The 2008 Republican nominee will be forced to ask himself the question: "Do I run as another Bush or not?". Some may be quick to say "NO!", George Bush is regarded as the worst president in history and has 30% approval ratings, but don't be too quick to say no, its not as easy of a question as one may think.
President Bush still is favored and liked by 75-80% of all Republican voters. If the nominee distances himself from Bush, he risks alienating himself from his own party, and you cannot win an election without the support of your base. At the same time running a Bush-like campaign would almost certainly ruin the chances of the nominee gaining any significant independent support and virtually zero support from democrats. And as I've stated before, a presidential candidate has to have broad appeal to win an election. When it comes down to it, it will be a difficult choice for the nominee to make. We already see Fred Thompson, who has yet to officially enter the race, run a similar campaign that Bush ran in 2004. We see Mitt Romney trying to distance himself from Bush, yet at the same time complementing him. Mike Huckabee has tried to separate himself from Bush, saying that he is not a part of the "old republican party", an obvious reference to Bush. Then we have Guiliani who while rarely mentioning Bush's name, his foreign policy has been described as "Bush on steroids". Its a situation where the nominee is going to have to find a middle-ground, a way to appeal to the Bush lovers and the Bush haters, for the Republicans won't be able to win in '08 without the support from both those factions. It is the old case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't!"
Monday, August 13, 2007
Hillary Clinton--the downfall of the Democrats?
There appears to be talk going around the political world that Hillary Clinton, as the democrat's nominee in 2008, would lead the party to a sure defeat. Am I the only one who thinks not? Hillary Clinton's negatives are quickly and steadily dropping and her favorable ratings have soared since last year at this time. She is the only democrat who consistently defeats all of the Republicans in general election polls. Hillary Clinton is not as far-left as Edwards and Obama and appeals to more independents than the other Democratic candidates. She has proved to be the voice of reason and experience in the debates and her centrist views are most in line with main-stream America. As the Chairman of the DLC, Harold Ford, explained on this past Sunday's Meet the Press, the democrats will have to appeal to main-stream america, take the centrist path, in order to capture the White House. Crazy liberals just do not appeal to independent voters, and its those independents who make the difference in these type of elections. If anything I see Hillary Clinton as the democrat most likely to be able to win a general election. Just this past week new polls were released showing Clinton beating the Republican front-runner, Rudy Guiliani, in key states such as Florida and Pennsylvania. She currently is tied with Guiliani in Ohio, which is up from a few months ago when she was losing to him. And in a Texas state poll, Clinton ties with all the Republican front-runners, showing she even has appeal in red states. So while you have Obama, Edwards, and the others courting the far-left liberals, you have Hillary Clinton winning over main-stream America. In my mind, thats how the democrats will win in 2008, by broad appeal, in fact, that is the only way we will win.
More on Rove's Resignation
As announced this morning through the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove has resigned as President Bush's chief political strategist. His final day in the White House will be August 31. His reason for leaving? Spending time with his family. While the "spending more time with my family" has become some-what of a default resignation excuse for many officials, it can't really apply to Rove.
His kid is going off to college this year, shouldn't he have wanted to spend time with his family, before his kid went off? But then again, Karl Rove would rather make a mockery of this government than spend time with his family. He waited to leave until there was nothing left to screw up. Ok, in all seriousness, Rove probably knew that when Congress got back from vacation he was going to pounded harder than ever and just wanted to escape the scrutiny. Maybe he should have thought of that before he took part in Bush and Cheney's illegal doings: the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, the CIA leak case, the e-mail scandal, and who knows what else. With the new warning from Chief of Staff Bolten that whom ever does not resign by Labor Day will have to stay with the White House for the remainder of Bush's term, we may see some more members of the administration say good-bye to Mr. Bush.
