President in 08

[2centsworth]

Who do you think will (and/or should) be elected President in 2008?

And let me be the first to say, Thank God for the 22nd Amendment

I vote for Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA)

[Bryan Ekers]

Thank God for the 22nd Amendment

Personally, I think it deprived you of a good president-elect in 2000.

[SteveG1]

Any-damn-one who can tell the truth, and has the guts to take responsibility for his decisions. It would also help if he uses information to make those decisions, instead of making a decision and then tweaking the information. And one who does not claim to talk to God all the time. And one who uses fact to persuade people, instead of Swiftboating. And one who respects and upholds the constitution instead of looking for loopholes. And on, And on, And on. I don't care if he is Democrat, Republican, or Bullmoose party.

[Guinastasia]

Any-damn-one who can tell the truth, and has the guts to take responsibility for his decisions. It would also help if he uses information to make those decisions, instead of making a decision and then tweaking the information. And one who does not claim to talk to God all the time. And one who uses fact to persuade people, instead of Swiftboating. And one who respects and upholds the constitution instead of looking for loopholes. And on, And on, And on. I don't care if he is Democrat, Republican, or Bullmoose party.


Why do you hate America?

I'd like to add to your list: One who appoints people based on merit and if they show they are qualified for the job, not just his poker buddies.

[FinnAgain]

I hope it's McCain, he'd definitely have my vote.

I'd also second Steve's points.

[Martin Hyde]

I actually disagree with the 22nd Amendment. I think it should be up to the electorate how many times someone should serve. Only once in our history prior to the adoption of the 22nd did a President get more than two-terms, and that was I think justified since I do feel it would have been damaging to national unity to have a change in administration right as World War II was gearing up. And the way FDR saw it, if he didn't get elected there was an excellent chance an isolationist would be swept into office and America's ability to help the Allies would go down dramatically and the chances of America entering the war would go down dramatically, which would have had dire consequences.

As for a President that takes responsibility, not going to happen. The media and political observers in general make it impossible for a politician to stand up and say, "I tried something, it didn't work, I made a mistake, I was wrong." Common sense would tell us that every President, no matter how smart or how adept, is going to make mistakes, due to the whole "to err is human" thing, human beings aren't perfect. But making a mistake is blown way out of proportion by people seeking to exploit it for political capital, and *admitting* you made a mistake is tantamount to political suicide when you're President of the United States.

[Martin Hyde]

I think the Democratic field is too hard to call at this point. Since they will have been out of power for eight years the field is going to be wide open to a huge number of politicians.

Mark Warner is an extremely obvious choice, and since I voted for the man as governor there's a good chance I'd vote for him as President (and I'm a Republican), so I'd say he'd be an extremely electable candidate for the Democrats.

Warner has a 75% approval rating here in Virginia, a State that is traditionally Republican. When you start doing electoral math this guy has an amazing chance of picking up Virginia for the Dems and winning Florida handily.

The problem with politicians like Warner (and McCain, for that matter) is when you're right in the center, or perceived to be in the center, you have some of the party faithful doubting you. And in primaries the more extreme wings of both parties have a lot more power than they do in the general election.

If Warner can get through the primary minefield, I think he'll be President in 2008.

From the Republicans we have a lot of people who are standing out now, and have been standing out for awhile. McCain, Jeb, Frist (diminished by allegations of insider trading), even Giuliani (would never get out of the primaries.)

Of all the possibles out there I'd want Warner or McCain to be president. I don't even know if either of them will get elected. McCain was defeated because he wasn't an "insider" in the GOP in 2000, and while he has tried to cozy up to the Republican leadership I don't know that he's done enough to grab the nomination, plus his age is going to be a strike against him.

[Aeschines]

Hillary all the way.

[GIGObuster]

I hope it's McCain, he'd definitely have my vote.

I'd also second Steve's points.
I whish I could, but seeing McCain embrace Bush (literally) and go with bush to the political rallies and making the difference that allowed to barely win, after what Bush did to him in the primaries; and then what Bush did regarding Iraq and torture and still McCain supports the president, I say no to any Republican. We need balance in power not to cement the status quo.

[FinnAgain]

I whish I could, but seeing McCain embrace Bush (literally) and go with bush to the political rallies and making the difference that allowed to barely win, after what Bush did to him in the primaries; and then what Bush did regarding Iraq and torture and still McCain supports the president, I say no to any Republican. We need balance in power not to cement the status quo.

That's definitely a good point, McCain's party loyalty has disturbed me a good deal. But at the same time, I think that out of all the potential candidates I'm aware of, he is the most moral and honorable.

[Malodorous]

Mark Warner is an extremely obvious choice, and since I voted for the man as governor there's a good chance I'd vote for him as President (and I'm a Republican), so I'd say he'd be an extremely electable candidate for the Democrats.

He certainly looks good on paper (I just read his wikipedia entry) and appears to be someone who could both win my vote and the presidency. How does he appear in RL? Does he pass the beer test?

The problem with politicians like Warner (and McCain, for that matter) is when you're right in the center, or perceived to be in the center, you have some of the party faithful doubting you. And in primaries the more extreme wings of both parties have a lot more power than they do in the general election.

True. Here though, if no where else , I think the Dems have the advantage. In 2004 they were willing to pick Kerry over Dean due to preceived "electability" (not a great choice in retrospect, but during the primaries it seemed like the "safe-choice"). While after the election some folks made noises that the Dems weren't liberal enough, I think in 2008 we'll see a similar process choose a candidate that is seen as more electable then ideological, though God willing someone with a little more fire in their belly then Kerry.

The Repubs, on the other hand, have been sticking to their strategy of pleasing their base, and its been very successful so far. I imagine that they will continue along these lines and choose someone with conservative street cred, which would toss out Gulliani, Rice, Powell and for reasons I don't quite understand, McCain, who is disliked by conservatives despite being more conservative, in many respects, then Bush.

[Cisco]

I'd like to see a Warner/Napolitano ticket in '08, and I really wouldn't care which was Pres and which was VP. Napolitano is more qualified, but I feel like a female veep will probably end up being a prerequisite to a female POTUS.

Barring that, I guess I could live with McCain . . . As a socially liberal / fiscally moderate independent I feel like I should have no problem voting for a Republican, but the party has digusted me so consistently since around 1996 that I don't know if McCain could convince me to give him my vote no matter who he was running against. As others have said, his party loyalty has just been too strong and unflinching, and the recipients of it have been too undeserving. I guess what I'm saying is that I almost certainly wouldn't vote for him, but neither would I be really heartbroken if he won.

I'm also going to go ahead and make the prediction that Hillary won't even run in '08, and if she does she won't make it past the primaries. No matter how qualified she is, she's too polarizing. The only thing she really has going for her is that a lot of people might think it'd be like having Bill back in office.

[BMax]

The Repubs, on the other hand, have been sticking to their strategy of pleasing their base, and its been very successful so far. I imagine that they will continue along these lines and choose someone with conservative street cred, which would toss out Gulliani, Rice, Powell and for reasons I don't quite understand, McCain, who is disliked by conservatives despite being more conservative, in many respects, then Bush.
I thought Powell said he's not going to run for President.
Pity, because he seems to be a real centrist republican, i.e. cut government spending while maintaining social programs. He's a veteran and he was the lone dissenting voice in the admin's run up to the Iraq invasion.

[Malodorous]

See, my predictions are already coming true :)

The people I named were just some examples of Repub's that wouldn't make it thorough the primaries due to the Repub base. Some of them probably won't even try for other reasons (Powell and Rice have both said they won't try).

I also see Mark Warner has hired Marion Dixon, which is an excellent indicator that he intends to launch a failed bid for the presidency :(

[lonesome loser]

McCain is a booby trap. Dems go for him at your own risk. Seriously. Look at the mans record and actions.

Feingold in '08.

[Martin Hyde]

What's sad is if Warner doesn't get the Presidency I think it'll be hard for him to continue his political career.

If he runs and loses in 2008, then the earliest position he could take would be the Governor's mansion again in 2009, although I'm not sure he'd want to do that.

