… (Waves little Gore in '08 sign)
I’m sorry, but the man has really impressed me with his policy actions in reforming government while he was in office, his technological vision before entering it, and his wildman speeches after leaving.
He may be the only man who can strangle the government back down to the size it needs to be. Smaller. Much. Effing. Smaller.
Ah, thank you. In that case, I stand corrected.
An excellent point. It is illuminating, at least to me, to recall who the “Gang of Seven” were who are, or were credited by some as leading the Republican Revolution against the corruption in government (this pulled from Wikipedia, but you could find lots of sources, I’m sure:
You’ve probably heard enough about P. Rick Santorum’s ethics recently. Here’s more on Boehner:
There’s not much point in pretending that the Republican Revolution was at any time some idealistic pursuit of integrity that ran afoul of the corrupting influence of government. These folks were dirty from the get-go. The Republicans have made the House Post Office scandal and the nights in the Lincoln bedroom seem about as corrupt as bobby-soxers necking in the Bel Air.
I forgot to add the obvious irony that the Republicans recently elected Boehner the House Majority Leader in an effort to cover up the stink of DeLay’s corruption.
But more importantly, I think the charge of “hawking around” is a reasonable one to make. Not from a Republican, of course, but from someone like Feingold whom she might have to run against in a Dem prez primary. If I were him, I’d certainly use excerpts from her Senate floor speech to rally the Democratic base against her-- you’d almost think it was Bush speaking.
Like I said, a Republican could hardly use this against her, but someone like Feingold can easily say: I saw through the disinformation campaign that Bush spread about Iraq. Hillary didn’t. You choose who you want to lead the Democrats to vicotry in November!
I honestly think this has nothing to do with whether Hillary will or won’t run in 2008. The midterm elections are right around the corner, and scaring up the base is what I think the goal is here. It’s probably difficult to pass amendments that simply reaffirm the previous amendments banning same sex marriage, so the “evil gays” don’t make a very good reason to get to the polls. Scaring people into thinking that Hillary will be president AND that there is a possibility that both houses might be democratically controlled is what I see as the goal.
Absolutely. As I said, I don’t think Hillary really stands a chance of ever being elected, but I do agree with her on several issues.
Well, if you can find someone trying to make that point, then maybe you can start a debate with him.
Bingo. It’s just political good sense. She’s a conventient target and she’s been shown in the past to be very effective in stiring up the base. So why would they invest great amounts of time and money to develop a new threat/issue when this one is already ready made.
Okay, sorry if I was too quick to snap at you. But my point stands with regard to many conservatives who are now complaining about the corrupting influence of one-party rule and extolling the virtues of party balance and governmental gridlock. I think the most of 'em are hypocrites.
I didn’t see any conservatives or Republicans back in 2000 saying “One-party rule is a bad thing; keep Congress Republican but vote for Gore!” And I didn’t see any of them in 2002 saying “One-party rule is a bad thing; put a Democratic majority in Congress!”
Nope, they took all the wins they could get, and laughed at the Democrats for losing. But now that so many of their victorious candidates are screwing so many things up so badly with their crazy criminal cronyism, suddenly they rediscover that one-party rule has a bad influence. Hence the pious hopes that the Democrats will provide a little balance before Republicans lose their credibility completely. I guess we’ll find out this fall whether any of them really mean it.
Snark snark snark, snarl snarl snarl. Sorry to be grumpy, but cut away about 25% of that for rhetorical exaggeration and I still really mean the rest of it.
That, my boy, is going to come back to haunt you. 
Just a WAG, but it seems to me that it’s easier to band people together when there’s an easily identifiable enemy. The Republicans are in the middle of having to justify an increasingly unpopular war in the middle east, and plans to expand that war into Iran look imminent. Either they find someone for everyone to hate and vote against, or they’re going to have a hard sell with their candidate come the general election. I don’t care what John Mace says, Republicans may like to point to Condi Rice to show how diverse they’ve become, but the strong Southern Christian/racist/sexist base isn’t going to vote for her. Even as VP. Hillary kills two birds with one stone. No matter who the Dem front runner is, for the next two years Pubs can point to her and say “better get on board with us, you know you don’t want HER in office,” and has the additional bonus of dangling something shiny in front of people’s faces to get their minds off the Middle Eastern quagmire.
OK. BTW, I’ve been a long time advocate of mixed party rule IRL and on this board. This isn’t something I stumbled onto because of Bush.
I guess my question would be…WHY exactly would the current White House be worried? Why would Bush care if Hillary runs or doesn’t run? Unless the OP is postulating that Bush will somehow be able to run for a third term (we’ll leave off the fact that at this point ANYONE…even Gore…could beat him 
), why exactly would Bush care? As for Rove…is Rove going to be working with the new candidate? Is this a certainty? Is it a possibility? Is he angling for a new job?
-XT
Because everyone in the White House except Bush is up for a third term (or in some cases, fourth, fifh, seventh, or whatever number they’re up to since the days of Nixon).
And right now they’re looking to make sure their opposition is as demonized as possible. I’m betting Hillary will be outed as a lesbian before the end of 2007.
-Joe
Health problems? 
Soon to be quoted by a Usual Suspect as an unimpeachable source.
And I’m assuming the Health Problems would be of the monthly variety. Can’t trust them wimmin!
-Joe, myn
Are there any minds left to change against her by this point? Or did it get to that a decade ago? Has it not yet occurred to this gang that their efforts just might be counterproductive with their general credibility already destroyed by so many other matters?
Doesn’t matter, though. The more the RW hate media focuses on her, the less time they’ll be able to spend on the real Dem candidate in '08.
I don’t know what’s scarier for the Republicans - contemplating the inevitability of Hillary’s nomination in '08, or facing the reality that the only candidate they’ll be able to field with a good chance of beating her is John McCain. 