NationStates Jolt Archive

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1694406

Just check it out. John McCain will be able to grab voters across party lines. The last candidate to get a good amount of votes from the opposite party was Reagan.

Oh Boy! abc news. And they are certainly known for calling it down the middle when it comes to politics! http://www.postsmile.com/img/emotions/128.gif rofl

interesting poll

the thing is, hillary clinton has a great chance to get the nomination of her party and is popular enough to win the election even though almost no republicans like her. she would have the best chance to win over an ultraconservative opponent. bill frist for example. *shudder*

john mccain has a great chance to win the election but he's going to have a hell of a time winning the nomination since its the conservative republicans who rule in the primary system and mccain may well not be conservative enough. he's been pandering to the conservatives for the past year but is it enough to fool them into voting for him over a real conservative?

I know that most politicians suck regardless of party lines, but I'd still feel a whole lot better with a democrat in office. After eight years of Bush, I'm going to need, at the very least, a simple letter change from R to D.

To be honest I wouldn't mind McCain. I think he's sliding a little right now because of political reality - he needs his party's nomination to win - but when he's not campaigning he's much smarter than our current administration and he doesn't cowtoe to the Jesus Freaks.

I know this is asking a bit much, but could someone compare and contrast McCain's and Clinton's views on socioeconomic policy issues? I am all for the idea of a female US president, but I don't like Hilary as a politician. Is Rice even entertaining the idea of presidency?

Is Rice even entertaining the idea of presidency?

That would be sweet. :cool:

That would be sweet. :cool:
She's one of the few worthwhile individuals in the Bush administration, and I think she has what it takes to be president. I don't think she's as nutty as the fundies either. I remember her saying "People should be careful what they say when it comes to the lives of others," or something to this effect. I doubt that she'll run though. :(

She's one of the few worthwhile individuals in the Bush administration, and I think she has what it takes to be president. I don't think she's as nutty as the fundies either. I remember her saying "People should be careful what they say when it comes to the lives of others," or something to this effect. I doubt that she'll run though. :(

Even though she's backed Bush the entire way and tried to explain all the violence as being 'birthing pains' of a new and peaceful middle east.

Even though she's backed Bush the entire way and tried to explain all the violence as being 'birthing pains' of a new and peaceful middle east.
Is this some sort of knee-jerk reaction? Well duh, she's part of his administration! Of course she will back her backer. :rolleyes:

Oh Boy! abc news. And they are certainly known for calling it down the middle when it comes to politics! http://www.postsmile.com/img/emotions/128.gif rofl

Yeah, they're known for being a bit left! Heh!

Oh Boy! abc news. And they are certainly known for calling it down the middle when it comes to politics!
Well, what else do you expect from a cynical kneejerk reactionary liberal anti-GOP Ivory-Tower taxuchaussets elite media?

Well, what else do you expect from a cynical kneejerk reactionary liberal anti-GOP ivy-league taxuchaussets elite media?
Out of curiosity, isn't the Ivy League of a right-wing bent (not necessarily Republican)?

The poll shows Mcain has very few Mild opposistions, as such he cant glamour that many more votes, HOWEVER he loses to clinton on the Strong Support front.

Imagine Strong support voters cannot vote any other way apart from who they support.
59% clinton
52% mcain.

Clinton leads by 7%
Clinton has less borderline support, but this can be changed by a quick wooing of the crowd.

Even though she's backed Bush the entire way and tried to explain all the violence as being 'birthing pains' of a new and peaceful middle east.

Straight up. Fuck her. She's Bush's lapdog and I can't think of a single thing she's ever done or said or implied that woudl give any indication that she would make a good president. If she had followed Colin Powell out the door I'd say she had some integrity, but the only thing she has going for her now is that gap in her teeth makes her look a little sexy when she's wearing ared dress and thigh high, high heeled black boots.

mc cain will never get the nomination. He is a rino (Republican in name only).

hillary can't win. She has too much baggage. She has too much dirt in her past that will be used against her. She is weak on national security. She is in favor of socialized medicine. She is in favor of more gun control. She supports higher taxes. Her position on these issues guarantee her defeat.

I hope the democrats actually do nominate her just do I can see her go down in flames at the polls.

Is this some sort of knee-jerk reaction? Well duh, she's part of his administration! Of course she will back her backer. :rolleyes:

Colin Powell dipped out once he saw how much bullshit was going on. I'd rather vote for him than her.

Out of curiosity, isn't the Ivy League of a right-wing bent (not necessarily Republican)?

Never been on an Ivy League campus, have you?

Colin Powell dipped out once he saw how much bullshit was going on. I'd rather vote for him than her.
Whatever floats your boat.

Never been on an Ivy League campus, have you?
Nein, although I intend to do a Masters there. In the UK our equivalent of an Ivy League is rather right-leaning, so I was wondering if this is true of the US as well.

