NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, before you all clamor at me about who you think keep a few things in mind. If you are a strong Democrat, I ask you not to reply just to downtalk our political stance. Second of all, if any of you dare say Dick Cheney, I will hunt you down and smack across the back of your head. He's not running people! Let the debates begin!

Once again, no Dick Cheney!

Tom Ridge?

Did you just post every Bush administration offical you can name?

Newsflash, you didn't name a single person who is actually taking the steps to run... could you get a little more sophisticated, much less imaginative?

You really should have included Bill Frist, John McCain, Newt Gingrich etc.

Other interesting names would be: Sam Brownback, Chuck Hagel, Mitt Romney, et al.

Please, please stop with the political idiocy on Nationstates!

Okay, I'm a Democrat, but I'm also a political junkie, and I love talking about what if's and such, so I'll make a aprediction based solely on who makes up primary voters and not on who I think would be the best candidate.

First off, there are a number of people on your poll who are definitely not going to run, namely Powell, Rumsfeld and probably Ashcroft.

Everybody expects Jeb to run, as do I, even though people around him keep saying that he's not going to. He's got two major handicaps--first, he's a Bush, and there's bound to be some Bush fatigue if Iraq and the economy don't improve substantially, and second, he's got family problems, namely a daughter with serious drug and law enforcement issues, and while that shouldn't be a factor, it will be in a tough primary battle.

The other possible on your list is Ridge, and he's an interesting possibility. His stint as Homeland Security chief didn't piss too many people off, mainly because there were people like Ashcroft to take the heat. He's not exciting, which means he won't be a target right off the bat should he decide to run, and that may leave him standing when the big guns knock each other out.

The big guns are McCain and Giuliani, both of whom have serious problems with the Republican base, but might have enough independent appeal to make it through. I doubt it--they need the base too much, and if they both run, they split the independents.

There's Frist, but he's been so incompetent as Majority Leader that I don't see him going far as Presidential candidate.

Some people like to put Condi Rice out there, but as long as the Republicans need the south to win presidential elections, there will never be an African-American on the ticket.

So out of all those, I'm going to go with Ridge, even though I voted for other.

McCain and Guiliani are safe bets. Condoleeza Rice? I doubt it but it would be nice.

I'll vote for mccain if he runs independent, otherwise, fuck him probably
I agree Giuliani would be a decent one. But from what I have seen of the republicans, they will villify each other to hell and the dirtiest one will end up on top = Frist, if he runs.

Condolezza said no like 15 times at least. She was asked repeatily many times, this was shown on the Daily show, twas funny.

Cheney said no.

Jeb, no more bush please, heh


I guess Ridge and Frist are possibles.

I want Colin Powell in there if the Republicans have a shot at returning. Since he's barely Republican anyway. :)

I heard Mass. Governor Mitt Romney was considering a run, but he hasn't commited to it.

Pacitalia, I agree that Colin would be a great choice. He's easily the most popular member (former member) of the Admin, IMHO.

Don't know who it's going to be, but no doubt they will be wealthy, out of touch with society and will tell the public whatever they want to hear in order to be elected. Or maybe that's all American politicians?

For the republicans?

It will probably be Frist, or some guy most of us have never heard of. All the big names keep swearing they will not run...

It remains a completely open field I'd say for both sides. My ultimate fear - '08 Rice V. Clinton *shudders violently*

Though I'd vote for Clinton in a heartbeat over Rice, they both make me cringe.

Don't know who it's going to be, but no doubt they will be wealthy, out of touch with society and will tell the public whatever they want to hear in order to be elected. Or maybe that's all American politicians?

You are aware that more Democrat politicians come from weathy backgrounds than Republicans, aren't you? You do know that the richest Senators are, for the most part Democrats. Yep, the party of the people! They care about the little guy alright!
Both of the two big parties are beholden to special interest groups and big business. There is very little real difference.
And, just noticed the last line of your post, yep, all politicians (not just Americans)

Don't know who it's going to be, but no doubt they will be wealthy, out of touch with society and will tell the public whatever they want to hear in order to be elected. Or maybe that's all American politicians?

You mean like John Kerry?

I'd agree with the last sentence if the word "American" was omitted. Seriously, is there a politician in the world who thinks about someone other than him/herself?

Romney probably won't run

Condi I don't know about
Jeb won't run (I wouldn't vote for him if he did)
Frist is a possibility.

Cheney doesn't want the job.

Look to see who the Dems put up for a nominee. THat'll give us an idea on who the republicans will put up.

Guys, Don't take me too seriously. It's late (in England anyway) and I was having a cynical moment about politics in general. In all seriousness, I stick by my point about politicians being out of touch. And anyway, Don't tell me that Bush wasn't from a wealthy background (and that his grandfather wasn't a Nazi collaborator, but thats a different story).

