The upcoming US presidential election
Posted by: ErikL on 04 February 2004
Welcome are voices from all corners of the globe and all political beliefs.
Posted on: 07 April 2004 by Justin
Just last week on CNN McCain told Wolf Blitzer than he "supports George Bush for President and Richard Cheney for Vice President". How does he get out of that?
Judd
Judd
Posted on: 07 April 2004 by Rasher
I apologise for being off topic, but I think Condoleezza Rice may be your first woman pres in years to come. First woman & first black all in one bundle.
Posted on: 08 April 2004 by matthewr
Posted on: 08 April 2004 by ErikL
Rasher, while Dr. Rice is bright and articulate, she's also unprofessional and loyal to a fault (today's hearing being a perfect example). And she's not black- that's airbrushing by the White House staff.
I have no respect for her. That is, the rest of the country probably loves her and you're probably right.
I have no respect for her. That is, the rest of the country probably loves her and you're probably right.
Posted on: 08 April 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by alexgerrard:quote:
I also believe the 9/11 commission is going to torch Bush and company in their final report (despite the administration pointing at Tenet).
Will this be allowed to happen? Won't it just be a whitewash?
ag
Does the administration have any control over the contents of the report? The two bodies have been bashing heads with each other for months now. I don't see enough "control" over the process by Bush and Co. to impune the results, at least not for that reason alone. Whether internal partison influence will whitewash the report, I have't any clue.
Judd
Posted on: 08 April 2004 by ejl
quote:
Won't it just be a whitewash?
Alex, it won't necessarily be a whitewash. There's a reasonable presumption that the comission is independent. I think one fear the Bush admin has is that the comission could accuse them of having been overly focused pre-9/11 on finding terrorist links to Iraq, thereby ignoring the real terrorist dangers. Right now such an accusation would look very bad.
Rasher,
Although Rice may have a solid political career ahead of her, I think a presidential run is out of the question, at least in the near term. It's not so much that she's a black woman (although that would hurt her among some core Republican constituents), it's that she's too academic and intellectual. Rice is a former Stanford provost and exhibits the distate for populist politics that you'd expect from such a person. A serious presidential candidate needs to be able to drink beer and talk baseball with the northern union workers, shoot rifles and wrestle pigs with the southern rednecks, etc. Rice may be a viable VP candidate at some point, however.
Speaking of which, a radio commentator made a point this morning that I've also thought: Cheney is a serious liability to Bush in this election, owing to the various scandal accusations against him and his very low popularity rating among most voters. It's going to be interesting to see if Bush has the initiative and guts to ditch his best pal. The initiative to remove Cheney from the ticket will have to come from Bush, because I doubt anyone in his inner circle feels strong enough to advocate his removal, although Bush Sr. might.
If Bush does make the choice to drop Cheney, the whole thing can be orchestrated to look like it was Cheney's decision not to be on the ticket (for health reasons). Bush could then play a potential trump card by then choosing a woman or a hispanic as his running mate. An unknown but suitably clean and Republican minority running mate might be especially effective if Kerry choses Edwards (another rich white man like Kerry). If Bush picked a hispanic, he could significantly increase his odds of winning Florida, holding Arizona, and could even make a stab at California.
I bet Kerry is thinking about this possibility, and it may be why he's moving slowly and not advertising his own intentions.
Putting 2 and 2 together here, A Bush/Rice ticket would be a very bold move; and however little some of us think of him, Bush is capable of bold moves at the right time. Bush/Rice would raise big problems for the Dems by potentially splitting their black support in half.
[This message was edited by ejl on Thu 08 April 2004 at 20:44.]
Posted on: 08 April 2004 by ErikL
EJL... I personally question whether the move would split the "black vote" since a) Rice's still a Republican neocon, b) a redneck Texan would still be president, c) Rice exudes "heartless elitist bitch", and d) a lot of black folks see the likes of Rice and Powell as sell-outs not furthering their cause(s).
Alex... Interviews of commission members from both parties on radio and TV lately (mis)lead me to believe that they'll point to the problems regardless of their origins.