If he had ran for George Allen's Senate seat he almost certainly would have won. That seat won't open up again until 2012. And John Warner's Senate seat is probably too entrenched for Mark to stand a chance at that.

I guess he could run for the House.

[Martin Hyde]

Also I think it's a bad sign for the Dems if they considered Kerry the "electable" choice. It wasn't a matter of taking Kerry (electable) over Dean (too liberal/unelectable), Dean was typecast as borderline severe-leftist. He'd be akin to a Dukakis nomination, and it's a bad sign he was ever even considered seriously for the nomination.

Kerry was more electable than Dean, but he still doesn't have what constitutes a classically "electable" Democratic President.

If you look at Dems that have actually made it to the White House in the last 50 years, all of them have been Southerners, and fairly middle of the road (Carter was actually not all that liberal going in to his Presidency, or at least he wasn't perceived that way. I think his religiosity helped with that.) Kennedy was the only one to be from a non-southern state, and he lost in an extremely close election, some have even argued he actually lost to Nixon.

[lonesome loser]

Wow. Kennedy was a southerner!

Who knew?

[lonesome loser]

That will teach me not to read the entire thread.

My bad.

[Martin Hyde]

Kennedy was the only one to be from a non-southern state, and he lost in an extremely close election, some have even argued he actually lost to Nixon.

Should be Kennedy won in an extremely close election, which really goes without saying ;).

[Apos]

He certainly looks good on paper (I just read his wikipedia entry) and appears to be someone who could both win my vote and the presidency. How does he appear in RL? Does he pass the beer test?

He basically did pass the beer test to win Virginia. He got unprecedented support from rural areas and that was BEFORE he was so popular.

Warner's real challenge is the primary. The nutty left is not going to make him "their guy." He's not all that interested in being the "anti-Bush" they are so dreadfully obsessed with having. His real chance is if he can position himself as the central Anti-hillary candidate.

The Repubs, on the other hand, have been sticking to their strategy of pleasing their base, and its been very successful so far. I imagine that they will continue along these lines and choose someone with conservative street cred, which would toss out Gulliani, Rice, Powell and for reasons I don't quite understand, McCain, who is disliked by conservatives despite being more conservative, in many respects, then Bush.

Allen is the obvious front-runner now. He'll run on the fact that his daddy owned a football team. Did I mention that his father owned a football team? He's the guy that beat up your kids in high school, and has asshole written all over him: so he's perfect for the Republican nomination. God help our country.

[Martin Hyde]

Uh, what evidence is there Allen was the type of kid that beat up other kids in High School? Are you just going to boldly trot out the stereotype that athletics is something only stupid, mean-spirited bullies engage in?

As far as qualifications outside of having a father who was a coach (not team owner) in the NFL he has been a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Governor of Virginia, and a U.S. Senator.

[Malodorous]

Also I think it's a bad sign for the Dems if they considered Kerry the "electable" choice. It wasn't a matter of taking Kerry (electable) over Dean (too liberal/unelectable), Dean was typecast as borderline severe-leftist. He'd be akin to a Dukakis nomination, and it's a bad sign he was ever even considered seriously for the nomination.

Yea, but who in the Dem field wasn't charcterized as a severe-leftist (and for that matter, what Repub wouldn't have been characterized as a severe-rightist)? Kerry immedietly got the same label upon becoming the presumptive nominee. In the beginning of Dean's run, he was actally seen as a moderate choice (correctly, I think) due to his history as governor. Any Dem candidate that runs, including moderates like Warner, will have to deal with that label.

If you look at Dems that have actually made it to the White House in the last 50 years, all of them have been Southerners, and fairly middle of the road (Carter was actually not all that liberal going in to his Presidency, or at least he wasn't perceived that way. I think his religiosity helped with that.)

True, though with a sample size of 2 (I'm not counting Johnson since he could've been from Soviet Russia and still got elected due to being Kennedy's vice) I'd be a little wary of making generalizations of what makes an electable Dem.

[Malodorous]

Allen is the obvious front-runner now. He'll run on the fact that his daddy owned a football team. Did I mention that his father owned a football team? He's the guy that beat up your kids in high school, and has asshole written all over him: so he's perfect for the Republican nomination. God help our country.

Don't know where your going with the football thing (did he beat you up in HS?) but I do like the fact that Virginia's one-term limit on governorship means there's apparently an excess of successful one-term Virginia ex governors all eyeing the presidency.

[Martin Hyde]

The following Dem candidates would probably easily avoid the leftist label:

-Gore, -Lieberman, -John Edwards, -Harry Reid

Clinton was never really hit by the "liberal" label. Yeah, he was called too liberal by some on the right, but what matters isn't what the far righters say, but what the public actually buys in to.

[furt]

Guiliani will win easily.

[Rysdad]

Guiliani will win easily.

He'd get my vote.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Guiliani will win easily.

1st. Guiliani/Rice

2nd. Allen/Rice

3rd. Any articulate Republican/Rice


On the Dem side, I've always liked Richardson but was dissapointed when he got involved in the Lewinsky job hunt and can't believe he could be confused about getting drafted by a major league baseball team.

[2centsworth]

Before his run for Governor, I had never even heard of Mark Warner. Luckily for him, Jim Gilmore had just spent four years trying to bankrupt Virginia. Warner ran his campaign as the saavy businessman who could get VA out of the red ink.
Which he did.
But to go from a one-term Governor to the White House will be difficult. The Rebublicans would hammer him to death on experience. They would also try to use his recent death-row reprieve against him. ( However, if you saw the blitz of Kilgore's similar attacks on Gov-elect Kaine, that strategy backfired )

[Malodorous]

But to go from a one-term Governor to the White House will be difficult. The Rebublicans would hammer him to death on experience.

Maybe, but Bush only served one and a half terms as governor, and a sizable chunk of that second half-term was presumably spent campaigning for prez. I imagine that Warner could use this fact to mute at least some of the Repub critisizm of his experience.

[Liberal]

Who do you think will (and/or should) be elected President in 2008?Will = Hillary Clinton

Should = Al Gore

[Cisco]

Will = Hillary Clinton

Could you outline, please, why you think she is electable? While she does have many loyal devotees, it has been my experience that a great number of people despise her, and she has a lengthy history of being thought of as a far-leftist.

I can't see her getting a single swing or crossover vote, and those are really the key to winning presidential elections.

[BrainGlutton]

I hope it's McCain, he'd definitely have my vote.

Too old. And, despite his loyalty, too marginalized from the Pub power structure.

[SteveG1]

As for a President that takes responsibility, not going to happen. The media and political observers in general make it impossible for a politician to stand up and say, "I tried something, it didn't work, I made a mistake, I was wrong." ... But making a mistake is blown way out of proportion by people seeking to exploit it for political capital, and *admitting* you made a mistake is tantamount to political suicide when you're President of the United States.

http://www.ala.org/al_onlineTemplate.cfm?Section=november1998&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1748
Library Tapes Reveal President Kennedy Accepted Blame in Slaying of Vietnamese Ally

http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/sp040715b.shtml
In 1961, President John F. Kennedy accepted full responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. It did not matter that the planning for the Bay of Pigs had started in the Eisenhower administration. It did not matter that the intelligence failures directly led to the foreign policy disaster that was the Bay of Pigs. President Kennedy stood before the Nation and the world and accepted personal responsibility.
At one news conference not long afterward, President Kennedy used his legendary wit and intelligence to sum it up. "There is an old saying," Kennedy said, "that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan."

http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/sp040709a.shtml
President Kennedy accepted responsibility. He had the CIA telling him things. He listened to them and he allowed it to happen, and he said "The buck stops at my desk. I made the decision. I was wrong."

http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=132
Reagan, you'll recall, eventually took responsibility – sort of – for Iran-Contra, borrowing a phrase from the Navy and saying that he accepted the blame because it happened on his watch.

