Democrats versus Republicans

[Sailormann]

This one always makes me chuckle. Before the war the people who were not in favor of the war accused the people who were in favor of the war of trading "blood for oil". Then the war happened and oil has done nothing but go up in price since then, and not in a subtle way, but dramatically. And then the people who were for the war point to this as proof that they never went to war for oil in the first place, and the people who are against the war say some kind of a really funny argument about how .. no, not only did you go to war for oil, but then you screwed that up too! I mean it's like saying that I wasn't true to my wife because I wanted to sleep with yours, but then when it becomes obvious I've stayed true to my wife you accuse me not only of cheating on my wife but also of cheating on yours!! It's a hysterical argument to make!!

And then there's the school of thought that holds that George and Dick went into Iraq precisely because they knew what it would do to the price of oil - which is the source of both of their fortunes...the more it costs, the more they make.

When the dust settles it will be found that both the Bush and the Cheney dynasties will be financially secure fror quite a few generations to come...

[sailaway21]

As if they, or any other seriously wealthy dynasty, would not be regardless of war or no war. To dignify such theories as a "school of thought" stretches the definition of the word "thought" to it's limits and, have not American schools taken enough of a beating without laying this clapdoodle at their doorstep as well?

[camaraderie]

No one is talking about Fred Thompson much here since he hasn't officially announced but I think that when the official announcement comes after Labor Day, he will be the only one that can truly give Rudy a run for the nomination on the Republican side. Why?
1. Rudy has problems with the republican base because of his personal life and stance on abortion and with NY's position on illegal aliens during his tenure. He finds favor only due to his toughness on crime and the "war on terror". Many due not trust him on core issues other than Iraq and consider him a RINO...(republican in name only).
2. Romney has problems because he is a Mormon. I don't understand it in this day and age but a large % of the Republican base simply will not vote for him because of this. He also has done a few flip flops and may be perhaps TOO telegenic and "packaged"...kinda like John Edwards.
3. McCain is OVER. His stance on illegal immigration simply killed his candidacy which was in trouble even before his unfortunate cozying up to TeddyK.
3. The rest of the republican candidates have too little recognition and despite months of campaigning have not made a dent. They are all running for the vice presidential nomination now I think!

So...Thompson has a clear path and a clear conservative record to offer those who would prefer not to nominate Guiliani. His speaking ability and "down home...common man" rhetoric plays well to the TV audience and I think it will be a tight race. On the downside...it appears as if his organization leaves a lot to be desired nd hs wife may not be the best choice to run things.

I do NOT agree with the proposition that we need to be out of Iraq for a Republican to win next fall. I think any Republican candidate will have to DIFFERENTIATE himself from Bush and not just promise more of the same with respect to Iraq. But...with Hillary as the certain nominee for the Dems...and her high negatives AND all the OTHER issues that will be discussed and important...immigration, health care, economy etc....there is plenty of room for well-spoken Republican to inspire us and be elected.

[TSteele65]

Nah, Fred is dead. He's got no money, half his staff has quit, and he pulled less than 2% in Iowa. At this point, it's a race between Giuliani and Romney.

[PBzeer]

As one columnist put it, she sees Thompson as doing a "rope-a-dope" by waiting. Whether intentional, or happenstance, I think that is what is happening. Once summer is over, and people begin paying more attention to what's going on, Fred will come on the scene like a breath of fresh air. The press has already tried to ding him on his wife and sons, but since he wasn't an announced canidate, it didn't get much traction.

I can also see a lot of conservative voters hoping lightning strikes twice with Thompson being an actor with political experience. If he makes a good entrance into the race, I think he'll garner the support of those he needs, staffwise and votewise.

