View Full Version : American Presidential Elections: 2008
DemonArchangel
07-09-2006, 14:02
So, who do you think will run for America's highest executive office in 2008? Who do you think will win? What kind of leader do you want elected to office? Currently, there are so many different possibilities, and so many different potential candidates to choose from.
In my opinion, if the Democrats pick a strong candidate with broad appeal, they could easily put a Democratic president into office. Even Republicans are by and large dissatisfied with 8 years of Dubya and his cronies, so if a Democrat could keep the Democratic vote together and still reach some Republicans, he/she would win.
However, a strong Republican candidate could easily capitalize on a large conservative base, especially since America has swung to the right ever since 9/11 (****ing Al-Qaida bastards.....), and if the Democratic candidate is weak on certain issues like security, the economy and (*sigh*) moral issues, a smart Republican could easily go in for the kill.
(And yes, I'm biased, if you can't tell)
Anyway, the outcome of the 2008 election is really in the air. I know Hillary isn't going to win, because she would cause too many divisions, even in the Democratic party (THANK GOD!)*
*That was from an atheist by the way*
Anyway, my picks for 2008:
Democratic President: John Edwards (unless somebody better comes up)
Republican President: John McCain
Most Likely To Be 1st Female President: Condoleeza Rice
Al Khalifah
07-09-2006, 14:21
Hopefully the democrats might field someone with a bit of character this time rather than the two useless pieces of wood they've fielded the last two times. Then perhaps there might at least be some kind of competition.
I doubt Rice will be the first female president. She won't appeal to the far right, which comprises a large section of the Republican support.
GeneralHankerchief
07-09-2006, 14:42
Hmm.
While it's still early to tell, the most vocal members of the parties will select both candidates for president.
With the Dems, Mark Warner takes on Hillary (who's been swinging noticeably to the right). The bloggers, whom Warner has been appealing to, turn out in full force and give him the slight victory.
In the GOP, moderate John McCain battles religous conservative Sam Brownback. It sums up the massive fracture in the Republican Party and is a nasty race. Eventually the smearing done by Brownback ala South Carolina in 2000 gives him the nod.
In the general election, the McCain conservatives flock in large numbers to Warner's side, mainly due to his more moderate stance and presence of a personality. Warner manages to squeak by with several swing states, including Florida, PA, Ohio, and his home state of Virginia.
DemonArchangel
07-09-2006, 15:22
Hopefully the democrats might field someone with a bit of character this time rather than the two useless pieces of wood they've fielded the last two times. Then perhaps there might at least be some kind of competition.
I doubt Rice will be the first female president. She won't appeal to the far right, which comprises a large section of the Republican support.
Point #1: True, true, the Democratic party has yet to field a decent candidate. Sadly, I don't think they currently have enough.
Point #2: What beef does the far right have with Condi? (Besides the fact that they're wife beating sexists)
GeneralHankerchief
07-09-2006, 16:08
Point #2: What beef does the far right have with Condi? (Besides the fact that they're wife beating sexists)
Probably because she hasn't stated out loud that abortion is murder, gay's shouldn't marry, the court is being taking over by judicial activists, etc. Even though she's been National Security Advisor and Secretary of State so her opinions on that stuff really don't matter.
Divinus Arma
07-09-2006, 16:33
oooh fun!
Before we consider a candidate, let's consider the winning issues. Candidates don't win, acuity to the issues does.
National Security: Complex issue. Consider the war on terrorism and its campaigns. Democrats will get burned because the campaign in Iraq is a component of the war on terror. Yes, yes, we all know that there are no WMD now. But the vast majority do not think it was anything more than a flawed evaluation of intelligence. "Bush Lied" is screamed only by the far left and international opponents of American foriegn policy. If the majority of Americans actually thought that "Bush Lied", then they would be screaming to their congressman to impeach him. And that would be all over the news, and build upon itself towards an actual impeachment. If you think that "Bush Lied" rather than "Bush screwed up", than take a look in the mirror and see an American Extremist Liberal. No offense. And Don't worry, I'll take a swipe at the GOP base too here in a minute. There are just far too many damning statements by bigtime Democrats and the GOP will be able to market these statements as "Democrats are weak on terror", whether it is true of the Democratic Presidential candidate or not.