Edit: I agree Rixtex. It's not just American politicians who only think about themselves.

Guys, Don't take me too seriously. It's late (in England anyway) and I was having a cynical moment about politics in general. In all seriousness, I stick by my point about politicians being out of touch. And anyway, Don't tell me that Bush wasn't from a wealthy background (and that his grandfather wasn't a Nazi collaborator, but thats a different story).


When was the last time we had a poor President? George Washington was upper class; most of reason he fought and rebbeled the British was they didn't sell the land he wanted.

I don't think a poor president would have enouigh coverage to be known.

Oh and be careful truth is biased (and yeah I heard about the Nazi selling in World War 2)

Don't tell me that Bush wasn't from a wealthy background (and that his grandfather wasn't a Nazi collaborator, but thats a different story).

So was John Kennedy's father. It was common among the east coast wealthy of the 30's & 40's.

This whole post is kind of lame. None of the choices are real choices and none of the real possibilities are even mentioned.

Other interesting names would be: Sam Brownback...
Does he actually have anything to run on other than being a Christian social conservative? I can't imagine how he could ever get a majority. The Democrats would have to run Walt Brown to lose to him!

This whole post is kind of lame. None of the choices are real choices and none of the real possibilities are even mentioned.Yeah, the only one remotely likely is Jeb, I honestly doubt he will do it. Nobody wants more Bushes.

Although, as a Erie, Pennslyvania resident I am rooting for Tom Ridge.

OK, before you all clamor at me about who you think keep a few things in mind. If you are a strong Democrat, I ask you not to reply just to downtalk our political stance. Second of all, if any of you dare say Dick Cheney, I will hunt you down and smack across the back of your head. He's not running people! Let the debates begin!
What happened to Condoleeza Rice?

Im going with George Allen

Republican Senator from Virginia

Myrth.

The trend has been southern governors. Looking at that I see two big possibilities not on the list. Arkansas governon Mike Huckabee who has his own weight loss program getting attention right now, and Georgia governor Sonny Perdue. I'm not sure if either has said whether or not they intend to run, but those two among the five Republican southern governors(excluding Florida) look to be the most likely.

A long shot - Maybe George Pataki, Governor of NY, will run. He is positioning himself as a moderate Republican, environment-friendly guy. I would not support him, but it's possible. depending on who the Dem's run, of course - I don't see how he has the perceived stature to run against Hillary.

Romney probably won't run

Condi I don't know about
Jeb won't run (I wouldn't vote for him if he did)
Frist is a possibility.

Cheney doesn't want the job.

Look to see who the Dems put up for a nominee. THat'll give us an idea on who the republicans will put up.Ummmm--seeing as both parties choose their candidates simultaneously, the Republicans can't exactly play the waiting game. :rolleyes:

When was the last time we had a poor President? George Washington was upper class; most of reason he fought and rebbeled the British was they didn't sell the land he wanted.

I don't think a poor president would have enouigh coverage to be known.

Oh and be careful truth is biased (and yeah I heard about the Nazi selling in World War 2)
Clinton was the last president to legitimately come from humble beginnings, but even he wasn't doing terribly by the time he became president, and he's doing even better now.

Ummmm--seeing as both parties choose their candidates simultaneously, the Republicans can't exactly play the waiting game. :rolleyes:

They have to see what dems are running then see what can be a comparable match. That is what I'm saying. If Hillary runs, watch for Condi and/or Elizabeth Dole to run. Especially Mrs. Dole.

Heehee.
*pictures presidents brother versus presidents wife battle*
Now *that* would be funny!
JEB BUSH FOR 2008!

Heehee.
*pictures presidents brother versus presidents wife battle*
Now *that* would be funny!
JEB BUSH FOR 2008!
another Bush v another Clinton, everyone but the blind party line Republicans would probably vote for mickey mouse instead

They have to see what dems are running then see what can be a comparable match. That is what I'm saying. If Hillary runs, watch for Condi and/or Elizabeth Dole to run. Especially Mrs. Dole.
It doesn't work that way. If you're going to run for President in 2008, you'd better have at least some of the groundwork laid by 2006--it's that long a haul. And the Republicans didn't get to their current position of dominance by reacting to what the Democrats were doing--they pushed the issue and had Democrats reacting.

That's the reason the Democrats went with Kerry last time--the mistaken belief that Kerry's war record would inoculate him against the smears of Rove et al was a reaction to the image of Bush as an effective war leader. I knew it was a mistake when Kerry won Iowa and then proceeded to roll on the idea that he was "electable" rather than because of any policy ideas he was pushing. They were being reactive instead of proactive.

