The Likelihood of a Republican President in 2009

Discussion in 'Politics' started by SolarEnergy1, Aug 7, 2007.

  1. SolarEnergy1
    Offline

    SolarEnergy1 Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    305
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +25
    By David Swanson

    America is quite likely to elect a Republican president in 2009. The first reason is that Republican election fraud has been well established since 2000. Bush and Cheney lost Florida, and therefore America, according to the recount completed by major media outlets after it was officially blocked by the Supreme Court. And they almost certainly would have lost by a much larger margin if not for the illegal purging of the rolls engaged in by Republicans. We've seen a growing array of tactics employed in several states in 2002, 2004, and 2006 to suppress and not count Democratic votes. Bush and Cheney clearly did not win in 2004, yet they are in office. And they have turned the U.S. Department of Justice into a wing of the Republican National Committee.

    But a Republican could win in 2008 honestly if the Democrats nominate the wrong sort of candidate and if the Democratic Congress makes the wrong moves in the next year and a half. Remember, as unpopular as Bush is, the Democratic Congress is even more unpopular. The most important issue in this election, as in other recent elections, will be Iraq. It will be even more important than in the past, and the public is even more in support of withdrawal. Because of this, it would be very, very difficult for Hillary Clinton or John Edwards to win the election. The Republicans can be expected to air on our televisions over and over and over again the choicest bits of the speeches these two Senators made when authorizing Bush to attack Iraq. They professed to believe the whole litany of lies about WMDs. A video interspersing these speeches with clips of Clinton or Edwards later denouncing Bush and Cheney's lies would make the Democratic nominee look unprincipled and dishonest. Sean Hannity of Fox News recently brought just such a video to a debate he took part in with Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson.

    Now, Edwards may not be entirely unprincipled and dishonest. He has apologized for his war vote and advanced progressive majority positions on a variety of issues. Sadly, that does not change the fact that it will be virtually impossible for him, having given that speech, to win this election.

    I don't think Clinton has ever been hampered by any principles or honesty. You can take footage of her speeches from any given week and edit together bits of her passionately contradicting herself. Most recently she is decisively both for and against speaking to hostile foreign leaders. Clinton cannot possibly win an election. Once you factor out the states that are unlikely to vote for a woman, even a brave and principled woman much less someone like Clinton, this is a tough climb. When you then factor out those on the left who will actively campaign against her or stay home, it begins to look impossible. If you then consider the way in which Clinton will galvanize those on the right who despise her, it's all over.

    The Democrats in Congress are opposed to impeachment, in part because Clinton is opposed to it, and in part because they think she'll solve our nation's woes once elected. But they're also opposed because they think impeachment would galvanize their opponents. Nothing would do that as well as nominating Clinton. In contrast, forcing the Republicans to defend Bush and Cheney for the next year and a half would actually benefit the Democrats tremendously. Meanwhile, Clinton is not only unlikely to win, but has already committed to keeping the occupation of Iraq going until the end of her second term. Force her to admit that again in October 2008, and you can start singing the Republican Homeland National Anthem.

    Now, Barack Obama did not vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. But he has voted many times to fund the occupation. He has given speeches in support of doing so. He supports keeping open the possibility of aggressively attacking Iran, including with nuclear weapons. He has proposed launching an illegal aggressive attack on Pakistan. He, like Clinton and Edwards, does not favor a swift and complete end to the occupation of Iraq. The peace activists already planning to protest the Democratic Convention will only be energized if the nominee is Obama. Numerous researchers and scholars are already predicting a Democratic loss if the Democratic Party does not take a strong stand for getting out of Iraq. Obama will not do that. And, on top of this, he'll lose the white-racist vote.

    Obama, unlike Clinton and Edwards, is not hopelessly handicapped, but he will not win if the direction he pursues resembles even remotely the path he has been taking for the past several months.

    But if all of this is as obvious as I am suggesting, why, then, are these candidates ahead in the polls? Well, the other candidates who have announced thus far, and some of those still rumored to be considering jumping in, are not without their own shortcomings. And those with the best records on Iraq, like Congressman Dennis Kucinich, are effectively shut out by the media. There is a pattern well established in this country of the corporate media working very hard to nominate Democrats destined to lose. This is not all a conscious conspiracy. The media does simply favor those Democrats who most resemble Republicans. The problem is that voters don't share this taste. The Democrats' base prefers strong and principled Democrats to Republican-lite. And that tiny sliver of voters who swing between parties also prefers candidates with strong principles who stand up for what they believe in. Less important is what specifically they are standing up for.

    Those Democrats who vote in primaries are very obedient to the media's dictates. But general election voters are not voting as strategists and pundits. They're voting as citizens. And the biggest determining factor is whether they stay home or are motivated to go and vote.

    Democrats could win in 2008 by taking the following steps:

    Requiring paper ballots in every election, and election oversight by non-partisan officials.

    Impeaching and removing Alberto Gonzales, and establishing strict oversight of the Justice Department.

