Bush, then Clinton, then Bush, then Clinton?

And then in 2008 Jeb Bush can run and make Elizabeth Dole his running mate. In the meantime, both Chelsea Clinton and George P. Bush run for the Senate, so they'll be ready for 2016....

So you think Hillary will run in 2004 and win?

If so, address my earlier questions.

Me, I hope she gets the nomination, and THEN one of the bodies (metaphorical or real) floats to the surface and finishes her off for good.

yawn.

[sound of crickets chirping]

Dear God please do not let Hillary win the nomination. But the Democratic Party is just full of enough idiots to commit suicide like that.

I pray this never happens. I'd rather vote for Nader out of spite than vote for Hillary. This idea makes me sick.

I believe she will run.

To answer your questions:

1) Some reasons to vote for her are:

a) Revenge for the "stolen" election of 2000.
b) She's female.
c) To avenge what Bill did to her. (As irrational as it sounds, some women think this way).
d) To support a strongly paternalist, statist agenda.

2) Yes, she could indeed win the nomination.

The hard-left base loves her.

3) No, Middle America will mostly not vote for her.

But she wouldn't need Middle America, which she views with contempt anyway.

Add up the electoral votes from Illinois, New York, and California. Then consider Florida.

Now, it is a lie to claim that Gore "really" won Florida in 2000. He did not, by any ethical or legal standard. Even if you credit him with the 3000 "confused" people who "meant to" voted for Gore, that wouldn't make up for the 8000 votes Bush lost in the panhandle when the networks irresponsibly called the state early for Gore. "Meant to but was confused/Meant to but they told me I shouldn't bother" don't count--period. People who try to insist that Gore "really" won because more people "meant to" vote for him just embarass the Democrats.

However! Bush won by only a hairs-breadth, and every year Florida gets a teensy bit more Democratic. If Bill McBride is the governor in 2004 (and I think his odds are very good), then Hillary's odds of carrying the state would be very good indeed.

California, New York, Florida, Illinois--that's already got her just past the halfway mark for the required 269 electoral votes needed to win, and she hasn't even started to fight very hard.

In general, she will also be a formidable opponent because she retains the First Lady cachet. No matter how legitimate any criticism of her might be, she's stainless steel with a teflon coat. People who criticize her will always be instantaneously viewed as slobbering cretins by a large segment of the populace.

Make no mistake, it would be an uphill slog for her. But for several not-immediately-apparent reasons, she would start out as a more formidable candidate than about half the current crop of hopefuls. As surprising as that may seem at first glance.

Mind you, I also believe she will badly damage the Democratic Party if she wins the Presidency. But that doesn't mean it won't happen.

I also believe, by the way, that if she is not the nominee, she is the odds-on favorite to get the Vice Presidential slot.

The Democratic Party is so suicidal they just might nominate that woman. Look at all the dummies that open their mouths during campaign season: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Teddy Kennedy.

All Republicans must do to win in November is to keep these three talking. Boy, can you just see Teddy Kennedy endorsing Hillary; then you can get one quondam Presidential candidate who escaped conviction for manslaughter endorsing a candidate who hid subpoenaed documents from the FBI! What a winning combination!

I think you are asking the wrong questions.

Does anyone want Hillary for President? Yes.

Could she get the Nomination? Yes it is not outside the realm of possiblity.

How can she get Middle America to support her? By being articulate, well spoken, and having moderated the views of the far left. She was never truly unpopular with Middle America only wiht the Right.

For chrissake...we're on the brink of the Apocalypse and you people are wool-gathering about the election of 2008??

The world as we know it might be toast by then, people.

But, if you say so, I'll play along.

I'm surprised that no one has discussed the most obvious single factor influencing whether Clinton has a shot at the White House in '08:

The choice of her Republican opponent.

Who do you see running against her? And don't tell me it's Dick Cheney. I'm not convinced that he's running in 2004.

With any luck, Condi Rice will be Hilarys opponent. That would kill most of Hilarys advantage (and it IS an advantage) from being a woman, and also eliminate most of Hilarys more or less automatic support among black voters.