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/4346.html
In October 1983, terrorists in Lebanon drove a truckload of explosives into a building housing American marines, killing 241. That December, a Defense Department commission prepared to release a report castigating officers in the chain of command for failing to safeguard their troops.
A copy was sent to President Reagan before its release. He read through it, David R. Gergen, then an aide, recalled, and with little discussion headed for the press room. "If there is to be blame," Mr. Reagan said before the assembled corps, "it properly rests here in this office and with this president. And I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good."
The commanders, Mr. Reagan said, should not be punished "for not fully comprehending the nature of today's terrorist threat."


Like Harry Truman is reported to have said. The Buck Stops Here. Admitting a mistake shows honesty and integrity. Covering it up and smearing others, or wrapping it in secrecy and the flag is dishonesty and cowardice. The presidency is an office of immense responsibility. Anyone aspiring to the office should be someone who knows what the words Respnisibilty and Accountability mean. If they don't then they should never ever get the job. They don't deserve it.

[BrainGlutton]

Uh, what evidence is there Allen was the type of kid that beat up other kids in High School? Are you just going to boldly trot out the stereotype that athletics is something only stupid, mean-spirited bullies engage in?

Sure, why not? :)

[BrainGlutton]

If you look at Dems that have actually made it to the White House in the last 50 years, all of them have been Southerners . . .

No Southerners.

No Southerners.

NO SOUTHERNERS! FROM EITHER PARTY! WE NEED A BREAK!

[Liberal]

Could you outline, please, why you think she is electable? While she does have many loyal devotees, it has been my experience that a great number of people despise her, and she has a lengthy history of being thought of as a far-leftist.

I can't see her getting a single swing or crossover vote, and those are really the key to winning presidential elections.I agree completely with your analysis. But those are cold and isolated analytics. Into play as the campaign commences will come the more irrational factors, not the least of which is her unmatched skill at manipulation and ruthlessness. People do despise her, but when she is finished with her opponent, they will despise him more.

[BrainGlutton]

While [Hillary Clinton] does have many loyal devotees, it has been my experience that a great number of people despise her, and she has a lengthy history of being thought of as a far-leftist.

But she is not a far-leftist. (I wish!) And it has always been utterly ridiculous to think of her as a far-leftist or even a moderate leftist. And it is entirely possible that more and more people will realize that as 2008 approaches. Certainly she has been working hard to dispel the myth: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050606/sargent

[BrainGlutton]

Into play as the campaign commences will come the more irrational factors, not the least of which is [Hillary Clinton's] unmatched skill at manipulation and ruthlessness.

:confused: I have never heard Clinton's fiercest critics even try associate either of those words with her, ever. Do you have any specific examples in mind?

[Cisco]

I agree completely with your analysis. But those are cold and isolated analytics. Into play as the campaign commences will come the more irrational factors, not the least of which is her unmatched skill at manipulation and ruthlessness. People do despise her, but when she is finished with her opponent, they will despise him more.
I see, and I don't necessarily disagree. Thanks.
Anyone aspiring to the office should be someone who knows what the words Respnisibilty and Accountability mean. If they don't then they should never ever get the job. They don't deserve it.
I know it was written as a joke, but I have to nod my head in silent agreement every time I read the line, "Anyone capable getting themselves elected president should not be allowed to do the job." (Paraphrased.)
But she is not a far-leftist. (I wish!) And it has always been utterly ridiculous to think of her as a far-leftist or even a moderate leftist. And it is entirely possible that more and more people will realize that as 2008 approaches. Certainly she has been working hard to dispel the mythWhat she is and how people think of her aren't necessarily the same thing, and the latter is a lot more powerful than the former, at least in election run-ups.
No Southerners.

No Southerners.

NO SOUTHERNERS! FROM EITHER PARTY! WE NEED A BREAK!
:rolleyes: I moved to the southwest from the south about 3 years ago and I have to put up with this kind of shit every time someone asks me where I'm from or I inadvertently let slip the slightest tinge of my accent. I can only hope you were joking.

[BrainGlutton]

:rolleyes: I moved to the southwest from the south about 3 years ago and I have to put up with this kind of shit every time someone asks me where I'm from or I inadvertently let slip the slightest tinge of my accent. I can only hope you were joking.

In a kind of "ha-ha, only serious" way. First, I'm sick to death of the string of Southern administrations and I just want a change. Second -- there are a lot of wonderful things about the South and its culture. But none at all about its political culture -- anything, and I mean anything, you can name that makes the South's political culture different from other American regions' is a Bad Thing; and the less influence a distinctly Southern POV has in Washington, the better. I've argued this point before in other threads.

[monica]

Mark Warner is capable of making himself well liked. He's an incredibly good speaker, and really does seem to care about what the people want. Furthermore, he managed to fix the budget in Virginia- everyone said that there was no way he could possibly balance the budget, but he did. We need someone like that to fish us out of the debt hole we keep digging ourselves further into. I plan on working on his campaign.


I don't think Hillary is going to run. Much as she would like to be the president, she also seems to have a good sense of party loyalty, and doesn't want to break the party apart. Plus, isn't she re-running for Senate?

[BrainGlutton]

Plus, isn't [Hillary Clinton] re-running for Senate?

Yes -- in 2006. Win or lose, there's no reason she can't run for president in 2008. Sitting senators (and sitting governors) run for president all the time.

[Liberal]

I have never heard Clinton's fiercest critics even try associate either of those words with her, ever. Do you have any specific examples in mind?With respect to her ruthlessness, Carl Limbacher fairly leaps to mind.

With respect to her manipulative powers, I've seen them for myself. In her much hyped appearance on Fox News Sunday a few months back, she appeared with Lindsay Graham. On that day, they provided the extra-large Fox News coffee cups, black with gold logo ablaze. I noticed her deliberately reposition hers so that it was perfectly centered for the camera. Then, true to form, Chris Wallace lit into her with a hardball question about the baggage her husband brings to her prospects from the point of view of the right-wing that she had painted as conspiratorial. Rather than become confrontational, she demured, smiled sweetly, and made a joke of the question. Then, without skipping a beat, she praised Graham for his conduct during her husband's impeachment. She called him a model of decorum and responsibility that all other senators, including herself, should emulate.

In one fell swoop, she disarmed Wallace and brought Graham onto her side, so that when he took his first question, he went out of his way to praise her in return. I have no doubt that she understood that, as a Southern gentleman, he would feel obligated to do so. What had promised to be a smash-mouth assault on Hillary for the sake of the Fox News audience became nothing short of a love-in society of mutual admiration between her and Graham trying to out-praise the other. In the course of the interview, she managed to convey that people who oppose abortion do so for legitimate and understandable reasons, and that their viewpoints should be respected. She also declared that there's nothing wrong with believing in God, and that many Democrats do so.

By the end, Wallace was practically begging her to return, as both he and Graham stepped on each other's lines to fawn over her and tell her what a wonderful guest she had been.

There is no one better than her at that sort of thing.

[BrainGlutton]

With respect to her ruthlessness, Carl Limbacher fairly leaps to mind.

Who?

With respect to her manipulative powers, I've seen them for myself. In her much hyped appearance on Fox News Sunday a few months back, she appeared with Lindsay Graham. On that day, they provided the extra-large Fox News coffee cups, black with gold logo ablaze. I noticed her deliberately reposition hers so that it was perfectly centered for the camera. Then, true to form, Chris Wallace lit into her with a hardball question about the baggage her husband brings to her prospects from the point of view of the right-wing that she had painted as conspiratorial. Rather than become confrontational, she demured, smiled sweetly, and made a joke of the question. Then, without skipping a beat, she praised Graham for his conduct during her husband's impeachment. She called him a model of decorum and responsibility that all other senators, including herself, should emulate.

There is absolutely nothing "manipulative," in the invidious sense, in that story. Sounds more like plain, sound, political instincts -- the kind one would expect of any elected official from president down to dogcatcher.

[BrainGlutton]

Sitting senators (and sitting governors) run for president all the time.

Caveat: No sitting senator has been elected president since 1960. (I wonder why?)