Advantage: Republicans. Unless America decided to go back to sleep and pretend that terrorism isn't a threat, the Dems will be getting bruised by a very refined Republican spin machine. The Dem spin machine will be unable to keep up, because so many weak anti-troop statements have been made in the last couple of years.
The Economy: This is essentially divided into two components: National performance and the federal deficit. No more how you slice it, the economy is humming right along despite 9/11, a tech crash, and two military major campaigns. Granted, much of this progress has been encourgaed by two extremely important factors: A historically low Fed Rate and reduction in taxes. The GOP can make claim to one of those. The other is being reversed by Chairman Bernake right now, and amazingly we are still seeing the economy grow despite increased costs to consumers and businesses- that's a sign of a very healthy economy indeed. As for the national debt, the GOP will get slammed in the butt for pork barrel spending. Republicans are pissed about this spending, but realize that the Democrats will be much worse.
Advantage: Republicans, but barely. Increasing taxes is not something that can be sold easily to the public, especially when a growing economy begins to pay off the Federal Debt.
Illegal Immigration: Topic De Jour; the wild card. This will not matter much for a Dem, but this will absolutley cripple a GOP candidate. A candidate who is soft on illegal immigration will get burned badly. They GOP absolutely cannot field another individual who supports illegal immigration. Take a look at Bush's poll ratings. That isn't the Left causing the drop- it's the Right. People like me; hard line conservatives who do not support the importation of poverty (The merits etc of illegal immigration have been discussed ad nauseum back here, so I won't waste a perfectly good thread on the subject).
Advantage: Democrats. They have historically promised benefits to the impoverished, and the unions have begun to see Illegal immigrants with amnesty as potential new union members- and voters. Republicans are split between a hard and a hard place; the party voters vs. the business money.
And as a non-issue factor, Political Tactics: Each side has been pretty fierce in its attacks of the other. Whoever lightens up on the rhetoric and sticks to their party message will be percieved as the good guy. Attacks will be bad news for anyone this time around. The Dems may choose to attack the Republicans as "tax-breaks for the rich" and "chicken-hawks", or "cowboys". The biggest mistake the Democrats can make is to run against Bush when Bush isn't running. It will be difficult, however, for the Dems to run without attacking the Right. This is because they don't have much to run on aside from the deficit and the campaign in Iraq. And these are issues they are weak on.
For Republicans, "Liberal" has been made a dirty word with much success, and it has been that way since the 90's. However, they would be very wise to keep the word liberal to a very mild usage. The reason for this is clear: moderates will view the Republican candidate as a Partisan Hack. The use of the word liberal only works on the base who hold a set opinion on the differences between liberals and conservatives. Moderates on the left get pissed when every Democrat is called a liberal. Similarly, moderate Republicans roll their eyes when they hear the word liberal. A Republican who refrains from calling his oponent a liberal will be rewarded with a public perception that he is a reasonable non-partisan candidate.
Advantage: To be determined based on campaign behavior.
Other Factors:
Health Care. People are demanding a change, but most Americans are not yet sold on the idea of a public health care system. The failure of government to succeed in Schools, in the DMV and other administrative minutia, and in the Social Security Administration does not inspire confidence that an enormous social health program will be efficiently managed. We fear out-of-control costs, enormous tax burden, and a poorly managed system that wastes our money at best and endangers our health at worse. Despite this, Americans need change. The Dems plan to run on the government health care plan. If the Republicans offered a very limited alternative, like a government insurance program rather than government facilities, they could claim this issue as their own. The Dems could also propose a limited a limited program, but many analysts seem to think Health Care is going to be a big ticket agenda item for the Democrats; it is an opportuity to create an imaginative vision for something better with huge novelty appeal, whether that vision is realistic or not.
Advantage: Republicans. I don't think the Democrats can successfully market this. Too much concern on the part of the middle class.
Now, let's take alook at what's at stake here.
The Supreme Court of The United States. This is the big one. Nothing is more important than this right now. Republicans are absolutley salivating at the prospect of Ginsburg or Stevens retiring. Democrats are well aware of this and are terrified of losing the judicial branch. Granted, Republicans are in the majority there now, but Souter and Kennedy are not conservative by any stretch of the imagination.
