Originally posted by rwingettHillary Clinton (aka Lady MacBeth) will never be elected. What a prescription for defeat in '08.
Fun with syllogisms:
A. All Republicans are bad people
B. Kirk is a Republican
C. Therefore, Kirk is a bad person
You see? A perfectly valid argument.
I have wondered about 2008 as well. If the Democrats lose this time around, it looks like Hillary in 2008. Who will the Republicans have to offer? Cheney? He's a nonentity. They don't have anyone waiting in the wings. Their days are numbered.
Originally posted by kirksey957I used to think that too, but now I'm not so sure. There is no shortage of people who despise Hillary, but there are an equal number of people who admire her as well.
Hillary Clinton (aka Lady MacBeth) will never be elected. What a prescription for defeat in '08.
Originally posted by rwingettHow about Colin Powell?
Fun with syllogisms:
A. All Republicans are bad people
B. Kirk is a Republican
C. Therefore, Kirk is a bad person
You see? A perfectly valid argument.
I have wondered about 2008 as well. If the Democrats lose this time around, it looks like Hillary in 2008. Who will the Republicans have to offer? Cheney? He's a nonentity. They don't have anyone waiting in the wings. Their days are numbered.
As a moderate Democrat who doesn't get to vote with any significance in the primary (my state is so far down the line we don't matter until the general), I'm personally disappointed with what is shaping up to be the Democratic ticket.
It seems to me the Dems are handing the Republicans the election. The only thing Kerry has come up with is that he was a veteran who is getting bailed out by a soldier who he apparently saved as part of his duty in the war.
Nothing on policy. Nothing on balancing the budget. Nothing that sets him apart from the others. Kerry has shown no ability to articulate policy. In fact the only thing he knows how to do is put people to sleep quicker than Gore did in 2000.
What is it with the progressive movement and their inability to get the job done? Look at Britain - they're ready to throw out Blair with the Tories in complete shambles. All the work the Tories built from IDS through to Howard got smashed wiht the Hutton report and Blair's annihilation of Howard at the dispatch box, but Blair still faces internal power struggles. Part of it is his own fault, but if Blair were booted out Michael Howard might as well become the next Prime Minister.
Meanwhile in the states you have a puppet for a President who can barely read a policy statement let alone debate on it. Yet they throw up Dukakis Jr. after a primary which showed no party organization (the Republicans always have one clear favorite going in wiht party support both financially and structurally. That's how the Republicans win) and barely debated the issues. OK, Bush deficit bad. War bad. Nice. Now who other than Dean is willing to tell us how they're going to balance the budget, and mention how important it is (hence avoiding the mortal flaw from Gore - ignoring the deficit which was the prime accomplishment of the Clinton administration.)
I cannot understand how the Left is so inept at organization. They have the philosophy and policy that a majority approves. The general public prefers advancing forward rather than backwards, and history shows the higher the voting percentages the more it favors the Left. But the inability to keep some sense of discipline allows the Right to obtain power. And I fear that this will continue for four more years.
And no, Edwards as VP is a waste. Either make him the nominee so we have a shot in the south or groom him for 08. But don't waste him in that meaningless position. VP should be able to articulate policy (something Kerry is inept at) - Cheney and Gore were both good at this. I would prefer someone who was not in the race to be named to the ticket, perhpas a John Corzine-type (bot not from the Northeast.)
Originally posted by stammerIf Blair resigns, or is forced to resign, we'll have John Prescott in temporoary charge. Now that is a scary thought.... though PMQs would be highly entertaining. i can imagine John leaping over the dispatch box, getting Michael Howard in a headlock, giving him a wedgie and calling the rest of the Tory party "nerds"... in fact, that sounds far more interesting than debates about WMDs, top-up fees etc... Bring on Johnny
As a moderate Democrat who doesn't get to vote with any significance in the primary (my state is so far down the line we don't matter until the general), I'm personally disappointed with what is shaping up to be the Democratic ticket.
It seems to me the Dems are handing the Republicans the election. The only thing Kerry has come up with is that he wa ...[text shortened]... in the race to be named to the ticket, perhpas a John Corzine-type (bot not from the Northeast.)
Mark
Originally posted by ivanhoeSee, if I was in charge of running the campaign of the Republicans, here is what I'd do. I'd dump Cheney. I'd get Condeliza Rice and dress her in a little mini skirt, a belly shirt, a push-up bra, and high heels and sunglasses. And everywhere she goes, I'd have "Hey Ya!" by the Outkast playing. I'd like to see Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson get behind that.😲
He's got good looking legs too ?