[Liberal]

Who?Carl Limbacher. One of her — what did you call it? — "fiercest critics". Wrote a book called Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House.

There is absolutely nothing "manipulative," in the invidious sense, in that story. Sounds more like plain, sound, political instincts -- the kind one would expect of any elected official from president down to dogcatcher.Who said anything about invidiousness? And you're making my exact point. She has a very key political skill — one necessary for winning.

[BrainGlutton]

Carl Limbacher. One of her — what did you call it? — "fiercest critics". Wrote a book called Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House.

And how did she treat Limbacher "ruthlessly"?

[Apos]

Uh, what evidence is there Allen was the type of kid that beat up other kids in High School?

Just my general take on his personality from having experience with him and his folks in Virginian politics. He apparently is still something of a bully. Allen's office has one of the highest staff turnover rates in Conrgess. Former staffers describe him and his bunch as petty tyrants, and filling his office takes some extra effort to find folks willing to put up with it.

No, not all sportsy people are assholes. But Allen. The guy has "sports asshole and former bully with famous dad" written all over him.

[Liberal]

And how did she treat Limbacher "ruthlessly"?Perhaps you've forgotten your comment. It was, "I have never heard Clinton's fiercest critics even try associate either of those words with her, ever." Limbacher is a fierce critic. He associated the word with her. Got it?

[Martin Hyde]

http://www.ala.org/al_onlineTemplate.cfm?Section=november1998&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1748
Library Tapes Reveal President Kennedy Accepted Blame in Slaying of Vietnamese Ally

http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/sp040715b.shtml
In 1961, President John F. Kennedy accepted full responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. It did not matter that the planning for the Bay of Pigs had started in the Eisenhower administration. It did not matter that the intelligence failures directly led to the foreign policy disaster that was the Bay of Pigs. President Kennedy stood before the Nation and the world and accepted personal responsibility.
At one news conference not long afterward, President Kennedy used his legendary wit and intelligence to sum it up. "There is an old saying," Kennedy said, "that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan."

http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/sp040709a.shtml
President Kennedy accepted responsibility. He had the CIA telling him things. He listened to them and he allowed it to happen, and he said "The buck stops at my desk. I made the decision. I was wrong."

http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=132
Reagan, you'll recall, eventually took responsibility – sort of – for Iran-Contra, borrowing a phrase from the Navy and saying that he accepted the blame because it happened on his watch.

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/4346.html
In October 1983, terrorists in Lebanon drove a truckload of explosives into a building housing American marines, killing 241. That December, a Defense Department commission prepared to release a report castigating officers in the chain of command for failing to safeguard their troops.
A copy was sent to President Reagan before its release. He read through it, David R. Gergen, then an aide, recalled, and with little discussion headed for the press room. "If there is to be blame," Mr. Reagan said before the assembled corps, "it properly rests here in this office and with this president. And I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good."
The commanders, Mr. Reagan said, should not be punished "for not fully comprehending the nature of today's terrorist threat."


Like Harry Truman is reported to have said. The Buck Stops Here. Admitting a mistake shows honesty and integrity. Covering it up and smearing others, or wrapping it in secrecy and the flag is dishonesty and cowardice. The presidency is an office of immense responsibility. Anyone aspiring to the office should be someone who knows what the words Respnisibilty and Accountability mean. If they don't then they should never ever get the job. They don't deserve it.

I never said a President never admitted making a mistake. But you only really have evidence that Kennedy did (the Reagan examples are vague at best) and Kennedy was President like 45 years ago. The public and the media has changed drastically since then. You didn't have 24 hour news networks or political pundit shows polluting the airwaves back then.

[What Exit?]

I am still leaning toward Rudy G. or McCain.
I had an Eye opener on Rudy recently and I seem to be leaning more towards McCain. They are friends and from opposite ends of the country, they might run as a ticket of McCain/Giuliani.

Hilary is not very liberal, but I have had a problem with the Clinton’s apparent constant dishonesty. I actually liked many of their policies but both lie very easily for my taste. Hilary even claimed during the Senate elections she was a Yankee fan until it was pointed out to her she already was a Cub fan and then she did a Bill style back Pedal. I really want a candidate that is honest.

For these reasons I also like Dean. His not being a lawyer is also a positive for me. Professionally he was a doctor.

Jim

[SteveG1]

I never said a President never admitted making a mistake. But you only really have evidence that Kennedy did (the Reagan examples are vague at best) and Kennedy was President like 45 years ago. The public and the media has changed drastically since then. You didn't have 24 hour news networks or political pundit shows polluting the airwaves back then.
It's still relevant. Technology does not relieve anyone of their duty to country, law, honor. The willingness to tell the truth is honorable. The willingness to live with the consequences of your decisions and take ownership is honorable. The ability, in the extreme, to pay for your mistakes is honorable. To lie, dissemble, deflect, deny etc etc etc is dishonorable and cowardly. Technology has nothing to do with anything. If we are to talk about the pollution of the pundits, we could, but that would be a whole 'nother thread. Bob "benefit of the doubt" Schieffer, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, Rush "druggy" Limbaugh, Anne "Adolf" Coulter, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Andrew Savage, Andrew Sullivan, Jerry Falwell, Charles Krauthammer, "Doctor" Larua, Jeff Gannon (hahahahaha), and Tucker Carlson, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. If we want to talk about general media pollution, we have Fox "News", Newsmax, Free Republic, Washington Post,and etc etc etc. There IS some major pollution. But, my opinion will probably be 180 degrees out from yours. Besides, your liars outnumber my liars.

[Apos]

The idea that Guiliani could ever win the Republican primary is risible. The man is pro-choice, pro-gay, and even lived with a gay couple after leaving his wife for his mistress. Imagine how that is going to play in South Carolina. Answer: not so well. Not a chance in hell. Guiliani's angle is getting and keeping enough national attention that he will be picked for something: a cabinet position or VP in a real long-shot.

I still don't think McCain is very likely. He may have chummed up to Bush somewhat, but there's enough bad blood for his indepedent streak that the Rep primary could probably knock him down a second time. He's got nothing extra to offer from last time, and he's in much worse shape physically.

[Martin Hyde]

It's still relevant. Technology does not relieve anyone of their duty to country, law, honor. The willingness to tell the truth is honorable. The willingness to live with the consequences of your decisions and take ownership is honorable. The ability, in the extreme, to pay for your mistakes is honorable. To lie, dissemble, deflect, deny etc etc etc is dishonorable and cowardly. Technology has nothing to do with anything. If we are to talk about the pollution of the pundits, we could, but that would be a whole 'nother thread. Bob "benefit of the doubt" Schieffer, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, Rush "druggy" Limbaugh, Anne "Adolf" Coulter, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Andrew Savage, Andrew Sullivan, Jerry Falwell, Charles Krauthammer, "Doctor" Larua, Jeff Gannon (hahahahaha), and Tucker Carlson, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. If we want to talk about general media pollution, we have Fox "News", Newsmax, Free Republic, Washington Post,and etc etc etc. There IS some major pollution. But, my opinion will probably be 180 degrees out from yours. Besides, your liars outnumber my liars.

Yeah, because I'm sure you have some sort of scientific way of proving "my liars outnumber your liars."

No one ever said that taking responsibility wasn't honorable. But the fact is, you don't get elected President by being open and honorable.

Ever heard the term honorable to a fault? People like that don't succeed in politics. I'd actually argue that if a President cared about the issues that he campaigned on, and really wanted to get his campaign promises put in action, he'd have to be very skilled at the great game that is politics (and that involves being like teflon in your ability to avoid direct blame) so that he can actually DELIVER for his people.

Hell, Kennedy is the perfect example. He was a *horrible* President, that got virtually nothing done for the American people. His ability at dealing with Congress was embarassingly bad. LBJ however, got things done, a lot of it was the political capital that came from Kennedy's death, but don't doubt how important LBJ's legislative skills and political ability played into getting many of the major programs Kennedy started actually moved through congress.

