As we are on the eve of the first caususes and primaries, it appears we are going to have eight candidates enter the process that will decide who will lose to W come November. As a registered Republican who has already made up his mind to vote for Bush in November barring a catastrophic meltdown in his governing abilities or personal morality (ie., he's caught with a dead girl or a live boy as the "October Surprise") I figure I would size up the competition, and pick out the person I would most like to see W run against. Joseph Leiberman- The senior senator from Connecticut has clearly shown himself as the safest, sanest, most rational Democrat in the race. While his steadfast support of affirmative action and gun control give me pause, he is not as rabidly anti-2nd Amendment as his fellow contenders. His fiscal policy is pretty moderate, he supported most, if not all, of the Bush tax cuts. And when it comes to foreign policy, he's downright hawkish; he supported military action in Bosnia, Iraq in 98, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq 2003, and is outspoken in his support of the vigorous prosecution of the War on Terror, his sniping at John Ashcroft aside (which I believe is more out of political necessity). He is against partial birth and late-term abortion, or at least says he is. While he won't be getting my vote, I could sleep at night with a President Joe Leiberman in the White House. Unfortunately, he has no chance of victory now, with the base so stoked with Bush-hate. That large knife Gore put in his back pretty much finished him off. Richard Gephardt- Again, this guy, the House Minority Leader, a rep. from Missouri, is pretty okay. His primary source of backing comes from labor unions though, which doesn't make me feel good. His pathetic tirade against the space programs new Mars initiative in a lame attempt to lampoon Bush was pretty stupid too. But he strikes me as more of a Midwestern Populist than an Urban Socialist. He supported the war in Iraq but is now trying to hide that and is of course, sniping at Bush an awful lot. Where was this in fall of '02? If Gephardt wins Iowa, he's for real. If he doesn't, look for him to fade fast. A Bush/Gephardt battle would also be very dull and anti-climactic, with Bush easily winning. How would I feel about President Gephardt. Less than thrilled, but I'd manage. General Wesley Clark- Loser. The guy has flip-flopped on where he stands so much I don't even know for sure what his concrete issues are. It was in doubt until recently whether or not he was even a registered Democrat. He's for the war, now he's against the war. He loves President Bush and Colin Powell and Condi Rice, now he thinks they are all Nazis or idiots, or both. General, please, pick a platform and stick with it! But check this out; Clark wants to give "Old Europe" the right of first refusal on how to deal with threats to OUR national security! That alone makes me want to not vote for him. Pile on the fact that he is the Clintonista candidate and is supposed to serve merely as a bridge for Hillary into the White House, and he scares me. Domestically, we'd be fine under President Clark. In the foreign policy opinion, if he's serious about this "first refusal" crap, he will go down as the worst appeaser of evil since Neville Chamberlain. No thanks. But Clark could come dangerously close to beating Bush if he is the Last Democrat Standing. Polls show Clark as the most competitive with W. So let's hope that doesn't happen. Clark's strategy: concede Iowa and New Hampshire, then sweep the South. Risky, but it could work. We'll see. John Edwards- Loser. His primary source of campaign funding is trial lawyers. Need I say more? His domestic ideas are nothing too serious, but he wants to repeal to many tax cuts, IMHO, and the gravy train he has planned for trial lawyers would cost taxpayers plenty. Forget any hope of tort reform or serious Medicare/Medicaid/health insurance reform if Edwards is in the White House. Fortunately, that ain't gonna happen. Edwards isn't even a blip on the radar in Iowa and New Hampshire, and is now behind in South Carolina, a state he absolutely must have for any chance at the nomination. Again, not much of a challenger for W; very few potential voters have even heard of him. John "F***in'" Kerry- Loser. Massachusetts junior Senator Kerry has f****ed up way more than Bush ever did. Liberal hawk? Please. He has some credibility on foreign policy issues (ex-Navy SEAL, voted for Iraq Resolution) but has squandered much of that with his childish ranting about Bush. Then he turned on Howard Dean but was unable to weaken him at all. I don't see him as a serious threat, and if by some miracle he wins New Hampshire and goes on to take the nomination, he's toast. Way too left of center and a New Englander for most Midwesterners and Southerners to vote for. Dennis "Mind Control Satellites" Kucinich- Perhaps the biggest loser of them all. Proposed a bill to forbid the Pentagon from developing "mind control weapons," hence the nickname. Wants to create a U.S. Department of Peace (as if the State Dept. isn't doing just fine enough on it's own to follow the proud examples set by Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter), wants to slash the Defense Dept's. budget, wants an unconditional and immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, wants to further damage U.S. sovereignty by signing on to Kyoto Protocol and the ICC, and of course, wants a socialized national health care system and to repeal ALL of the Bush tax cuts. Need more info? Didn't think so. He has no chance to win, but he's entertaining to watch. The Reverend Al Sharpton- Speaking of entertaining to watch, Brother Al sure can milk a crowd. I was surprised Sharpton waited as long as he did to play the race card, but I knew he would eventually. I was just surprised he played it on Howard Dean. Newsflash Al, Vermont is 99.4% white. Not many Cabinet candidates to choose from there. What was Howard supposed to do, import minority Cabinet members? But that's the whole idea. Sharpton is here for one reason and one reason alone; to ensure that this year's delivery of 90%+ of the black vote might actually be repaid with some serious political favors. Unfortunately, this black power nut, and that's all he is, grossly overestimates his own power, like most black power nuts tend to do. While his speeches are fun to listen to, no one is taking him seriously. Now to my horse, none other than Dr. Howard Brush Dean III, former Governor of Vermont. Analysis of his politics is interesting. He has an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association. On his trade stances that we know about, he seems like a protectionist. But his waffling on gay marriage, his outspoken anti-war stance, and his