She's one of the few worthwhile individuals in the Bush administration, and I think she has what it takes to be president. I don't think she's as nutty as the fundies either. I remember her saying "People should be careful what they say when it comes to the lives of others," or something to this effect. I doubt that she'll run though. :(

Had a conversation with my father a few years back in which he asked (don't ask me why), out of the current administration, who would I pick to dine with. I said Condoleezza Rice (this was back when she was serving as NSA). Of course, racist bastard that my father is, he went nutty.

Nein, although I intend to do a Masters there. In the UK our equivalent of an Ivy League is rather right-leaning, so I was wondering if this is true of the US as well.

No, complete opposite here.

Well, what else do you expect from a cynical kneejerk reactionary liberal anti-GOP ivy-league taxuchaussets elite media?

Heh! I WISH that were abc. But they're so far to the right I have to turn the TV volume to max when watching them (after the TV tilts a full 90 degrees onto the speaker)

I know this is asking a bit much, but could someone compare and contrast McCain's and Clinton's views on socioeconomic policy issues? I am all for the idea of a female US president, but I don't like Hilary as a politician. Is Rice even entertaining the idea of presidency?

I know he's prochoice. against the stem cell ban, while he isn't a crusader for gay rights or anything he's never taken a position on gay marriage which leads me to believe he's liek Arnold - don't want to touhc that baby but if the courts want to allow it I don't have a problem with it. He's a politician, to be sure, but if you're not a politician you don't stand a chance. I think his state is conservative in the same way CA is conservative. We like fiscal responsibility, we don't believe in government give aways to people who don't want to work, we don't believe in affirmative action but we also think women should be able to get an abortion, science should be taught in school and religion in church, CO2 does actually hold infrared radiation, etc...

That's my impression of him. Plus he was a prisoner of war for year in Vietnam so he actually has a clue what being at war means - both in terms of how to fight one and what it's like to be a soldier and to see all this death.

He's not my first choice for president, but of the people I think could get the Republican nomination I can think of a LOT worse.

Colin Powell dipped out once he saw how much bullshit was going on. I'd rather vote for him than her.

This is my second post hump for you in this thread. Powell showed some integrity. She just sucks Bush's ummm...

I know he's prochoice. against the stem cell ban, while he isn't a crusader for gay rights or anything he's never taken a position on gay marriage which leads me to believe he's liek Arnold - don't want to touhc that baby but if the courts want to allow it I don't have a problem with it. He's a politician, to be sure, but if you're not a politician you don't stand a chance. I think his state is conservative in the same way CA is conservative. We like fiscal responsibility, we don't believe in government give aways to people who don't want to work, we don't believe in affirmative action but we also think women should be able to get an abortion, science should be taught in school and religion in church, CO2 does actually hold infrared radiation, etc...
So essentially a paleoconservative? This is the impression I get of him from this (and of CA, of course).

That's my impression of him. Plus he was a prisoner of war for year in Vietnam so he actually has a clue what being at war means - both in terms of how to fight one and what it's like to be a soldier and to see all this death.

He's not my first choice for president, but of the people I think could get the Republican nomination I can think of a LOT worse.
He seems like a worthwhile candidate. I'm not an American, but I would like to see someone a bit more responsible than Bush steering the boat. I don't mind paleocons as much as I do your insidious neocons.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1694406

Just check it out. John McCain will be able to grab voters across party lines. The last candidate to get a good amount of votes from the opposite party was Reagan.

I hope you're right.

Had a conversation with my father a few years back in which he asked (don't ask me why), out of the current administration, who would I pick to dine with. I said Condoleezza Rice (this was back when she was serving as NSA). Of course, racist bastard that my father is, he went nutty.
Wise choice. :) She strikes me as quite a savvy person, and I don't think I'd have chosen differently either. Skin colour is pretty irrelevant to me when it comes to interacting with people - if she were white trash, then I'd shun her.

No, complete opposite here.
Meh, well I'd still like to cross-over and spend some time at one of them.Then I'll go to the Mises Institute to be de-commified again. :D

Never been on an Ivy League campus, have you?

Depends on the ivy really.

Yale is VEEEEERY conservative. Princeton is a bit too. Harvard is pretty middle of the road with liberal leanings, brown is very liberal, UPenn is sorta middle, cornell is middle with parts leaning both left and right, columbia is quite leftists.

Of course then you have the "ivy like" schools of the Little Three, which make even the most liberal ivy league school look like Bob Jones.

This is my second post hump for you in this thread. Powell showed some integrity. She just sucks Bush's ummm...

I agree - I completely believe that Powell was fed lies and kept in the dark about the truth of the Iraqi war, and while I'm sure he suspected something of the sorts before he left, it became evident that he was used to get congress on Bush's side.

Depends on the ivy really.

Yale is VEEEEERY conservative. Princeton is a bit too. Harvard is pretty middle of the road with liberal leanings, brown is very liberal, UPenn is sorta middle, cornell is middle with parts leaning both left and right, columbia is quite leftists.