I'll take a President that gets things done, that actually tries to carry through his campaign promises, over some overly idealized feelings about "honor." You remind me of the portrayal of General Patton, the type of person who is so blinded by the concept of "honor" you salivate in lust while surrounded by dead soldiers because of what an "honorable affair" the battle had been.

Basically, you're looking for something that isn't there. Your ideal president doesn't exist, he's a fictitious character you might find in a movie or a novel but not in the real world. IN other words, you need to "grow up" politically and come to terms with the real world.

[BrainGlutton]

Perhaps you've forgotten your comment. It was, "I have never heard Clinton's fiercest critics even try associate either of those words with her, ever." Limbacher is a fierce critic. He associated the word with her. Got it?

Yes -- but I was fishing for an actual example of ruthless behavior on HRC's part, not a cite to a book. (A mere reputation for ruthlessness, after all, would not help her very far towards the White House.) If you've read it, what does it say she has done, that you believe, and that you would characterize as "ruthless"?

[asterion]

Caveat: No sitting senator has been elected president since 1960. (I wonder why?)
Kennedy was the last candidate from the Senate that knew how to rig an election?

[BrainGlutton]

Kennedy was the last candidate from the Senate that knew how to rig an election?

No, no, he couldn't have been.

[Marley23]

Kennedy was the last candidate from the Senate that knew how to rig an election?
I could've sworn Cecil debunked this yawner at some point, but I can't find it. As I remember it, the alleged "rigging" happened in Illinois, and JFK would've won the election even without that state. Moving on...

[E-Sabbath]

If you want, I could find the cite, but it's almost certain Illinois was rigged, thanks to the Daley machine. Regardless of if it was necessary or not, the dead did vote. I believe I covered it at some point in the past.

[Marley23]

If you want, I could find the cite, but it's almost certain Illinois was rigged, thanks to the Daley machine. Regardless of if it was necessary or not, the dead did vote. I believe I covered it at some point in the past.
You may have. If Cecil never discussed it, the board certainly did. What I was saying is that Illinois alone couldn't have given the Presidency to Kennedy. Of course, there are also allegations about Texas.

[Liberal]

Yes -- but I was fishing for an actual example of ruthless behavior on HRC's part, not a cite to a book.I had no idea what you were "fishing" for. I merely responded to the comment you actually made. You said — complete with confused emoticon — that you had heard of no one even among her harshest critics who had characterized her as either ruthless or manipulative and asked whether I knew of any specific examples. I told you who sprang instantly to mind. Rather than Google the name, you asked me who he was. I answered you.

(A mere reputation for ruthlessness, after all, would not help her very far towards the White House.) If you've read it, what does it say she has done, that you believe, and that you would characterize as "ruthless"?What difference does it make what the book says or what I believe about it? Are you now "fishing" for something else?

[Mr. Moto]

Right now my short list for 2008 includes George Allen, Haley Barbour, Mark Sanford and Jeb Bush.

This may change, of course. But these three are the ones I'm most impressed by out of the current pack.

[Mr. Moto]

Right now my short list for 2008 includes George Allen, Haley Barbour, Mark Sanford and Jeb Bush.

This may change, of course. But these three are the ones I'm most impressed by out of the current pack.

And by three I mean four. I tacked a name on there.

Which name it was, you'll have to guess.

[What Exit?]

Right now my short list for 2008 includes George Allen, Haley Barbour, Mark Sanford and Jeb Bush.

This may change, of course. But these three are the ones I'm most impressed by out of the current pack.

Can you please explain what impresses you about Jeb Bush? These are not words I have ever seen used together before and I am completely baffled.

Jim

[BobLibDem]

Among Dems, I would like to see Richardson. Being governor is so much easier to run for president than being senator is. Senators vote, and every vote makes enemies. Richardson would also not have the regional bias working against him in the southeast as did Kerry.

Barring Richardson, I like John Edwards. However, I feel that he doesn't yet have the gravitas for the top job.

Howard Dean would have been a fine president. He's consistent and totally unashamed of being what he is. It was noted that his being a doctor would be a plus. The only problem I have with that is the counterexample in Bill Frist.

Lieberman and Hillary are far too hawkish and being pro-Iraq war is going to be the kiss of death in 2008.

I don't see anyone I like on the GOP side. I don't understand the McCain mania. The man needs to make up his mind- he's either in bed with Bush or he's his own man. I'd respect him a thousand times more if he'd make a Murtha-like speech.

As for Guiliani, I don't see it. He's got enough skeletons in his closet to open his own anthropology school.

[Mr. Moto]

Can you please explain what impresses you about Jeb Bush? These are not words I have ever seen used together before and I am completely baffled.

Jim

Sure.

Jeb Bush is the embodiment of Bush family conservatism, the most faithful adherent to a faith his father and brother have put into practice a little less well. While governor, he has actually cut government employment and taxes. He has implemented tort reform. His disaster relief efforts actually work, and work well.

He is good on guns, which is an important issue to me.

He communicates a message of conservative principle and Republican unity - and communicates it well, which cannot be said about his father or his brother. While I continue to be a supporter and admirer of both, this simply is true.

[What Exit?]

Sure.

Jeb Bush is the embodiment of Bush family conservatism, the most faithful adherent to a faith his father and brother have put into practice a little less well. While governor, he has actually cut government employment and taxes. He has implemented tort reform. His disaster relief efforts actually work, and work well.

He is good on guns, which is an important issue to me.

He communicates a message of conservative principle and Republican unity - and communicates it well, which cannot be said about his father or his brother. While I continue to be a supporter and admirer of both, this simply is true.

Thank you for the answer. At least I understand why you like him.

Jim

[BrainGlutton]

What difference does it make what the book says or what I believe about it? Are you now "fishing" for something else?

No . . . same thing. Some foundation, some set of actual deeds or events, based on which I can meaningfully evaluate your curious characterization of HRC as "ruthless."

Regarding McCain, this week's cover story in The Nation -- http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051212/berman -- is about his ongoing efforts to rebuild his reputation and mend fences with the party's conservative wing.

Personally, I think he's beating his head against a wall. Better he should do a Zell Miller and jump parties.

[Psycho Pirate]

If we want to talk about general media pollution, we have...Washington Post...Emphasis mine.

Finally, we agree on something. ;)

[BrainGlutton]

Jeb Bush is the embodiment of Bush family conservatism, the most faithful adherent to a faith his father and brother have put into practice a little less well. While governor, he has actually cut government employment and taxes. He has implemented tort reform. His disaster relief efforts actually work, and work well.

OTOH, his education policies have been an unmitigated disaster. He has done nothing to address Florida's pressing need for some transportation infrastructure not dependent on fossil fuels (worse than nothing, in fact -- when the voters added a constitutional amendment requiring the state to build a high-speed rail system, Jeb delayed and blocked its implementation until the anti-rail forces, with Jeb's unwavering support, finally got it repealed). And, in purely political terms, Jeb, enjoying the support of a Republican-majority legislature during most of his administration, has succeeded in consolidating more power and functions in the governorship than ever before in Florida's history. (A move the Pubs might regret if a Democrat should succeed him.) Which makes me less than optimistic that a Jeb Bush administration would be any less arrogant than his brother's has been.

[SteveG1]

No one ever said that taking responsibility wasn't honorable. But the fact is, you don't get elected President by being open and honorable. ... Ever heard the term honorable to a fault? People like that don't succeed in politics. I'd actually argue that if a President cared about the issues that he campaigned on, and really wanted to get his campaign promises put in action, he'd have to be very skilled at the great game that is politics (and that involves being like teflon in your ability to avoid direct blame) so that he can actually DELIVER for his people.
Well then the "system" is broken, and has been for a long long time. Shit floats to the top, is what you're saying?

LBJ however, got things done, a lot of it was the political capital that came from Kennedy's death, but don't doubt how important LBJ's legislative skills and political ability played into getting many of the major programs Kennedy started actually moved through congress.
I'll take a President that gets things done, that actually tries to carry through his campaign promises, over some overly idealized feelings about "honor."
Ahhhh, LBJ. What a guy. He's the one who got us stuck in the Vietnam quagmire, by lying about a nonexistent attack on one of our ships - a war that he personally had previously claimed he didn't believe in, and which he justified by the nonexistent attack and the so-called domino theory. What a great example. :rolleyes: How many tens of thousands died because of him, and for what?

