If you take some time to poke around the web, the consensus opinion among professional pundits and amateur wannabes like myself is that the Republicans don't really stand a chance in 2008. They talk of veto-proof majorities and Congressional landslides as if they are a given.
I say not so fast and hear me out on this before you break out your crayons and write that I'm wrong.
On the Dem side, Hillary is far and away the frontrunner with no one within a stones throw. Obama made some noise as did Edwards (Elizabeth, not John) but it added up to squat. It was Hillary's race from the beginning and anyone who even dreamed it wasn't was deluding themselves. She has the money, the advisors and Bill, 'nough said.
On the GOP side, you have a wide-open race. I say Giuliani is currently the frontrunner but Fred Thompson is giving him agita and McCain and Romney could surprise once the primaries begin. In other words, the Republicans have no clear cut leader.
Hillary will be anointed in February leaving her wide open to attacks from all corners. I suspect that Obama and Edwards will still be in the race but will be extremely desperate and have no choice but to hit Hillary hard from the left while at the same time the GOP will open up from the right. It will be non-stop Hillary bashing for months. Her actions at that time are critical and I wouldn't be surprised if the Hsu story continues to break hitting its crescendo right around early spring making her a huge target. The Dems are hip to this and some leaked info spells it out in detail:
The private memo, leaked to The Washington Post, painted what researchers described as a "sobering picture" for Democrats who believe that President George W Bush's disastrous favourability numbers almost guarantee they will capture the White House next year.
All party preference polls show that Democrats are much more popular than Republicans. But when the names of individual candidates are used, the gap narrows considerably....The leaked poll found that Mr Giuliani, a centrist Republican with liberal stances on issues such as abortion and gay rights, leads Mrs Clinton by 49 per cent to 39 per cent in the swing districts.
By the time the GOP race is decided, she will be battered and the GOP candidate will have survived a bruising race leaving him experienced and hungry. Factor in that Hillary has the highest negatives of any candidate in history and Bush-Clinton fatigue and you have the makings of a GOP upset. Not only in the presidential race either, Hillary's polarizing nature will bring a slew of conservatives and Republicans out just to vote against Hillary and they'll vote Republican straight down the line. Will the GOP regain the House? No, but the Senate may well be a possibility if the RNC can pound home the fact that this has been the single-most inactive Senate in three decades.
I'm not going to go out on a limb and predict that a Republican wins, yet the scenario I've spelled out is plausible. We still have five months before the first primary ballot is cast (unless some state moves it up to November 2007) so a lot of things can happen between now and then.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 2)
16. From: Joe at 2:42AM on Sep 29th 2007
14. Ventrue you seem to be afflicted with LSM - Liberal Selective Memory. There is no way Bill
Clinton could have ever won a 3rd term even without the 22 Amd.
At the time he was more unpopular with Democrats than Bush is with Republicans today.
V -Sorry to have to be the one to inform you of this Joe, but Bill Clinton left office with a job approval rating, in the mid to upper sixty percent range, depending on which poll you read. This figure is nominally higher than the final approval rating of conservative messiah, Ronald W. Reagan.
It's been several years since Dubya saw numbers that high and with less than 16 months to go in his term, unless something dramatically positive happens in Iraq between now and then, those numbers are only going to go lower. As it is, Bush's numbers are only slightly ahead of those of Carter and Nixon at the end of their terms.
J -After the taking of bribes for pardons, his own VP didn't want him to campaign with him,
V -And that was Gore's single biggest strategic error, and the one that ultimately allowed Bush to get within strinking (or more accurately, swiping) range of an election that was Gore's to lose in 2000.
Fact of the matter is, were Clinton allowed to run again, he'd mop the floor with ANY of the first/second/third/last tier candidates from either party. What bribes for pardons would you be referring to?
J -his Presidential Library was considered a joke by the press.
V -By the so-called liberal media that supposedly support him and his policies by a margin of 9 to 1....or would you be referring to Regnery press?
J -It wasn't until Bush 41 helped elevate him to the status of a former President with Tsunami Relief did he begin to get respect again.
V -Time out for a fact break, Joe....Clinton achieved the status of a former president when he left office. He did not need 41 to do this for him.
J -And if you think Hillary is a centrist, that just goes to show you how far left the Dems have become.
Maybe to the Move On Crowd that runs (owns) the Democrat Party she is a centrist, but to the rest of the county she is a left wing liberal boarding on Socialist. All of my Liberal friends in California & the Northeast say they would never vote for her, unless the Republicans would put up someone like Newt.
V -Really now...and assuming that she gets the nominiation, who are these alleged liberal friends of yours planning to vote for? Giuliani, who will never get past the Luddites in the GOP nominating deligation? Last Minute Fred Thompson? Microwave Conservative Romney? The second and third tier candidates are too far to the right for the general electorate, so who exactly are those alleged liberals going to vote for?
And while we're at it, what is the deal with the conservative obsession with MoveOn.org? They must really be a thorn in the side of those on your side of the political spectrum considering how much bile is vented upon them. I dare say that the opinions MoveOn holds far more sway with conservative than centrist or leftist voters.
Oh, and BTW...that Red baiting of yours is a dog that simply won't hunt any more. Not every person who is to the left of the John Birch Society is necessarily a socialist, and middle America simply does not soil its collective underwear anymore when that term is casually misused by people like yourself. Your task is to join us in the 21st century and come up with a new and more effective buzzword that won't make the voters think of, er, Joe McCarthy and blacklisting.
J -Face it Hillary has more Negatives than a Battery Store.
V -Uh huh...and what are her numbers compared to those of the man she seeks to replace? Everything is relative, Joe.