Of course then you have the "ivy like" schools of the Little Three, which make even the most liberal ivy league school look like Bob Jones.
Incidentally, Princeton, Harvard and Yale are my main choices. I'm not into Republican conservatism - just paleolibertarianism. What about Chicago U.? I know it's not one of the Ivy Leagues, but it ranks alongside them.

Depends on the ivy really.

Yale is VEEEEERY conservative. Princeton is a bit too. Harvard is pretty middle of the road with liberal leanings, brown is very liberal, UPenn is sorta middle, cornell is middle with parts leaning both left and right, columbia is quite leftists.

Of course then you have the "ivy like" schools of the Little Three, which make even the most liberal ivy league school look like Bob Jones.

You've got a bizarre understanding of left and right.

In two yrs time after which Iraq will have had a comeplete meltdown,either split into 3 countries or a theocratic government, probably a million dead, a haven for terrorists(and still no WMDs found). The utter failure of repubilican foreign policy should be obvious for even the most dimwitted voter. The democrats could have any idiot run for pres and they will win, there always a percentage of swing voters that move between parties and the majority will be so repulsed by GWB regime's arrogance and stupidity democrats will be their only option.

Incidentally, Princeton, Harvard and Yale are my main choices. I'm not into Republican conservatism - just paleolibertarianism. What about Chicago U.? I know it's not one of the Ivy Leagues, but it ranks alongside them.


Depends on what you're looking at studying.

It's Univeristy OF Chicago, not Chicago University, just FYI. Don't know...think they're a pretty moderate with right leaning tendancies as a campus, but I'm not sure, don't know much about schools outside the east coast. I know they have a kick ass sociology department...

So essentially a paleoconservative? This is the impression I get of him from this (and of CA, of course).


He seems like a worthwhile candidate. I'm not an American, but I would like to see someone a bit more responsible than Bush steering the boat. I don't mind paleocons as much as I do your insidious neocons.

Yeah, only without the religious roots connotation.

Depends on what you're looking at studying.
Economics. :)

It's Univeristy OF Chicago, not Chicago University, just FYI. Don't know...think they're a pretty moderate with right leaning tendancies as a campus, but I'm not sure, don't know much about schools outside the east coast. I know they have a kick ass sociology department...
Well, it's renowned for the fact that Milton Friedman springed out of it, and the work Hayek did there. This is why it interests me. :)

You've got a bizarre understanding of left and right.

oh really? Prove me wrong. Yale is EXTREMELY conservative, harvard is moderate to leftist, though they have some big leftist student groups, cornell I know well considering I practically grew up in and around their campus, columbia is pretty well known for its liberal tendancies, and princeton I"ve been to on more than one occassion and know it fairly well.

And the little three are EXTREEEEEEEEMLY liberal

I agree - I completely believe that Powell was fed lies and kept in the dark about the truth of the Iraqi war, and while I'm sure he suspected something of the sorts before he left, it became evident that he was used to get congress on Bush's side.

And when he wouldn't jump in line behind Rummy and Cheney they canned him. Something I'm sure he knew was coming but, unlike Rice, it wasn't worth his soul. I remember his famous quote to Bush just a few weeks before the war - "You break it, you own it."

Well, it's renowned for the fact that Milton Friedman springed out of it, and the work Hayek did there. This is why it interests me. :)

OK, yeah, their economics department is pretty solid too, I believe ranked either 2nd or 3rd. I know it bounces up and down with harvard, but MIT has held top spot in econ for a while.

Out of curiosity, isn't the Ivy League of a right-wing bent (not necessarily Republican)?
Sorry, my bad. I should have writ 'Ivory-Tower', not 'Ivy League'.
Will you forgive me?

Sorry, my bad. I should have writ 'Ivory-Tower', not 'Ivy League'.
Will you forgive me?

hehe, yeah that's a big difference.

Straight up. Fuck her. She's Bush's lapdog and I can't think of a single thing she's ever done or said or implied that woudl give any indication that she would make a good president. If she had followed Colin Powell out the door I'd say she had some integrity, but the only thing she has going for her now is that gap in her teeth makes her look a little sexy when she's wearing ared dress and thigh high, high heeled black boots.

personal ignorance aside, maybe read a little about her:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice


I wont say she is my favorite, but she is highly intelligent and accomplished, seems very well rounded and has as much right and ability as anyone in contention for it now.
She is no lightweight.

OK, yeah, their economics department is pretty solid too, I believe ranked either 2nd or 3rd. I know it bounces up and down with harvard, but MIT has held top spot in econ for a while.
I didn't even know MIT taught economics. Anyway, I'll be looking at Harvard, Princeton, Yale and U. of Chicago, and subsequently the Mises Institute.

Sorry, my bad. I should have writ 'Ivory-Tower', not 'Ivy League'.
Will you forgive me?
Forgiven. This is getting me some valuable information. :D

oh really? Prove me wrong. Yale is EXTREMELY conservative, harvard is moderate to leftist, though they have some big leftist student groups, cornell I know well considering I practically grew up in and around their campus, columbia is pretty well known for its liberal tendancies, and princeton I"ve been to on more than one occassion and know it fairly well.