You remind me of the portrayal of General Patton, the type of person who is so blinded by the concept of "honor" you salivate in lust while surrounded by dead soldiers because of what an "honorable affair" the battle had been.
Slight quibble - Patton, for all his faults, actually showed up and fought in his wars. That shows he had the courage of his convictions, and was no AWOL Guardie or deferment collecting chickenhawk. You, on the other hand are so pro Bush and pro war, that your own smartass remark could be directed at you. It's a strawman anyway. Patton has fuck all to do with this thread and you know it.

Basically, you're looking for something that isn't there. Your ideal president doesn't exist, he's a fictitious character you might find in a movie or a novel but not in the real world. IN other words, you need to "grow up" politically and come to terms with the real world.
There are people like this, they just don't make it. Like I said further up, shit floats. I know a bit about the real world and don't need any lectures from you. I'm an unrepentant cynic and skeptic. I know bullshit when I smell it. Do you?

[BrainGlutton]

No . . . same thing. Some foundation, some set of actual deeds or events, based on which I can meaningfully evaluate your curious characterization of HRC as "ruthless."

Caveat: And I mean something other than the Vince Foster story! ;)

[BrainGlutton]

There are people like this, they just don't make it.

Got anybody specific in mind? :)

[SteveG1]

Got anybody specific in mind? :)
I'll have to think on that for a while <------ stalling for time.
The problem is, I know plenty of people with the desirable traits, the problem is, they aren't politicians. <------ stalling for time.

[Liberal]

No . . . same thing. Some foundation, some set of actual deeds or events, based on which I can meaningfully evaluate your curious characterization of HRC as "ruthless."That post is possibly a clue for the basis of your original misunderstanding.

To clarify, I was not characterizing her as ruthless in the sense that I am privvy to the specifics of a history of ruthlessness, but rather in the sense that she carries a general reputation of ruthlessness among (at least) her critics. That's why when you asked who, I gave you a prominent name (notwithstanding that you had not heard it before).

Assuming that I must continue to explain, you are likely aware that such general reputations need not be earned at all, but merely tagged. Consider the newspaper headline, Local Candidate Denies Abusing Child. Despite that no accusation is made by the headline, and irrespective of the fact that it is true, the candidate has now been tagged with denying child abuse, and therefore, in the eyes of some, is suspected of what he denies. After all, they "reason", if there were no truth to it, they could not print it. They are incapable of discerning the difference between reporting that the candidate denied an accusation and reporting that the candidate was accused of something. In their tiny minds, it is a mere nitpick of semantics.

[BrainGlutton]

That post is possibly a clue for the basis of your original misunderstanding.

To clarify, I was not characterizing her as ruthless in the sense that I am privvy to the specifics of a history of ruthlessness, but rather in the sense that she carries a general reputation of ruthlessness among (at least) her critics. That's why when you asked who, I gave you a prominent name (notwithstanding that you had not heard it before).

Assuming that I must continue to explain, you are likely aware that such general reputations need not be earned at all, but merely tagged. Consider the newspaper headline, Local Candidate Denies Abusing Child. Despite that no accusation is made by the headline, and irrespective of the fact that it is true, the candidate has now been tagged with denying child abuse, and therefore, in the eyes of some, is suspected of what he denies. After all, they "reason", if there were no truth to it, they could not print it. They are incapable of discerning the difference between reporting that the candidate denied an accusation and reporting that the candidate was accused of something. In their tiny minds, it is a mere nitpick of semantics.

Let me restate: You asserted HRC had a good shot of winning the White House in 2008 because of her "ruthless" and "manipulative" character. Now, as I noted above, just having a reputation for ruthlessness would not help her much; for such a quality to help her at all (and I have my doubts whether it really would), she would have to actually possess it. And it's not a characteristic I can readily associate with her, in my mind . . . A "ruthless" politician is one who will stop at nothing, not merely to win, but to crush an opponent -- a Tom DeLay, or a Karl Rove. Who has Hillary ever crushed?

[Liberal]

What you must come to understand is that your mind (the one that cannot readily associate her with ruthlessness) is not necessarily in any sense the general mind of the populace. A reputation is not born of nothing. The fact that people are accusing her means that the perception exists. The fact that you are ignorant of who is doing it is another matter, and outside the scope of my interest here.

[Marley23]

A reputation is not born of nothing. The fact that people are accusing her means that the perception exists.
Or that someone is trying to create the perception. (Speaking in general; it clearly already exists in her case.)

[Evil One]

Caveat: No sitting senator has been elected president since 1960. (I wonder why?)

Because it's too easy for opponents to take a Senators record and make hay out of it. With the number of votes on just one piece of legislation, they can say "he voted to (insert demogogery here) 17 thousand times!". Plus, sitting Senators are vulnerable to the "Washington insider" smear.

[BrainGlutton]

What you must come to understand is that your mind (the one that cannot readily associate her with ruthlessness) is not necessarily in any sense the general mind of the populace. A reputation is not born of nothing. The fact that people are accusing her means that the perception exists. The fact that you are ignorant of who is doing it is another matter, and outside the scope of my interest here.

IOW, you got nuttin'.

[OliverTwistofLime]

Its not just the man or woman that we pick.....its the electability of that person.

For the people that think McCain is too old, an intelligent older person is generally imbued with experience and knowledge which is what we need.

Secondly, as long as he is a Republican, a good and ethical person MUST remain loyal and not rip his fellow pubs apart. He has expressed his differences.
when they exist.
He is one person who democrats and republicans would support.....IMO, Hilliary and C. Rice would never be elected in 2008

[Marley23]

Secondly, as long as he is a Republican, a good and ethical person MUST remain loyal and not rip his fellow pubs apart. He has expressed his differences.
when they exist.
That's an interesting definition of "good and ethical." It sounds more like "polite" or "self-interested" to me. But in fact, he's not always that loyal. The Gang of 14 move wasn't loyal, and neither is his current stand on torture. And he did say Bush spends money like a drunken sailor during a Daily Show appearance. One of the characteristics that endears McCain to some people is his willingness to be blunt and disloyal at times.

[Liberal]

IOW, you got nuttin'.What I don't have is what you seem to be "fishing" for — a fight. Your repeated attempts to change what I've said into what you'd like to argue against have all failed. If at any time you'd like to address my original comment, feel free because I stand by it — Hillary's skills at manipulation and ruthlessness will serve her well in her upcoming campaign. People will continue to write about it, and you will continue to be oblivious.

[OliverTwistofLime]

[QUOTE=Marley23]That's an interesting definition of "good and ethical." It sounds more like "polite" or "self-interested" to me. But in fact, he's not always that loyal. The Gang of 14 move wasn't loyal, and neither is his current stand on torture. And he did say Bush spends money like a drunken sailor during a Daily Show appearance. One of the characteristics that endears McCain to some people is his willingness to be blunt and disloyal at times.[/QUOTE

Not everything is black or white.....McCain has to remain loyal to a point as there is no guarantee he would win the election for the Presidency in 2008....Who among us does not have our self interest at heart? Very few other republicans have been"blunt and disloyal at times" as McCain.

[SteveG1]

That's an interesting definition of "good and ethical." It sounds more like "polite" or "self-interested" to me. But in fact, he's not always that loyal. The Gang of 14 move wasn't loyal, and neither is his current stand on torture. And he did say Bush spends money like a drunken sailor during a Daily Show appearance. One of the characteristics that endears McCain to some people is his willingness to be blunt and disloyal at times.
That is why people tend to like him. He sometimes speaks in a direct, blunt, even forceful way that is refreshing. One doesn't have to wade through page after page of transcripts, parsing every word only to find he didn't say anything (unlike some other politicians). He often follows the party line - but when he breaks ranks he has a valid and genuine reason and he says something concrete. He values party loyalty but he values loyalty to country first. Refreshing.