Everything else at stake realtes directly to the issues.
Well, that's my analysis.
:bow:
DemonArchangel
07-09-2006, 19:00
Wow, that is such a badass analysis. Hats off to you man.
The thing is, I think we're probably going to end up seeing more Democrats in Congress, even if the Democrats fail to put one of their own into the White House. Something tells me that dissatisfaction with the Republican political machine is at an all time high.
And about your position on the issues vs. the candidates. I think the candidate does indeed matter. Charisma, charm, good looks, etc. all count towards people voting for a candidate (yes, we're that shallow), also, individual candidates might each have their own positions regarding each of the major issues below. Candidate selection has to be done carefully here, otherwise, a bad candidate is bad, no matter how appealing the issues are.
Al Khalifah
07-09-2006, 21:51
Point #2: What beef does the far right have with Condi? (Besides the fact that they're wife beating sexists)
The fact that she's black and a woman. While I'm not implying anything about the vast (and I mean VAST) majority of Republicans, I suspect that there would still be significant factor that would not support a black presidential candidate. Could cause vote splitting to a third party.
Al Khalifah
07-09-2006, 22:42
I disagree.
DemonArchangel
07-09-2006, 23:47
The fact that she's black and a woman. While I'm not implying anything about the vast (and I mean VAST) majority of Republicans, I suspect that there would still be significant factor that would not support a black presidential candidate. Could cause vote splitting to a third party.
I disagree.
Could you explain why? I mean, I agree with you and all, but I want to hear your reasoning behind that statement.
2008 political season:
Democrats:
You'll be seeing Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Wesley Clark plus a few others in New Hampshire starting next year.
Hillary is a goner. The progressive base is upset with her. She can't run to the left in the primaries because they no longer trust her after she's spent so much time leaning to the right. Mark Warner and Wesley Clark are courting the bloggers. But the independence of the Daily Kos is under a lot of scrutiny right now because of its support for Warner while working for Warner. Wesley Clark, particularly with his pro-veteran, anti-Bush stance is going to win the bloggers. Biden has become something of a firebrand in his speeches lately; but he carries too much baggage as an insider. Even Bayh is too moderate to make it through the left-leaning primary season intact. Barack Obama is an unknown.
I think it will come down to Wesley Clark, Mark Warner and possibly Barack Obama (if he steps into the ring). If I had to pick one today, I'd pick one of the most decorated officers since Dwight Eisenhower.
Republicans:
Condoleeza Rice, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, George Allen, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Bill Frist and Bill Owens will be in the early group, possibly a few more.
This is a tough one, because it entirely depends on what happens in the elections this year, unlike with the Democrats. If Frist loses his place as Senate Majority leader then he loses the only pulpit he has with which to frame his campaign. Without it, he has too many negatives, and he lost the far right religious vote with his support of stem cell research. It'll be used against him. Condoleeza Rice will suffer whatever fate awaits the Bush administration. If things don't improve for Bush, then things won't improve for her. Smart lady, but she has the Iraq war albatross dragging her down. Hagel is too far from the right to get much support in a right-leaning primary season. He's like a mirror image of Evan Bayh in that regard. George Allen has some problems in his past that might come back to bite him in the ass in a heated primary, and the same for Guiliani (Kerik is going to be Guiliani's albatross). Pataki and Owen look to have the least negatives and can distance themselves from Iraq if necessary. McCain will always be right in there.
It's way too up in the air to call; but I'd have to go with the final group being McCain, Owen and Pataki. McCain wins that battle if he can convince the religious right to support him. Oddly, he's closer to the religious right than Pataki or Owen; but he has this image of being more moderate. I guess that's because he's a media darling.
My early call for the 2008 presidential race, barring any number of unforeseen things which can happen between now and then?
Clark v. McCain - McCain wins unless he lets something slip in the post primary dash for the middle that lets people see how very far right he really is. :grin:
Reverend Joe
07-10-2006, 07:41
:inquisitive: What's the matter with you? It's 2006. Don't worry about it yet.
That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If she was running while wearing a doo-rag with a bandanna wrapped around her head, while blasting Public Enemy #1 out of a Boom Box, you might have some kind of point there, but that's not the case.