Regarding the election, a Summer of sky-high gas prices and extended tours for family members in Iraq should piss a lot of people off. What will be amusing is watching Bush's brigade draft a lot of stupid legislation to try to please independents and his core in any remotely critical state.
Alex... Interviews of commission members from both parties on radio and TV lately (mis)lead me to believe that they'll point to the problems regardless of their origins.
Regarding the election, a Summer of sky-high gas prices and extended tours for family members in Iraq should piss a lot of people off. What will be amusing is watching Bush's brigade draft a lot of stupid legislation to try to please independents and his core in any remotely critical state.
Posted on: 08 April 2004 by Rasher
Ludders - ejl - Interesting!
When I listened to Rice's performance today, I was surprised at her nervousness - You could almost hear her tremble. I was not expecting this, although it must have been very tough and a career deciding moment.
I envy you your political system. Made yourselves and something to be very proud of - whatever the final outcome.
When I listened to Rice's performance today, I was surprised at her nervousness - You could almost hear her tremble. I was not expecting this, although it must have been very tough and a career deciding moment.
I envy you your political system. Made yourselves and something to be very proud of - whatever the final outcome.
Posted on: 08 April 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Rasher:
Ludders - ejl - Interesting!
When I listened to Rice's performance today, I was surprised at her nervousness - You could almost hear her tremble.
This is very interesting. I listened to it on NPR this morning while in the car and I could swear that her voice "trembled" the whole time. This was my first reaction to hearing her.
Judd
Posted on: 12 April 2004 by ErikL
I thought this was funny- from an article discussing Bush owing the public an explanation for his handling of Iraq and pre-9/11 intelligence:
"I find myself looking around for the man who brought us there, George W. Bush. Doesn't he have some explaining to do?
What do you know, he's skipped town.
Yes, he's taken another unearned vacation down in Texas. President Bush chalked up his 500th vacation day this past weekend, even as the 455th U.S. soldier fell in combat. (Overall, 728 "coalition" soldiers, including 58 British, have died so far in this war zone. So have somewhere from 8,800 to 10,000 Iraqis, according to iraqbodycount.org.)
And yet the president who authored this disaster is taking it manfully in stride. As The Washington Post reported, "This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office ... Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency."
Bush can also proudly claim the longest presidential vacation in 32 years -- a month-long siesta in August 2001.
Come to think of it, those days of languid leisure coincided with the presidential intelligence briefing document of August 6, 2001 -- the one he apparently ignored, no doubt bored by its title: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.""
"I find myself looking around for the man who brought us there, George W. Bush. Doesn't he have some explaining to do?
What do you know, he's skipped town.
Yes, he's taken another unearned vacation down in Texas. President Bush chalked up his 500th vacation day this past weekend, even as the 455th U.S. soldier fell in combat. (Overall, 728 "coalition" soldiers, including 58 British, have died so far in this war zone. So have somewhere from 8,800 to 10,000 Iraqis, according to iraqbodycount.org.)
And yet the president who authored this disaster is taking it manfully in stride. As The Washington Post reported, "This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office ... Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency."
Bush can also proudly claim the longest presidential vacation in 32 years -- a month-long siesta in August 2001.
Come to think of it, those days of languid leisure coincided with the presidential intelligence briefing document of August 6, 2001 -- the one he apparently ignored, no doubt bored by its title: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.""
Posted on: 12 April 2004 by ErikL
Judd, ejl, etc...
There was an interesting article in yesterday's NY Times discussing the "myths and mysteries" of choosing a VP. Check it out- http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/weekinreview/11gree.html
There was an interesting article in yesterday's NY Times discussing the "myths and mysteries" of choosing a VP. Check it out- http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/weekinreview/11gree.html
Posted on: 03 May 2004 by ErikL
Is that personality-deficient bore* John Kerry still alive? Things seem quiet. All I've heard lately is that Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett are his economic advisors.
* He's dull as a door knob and hasn't articulated his vision yet. Still he gets my vote. Hell, Mike Tyson would get my vote over Dubya.
* He's dull as a door knob and hasn't articulated his vision yet. Still he gets my vote. Hell, Mike Tyson would get my vote over Dubya.