J -BTW Please name one major accomplishment of Hillary Clinton? Exactly what experience does she have that she keeps telling everyone? In her 1 term as an elected representative she has not authored a single piece of major legislation. While her husband was President the one thing she tried to do (and was never elected to do) Healthcare was a failure and the only job she was required to perform she was so bad at it that her Husband had to find a fat 20 year old intern to do the job right.
V -Oooh...now that was a rather nasty (not to mention sexist) comment. What evidence do you have to support your opinion?
As far as your question is concerned, I could respond by redirecting the question and asking what major piece of legislation have any of the Republican frontrunners authored, but the more direct answer is that it is quite difficult for a first term senator who was a member of the minority party for her entire first term to get any legislation she may have authored even to the floor for a vote. I realize you're partisan, but at least be fair.
Hillary has as much political experience as the current occupant of the WH had when he ran, and in any event, she is seeking the top of the EXECUTIVE branch, so seeking to somehow discredit her by looking at her LEGISLATIVE record is a dubious tactic at best.
Ventrue at 5:40PM on Sep 29th 2007
17. HILLARY CLINTON NEEDS HER HEAD EXAMINED.INSTEAD OF WANTING TO GIVE COLLEGE BONDS TO EVERY AMERICAN BORN CHILD, SHE SHOULD BE WANTING TO HELP THE PEOPLE OF NEW ORLEANS WHO ARE STILL LIVING IN A GULLY IN NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA, AFTER BEING HIT BY HURRICANE KATRINA.THE CITY IS GONE AND CLINTON HAS KNOW IDEA HOW MUCH THE PEOPLE OF LOUISIANA ARE SUFFERING.PARENTS CAN SEND THERE OWN DAMN KIDS TO COLLEGE.WE NEED HOUSES TO LIVE IN OUT HERE ! AND OUR LEVEES BUILT UP.AND GOVERMENT FUNDING. I WOULDN'T VOTE THIS AIR HEAD IN FOR PRESIDENT IF THEY PAID ME.JOHN McCAIN HAS MY VOTE.THE SENATOR IS RIGHT, THERE IS TOO MUCH WASTEFUL SPENDING.IF CLINTON WANTS TO FUND THESE KIDS FOR COLLEGE LET HER DO IT WITH HER OWN TAINTED MONEY! LET HILLARY CLINTON LIVE IN A 12X12 TRAILER FOR 2 YEARS, LETS SEE HOW SHE LIKES IT. VOTE JOHN McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT!
Cateyespretty at 12:37AM on Sep 30th 2007
18. >
Ventrue you seem to be comparing Clinton's approval rating among Dems to Bush's among the population as a whole, not against that of Republicans which is still over 70%.
"""""From the American Research Group - "September 24, 2007
Bush Job Approval Ratings
9/21/07 Approve Disapprove Undecided
Overall 34% 60% 6%
Economy 33% 58% 9%
Republicans are more apt to approve of the way George W, Bush is handling his job. 80% of Republicans now approve, compared to 66% in August. Details from the nationwide survey conducted August 18-21 are available at The National Economy."""""""
>>
Maybe or maybe not, but the fact that Clinton was so unpopular among the population that Gore felt it wasn't worth the risk. The fact that Gore couldn’t even win his own home state (TN) speaks volumes. BTW Don't go there on the Florida Recount BS. It takes away any credibility on you being taken seriously.
>
Don't bet on that, it easy to say when it can't happen. If it could, lots of bad memories come back real quick.
You've got to be kidding right? Even most Dems weren't comfortable with this one. On the day he left office Clinton Pardon Fugitive Financier Mark Rich and for some strange reason Rich's ex wife made a very large donation to Clinton's Presidential Library.
Hillary's Brothers Hugh & Tony Rodham was also involved. Hugh taking 400k from someone that got a pardon. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/01/pardon_scandal_.html
>>
Again like I said at the time (2001 - 2002)Clinton wasn't very popular. Bush was then among the most popular Presidents of all time. Now the opposite is true for both.
>
You've got to stop believing the Clintons own BS. You forget about the uproar caused by him trying to stick the taxpayers with a $700k a year bill for office space in Manhattan? Even the Dems of NY were outrage forcing him to move to Harlem. There were the tabloid pictures of him with models in Europe while Hillary was at home. Give me a break. There was a lot of media attention of how well Bush 43 & 41 treated Clinton and how 41 helped him act with the dignity of a former President. Supporting someone is one thing but being delusional about them is another.
You also left out McCain who could make a comeback much like Kerry did in 2004. But don't bet against Giuliani, you'll find that even the most hard right Curtis LeMay types while not happy about it realize that he has the best shot at winning and as Jerry Falwell once said Even voting against Satan couldn't get out more Evangelicals than voting against Hillary Clinton!
They know that Giuliani can beat her in Blue states and that is also the reason the Dems fear him so much.
Move On doesn't have sway of the Dems? Again you're delusional. You forget what they tried to do to Joe Lieberman? And all the Dems including Hillary were afraid to go against them. You forget the threat against all the Dem candidates if they appeared on a Fox News sponsored debate. (Reps had no problems debating on any of the far left liberal stations.
It was MoveOn that claimed "The Democrat Party, We Bought it, We own it!" And the way Hillary, O'Bama, and Edwards jump when MoveOn says boo shows that it is true.
Hillary had her shot at a Sister Souljah moment on the MoveOn Betray US ad. But she was too afraid of them. And that was an easy one. It was a gift for her and she couldn't even stand up to them on that. How the hell is she going to stand up against our enemies?
