I have a friend. She has been an avid Bush supporter from day 1. Way back in '02 she told me that she could never respect Clinton because he didn’t capture Osama bin Laden. So, every once in a while since then, I ask her if she’s lost respect for Bush yet, since he hasn’t caught bin Laden. Of course she hasn’t lost respect for him. And the other day, she absolutely floored me with this gem: she said that Bush is the best president in her lifetime and she will always love him because he’s the first president that she felt like she could go up to and give him a big hug, and maybe he’s made a mistake or two, but she doesn’t care, because she feels like she knows him personally, and she’s going to vote for whomever he supports in '08.
You think I am making this up. You are wrong. I could never make up something like that.
I think it’s Neal Boortz who says that the right to vote is something people should have to earn. I never agreed with him until I had this conversation.
That’s fine, but I take it you’re a Democrat voter. Mr Clinton is a charismatic figure (much more than Bush), so there were obviously people who had no idea about either Republican or Democrat policies in the 90s who voted D because Clinton was “a great guy” or whatever. How do you feel about that?
There’s always going to be people that absolutely adore a particular figure even if they are in the minority. I happen to think Jimmy Carter is the best president in my lifetime, even though I know I’m in the minority. I think you happened to hit upon an outlier as data goes. I’m sure there are Germans that still hold Hitler in high esteem, Ugandans that miss Idi Amin, etc. So a few people still like Bush. It seems that someone has to.
There is a core that both parties can take for granted. The Republicans have anti-abortion folks and the religious right. The Democrats have gays, blacks, and feminists. And 80% of the SDMB.
The Democrats should have had the 2004 election sewn up. Bush is a weak campaigner, and he had the war in Iraq. Yet somehow the Democrats picked a warmed-over empty suit with no record on anything significant, and managed to wring defeat from the jaws of victory.
I grant you, they managed a win in 2006. If they decide that this means blue skies and blue states from now on, they will get an unpleasant surprise sooner or later.
Who are the Democrat front runners for 2008? A woman with very high negative ratings and a lot of baggage, and a Halfrican-Hamerican with a pretty face and no experience governing or running a national campaign who hasn’t even finished one term in the Senate. And the election is a year and a half away, and they are already stabbing each other in the back.
The Dems need to remember - Bush is not running in 2008. Neither is Cheney or any other member of his administration (so far, although I hope Condi Rice changes her mind). If they assume that they will sail into the White House on the “anyone but Bush” vote, they better not start printing up the inaugural invitations just yet.
I usually disagree with you on all things political, but here I agree 100%. Mind, I think that Kerry would have been a decent president. I think Gore would have been great. Hillary might even do a bang-up job. But it’s really hard to get excited about any one of them. What the Dems need is a rock star. Someone the whole country can get behind. Hell, I’d settle on someone with Bill’s charisma and Gore’s intellect, with a smidge of anyone the Reps can at least stomach.
Following up on **Shodan’s ** post. The Dems better watch out. There have been many polls already where Rudy is leading Hillary. Hillary embarrassing herself over the Geffen statements is not helping her credibility with undecided voters.
Of course it might be just a matter of time before Rudy puts his foot in his mouth, but so far he his quietly leading the Republicans by a lot, maybe enough to overcome the religious [del]fruitcakes[/del] right. So if the 2008 election is Rudy vs. Hillary. I think Dems should at least be nervous.
Is “Halfrican” the new way of saying “mulatto”? I’m a white guy, so maybe you’ll say I’m being too sensitive, but that’s as offensive as it is tasteless.
Sure, Bush isn’t running in 2008—but his record is. It won’t be too tough to link the current Republican frontrunners to Bush through their unflagging, flag-waving support over the past eight years. The question is: are the Republicans going to run on the Bush policies, or run from the Bush policies? George W. Bush is, like it or not, the proverbial elephant in the Republicans’ room.
If Condi Rice does run, as you’ve expressed a wish for, and the Democrats select Barack Obama, are you going to say, “I support Condi Rice, the *All-*African-American, not Barack Obama, the Halfrican-American! Rice '08: her blood is pure!” I mean, really…
I have to disagree about the war being negative baggage in 2004. At that time, I think a solid majority of Americans were still behind the war.
“Halfrican-Hamerican”? Come now, you’re a better person than that. But don’t let the early betting fool you- remember some of the favorites in recent years: Ed Muskie, Gary Hart, Howard Dean. Being ahead at this point is like being ahead at the start of the back stretch of the Kentucky Derby.
Condi? Not gonna happen. Her credibility is zero. Has she made one correct statement regarding Iraq in her life? Plus I think she’s going to get tainted by a scandal the minute Bush leaves office.
That hinges on Hillary winning the nomination. I think Dems should be nervous if Hillary wins the nomination, but I don’t know that she will - she isn’t likeable - even in her core. What she has is name recognition - helpful early on.
Agreed. I am hopeful that despite her personality that puts so many off, she would make a good president. I would not vote for Edwards unless the Republicans nominate someone like Brownback. Edwards has minimal appeal to independents and moderate Republicans. Obama is a bit of a wildcard. I might well vote for him. Too soon to tell so far. I have in me a desire to vote for him just to see a non-white male in the highest office. Well that and he will at least communicate better than Bush, Hillary or Rudy. Bush is rather stupid sounding, Hillary irritates many people I know, even many Dems and Rudy, well I like Rudy but he has this major snarky streak that may be problematic in foreign policy situations.
Yeah, but there’s a rather enormous difference between overlooking ‘mistakes’ like fucking up the world, and overlooking ‘mistakes’ like extramarital sex.
I’ve previously posted that McCain was gonna be the next POTUS. I’m now retracting that prediction. It seems he announced he was running on the Letterman show last night…tacky…and he’s also said that he beleives Roe v. Wade should be overturned. One thing I ran across said that he’d made the statement about Roe before, but it was new to me. Dunno who will win, but I no longer think it will be McCain.
Personally, i’ve never understood the whole McCain bandwagon thing, especially among liberals. More than five minutes examining his actual policies (rather than his persona) would quickly make clear that this is one pretty damn conservative guy.
And recently, he has taken to actively courting the fundamentalist and young earth creationist folks. Now, some might argue that he has to do this in order to get elected, but it should make his liberal and moderate supporters very concerned.
Not long ago I was saying that I really like McCain, and if he ran I might even consider voting for a Rep for the first time in my life. (For President, anyway.) But now it seems the flesh has fallen off his body and we can see him for the Lizard King that he’s become. What a disappointment.
A while back there was speculation of a Romney/Bush ticket. What ever became of that? It seems the perfect combination of charisma and Pure Evil.