Posted on: 03 May 2004 by Justin
I haven't heard a god damned thing from him in several weeks even though I know he is out there. This is part of his problem. Why isn't he on TV more. I see Bush ads all over the place, but nothing from Kerry.
I'm voting for Kerry no matter what as well. The more and more I learn about this administration the more I realize it is the filthiest administration we have ever had.
And why the fuck hasn't Bill Clinton come out to raise money for Kerry? What exactly is going on there? Is he just waiting for the book?
Judd
I'm voting for Kerry no matter what as well. The more and more I learn about this administration the more I realize it is the filthiest administration we have ever had.
And why the fuck hasn't Bill Clinton come out to raise money for Kerry? What exactly is going on there? Is he just waiting for the book?
Judd
Posted on: 04 May 2004 by ErikL
quote:
Originally posted by Julian2002:
who cares, after the dust settles there'll still be an american in the whitehouse which is bad news for the rest of the world.
cheers
Wanker.
Posted on: 04 May 2004 by ErikL
Perhaps, but you could shoot your eye out.
Posted on: 04 May 2004 by John K R
On 60 Minutes Sunday night, Bob Woodward reported to Mike Wallace that his new book contains an account of Saudi Arabian Ambassador, Prince Bandar, promising Bush that he would win the election because Saudi Arabia would manipulate the oil prices prior to the election to help strengthen the Bush economy. Saudi Arabia has had long-time personal business arrangements with the Bush family.
"Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election - to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.
"Woodward says that Bandar understood that economic conditions were key before a presidential election: Theyre [oil prices] high. And they could go down very quickly. That's the Saudi pledge. Certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly."
Its not what you know........
John.
PS. perhaps Heinz will drop baked bean prices?
[This message was edited by John K R on Tue 04 May 2004 at 21:39.]
"Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election - to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.
"Woodward says that Bandar understood that economic conditions were key before a presidential election: Theyre [oil prices] high. And they could go down very quickly. That's the Saudi pledge. Certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly."
Its not what you know........
John.
PS. perhaps Heinz will drop baked bean prices?
[This message was edited by John K R on Tue 04 May 2004 at 21:39.]
Posted on: 04 May 2004 by Justin
Does heinz make baked beans? Is that one of the 57 varieties?
Judd
Judd
Posted on: 04 May 2004 by Bhoyo
quote:
Originally posted by Ludwig:
Wanker.
Don't you just LOVE people like Jillian who think they're clever but are, in fact, semi-literate buffoons?
Davie
Posted on: 05 May 2004 by Emil
quote:
And why the fuck hasn't Bill Clinton come out to raise money for Kerry? What exactly is going on there? Is he just waiting for the book?
because Hillary has him by the short hairs?
Do you think Hillary wants to wait 8 years to be President?
I voted for Bill twice but couldnt pull the lever for Hillary.
I would bet Bills book will come out very close to the Dem convention taking the limelight from Kerry and placing it on the self-absorbed Clintons.
Posted on: 07 May 2004 by ejl
Today's unexpectedly good job numbers pose an immediate problem for Kerry, and reveal that the Bush campaign may have just boxed him into a corner.
Kerry's big focus on job losses obviously now risks becoming a non-issue. Although net job loss during the Bush admin. has still been enormous, not many people are likely to care if things continue improving.
Meanwhile, Bush is equally obviously vulnerable on the war. But Kerry has not hit on the war anywhere near as hard as he could have. Behind this reticence is the usual Democratic fear of appearing weak on defense (a fear which rarely helps them, I might add).
Kerry needs to start hitting the war issue harder, but in doing so he's going to have to switch focus -- which risks reinforcing exactly the "inconsistent focus" problem that the Bush campaign has accused him of. Their early message of Kerry being inconsistent in his focus suddenly looks strategically well-conceived; perhaps the Bushies were anticipating that just this kind of situation would develop.
Kerry's big focus on job losses obviously now risks becoming a non-issue. Although net job loss during the Bush admin. has still been enormous, not many people are likely to care if things continue improving.