insistence for stepped-up federal spending and authority on everything from health care to education to the environment, and his insistence that all the Bush tax cuts, EVERY LAST ONE, must be repealed just doesn't jibe with current public sentiment. Dean is also not reaching out to conservative Democrats and independents; any partisan hack can get the base stoked up and angry with "Bush=Hitler" rhetoric, but it takes a skilled politician, like Clinton, to take his message out to the public and win over the fence-sitters. Dean is an angry nut, who hyperventilates when confronted with severe problems and shouts down anyone who questions him. His mouth has already gotten him into trouble on several occasions and it's only January. The man absolutely frightens mainstream Democrats, who know he's the kind of guy who, deadlocked with W in the polls, can open his mouth on the last Friday in October and lose an election. And that's why I want him as a candidate. The Democrats must suffer this way, to ensure that the party is, once and for all, purged and purified. If Dean is the nominee, he will be crushed in a landslide similar to the crushing of McGovern in '72 and Mondale in '84. A bad loss in the President's race will translate into similar lack of success in the Congressional elections, driving the party into the political wilderness for at least another for years. Hard leftist ideology will be unequivocally rejected by the American people on all fronts. At that point, the Democrats will have two choices; purge all leftist nuts from the party who push ridiculous ideas like nationalized universal health care and abandoning Israel, and come back to the center and be flag-waiving patriots who enjoy eliminating terrorism (like most normal Americans), or they will cease to exist as a viable political party. Then it we will see the rise of the Libertarians. That would be interesting, especially since most of the GOP has now sold out to the Big Govt./Mommy State mentality. Give me a party that REALLY believes in small, limited govt. and I'll vote for them enthusiastically. But I will vote for Bush in 2004, for no other reason than that I simply don't trust any of the Eight Dwarves, not even Leiberman, to do what it takes to keep Al-Qaeda and the Islamic nutballs pinned down in their spiderholes. And a Dean/Bush race would be very entertaining, if not competitive. The Mad Doctor would be quite a word machine for rightist pundits to lampoon. :cuss: :cuss:
The whole democratic party needs to get a giant clue. They are so far removed from the main stream it's getting comical. I thought Liberman "almost" had a clue, but alas I was wrong, he was just skating to the center to look more conservative. Dubyah will win it again and it won't be even close this time.
yes that was a good post. and it made me think of some interesting thing i heard limbaugh say the other day. the democrats who love the clintons (and thats alot) dont want to win. and they wont. the smart democrat knows they have no real chance to beat bush. and if they did, it would be terrible for hillary, because she wants the presidency in 2008 and wouldnt be able to get it from an incumbent democrat. so this is a big dog and pony show, this whole process. its a lost cause to win the presidency from bush, now they are only deciding which democrat to sacrifice. its like when bob dole ran against clinton, he had zero chance to win. 2008 is when we will see the real fireworks, and it will be all about hillary. in the upcoming election, bush will win against whoever, because whoever it is will be seen as too left wing for america (and especially if it is dean), and then bush serves out his term and the war for 2008 is a massive battle vs super-popular hillary.
Leiberman and Clark really aren't that left-wing, but the base of the party dislikes both of them and sees them just as "Bush-Lite." The Party is no longer in the care of the DLC, it has been hijacked by radical leftists and anarchists who have very little in common, other than they all share a raw, seething hatred of George W. Bush. But "I hate Bush" will not win elections. This is the road Dean is going down, and he is leading the party down the primrose path to November destruction. Maybe most Democrats are mailing this one in believing of Hillary '08, but a lot aren't. And even if they are, they cannot run Dean. A humiliating, crushing defeat in November would force them into the political wilderness for the next 4-6 years. This is good for them long term, it will force them to disassociate with the hard left elements of the party, much the way that the GOP was forced to reign in it's hardest right elements to win in 2000. But short term, it makes America a one-party system. And while that might be good in a lot of ways, I don't like the idea of W and a GOP-controlled Congress feeling no pressure whatsoever to curb federal spending.
i like to bet play money on news and sports and entertainment issues. currently bush for president contracts are selling at 59$ each at newsfutures.com. i bet if i buy now their value will skyrocket if dean is selected by the democrats.
Bush isn't willing to do what it takes to stomp out Islamofascist terrorism either. He--like Clinton, Daddy Bush, and Reagan--coddles the Saudis and isn't serious about cutting off their gravy train by establishing energy independence. No oil $$ for the Saudis=no $$ to fund Wahhabi mosques that brainwash millions of future America-hating terrorists. That's why I like Lieberman and Gephardt. They're imperfect, but at least they're serious about cutting off the Saudi money supply.
I don't like House of Saud either. I sure don't like Wahabbism. I also sure know ethanol is nothing but a payoff to ADM. Come with a legitimate study of what a severe cut-off of oil would do to the US economy and I'll listen. Sierra Club and the ilks opinion mean nothing to me. They have an agenda and are paid off. Something needs to be done. I don't think I've heard a legitimate plan.
As much as I love having Bush in the White House, I shudder at the thought of having a bush in the White house. It's bad enough having one in the Governor's Mansion. (CottonBowel, et.al., feel free to toss the Male Chauvinist Pig card. I richly deserve it and will show it with pride.)
Re: I don't like House of Saud either. Where did I say a cut-off of oil? If we drill in ANWR AND the Eastern Gulf (remember who cut off the latter?) while diversifying our energy sources and being more efficient, we'll be able to put an embargo on Saudi Arabia without causing a shortage. Another 9-11 wouldn't be good for the economy either. Amd as far as interest groups, do you honestly believe the oil companies are in business out of the goodness of their executives' hearts?? They have just as much of an agenda as everyone else.