Yes it´s dumb behavior.....but It´s true....she would not get elected.
hell....I´m not even talking just about the US here, In the general I don´t consider Portugal to be a racist country......but do I think that a black man could be elected for president of Portugal if the elections were held tomorrow?....No I do not. Even if racism is not prevalent it´s still there lurking in the dark corners somewhat.
yesdachi
07-10-2006, 14:03
Candidates will be fighting hard within party lines to get their parties support for this election; it seems there is no clear front runner but a bunch of kids who all want the ball but none of them big enough to just take it. I anticipate a lot of mud being thrown this time around. Chances are it will be two all too familiar loudspeakers half of the country hates and the other half loves.
2008 may be a little early for DeVos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_DeVos) but he has my vote if he can get there.:yes:
Al Khalifah
07-10-2006, 15:13
Why has no one mentioned The Governator ?
If you've seen the Demolition Man, then you'd know that at some point he does become President - hence the Schwarzenegger Presidential Library in San Angeles.
yesdachi
07-10-2006, 15:54
Sorry, no Governator.
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Dear lord, do we really have to start worrying about this now? Two years out?
Lemur for prez. :2thumbsup:
Finally, someone making sense. My first act as President will be a public horsewhipping of all registered lobbyists. After that, we'll have a big party. I want Borat to hold my bible when I'm sworn in.
My first act as President will be a public horsewhipping of all registered lobbyists. After that, we'll have a big party.
You got my vote for saying that! Where do I sign up? :thumbsup:
solypsist
07-10-2006, 20:20
if my two favorites were to go at it
D mark warner
R mike bloomberg
i'd vote republican in a second.
Seamus Fermanagh
07-10-2006, 23:34
Dear lord, do we really have to start worrying about this now? Two years out?
Of course! We're already 2.5 to 3 years into the 2008 campaign funding cycle. Sheesh, I thought everyone knew that.
Edit: I originally meant this is a joke. After only a few moments reflection, I realize it is actually just a statement of condition....
My first act as President will be a public horsewhipping of all registered lobbyists. After that, we'll have a big party.
:shakehands: Sounds pretty reasonable to me -- I can certainly think of a few platforms I've had less respect for.
Divinus Arma
07-16-2006, 05:29
2008 political season:
Democrats:
You'll be seeing Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Wesley Clark plus a few others in New Hampshire starting next year.
Hillary is a goner. The progressive base is upset with her. She can't run to the left in the primaries because they no longer trust her after she's spent so much time leaning to the right. Mark Warner and Wesley Clark are courting the bloggers. But the independence of the Daily Kos is under a lot of scrutiny right now because of its support for Warner while working for Warner. Wesley Clark, particularly with his pro-veteran, anti-Bush stance is going to win the bloggers. Biden has become something of a firebrand in his speeches lately; but he carries too much baggage as an insider. Even Bayh is too moderate to make it through the left-leaning primary season intact. Barack Obama is an unknown.
I think it will come down to Wesley Clark, Mark Warner and possibly Barack Obama (if he steps into the ring). If I had to pick one today, I'd pick one of the most decorated officers since Dwight Eisenhower.
Republicans:
Condoleeza Rice, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, George Allen, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Bill Frist and Bill Owens will be in the early group, possibly a few more.
This is a tough one, because it entirely depends on what happens in the elections this year, unlike with the Democrats. If Frist loses his place as Senate Majority leader then he loses the only pulpit he has with which to frame his campaign. Without it, he has too many negatives, and he lost the far right religious vote with his support of stem cell research. It'll be used against him. Condoleeza Rice will suffer whatever fate awaits the Bush administration. If things don't improve for Bush, then things won't improve for her. Smart lady, but she has the Iraq war albatross dragging her down. Hagel is too far from the right to get much support in a right-leaning primary season. He's like a mirror image of Evan Bayh in that regard. George Allen has some problems in his past that might come back to bite him in the ass in a heated primary, and the same for Guiliani (Kerik is going to be Guiliani's albatross). Pataki and Owen look to have the least negatives and can distance themselves from Iraq if necessary. McCain will always be right in there.