And the coming war isn't even CLOSE to the Apocalypse. Why do you feel that it is?

(Get a grip, it's just another war, and not even a very big one.)

Yeah, you're right.

I don't know what I was thinking.

India would never use their nukes against Pakistan.

Pakistan would never use their nukes against India. Or sell the technology to North Korea.

North Korea would never use their nukes against Japan.

China would never use their nukes against Taiwan.

Israel would never use their nukes against Iraq.

Iraq will never get any nukes.

And Russia will always keep a tight lid on their nukes.

I feel better already.

re: Condi Rice --- I like her. Does she have any nukes?

Mr Strong

RE:"For chrissake...we're on the brink of the Apocalypse and you people are wool-gathering about the election of 2008??"

I believe you are making an assumption on my wool-gathering. I am referring to 2004 not 2008.

I'm suggesting that her Republican opponent will be President GWB.

I wondering if Hillary could snatch the nomination from Gore...

Now, you can continue to play along.

As far as Ms. Rice is concerned, I see her coming to the front earlier than 2008, I see her as a potential V.P. candidate in 2004. I do not think Cheney's health and general stodginess are an asset to the ticket. This is despite the undoubted boost W. will doubtless receive after pummeling Sadaam.

P.S. Wouldn't the Dems just shitte a brick if the Republican ticket for 2008 was Powell/Rice?

Ms. Esmay:
Hillary will not run in 2004.

Mr. Fallon:
Condi Rice is an outstanding replacement for VP Cheney in 2004.

However, I don't envision a ticket of Powell/Rice or Rice/Powell at this, or any other, time.

re: President Bush pummeling Saddam --
I'm beginning to feel that the war on terror is bigger than just Saddam.
What is to become of North Korea? It is, after all, an axis power and it already has nukes.
What to do??

Er, if you look at polls, Hillary's always been popular with some groups, unpopular with others. She's a polarizing figure, not unlike her husband. Middle America's never been fond of her--she is not unpopular only with the right. She and her husband are both polarizing figures--he was never popular with Middle America either. Her negatives are very high these days, and surveys show a majority of DEMOCRATS don't want her to run for President.

None of which proves a thing. She could run and she could win. Once again, just look at the electoral map--she doesn't need Middle America. If she won, on election day you'd have blue in the west, blue in spots of the East, and a sea of red in the middle, not unlike 2000.

As for Condi Rice with Nukes--hoh, man, she's hot already, but give her nukes! Lord have mercy!

I really don't see worldwide nuclear annihilation. I'm not saying nukes will never be used, but I'm rather confidend there will still be a United States of America, and elections, in 2004, 2008, and in 2100 for that matter. But mebbe I'm just an optimist. ;-)

RE:
"Hillary will not run in 2004"

Making a blanket statement like that is silly.

Unless, you are Hillary Clinton and George Templeton Strong is the alias you use to lurk.

RE:"I'm beginning to feel that the war on terror is bigger than just Saddam."

It is. Bush has the Middle East lined up like dominos. Once Saddam is smashed the other sponsors of terror will either comply or tumble.

On North Korea, I think Tina Fey said it best: "So in conclusion, who should solve the North Korean problem? How about any country but us? France, you've got a lot of opinions. Go over there! You'll love North Korea, it's completely devoid of Jews!"

Seriously, Condi Rice would be a wonderful choice for VP in 2004. But, part of George W.'s strength is also a weakness--the man is exceedingly loyal. It runs in the family. He won't dump Cheney unless things look desperate, or unless Cheney gets really sick or something and decides to step down.

Mind you, I'm 100% for it. She's fabulous, and her as VP would be a major step forward for the country, not to mention her party, which could use it. (It's not healthy that America's politics are so racially balkanized, and I'm afraid more black Democrats in power is not going to help that--we need more black Republicans, we really do.)

Unless, you are Hillary Clinton and George Templeton Strong is the alias you use to lurk.

Bush has the Middle East lined up like dominos.

Lord have mercy! The Domino Effect makes a comeback.