So don't expect the Republicans to be reactive all of a sudden in choosing their next candidate--I certainly don't, even though I hope they will, because that will make the Democratic party's job of choosing their own candidate that much easier.

Note: None of the above should be taken as admiration for the tactics Rove et al used in the last election in smearing Kerry--they were despicable, and Rove's recent smearing of liberals as anti-American was just more of the same. If he said that sort of shit to my face, I'd pop him in the fucking mouth. But the Republicans, along with their lackeys in the major media and their noise machine on talk radio, did a good job of setting the political agenda during the election season, and that, more than anything else, is why they won. Don't look for them to change a winning strategy.

Ihatevacations']another Bush v another Clinton, everyone but the blind party line Republicans would probably vote for mickey mouse instead

this is pretty much accurate. I smell a third party candidate winning if this to be the case. Hell, I'd even vote 3rd party.

It doesn't work that way. If you're going to run for President in 2008, you'd better have at least some of the groundwork laid by 2006--it's that long a haul. And the Republicans didn't get to their current position of dominance by reacting to what the Democrats were doing--they pushed the issue and had Democrats reacting.

I do know how long a haul it is. It is a very long haul. It'll be interesting to see who runs for both parties. I wouldn't be surprised to see Elizabeth Dole run. She'll get major votes I think. In politics, you have to go on the offensive early and get your opponet reacting to you. Your right about that. That is why 2008 is going to be a very interesting year.

That's the reason the Democrats went with Kerry last time--the mistaken belief that Kerry's war record would inoculate him against the smears of Rove et al was a reaction to the image of Bush as an effective war leader.

And Kerry's leadership record wasn't that great either if his fitreps are any indication. Unfortunately the plan didn't work and Kerry ran a very bad campaign.

I knew it was a mistake when Kerry won Iowa and then proceeded to roll on the idea that he was "electable" rather than because of any policy ideas he was pushing. They were being reactive instead of proactive.

I will agree with you there.

So don't expect the Republicans to be reactive all of a sudden in choosing their next candidate--I certainly don't, even though I hope they will, because that will make the Democratic party's job of choosing their own candidate that much easier.

I'm just saying that some people may not consider running unless approached. The RNC pretty much knows already who is likely to run for the '08 presidency and I'm sure they are already asking people that they think can beat these people to run.

That's the reason the Democrats went with Kerry last time--the mistaken belief that Kerry's war record would inoculate him against the smears of Rove et al was a reaction to the image of Bush as an effective war leader.
That was obviously dumb since didn't some republican win against a parapelegic veteran in texas because they accused him of being upatriotic

Yeah, the only one remotely likely is Jeb, I honestly doubt he will do it. Nobody wants more Bushes.

Although, as a Erie, Pennslyvania resident I am rooting for Tom Ridge.

I'm hoping Former Governor Ridge runs too. I live near Pittsburgh PA Fenure :)

What happened to Condoleeza Rice?

She'll probably wait a few years before running. I don't think the public is ready for a president that is a woman.

She'll probably wait a few years before running. I don't think the public is ready for a president that is a woman.

I don't know if this is entirely accurate. What I fear is our relations with the Orient and the Middle East. Why? We have a female leader and they hold women as 2nd class citizens.

She'll probably wait a few years before running. I don't think the public is ready for a president that is a woman.
Especially one that seems to be no more than a mouth piece. Worse than Bush

None of those listed, with the exception of Mr Jeb Bush, will run. Colin Powell ahs lost too much credibility to run for office and the others simply will not. McCain would be a good candidate. He has bipartisan support and is well-respected. Frist seems like the most powerful of the group, but so far he has not announced he is running and it is only speculation. Jeb Bush may run, but it could quite possibly be only because of name recognition. Condie Rice may run, but not for at least another election cycle or two.

Ihatevacations']That was obviously dumb since didn't some republican win against a parapelegic veteran in texas because they accused him of being upatriotic

Actually, it was Max Cleland, a veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam. He was running for Senate from Georgia, not Texas.

Condi might. Wouldn't it be awesome if it were Condi vs. Hillary? Oh, kick ass! :D

Actually, it was Max Cleland, a veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam. He was running for Senate from Georgia, not Texas.
irrelevant technicalities

Condi might. Wouldn't it be awesome if it were Condi vs. Hillary? Oh, kick ass!
I vote for mickey mouse again

Ihatevacations']irrelevant technicalities


I vote for mickey mouse again

No, I suppose facts don't matter as long as you can dis Texas.

No, I suppose facts don't matter as long as you can dis Texas.
The ONLY relevant fact was republicans beat veteran with no legs or arm because they managed to convince people he was unpatriotic.

Osama Bin Laden.

Ihatevacations']The ONLY relevant fact was republicans beat veteran with no legs or arm because they managed to convince people he was unpatriotic.

