winning recipe for Bush: add a dollop of New York street fighter...

6.15.04 | Mia T

[Mudboy Slim]

"Another Rudi-Hillary match up would be fun to contemplate."

When was the first?! We need RudyG to whup the HildaBeast's arse in the 2006 Senatorial tilt...if he wins that, he'll improve his Presidential aspirations immensely.

FReegards...MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

"If it could be shown that Russ' numbers are predictive to a certainty, would you favor the switch?"

That's a trick question, as yer asking me to say it's alright to sacrifice four years to get a "clean, unannointed candidate" in 2008. I honestly do not believe that winning and having Cheney on the ticket are mutually-exclusive. Come November, I realisticly expect Bush/Cheney to bring in AT LEAST 75% of the Electoral Votes...to say we've only got a 1 in 4 chance of winning with Cheney on the ticket is ludicrous to me.

FReegards...MUD

[Antoninus]

Bush isn't going to drop Cheney. Besides, Rudy is real squishy on social issues.

Squishy is just a nice way of saying "dead wrong."

[nopardons]

After all this time,we finally have reached a complete parting of the ways,Mia.Cheney can NOT be cut loose from the ticket! And Rudy as V.P.,though I like a lot of what he did for N.Y.C.,would make a Kerry win a certitude.He's just the wrong man for V.P. and I highly doubt that he'd even take it.He wants to be Governor of N.Y. or president.

[Mia T]

I knew I was being controversial. ;)

I like Cheney very much, but I maintain that his presence on the ticket is a net loss... The reasons why Cheney on the ticket weakens the Republican position, both in 04 and 08, are obvious.

One possible compromise: The Bush 2000 veep headhunter removing himself if he determines that he is a drag on the ticket would have a certain symmetry.

[nopardons]

I'm really not certain why you have taken this position,but I really DO believe you're 100% incorrect.Cheney is NOT a drag on the '04 ticket,though of course,that does leave a huge hole for '08,since Cheney will not be running for president then.

While Rudy made a name as THE COUNTRY'S MAYOR, for his bravery and calm and steady hand on 9/11 and beyond,he has far too much baggage otherwise.His "broken windows" policies were fantastic,but his sidewalk gates and NO CROSS streets,STINK! And then there are his moderate stances,which either flummox or infuriate some Conservatives all over the nation.He wants to be governor and N.Y. stated needs him in that position.Maybe he will be able to reign in Albany;GOD knows that place needs someone to do it.:-)

[jla]

All academic because the ticket is, and will be, BUSH/CHENEY.
I don't understand, Mia, your motivation for suggesting something that will not occur. Wouldn't it be more advantageous for our side to dwell and improve on who we will be putting up against the Dems next November?

And I certainly wouldn't put Rudy G. on the ticket. He is unqualified to lead the Party of Reagan.

[Mia T]

The left has successfully demagogued, marginalized and Halliburtonized Cheney. But I hasten to add that the Bush camp, by keeping Cheney effectively muzzled and hogtied for four years, has done its best to assist the Left in its effort.

One of the failures of Bush--and it may prove to be his fatal failure--is his failure to communicate. The Bush Doctrine is correct, courageous, even brilliant, but Bush never sold it to America. The Bush economic strategy is successful, but Bush doesn't adequately inform America of its success. Bush's rhetorical inadequacy leaves an informational vacuum in the electorate that the Left solicitously fills with its lies.

Cheney could have been the voice of the administration. He speaks lucidly and convincingly, but is rarely allowed to speak. Why is that? The fear, I suppose, is that if Cheney took on that role, it would confirm the Left's claim, which is that he is the one actually running the place.

And so we have one man who cannot communicate his brilliant, courageous policy, and another, who dares not communicate it. This is not a good team. It is a recipe for electoral disaster.

And by the way, the Bush ad, "pessimism never created a job" exemplifies this rhetorical lameness. The message is much too oblique, too soft. What they mean to say, I think, is that Kerry is talking down the economy (and the war) and imperiling us all.

It's time to stop pulling the punches and start telling it like it is. Giuliani would do that.