And the little three are EXTREEEEEEEEMLY liberal

Cornell is probably the least left-leaning of the three, but that's not saying much. Harvard even close to moderate? There's a reason we in Massachusetts call it the People's Republic of Cambridge, y'know. ;)

Economics. :)

What branch of econ, though?

interesting poll

the thing is, hillary clinton has a great chance to get the nomination of her party and is popular enough to win the election even though almost no republicans like her. she would have the best chance to win over an ultraconservative opponent. bill frist for example. *shudder*

john mccain has a great chance to win the election but he's going to have a hell of a time winning the nomination since its the conservative republicans who rule in the primary system and mccain may well not be conservative enough. he's been pandering to the conservatives for the past year but is it enough to fool them into voting for him over a real conservative?

Hillary Clinton is not only getting smeared by the left wing of the Democratic party, but she has high unfavorable ratings among independent voters. She could not win the general election and even the nomination looks tough for her these days.


As for John McCain and the Conservatives, he actually is a conservative and all he has to do is hold up a picture of Hillary Clinton and say, "I can beat her."

he's in.

The top two Republican candidates, according to polled republicans are in fact John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, both considered to be moderate by the media. Frist is barely even mentioned, he does not have a chance and George Allen, the most conservative of them all, is done for.

What branch of econ, though?
Well, I haven't really finished my undergrad degree to know. I want to get better acquainted with alternative economic theory (Austrian School, namely) as well as improve my knowledge of macro/microeconomics when I' done. I'll know better when I graduate. :)

Cornell is probably the least left-leaning of the three, but that's not saying much. Harvard even close to moderate? There's a reason we in Massachusetts call it the People's Republic of Cambridge, y'know. ;)

Funny, I'm also from Massachusetts, and compared to the other schools in boston, Harvard is probably more conservative than most, excluding perhaps MIT and BC.

Don't confuse the tendancy of the students with the temperment of the university as a whole, yes Harvard has a lot of liberal activism by the student body, but the campus in its entirety is moderate to slight left. Certainly less left than Tufts, Bowdoin or Northeastern.

And Wesleyan, Williams and Amherst are to the extreme left of all of em.

Well, I haven't really finished my undergrad degree to know. I want to get better acquainted with alternative economic theory (Austrian School, namely) as well as improve my knowledge of macro/microeconomics when I' done. I'll know better when I graduate. :)


How many years before you get your undergrad degree?

How many years before you get your undergrad degree?
Sigh...3. :( I am planning far in advance I suppose.

personal ignorance aside, maybe read a little about her:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice


I wont say she is my favorite, but she is highly intelligent and accomplished, seems very well rounded and has as much right and ability as anyone in contention for it now.
She is no lightweight.

I couldn't care less what her accomplishments were prior to her "service" in the Bush administration. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney have a similar list of qualifications and they suck. What matters to me is that during her tenure in this administration she has done nothing but sell this administration's agenda. This leaves me with two possibilities:

1. She agrees with the absolutely disasterous decisions this administartion has made.

2. She doesn't, but doesn't have the integrity to speak her mind at the risk of being fired as so many others have during this administration.

Either way I can't see awarding her with the presidency.

Yeah, they're known for being a bit left! Heh!

Oh you mean like the anti-Kerry episode of Nightline that aired in October of 2004? (just a few weeks before the election)

Now tell us another one! LoL

Funny, I'm also from Massachusetts...


Ohnoes! Another Masshole! Run! :eek:

:p

Forgiven. This is getting me some valuable information. :D
Good to see a editing mistake bringing some good to this forum.

And Wesleyan, Williams and Amherst are to the extreme left of all of em.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League Aren't these 8 the Ivy League? MIT and Chicago join them to form your elite.

Sigh...3. :( I am planning far in advance I suppose.

Yeah, relax, mate. You've got plenty of time. Besides, you should make your choice as close as possible to the time of your attendance. The Political Science Department at my uni was gutted right as I got there -- professors leaving for other unis. You want to make sure you're going to get the best instruction, not the school with the best (and often undeserved) reputation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League Aren't these 8 the Ivy League? MIT and Chicago join them to form your elite.

Chicago? Try CalTech or Stanford.

Yeah, relax, mate. You've got plenty of time. Besides, you should make your choice as close as possible to the time of your attendance. The Political Science Department at my uni was gutted right as I got there -- professors leaving for other unis. You want to make sure you're going to get the best instruction, not the school with the best (and often undeserved) reputation.
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. The only institute I'll definitely be attending is the Mises University (more a series of lectures than anything else) to solidify my grasp on Austrian economics. Other than that, I'm going to keep an open mind. :)

personal ignorance aside, maybe read a little about her:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice


I wont say she is my favorite, but she is highly intelligent and accomplished, seems very well rounded and has as much right and ability as anyone in contention for it now.
She is no lightweight.