Originally posted by kirksey957
See, if I was in charge of running the campaign of the Republicans, here is what I'd do. I'd dump Cheney. I'd get Condeliza Rice and dress her in a little mini skirt, a belly shirt, a push-up bra, and high heels and sunglasses. And everywhere she goes, I'd have "Hey Ya!" by the Outkast playing. I'd like to see Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson get behind that.😲
I can already see the beautiful pictures that will be the result of that extreme make over ..... CNN will love it .....😀
Originally posted by stammer
As a moderate Democrat who doesn't get to vote with any significance in the primary (my state is so far down the line we don't matter until the general), I'm personally disappointed with what is shaping up to be the Democratic ticket.
It seems to me the Dems are handing the Republicans the election. The only thing Kerry has come up with is that he wa ...[text shortened]... in the race to be named to the ticket, perhpas a John Corzine-type (bot not from the Northeast.)
Good post. Analyses is what we need !
Originally posted by stammerHmm, quick question: how do you get to vote in these primaries? Presumably being registered as a Democrat or Republican isn't the same as being a party member (or is it?). Do people have to pro-actively register themselves, or is your political affiliation something you're asked as standard?
As a moderate Democrat who doesn't get to vote with any significance in the primary (my state is so far down the line we don't matter until the general), I'm personally disappointed with what is shaping up to be the Democratic ticket.
It seems to me the Dems are handing the Republicans the election. The only thing Kerry has come up with is that he wa ...[text shortened]... in the race to be named to the ticket, perhpas a John Corzine-type (bot not from the Northeast.)
I'm interested because in Britain a relatively small proportion of people are members of political parties, and those that aren't don't have any official party affiliation at all.
Quick comment on the British Labour party by the way. I see your point about organisation, but the fact is that a great many former party supporters (including myself) feel gravely let down by what we see as Blair's right wing agenda. I'm voting Lib Dem at the next election, even though they have no chance of winning.
Rich.
Originally posted by mmanuelI think it's quite cool that our Deputy PM is an-boxer prone to the odd scrap and sneaky V-sign. Makes you think, God if he can do it, is there anyone who can't?
If Blair resigns, or is forced to resign, we'll have John Prescott in temporoary charge. Now that is a scary thought.... though PMQs would be highly entertaining. i can imagine John leaping over the dispatch box, getting Michael Howard in ...[text shortened]... han debates about WMDs, top-up fees etc... Bring on Johnny
Mark
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoeyOur system works as such:
Hmm, quick question: how do you get to vote in these primaries? Presumably being registered as a Democrat or Republican isn't the same as being a party member (or is it?). Do people have to pro-actively register themselves, or is your political affiliation something you're asked as standard?
I'm interested because in Britain a relatively small proport ...[text shortened]... I'm voting Lib Dem at the next election, even though they have no chance of winning.
Rich.
When one registers to vote, they list a political party. This can include any party (including independant), although a high majority are Democrat and Republican.
The states then hold primaries throughout the spring. The dates are determined state-by-state usually with a focus on what the impact is for local government. Iowa and New Hampshire have theirs early specifically for presidential campaign reasons, but for the most part the date is determined with consideration to the state and local government.
The primary is similar to your party elections (at least as I understand it.) Only party members can vote in their election. I believe New Hampshire allows last-minute affiliation switches, but even in that case if you choose to vote in the Republican party you cannot vote in the Democratic one.
Here, a majority of Americans are Republican or Democrat. They'll vote in the primary and still feel willing to vote for either party in the general election. So party affiliation may not carry the weight it does over in your country, especially since the local election does not carry national implications (PM vs. Prez - we can vote for a Republican for congress but Dem for President, allowing for a split that does not happen in Britain.)
Regarding Blair, how is his agenda "right wing"? I am confused - what I see over here is a progressive leader who is trying to do so but utilizing conservative (or in your term right wing) economic means of doing so. Reforms and a smaller government does allow for better services. I see the firefighters union is ready to shift support because they have not received pay raises - a valid argument from their point but considering the priority he has put on education and health services, not everyone is going to make out great with the increased investment without significant raising of taxes, which constrains the economy and ergo hands the conservatives the reigns of power.
Blair has invested heavily in education and a strong NHS, something which are quite left wing. Same with his viewpoint with Europe. He has a deficit that he needs to control, which is why the government has to (and rightfully so) move towards more efficient funding methods (see: university tuition.)
I see Blair as a model leader for the modern progressive movement - one who aims hard at attacking progressive issues but doing so in a fiscally responsible manner. When that is done the right wing has no chance of arguing against the left.
I'm confused as to where he has let progressives down in Britain.