[jla]

Put someone like Rudy G. on the ticket and the Dems will be making Inaugural Ball reservations.
The G.O.P. will not win a Presidential election without the support of the Christian Right.

[nopardons]

V.P.s are almost NEVER seen,let alone heard from.

Yes, President Bush and his team haven't done and really don't do a good job of " selling". WHERE IS LEE ATWATER WHEN ONE REALLY NEEDS HIM?

The left demonize ALL GOPers,so their tarring Cheney with Halliburton is really no biggie.Why? Because they do it so heavy handedly, that the majority of the great unwashed haven't a clue as to what they're talking about.And as far as Cheney's being the "real" power behind the throne,that too only resonates with the kooks;both on the left and the right.

Sooooooooooo,what would Rudy bring to the ticket? A voice for the administration? No,he'd be labeled as the "new puppet master" and worse.Many people would see the change as something sinister,not to mention the fact that a lot of FREEPERS hate Rudy,because he isn't a Conservative and some here are such regionalists,that a Northerner,any Northerner,is viewed as the anti-Christ.

Cheney will do superlatively well in the debates;so will the president and most people won't even begin to pay attention,until after Labor Day.

Giulliani should replace Tennet.

[MeekOneGOP]

Bush-Cheney 2004

Jeb Bush-?? 2008

[txrangerette]

Jeb is tops, but many FReepers
just say oh, no, not another Bush.

[cyn]

Thanks the ping, Mia. Interesting post, hehe!

Rush discussed this in the little bit I caught today -- a caller also wanted Bush meet the naysayers head on, not ignore or avoid challenges and misstatements by the left. We've certainly been burned by "nice" Republican candidates. That's why we loved Ronald Reagan, the great communicator, who was not afraid to call evil and wrong when he saw it.

Observation: when the Bush/Cheney train came through liberal NE Ohio a few years back, the crowd was as excited to see, hoot, and holler for Cheney as it was for Bush; this was confirmed in conversations.

[cyn]

clarifation of the obvious: the crowd was composed of conservatives who were so appreciative of that breath of fresh air coming through! Lemme tell you, we were in pain . . . ouch, local talk radio was insufferable!

Thank God for Quinn and Rose out of Pittsburgh.

WARROOM.COM BUMP!!!

[cyn]

"Quinn and Rose are now syndicated! Quinn and Rose have moved to a secure location, somewhere in the heartland of America -- just down the hall from Dick Cheney. But, don't despair. You can now hear them on the following stations. . ."

Check this out, ask for it to air in your area. It's a lifeline to sanity and common sense for those in liberal strongholds.

[Mia T]

That is great news about Quinn.
I had never heard of Quinn or the warroom.com until I was surprised by this:

HEAR Free Republic clintoncorruption Essay Read on Pittsburgh Radio Show + Screeching-hillary Segue
QUINN IN THE MORNING ("Reverse Gorelick" ESSAY DISCUSSED)
(MP3, REAL, WINDOWS MEDIA, WINAMP)

 

 

So what does this--Reverse Gorelick-- have to do with Kerry, anyway?

John Kerry has made it clear that he is picking up the clinton torch. Unlike Gore,

Does ANYBODY support John Kerry?
 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

• Kerry is running as clinton's natural heir.
• Kerry huddles with clinton every ten days (source: hog-and-bow-tied Leftie reporters renting their Kerry inauguration tuxs last night on Charlie Rose),
• Kerry advisers are the white, gray-haired clinton guys,
• Kerry invokes clinton policy, clinton 'achievement;'
• Kerry is no less ruthless and opportunistic than clinton, no less clueless in a provincial sort of way (Beacon Hill v. Hot Springs notwithstanding), no less inclined toward willful, methodical malpractice and malfeasance, no less dangerous....

  The Gorelick Wall was the underlying rationale for--The Gorelick Wall was (insofar as '60s liberalism was the Wall's apparent impetus) a cynical cover for --the willful, methodical malpractice and malfeasance that was the product of the virulent clinton strain of rampant '60s liberalism.