The reason that not just conservatives but moderates alike are against MoveOn and its like is because they know where the money is coming from and who is behind them. George Soros and what his openly stated agenda is about. Go watch Soros' testimony before congress in the 90's on campaign finance reform. He said Yes money buys you influence and I wish I had given more. nd more he has, He is giving more money to far left groups than anyone in history.
>
Far from Red Baiting, the fact that she proposed a classic Socialize Healthcare for the US should be your 1st clue. Another could be that she did her college thesis on socialist Saul Alinsky. Or how about her most recent social program lifted straight from George McGovern 5k savings bonds for every new born baby in the US. Or here's another good one in her recently released new Healthcare program that will cover those 40 million odd uninsured people in the country. For some reason she doesn't mention that 12 million of those people happen to be illegal aliens. Which means the taxpayers will pay for it and that is socialized medicine. But nooooo she doesn't have socialist tendencies. If it looks like a socialist, walks like a socalist, talks like a socalist. Got news for you It's a Socalist!
>
I differ to Jerry Hall when asked how she kept Mick Jagger happy. "My mother always told me that to keep a man happy a woman must be a chef in the kitchen, a maid in the living room and a whore in the bedroom, and I've got a cook and a maid!" So does Hillary.
>
Since both Giuliani or Romney were executive branch and not legislative that wouldn't apply.
There is more than enough from McCain and some say too much, as in McCain Feingold. Thompson's record is somewhat spotty but not as unremarkable as John Edwards'
>
Hardly especially for such a high profile senator on high profile committees and one that is claiming to be a centrist.
>
Come again? GW Bush had been a two term Governor of Texas. (The 1st two term Governor since the 70's)
Since she never ran for office before 2000, I assume you were referring to the experienced she gained when her husband was running for office? Then Bush the same as part of his father's campaigns for President, VP, as Ambassador to the UN & China, Director of the CIA of in the House of Reps. Then there is time with his Grandfather who was a Senator for CT.
>
Exactly and she has absolutely no experience as an executive in either govt or the private sector. Which is why you have to look at her time as a legislator. While she may have more experience than either O'Bama or Edwards the people with real experience (Biden & Richards) aren't even on the radar screen. And the others like Dodd are even trailing a fruitcake like Kucinich.
Then you look at Romney and Giuliani both have extensive and successful executive experience in both govt & private. Both have more exper5ience than all 3 top Dems combined.
And when it come right down to it in Today's world Americans want to know that they feel safe with the person sitting in the chair in the Oval Office. And with Hillary (and O'Bama & Edwards) they don't. (Other Dems are another matter)
It has nothing to do with her being a woman, but everything to do with her personally and her policies and beliefs. Now if say someone like Jean Kirkpatrick were running.
Joe at 2:52AM on Sep 30th 2007
19. V -Sorry to have to be the one to inform you of this Joe, but Bill Clinton left office with a job approval rating, in the mid to upper sixty percent range, depending on which poll you read. This figure is nominally higher than the final approval rating of conservative messiah, Ronald W. Reagan.
It's been several years since Dubya saw numbers that high and with less than 16 months to go in his term, unless something dramatically positive happens in Iraq between now and then, those numbers are only going to go lower. As it is, Bush's numbers are only slightly ahead of those of Carter and Nixon at the end of their terms
J - Ventrue you seem to be comparing Clinton's approval rating among Dems to Bush's among the population as a whole, not against that of Republicans which is still over 70%.
"""""From the American Research Group - "September 24, 2007
Bush Job Approval Ratings
9/21/07 Approve Disapprove Undecided
Overall 34% 60% 6%
Economy 33% 58% 9%
Republicans are more apt to approve of the way George W, Bush is handling his job. 80% of Republicans now approve, compared to 66% in August. Details from the nationwide survey conducted August 18-21 are available at The National Economy."""""""
V -And that was Gore's single biggest strategic error, and the one that ultimately allowed Bush to get within strinking (or more accurately, swiping) range of an election that was Gore's to lose in 2000
J - Maybe or maybe not, but the fact that Clinton was so unpopular among the population that Gore felt it wasn't worth the risk. The fact that Gore couldn’t even win his own home state (TN) speaks volumes. BTW Don't go there on the Florida Recount BS. It takes away any credibility on you being taken seriously.
V-Fact of the matter is, were Clinton allowed to run again, he'd mop the floor with ANY of the first/second/third/last tier candidates from either party
J - Don't bet on that, it easy to say when it can't happen. If it could, lots of bad memories come back real quick.
V - What bribes for pardons would you be referring to
J - You've got to be kidding right? Even most Dems weren't comfortable with this one. On the day he left office Clinton Pardon Fugitive Financier Mark Rich and for some strange reason Rich's ex wife made a very large donation to Clinton's Presidential Library.
Hillary's Brothers Hugh & Tony Rodham was also involved. Hugh taking 400k from someone that got a pardon. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/01/pardon_scandal_.html
V -By the so-called liberal media that supposedly support him and his policies by a margin of 9 to 1....or would you be referring to Regnery press
J - Again like I said at the time (2001 - 2002)Clinton wasn't very popular. Bush was then among the most popular Presidents of all time. Now the opposite is true for both.
V- Time out for a fact break, Joe....Clinton achieved the status of a former president when he left office. He did not need 41 to do this for him
J - You've got to stop believing the Clintons own BS. You forget about the uproar caused by him trying to stick the taxpayers with a $700k a year bill for office space in Manhattan? Even the Dems of NY were outrage forcing him to move to Harlem. There were the tabloid pictures of him with models in Europe while Hillary was at home. Give me a break. There was a lot of media attention of how well Bush 43 & 41 treated Clinton and how 41 helped him act with the dignity of a former President. Supporting someone is one thing but being delusional about them is another.
