Who’s Your Candidate for Vice President?
Here’s my vote on the who the VP candidates look like depending on nominations for the top seat.
THE ASSES (giddy-giggle)
If Billary wins:
Bill Richardson: He’s not threatening, “feels” Caucasian but is actually Hispanic – a big benefit for attracting both middle-upper class whites as well as the growing Hispanic voter segment which Hillary will need to win in 2008.
It will NOT be:
Barack O'bama: A woman president AND a black Vice President? Hmm..I’m not sure this country is ready for such diversity in the white house. We talk a big game but in reality, we’re still fairly conservative compared with our European counterparts. Besides, are they even on friendly terms still? Last thing this country needs is the President and Vice President duking it out between the ropes while deciding the fate of the nation between rounds…
John Edwards: Although I think this would be a winning ticket, Edwards isn't likely to give up his very solid shot at the top seat.
If Edwards wins:
Barack O’bama: What does he bring? Polling Diversity. Plain and simple. I don’t think O’bama can bring much else to the table. Sorry folks.
Bill Richardson: I think Bill Richardson, generally speaking, is a solid choice for any of the democratic presidential candidates. He brings diversity and middle-of-the road politics that balances out the extreme of Hillary and the clean-cut preppy look of Edwards.
It will NOT be:
Hillary Clinton: for the same reasons John Edwards won’t be her VP
THE MIGHTY REPUBS
If Guiliani wins (which I think he will):
Mike Huckabee: We all know his chances for winning the big seat are slim[mer] (some prefer non-existent) but he’s a strong candidate for the second seat particularly for Guiliani who’s weighing in a little on the light side when it comes to winning favor from the “right side” (Christian-base et al)
Mitt Romney: Not my favorite by far but he just might pull in the right base that Guiliani is missing. That and he's much better looking than Huckabee. ;-)
Fred Thompson: The least likely of the three. Frankly, I think his campaign is sorely lacking and if it doesn't pick-up soon, he'll go down quickly and quietly.
It will NOT be:
John McCain: They both tend to lose favor with the same crowd so a Guiliani/McCain ticket doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. That said, I don’t think McCain – coming in third at this point – would be willing to cede his nomination as the republican candidate for president.
Since I think strongly that Guiliani will win the Republican nomination, I won't bother posting any other candidate options. Sadly, lack of strong options is our biggest problem.
Labels:
News and Politics
23 comments:
sadly, lack of strong options isn't your biggest problem. it's lack of good politics. repubs have no chance of winning.
If Hillary wins:
Richardson is a good choice (IMHO) for her, but he seems rather adamant that he is not interested in the VP spot.
I would not rule out Edwards; he makes a good choice for her, and if Hillary has won the nomination then there is nothing for him to hold on to.
However, I don't think Hillary will pick a VP from the other Democratic candidates. I see her going for someone else, probably someone from outside DC.
crispy: I'm not taking a Democratic victory for granted: there is still time for the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Giuliani & Romney??? That would certainly kill the modern repub party!
dan, it's not a matter of the dems "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory". this election isn't going to be the standard dems vs. repears, it's about anti-republican voter sentiment. the people want change. they voted for it in the house. they voted for it in the senate. a democrat in the WH is needed to restore order between congress and the WH to pass bills that make sense, restore confidence in our working government (and for this country) and pull us out of a nonsensical war. this country is in an anti-republican state of mind. all we have to do is show up
Crispy-
I disagree (strongly). It's not an anti-republican sentiment that's thick in the air it's an anti-Bush sentiment. And that's a mighty big difference. Yes, in the congressional elections the people wanted change and the people achieved a democrat majority but what have they done? Bush hasn't used his veto power for much of anything. Fact is: the democrats running congress have not delivered - period. And based on all the latest voter polls of the last 6 months, the people aren't blind to it.
Voters recognize that taking the "anything but republican" voter stance isn't the right path to achieving success and we've gotten beyond that since the Congressional elections.
I don't think crispy is 100% correct, but he also isn't wrong. Deanna is right that the prevailing mood is basically anti-Bush (mostly anti-Iraq, but also sick of incompetence); the effect of this is to one degree or another anti-R because the repubs have backed Bush 99% of the time. If the Democrats can make this point they should be good, if the repubs obfuscate then then it becomes competitive. And remember, lies and deception are repub strengths.
>>"Lies and deception are repubs stenghts"
I can't tell you how naive this statement looks and IS. Give me a break. Politics is politics and politics is aggressive consumer strategy. You think the democrats are any different than the Repuclians on truth and honesty. Someone ought to clue you in my friend on the last 200 years of this country's existence. I would argue that the fundamental truth of politics is knowing and doing what's best for the country and the truth is, while we are a country for the people and by the people, the mass public doesn't always know what's best. Most of the general population live within their own lives. I'd consider this country the least educated on general domestic and more especially geopolitical issues. Politics isn't necessarily "reality", politics is perception and perception is power. Learn it, understand it, "get it".