Meanwhile, Bush is equally obviously vulnerable on the war. But Kerry has not hit on the war anywhere near as hard as he could have. Behind this reticence is the usual Democratic fear of appearing weak on defense (a fear which rarely helps them, I might add).
Kerry needs to start hitting the war issue harder, but in doing so he's going to have to switch focus -- which risks reinforcing exactly the "inconsistent focus" problem that the Bush campaign has accused him of. Their early message of Kerry being inconsistent in his focus suddenly looks strategically well-conceived; perhaps the Bushies were anticipating that just this kind of situation would develop.
Posted on: 07 May 2004 by Emil
quote:
Today's unexpectedly good job numbers pose an immediate problem for Kerry,
maybe for him, but not for America
Posted on: 07 May 2004 by Justin
Yes yes,
But I have never believed this sort of conspiracy theory, not least for which because people like Rush Limbaugh propound it.
I am one of those millions who care very little about who is in the whitehouse as long as it is not a Bush. And four years ago i would NOT have punched the hole for Hillary. But now I would vote for her in a second. Hell, maybe she can turn this shitbag around. Who knows. Today, I'd be GLAD to vote for her - but she did not run. Nobody who dislikes Bush could dislike him less than Hillary - could they?
On the campaign, I think the jobs issue is going to make things difficult for Kerry. I agree he needs to hit the war harder. But he should also consider going after the general "sleaziness" of the administration in general. Look at the Medicare Bill, for instance. The Republican behavio in this instance makes me sick to my stomach. Kerry needs to fina way to tap into the 4% who are going to vote for Nader.
I got the impression from The Russert interview with Nader that if it looked like the vote was going to be close, Nader would hand his votes to Kerry. I hope this is true -but how many would comply?
In the end, I have a profound fear that Jeb will be put up for 2008, and if the economy is back on track (and we are no longer in Iraq) Hillary will not have a shot and we will be Bushed until 2016. Now THAT is scary.
Judd
But I have never believed this sort of conspiracy theory, not least for which because people like Rush Limbaugh propound it.
I am one of those millions who care very little about who is in the whitehouse as long as it is not a Bush. And four years ago i would NOT have punched the hole for Hillary. But now I would vote for her in a second. Hell, maybe she can turn this shitbag around. Who knows. Today, I'd be GLAD to vote for her - but she did not run. Nobody who dislikes Bush could dislike him less than Hillary - could they?
On the campaign, I think the jobs issue is going to make things difficult for Kerry. I agree he needs to hit the war harder. But he should also consider going after the general "sleaziness" of the administration in general. Look at the Medicare Bill, for instance. The Republican behavio in this instance makes me sick to my stomach. Kerry needs to fina way to tap into the 4% who are going to vote for Nader.
I got the impression from The Russert interview with Nader that if it looked like the vote was going to be close, Nader would hand his votes to Kerry. I hope this is true -but how many would comply?
In the end, I have a profound fear that Jeb will be put up for 2008, and if the economy is back on track (and we are no longer in Iraq) Hillary will not have a shot and we will be Bushed until 2016. Now THAT is scary.
Judd
quote:
Originally posted by Emil:quote:
And why the fuck hasn't Bill Clinton come out to raise money for Kerry? What exactly is going on there? Is he just waiting for the book?
because Hillary has him by the short hairs?
Do you think Hillary wants to wait 8 years to be President?
I voted for Bill twice but couldnt pull the lever for Hillary.
I would bet Bills book will come out very close to the Dem convention taking the limelight from Kerry and placing it on the self-absorbed Clintons.
Posted on: 07 July 2004 by ErikL
So now we have an official race. I can't wait to see Edwards debate that sneering prick Cheney, and likewise Kerry versus Dumbya.
I like what Bill Clinton keeps saying in interviews when asked about the Bush administration and why the world hates the US more than ever. Something like: All before them cooperated (with the world community) when they could, and acted unilaterally only when they had to. Bush and company act unilaterally because they can, and cooperate only when they have to.
Well said.
I like what Bill Clinton keeps saying in interviews when asked about the Bush administration and why the world hates the US more than ever. Something like: All before them cooperated (with the world community) when they could, and acted unilaterally only when they had to. Bush and company act unilaterally because they can, and cooperate only when they have to.