"Lord have mercy! The Domino Effect makes a comeback."

Why not?

John Travolta made one - look at him now.

Why not? The first Domino Theory was proven correct if you count Vietnam then Cambodia, then Laos. Thailand almost fell too.

1. So somebody sets off a nuke or two, no big deal (as long as you're not anywhere near ground zero).

2. Running Condi as VP in 2004 does not mean dumping Cheney, it means lightening his load by giving him a less stressful job. Bush and Cheney are quite smart enough to agree on a deal like that as being a good one for all parties concerned.

3. Condi could then run for Prez in 2008 as (more or less) an incumbent.

3. The Domino Effect was pretty real, even WITH our involvement in Viet Nam. Without that involvement, it looks like a pretty good bet (in hindsight) that all of South East Asia would have fallen to the Communists.

4. North Korea will be, ummmm, a PROBLEM. Primarily because we don't have enough military strength to fight on that many fronts simultaneously. Whatever we do with North Korea is going to have to come AFTER we deal with the Middle East. (Not just Iraq,)

Ms. Esmay:
If I were you I wouldn't be citing Travolta as an example of successful comebacks. Unless you are advocating the hiring of overpriced talent with a spotty record ("Swordfish," "Lucky Numbers," "Domestic Disturbance"
and, worst of all, "Battlefield Earth.")

anonymouse:
Why is everyone defending the Domino Effect? No one is disputing its historical accuracy, least of all me.

I am just amazed that we're trotting it out again in this context.

Mr. Utter:
Whatever we do with North Korea is going to have to come AFTER we deal with the Middle East. (Not just Iraq,)

You seem to think that the prosecuting the war on terror is like playing a game of Hearts. Don't you know how difficult it is to "shoot the moon?"

So somebody sets off a nuke or two, no big deal (as long as you're not anywhere near ground zero).

My goodness! Your use of the phrase "ground zero" adds a note of chilling poignancy to your otherwise casual attitude toward the possible advent of nuclear war.

Have you been reading Herman Kahn again?

Running Condi as VP in 2004 does not mean dumping Cheney, it means lightening his load by giving him a less stressful job.

Nah. Different title, same job. Cheney would still be in charge.

I confess I have a hard time figuring out what your point is, George.

Most people can, I think, easily understand that fighting a war on multiple fronts at once is not a smart strategy. You were the one who called this the "Domino theory" and now you're "amazed" that people are "trotting it out?" Why did you trot it out if you think it's silly? But if you don't think it's silly, why is it so amazing for someone else to point out that it's not silly?

You also suggested that we're on the verge of an Apocolypse, as if people discussing domestic American politics are being silly. You then rattled off a list of countries that might, conceivably, launch a nuclear weapon at their enemies--as if, somehow, Pakistan throwing a nuke at India means there will be no point in voting anymore.

You then find it "chilling" when someone notes that if one nuclear weapon is used, all life on Earth won't end.

Do you just need things to carp about, or do you have a point? %-)

"Ms. Esmay:
If I were you"

First off, if you were me, you'd make more sense politically and you'd stop whining about the sky falling.

"I wouldn't be citing Travolta as an example of successful comebacks. Unless you are advocating the hiring of overpriced talent with a spotty record ("Swordfish," "Lucky Numbers," "Domestic Disturbance"
and, worst of all, "Battlefield Earth.")"

Mr. Strong:
He wouldn't be overpriced talent if it weren't for his comeback in the first place.
(Pulp Fiction, Get Shorty,Broken Arrow, Face Off, Primary Colors, The Thin Red Line )

Stop putting the cart before the horse.

My point: Are we already so jaded by world events that we're trotting out the boogie-woman of American politics just to get our juices flowing?

Get real: Hillary Clinton will not run in 2004.

She's too smart.

Bush has a lock on 2004. Let the lesser candidates go down in defeat. Including Gore. In fact, if the Democrats are smart (right!) they'll GIVE it to Gore on a silver platter. Are you kidding? He'd be the best candidate by far.

Hillary will wait for the underbrush to get cleared away in 2004. 2008 is better for her.