V -Really now...and assuming that she gets the nominiation, who are these alleged liberal friends of yours planning to vote for? Giuliani, who will never get past the Luddites in the GOP nominating deligation? Last Minute Fred Thompson? Microwave Conservative Romney? The second and third tier candidates are too far to the right for the general electorate, so who exactly are those alleged liberals going to vote for
J - You also left out McCain who could make a comeback much like Kerry did in 2004. But don't bet against Giuliani, you'll find that even the most hard right Curtis LeMay types while not happy about it realize that he has the best shot at winning and as Jerry Falwell once said Even voting against Satan couldn't get out more Evangelicals than voting against Hillary Clinton!
They know that Giuliani can beat her in Blue states and that is also the reason the Dems fear him so much.
V - And while we're at it, what is the deal with the conservative obsession with MoveOn.org? They must really be a thorn in the side of those on your side of the political spectrum considering how much bile is vented upon them. I dare say that the opinions MoveOn holds far more sway with conservative than centrist or leftist voters
J - Move On doesn't have sway of the Dems? Again you're delusional. You forget what they tried to do to Joe Lieberman? And all the Dems including Hillary were afraid to go against them. You forget the threat against all the Dem candidates if they appeared on a Fox News sponsored debate. (Reps had no problems debating on any of the far left liberal stations.
It was MoveOn that claimed "The Democrat Party, We Bought it, We own it!" And the way Hillary, O'Bama, and Edwards jump when MoveOn says boo shows that it is true.
Hillary had her shot at a Sister Souljah moment on the MoveOn Betray US ad. But she was too afraid of them. And that was an easy one. It was a gift for her and she couldn't even stand up to them on that. How the hell is she going to stand up against our enemies?
The reason that not just conservatives but moderates alike are against MoveOn and its like is because they know where the money is coming from and who is behind them. George Soros and what his openly stated agenda is about. Go watch Soros' testimony before congress in the 90's on campaign finance reform. He said Yes money buys you influence and I wish I had given more. nd more he has, He is giving more money to far left groups than anyone in history.
V - Oh, and BTW...that Red baiting of yours is a dog that simply won't hunt any more. Not every person who is to the left of the John Birch Society is necessarily a socialist, and middle America simply does not soil its collective underwear anymore when that term is casually misused by people like yourself. Your task is to join us in the 21st century and come up with a new and more effective buzzword that won't make the voters think of, er, Joe McCarthy and blacklisting
J - Far from Red Baiting, the fact that she proposed a classic Socialize Healthcare for the US should be your 1st clue. Another could be that she did her college thesis on socialist Saul Alinsky. Or how about her most recent social program lifted straight from George McGovern 5k savings bonds for every new born baby in the US. Or here's another good one in her recently released new Healthcare program that will cover those 40 million odd uninsured people in the country. For some reason she doesn't mention that 12 million of those people happen to be illegal aliens. Which means the taxpayers will pay for it and that is socialized medicine. But nooooo she doesn't have socialist tendencies. If it looks like a socialist, walks like a socalist, talks like a socalist. Got news for you It's a Socalist!
V -Uh huh...and what are her numbers compared to those of the man she seeks to replace? Everything is relative, Joe
J - The difference is that Bush didn't have negative numbers like Hillary until after he was President for 5 years. She has negative numbers that high before she has even been elected. If elected she could rival the current congress's number of 11% favorable.
V -Oooh...now that was a rather nasty (not to mention sexist) comment. What evidence do you have to support your opinion
J - I differ to Jerry Hall when asked how she kept Mick Jagger happy. "My mother always told me that to keep a man happy a woman must be a chef in the kitchen, a maid in the living room and a whore in the bedroom, and I've got a cook and a maid!" So does Hillary.
V- As far as your question is concerned, I could respond by redirecting the question and asking what major piece of legislation have any of the Republican frontrunners authored
J - Since both Giuliani or Romney were executive branch and not legislative that wouldn't apply.
There is more than enough from McCain and some say too much, as in McCain Feingold. Thompson's record is somewhat spotty but not as unremarkable as John Edwards'
V- but the more direct answer is that it is quite difficult for a first term senator who was a member of the minority party for her entire first term to get any legislation she may have authored even to the floor for a vote. I realize you're partisan, but at least be fair.>>>>>
Hardly especially for such a high profile senator on high profile committees and one that is claiming to be a centrist. But then again maybe she should get some experience and do something before trying to be President?
V- Hillary has as much political experience as the current occupant of the WH had when he ran
J - Come again? GW Bush had been a two term Governor of Texas. (The 1st two term Governor since the 70's)
Since she never ran for office before 2000, I assume you were referring to the experienced she gained when her husband was running for office? Then Bush the same as part of his father's campaigns for President, VP, as Ambassador to the UN & China, Director of the CIA of in the House of Reps. Then there is time with his Grandfather who was a Senator for CT.
V - in any event, she is seeking the top of the EXECUTIVE branch, so seeking to somehow discredit her by looking at her LEGISLATIVE record is a dubious tactic at best
J - Exactly and she has absolutely no experience as an executive in either govt or the private sector. Which is why you have to look at her time as a legislator. While she may have more experience than either O'Bama or Edwards the people with real experience (Biden & Richards) aren't even on the radar screen. And the others like Dodd are even trailing a fruitcake like Kucinich.
Then you look at Romney and Giuliani both have extensive and successful executive experience in both govt & private. Both have more exper5ience than all 3 top Dems combined.