The fact that Cleland was a liberal democrat running against a republican current in the deep south probably had nothing to do with it.

Why don't you take off your blinders. Republicans are on the upswing because more voters agree with them than democrats at the moment. I know you believe anyone who votes republican is a sheep without a thought in their head. But that's pretty much why the democrats lost last time: that arrogance.

I know you believe anyone who votes republican is a sheep without a thought in their head. But that's pretty much why the democrats lost last time: that arrogance.
No I believe those people who vote blind party line Republican without a thought are sheep. Democrats lost because they are idiots. They wern't doing it properly, they didn't energize their base where all the Republicans do is lie and play to their constituents and throw mud.

The fact that Cleland was a liberal democrat running against a republican current in the deep south probably had nothing to do with it.

Why don't you take off your blinders. Republicans are on the upswing because more voters agree with them than democrats at the moment. I know you believe anyone who votes republican is a sheep without a thought in their head. But that's pretty much why the democrats lost last time: that arrogance.
What the hell are you smoking to bleat that Cleland was a liberal democrat? You better lay off it, because it has obviously got you FUBAR.

I think it's going to be as tough for the Republicans to find a viable candidate post-Bush, as it was for the Dems to find one post-Clinton, and the reason, is simply this: 1992 was the first year in Decades that saw a truly polarized Presidential election where third-party candidates had real impact in the outcome.
(John Anderson in '80 wasn't even a factor...)
Now, we have a massively divided nation where the debate has become mudslinging even at the personal level...this isn't really a new state of affairs in America, though-we had a similar condition in the 1850's, and again in the 1870s/90's "Progressive fights". I think one possible explanation might be that the Cold War is over, and both parties can indulge in more aggressive tactics now that they no longer have a bogeyman to scare them into civility.

A "Dream" candidate might be to get someone like Ben Campbell to run... as a former Democrat, member of a "Minority" (For REAL, rather than being a Ward clone), and a Moderate with credibility across the board, Ben Nighthorse Campbell could pull off a McCain without the baggage within the party. (The Baggage in this case being Senator McCain's unfortunate tendency to agree with whatever the Democratic Leadership pushes...while still claiming to be a Republican)

The Republicans need two, contradictory, wings of their party to agree at the same time-they need the Fallwellite Fundies, and they need the Small-government Libertarian wing. That's a tough sell. Bush was able to pull of the Primary win the first time through name-recognition and his record as Texas Governor (a record he's been almost 180 degrees off of since getting the white house!).

The Democrats have apparently surrendered to their radical * wing entirely-Howard Dean as Party head is not the way you regain your moderates-and the six or so percent of Moderates is why 2000 was even close, and 2004 was a definite GOP win.

Condi said she won't run, out of Bush's cabinet and the crop of Republican Newsmakers, She's about the only one I'd actually vote For, as opposed to simply picking "R" to vote against the other party.

AS for "alienating" the Middle-East/Islamic world, umm... "Benazir Bhuto". (or however you spell it.) Islamic Nations have had respect while having female presidents before, and the Iranians let women vote. I think there's a big chunk of ignorance there, at least, in reference to the more moderate and rational Islamic nations. (The radical nutcase 12th century nations don't really matter all that much, they'll diss the U.S. anyway, it might even help by shifting the bitching to something new.)

As for a Black never getting the Southern vote-hogwash. The nastiest racist fuck I ever met came from Illinois, not Louisiana. The South has this bad rep, and they know it's bad, and most of them really wish it would go away. there's human-trash in all colours and economic levels of our society, comparing the average Southerner to the stereotype of white trash is like assuming all black people are either drug-dealers or hos, or assuming Jews are all big-nosed shylocks and thinking all Latin-Americans are wetbacks.

"No".

So, I'm really rather irritated that Condi won't run.


[*Okay, so they're not radical in Europe-this is AMERICAN politics. Different cultures dammit. :headbang: ]

If Hillary runs, Condi Rice.

What the hell are you smoking to bleat that Cleland was a liberal democrat? You better lay off it, because it has obviously got you FUBAR.

He wasn't a liberal democrat? His pro-labor, pro-socialized medicine stances don't qualify? I'm pretty moderate, and I know liberal democrats when I see 'em.

Ihatevacations']No I believe those people who vote blind party line Republican without a thought are sheep. Democrats lost because they are idiots. They wern't doing it properly, they didn't energize their base where all the Republicans do is lie and play to their constituents and throw mud.

Don't you realize there are plenty of blind party line democrats who also lie and play to their constituents and throw mud?

I hear alot of good things about Jim Talent (R) from Missouri. His name could be thrown into the hat...

also, can we try to stick to the topic instead of throwing liberal rhetoric around?

