible front-runner, and people were looking seriously at John "Gravitas" Edwards.
Ray R.
03-01-2007, 09:24 AM
What the hell is the story behind this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8
Yet. He's my first choice. And it's still early yet. At this point in the 2004 race, noone knew Howard Dean from Jimmy Dean. And John "Frankenstein" Kerry was being castigated as a terrible front-runner, and people were looking seriously at John "Gravitas" Edwards.
Um, not so much with those examples -
How about at this point in 1991 no one knew of Bill Clinton? A story with a much happier ending.
Richardson should market himself as a brownish Bill Clinton with out the bootty calls.
Mike Smash!
03-01-2007, 11:10 AM
Could be. Fox is definitely in-love with Giulliani and that will go a long way.
Amazing - a cheating, pro-choice, pro-gay New Yorker being the Republican nomination. It might be worth it just to see Dobson's head explode - because his gang will definitely be supporting McCain.
We shouldn't be too surprised. Bush is a former drunk and an ex-male cheerleader.
Two things that would have drawn attention had he not been a Republican. Doublethink is a powerful thing.
Mike Smash!
03-01-2007, 11:14 AM
I agree 100% with everything Jeffrey says but the Obama recommendation. I know I come off as a liberal moonbat at times, but I can't overstate enough how many Democrats, across the entire Democratic ideological spectrum, hate Hillary Clinton. Openly. Passionately. And even though I'm ostensibly Independent, I still lean Democrat most of the time, and to see her steamroll her way to the nomination by outspending everyone and using party infrastructure to bully the rest of the candidates, it makes me ill.
She's a political opportunist, a panderer who sees every word of criticism as a personal attack, and she doesn't represent any interests other than her own. Regardless of gender, she's a terrible choice.
I think it's way too early to start making bets and naming sure things yet, personally.
But when it came to her primary for her Senate seat in NY, most of those people who hated her voted for her and even a well-funded and credible anti-war candidate got only 20% of the primary vote against her.
Hillary really does count of those that hate her to bend over for the lesser evil when they step into the voting booth. And she has good reason to, given the people they've bent over for in the past for the same reason.
We shouldn't be too surprised. Bush is a former drunk and an ex-male cheerleader.
Two things that would have drawn attention had he not been a Republican. Doublethink is a powerful thing.
But Bush had a "Road to Damascus" conversion years before becoming a politician. Rudy (and Mitt) are having "Road to Des Moines" conversions.
Mike Smash!
03-01-2007, 11:17 AM
I like Richardson. Smart and natural. But he's got no "mo."
I'm no fan of Richardson. In 2004, the Greens and Libertarians responded to allegations of voter machine fraud in his state by demanding and paying for a full state recount of the presidential race -- which had gone to Bush. Richardson ordered the voting machines purged of their stored information before their rightfully demanded recount could begin.
I really have no respect for people who would rather not rock the boat than do the right thing.
Mike Smash!
03-01-2007, 11:19 AM
But Bush had a "Road to Damascus" conversion years before becoming a politician. Rudy (and Mitt) are having "Road to Des Moines" conversions.
Yes, but the righties STILL make drunk jokes about Ted Kennedy when their guy is a former drunk. That's what I meant by doublethink.
And can you imagine how Rush would have responded to the news that Kerry or Gore had been a male cheerleader in college?
And Mitt? He responded to religious intolerance in a question asked about his Mormonism by spreading more religious intolerance recently. Basically he went off on atheists and agnostics as being unfit for office.
So, basically the old Eric Cartman bit. Deflect people making fun of you by getting them to help you make fun of someone else.
Ray R.
03-01-2007, 11:27 AM
But when it came to her primary for her Senate seat in NY, most of those people who hated her voted for her and even a well-funded and credible anti-war candidate got only 20% of the primary vote against her.
Hillary really does count of those that hate her to bend over for the lesser evil when they step into the voting booth. And she has good reason to, given the people they've bent over for in the past for the same reason.
Your point is valid. I just have hope and faith that a New York Senatorial Democratic primary, where there's not much national exposure (I don't even know who she ran against) is different than a state-by-state slug-fest.
Being a front-runner means you are in the cross-hairs, and she STILL can't take back her vote for giving the Commander-in-Chimp a blank check on the Iraq clusterfuck, which I expect in going to get thrown in her face at every whistlestop. Rightly so.