And when it come right down to it in Today's world Americans want to know that they feel safe with the person sitting in the chair in the Oval Office. And with Hillary (and O'Bama & Edwards) they don't. (Other Dems are another matter)
It has nothing to do with her being a woman, but everything to do with her personally and her policies and beliefs. Now if say someone like Jean Kirkpatrick were running.
Joe at 3:41AM on Sep 30th 2007
20. V -Sorry to have to be the one to inform you of this Joe, but Bill Clinton left office with a job approval rating, in the mid to upper sixty percent range, depending on which poll you read. This figure is nominally higher than the final approval rating of conservative messiah, Ronald W. Reagan.
It's been several years since Dubya saw numbers that high and with less than 16 months to go in his term, unless something dramatically positive happens in Iraq between now and then, those numbers are only going to go lower. As it is, Bush's numbers are only slightly ahead of those of Carter and Nixon at the end of their terms
J - Ventrue you seem to be comparing Clinton's approval rating among Dems to Bush's among the population as a whole, not against that of Republicans which is still over 70%.
"""""From the American Research Group - "September 24, 2007
Bush Job Approval Ratings
9/21/07 Approve Disapprove Undecided
Overall 34% 60% 6%
Economy 33% 58% 9%
Republicans are more apt to approve of the way George W, Bush is handling his job. 80% of Republicans now approve, compared to 66% in August. Details from the nationwide survey conducted August 18-21 are available at The National Economy."""""""
V -And that was Gore's single biggest strategic error, and the one that ultimately allowed Bush to get within strinking (or more accurately, swiping) range of an election that was Gore's to lose in 2000
J - Maybe or maybe not, but the fact that Clinton was so unpopular among the population that Gore felt it wasn't worth the risk. The fact that Gore couldn’t even win his own home state (TN) speaks volumes. BTW Don't go there on the Florida Recount BS. It takes away any credibility on you being taken seriously.
V-Fact of the matter is, were Clinton allowed to run again, he'd mop the floor with ANY of the first/second/third/last tier candidates from either party
J - Don't bet on that, it easy to say when it can't happen. If it could, lots of bad memories come back real quick.
V - What bribes for pardons would you be referring to
J - You've got to be kidding right? Even most Dems weren't comfortable with this one. On the day he left office Clinton Pardon Fugitive Financier Mark Rich and for some strange reason Rich's ex wife made a very large donation to Clinton's Presidential Library.
Hillary's Brothers Hugh & Tony Rodham was also involved. Hugh taking 400k from someone that got a pardon. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/01/pardon_scandal_.html
V -By the so-called liberal media that supposedly support him and his policies by a margin of 9 to 1....or would you be referring to Regnery press
J - Again like I said at the time (2001 - 2002)Clinton wasn't very popular. Bush was then among the most popular Presidents of all time. Now the opposite is true for both.
V- Time out for a fact break, Joe....Clinton achieved the status of a former president when he left office. He did not need 41 to do this for him
J - You've got to stop believing the Clintons own BS. You forget about the uproar caused by him trying to stick the taxpayers with a $700k a year bill for office space in Manhattan? Even the Dems of NY were outrage forcing him to move to Harlem. There were the tabloid pictures of him with models in Europe while Hillary was at home. Give me a break. There was a lot of media attention of how well Bush 43 & 41 treated Clinton and how 41 helped him act with the dignity of a former President. Supporting someone is one thing but being delusional about them is another.
V -Really now...and assuming that she gets the nominiation, who are these alleged liberal friends of yours planning to vote for? Giuliani, who will never get past the Luddites in the GOP nominating deligation? Last Minute Fred Thompson? Microwave Conservative Romney? The second and third tier candidates are too far to the right for the general electorate, so who exactly are those alleged liberals going to vote for
J - You also left out McCain who could make a comeback much like Kerry did in 2004. But don't bet against Giuliani, you'll find that even the most hard right Curtis LeMay types while not happy about it realize that he has the best shot at winning and as Jerry Falwell once said Even voting against Satan couldn't get out more Evangelicals than voting against Hillary Clinton!
They know that Giuliani can beat her in Blue states and that is also the reason the Dems fear him so much.
V - And while we're at it, what is the deal with the conservative obsession with MoveOn.org? They must really be a thorn in the side of those on your side of the political spectrum considering how much bile is vented upon them. I dare say that the opinions MoveOn holds far more sway with conservative than centrist or leftist voters
J - Move On doesn't have sway of the Dems? Again you're delusional. You forget what they tried to do to Joe Lieberman? And all the Dems including Hillary were afraid to go against them. You forget the threat against all the Dem candidates if they appeared on a Fox News sponsored debate. (Reps had no problems debating on any of the far left liberal stations.
It was MoveOn that claimed "The Democrat Party, We Bought it, We own it!" And the way Hillary, O'Bama, and Edwards jump when MoveOn says boo shows that it is true.
Hillary had her shot at a Sister Souljah moment on the MoveOn Betray US ad. But she was too afraid of them. And that was an easy one. It was a gift for her and she couldn't even stand up to them on that. How the hell is she going to stand up against our enemies?
The reason that not just conservatives but moderates alike are against MoveOn and its like is because they know where the money is coming from and who is behind them. George Soros and what his openly stated agenda is about. Go watch Soros' testimony before congress in the 90's on campaign finance reform. He said Yes money buys you influence and I wish I had given more. nd more he has, He is giving more money to far left groups than anyone in history.