His kid is going off to college this year, shouldn't he have wanted to spend time with his family, before his kid went off? But then again, Karl Rove would rather make a mockery of this government than spend time with his family. He waited to leave until there was nothing left to screw up. Ok, in all seriousness, Rove probably knew that when Congress got back from vacation he was going to pounded harder than ever and just wanted to escape the scrutiny. Maybe he should have thought of that before he took part in Bush and Cheney's illegal doings: the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, the CIA leak case, the e-mail scandal, and who knows what else. With the new warning from Chief of Staff Bolten that whom ever does not resign by Labor Day will have to stay with the White House for the remainder of Bush's term, we may see some more members of the administration say good-bye to Mr. Bush.
Another White House Official Resigns!!!
Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, resigns and will be leaving the White House at the end of August. What else can I say except Alleluia. This guy is a crook and has done more harm to this country's integrity than we will ever know of. Not only has he been involved with the CIA leak, but also the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. All I can say is good rid-ins and hopefully Gonzo is next to go.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
One Down, Ten to go!!!
Republican Presidential Candidate and former Wisconsin Governor, Tommy Thompson, has abandoned his quest for the White House. Going into the Iowa Straw Poll, Thompson had said that if he did not come out strong, he would leave the race, and can you believe it, someone from the Republican party actually told the truth!
This is not big news either way. Tommy had little to no shot of getting the nomination and even less of a shot winning the general election. He performed less than spectacular in the debates, to say the least, and did not have one defining credential to his name. That leaves 9 official Republican candidates, with 1 more expected to enter soon. I actually hope to see a few more guys drop out of the race, so that way, in the debates, we get more time to hear from the ones who actually have a shot at winning.
Well thats one down, I suppose two if you count Jim Gilmore, and 10 more to go. Just to think, 10 Republican candidates, only one will get the nomination, and (hopefully) zero will get the White House.
This is not big news either way. Tommy had little to no shot of getting the nomination and even less of a shot winning the general election. He performed less than spectacular in the debates, to say the least, and did not have one defining credential to his name. That leaves 9 official Republican candidates, with 1 more expected to enter soon. I actually hope to see a few more guys drop out of the race, so that way, in the debates, we get more time to hear from the ones who actually have a shot at winning.
Well thats one down, I suppose two if you count Jim Gilmore, and 10 more to go. Just to think, 10 Republican candidates, only one will get the nomination, and (hopefully) zero will get the White House.
Rudy at it again...now he gives us his definition of freedom!
When you think "America's Mayor" Rudy Guiliani can't get any worse, he does. Take a look now as Rudy defines what his view of freedom is:
"Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
Well tell me Rudy, what is freedom?, because I thought freedom was the ability to be anything you can be. I thought it allowed me to do what I want to do when I want to do it. Freedom allows me to choose: do I want to be a lawyer, a doctor, a teacher, or something else. Freedom allows me to go where I want to go: to work, to the store, to my friend's house, to wherever. So you're saying that to be free, I have to do whatever you, the authority, wants me to do? Thats not freedom, thats slavery. Why should you have any discretion at all what I do in my private life. Rudy you're wrong. This is a free country. Never have the American people given up their freedom to the president. The president serves the people, not the other way around. Read the constitution, maybe then you'll see.
"Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
Well tell me Rudy, what is freedom?, because I thought freedom was the ability to be anything you can be. I thought it allowed me to do what I want to do when I want to do it. Freedom allows me to choose: do I want to be a lawyer, a doctor, a teacher, or something else. Freedom allows me to go where I want to go: to work, to the store, to my friend's house, to wherever. So you're saying that to be free, I have to do whatever you, the authority, wants me to do? Thats not freedom, thats slavery. Why should you have any discretion at all what I do in my private life. Rudy you're wrong. This is a free country. Never have the American people given up their freedom to the president. The president serves the people, not the other way around. Read the constitution, maybe then you'll see.