Yeah but seeing as how the president would be representing us, I'd like to try a new theory that the BEST person for the job should be the president, not "one of the contenders" - the absolute champion.

Chicago? Try CalTech or Stanford.
What surprised me when I saw this is that Stanford isn't part of the Ivy League. I always thought it was one of the eight.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. The only institute I'll definitely be attending is the Mises University (more a series of lectures than anything else) to solidify my grasp on Austrian economics. Other than that, I'm going to keep an open mind. :)


Also pay attention to who the visiting professors are likely to be. As far as that goes, with schools in the US, you can't go wrong with JHU SAIS.

/plug for my alma mater ;)

What surprised me when I saw this is that Stanford isn't part of the Ivy League. I always thought it was one of the eight.

Nah, the wiki list is accurate. All of the Ivy League schools are in the northeastern US.

What surprised me when I saw this is that Stanford isn't part of the Ivy League. I always thought it was one of the eight.

the Ivy League is technically a sports division, nothing more. However, the schools are ALL east coast, and old. Stanford, which is in California, is far too new. In fact, 7 of the 8 ivy league schools were formed before the US was even a country, only Cornell was formed after 1776.

And add to the list of the elite, the little three:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Three

And add to the list of the elite, the little three:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Three

Pfft! :p

Also pay attention to who the visiting professors are likely to be. As far as that goes, with schools in the US, you can't go wrong with JHU SAIS.

/plug for my alma mater ;)
Danke schoen. :)

Nah, the wiki list is accurate. All of the Ivy League schools are in the northeastern US.
Oh well, now I know better. I've never heard of Dartmouth.

the Ivy League is technically a sports division, nothing more. However, the schools are ALL east coast, and old. Stanford, which is in California, is far too new. In fact, 7 of the 8 ivy league schools were formed before the US was even a country, only Cornell was formed after 1776.
Over in Europe it's synonymous with your academic elite, much like Oxbridge, St. Andrews, Durham, LSE, UCL and KCL in the UK.

Hillary Clinton is not only getting smeared by the left wing of the Democratic party, but she has high unfavorable ratings among independent voters. She could not win the general election and even the nomination looks tough for her these days.


As for John McCain and the Conservatives, he actually is a conservative and all he has to do is hold up a picture of Hillary Clinton and say, "I can beat her."

he's in.

The top two Republican candidates, according to polled republicans are in fact John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, both considered to be moderate by the media. Frist is barely even mentioned, he does not have a chance and George Allen, the most conservative of them all, is done for.

did you look at the poll? hillary is phenominally popular among democrats. which is not to say that the nomination is hers for the taking but she would be the person to beat.

mccain is very popular with the general population. i wouldnt mind him as president myself except that he is too old for the job. he is still very popular with the party (although not as popular as clinton) but that doesnt mean that they wouldnt desert him in a minute for a more truly conservative candidate. OK that wont be frist (thank god) but its 2 years out. there is plenty of time for a new candidate to come forth

it too early to crown anyone with the nomination of their party. we will be so sick of clinton AND mccain by the time '08 comes around that new fresh faces will have a good opportunity to take the nominations away from them.

did you look at the poll? hillary is phenominally popular among democrats. which is not to say that the nomination is hers for the taking but she would be the person to beat.
I'd laugh if after winning Hilary outs herself as a neocon whose tendencies are more conservative than those of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. :D

hildabeast would cause a civil war

hildabeast would cause a civil war

As opposed to Dear Leader having all ready started a civil war in Iraq through quarter-assed policies and decisions?

Over in Europe it's synonymous with your academic elite, much like Oxbridge, St. Andrews, Durham, LSE, UCL and KCL in the UK.

It is generally here too, but to be technical "Ivy League" is a sports division of 8 schools. Which is why people try to say other, non ivy elite schools are "ivy league" like MIT, stanford, Chicago, Wesleyan, etc etc because those are other academically elite schools, and since people think "ivy league" just means "academic elite" they try to bundle other elite schools into it.

Which isn't true, the ivy leage is 8 schools which are part of a sports division, that is technically what it is. Other elite schools are other elite schools, but not part of it, and the name "ivy league" while it has come to mean academic excellence does not actually mean that by literal definition.

*snip*
Thanks for the disambiguation - I suppose it's best to say the Ivy League is part of the academic elite rather than the whole of it then. ;) That is more inclusive of schools such as Stanford, MIT et al.

I know he's prochoice.
He isn't, actually. He talks a middle ground, but his votes are always firmly anti-abortion. He's a rock-ribbed conservative. Lincoln Chaffee is more of a maverick than he is.

I'll tell you who, in the Republican party, is the real deal that McCain wishes he was--Chuck Hagel. He's too conservative for me on most issues, but he's consistent and he's as honest a politician as you'll find. McCain wishes he was Hagel.