V - Oh, and BTW...that Red baiting of yours is a dog that simply won't hunt any more. Not every person who is to the left of the John Birch Society is necessarily a socialist, and middle America simply does not soil its collective underwear anymore when that term is casually misused by people like yourself. Your task is to join us in the 21st century and come up with a new and more effective buzzword that won't make the voters think of, er, Joe McCarthy and blacklisting
J - Far from Red Baiting, the fact that she proposed a classic Socialize Healthcare for the US should be your 1st clue. Another could be that she did her college thesis on socialist Saul Alinsky. Or how about her most recent social program lifted straight from George McGovern 5k savings bonds for every new born baby in the US. Or here's another good one in her recently released new Healthcare program that will cover those 40 million odd uninsured people in the country. For some reason she doesn't mention that 12 million of those people happen to be illegal aliens. Which means the taxpayers will pay for it and that is socialized medicine. But nooooo she doesn't have socialist tendencies. If it looks like a socialist, walks like a socalist, talks like a socalist. Got news for you It's a Socalist!
V -Uh huh...and what are her numbers compared to those of the man she seeks to replace? Everything is relative, Joe
J - The difference is that Bush didn't have negative numbers like Hillary until after he was President for 5 years. She has negative numbers that high before she has even been elected. If elected she could rival the current congress's number of 11% favorable.
V -Oooh...now that was a rather nasty (not to mention sexist) comment. What evidence do you have to support your opinion
J - I differ to Jerry Hall when asked how she kept Mick Jagger happy. "My mother always told me that to keep a man happy a woman must be a chef in the kitchen, a maid in the living room and a whore in the bedroom, and I've got a cook and a maid!" So does Hillary.
V- As far as your question is concerned, I could respond by redirecting the question and asking what major piece of legislation have any of the Republican frontrunners authored
J - Since both Giuliani or Romney were executive branch and not legislative that wouldn't apply.
There is more than enough from McCain and some say too much, as in McCain Feingold. Thompson's record is somewhat spotty but not as unremarkable as John Edwards'
V- but the more direct answer is that it is quite difficult for a first term senator who was a member of the minority party for her entire first term to get any legislation she may have authored even to the floor for a vote. I realize you're partisan, but at least be fair.>>>>>
Hardly especially for such a high profile senator on high profile committees and one that is claiming to be a centrist. But then again maybe she should get some experience and do something before trying to be President?
V- Hillary has as much political experience as the current occupant of the WH had when he ran
J - Come again? GW Bush had been a two term Governor of Texas. (The 1st two term Governor since the 70's)
Since she never ran for office before 2000, I assume you were referring to the experienced she gained when her husband was running for office? Then Bush the same as part of his father's campaigns for President, VP, as Ambassador to the UN & China, Director of the CIA of in the House of Reps. Then there is time with his Grandfather who was a Senator for CT.
V - in any event, she is seeking the top of the EXECUTIVE branch, so seeking to somehow discredit her by looking at her LEGISLATIVE record is a dubious tactic at best
J - Exactly and she has absolutely no experience as an executive in either govt or the private sector. Which is why you have to look at her time as a legislator. While she may have more experience than either O'Bama or Edwards the people with real experience (Biden & Richards) aren't even on the radar screen. And the others like Dodd are even trailing a fruitcake like Kucinich.
Then you look at Romney and Giuliani both have extensive and successful executive experience in both govt & private. Both have more exper5ience than all 3 top Dems combined.
And when it come right down to it in Today's world Americans want to know that they feel safe with the person sitting in the chair in the Oval Office. And with Hillary (and O'Bama & Edwards) they don't. (Other Dems are another matter)
It has nothing to do with her being a woman, but everything to do with her personally and her policies and beliefs. Now if say someone like Jean Kirkpatrick were running.
Joe at 11:33AM on Sep 30th 2007
21. The scary part is that Rudy looks better in a dress than Hillary.
Joe at 3:29PM on Sep 30th 2007
22. From: Joe at 3:41AM on Sep 30th 2007
Ventrue you seem to be comparing Clinton's approval rating among Dems to Bush's among the population as a whole, not against that of Republicans which is still over 70%.
V -Come now, Joe....things are not always as they seem. Check out Clinton's numbers during his final week in office. http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm
The lowest final numbers for Clinton were from Zogby @ 56% approval, and I suspect were polls confined strictly to Democrats, his numbers would likely approach 90%.
J -Republicans are more apt to approve of the way George W, Bush is handling his job. 80% of Republicans now approve, compared to 66% in August. Details from the nationwide survey conducted August 18-21 are available at The National Economy."""""""
V -If true, all that means to me is that the judgment of at least four out of five Republicans is not to be trusted.
J -Maybe or maybe not, but the fact that Clinton was so unpopular among the population that Gore felt it wasn't worth the risk. The fact that Gore couldn’t even win his own home state (TN) speaks volumes. BTW Don't go there on the Florida Recount BS. It takes away any credibility on you being taken seriously.
V -As GWB had his father's flunkies on the SCOTUS shut down the recount process, we will never truly know if he actually won in Florida. However, you are correct as far as your assertion that the race should never have come down to that is concerned. That having been said, in the ensuing years, the TN electorate has shown itself to be disreputable in rewarding Bob Corker with a Senate seat after the lowball campaign he ran against Harold Ford, so perhaps the fact that they went against Gore really says more about them than about him.
J -Don't bet on that, it easy to say when it can't happen.(Clinton running for a third term) If it could, lots of bad memories come back real quick.
V -LOL, bad memories like what? The greatest peacetime economy in recent memory? Low national crime rate? Oil at less than $40/bbl?
Ask yourself honestly, Joe....is the COUNTRY better off in 2007 than it was in 1997?