Ihatevacations']Democrats lost because they are idiots. They wern't doing it properly, they didn't energize their base.

They DID energize their base. Their base is the far left who are completely out of the mainstream.

I hear alot of good things about Jim Talent (R) from Missouri. His name could be thrown into the hat...

also, can we try to stick to the topic instead of throwing liberal rhetoric around?

In this Forum? Im-Possible request. There are a few moderates around here, a few (tiny minority) conservatives, and a vast sea of American Liberals and Europeans. You can't post a single thread without getting the "Liberal Rhetoric" in the General topics section.
:D

NS'ers who hang out in "General" tend to be Passionate about their politics. they may not always be right, but they're always passionate.

Don't you realize there are plenty of blind party line democrats who also lie and play to their constituents and throw mud?
Not half as many as Republicans and the Demcorats try to shut up their outspoken members, Howard Dean anyone?

They DID energize their base. Their base is the far left who are completely out of the mainstream.
Do you do anything but talk out yer ass?

Any thoughts on Jim Talent?? Pretty good education record, not too bad environmental record, relatively conservative.... From Missouri, all good things..

Possible candidacy slogans:

"What, me worry in '08?" --Alfred E. Newman
"If you are not with me in '08, you are against me in '08." --Lord Vader
"You will vote for me..." --Obi-Wan Kenobi
"You shall not pass!!...the Democratic ticket in '08!" --Gandalf
"And in the '08th year, the Lord became Republican president. And it was good." --God

EDIT: Wow... it surprises me how wide the Republican spectrum is this time around. Doesn't it you?

I don't know if this is entirely accurate. What I fear is our relations with the Orient and the Middle East. Why? We have a female leader and they hold women as 2nd class citizens.
Screw the bigots, I say.

Seriously, since when did America ever worry about offending the ME?

Ihatevacations']Especially one that seems to be no more than a mouth piece. Worse than Bush
Actually she would probably be much better than Bush. She seems more intelligent, and is a career foreign policy expert.

The Republicans need two, contradictory, wings of their party to agree at the same time-they need the Fallwellite Fundies, and they need the Small-government Libertarian wing. That's a tough sell.
I cannot imagine how the libertarian wing could possibly still exist within that party.

In this Forum? Im-Possible request. There are a few moderates around here, a few (tiny minority) conservatives, and a vast sea of American Liberals and Europeans.
I don't think so. I think this forum is roughly 25% conservative, 30% libertarian and 45% liberal. No tiny minorities. Do you count liberals and libertarians as the same?

Ihatevacations']Not half as many as Republicans and the Demcorats try to shut up their outspoken members, Howard Dean anyone?

Yeah, if by shutting him up you mean electing him party chairman.

I'm going to back Rixtex on that last point, by no means did the Dems silence Howard Dean, they gave him more power and influence if anything..

Really, my only real point is that the democrats play the game of politics using the same dishonest, underhanded tactics as the republicans. Neither one has a monopoly on nastiness.

Screw the bigots, I say.

Seriously, since when did America ever worry about offending the ME?


Actually she would probably be much better than Bush. She seems more intelligent, and is a career foreign policy expert.


I cannot imagine how the libertarian wing could possibly still exist within that party.


I don't think so. I think this forum is roughly 25% conservative, 30% libertarian and 45% liberal. No tiny minorities. Do you count liberals and libertarians as the same?


I guess everyone has a different "acid test" on Libertarianism. Mine happens to be on what I consider pretty clear-cut distinctions.
Libertarian means a belief that a citizen is an adult, and should be treated as one-that means "Just say no to Gun Control", opposition to McCain-Feingold, opposition to sado-environmentalist fads, desire for lower taxes, smaller government, and a suspicious attitude toward Federal Power. This does not match Liberalism, which focuses on increasing government to provide equal outcomes at the expense of those who work harder or smarter.
Libertarian, to me, also involves Property rights, and the protection thereof. Liberals are defenders of the recent Supreme Court ruling placing your home on the City-Council's auction block.

So...yes, there is still a Libertarian wing of the Republican party-in fact, the only reason the Republicans have gotten to the point they did, is by co-opting Libertarian rhetoric in 1994.

Put it this way-the wool-dyed Fallwellites and other Authoritarian Republicans turned out for Slade Gorton here in Washington state-they would for any Republican. he lost the Senate race as an incumbent Republican with a Moderate reputation because the Libertarian wing of the party voted for the Libertarian Party in protest over that man's Statist behaviour. We have Senator Cantwell because the State party didn't pay attention to the Libertarian wing.