But even so, it is 12 lifetimes away in "politician-years."

For the record...it was Ms. Esmay who referenced the so-called multi-front war when she said "Bush has the Middle East lined up like dominoes."

re: nukes --

Do you really think the world would be better off, right about now, if "one or two nukes" were fired off? By ANYBODY?

Please supply me with a realistic scenario where the world is a better place after somebody fires off "one or two nukes."

"Are we already so jaded by world events that we're trotting out the boogie-woman of American politics just to get our juices flowing?"

Actually, the answer is a qualified no and yes.

No, someone mentioned the prospect in another discussion. It was misplaced for that forum - so I created this one just for Hillary.

Yes, because with all that going on in the world right now, I thought it would be fun to debate it. It would, definitely, get our juices flowing.

For the record, I'm not a feminist, I prefer to be addressed as Mrs. Esmay or Rosemary.

"As you wish."

re: Nukes

Hmm, one or two nukes... How 'bout Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is the world a better place? You decide.

>>"Do you really think the world would be better off, right about now, if "one or two nukes" were fired off? By ANYBODY?

Please supply me with a realistic scenario where the world is a better place after somebody fires off "one or two nukes."

I didn't say the world would be better off, I said it would be no big deal.

It will be TREATED as a big deal, but it won't be.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs killed a lot of people, but those cities are still inhabited, and by a lot more people now than then. The citizens of those cities, with the exception of those who were actually exposed to the blast and the immediate aftermath, are as healthy as any other citizens anywhere in the world.

The US and Russia set of dozens and dozens of above ground nukes (I want to say something like 172 but I'm not sure of the number) before they went to undergound testing. The world is still here, and no worse for the wear. A couple of nukes truly ARE "no big deal" if you're not at ground zero.

And note that calling the WTC rubble "ground zero" was a reference to nuclear bombs, whose detonation point has been referred to as "ground zero" since the '40s. I'm using the term properly, without any attempt at poignancy or resonance.

Mr. Sak, you say:
"How 'bout Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is the world a better place? You decide."

Of course it's a better place. We were the good guys.

Mr. Utter, you say:
"A couple of nukes truly ARE "no big deal" if you're not at ground zero."

Funny word, "if."

You also say:
"...note that calling the WTC rubble "ground zero" was a reference to nuclear bombs, whose detonation point has been referred to as "ground zero" since the '40s.

"I'm using the term properly, without any attempt at poignancy or resonance."

...or irony, for that matter.

>>"..or irony, for that matter."

Right, so what's your point?

And how likely do you think it is that YOU (or I) will be at ground zero if India nukes Pakistan? Eh?

Funny word, "if."

I'm willing to go on record saying that I think India will never lob a nuke at Pakistan except in retaliation, and Pakistan will only do it if lunatic-fringe Muslims take over the government.

Musharaaf does have a problem with the loonie element, but so far he's got 'em under control. Let's hope he keeps it that way. Mind you, he's a nasty bastard, he really is, and we shouldn't exactly be proud of him. But he's our bastard. [sigh] Long term, I hope we can pull a Pinochet on him.

I think what what George is saying is that we're still unprepared for another terrorist attack.

My site is linked to the report recently released by Hart & Rudman (via the CFR) on this topic.

Ah, back to Hillary.

1. Why would she get the nomination?

She's a true political celebrity. We all know that "stupid" America wants name recognition. This is why Tom Hanks WILL be president one day.
She's also smart and CAN think on her feet unlike the smirking chimp (aka dubya). She projects compassion and power like her husband.

Why would she win?

Short Answer: James Carville

Because the issues she stands for are the issues that are really important for our country. Given a debate series against bush (if he agrees to a series of debates) Hillary will spank him like his daddy should have before he sent him off to Yale. (does he sound like a Yalie to you?)

Why would she be a great choice for president?

See previous statement. Anything, and I mean anything would be better than dubya...except Perot...I almost wrote in Carrot Top during the last election.

The sad fact is that people love to hate the Clintons and specifically Hillary because their short attention spans can't stomach a candidate of substance who gets plenty of media attention. "We hate it when our friends become successful" Ask yourself this: "what substance is coming from ANYONE in the GOP?"