J -You've got to be kidding right? Even most Dems weren't comfortable with this one. On the day he left office Clinton Pardon Fugitive Financier Mark Rich and for some strange reason Rich's ex wife made a very large donation to Clinton's Presidential Library.
V -Bribes are customarily offered BEFORE the act of benificence takes place. Y'know, so the briber cannot renege on the bribee?
I do wonder, though, what you'd say if the Libby family does the same for GW's eventual library.
J -Hillary's Brothers Hugh & Tony Rodham was also involved. Hugh taking 400k from someone that got a pardon. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/01/pardon_scandal_.html
V -What has Hillary's brother defaulting on a loan have to do with Bill Clinton?
J -Again like I said at the time (2001 - 2002)Clinton wasn't very popular.
V -Again, like the FACTS said at the time, he was extremely popular for a president at the end of his second term...especially so, considering the shelling he took from a Republican controlled scandalmongering Congress.
J -Bush was then among the most popular Presidents of all time. Now the opposite is true for both.
V -Only because of the events of 9/11 did GWB temporarily reach the heights of popularity that he did. If you were to go back to the spring and summer of 2001, you'd see that he was in trouble and were it not for the timely assistance of OBL and the boys, Bush would assuredly have been a one-term fluke reminiscent of Jimmy Carter.
V -You've got to stop believing the Clintons own BS. You forget about the uproar caused by him trying to stick the taxpayers with a $700k a year bill for office space in Manhattan?
V -Scandalmongering from the moguls of right wing talk radio hardly constitutes an "uproar".
J -Even the Dems of NY were outrage forcing him to move to Harlem. There were the tabloid pictures of him with models in Europe while Hillary was at home. Give me a break. There was a lot of media attention of how well Bush 43 & 41 treated Clinton and how 41 helped him act with the dignity of a former President. Supporting someone is one thing but being delusional about them is another.
V -If anyone is delusional between the two of us, it is you. Unfortunately, you have a lot of company. So blinded are you by petty partisan hatreds, you latch onto any negative allegation about the Clintons and regurgitate them as though they are true. Tabloid pictures, you say? I don't know what tabloid pictures have to do with questionable pardons, but if you believe in anything the tabloids have to say, then have I got a sweet deal on an oceanside condo in Utah for you.
As for how well Clinton and Bush 41 get along, why should they not? The '92 election was 41's to lose, and lose he did.....fair and square.
J -You also left out McCain who could make a comeback much like Kerry did in 2004.
V -I deliberately left out McCain because as of this date, he is now a second tier candidate, and considering the amount of animosity towards him from his own party, a comeback is highly unlikely.
J -But don't bet against Giuliani, you'll find that even the most hard right Curtis LeMay types while not happy about it realize that he has the best shot at winning and as Jerry Falwell once said Even voting against Satan couldn't get out more Evangelicals than voting against Hillary Clinton!
V -The late, unlamented Jerry Falwell also speculated on the sexuality of plush toys, blamed 9/11 on the ACLU, pagans, gays and feminists and also said Americans should invest in the apartheid gov't of South Africa by buying kruegerrands, so you're not going to get much credibility here by quoting him.
Nonetheless, I've ALWAYS claimed that the best hope for the GOP next year would be a Giuliani ticket.
The question is, will the bible thumpers realize this, or will they display their one redeeming virtue and crash and burn on principle rather than have a fighting chance on compromise? I highly doubt it....
They know that Giuliani can beat her in Blue states and that is also the reason the Dems fear him so much.
J -Move On doesn't have sway of the Dems?
V -Not nearly as much as with Republicans, it appears.
J -Again you're delusional. You forget what they tried to do to Joe Lieberman?
V -Would this be the same Joe Lieberman that people like you were calling "Loserman" a few short years ago? What did they try to do to him?
J -And all the Dems including Hillary were afraid to go against them.
V -Unlike the brave example set by the GOP with regard to the Swiftboaters attack on John Kerry or the smears by Republican PAC's against Viet Nam vet Max Cleland by linking his name and picture with those of OBL and Saddam Hussein, right? Or by how any Republican candidate has spoken out against Ann Coulter's attacks on John Edwards?
J -You forget the threat against all the Dem candidates if they appeared on a Fox News sponsored debate. (Reps had no problems debating on any of the far left liberal stations.
V -What "far left liberal stations" might you be referring to, Joe...those that syndicate Air America?
Meanwhile, perhaps you'd care to explain the GOP candidates refusal to debate on YouTube. The internet is the wave of the present, you know. Or why the top four(including McCain)GOP candidates refused to appear in the debate held at Morgan State University last week. Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Newt Gingrich, no liberals they, all said how bad it looked for their party.
My point here is both sides selectively choose their venues and audiences and it is hypocritical of you to only castigate one side for it.
J -It was MoveOn that claimed "The Democrat Party, We Bought it, We own it!" And the way Hillary, O'Bama, and Edwards jump when MoveOn says boo shows that it is true.
V -What they claim and what is true are not necessarily the same thing. And while we're on the subject, what is the deal with conservatives constantly referring to the Democratic party as the "Democrat" party?
J -Hillary had her shot at a Sister Souljah moment on the MoveOn Betray US ad. But she was too afraid of them. And that was an easy one. It was a gift for her and she couldn't even stand up to them on that. How the hell is she going to stand up against our enemies?
V -The same could be asked about why you trust GWB to stand up to our enemies when he's too cowardly to even speak to the NAACP, but the question really begged here is why should Hillary have to say anything for or against a PAC exercising its free speech rights?
J -The reason that not just conservatives but moderates alike are against MoveOn and its like is because they know where the money is coming from and who is behind them. George Soros and what his openly stated agenda is about.