 

CLINTON TREASON + THE GORELICK WALL

by Mia T, 5.5.04

This story merits its own book, but what deserves immediate comment is the willingness of the Clintons to risk everything to keep the cash pipeline open. Schwartz kept it open and full. Before he was through, Schwartz and Loral would donate roughly $2 million to the Clinton cause. Whether Schwartz gave additional money or favors off the books is a question that deserves asking.

A second question that deserves asking is just how much damage Schwartz, Berger and the Clintons did to America's national security.

A third question worth asking is whether Ron Brown's very real threats to expose these machinations led to his death.

Some dare call it treason:
Jack Cashill reveals how Clinton sold America's security to China
WorldNetDaily.com| Wednesday, May 5, 2004 | Jack Cashill

Reverse Gorelick

by Mia T, 4.15.04
QUINN IN THE MORNING (("Reverse Gorelick" ESSAY DISCUSSED)
(MP3, REAL, WINDOWS MEDIA, WINAMP)

e would have it backwards and miss the point entirely if we were to attribute The Gorelick Wall and the attendant metastasis of al Qaeda during the clintons' watch, (which, incidentally, was then in its incipient stage and stoppable), to the '60s liberal mindset.

Rampant '60s liberalism was not the underlying rationale for The Gorelick Wall.

Rather, The Gorelick Wall was the underlying rationale for--The Gorelick Wall was (insofar as '60s liberalism was the Wall's apparent impetus) a cynical cover for --the willful, methodical malpractice and malfeasance that was the product of the virulent clinton strain of rampant '60s liberalism.

While it is true that The Gorelick Wall was the convenient device of a cowardly self-serving president, The Wall's aiding and abetting of al Qaeda was largely incidental, (the pervasiveness of the clintons' Nobel-Peace-Prize calculus notwithstanding).

The Wall was engineered primarily to protect a corrupt self-serving president. The metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 were simply the cost of doing business, clinton-style.

Further confirmation of the Wall-as-cover-for-clinton-corruption thesis:

• Gorelick's failure to disclose the fact that she authored the memo that was the efficient cause of 911
• Gorelick's surreal presence on the 911 commission investigating Gorelick's Justice Department, a maneuver that effectively removes from the universe of witnesses a central witness, Gorelick, even as it uniquely positions a central player, Gorelick, to directly shape the commission's conclusions. (Is there any question which two people are responsible for Gorelick's insertion on the commission?)

Conversely, that it never occurred to anyone on the commission that Gorelick's flagrant conflict of interest renders her presence on the commission beyond farce calls into question the commission's judgment if not its integrity. Washington's mutual protection racket writ large, I suspect.

The Gorelick Wall is consistent with, and an international extension of, two essential acts committed in tandem, Filegate, the simultaneous empowering of the clintons and disemboweling of clinton adversaries, and the clinton Putsch, the firing and replacement of every U.S. attorney extant.

Filegate and the clinton Putsch,
committed in tandem,
the product of a careful criminal calculus,
at once empowered clinton
and disemboweled his opponents.
clinton was now free to betray with abandon
not only our trust,
but the Constitution as well.

The Common Man
Mia T
February, 1998

Allegations of international clinton crimes swirling around the White House in 1995 and beyond support The-Wall-as-cover-for-international-clinton-crimes thesis.

Once the clintons' own U.S. attorneys were in place, once the opposition was disemboweled by the knowledge that their raw FBI files had been in the possession of the clintons, once domestic law enforcement was effectively blinded to foreign data by Gorelick's Wall, the clintons were free to methodically and seditiously and with impunity auction off America's security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com
http://virtualhillary.blogspot.com
http://virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
http://www.hillarytalks.us
http://www.hillarytalks.org
fiendsofhillary.blogspot.com
fiendsofhillary.us
fiendsofhillary.org
fraudsofhillary.com

Newly released Justice Department memos show that September 11 panel commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick was more intimately involved than previously thought with hampering communications between U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies fighting terrorism.

As the No. 2 person in the Clinton Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick rejected advice from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who warned against placing more limits on communications between law-enforcement officials and prosecutors pursuing counterterrorism cases, according to several internal documents written in summer 1995.

"It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote Ms. Gorelick six years before the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.