    Taking strong and swift action on Iraq and impeachment. Over three-quarters of Democrats want Cheney impeached, and the demand for Cheney and Bush's impeachments will only grow over the coming year and a half if not answered. When the Democrats moved to impeach Nixon they then won the biggest victories in recent history. When they took the impeachment of Reagan off the table, they lost. 230 years of impeachment efforts tells the story. It always benefits a political party to push for impeachment, successfully or otherwise. The only exception is the Clinton impeachment, which was unique in terms of the public's opposition to it, which was apparent from the start. Even so, the Republicans held onto both houses of Congress and the White House. And Al Gore was so put on the defensive that he chose Lieberman as a running mate and campaigned as if he'd never met Bill Clinton.

    The Democratic leadership in Congress should announce immediately that because all useful bills are vetoed, they are going to solve our nation's problems by other means:

    First, they should announce that there will be no more bills to fund the occupation of Iraq. Then, unless Bush chooses to fund the occupation illegally, he will need to bring all troops and mercenaries and contractors home. He already has much more than enough funding to do that.

    Second, Congressional leaders should announce the immediate opening of hearings investigating the grounds for impeaching Bush and Cheney. *

    Third, they should pick a viable candidate to run for president, which means quite obviously someone who has never supported the invasion or occupation of Iraq, and someone who favors ending the occupation completely and immediately.

    These steps would boost Congress's approval rating dramatically. No, not among Republicans. But if Democrats don't start focusing soon on winning the votes of Democrats, they are going to find out yet again that elections are determined by turnout, not by turncoats.

    http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=34191
     
  2. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,527
    Thanks Received:
    4,848
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,358
    Well, Kucinich or Gravel are the only ones that would live up to that. Kucinich especially.

    And Ron Paul as well, although he's running republican. As for any other candidate in the entire field, no one even comes close.
     
  3. Vintij
    Offline

    Vintij Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Anaheim, CA
    Ratings:
    +105
    Obama was against the invasion. Obama will win in 08. Dont humor us with the notion that a republican might get elected. The only chance they have lies in Rudy Gulliani. 8 years of republican rule has not impressed americans. Trust me, if Obama is nominated he will win. If not, well then democrats have got to be the dumbest party since the two party system was adopted. This election is practically gift wrapped for them.
     
  4. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,871
    Thanks Received:
    2,070
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    The Republicans will not win if Rudy is their nominee. Obama has no chance of getting the nomination much less winning the general election, the Clintons are way too powerful and rich. Make no mistake, Hitlery will be the nominee. The only question is who the Republicans will put up. If they put up a liberal with skeletons in his closet like Rudy the conservative base will not be motivated to vote, and they'd lose just like in 2006. The only chance Republicans have against Hitlery is by nominating the closest thing to a real conservative like Duncan Hunter, or a recognizable face like Fred Thompson.
     
  5. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    All things considered, I still predict that it will be Hillary versus Rudi and that Hillary will barely win the presidency.
     
  6. Kagom
    Offline

    Kagom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,161
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vicksburg, MS
    Ratings:
    +141
    Don'tcha mean 2008? :>

    But I don't want Hillary to win and I'd take Giuliani.
     
  7. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,527
    Thanks Received:
    4,848
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,358
    I think they meant 2009 as in that's when the next Pres. officially takes office.
     
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,520
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,931
    Yup, the republicans stole the election in 2000, 2002 and 2004 but were just to damn dumb to do it again in 2006. Gotya. People that believe this crap are in need of serious mental health care.

    as for the claim That Bush stole Florida in 2000 , umm even every recount after the fact proved he won the election. The claim some recount showed he lost is simply a lie. And claiming he stole the election in 2004 is based on conspiracy theories unproven and ignorant.

    See a doctor, a good mental health care provider CAN help.
     
  9. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    How many times does this need to be said. Bush rule does not equal republican. rule. Some of his endeavors have been very Republican and have worked, like the tax cuts, but his legacy is going to be mired on things that have really nothing to do with a republican agenda, i.e. the war.

    there is a very good chance that there will be Republican in office in '09. Hillary is going to be the nominee by hook or by crook, but she isn't gonna get the votes. The right have 3 people running that have exhibited on numerous occasions their ability to reach accross the aisle, and thus steal votes from the dem candidate. Guilianni, McCain and Thompson.

    The dems nominee is going to have the problem of the kook left, which I think is larger than the kook right. Because at some point most candidates have to find some way of appealing to teh other side in some respect. All the votes from just one side won't cut it. The kook left being as big as it is won't let Hillary venture very far to the right before they decide to vote for a different kook instead.
     
  10. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    It is going to boil down to which candidate can win in Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico. It is probable that all other states will retain their 2004 blue or red verdicts. If the Dem nominee wins either Ohio or Florida, then he or she will be the next President. The Rep nominee must win both Florida and Ohio and probably New Mexico to obtain enough electoral votes to win.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2

Share This Page