It's way too up in the air to call; but I'd have to go with the final group being McCain, Owen and Pataki. McCain wins that battle if he can convince the religious right to support him. Oddly, he's closer to the religious right than Pataki or Owen; but he has this image of being more moderate. I guess that's because he's a media darling.
My early call for the 2008 presidential race, barring any number of unforeseen things which can happen between now and then?
Clark v. McCain - McCain wins unless he lets something slip in the post primary dash for the middle that lets people see how very far right he really is. :grin:
According to your analysis, the Democrats are going to field a hyper-liberal.
Since mainstream America is just as afraid of liberal kooks as they are religious nuts, then it seems that a McCain-Guilliani ticket will take the White House. Conservative enough for most of the right, and reasonable enough for moderate Democrats to escape the raving lunatic anti-war liberal that is sure to be fielded this time a round.
I just hope my House stays Red, so that we can continue to smack down the Amnesty bills that McCain will be sure to throw our way repeatedly. I personally don't care for McCain or Guilliani and think they aren't conservative enough. But who cares, as long as McCain picks a hard-right blackrobe to replace the next Supreme Court hippy to retire.
After McCain's 8 years, then we'll have Giulliani for 8 maybe with Condi or Powell as a veep (dreaming). That would give us 24 more years of Republican control in the White House.
In the meantime, we just need to burn off these Democrat ticks that are clinging to the house. You guys held the house for 60 years. Now its our turn, and its only been 12.~;p
solypsist
07-16-2006, 05:44
if republicans vote in two men who have had well known extra-marital affairs then we really have turned the corner into hypocrisy-ville.
...it seems that a McCain-Guilliani ticket will take the White House.
if republicans vote in two men who have had well known extra-marital affairs then we really have turned the corner into hypocrisy-ville.
I really can't see McCain surviving the Republican primaries- he's gone off the reservation too many times to get much support....
For my part, I cant think of a single potential candidate on either side that I find at all appealing. Looks like a good time for a 'throw-away' libertarian vote.
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-17-2006, 02:29
Rice won't run. She has no experiance on the home front and she knows it. I think the Republicans will field both the first black president and the first woman president, perhaps both at the same time. But not with Rice.
The Democrats have a big problem. They aren't a party of ideas anymore. It's just anti-Bush or anti-Republican. The different interest groups are welded together by their dislike and even hatred for the general American right.
Now, the Republicans have ideas these days: wasting our money and keeping the status quo on illegal immigration. They just happen to suck.
I hope McCain doesn't win; anyone that endeared by the media can't be good. Plus McCain-Feingold, and his general "centrist" (I'd say leftist but...) leanings make him unsavory.
A legitimately centrist Democrat, appealing to family values and sensible spending and budgetry would crush just about anybody. Is there such a candidate?
Hillary, I think, will do better than some are saying, I fear. The media is saying how "right" she's going and all that, but I think its just campaign crap. She's still the leftist devil incarnate, as well as a nasty person. I'm moving to...
I dunno. Australia? Not too many western bastions of conservatism these days, huh?
EDIT: Yay! I'll get to vote! Booo! The choices stink!
Rice won't run. She has no experiance on the home front and she knows it. I think the Republicans will field both the first black president and the first woman president, perhaps both at the same time. But not with Rice.
I don't think she will either. She needs to spend a little more time in the queue before getting a presidential nod.
The Democrats have a big problem. They aren't a party of ideas anymore. It's just anti-Bush or anti-Republican. The different interest groups are welded together by their dislike and even hatred for the general American right.
Sad but true.
A legitimately centrist Democrat, appealing to family values and sensible spending and budgetry would crush just about anybody. Is there such a candidate?
Evan Bayh is my darkhorse.
Hillary, I think, will do better than some are saying, I fear. The media is saying how "right" she's going and all that, but I think its just campaign crap. She's still the leftist devil incarnate, as well as a nasty person. I'm moving to...
If Sweet Billy C can convince Collin Powell to be his wifes running mate...Never happen, but interesting ticket. I think it would be such an shocker the right would turn out en masse.
scooter_the_shooter
07-17-2006, 04:22
That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If she was running while wearing a doo-rag with a bandanna wrapped around her head, while blasting Public Enemy #1 out of a Boom Box, you might have some kind of point there, but that's not the case.