The money and campaign ads might be the difference though, as you intimate, and having Bill Clinton give figurative and probably literal back massages to everyone in the audience is tough to overcome.....crap.
The money and campaign ads might be the difference though, as you intimate, and having Bill Clinton give figurative and probably literal back massages to everyone in the audience is tough to overcome.....crap.
I think that is also going to backfire - remember when Kerry and Clinton stood on the same stage during the 2004 campaign? You know what people thought - "Kerry isn't even the most qualified person on that stage to be POTUS"
As far as campaign ads - Obama will have more than enough money. And if Gore jumps in he could probably raise 100 million in the first 100 hours.
Joe Rice
03-01-2007, 04:42 PM
I don't think Hillary would disavow Obama. The Clintons want victory way more than they are egotistical.
Mike Smash!
03-01-2007, 07:04 PM
I don't think Hillary would disavow Obama. The Clintons want victory way more than they are egotistical.
In my experience, candidates don't always have the common sense that voters do. Besides a lot of bad blood seems to be getting stirred up these days between Hillary and Barack, especially from the Clinton campaign.
But if I'm wrong and Hillary does decide to pick Obama as a running mate, expect Obama to sound alot more like her and likely to drop the "out of Iraq in a year" platform plank.
Right now if I could see her picking a VP from among the candidates running, I'd say she'd pick Richardson. He's alot closer to her politically and is less likely to outshine her.
moebius
03-02-2007, 06:15 AM
Right now if I could see her picking a VP from among the candidates running, I'd say she'd pick Richardson. He's alot closer to her politically and is less likely to outshine her.
Which is not a great choice, because Richardson was a pretty big chump as SecEnergy, IIRC. The guy was lucky to end up Governor of New Mexico.
Personally, I'm sad that Vilsack dropped out. Someone like him or Evan Bayh or Mark Warner make ideal VP candidates...popular dems from battleground states.
Which is not a great choice, because Richardson was a pretty big chump as SecEnergy, IIRC. The guy was lucky to end up Governor of New Mexico.
Personally, I'm sad that Vilsack dropped out. Someone like him or Evan Bayh or Mark Warner make ideal VP candidates...popular dems from battleground states.
Yeah, Richardson is really vulnerable on the energy thing.
"So Mr. Governor, was it your thumb or your head up your bum while Enron was ripping off the world?"
Ray R.
03-02-2007, 09:08 AM
Yeah, Richardson is really vulnerable on the energy thing.
"So Mr. Governor, was it your thumb or your head up your bum while Enron was ripping off the world?"
No, you didn't. SNAP.
Enron. The gift that keeps on giving. Yeah, I guess VP is best case scenario right now. Damn.
Gordon Smith
03-02-2007, 09:12 AM
No, you didn't. SNAP.
Enron. The gift that keeps on giving. Yeah, I guess VP is best case scenario right now. Damn.
While Richardson's stewardship of the Energy department is scarcely beyond criticism, he can hardly be blamed for failure to investigate Enron for financial chicaney. Those sorts of crimes fall under the jurisdiction of the IRS and the SEC, do they not?
Ray R.
03-02-2007, 11:06 AM
While Richardson's stewardship of the Energy department is scarcely beyond criticism, he can hardly be blamed for failure to investigate Enron for financial chicaney. Those sorts of crimes fall under the jurisdiction of the IRS and the SEC, do they not?
Well, I think the price-fixing in California and other areas would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission first. Accounting issues would have fallen under the auspices of the Securities & Exchange Commission. Any resultant criminal acts would have been referred to the local U.S. Attorney as part of the Department of Justice.
DOE should have been able to see red flags, though. Particularly, in monitoring the sale and resale of energy credits and massive purchases of utilities, as part of the overall market analysis and review the agency does. They probably weren't involved on the enforcement end as much as siccing the FTC and Commerce dogs to go investigate irregularities, which would then bring the state attorney generals, SEC and DOJ into the game. Richardson can't walk away with clean hands, unfortunately.
moebius
03-02-2007, 11:43 AM
Yeah, Richardson is really vulnerable on the energy thing.
"So Mr. Governor, was it your thumb or your head up your bum while Enron was ripping off the world?"
I was thinking more Wen Ho Lee and nuclear secrets disappearing all over the place during his tenure.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.