American Liberals like to claim to be "Libertarian" (small "L"), but they're every inch as totalitarian and authoritarian (For the most part) as any member of the Krischun Koalishun (deliberate misspelling to indicate contempt), the only real difference being what part of your private existence they want to utterly dominate you with, and what natural rights they feel you don't have the right to excercise. Liberals tend to oppose self-defense on the personal level, private ownership of land and resources, economic freedoms, and the right to criticize their guys unfettered when their guys are in power. (This is why the Patriot Act passed in the first place, and why there was no serious demoratic opposition to its renewal before 2004.)
They tend to favour "National" solutions to local problems and don't see any problem with keeping the western states under the Federal Heel, currently more than 80% of hte land west of the Mississippi is under direct Federal control, a control that has destroyed economies in most of the Western states many times in the last thirty years-EPA regs requiring oil-wells taken out of service to be plugged with concrete, for instance, BLM abuses, the use of Federal Courts to hand the water-rights of the entire western slope of the rocky mountains to California-at the expense of the people who live there... the choice of geologically unstable Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste dump because it's flyover country, instead of using geologically stable ground in the Northeast.

This isnt' to say that the Religious Conservatives aren't just as bad. They are, make no mistake... however, their Religious convictions can be used as a leash on their worst impulses, whereas American Left-Libs tend to only listen to those who either echo their sentiments, or have direct power over them.

Imho, "Grand Staircase Escalante" was a perfect example of Presidential Power being used to punish a State and reward a supporter.

Well I can tell you this much, it won't be Colin Powell after the crap the Bush administration pulled on him. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Colin Powell didn't vote for the fucking Democrats next election. Actually if he did, I can't say I would actually blame him.

I guess everyone has a different "acid test" on Libertarianism. Mine happens to be on what I consider pretty clear-cut distinctions.
Libertarian means a belief that a citizen is an adult

-snip-
Sorry I don't know most of what you're talking about there. It was irrelevant and overblown.

Screw the bigots, I say.

Seriously, since when did America ever worry about offending the ME?

Touche! :D

I'm going to back Rixtex on that last point, by no means did the Dems silence Howard Dean, they gave him more power and influence if anything..

Yep and thanks to his leadership, the Republicans have raised more dollars than the Democrats. Nearly 3 to 1! :D Thank you Demos for doing that :D

agreed.... They always say the 3 biggest backers of the Republican Party- Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Polosi.... I couldn't agree more..

Sorry I don't know most of what you're talking about there. It was irrelevant and overblown.

All politics is local. I'm not surprised a person who fundamentally opposes private property would find my comments "Irrelevant". Likewise a person whose beliefs tend to include the idea that somehow, a 200 pound weightlifter beating a 90 pound grandmother to death is morally superior to that grandmother blowing said thug's head off with a gun. Likewise, as I (thought) I pointed out, Liberals believe in redistribution by the state, Libertarians believe in "You earned, you bought it, you own it." Most Western states in the Union have huge tracts of land that have "Held in trust by your Federal Government" stamped on them. Only problem being, that "Trust" is perpetual, and who gets to use it is not determined by anything more or less than who happens to own which Federal Officials.

For example: California owns the 9th Circuit Court, therefore, Los Angeles and Napa Valley get water while western Colorado (where the water originated) goes thirsty. Another example: a Mining town in Utah that coudn't compete on Copper loses out on a Coal deal because it's competing with the Riaty group in Indonesia-the Riatys funnelled money to the DNC. The Feds have this power because they took it many years prior, so instead of a mine, they get a nice, useless tourist-trap via Federal Fiat. This is in turn the difference between a handfull of minimum-wage service jobs, and a large number of Union Scale Mining jobs. Again, Federal Power abused, and Property rights ignored.

New London: a Neighbourhood is condemned and demolished to make way for a speculative private venture of doubtful economic benefit. This neighbourhood was not "Blighted" or in decay, it was just on land that a developer with a large bribe-purse wanted... currently, there's a mess in Colorado over a similar situation involving a proposed turnpike that would effectively steal the land out from under homeowners. this road would not be for general public use, but for the commercial benefit of the builder-who happens to own quite a few judges and legislators in that state (and on the federal level) himself.

here in Washington, the freedom to associate was reasserted for exactly one election cycle, and the closed primary generated the first non-democrat candidate with a chance of winning the Governorship in over a decade. That freedom has once again been curtailed by changing the election laws to go around a decision by federal courts. as for the Governor's race, that was decided by the Machine in seattle. I only wonder how much the Judge in Chehalis was paid and whether threats were directly, or indirectly involved.

Here in Washington state, it really IS easier to get on welfare, than it is to get a building permit-and not because the standards for construction are all that high, either.
they're not.