"Our experience has been that the FBI labels of an investigation as intelligence or law enforcement can be quite arbitrary, depending upon the personnel involved and that the most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating," she wrote.

The documents -- released yesterday by the Justice Department at the request of two Senate Republicans -- drew renewed calls for Ms. Gorelick to testify publicly before the September 11 commission about the so-called "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence agencies that many have blamed for allowing the 2001 terrorist attacks to occur.

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said yesterday that Ms. Gorelick's policies regarding the wall contributed to "blinding America to this terrible threat."

Also, he said, the newly released memos raised apparent conflicts with statements Ms. Gorelick has made recently defending herself and her role in the Clinton Justice Department.

"These documents show what we've said all along: Commissioner Gorelick has special knowledge of the facts and circumstances leading up to the erection and buttressing of 'that wall' that, before the enactment of the Patriot Act, was the primary obstacle to the sharing of communications between law enforcement and intelligence agencies," Mr. Cornyn said.

In a June 19, 1995, memo, Ms. White recommended a series of changes to a Gorelick policy that went beyond legal requirements in separating law- enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Memos show Gorelick involvement in 'wall'
Charles Hurt and Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 29, 2004

The Mary Jo White Memo:
Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance

by Mia T, 4.30.04

 

ary Jo White's memo is documentation of the clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance.

White's 1995 memo effectively put the clinton-Gorelick cabal on contemporaneous notice that Gorelick's Wall was placing America at grave risk from terrorism.

The memo explicitly warned that the protective wall the clintons and Gorelick were busy erecting (doubtless to blind domestic law enforcement to the clintons' illegal foreign schemes) would (also) blind domestic law enforcement to terrorist plots foreign and domestic.

From this it follows that Gorelick's Wall was not the clintons' and Gorelick's simple (albeit monumental) blunder.

Rather, Gorelick's Wall was no less than the clintons' and Gorelick's malfeasance--willful, self-serving and seditious--with the metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 the sorry endpoint.

NOTE: Bin Laden declared war on America throughout the clintons' watch. Had the clintons understood that this was war, not crime, that a terrorist war requires only one consenting player, Gorelick's Wall would be just another clintoncorruption footnote.

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

MORE

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

It is critical to understand that this same terrorism-is-crime-not-war flawed, dangerous thinking animates John Kerry, and the left, generally.

A post-9/11 America must never again put these dangerous pre-9/11 dinosaurs in any positions of leadership. To do so would be to place at grave risk no less than our very existence.

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

Bored Certified
NEW virtual john kerry can bore + snowboard at the same time series

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

copyright Mia T 2004

[MeekOneGOP]

..... many FReepers just say oh, no, not another Bush DemocRAT.

[Mia T]

Bush and Cheney must take the offensive, and take it soon. They must start COMMUNICATING.

If they cannot, or will not, do so, they had better get someone who will.

As for the Christian Right, I refuse to believe they don't see the bigger picture. This election transcends any one group. For heaven's sake, it's about our survival.

[Jim Noble]

It just represents my opinion (hopefully, wrong) that a Bush/Gulliani ticket would be stronger than Bush/Cheney. As a Republican I want the strongest ticket up against the Deomocrats. This is one election that who the vice-presidential candidate is will make a difference.

FReepers engage reality BUMP!

[Mia T]

Bush's speeches are almost always eloquent, beautiful and forceful. And I don't minimize this. They reflect a president with a certain seriousness, taste and intelligence. (clinton's speeches, by contrast, were real snoozers, cloyingly self-reflective, rambling and banal.)

OTOH, because the informal, extemporaneous venue is not Bush's strong suit, Bush loses at least half of his bully pulpit before he even starts.

But my comments about the Bush failure to communicate goes beyond Bush, himself.

As far as I can tell, Bush has no 'rapid response team.' Rather than instantly refuting the Left's demagoguery, the Bush camp allows The Big Lie to take root, (a speedy process in this shallow sound-bite culture), to acquire a certain measure of credibility.

I sense that the Bushies naively believe because the truth is on their side, a robust, rapid response is unnecessary. One would have expected their current PR and electoral problems to have disabused them of this silly notion by now.