Lock & load, Rosemary...

"She's a true political celebrity. We all know that "stupid" America wants name recognition. This is why Tom Hanks WILL be president one day."

Name recognition, you said it brother! Stupid America WILL Definitely vote for Hillary. Fortunately, registered Democrats only represent about a third of the electorate.

"She's also smart and CAN think on her feet unlike the smirking chimp (aka dubya). She projects compassion and power like her husband."

She's smart but not as savvy and oozing charm as her husband. Not even close. She projects bile not compassion. Dishonest people HAVE to think on their feet or people will know that they are liars.

"Why would she win?

Short Answer: James Carville"

James Carville is politically savvy but an uncultivated mass of recycled pimple squeezings. Most Americans know that he is a partisan dolt that makes Ann Coulter sound like a nun.

"I almost wrote in Carrot Top during the last election."

Name recognition, you said it brother! Stupid America WILL Definitely vote for that.

The sad fact is that people love to hate the Clintons and specifically Hillary because their short attention spans can't stomach a candidate of substance who gets plenty of media attention. "We hate it when our friends become successful"

I've always been of the opinion that self-centered do-gooders, the ignorant, and socialists are Democrats. That why they vote that way.

I'm glad to see that you reinforce my assertions. Thank you. People love to hate snake-oil salesmen(Clinton's) not success. People that hate it when their friends are successful are petty, jealous, self-centered egomaniacs. In other words, your basic partyline Democratic voter.

Ask yourself this: "what substance is coming from ANYONE in the GOP?"

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.
That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;

FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;

FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;

SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;

SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;

EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility.

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society.

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief.

6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world.

7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years.

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.

10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.

Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.

Respecting the judgment of our fellow citizens as we seek their mandate for reform, we hereby pledge our names to this Contract with America.

Sound familiar???
That was from 8 years ago. I can go on and on and on...

What of substance have we heard from Democrats??

Nothing comes to mind...

Ara,

I hope that I didn't disappoint you!

Rosemary:

I knew I could count on you, darlin.

Carville, an "...uncultivated mass of recycled pimple squeezings..!"

Bwah!

I'm a liberal and I thought that was funny!

In 1994 I was pretty disgusted with politics. I'd left the Democrats about three years earlier and become an independent. Mostly because, frankly, they'd been proven wrong about almost everything during the 1980s, and weren't doing a very good job of owning up to it. But I still disliked and distrusted Republicans.

Then I heard a Congressman from Georgia named Newt Gingrich talking about a big pack of pretty interesting ideas. Some sounded okay, some sounded very good, some I wasn't so sure of. But I saw a group of about 100 congressional candidates promise to at least try to pass those ideas into law if the American people would give them a chance.

That was the very first time I said, "Okay, I'm going to give the Republicans a chance." I voted Republican that year for the first time in my life.

I watched in wonderment as every promise on that agenda was kept. Some items did not pass, of course, but it was still a promise kept: they had promised to fight for that agenda, and they fought hard for it.

Those congressmen all kept the promises on that list--every single one of them. And lo and behold, most of it became law.

What really disgusted me was watching Clinton and the party-liner Democrats (they weren't all party-liner) attack that list of promises over and over again. They intentionally said its name wrong, they compared it to the Nazi agenda, they all but had epileptic seizures over it, and swore to stop every last part of it if they could.

About half of that list of promises was passed into law over President Clinton's signature by 1996. Even as he campaigned to his Democratic base in 1996 that he needed to be returned as President so he could "stop Gingrich and the Contract 'On' America" (there goes that intentional smear again), Clinton signed almost every part of it that was put in front of him.

Not only did my respect for Clinton go down, but my respect for most loyal Democrats also went down. These people were slavishly defending and voting for a man who was promising to "stop" the very bills he was signing. After adding that astonishingly mendacious behavior to the long list of broken promises he'd made in 1992, by the time 1996 rolled around I was truly disgusted. This was a man with no honor, and no shame.