Well said.
Posted on: 07 July 2004 by bhazen
THE GOOD NEWS
Unlike many on here, I'm a conservative (of the old school...y'know, Eisenhower, Goldwater, W.F. Buckley) and generally go for stuff that's worked in the past (I like watching WWII movies, 'cos I know how they turn out)...I think the Victorians were cool, they insisted on good public behaviour (while having it off like mad in private! THAT'S Conservative!) ...and I can't help thinking I'm not the only suburban Boomer white guy who'll be voting for Kerry. Because Bush et. al. are no conservatives; they're frightening radicals who want to remake the world as an American Empire. Empires fall. End of story; don't want my retirement funds going up in the smoke of a cratered world economy if the Middle East completely explodes. So...there may be an electoral backlash from a surprising demographic.
THE BAD NEWS
My Liberal friends, who are lackadaisical about voting in the best of times (Republicans march to the polls like regular church-goin' folks), are getting very smug about Kerry's chances in the election; there's the Diebold issue, and Bush's powder is very dry still (+$200m still to spend). Kerry looks like a deer in the middle of the road (clever, that!) who doesn't know a semi is coming at 'im from just around the bend. Every xenophobic, irrevelant cliche will be trotted out to get him (he speaks French you know!) and the US public, who get what little current events they do pay any attention to from TV, will buy the line from Rove & co... Sorry, but there's your outcome...Let me say again, before the napalm comes out, that I'm voting for Kerry/Edwards, and doing it absentee, so there's a paper record.
I so much prefer discussing the subtle greatness of my CD5i/62/FC2/90/M12.2 combo...
[the real good news...I've never been right about how a presidential election will turn out!]
[This message was edited by bhazen on Thu 08 July 2004 at 8:05.]
Unlike many on here, I'm a conservative (of the old school...y'know, Eisenhower, Goldwater, W.F. Buckley) and generally go for stuff that's worked in the past (I like watching WWII movies, 'cos I know how they turn out)...I think the Victorians were cool, they insisted on good public behaviour (while having it off like mad in private! THAT'S Conservative!) ...and I can't help thinking I'm not the only suburban Boomer white guy who'll be voting for Kerry. Because Bush et. al. are no conservatives; they're frightening radicals who want to remake the world as an American Empire. Empires fall. End of story; don't want my retirement funds going up in the smoke of a cratered world economy if the Middle East completely explodes. So...there may be an electoral backlash from a surprising demographic.
THE BAD NEWS
My Liberal friends, who are lackadaisical about voting in the best of times (Republicans march to the polls like regular church-goin' folks), are getting very smug about Kerry's chances in the election; there's the Diebold issue, and Bush's powder is very dry still (+$200m still to spend). Kerry looks like a deer in the middle of the road (clever, that!) who doesn't know a semi is coming at 'im from just around the bend. Every xenophobic, irrevelant cliche will be trotted out to get him (he speaks French you know!) and the US public, who get what little current events they do pay any attention to from TV, will buy the line from Rove & co... Sorry, but there's your outcome...Let me say again, before the napalm comes out, that I'm voting for Kerry/Edwards, and doing it absentee, so there's a paper record.
I so much prefer discussing the subtle greatness of my CD5i/62/FC2/90/M12.2 combo...
[the real good news...I've never been right about how a presidential election will turn out!]
[This message was edited by bhazen on Thu 08 July 2004 at 8:05.]
Posted on: 09 July 2004 by ejl
In case anyone cares, and apropos of my speculation here three months ago that Bush may have to ditch Cheney:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4799.shtml
Well, we know today that the Senate Committee investigating the CIA was not a whitewash -- thank God. But putting off phase two of the investigation -- the one focused on the White House's role in the faulty case for war -- until after November is obviously Hill politics at its finest (or worst).
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4799.shtml
Well, we know today that the Senate Committee investigating the CIA was not a whitewash -- thank God. But putting off phase two of the investigation -- the one focused on the White House's role in the faulty case for war -- until after November is obviously Hill politics at its finest (or worst).