[Spoke]

...I'm sick to death of the string of Southern administrations and I just want a change. Second -- there are a lot of wonderful things about the South and its culture. But none at all about its political culture -- anything, and I mean anything, you can name that makes the South's political culture different from other American regions' is a Bad Thing; and the less influence a distinctly Southern POV has in Washington, the better.

I tried to let this pass, but I can't.

These statements look like naked bigotry, unless you can provide some rational basis (which I can't imagine) for pre-judging ANY Southern candidate who might present himself/herself for election.

[BrainGlutton]

I tried to let this pass, but I can't.

These statements look like naked bigotry, unless you can provide some rational basis (which I can't imagine) for pre-judging ANY Southern candidate who might present himself/herself for election.

Of course it does not provide any basis for pre-judging any individual candidate. (Personally, I'm still a big fan of Jimmy Carter. And John Edwards is now making something of a name for himself.) But I am prepared to defend (and have, in many GD threads) what I said about Southern political culture in general. And I do think we would enjoy a break, just a break, from Southerners in the WH. I'm not talking about a Reconstruction-style disenfranchisement of the Southern states.


This morning I heard John McCain interviewed on the radio. The interviewer pointed out that in 2008 McCain will be 72. Reagan was elected in 1980 at the age of 70 -- the oldest elected president ever. McCain said he still has not decided whether to run, but if he does he will bring his 93-year-old mother with him wherever he goes (to show he has good genes for longevity).

[2centsworth]

Regarding Hillary Clinton being described as ruthless:

As ruthless is defined as; cruel, pitiless, barbarous
I would consider that remark as being slanderous, and a retraction should be forthcoming.

I do not always agree with the Senators' positions or tactics, but I have never believed her to be cruel or a barbarian.

[Mr. Moto]

Oh, to hell with your retraction. Ruthless here obviously means ruthless in a political sense, and that word is used when discussing politicians quite often.

Now, you may disagree, which is fair, but to ignore this context when arguing with your opponent is not fair.

[BrainGlutton]

If at any time you'd like to address my original comment, feel free because I stand by it — Hillary's skills at manipulation and ruthlessness will serve her well in her upcoming campaign.

But, you still have not cited anything to support the assumption that HRC is "ruthless," only that in some hostile quarters she has a reputation for ruthlessness, which is not the same thing (specifically, not as useful). Haven't you got any specific actions on her part as examples, which can provide at least a starting-point for debate?

[plnnr]

As to Jeb Bush, he's got the taint of the Terri Schiavo affair on him and any Democratic opposition would be wise to point it out. He bungled that issue every possible way and came off as a political opportunist without equal. Not to mention that he's got the Bush name - I suspect the American public may be thinking, "Well, we gave two of them a shot and neither did much - that's probably enough of that particular dynasty."

As to George Allen - wow, that's scary. Smug, mean-spirited, another fake 'good ol' boy from the South." He's got the redneck, NASCAR, John Boy and Billy show-listening vote sewn up.

[Liberal]

But, you still have not cited anything to support the assumption that HRC is "ruthless," only that in some hostile quarters she has a reputation for ruthlessness, which is not the same thing (specifically, not as useful). Haven't you got any specific actions on her part as examples, which can provide at least a starting-point for debate?Don't be ridiculous. That's like asking for a cite that the Mona Lisa is beautiful. Your built-in defense is that, no matter what is cited as ruthless behavior, you simply demure, "Oh, but I don't find that to be ruthless at all. Do you have some other cite?" Frankly, her Stalinist declaration in San Francisco that she intends to take things away from us for the common good strikes me as ruthless in the extreme. Ten dollars against a dollar says that it doesn't strike you the same way.

[Mr. Moto]

As to Jeb Bush, he's got the taint of the Terri Schiavo affair on him and any Democratic opposition would be wise to point it out. He bungled that issue every possible way and came off as a political opportunist without equal. Not to mention that he's got the Bush name - I suspect the American public may be thinking, "Well, we gave two of them a shot and neither did much - that's probably enough of that particular dynasty."

Entirely possible, and we'll just wait and see about that. However, dynastic questions attach to another possible candidate in 2008.

I wonder who that might be.

As to George Allen - wow, that's scary. Smug, mean-spirited, another fake 'good ol' boy from the South." He's got the redneck, NASCAR, John Boy and Billy show-listening vote sewn up.

George Allen has been a car racing fan since 1965. He took a year off from law school to work at a cattle ranch in Nevada. He still wears cowboy boots and is addicted to Copenhagen.

His redneck bona-fides aren't fake. He is a real-life, dyed in the wool example of one. Lest you confuse this with idiocy, the man was a quite good governor of our state, delivering badly needed criminal justice reforms and educational improvements.

[plnnr]

George Allen has been a car racing fan since 1965. He took a year off from law school to work at a cattle ranch in Nevada. He still wears cowboy boots and is addicted to Copenhagen.

His redneck bona-fides aren't fake. He is a real-life, dyed in the wool example of one. Lest you confuse this with idiocy, the man was a quite good governor of our state, delivering badly needed criminal justice reforms and educational improvements.

I'm well aware of Mr. Allen's redneck qualifications - I worked for a state agency when he was Governor. I hope that the American electorate will base its vote on something a little more than his footwear and spitting into a old Coke bottle. The country has had more than enough of his ilk in the White House (unless you happen to think we're in fine shape right now).

[SteveG1]

As to Jeb Bush, he's got the taint of the Terri Schiavo affair on him and any Democratic opposition would be wise to point it out. He bungled that issue every possible way and came off as a political opportunist without equal. Not to mention that he's got the Bush name - I suspect the American public may be thinking, "Well, we gave two of them a shot and neither did much - that's probably enough of that particular dynasty."

IF Jeb were going to run, the Dems would have to be stupid, to let that one get away. It would or should be one of the BIG hot button issues, and a smart party would play it to the hilt.

[BrainGlutton]

Don't be ridiculous. That's like asking for a cite that the Mona Lisa is beautiful. Your built-in defense is that, no matter what is cited as ruthless behavior, you simply demure, "Oh, but I don't find that to be ruthless at all. Do you have some other cite?"

No . . . my defense is that you have not, in fact, cited anything as ruthless behavior on her part. Not at any point in this thread. Until now:

Frankly, her Stalinist declaration in San Francisco that she intends to take things away from us for the common good strikes me as ruthless in the extreme. Ten dollars against a dollar says that it doesn't strike you the same way.

That is not only not "ruthless" (nor is it "Stalinist" (there just aren't enough :rolleyes: )), it is a complete change of subject. When you speak of "ruthlessness" as something that can help a politician get ahead, you are implicitly talking of tactics, of a Rove-DeLay-style approach to politics; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of a politician's views, goals or policies.

[BrainGlutton]

Entirely possible, and we'll just wait and see about that. However, dynastic questions attach to another possible candidate in 2008.

I wonder who that might be.

The difference, Moto, is that HRC is saddled with a good name, and Jeb is not.

[BrainGlutton]

The difference, Moto, is that HRC is saddled with a good name, and Jeb is not.

By which I mean, not that Bill Clinton is a better man than either George Bush (he is, of course, but that's another debate), but that Hillary will enter the fray with much better public memories associated with her name than with Jeb's name. When people look back on the Clinton years, now, they remember prosperity, optimism, and (for the most part) peace; nobody much cares any more about Bill's lies and blowjobs. Even at the time, the prevailing attitude was best summed up by a political cartoon of a pollster interviewing a voter: "Well, I think the lousy, lying, draft-dodging, pot-puffing womanizer is doing a good job."

When voters in 2008 see the name "Bush" on the ballot, OTOH, they're going to remember the previous eight years. And only the most hard-core neocons will remember them fondly.

[Liberal]

No . . . my defense is that you have not, in fact, cited anything as ruthless behavior on her part. Not at any point in this thread. Until now:Are you joking? I gave you a whole book; in fact, a whole author of several books. If you took it upon yourself to disregard the information, don't blame me.

