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.
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.
What difference does it make what the book says or what I believe about it? Are you now “fishing” for something else?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Emphasis mine.
Finally, we agree on something. 
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.
Well then the “system” is broken, and has been for a long long time. Shit floats to the top, is what you’re saying?
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?
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.
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?
Caveat: And I mean something other than the Vince Foster story!
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.
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?
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.
Or that someone is trying to create the perception. (Speaking in general; it clearly already exists in her case.)
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.