The Likelihood of a Republican President in 2009

[hjmick]

The biggest problem for Republicans will be convincing the voters that they won't be getting more of the same. The GOP candidates need to show how it is they will be different from the Bush administration. The eight years of vitriol will put a stench on any GOP candidate who doesn't do this.

The best thing that can happen to the GOP is a Hillary nomination. That could quite possibly galvanize the Clinton haters and send them running to the polling booth.

 

[hjmick]

for me, foreign policy expertise is the ONLY issue of any significant importance. If we can't get THAT one right, the rest won't matter. I believe that the next president, therefore, will have to be absolutely masterful in all aspects of foreign policy. The only three guys I see running that have a prayer of filling that requirement are Biden, Richardson, and McCain... IMHO.

I like Richardson, he has the resume. Biden seems to, at times, have an issue when it come to choosing his words, but ultimately that doesn't bother me too much. I used to be a McCain guy, but he lost me when he didn't kick Bush in the balls back in 2000.

With another year+ to go, who knows what will happen, I wouldn't mind seeing a surprise or two, make things more interesting.

 

[maineman]

The biggest problem for Republicans will be convincing the voters that they won't be getting more of the same. The GOP candidates need to show how it is they will be different from the Bush administration. The eight years of vitriol will put a stench on any GOP candidate who doesn't do this.

The best thing that can happen to the GOP is a Hillary nomination. That could quite possibly galvanize the Clinton haters and send them running to the polling booth.

Hillary may very well galvanize as many democratic women. be careful what you wish for. A Clinton/Obama ticket pushes a lot of buttons on both sides, but my guess is that it is a more compelling force to get out and vote FOR someone than it is to vote AGANST someone.... and if the republicans put up Rudy, I am not sure that the religious conservative base of the GOP can hold their noses tight enough to vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro- gun control, thrice married, philandering New York moderate, regardless of how much they dislike Hillary - who is, after all, a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control New York moderate!

 

[Vintij]

It seems to me that Bush actually could speak well in public ten years ago judging by the footage, and he had some good ideas too. My guess is he either got lazy in the white house, or has a slight case of dimentia. I want a president who gets better at speaking and conducting policy over time, not worse. Someone with new ideas, not empty promises. Am I shooting for the stars here. Is it that impossible to follow through with campaign promises?

 

[hjmick]

It's going to get interesting...sometime next year. LOL

 

[Bern80]

maybe so. most head to head polls favor every top tier democrat over every top tier republican, however, and the lastest generic congressional poll continues to show the democrats holding a double digit advantage.

the war in Iraq is the rotting albatross carcass around the republican's necks.... and it ain't goin' away between now and 11/08, and it won't smell any less foul either.

As I eluded to in my first post, I don't think the war is Republican thing. It's a Bush thing. We already know that there are plenty of Republicans that are not happy about Iraq and come the election you will see a lot more. I enumerated why I think the dem front runner will lose, but I think that's going to require also that a Republican candidate come up with some sort of non-Bush approach to dealing with the situation. In fact it would not surprise me to see the Republican's denounce Bush as the debates heat up.

 

[Vintij]

I just pray that its anyone but a BUSH or a CLINTON. Those familys have controlled this country for 20 years. Why do people keep voting for the ones with the most money? Does it make you feel any safer?

 

[Bern80]

Hillary may very well galvanize as many democratic women. be careful what you wish for. A Clinton/Obama ticket pushes a lot of buttons on both sides, but my guess is that it is a more compelling force to get out and vote FOR someone than it is to vote AGANST someone.... and if the republicans put up Rudy, I am not sure that the religious conservative base of the GOP can hold their noses tight enough to vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro- gun control, thrice married, philandering New York moderate, regardless of how much they dislike Hillary - who is, after all, a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control New York moderate!

Being from the right I just don't see too many of the type of people you speak of. Sure there probably is some group of people that encompasses what you said generally referred to as the religious right, but I really believe that group is far smaller than you give them credit for. Hell my grandparents are Republicans and they don't think that. That group certainly isn't as powerful as you think it is.

 

[Paulie]

The SMEAR is people make idiotic claims that 2000 was stolen when the CLEAR facts are available to anyone sane enough to read them and understand them. The SMEAR is anyone claiming 2002 was stolen when most electronic equipment wasn't even out yet.

The SMEAR is anyone claiming 2004 was stolen by rigged machines with out one shred of credible evidence. And then claiming that in 2006 the Republicans that stole 2002 and 2004 were to stupid to do it again in 2006.

Millions of people think the US had something to do with 9/11. I would also recommend those people seek medical attention too. And of course the latest is that Bush secretly had Pat Tillman murdered. Again, these people are delusional.

I suggest you read my signature line, it applies.

RGS, saying that people think "Bush did it" is SPIN.

The man doesn't even seem capable of tying his own shoes, much less orchestrate huge conspiracies.

I personally don't believe the official story of 9/11 exactly the way it's been told to us by the media. Does that mean i think "Bush did it"? Nope.

I haven't a clue who did it, and neither does the FBI. The government has a theory just like the 9/11 truthers have theories...some of the conspiracy theories are obviously crazy, but I think the official theory is a little hard to believe 100%. Some aspects of it seriously insult my intelligence.

It's too easy for you to just say that people who think that government officials might be willing to commit serious crimes against the country are "nuts". How does that explain YOUR side of the story? It's ridiculous. Come up with something better than that...PLEASE.

I raise a 3 year old girl, and just had a baby boy born yesterday. I pay my bills, I donate my hard earned money to that which needs it more than I do, I care about people, I am successful in my job, I produce records for an up and coming record company in my area...I'm not a "nut". My head is fine...the people who need their heads examined are not the people who don't trust the government...it's the people willing to do whatever it takes to advance in life, even if it's at the expense of others, that need their heads checked.

ASSHOLES are the problem with this country right now. Not people with various theories on government complicity in perceived crimes.

 

[StormAl]

Hmmmm

 

[Dana7360]

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

This didn't age well at all.

Why do you people love to be so down right wrong so much of the time?