That is not only not "ruthless" (nor is it "Stalinist" (there just aren't enough :rolleyes: )), it is a complete change of subject. When you speak of "ruthlessness" as something that can help a politician get ahead, you are implicitly talking of tactics, of a Rove-DeLay-style approach to politics; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of a politician's views, goals or policies.You owe me a dollar.

[furt]

But, you still have not cited anything to support the assumption that HRC is "ruthless," only that in some hostile quarters she has a reputation for ruthlessness, which is not the same thing (specifically, not as useful). Haven't you got any specific actions on her part as examples, which can provide at least a starting-point for debate?Are you being deliberately obtuse? Ruthlessness is not something that's empirically measured. If some people think of her that way, some people think of her that way. Liberal has given you a book title that indicates exactly that. Arguing that they shouldn't think that way is irrelevant; it's an entirely different conversation, one which he is declining to have with you.

[Atticus Finch]

...her Stalinist declaration in San Francisco that she intends to take things away from us for the common good strikes me as ruthless in the extreme...All politicians plan to take things away for the common good. They need to levy taxes, ie take away your money, to pay for roads, military defence etc (I'd mention education, but I know you don't believe in that one). They need to enact laws that take away your physical liberty if you're convicted of a major crime. Without further specifics, there's nothing wrong with the statement that governments take things away for the common good.

[BrainGlutton]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Ruthlessness is not something that's empirically measured. If some people think of her that way, some people think of her that way. Liberal has given you a book title that indicates exactly that. Arguing that they shouldn't think that way is irrelevant; it's an entirely different conversation, one which he is declining to have with you.

No, furt,[b] it was [b]Liberal who asserted that HRC is ruthless, and in some way that will help her win the presidency. The issue is not whether anyone thinks of her that way, but whether she is. (The reputation alone would harm her chances, not help them.) The book to which Liberal cited is useless in this debate unless s/he is prepared to cite and defend some specific examples from it. Just mentioning a book -- while always appreciated -- is not an adequate cite for a seriously contested point in this forum, we all know that; everyone who participates cannot reasonably be expected to acquire and read it.

[furt]

No, furt,[b] it was [b]Liberal who asserted that HRC is ruthless, and in some way that will help her win the presidency.
But the point is that it's essentially an opinion. One person's ruthlessness is another person's aggressive is another persons bitchy is another person's assertive. It's pointless to discuss it.

[SuaSponte]

For the people that think McCain is too old, an intelligent older person is generally imbued with experience and knowledge which is what we need. Cheney in '08!!
Secondly, as long as he is a Republican, a good and ethical person MUST remain loyal and not rip his fellow pubs apart. He has expressed his differences.
when they exist.A good and ethical person must not act as you describe. A good and ethical person attempts to convince his allies that their actions are improper, and if said good and ethical person is unable to convince his allies, said person must, ethically, renounce his affiliation with such allies.

I'm not saying that McCain was ethically obliged to denounce the GOP. I'm just saying that your definition of mandatory ethical conduct is woefully inaccurate.

Sua

[Liberal]

But the point is that it's essentially an opinion. One person's ruthlessness is another person's aggressive is another persons bitchy is another person's assertive. It's pointless to discuss it.That's what I tried to explain.

Person A: "Well, she throws empty Pepsi cans at starving children."

Person B: "Oh, that's not ruthless. That's just tacky. I'm still waiting for a cite of ruthlessness..."

[Liberal]

All politicians plan to take things away for the common good. They need to levy taxes, ie take away your money, to pay for roads, military defence etc (I'd mention education, but I know you don't believe in that one). They need to enact laws that take away your physical liberty if you're convicted of a major crime. Without further specifics, there's nothing wrong with the statement that governments take things away for the common good.Don't forget that they need to pay for their salaries, staffs, buildings, and perks. But let's set all that aside and operate on your premise that there is nothing wrong with taking people's things if you govern them — even so, most politicians are ever more... let's say discerning in how they communicate their intentions. They usually couch their declaration in language that leads you to believe that what they intend while harm some other guy rather than you. You know, (Dem:) higher taxes on the rich, or (Rep:) close the tax loopholes. Etc. It takes some whopping balls to stand up and call it what it really is the way she did.

[BrainGlutton]

Don't forget that they need to pay for their salaries, staffs, buildings, and perks. But let's set all that aside and operate on your premise that there is nothing wrong with taking people's things if you govern them — even so, most politicians are ever more... let's say discerning in how they communicate their intentions. They usually couch their declaration in language that leads you to believe that what they intend while harm some other guy rather than you. You know, (Dem:) higher taxes on the rich, or (Rep:) close the tax loopholes. Etc. It takes some whopping balls to stand up and call it what it really is the way she did.

But, doesn't that make her exactly the kind of leader we should want? A forthright, honest leader who doesn't try to cloak her policies in euphemisms?

[Liberal]

But, doesn't that make her exactly the kind of leader we should want? A forthright, honest leader who doesn't try to cloak her policies in euphemisms?Certainly for me, that's one important quality in a leader. It does, however, also matter greatly just exactly what policies they're espousing.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Hillary all the way.

Unelectable!

As a registered Democrat, I am hoping to God she does not get the nomination. Not that I have a problem with her politics--I agree with them, mostly. But her gender will be an issue with many undecided voters who somehow just don't think a woman should be president. The effect of her running, and losing, could last for years and condemn us to four, or eight, more years of being the loyal opposition. Or perhaps something even more marginal than that.

[BrainGlutton]

But her gender will be an issue with many undecided voters who somehow just don't think a woman should be president.

IIRC, there are more female voters than male. Don't you think some female Pubs might cross over for the chance to vote for a woman? (Assuming the Pub nominee were male.)

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

IIRC, there are more female voters than male. Don't you think some female Pubs might cross over for the chance to vote for a woman? (Assuming the Pub nominee were male.)

Sure, I think they would, but I don't think that would be enough to counteract the gender effect going the other way. As much as I'd like to see the social progress a woman in the Oval Office would represent, I feel that this is not a good time to try for it.

[Aeschines]

Sure, I think they would, but I don't think that would be enough to counteract the gender effect going the other way. As much as I'd like to see the social progress a woman in the Oval Office would represent, I feel that this is not a good time to try for it.Then I guess we're behind India, Pakistan, the Phillipines, and all those other *backward* countries that have entrusted a woman with power.

Hmm.

[Quartz]

Like it or not, HRC has an image of a ice bitch and a c*nt. Sort of like Margaret Thatcher without her warmth. Plus she has all the baggage of her husband's tenure.

Whether or not it's true and how that came to be are irrelevant. The perception is the reality. She's got 2 years to turn that around.

[BrainGlutton]

Plus she has all the baggage of her husband's tenure.

See post #99.

[Liberal]

Like it or not, HRC has an image of a ice bitch and a c*nt. Sort of like Margaret Thatcher without her warmth. Plus she has all the baggage of her husband's tenure.

Whether or not it's true and how that came to be are irrelevant. The perception is the reality. She's got 2 years to turn that around.Which she is totally capable of doing, and is part of the point I was making earlier with BrainGlutton.

We got off on an unfortunate tangent, but the main gist of what I was saying originally was that she has great manipulation skills. See the post about her visit to Fox News Sunday and how she had them worshipping at her feet before the show ended, all the while holding her Fox News cup high for all the world to see. She declared that there is nothing wrong with believing in God, and that opposition to abortion is not automatically an unreasonable position to hold. She knows how to punch and then take the power out of a counter-punch. Instead of accepting the role of enemy to Republicans, she spent the hour praising them, including the one sitting beside her, Lindsay Graham. As a Southern gentleman, he naturally responded with praise for her as well. She didn't duck questions about Bill, but instead hit them head on with good humor and self-deprication. The only thing she needs to win the presidency is ganas. By the end of the show, both Mike Wallace and Senator Graham were feeding her grapes and fanning her.

With the desire, all else will fall into place.