1994: "Invading Baghdad would create Quagmire"
Wondering who made that seemingly psychic prediction? Well the answer may surprise you, it was one of the principle authors of the Iraq War: Vice President Dick Cheney! In an interview with the American Enterprise Institure in '94, Dick Cheney had this to say,
"If we go go Baghdad it would be us all alone, it would be a U.S. occupation of Iraq....When you take down Saddam's government, what are you going to put in its place? Thats a very volatile part of the world and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you can easily start seeing pieces fly off. Syria and Iran would want to claim parts of Iraq....Another thing is casualties....(in the Gulf War the deaths of soldiers was limited)..but for their families it was too much. The question is how many dead Americans is Saddam worth and the answer is not too many."
Wow, this interview actually shocked me. Dick Cheney actually knew what would happen if we invaded Iraq. So why did America do it? What a difference a decade makes. I agree with everything he said in this interview, so why did he and the President lie to the American people and Congress in order to get this war started? Why did they so strongly put forth the need for us to go into Iraq? They lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, they lied about al-Qaeda in Iraq, and they lied about Saddam Hussein being involved in 9/11. Maybe if Dick Cheney told the truth to Congress, Congress wouldn't have authorized this War. Maybe if Cheney would have told the American people the truth there wouldn't have been wide-spread support for this war. But a maybe is just a maybe, and now we are in this war and neither Cheney nor Bush want to get us out. They continue to lie to us, with Bush recently saying, "the same people who attacked us on 9/11 are in Iraq." Another blatant lie. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Al-qaeda is based in Afghanistan. If Bush and Cheney truly wanted to get who attacked us on 9/11, and I believe they should, why did we take our eye of Afghanistan where bin-Laden and al-Qaeda was and go into Iraq? We could have found bin-Laden and broken up al-Qaeda by now, but instead we are in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. And now we are at greater risk than ever before of another terrorist attack because bin-Laden and al-Qaeda have been able to reform in Pakistan. Bush and Cheney are right on one thing, Iraq does have something to do with national security, but not as they say. The longer we stay in Iraq, the less safe we are here in America, because the longer we're there, the less time we're spending fighting the islamic extremists who want us dead!
"If we go go Baghdad it would be us all alone, it would be a U.S. occupation of Iraq....When you take down Saddam's government, what are you going to put in its place? Thats a very volatile part of the world and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you can easily start seeing pieces fly off. Syria and Iran would want to claim parts of Iraq....Another thing is casualties....(in the Gulf War the deaths of soldiers was limited)..but for their families it was too much. The question is how many dead Americans is Saddam worth and the answer is not too many."
Wow, this interview actually shocked me. Dick Cheney actually knew what would happen if we invaded Iraq. So why did America do it? What a difference a decade makes. I agree with everything he said in this interview, so why did he and the President lie to the American people and Congress in order to get this war started? Why did they so strongly put forth the need for us to go into Iraq? They lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, they lied about al-Qaeda in Iraq, and they lied about Saddam Hussein being involved in 9/11. Maybe if Dick Cheney told the truth to Congress, Congress wouldn't have authorized this War. Maybe if Cheney would have told the American people the truth there wouldn't have been wide-spread support for this war. But a maybe is just a maybe, and now we are in this war and neither Cheney nor Bush want to get us out. They continue to lie to us, with Bush recently saying, "the same people who attacked us on 9/11 are in Iraq." Another blatant lie. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Al-qaeda is based in Afghanistan. If Bush and Cheney truly wanted to get who attacked us on 9/11, and I believe they should, why did we take our eye of Afghanistan where bin-Laden and al-Qaeda was and go into Iraq? We could have found bin-Laden and broken up al-Qaeda by now, but instead we are in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. And now we are at greater risk than ever before of another terrorist attack because bin-Laden and al-Qaeda have been able to reform in Pakistan. Bush and Cheney are right on one thing, Iraq does have something to do with national security, but not as they say. The longer we stay in Iraq, the less safe we are here in America, because the longer we're there, the less time we're spending fighting the islamic extremists who want us dead!