How many of your "trusted" democrat leaders high up in the chain voted in support of this government's foreign policies, Iraq or otherwise?? You think they were clueless? Well then I'd take that as a vote of no confidence in your democrat leaders. Not too surprising I'll add.
Voter tensions are peaked and suddenly it's "I didn't know".....I didn't have access to [er, read any of or I really only lightly skimmed through] the documentation that was provided before we decided to go into Iraq. I know I said the probability for weapons of mass destruction was absolute [but of course, now that the public wants us out of Iraq and they are so fervently anti-Bush/anti-Iraq], I swear I ne-ver thought we should really go into Iraq to begin with. We were LIED TO. And had I known the TRUTH my fellow Americans...I would have been the clear voice of descention."
If you actually believe that, you must be one of the many that Winston Churchill references in this previously quoted statement:
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”
>>"repubs have backed Bush 99% of the time."
And what, democrats have back democrat presidents just.... 57% of the time? What's your point?
My point: The democrats haven't stood for much in the last 20 years; they could barely pull together a coherent platform until Clinton and let's face it - most will agree his platform was practically working off of Republican ideology with flavorful dashes of charismatic overtures. The democratic party has been best known for telling you what's wrong, telling you who's to blame for it (Republican) and not much else. Hmm, I believe in the last voter poll, the new congress whipped up an approval rating lower than that of Bush. Hmmm. Surprise? Not reallly. Whiners seldom (or ever) turn in to thoughtful leaders.
Whiners whine but they don't actually get anything accomplished.
Dan,
All that blubbery aside, what exactly is on your "list" that supports the premise that "Lies and deception are repubs stenghts"???
Give me your top 5 and I'll give you a top 5 of equal or greater harm handed down by your honest and trustworthy, "non-political" democrat politicians.
First darling, I’d appreciate you quoting me accurately if you choose to quote me: "...honest and trustworthy, 'non-political' democrat politicians" are not my words. Although I admit they make a statement that is probably easier to refute.
Like it or not, the rupubs are the Bush administration until there is a new nominee. So here are five randomly chosen lies:
1) Anything said leading up to the invasion of Iraq
2) That Iraq was behind the attacks on September 11th
3) The Federal Budget (pick one), from the absence of Iraqi occupation costs to the description that the growing deficit is shrinking
4) The United States does not torture nor condone torture
5) The Valerie Plame outing and subsequent cover-up.
As a bonus, I’ll throw in the racist slandering of John McCain in South Carolina during the 2000 Primaries.
First,
1)Anything said leading up to the invasion of Iraq
Care to qualify this remark? I have to assume you are referring to Iraq and WMD but I can be generic and run around in word circles too. If you’re prepared to get “specific” then here’s a few specifics for you: All things said purporting WMD in Iraq actually began with Clinton’s administration going as far back as 1998 (and further). And I’ll note that I wouldn’t classify these as outright lies at all but rather firmly held beliefs sustained by historical evidence, existing evidence and the need to take action.
To quote your democrat leaders:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” —President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” —-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” —-Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” —-Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
—-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Having said that, in the Iraq War Resolution only 2 of the 23 clauses for reasons going into Iraq addressed the potential threat of WMD; The bulk of the IWR concerned Saddam’s violations of UN resolutions. So if you’re not referring to WMD, then well, this statement still makes no sense and would plainly be inaccurate unless you can cite examples where Saddam clearly abided by UN resolutions.
So, “Republican lies”??? Puh-lease. We need to reduce ignorance in this country – not nurture it.
2) That Iraq was behind the attacks on September 11th
I don’t recall the administration saying this at all. The two were juxtaposed yes but people hear what they want to hear particularly when there is a heightened state of fear and anger. I’m not suggesting the administration didn’t allow the associations to perpetuate but I recall (and it’s widely noted) that the Bush administration in fact said that Saddam had close ties to terrorists, including Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which we know is factually correct (though Democrats also persist in falsely denying this notion eventhough Iraq was on Clinton’s terrorist watch).
3) The Federal Budget
Since when has “discretionary spending and the state of the federal budget “not” been in question.
This isn’t a “republican” thing – this is a government and political “thing” and about "government economics"
4) The United States does not torture nor condone torture
Also not a “republican” thing – this is about government and the use of tactics deemed necessary to save lives. Yes, Republican leaders backed themselves into a quandry but let me ask you: Do you think that in the history of this country, we’ve ever NOT used torture as a method of information retrieval AND publicly admitted to it? We signed [as did many others] the Geneva Conventions act but - past, current and future leaders will do what they feel is necessary to save lives.
5) The Valerie Plame outing and subsequent cover-up.
Pure democrat propaganda and many would argue – democrat lies.
Restating an earlier comment – We need to reduce ignorance in this country – not nurture it’s proliferation.
Jeez, that read like a Lyndon LaRouche pamphlet; did you always go and on like that? ;-)
A general point; there is a difference between framing a position in the best possible light and breaking from reality and fabricating things to sell a position. The latter is lying, no other calling it.