Cube is right. I know many far right people who will say all sorts of racial slurs but not mean it for the whole race.
IE A gangsta, rapper, druggy is a ni@ger in their eyes.
A nice black average joe is a person.
Here is quote from one of these folks which seems to stick in my mind.
"there are black people, and then there are ni!@gers.
Meaning there are good black folks and then their is "trash"
I personally don't have that view but I see what the people do mean.
Back on topic.
I'd love it if condi ran for president.
We could put down all the lefties who call the right sexist and racist. We'd have a pro gun, pro defence candidate while getting many women and minority votes:2thumbsup:
This was thrown together quickly sorry for any grammar errors.
A legitimately centrist Democrat, appealing to family values and sensible spending and budgetry would crush just about anybody. Is there such a candidate?
Wes Clark is about as centrist as you're going to find, Republican or Democrat. Eclectic seems to think he's a hyper-liberal, which is just silly. Clark is the one of the most decorated U.S. military officer since Eisenhower. He's a disabled vet and strong on both defense and veterans affairs.
Here's a quote from his one of his superior officers in his career:
"Wes Clark has the character and depth to be another Marshall or Eisenhower in time of war." -Brigadier General William W. Crouch, March 16, 1988
He was first in his class at West Point. He was a Rhode's Scholar to Oxford where he earned a Master's Degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics. He was an investment banker for a while after leaving the military. As Nato Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, he developed great relations with military and political people all over the EU and beyond. He's middle of the road economically. He was the CEO of Wavecrest Technologies which is developing pollution electric free engines.
Even Fox News was smart enough to hire him as a military and foreign affairs analyst.
He's the real deal. Smart, capable, experienced, veteran, and middle of the road on just about everything. Which is why he gets painted as a liberal by the usual jack-booted thug suspects on the right. They don't want to have to face a real veteran with real boots in the mud para and Ranger tab qualified war experience. You don't screw with the Rangers. :wink:
scooter_the_shooter
07-17-2006, 16:39
What's his view on gun control? Assault weapons and handguns mainly.(if they alow those, chances are they'll allow the other stuff
Clark is a hunter and a gun owner. He supports enforcing existing gun laws. He is not in favor of allowing citizens to own assault weapons without at least permits. He famously said, during his 2004 campaign, "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!" He also supports closing the gun show loopholes in present gun laws, and supports federal ballistics fingerprinting of every new gun before it's sold. He supports gun safety design, such as trigger locks and loaded/unloaded indicators.
I don't support these views, entirely. I'm just stating his positions, at least as known in his 2004 primary campaign.
Even if Clark were able to survive the Dem primary (which I doubt), I don't know if anybody has a good tactic lined up for defending him from the inevitable Republican swiftboating. I don't doubt that the Karl Roves of this world would be able to dredge up a few disgruntled soldiers to slime the man from here to Vietnam.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/purpleheart140.jpg
scooter_the_shooter
07-17-2006, 19:35
Clark is a hunter and a gun owner. He supports enforcing existing gun laws. He is not in favor of allowing citizens to own assault weapons without at least permits. He famously said, during his 2004 campaign, "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!" He also supports closing the gun show loopholes in present gun laws, and supports federal ballistics fingerprinting of every new gun before it's sold. He supports gun safety design, such as trigger locks and loaded/unloaded indicators.
I don't support these views, entirely. I'm just stating his positions, at least as known in his 2004 primary campaign.
He can go to hell then. He is not pro gun.
He sounds like john kerry talking about how he goes deer hunting...he claims to sneak up on the deer on his belly with and over and under shotgun:laugh4:
Every politician will say they support the 2nd amendment....they just change the definition of it to suit their anti gun agenda.
No offense to you....but he seems like a baaaaaaaaaaaaaad man:inquisitive:
(BTW lets keep this about candidates ant their views; I do not want to start a gun control debate.)
Condi on the other hand is very pro gun. She is firmly against registration.
Condi in 08:2thumbsup:
I'd like jeb bush to win though...I didn't mention him because I already know that nobody'd vote for him.(we all know why)
GeneralHankerchief
07-17-2006, 20:57
I think another reason why Hillary and Jeb won't win is the nepotism factor. This may just be me, but if our president in 2013 (pre-inauguration) is named either Clinton or Bush, we will have been ruled for twenty years by two families. That scares me slightly, and I think voters will get tired of it.