This is also a state where redistributionist policies and environmental obsession means it's easier to leave, than to stay in business...unless you're a consulting firm slush-funnlling money to the Democratic Party in King County.
Further, I have to pay for King County's light-rail, which will never reach into snohomish county further than a couple of suburbs feeding renton and kirkland, because they can do it to us. All politics is local. Central Seattle is the 500 pound gorilla that uses the rest of the State of Washington as its prison-bitch. The effects of the King-County Welfare state are readily apparent to anyone who voted other than democrat in the last election cycle(locally), then followed (or followed up on) the three recounts and subsequent court-battle.

Back on topic, though: Slade Gorton was my example of the impact of the Libertarian wing of the Republican party, in part, because wiht that wing, he carried enough of the state to win for over twenty years. His support of freedom-suppressing legislation, his apologist behaviour towards federal abuses of citizens, and his tendency to vote-left but run-right (and by "Left" I don't mean "Freedom", I mean "Socialist-Authoritarian") alienated the largest growth-bloc of Republican and Independent voters in the State (at the time. Now, if you live here, your vote doesn't matter as much-they'll just keep "Finding" and altering ballots during recounts until they get what the King County Machine wants. In Washington, Stalin's quote is alive and well.)

agreed.... They always say the 3 biggest backers of the Republican Party- Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Polosi.... I couldn't agree more..

Most notably Howard Dean. He talks and the Repubs money increases. He doesn't talk, and the Dems money increases.

I really do hate to say this but the Dems do need to replace Howard Dean.

but are there any leaders in the Democratic Party to replace him?? I will give the guy this, he had internet funding galore before he turned all crazy..... That lesson alone may have lead to keeping him around...

Liberals believe in redistribution by the state
i'm liberal and I don't believe that, relatively. So no reading the rest of that "libertatrians are omg awesome" drivel

but are there any leaders in the Democratic Party to replace him?? I will give the guy this, he had internet funding galore before he turned all crazy..... That lesson alone may have lead to keeping him around...

No one from DC should be it. You'll have to look at the local level and I know of one Democrat that could actually pull the job off. He's PA's current Governor, ED Rendell. Right now though, he's fighting for re-election '06 and trying to keep 2 major PA bases open.

I honestly do think he could make a good DNC chairperson if he doesn't turn into a democrat like Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy, and the rest of the left-wing Dems that are in power.

Ihatevacations']i'm liberal and I don't believe that, relatively. So no reading the rest of that "libertatrians are omg awesome" drivel

"Relatively?" is that like being a-little-bit-pregnant, or do you actually have an idea as to where redistribution by the state should stop?

This is one of the main reasons I can't vote Democrat in the current environment-they claim to have limits, but never define where the limit is on their policies, only "Not there yet".
I mean, look at the EPA-finally, after twenty-five years, they had near-total compliance with the Clean Air act...so they decide they need to change the standards??? (Clinton era).

When was the last time a Democrat tried to repeal a government programme that wasn't either Nasa, or the Military? (Hint: it wasn't in the last four decades... and Clinton couldn't have reformed Federal Welfare at all without a Republican House and Senate.)

The problem with unearned entitlements is that they're unearned, and they exist to buy votes. Once they become entitlements, they're impossible to dismantle no matter how "Temporary" they were to begin with.

No one from DC should be it. You'll have to look at the local level and I know of one Democrat that could actually pull the job off. He's PA's current Governor, ED Rendell. Right now though, he's fighting for re-election '06 and trying to keep 2 major PA bases open.

I honestly do think he could make a good DNC chairperson if he doesn't turn into a democrat like Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy, and the rest of the left-wing Dems that are in power.

Is he someone who might actually be a decent option (a Scoop Jackson democrat), or do you think he'll get all starry-eyed and parse words by running away from his record (Like Dole and Kerry did).

If the guy's got a spine, and he can scrap, maybe a good alternative to holding my nose and voting GOP.

STOP VOTING FOR JEB, YOU IDIOTS!

*curses the one-track minded Bible Belt*

Is he someone who might actually be a decent option (a Scoop Jackson democrat), or do you think he'll get all starry-eyed and parse words by running away from his record (Like Dole and Kerry did).

If the guy's got a spine, and he can scrap, maybe a good alternative to holding my nose and voting GOP.



Wow....I must be sleepier than I thought......I thought Scoop Jackson said Scooby Doo..../doze

"Relatively?" is that like being a-little-bit-pregnant, or do you actually have an idea as to where redistribution by the state should stop?
WEll I know what YOU mean by it, which is like "omg that land of yours would be great for us, lets take it" or "awesome shirt *steal - i'm giving it to a homeless person" which i don't agree with

I cannot imagine how the libertarian wing could possibly still exist within that party.
Republican Liberty Caucus - http://www.rlc.org

This is one of the main reasons I can't vote Democrat in the current environment-they claim to have limits, but never define where the limit is on their policies, only "Not there yet".
I mean, look at the EPA-finally, after twenty-five years, they had near-total compliance with the Clean Air act...so they decide they need to change the standards??? (Clinton era).