I'll tell you who, in the Republican party, is the real deal that McCain wishes he was--Chuck Hagel. He's too conservative for me on most issues, but he's consistent and he's as honest a politician as you'll find. McCain wishes he was Hagel.
Is he a potential nominee? Also, what is his position on the policy issues?

Oh Boy! abc news. And they are certainly known for calling it down the middle when it comes to politics! http://www.postsmile.com/img/emotions/128.gif rofl

How can you call them conservative? Their main political guy is Stephanopolous, a former Clintonite.

interesting poll

the thing is, hillary clinton has a great chance to get the nomination of her party and is popular enough to win the election even though almost no republicans like her. she would have the best chance to win over an ultraconservative opponent. bill frist for example. *shudder*

john mccain has a great chance to win the election but he's going to have a hell of a time winning the nomination since its the conservative republicans who rule in the primary system and mccain may well not be conservative enough. he's been pandering to the conservatives for the past year but is it enough to fool them into voting for him over a real conservative?The ABC poll stated that 7 or 10 conservative Republicans have a very favorable opinion of him. What is shocking is 6 or 10 Democrats share that opinion.

He will barely win the nomination, but he will clean house in the general election.

Is he a potential nominee? Also, what is his position on the policy issues?He's talked about running, but nothing is a done deal yet. As for policies, he's basically a standard issue Republican. He's for tax cuts, for service cuts on the welfare state, for a strong national defense--but this is where he varies from the party line. He's called this war a mistake for over a year now, and has roundly criticized both Bush and Rumsfeld in the process.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1694406

Just check it out. John McCain will be able to grab voters across party lines. The last candidate to get a good amount of votes from the opposite party was Reagan.


I don't know who it'll be, but the Republicans havent a chance in hell of winning, and good riddence.

I don't know who it'll be, but the Republicans havent a chance in hell of winning, and good riddence.

Head to head polls that have been conducted show McCain or Guiliani winning against any of the potential Democrat nominees.

Let's face it, neither has a close tie to Bush so the voters seperate them from his administration.

As opposed to Dear Leader having all ready started a civil war in Iraq through quarter-assed policies and decisions?

civil war here not there
that's lot worse

How can you call them conservative? Their main political guy is Stephanopolous, a former Clintonite.

As I posted before: did you forget the October 2004 (3 weeks before the election), Anti-Kerry episode of Nightline? The one that was so disgusting that some of the abc channels refused to air it. Remember that?

Head to head polls that have been conducted show McCain or Guiliani winning against any of the potential Democrat nominees.

Let's face it, neither has a close tie to Bush so the voters seperate them from his administration.

McCain is a wanker. I used to like him but after his last election bid and snuggling up to the shrub......then there was the cheap shots he took at Chelsey Clinton.

Guiliani is rumored to have many skeletons in the closet so he probably will not run.

Yeah but seeing as how the president would be representing us, I'd like to try a new theory that the BEST person for the job should be the president, not "one of the contenders" - the absolute champion.

The "BEST" person for the job isnt going to be a politician. Its a decent and honest person that lives in the real world and would never consider running for any office.

You'll have to find them and draft them for the position.

McCain is a wanker. I used to like him but after his last election bid and snuggling up to the shrub......then there was the cheap shots he took at Chelsey Clinton.

Guiliani is rumored to have many skeletons in the closet so he probably will not run.

there'd be a woman in the White House before an eye-talian

The "BEST" person for the job isnt going to be a politician. Its a decent and honest person that lives in the real world and would never consider running for any office.

You'll have to find them and draft them for the position.There are days when I think we ought to just have a lottery for the Presidency and the Congress. Your number is called? You do your two or four or six years and then you're done and we get some more folks in there.

There are days when I think we ought to just have a lottery for the Presidency and the Congress. Your number is called? You do your two or four or six years and then you're done and we get some more folks in there.

Don't say "folks." Bush has turned that into a bad word.

they'll win only because they'll just cancel the elections and declare a ONE party system. Then we're on the road to theocracy.

Hello. God speaking. The Republicans will not win. The world will end in 2007. Byesy

There are days when I think we ought to just have a lottery for the Presidency and the Congress. Your number is called? You do your two or four or six years and then you're done and we get some more folks in there.

It would eliminate having to payback the people that got you there.

It would eliminate having to payback the people that got you there.

And chances would be better than even that you'd have someone smarter than your average congresscritter in the position.

I didn't have the time to read through the 6 pages, but I noticed McCain was considerably weaker amongst Republicans. This is because he's much more moderate than more recent Republican canidates, and it makes him harder to win the primary and actually run for president (like in 200)

As I posted before: did you forget the October 2004 (3 weeks before the election), Anti-Kerry episode of Nightline? The one that was so disgusting that some of the abc channels refused to air it. Remember that?

They aired one special. Nightline was hosted by a liberal. Peter Jennings was a liberal too. Almost every on-air personality on ABC (exception being libertarian John Stossel) is a liberal.

they'll win only because they'll just cancel the elections and declare a ONE party system. Then we're on the road to theocracy.