Also, I don’t deny that Democrats sometimes lie and obfuscate. My point is that rupubs are better at these things.
BTW, I applaud your desire to reduce ignorance. I’m here to help.
Point #1: The run up to the Iraqi invasion was not a proud moment for most of the Democratic leaders (or the media for that matter). But as you point out, most of the statements by members of Congress (D and R) reflected "beliefs." The Bush White House, however, went beyond expressing beliefs. The administration made specific claims about Iraqi actions and went so far as to quantified WMD capabilities, claiming that this information came from classified intelligence and that we should trust them. All these claims were, of course, not true.
Yes, the Iraq War Resolution did contain many reasons about violations of UN resolutions – such as failure to turn over WMD information to weapons inspectors, which did not exist making compliance impossible – the administration’s focus was on the threat of Iraqi WMDs.
Point #2: Your position amounts to blaming the victim. The Bush administration did more that allow people to conflate AQ and the 9/11 attacks, they actively lead them there. And those "close ties" to which you refer, that is factually incorrect. The ties consist of: 1) an overture from AQ that was rejected by Iraq; 2) an AQ operative who went to Bagdad for medical treatment; and 3) an AQ training base in northern Iraq. BTW, the training base was north of the no-fly zone out of Suddam’s control.
Point #3: No, you misunderstood this point. Most people are not aware of this issue because it has received about two inches of newspaper coverage. There are two parts to this.
First, Bush has used deception to distract the public from the fact that the Federal deficit has increased in all but one year of his presidency. From the first budget Bush submitted, stated that the deficit would be around $100B larger than other contemporary estimates (i.e. CBO). At the end of the year, the actual deficit came in approximately $100B less than the administration had "expected." The administration then claimed that the deficit situation was improving because the actual deficit was lower than the projected deficit. This lie was used to obscure the fact that then projected budget for the next year was larger than the projection from the prior year. So while the administration was claiming the deficit situation was “improving” the budgets were in fact getting larger. And no this is not a thing about "government economics," this is lying and deception. And no, this did not occur with Bill Clinton; budget deficits did decreased under Clinton to the point that we ran a surplus by the end of his presidency.
The second part is probably related to my anger about Bush putting us into an unnecessary invasion and occupation. Although Petraeus has said we will be in Iraq for years to come, Bush still treats financing the occupation as a surprise that requires supplemental funding. This is done for the sole purpose of hiding the affect on the budget deficit.
Point #4: In the history of this country, no President other than Bush has abdicated the country’s moral high-ground. But my original point regarded the semantic lying of GWB: he claims that whatever the U.S. does is not torture is not torture because the United States does not torture. It boggles my mind; it saddens me.
Point #5: Denial? Fitzpatrick made clear that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA operative as defined by statute. Libby lied repeatedly and was convicted. Those are facts; the Bush pardon doesn’t change any of that.
BTW, your original challenge was "give me your top 5 [lies by repubs] and I'll give you a top 5 [from Democrats] of equal or greater harm..."
hmmmm, Deanna has no computer access and can't respond...
...must suppress impulse to flood the comments section!!!
;-)
But I will wish you a (belated) happy birthday -- I hope you had a very nice bottle of wine to celebrate!
Deanna makes a salient point I think. The voracity of lies from our politicians isn't necessarily more characteristic of one party over another - all politicians lie equally and they're all equally good at it. The perception that republicans (aka the Bush administration) are better at it comes from the fact that the democrat politicians were never in a position of authority during Bush's tenure; they never had the power and the most damning web of lies typically goes with whomever has the power. But if you look at the last 50 years I think you'll find the most damaging whoppers are balanced out fairly equally between the two parties from Vietnam, the bay of pigs scandal, the iran-contra affair and watergate to name the most obvious few.
most damning web of lies typically goes with whomever has the power
-anonymous
Yes, that is certainly part of it. Republicans have maintained some levers of power ever since Nixon "discovered" the Southern Strategy. But there are other reasons Republicans are bigger/better liars than Democratic pols. The type and nature of the lie also plays a part: Republican lies tend to appeal to our fears, which turn people inward and make conservative ideals more appealing.
... the most damaging whoppers are balanced out fairly equally between the two parties from Vietnam, the bay of pigs scandal, the iran-contra affair and watergate
-anonymous
Why don’t you take a Mulligan on your examples, because they don’t support your point. You give four examples, two were Republican deceptions, one was both Democratic and Republican, and one (although a major f**k-up) was not a lie:
*Vietnam involved lots of lies and was certainly started by Democrats (particularly the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident"), but was perpetrated by Nixon and Kissinger’s lies (i.e., secret bombing of Cambodia)
*The Bay of Pigs Invasion while stupid, a mistake, and generally a bad idea was not a lie: Kennedy made a public acknowledgment and took responsibility (without noting that the plan had been started during the Eisenhower administration)
*Watergate was a Republican thing
*Iran-Contra was also a Republican thing
Post a Comment