V -Gee, did Richard Mellon Scaife scare you this much?
J -Go watch Soros' testimony before congress in the 90's on campaign finance reform. He said Yes money buys you influence and I wish I had given more. nd more he has, He is giving more money to far left groups than anyone in history.
V -So what? He's allowed. If that's how he chooses to spend his money, this is still a free country. Again, I ask....what exactly about this worries you so much?
J -Far from Red Baiting, the fact that she proposed a classic Socialize Healthcare for the US should be your 1st clue. Another could be that she did her college thesis on socialist Saul Alinsky. Or how about her most recent social program lifted straight from George McGovern 5k savings bonds for every new born baby in the US. Or here's another good one in her recently released new Healthcare program that will cover those 40 million odd uninsured people in the country. For some reason she doesn't mention that 12 million of those people happen to be illegal aliens. Which means the taxpayers will pay for it and that is socialized medicine. But nooooo she doesn't have socialist tendencies. If it looks like a socialist, walks like a socalist, talks like a socalist. Got news for you It's a Socalist!
V -Oh please....that's like calling FDR a socialist because he signed the Social Security Act? Oh wait...a lot of people DO think Roosevelt was a socialist...LOL. And in times past, people like that usually wore white dinner jackets with cuff links that fastened behind their backs.
Disagree with the viability of her plan as you will, but her healthcare proposal hardly makes her a socialist.
J -I differ to Jerry Hall when asked how she kept Mick Jagger happy. "My mother always told me that to keep a man happy a woman must be a chef in the kitchen, a maid in the living room and a whore in the bedroom, and I've got a cook and a maid!" So does Hillary.
V -Yeah, and that philosophy really kept ol' Mick down on the ranch, now didn't it?
Perhaps you were unaware that some couples do have open marriages, but if Hillary and Bill are satisfied with their matrimonial arrangements, what business is it of anyone else's?
J -Since both Giuliani or Romney were executive branch and not legislative that wouldn't apply.
There is more than enough from McCain and some say too much, as in McCain Feingold. Thompson's record is somewhat spotty but not as unremarkable as John Edwards'
V -Then perhaps you should stick to comparisons that are applicable.
J -Hardly especially for such a high profile senator on high profile committees and one that is claiming to be a centrist.
V -A high profile JUNIOR senator who was a member of the MINORITY party. Hardly in a position to sponsor meaningful legislation.
J -Come again? GW Bush had been a two term Governor of Texas. (The 1st two term Governor since the 70's)
V- Term and a half...Dubya reneged on his promise to complete his term as governor before seeking higher office.
J -Since she never ran for office before 2000, I assume you were referring to the experienced she gained when her husband was running for office? Then Bush the same as part of his father's campaigns for President, VP, as Ambassador to the UN & China, Director of the CIA of in the House of Reps. Then there is time with his Grandfather who was a Senator for CT.
V -Tut, tut...you know what they say about making assumptions. Clinton has been in office for six years. Bush was governor in TX for six years. Last time I checked 6=6.
J -Exactly and she has absolutely no experience as an executive in either govt or the private sector. Which is why you have to look at her time as a legislator. While she may have more experience than either O'Bama or Edwards the people with real experience (Biden & Richards) aren't even on the radar screen. And the others like Dodd are even trailing a fruitcake like Kucinich.
Then you look at Romney and Giuliani both have extensive and successful executive experience in both govt & private. Both have more exper5ience than all 3 top Dems combined.
V -Ummm, Giuliani's previous executive experience was as a mayor. So was Dennis Kucinich years ago. So was Jerry Springer, for that matter. What's your point? Where als
And when it come right down to it in Today's world Americans want to know that they feel safe with the person sitting in the chair in the Oval Office. And with Hillary (and O'Bama & Edwards) they don't. (Other Dems are another matter)
It has nothing to do with her being a woman, but everything to do with her personally and her policies and beliefs. Now if say someone like Jean Kirkpatrick
Ventrue at 2:15AM on Oct 1st 2007
23. No one of Giuliani,McCain or Thomson can overcome any democratic candidate.There is only one and I said he is the only candidate of the GOP can eliminate any hope of the Democratic bid for the White House doesn't matter who is their tickets.Romney will send them packing their bags and go back to what they've been doing as Senators and Representatives.The writing is on the wall for the democratic frontrunners.They don't look anywhere near reliable and be trusted,just this week promises of $5,000.00 per newborn babies really tells us whats in stake here.These are types of promises very hard to keep especially if you don't meet the requirements and that's also send a signal to illegal parents of U.S. born childrens.It's a penny type of promise.
KaM at 2:04PM on Oct 2nd 2007
24. The dems will not be around in 08 their frontrunners have had too many problems with voters.Expect to see a Republican outsider winning the Presidency.
KaM at 12:49PM on Oct 4th 2007
25. Mitt Romney could beat Hillary Clinton
J Pauling at 10:53AM on Oct 4th 2007
26. Joe and Venture, get each others # please.
David McCool at 5:15PM on Oct 4th 2007
27. From: David McCool at 5:15PM on Oct 4th 2007
V -Why?
Ventrue at 5:43PM on Oct 4th 2007
28. If republicans select any one other the Dr. Ron Paul - they will lose the general election.
Any pro-war candidate will be giving the election to Hillary. Republicans lost all political capital by spending enough to make FDR blush.
Dr. Paul is the only one who will be conservative with our money and respect our rights. valuable attributes sorely lacking in the 'established' party hierarchy.
Tom Martin at 10:04AM on Oct 23rd 2007