"Are You Black Enough?" -The latest qualification needed to be president?
"Are you black enough?"
That is the question that has been directly asked to the two democratic front-runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I am aware that it is in part to be humorous, but at the same time it still rubs me the wrong way. In fact, I'm not really sure what the question means. Who defines what "black" is? It is like turning the clock back to racism and stereotyping, where "black" is a defined roll. The question that is reasonable and appropriate to ask is, "What have you done for the African-American community and what will you do for it as President?" How "black" someone is shouldn't qualify or disqualify a person to be president. It should be what have they done for african-americans, and for that matter for all people, of all colors. A candidate shouldn't be defined by the color of his or her skin, gender, ethnicity, the part of the country he's from, or anything else. The only question that needs to be answered correctly to be president is, "What have you done and how do you plan on making this country a better place?" That question covers everything, all the issues, and if the candidate can provide the correct answer to that question, than he or she deserves to be president.
.....But then again, maybe if that question was asked in 2000, we wouldn't have Mr. Dubya as President...
That is the question that has been directly asked to the two democratic front-runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I am aware that it is in part to be humorous, but at the same time it still rubs me the wrong way. In fact, I'm not really sure what the question means. Who defines what "black" is? It is like turning the clock back to racism and stereotyping, where "black" is a defined roll. The question that is reasonable and appropriate to ask is, "What have you done for the African-American community and what will you do for it as President?" How "black" someone is shouldn't qualify or disqualify a person to be president. It should be what have they done for african-americans, and for that matter for all people, of all colors. A candidate shouldn't be defined by the color of his or her skin, gender, ethnicity, the part of the country he's from, or anything else. The only question that needs to be answered correctly to be president is, "What have you done and how do you plan on making this country a better place?" That question covers everything, all the issues, and if the candidate can provide the correct answer to that question, than he or she deserves to be president.
.....But then again, maybe if that question was asked in 2000, we wouldn't have Mr. Dubya as President...
The Iowa Straw Poll: who finished strong, and who's going home?
Well one day after the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames, one thing is clear, Mitt Romney's win was neither surprising nor meaningful. With the top 3 front-runners, Guiliani, Thompson, and McCain, not participating, Romney was the only candidate with a significant amount of money in his pocket. And it is actually pretty sad when you have to spend $3 to 5 million just to come out on top when your biggest threat is Mike Huckabee. Guiliani and McCain were smart; they knew that if they didn't take take part in the poll, they would de-value a Mitt Romney win. Now people look at Mitt Romney winning and can say, "so what? Rudy, McCain, and Fred weren't even there, he was the default choice." While I don't agree with Guiliani or McCain skipping the Straw Poll, they knew that they couldn't afford to be beaten by Mitt Romney and without them there, Romney's win would mean a lot less.
Now onto the other candidates. Mike Huckabee did well, yet he was always the favorite to come in at number two. He had been polling increasingly well in Iowa, most recently tying with John McCain. His win was no doubt a shot in the arm that could help his campaign, but he still badly lost to Romney, who had nearly double his votes. Sam Brownback, who just for the record gives me the creeps, needed to take the second spot(he came in third). He's going to have a rough time continuing his campaign. He's a one issue man: abortion, and in this day and age, I just don't think the issue of abortion is important to main-stream america. We have a war, an immigration problem, a falling economy, a terrible infrastructure, a heath care crisis, and all Sam Brownback wants to talk about is how he is pro-life. If he wants to win the nomination or a general election, he's going to have to address some of these other issues.