[camaraderie]

Tsteele...I agree with you that Thompson has hurt himself with a bush league campaign org...hence the comments about his wife. He could use a little behind the scenes advice from Rove.
On the other hand...your dismissal of him due to an Iowa straw poll that he chose not to participate in is pretty weak. Even with a screwed up non-campaign he is in a statistical tie with Guiliani (despite losing ground recently) and is way ahead of Romney. Here's the data. Don't be surprised to see him ahead by this time next month once he announces and gets some media coverage.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...olling_history

[sailhog]

Fred Thompson looks a little haggard on television. I heard he survived a recent bout of cancer, and I can't imagine anyone having the stamina to mount a campaign for the WH, and then to actually govern. GW is a vigorous young man, and he's aged twenty years in the past seven.

[TSteele65]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Tsteele...I agree with you that Thompson has hurt himself with a bush league campaign org...hence the comments about his wife. He could use a little behind the scenes advice from Rove.
On the other hand...your dismissal of him due to an Iowa straw poll that he chose not to participate in is pretty weak. Even with a screwed up non-campaign he is in a statistical tie with Guiliani (despite losing ground recently) and is way ahead of Romney. Here's the data. Don't be surprised to see him ahead by this time next month once he announces and gets some media coverage.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...olling_history

Thompson is the "none of the above" candidate in a field of weak candidates. When/if he finally gets in the race, he'll be torn to pieces. His appeal right now is that he isn't Giuliani, McCain or Romney.

[wind_magic]

Guiliani is likeable, and I like a lot of what he says. Good candidate. I know a lot of hard core Republicans don't like him, and for some reason that makes me like him even more haha. And with Guiliani there is a kind of basic feeling of trust, like if you voted for him and he got elected you know what you are getting. Like his soft sell approach to things.

Obama, like the guy, very smart, strong stance on a lot of issues, and has a lot of ideas. Only problem is I don't like most of his ideas, so what at first seems like a great attribute, being able to push forward your ideas and make them a reality, quickly becomes a scary kind of thing where I'm afraid if I helped elect him he'd actually do most of the stuff he's talking about. Wish he believed in more stuff that I believe in, but still at least the smoke and mirrors of his campaign don't totally obscure what seems to be a relatively decent guy.

Clinton, just don't like her. Don't know why, but she kind of freaks me out. Think she's better off just staying on the sidelines with the rest of the ankle biters, because I don't think I've heard her say a single thing that sounded like a plan she came up with to do anything, all she does is piss and moan about everybody elses stuff. I think she'd make a better librarian, she'd probably enjoy looking down her nose and scolding people who returned their library books late. Think she's found her niche as an opposition leader where it's your job to piss and moan about everything, but NOT as a President.

[sailaway21]

Interesting that some would describe the Republican field as "weak". A simple head to head comparison of resumes would show a wealth of experience, much of it executive, displayed by the frontrunners in the Republican primaries versus a combined twelve yearsm of ANY experience between the two leading Democrats.

Does anyone really think that being the First Lady and a term and one half as NYS senator or two thirds of a term as Illinois senator are what we otherwise might call experience?

The Republicans have canidates dropping out who have run the executive of entire states while, the leading Dems have run not so much as a convenience store. While not a Guiliani supporter, I find it difficult to believe that most Americans would not prefer the man who turned NY city around and, for good measure, stood tall during the crisis of 9/11, to a man they'd never heard of four years ago or a demonstrably half-ass attorney.

I don't mind a small wager, now and then. I'm willing to wager that, on January the 20th, 2009 there will not be a sitting Senator talking the oath of office as President. My guiding principle is to never bet against the streak. And there has not been a sitting Senator elected President in almost fifty years, and it was nearly as long before that that one was elected. Apparently, Senators view themselves as much more electable than do the American voter. Americans really like governors; you could look it up.

There are only three serious canidates, with currently sufficient name recognition, to be elected president; they all happen to be Republican. The only minimally qualified Democrats are stuck at the "who's that?" level of support.

It's too early to win an election, but late enough to lose one. I expect a rather boring winter, with a few wrecks on the highway, followed by a raucous new year. I predict a strong push by a third Democrat canidate come the primaries, whom I don't know. But, if a certain Senator from Conneticut were to enter the race I think he'd receive a surprisingly warm welcome. Just a thought.