IOW, you got nuttin’.
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
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
You owe me a dollar.