Tom Tancredo surprised me a little. I did not expect him to come in at number four, more like 6 or 7. I guess it proves that the right-wing base loves crazy conservatives from Colorado. I was thinking he was going to drop out, but he may have enough steam for a few more weeks, at least until the next debate. Ron Paul, my man, came in at number 5, a little disappointing to me, but good none the less. For a man who has been polling at 0%, number 5 is okay...for him. I do actually hope he stays in the campaign to the end, just so republicans have a choice of becoming sane and choosing an anti-war candidate. Anything below number 5 is a sign you should drop out. Tommy Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and John Cox came in 6th, 7th, and 8th respectively. Tommy Thompson has already said that if he didn't finish at the top, he would drop out, so I guess its bye bye Tommy. Duncan Hunter has contributed nothing to the debates and hasn't made any impact what-so-ever on this campaign. Its time for him to go and I believe he will. And what can I say about John Cox? The man got 41 votes. When you can't even get 50 out of 14,000 votes, its a problem. I would say that he is going to drop out, but he's been holding strong even though no one has a clue who the hell he is, so maybe he's just going to stay in it to the end, hoping he'll get a spot in one of the debates once the other drop out.
Now onto the other candidates. Mike Huckabee did well, yet he was always the favorite to come in at number two. He had been polling increasingly well in Iowa, most recently tying with John McCain. His win was no doubt a shot in the arm that could help his campaign, but he still badly lost to Romney, who had nearly double his votes. Sam Brownback, who just for the record gives me the creeps, needed to take the second spot(he came in third). He's going to have a rough time continuing his campaign. He's a one issue man: abortion, and in this day and age, I just don't think the issue of abortion is important to main-stream america. We have a war, an immigration problem, a falling economy, a terrible infrastructure, a heath care crisis, and all Sam Brownback wants to talk about is how he is pro-life. If he wants to win the nomination or a general election, he's going to have to address some of these other issues.
Tom Tancredo surprised me a little. I did not expect him to come in at number four, more like 6 or 7. I guess it proves that the right-wing base loves crazy conservatives from Colorado. I was thinking he was going to drop out, but he may have enough steam for a few more weeks, at least until the next debate. Ron Paul, my man, came in at number 5, a little disappointing to me, but good none the less. For a man who has been polling at 0%, number 5 is okay...for him. I do actually hope he stays in the campaign to the end, just so republicans have a choice of becoming sane and choosing an anti-war candidate. Anything below number 5 is a sign you should drop out. Tommy Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and John Cox came in 6th, 7th, and 8th respectively. Tommy Thompson has already said that if he didn't finish at the top, he would drop out, so I guess its bye bye Tommy. Duncan Hunter has contributed nothing to the debates and hasn't made any impact what-so-ever on this campaign. Its time for him to go and I believe he will. And what can I say about John Cox? The man got 41 votes. When you can't even get 50 out of 14,000 votes, its a problem. I would say that he is going to drop out, but he's been holding strong even though no one has a clue who the hell he is, so maybe he's just going to stay in it to the end, hoping he'll get a spot in one of the debates once the other drop out.
A special Sunday post by John Lucia: The GOP, the party of hypocrisy
The Grand Old Party of hypocrisy came about around 1993 when the so called "Gingrich Revolution" started to brand Democrats as lacking in family and moral values. The neocon republicans who participated in the so called Revolution set them selves up as the pillar of moral and family values and self righteousness. But before long their self serving statements revealed their hypocrisy and the real truth about their own lack of moral and family values. The steady exposure of their hypocrisy since the early 90's was again made evident recently when it was revealed that one of their Senator's name appeared on the D.C. madam's phone records. The Senator in a self serving statement then said he was forgiven by God and his wife for his sins. Newt Gingrich and many of his neocon friends who's real character have been exposed represent the height of hypocrisy and the real threat to civility and morality. One of the main problems we face as a society are television journalists who are willing to promote the neocon's talking points while questioning other's morality. It was said many years ago when one politician questions another's character, you can be sure that it is the one who raises the question that has the character problem. For the past 13 years history has proven that to be a fact as the neocon's, one after another, came tumbling down. That says it all. Does the Grand Old Party have any moderates or progressive members who can stand up, be counted and bring some character to the Party? I don't recall any who have stood up recently, that door is still open.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)