I voted for Bob Dole, who I didn't even think would be a very good President, solely because I could not stand another four years of a man who had so dishonored both the Democratic Party and the country.

Was there ever a more dishonest man in the White House? I mean, ever? I don't think even Tricky Dick was that shameless.

By the time 2000 rolled around, about 90% of the hated Contract With America that Clinton spent his time "fighting against" was passed into law. Over Clinton's signature. In his goodbye address to the Democratic National Convention in 2000, I just sat in disbelief as Clinton rattled off a five-minute-long list of accomplishments of his administration--almost all of it from that evil list of promises that the Republicans had made to me in 1994. All while the Democratic delegates applauded wildly.

Meanwhile, Gingrich was regularly pilloried as an evil man. Not for his policies--indeed, his policies were very popular, and successful. But people didn't like his style, or his attitude, and after all he had come up with that "evil" Contract With America. Watching Democrats crow when he retired brought my old party even lower in my eyes.

Watching Al Gore campaign on a race-baiting, class-hating platform filled with barely-disguised religious paranoia in 2000 didn't bring the my old party's status up very far in my eyes. Watching one of the Democrats I still respected--Joe Lieberman--sell out everything he'd stood for in the Senate just so he could be part of that divisive Democratic ticket of 2000 didn't help much either.

I also saw a true progressive liberal named George W. Bush running on the other side. He remains a man who would be wildly popular with party-line Democrats if only he were a Democrat, since his policies are hardly anathema to what they claim to stand for. Indeed, they're arguably, far less right-wing than Clinton's record.

When I see someone who can't acknowledge this, all I think is, "closed-minded dolt."

When Charles Krauthammer says that today's conservatives think that "liberals" are stupid, I know exactly why he thinks so. These folks don't believe in anything, really. Their entire agenda can be put into four words:

"Stop the radical right."

And "radical right" is defined as "anyone who is not a Democrat."

It's sad, really. Today's Democrats, as a party, stand for nothing and believe in nothing. Except power. This is why, even if they recapture both houses of Congress next week, George W. will continue to be able to get most of his agenda passed.

Those who keep calling W. stupid will also continue to contribute to his success. George W. has spent his entire political life outmaneuvering and embarassing people who think he's an idiot. His opponents' inability to see that it ain't so is their worst blind spot, and one of his many strengths.

It's one he shared with Presidents like Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and Reagan. I just laugh at people dumb enough to fall for it.

Hmp. I may have to turn this in to a main article. It's long enough.

Wow! If my parents would have been able to use vouchers to send me to non-socialist schools growing up I might be able to agree with you on your tiresome (and highly non-progressive actions of the GOP). Unfortunately, I was taught how to think and reason for myself.

The most hideous animal in the political world is the non-Christian Republican. (Words and acts fall you into that category.)

uh, I take it that you don't like James Carville.

You obviously are intelligent but lack the desire to think through the issues. If Lincoln were alive today, he'd be a Democrat...how can you even debate that?

Gingrich? Give me a break. He epitimized all that was wrong about your party...but at least he isn't what I call an "anti-patriot"...G. Liddy, Perot, Limbaugh, Dornan...you get the point.
Gingrich was such an insignificant a figure in our nation's progress yet he won't go away...I think we better flush again....sometimes when you have an obscenly dense bowel movement, you absolutely, positively have to flush more than once. For that "Contract" you may need to call a plumber cause that's a whole lotta crap clogged in the pipes.

It took us this long to dig out of what Reagan did to our economy, why would you want to see it squandered by another Republican?

Bush is president for only one reason - money.
But don't worry, he's a one-termer like dear old dad.

Remember though, "all politics is local."
You're not taking the senate...sorry.

Perfect world: democratic House, Republican Senate, moderate president, liberal court.

Wow! If my parents would have been able to use vouchers to send me to non-socialist schools growing up

Probably.

I might be able to agree with you on your tiresome (and highly non-progressive actions of the GOP).

If the ideas were so non-progressive - why oh why did Clinton sign about 90% of it and claim credit for passing it.