Yet another tin foil wearing liberal checked his intelligence at the door.

Your conspiracy theories make you look like a fool.

They aired one special. Nightline was hosted by a liberal. Peter Jennings was a liberal too. Almost every on-air personality on ABC (exception being libertarian John Stossel) is a liberal.

And what was that "Path to 9/11" POS?

Besides, this is a stupid debate. What ABC/Disney is more than anything else is a profit-driven corporation. They do whatever makes them money, politics be damned. The only major news organization with a consistent political bias is Fox News, and they're not even trying anymore.

And for the record, the most openly liberal--probably the only openly liberal--opinion person on the air right now is Keith Olbermann (and his ratings are through the roof).

They aired one special.

And OJ only killed people on one day. And Mike Tyson only bit one ear! And Bush can only pronounce one page of words! But it defines who they are and how they will be remembered.

It's okay! You are not the only republican I've spoken to that convieniently forgot about the worst example of journalism in history.

Ohnoes! Another Masshole! Run! :eek:

:p

I am from Rhode Island!
We should all get together sometime and have a beer!

And what was that "Path to 9/11" POS?

Besides, this is a stupid debate. What ABC/Disney is more than anything else is a profit-driven corporation. They do whatever makes them money, politics be damned. The only major news organization with a consistent political bias is Fox News, and they're not even trying anymore.

And for the record, the most openly liberal--probably the only openly liberal--opinion person on the air right now is Keith Olbermann (and his ratings are through the roof).

ONE movie, ONE movie that ABC news ran a "special" afterwards and basically criticized.

I wonder if you were all up in arms over "The Reagans" when it was going to be aired on CBS.

And Keith Olbermann?!? LOL, his ratings are last in Cable Prime Time and he gets crushed by O'reilly, his nemesis, every single day. I'll never forget that time he seriously reported the results of a fictional poll about parents losing IQ points after having children. He actually took it seriously and thought the "Indiana Gazette" was a real newspaper. It actually a Weekly World News style blog that talked about UFO abductions, etc.

Another humorous moment was when he referenced an O'reilly misquote from yet another internet blog he never bothered to check up on, this one run by some teenager.

LOL, yeah Olbermann, good stuff. Just watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report, at least they get their sources straight.

Why do people consider Rice a potential presidential candidate? She's never run for an office in her life. She's an appointed member of the Cabinet. She's a policy person; she only got her political career rolling with Bush the Elder because of her expertise on the Soviet Union.

Why do people consider Rice a potential presidential candidate? She's never run for an office in her life. She's an appointed member of the Cabinet. She's a policy person; she only got her political career rolling with Bush the Elder because of her expertise on the Soviet Union.

I don't know; given that Russia seems to be making a few steps to the Soviet side it seems likely that such experience is very valuable. After all, if you can understand the workings of a superpower like the USSR, you can probably gain similar knowledge and experience with any nation.

Even so, she's not a potential presidential candidate.

ONE movie, ONE movie that ABC news ran a "special" afterwards and basically criticized.

I wonder if you were all up in arms over "The Reagans" when it was going to be aired on CBS.

And Keith Olbermann?!? LOL, his ratings are last in Cable Prime Time and he gets crushed by O'reilly, his nemesis, every single day. I'll never forget that time he seriously reported the results of a fictional poll about parents losing IQ points after having children. He actually took it seriously and thought the "Indiana Gazette" was a real newspaper. It actually a Weekly World News style blog that talked about UFO abductions, etc.

Another humorous moment was when he referenced an O'reilly misquote from yet another internet blog he never bothered to check up on, this one run by some teenager.

LOL, yeah Olbermann, good stuff. Just watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report, at least they get their sources straight.

O'Reilly???? Mr. "The Americans massacred a bunch of SS-Men at Malmedy"

Eww wow Olbermann made a mistake.

People challenged O'Reilly and yet he repeated the same claim on a different show.

O'Reilly is a hack.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1694406

Just check it out. John McCain will be able to grab voters across party lines. The last candidate to get a good amount of votes from the opposite party was Reagan.

If the Republicans do win, I'm leaving and never returning.

Yet another tin foil wearing liberal checked his intelligence at the door.

Your conspiracy theories make you look like a fool.

More like a tin-foil radical. Completely different than a liberal. Liberals are much more intelligent than that. For the most part, I'd hope, anyway.

Is Rice even entertaining the idea of presidency?
Condi gives me the creeps. I wouldn't vote for anyone in that cabinet.

O'Reilly???? Mr. "The Americans massacred a bunch of SS-Men at Malmedy"

Eww wow Olbermann made a mistake.

People challenged O'Reilly and yet he repeated the same claim on a different show.

O'Reilly is a hack.

yet O'reilly gets attacked with such ferocity by both those on the right and on the left.

And as for "hacks", I bet Jimmy Hoffa crossed over more picket lines than you have party lines.