Condi on the other hand is very pro gun. She is firmly against registration.
Condi in 08:2thumbsup:
Heh. Oh, really? In an interview with Larry King on CNN, she said:
"Rice said she favored background checks and controls at gun shows. However, she added, "we have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that the Founding Fathers thought very important."
Background checks and controls at gun shows? What exactly does she mean by adding controls in addition to background checks? :wink:
Besides, is the Christian right ready to elect the USA's first black lesbian president? I don't think so. :grin:
Divinus Arma
07-17-2006, 22:45
Heh. Oh, really? In an interview with Larry King on CNN, she said:
"Rice said she favored background checks and controls at gun shows. However, she added, "we have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that the Founding Fathers thought very important."
Background checks and controls at gun shows? What exactly does she mean by adding controls in addition to background checks? :wink:
Besides, is the Christian right ready to elect the USA's first black lesbian president? I don't think so. :grin:
Lesbian?
scooter_the_shooter
07-17-2006, 23:39
Heh. Oh, really? In an interview with Larry King on CNN, she said:
"Rice said she favored background checks and controls at gun shows. However, she added, "we have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that the Founding Fathers thought very important."
Background checks and controls at gun shows? What exactly does she mean by adding controls in addition to background checks? :wink:
Besides, is the Christian right ready to elect the USA's first black lesbian president? I don't think so. :grin:
You have a source? I remember her saying she is against registration before...She better not be another flip flopper:no:
Seamus Fermanagh
07-18-2006, 03:59
I don't think she will either. She needs to spend a little more time in the queue before getting a presidential nod.
Concur.
Sad but true. And their Achillles' heel. GWB did not represent an "unbeatable" opponent in any way shape or form in either Presidential race. It is almost as though the Dems were seeking a way to lose. Wooden Indian Gore had him beat in 2K -- even after losing his own home state! -- if just a thousand Floridians had decided to vote for Gore over Nader.
Evan Bayh is my darkhorse. Take the London odds on him quick. His chances are nearly nil, but if you luck out at least the payoff would be good. Unless the Dems have a sea-change, he cannot survive the primaries -- he's too centrist and rational. That's Clark's problem too, though he can play "political outsider" with at least a hint more credibility (though to think of a major Pentagon player as apolitical is silly if you pause and consider it a bit).
If Sweet Billy C can convince Collin Powell to be his wifes running mate...Never happen, but interesting ticket. I think it would be such an shocker the right would turn out en masse.
Never happen indeed, but most of the media would have to change underwear immediately after the announcement they'd be so excited.
x-dANGEr
07-18-2006, 07:23
By then, we will be waiting for the next Total War release (The one after M2: TW), and won't care for what happens around..
You have a source? I remember her saying she is against registration before...She better not be another flip flopper:no:
Type "Condoleeza Rice" and "gun control" into your favorite search engine and look for all the talk about her interview on Larry King. She also made a very specific point to bring up the first part of the 2nd Amendment line about "a well-ordered militia" which is usually only brought up by gun control advocates. :grin:
Sadly, almost 60% of the US is in favor of some form of gun control, in spite of the 2nd Amendment. Not enough to get the amendment changed; but certainly enough to affect the "interpretations" of it. Politicians can read those poll numbers, and they will all act accordingly - including the very political animal that is Condi Rice.
And their Achillles' heel. GWB did not represent an "unbeatable" opponent in any way shape or form in either Presidential race. It is almost as though the Dems were seeking a way to lose. Wooden Indian Gore had him beat in 2K -- even after losing his own home state! -- if just a thousand Floridians had decided to vote for Gore over Nader.
Now, now. Al Gore did not lose his home state, he took DC with 90% of the vote! ~;)
It's waaaaay to early to speculate on this, once the mid-term elections are done then a clearer picture will emerge. There are only two certainties here, neither party will nominate a true leader worth voting for, and it's going to be a very messy and expensive campaign.
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-19-2006, 03:09
Touche, and sadly spot on observation.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.