Unfortunately, I was taught how to think and reason for myself.

Ah, so you leave room for debate. Do you think for yourself or are you just spouting off party rhetoric? If so, why would that be unfortunate? It's not unfortunate for me. I respect anyone who truly believes in something and stands up for it.

I do take offense and often retaliate when someone attacks my hardcore beliefs.

The most hideous animal in the political world is the non-Christian Republican. (Words and acts fall you into that category.

You know I've never seen a non-christian Republican. I am certainly not one. I am an ex-Democrat and like ex-smokers we tend to be more annoying to those that still maintain their bad habits.

You obviously are intelligent but lack the desire to think through the issues.

Thanks. I think through every issue. Just because I don't reach your conclusions - it doesn't mean mine are flawed.

If Lincoln were alive today, he'd be a Democrat...how can you even debate that?

I can. Why don't you tell me why Lincoln would be a Democrat today? And I'll tell you why JFK would be a Republican (if he were alive today)...

It took us this long to dig out of what Reagan did to our economy, why would you want to see it squandered by another Republican?

Oh my God! Don't tell me you have fallen for that triple dip recession crap - espoused by GORT. He made Reagan sound like a Dairy Queen worker.

Do you not remember what the economy looked like when Reagan got there - Jeez, Carter skull Fu*ked the economy. Were you alive in the 70's?

Reagan's tax cuts SAVED my family. My parents are hardcore union Democrats - hated Reagan, but both agree that his policies saved not only my Dad's job but put my parents in a position to fulfill their American Dream.

FYI, my parents are immigrants that moved to this country in the mid-60's with a dream of freedom, two kids and nothing else.

Bush is president for only one reason - money.

I thought it was the Electoral College.

But don't worry, he's a one-termer like dear old dad.

His dad was a mediocre president that lied and broke a major promise. He deserved to lose. GWB is not in the same league. He's a better leader, has a better team and will flatten Gort in the likely re-match because the Dems are gonna write 2004 off.

Remember though, "all politics is local."
You're not taking the senate...sorry.

I agree that's why I work very hard in my district campaining for my people. In a mid-term election it is not expected for the party in the White House to make gains. The fact that sooooo many races are dead-heats is a pleasant surprise.
I expect to win back the senate - we'll see very soon who's gonna be sorry, won't we. ;-)

Perfect world: democratic House, Republican Senate, moderate president, liberal court.

I am okay with you here except for "liberal" court. I don't want the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. The Constitution is paper. Its not alive and forever changing. I want it interpreted as it was intended.

Ok, first off, I want to apologize for attacking your core beliefs. Diversity makes us great as a nation. I am an ex-Republican and born-again secular humanist. God's existence or non-existence is of no importance to me. Whew, I can't believe I believe that, but I do. It just looks harsh on a message board.

Bottom line, I cannot support a party that doesn't seem to care about the less advantaged members of our nation. I'm not talking about welfare either. I am talking about school lunch programs, headstart program (which was started under Reagan), Student Loans (which they tried to cut significantly) Civil Rights, which Reagan and many Republicans and Dixie-Crats opposed.

Provisions in the law that allows wealthy Americans to renounce U.S. citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes.
Don't even get me started on the flat-tax proposals....granted, marriage penalty and inheritance taxes should be changed, but we should do more for working low income families to give their offspring a chance to get out of the cycle of poverty....

please Rosemary, don't give me the "up by the bootstraps" motivational speech. I happen to like that speech, just don't give it to me now. I've had a long day. You know, I am a career Army Intelligence Analyst. That's right, I am a soldier so you know I am surrounded by Republicans at every turn...literally. Still, "I'm right, and they're wrong."

I'm cut in the mold of James Carville - only not as ugly....

In the choice between Government and Big Business, I gotta go with the government on this one. At least we can vote them out.....

Tim

PS: I do enjoy reading your replies. No doubt I am in over my head, but I gotta keep swimming or I'll drown.

PSS: I don't think you should use skull F%#k and Jimmy Carter in the same reference.

