Hey, Diogenes, you haven’t forgotten about our bet, have you?
Hillary in '08!
I think I’ll use your money to donate to whichever Republican is running against her. Or maybe the NRA. Hmmmm.
Many wackjob lefties, maybe. Most people properly recognize Reagan as one of the greatest presidents in American history.
I’ll give you that if you’ll give me “Most people properly recognize Noam Chomsky as one of the greatest thinkers in world history.”
Yeah, just like Bush is pilloried for the same thing. And in both cases, the accusation is wrong.
Nope.
According to an article in Slate Magazine, Bush won no greater a share of evangelical votes in 2004 than he did in 2000; and as a percentage of voters, evangelical voters were roughly the same percentage in 2004 as they were in 2000.
According to CNN exit polls, people who selected “Religious Faith” as the most important quality in a leader only made up 8% of the electorate.
However (again, according to the CNN exit polls): 58% of Americans trusted Bush to handle terrorism, while only 40% of Americans trusted Kerry to. And 71% of Americans are worried about terrorism. No other issue reaches that 58-40 split- not Bush’s approval rating (53 to 46), not the decision to go into Iraq (51 to 45), not how things are going in Iraq (44 to 52), not the economy (47 to 52), not the tax cuts (41 to 32). And 18% of 71% is roughly 3%… which is what Bush won by.
No, Reagan was widely loved at the time he was president. To a great many people he was sort of like the nation’s grandfather (in terms of inspiring affection, that is), and this affection was ratcheted up even higher after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and released his famous optimistic and upbeat letter to the nation.
I don’t much think death coverage generates much love that either isn’t already there, or is transmitted by sounds and images of the deceased that caused them to be loved in the first place. People who loved the likes of Reagan, Kennedy and Johnny Carson have that love reinvigorated by seeing images of them and hearing their voices again. And I believe that the people who weren’t around when those people were popular or held office and who respond with affection to them after they’ve died are largely responding to the same qualities that caused them to be beloved in their own time.
It’s a crazy world!
On a random note: I’ve been reading Reagan: A Life In Letters. It’s a fascinating read. Reagan loved to write and has written about 10,000 letters. They break them out by category and give a little background info for each. I’ve learned a lot that surprised me about his ideas and thoughts. For instance, I was surprised to see that he bemoaned the way the 10th ammendment is ignored, much like I always do. 
Most Republicans do, but a lot of Democrats really don’t like his presidency. I think you’re underestimating the dislike felt for him by a large segment of the population.
And, I’m pretty sure that when Ukulele Ike made his comments, he wasn’t speaking as a mod on this board, but just as another poster. And, while, as a mod, he needs to be objective, as a poster, he can have whatever beliefs or biases he wants.
How do you figure she lied?
What she said was ultimately inaccurate, true. But so far as I can tell, the President lied to her about his involvement with Ms. Lewinsky, and she believed him, in the same way that spouses of cheaters have believed denials countless times before, even in the face of past lies.
I’m sorry - I’m not willing to dismiss her as a liar in this instance. In Bill’s book, he relates the timeframe of when he lied to her and when he confessed the truth, and it’s consistent with her believing, at the time of the Today quote, that her husband was being maligned.
Well, whether it’s likely she knew or not, it’s not like there wasn’t more than enough precedent – with Jennifer Flowers being the most obvious and irrefutable example. Arkansas state troopers testified that they brought him girls. He was accused many times without adequate refutation of having one affair after another all throughout his marriage. And he was caught on tape telling Jennifer Flowers to lie about their affair…saying that if she denied it and he denied it, no one could ‘prove anything.’
The guy was a lying, manipulative philanderer, and even worse, had his minions try to discredit and leave in shambles the reputations of the many women who came forward to speak up about their sexual encounters with him. And if it wasn’t for Lewinski’s blue dress, he’d be denying to this very day that he’d had a sexual encounter with her.
But the way he and Hillary (and Oprah) carry on, you’d think Lewinski was the only time he’d gone astray.
Sleeping on the couch, indeed!
I think Hillary knew all throughout their marriage that he was unfaithful and really didn’t care. It was only after it became a political liability and personal embarrassment that she took on the mantle of the innocent, out-of-the-loop wife who was lied to about, ignorant of and ultimately forgiving of her husband’s supposed human foibles.
Was Hillary dishonest (in this instance, that is)? Maybe not, but she’s certainly been disingenuous enough throughout her time in the public eye to justify the suspicion.
She dumped the Cubbies to hop on the Yankee’s bandwagon. :mad:
The Dems might think about Chicago before they nominate her.
How is losing a golf ball like Hillary’s last trip to a ranch?
The former is a hunt on a course.
Substitute a few words here such as ‘asshole’ for ‘philanderer’ and ‘acquaintances’ for ‘women’, and you’ve pretty much described your everyday politician or SwiftVet.
What was she supposed to do? If the reality was that she didn’t care about his tomfoolery, was she supposed to make that admission to the American people?
“Yeah, he’s my husband, but we have a open marriage kinda dealie, where we can do whatever we want, no feelings hurt. So Bill probably did bone Monica Lewinsky, but I don’t care. And I wouldn’t be sharing this with you, Mrs. Sawyer, if this issue wasn’t of such vital interest to the state of our Union. But since it is, as God as my witness, you must know the truth: my husband is a philanderer and our marriage is a complete sham.”
Hilary was in a catch-22 situation. If she hadn’t come forward to defend her husband, people would have talked about how she hadn’t shown enough loyality. If she had come out and said she knew Bill was a cheater, people would have had plenty to say about the integrity of their marriage and morals. She chose to defend Bill and she was pilloried for that. So I’m wondering what Hilary could have done that wouldn’t have result in controversy.
This can be simplified:
Will anyone who voted Republican in '04 switch their vote to Hillary? No.
Will anyone who voted for Kerry switch their vote to the Republican candidate? Doubtful.
Election results will echo that of 2004.
How about not participating in sham of an open marriage with a philanderer in the first place? You’re asking what magic words she could use to get out of a bad situation. Maybe you should focus on not getting into the bad situation at all. If you don’t do anything to be embarrassed about, then you won’t have to lie to avoid embarrassment.
Anyone is a strong word. I have no doubt that some women may vote differently because Hillary is a woman. There is already talk of a female running mate on the Republican side to counter this.
Also, we don’t even have a clue who will be the Republican candidate next time. Some people who don’t like Bush may vote for another candidate who is a Republican.
The elections a long way off. It’s way too early to be making predictions.
(My prediction that Hillary will run is excepted from my own rule, of course 
)
Yada yada.
I have yet to hear you, or any Clinton-basher for that matter, explain how their marriage is any of your fuckin’ business.
So what you’re really saying is that to tell the truth would be self-defeating if you’re Hillary.
That is my entire point.
Well, that’s fair. However, you really should explain why subornation of perjury and using employees of the federal government in a personal cover-up is something we should ignore.