And Keith Olbermann?!? LOL, his ratings are last in Cable Prime Time and he gets crushed by O'reilly, his nemesis, every single day.
Actually, he's number two with a bullet, ahead of CNN in his time slot, and the most watched show on MSNBC. More importanly, he's been growing in the key advertising demographic, while O'Reilly's been falling consistently for the last 18 months. Now, Olbermann's numbers are still a fraction of O'Reilly's (which actually makes my point about how non-liberal the media is), but they are rising, and rising quickly.

yet O'reilly gets attacked with such ferocity by both those on the right and on the left. It ever occur to you that he gets attacked with that ferocity because he's a slandering, lying, piece of shit?

And as for "hacks", I bet Jimmy Hoffa crossed over more picket lines than you have party lines.
As for me personally, you'd be wrong. I've voted for both major parties and two third parties in my time, for a variety of offices ranging from school board and alderman to POTUS. Just because someone sees bullshit from one particular party when it's piled in front of them doesn't make them a hack. It means they have eyes.

She's one of the few worthwhile individuals in the Bush administration, and I think she has what it takes to be president. I don't think she's as nutty as the fundies either.
No doubt Rice is more intelligent than most other possible contenders, but can she be trusted not to replicate Bush's gratuitous warmongering somewhere else? I don't think so.

So essentially a paleoconservative? This is the impression I get of him from this (and of CA, of course).
These mythical paleoconservatives never existed. In the 19th century there were almost no fiscal conservatives who were pro-gay, pro-choice, and anti-Creationist.

No doubt Rice is more intelligent than most other possible contenders, but can she be trusted not to replicate Bush's gratuitous warmongering somewhere else? I don't think so.
Give her a term in office - if she fails, vote her out. If she succeeds, give her another term. It's in your hands in the end - you have only yourselves to blame for your stupidity (i.e. voting Bush in twice).

These mythical paleoconservatives never existed. In the 19th century there were almost no fiscal conservatives who were pro-gay, pro-choice, and anti-Creationist.
Erm...no surprise there, really. I am speaking of the 20th century.

No doubt Rice is more intelligent than most other possible contenders, but can she be trusted not to replicate Bush's gratuitous warmongering somewhere else? I don't think so.
Doesn't really matter. Even if she wanted to run, she'd never win the nomination. No way do you get enough of the southern Republicans to vote for a black woman as President to win either the primaries or the general election.

Doesn't really matter. Even if she wanted to run, she'd never win the nomination. No way do you get enough of the southern Republicans to vote for a black woman as President to win either the primaries or the general election.
Too true. She's doubly doomed - she's female and black. :( And probably not a fundie either.

Erm...no surprise there, really. I am speaking of the 20th century.
I doubt they existed before the 1930s either, in which case they're not at all "paleo".

Too true. She's doubly doomed - she's female and black. :( And probably not a fundie either.

There's no outward indication of any fundyism at least, which is a plus in my book. She does have a bit of a Reagan-esque teflon-ness, however. She was the NSA during 9/11 and has been repeatedly caught out with her famous "no one could have anticipated" construction more than once, and wasn't the picture of competence in either that job or her current one, and yet she's got better approval ratings than damn near anyone else in the administration.

I doubt they existed before the 1930s either, in which case they're not at all "paleo".
The term isn't used to indicate their relative age - it's used to distinguish them from the neocons.

There's no outward indication of any fundyism at least, which is a plus in my book. She does have a bit of a Reagan-esque teflon-ness, however. She was the NSA during 9/11 and has been repeatedly caught out with her famous "no one could have anticipated" construction more than once, and wasn't the picture of competence in either that job or her current one, and yet she's got better approval ratings than damn near anyone else in the administration.
Well, I simply hope that this time round you guys don't make the same mistake as you did with Bush (be it with Hilary, McCain or whomever else runs for president).

The term isn't used to indicate their relative age - it's used to distinguish them from the neocons.
In America it appears that the vast majority of conservatives support the Iraq war and are thus neocons. The rest are libertarians.

favor of socialized medicine. She is in favor of more gun control. She supports higher taxes . Her position on these issues guarantee her defeat.

I hope the democrats actually do nominate her just do I can see her go down in flames at the polls.

LOL i'm in fav. of these things (higher taxes for better healthcare and social welfare and such)

In America it appears that the vast majority of conservatives support the Iraq war and are thus neocons. The rest are libertarians.
Paleocons are essentially small government, non-interventionist conservatives. They aren't libertarian really (even though paleolibertarianism had alliances with paleocons), but there are some surface similarities. You're most likely to find paleocons as a minority within the Republican party, which is dominated by neoliberals and, more significantly, neocons. Until I hear more from her, Rice sounds like a paleocon to me (supporting Bush's war is no indication of her own personal stance on interventionism).

LOL i'm in fav. of these things (higher taxes for better healthcare and social welfare and such)
Yes, as if we don't waste enough cash as it is, let's just throw MORE money at things! The US already spends massive funds on its healthcare system - the problem? It does so highly inefficiently.