I want to point out that it isn't the Republicans that don't care about the poor and disadvantaged. It may seem that way but its not true. It's a lot like being a parent. Sometimes you have to be tough but that doesn't mean you don't care. Parents that give their children everything they want without any expectations don't get much in return. I believe very strongly that too many entitlement programs keep the poor - poor. I do believe in charity and I'm not completely against welfare. Welfare should be a helping hand, though, not a way of life.

I won't get you started on the flat tax discussion. I will.

Flat tax is a great way to help the people you want to help most and generate more revenue.
Most flat tax proposals have a certain amount of money that will be tax exempt.

For argument purposes I'll go with Steve Forbes' numbers.

ex. Tax Form
1. Wages & Salary
2. Number of adults in family
3. Number of children in family
4. Deductions for adults (multiply line 2 by $13,000)

5. Deductions for children (multiply line 3 by $5,000)

6. Total deductions(line 4 plus line 5)
7. Taxable income (line 1 minus line 6)
8. Tax (multiply line 7 by 17%)

[ Family of 4 has the first $36,000 tax free and every dollar after that is taxed at a rate of 17%]

There would be no tax on Social Security. No tax on pensions. No tax on personal savings. For the sake of small businesses and entrepreneurs, it would zero out capital gains. For Mom-and-Pop stores, and everyone else, it would eliminate estate taxes.

How do you figure that is a bad thing for the lower income families?

RE:
PSS: I don't think you should use skull F%#k and Jimmy Carter in the same reference.

I can't help it. My foul language would make a Marine blush...I do try to restrain myself. My feelings about Jimmy can be explained if you scroll to the piece October Surprise. I am 100%Polish and the crap he pulled while in and out of office still irks me. All of it, under the guise of being a Human Rights Activist.

I must point out that "liberal" is supposed to mean "open-minded" and not tied down by dogma. I can only repeat what I've said before: I don't see that coming out of today's Democrats, and it really bothers me.

The economy was not screwed up by Reagan. By all measures but one, it was a roaring success, and damn near miraculous. Newt's agenda was almost identical to Clinton's accomplishments, so how can a liberal-minded person repudiate the one and embrace the other?

By the way, Clinton did nothing to reverse any of Reagan's major economic changes. He did not re-regulate the economy, and he did not reverse most of the Reagan tax cuts either. So, once again: how can you repudiate the one and embrace the other?

"Caring about the poor" entails more for some of us than playing Lady Bountiful with other people's money. The Great Society programs meant to help poor people did nothing but entrench poverty and hopelessness. We need to do better. Clinton, working with his nemesis Gingrich, did do better. Why not just admit it?

"Liberal" means "open-minded." I just wanted to say that one more time.

Peace.

Dean

Tim: Breathing....relaxing....opening mind...opening beer....looking over the flat tax proposed by Forbes....trying not to laugh....beer shooting out my nose....nope, don't see it working...unless of course my salary was over $500,000 a year...then I'm all for the flat tax baby!!!

Forbes made his money the old-fashioned way...he inherited it...the only time he ever got dirty is when he got knocked on his ass during the debates...give me a real republican...give me a man of real conviction....dammit...give me Alan Keyes...on second thought give me another beer and a napkin....

I do appreciate your comments as always...disagree though I may....love me....
hell even Mary M. loves her beloved husband James C....(as if you would miss the reference.)

Tim...moving on to the next subject....Not only am I opposed to the flat tax, I am opposed to the flat-ass.

I certainly appreciate being Matalin to your Carville. You are certainly less annoying. Lucky for you I'm married because I had you at uncultivated mass of recycled pimple squeezings. Didn't I? ;-)

Just out of curiosity...What kinda beer you got over there? Anything good?

ROFL!!!!

I prefer Chinese beer...at least I know that the proceeds go to the Gore Campaign fund...
or Nuclear Weapons research.

I'm normally a strong, stoic leftist, but the pimple squeezings made my knees wobble a bit...

I love you guys!!

Tim (korean linguist, intel analyst, sports fanatic, and shit, I'm addicted to Dean's F$#king web page!!!)

You guys crack me up!