When was the last time a Democrat tried to repeal a government programme that wasn't either Nasa, or the Military? (Hint: it wasn't in the last four decades... and Clinton couldn't have reformed Federal Welfare at all without a Republican House and Senate.)



About the EPA:
The standards changed because, as good as it was to have air as clean as the original Clean Air Act specified, it would be better to have even cleaner air. Also, as new research comes out or more sensitive instruments are developed, it tends to be discovered that lower levels of pollutants are more dangerous than previously thought.

About Democrats repealing NASA programs...actually, it has been the Republicans who've initiated a lot of NASA cuts...and a Republican administration that is currently asking NASA to do twice as much work with an insultingly small budget increase. So, NASA is forced to cut back on a lot of essential research (Hubble's already on the way out, and Voyager might be next, both of which really piss me off, and research into new propulsion methods is probably next) in order to comply with White House demands for mostly-useless stuff (going back to the Moon, the new OSP).

Satan.

About the EPA:
The standards changed because, as good as it was to have air as clean as the original Clean Air Act specified, it would be better to have even cleaner air. Also, as new research comes out or more sensitive instruments are developed, it tends to be discovered that lower levels of pollutants are more dangerous than previously thought.

About Democrats repealing NASA programs...actually, it has been the Republicans who've initiated a lot of NASA cuts...and a Republican administration that is currently asking NASA to do twice as much work with an insultingly small budget increase. So, NASA is forced to cut back on a lot of essential research (Hubble's already on the way out, and Voyager might be next, both of which really piss me off, and research into new propulsion methods is probably next) in order to comply with White House demands for mostly-useless stuff (going back to the Moon, the new OSP).

That depends on your definitions of "Useful" and "Cuts". Carter gutted NASA (though to be fair, Nixon and Ford started the process, the bastards).

See, what is your definition of "Useful" space research? If it doesn't lead to inexpensive manned flight and possibly colonization/resource extraction, I define it as "Less useful". Pretty pictures of places nobody will ever go are worthless, and while robot-probes are neat and all, they're just expensive bundles of gear without a man following close behind.

When I was a wee kid of seven, our first grade class got this little newsprint magazine for kids every week, the "Weekly Reader". We were, as far as I'm concerned, promised a space-station by 1994, a return to the moon by 1995, and a base on mars by 2005.

It's worse, though-my parent's generation was promised cities on the moon by 2005.

It's 2005. NASA's whole manned programme is an obselete disintegrating-totem-pole ten ton truck and a behind-schedule space-station that isn't quite as nice as Skylab was, but costs a lot more and suffers delays because we have to wait for some other country to finish building a module before we can install it.

The manned programme is still blighted under the Sagan dream that overran Von Braun's vision.

Imho, the only reason to have a space programme, is to use it to go places and do things. Sending robby the multimillion-dollar robot camera is only justifiable if you're going to do somethin with it besides padding a professors's resume.

Satan.

\m/ SATAN!!!!

Satan.

He turned down the nomination... something about Cable News being the 10th circle of hell and that even HE didn't have access to it...

agreed.... They always say the 3 biggest backers of the Republican Party- Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Polosi.... I couldn't agree more..

You know, I don't really mind Dean, until he gets that wild look in his eye. Kennedy has always been a maroon, but I respect his convictions... but Pelosi really makes me feel ill. As if I'd seen Gretta van Sustren in a porno or something... :eek:

He turned down the nomination... something about Cable News being the 10th circle of hell and that even HE didn't have access to it...

Yah... that's bs. We all know the real reason he turned it down-it would make him feel all dirty and degraded to have to deal with Congress and the Supreme Court...

Satan has more ethics than most of those bastards.

Yah... that's bs. We all know the real reason he turned it down-it would make him feel all dirty and degraded to have to deal with Congress and the Supreme Court...

Satan has more ethics than most of those bastards.

He needed an explanation that played well in the swing states. Didn't want to let the party down. :D

Is he someone who might actually be a decent option (a Scoop Jackson democrat), or do you think he'll get all starry-eyed and parse words by running away from his record (Like Dole and Kerry did).

If the guy's got a spine, and he can scrap, maybe a good alternative to holding my nose and voting GOP.

He does have some great ideas. Though I've only seen him once (and that was like a week ago, I think he could make a good Chair. As for running away from his record, I dont think he will.

You guys do know the reason why Cleland lost his limbs, right? He was drunk and was kicking a live grenade down a street.

Anyways, I'm surprised noone has mentioned Haley Barbour. He's the Governor of Mississippi, and from what I've heard, he's got the resources to run a grassroots campaign like Carter.

Except he won't fail the people who back his campaign, unlike Carter.