 "Do not meddle in |
    |
Posted on 11/09/2003 10:39:19 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
I would loan them all my guns but I fear for the Presidents life.
I support gun control for registered Democrats.
(trying to get this response posted at DU.)
Hillary will be the one to run for the dumberrcats
not james dean the sausage guy
She will run for VICE President:
• She keeps he promise not to run for president in '04
• Two years and one day into her term the first slotter gets arkincided
• Under Article XXII, she can still run for two full terms as the incumbent
• The Hillary!™ Decade begins
• Hillary uses the Patriot Act to it's fullest extent, and beyond
• At the end of the Hillary!™ Decade there is a National Emergency "temporarily" delaying the elections
• Under the pressure of the National Emergency, the 2nd and 22nd amendments are repealed...
"Do not meddle in |
|
You're right, but the media is so enamored of Dean that they'll give him a lot of cover while he proves time and again that he's in way over his head.
The problem with the other candidates is that Dean has sucked up so much of the oxygen that they just aren't strong enough to take him on. He has stumbled somewhat as of late, but he's still running rings around the other candidates in terms of money and media buzz. Kerry especially realizes this, which explains the almost hysterical tone he's taken in attacking Dean.
Kerry CAN still get back into this thing, but he's going to have to win New Hampshire outright to do it. Problem is, he already down by double-digits to Dean, so he has to make up a lot of ground in a small amount of time. Kerry's mulling of skipping public funds (which he has to do now, or he will in effect declare that he's not serious about clsoing with Dean) is his acknowledgement of this.
I think you may be onto something here. McCaulif and the Xlintoons are hopelessly liberal but they're not stupid, on the contrary they're criminal masterminds. If they can pick up a few seats in the senate Bush will not get a single judicial nominee in, they can stall any tax cuts , they can bring any reforms to a halt and Bush and the republicans get all the blame. Remember they count on the ignorance of the average voter. Once things are all mucked up on '08, along comes her highness to the rescue.
The expectations have now changed. The six months ago things are history. Expectations for Dean are now sky high. A win for Gephardt or Kerry would be big now.
In Iowa, Gephardt is ahead, but everyone would expect him to lead there comfortably, thanks to all of his union connections (that's another thing you missed - Dean's pickup of the AFSCME and SEIU endorsements is a huge, probably fatal, blow to Dick Gephardt).
Those are service unions, very different from Gephardt's manufacturing etc. supporters. He didn't get 'em in '88 either. He's never been the leader for their endorsements. Big win for Dean, but not at Dick's expense.
In short, Dean doesn't have to "win" Iowa in order to chalk it up as a victory - all he has to do is make a respectable showing.
He needs top two in each to avoid a collapse. He can lose to Gephardt in Iowa, no big deal, but two second place finishes would be far from a victory.
There have been a couple of threads about that already. Basically, there are senators (Hagel, Snowe, Nickles, Frist, et al), governors (Pawlenty, Sanford, Pataki, Owens, Bush, Benson, et al), and a governor turned senator (George Allen). Plus a Mayor and a National Security Advisor.
Clark has completely imploded, (unless he and Hillary do the democrat "vote for the stalking horse" shuffle.) Does she get around that by having Clark as Deans VP pick, how much input would a VP nominee have on who is running the party? I think Hillary strongly prefers NOT to run, but Dean seems to realize how much damage the Clintons, and particularly McAuliff, have done to the party and Dean wants them gone. How does Hillary balance letting Dean run and lose vs. possibly losing control of the party? I don't understand enough about how the Dems structure their party to know what the smart strategery might be.
Hillary will control the Party no matter who wins the nomination. She is the Rat leader. That's where they get their money. Fast Eddie Rendell and Bill Richardson are the other big dogs in Rat circles. They're on board with Hillary too. None of those folks is going to take orders from any of the dwarfs.
Quote of the day material here!
This here's ma home-brewed website afore n until I gits another one. It offers ma weekly columns n a chance ta have yer say, ta boot. Ain't gotta back issues file, n ain't got most ov the purty pixtures, but what the H-E-double-toothpicks, it's better'n nuttin, rat? -- (Don't even think of spell-checkin' this.)
cyberCongressman Billybob's Website
I like your style, part home-brew, part Eli, all good common sense. While I agree with much of your excellent analyses, I am leery of what the Dem candidate can throw, especially those October surprises, e.g., the Rockefeller Memo lays out the recipe for Molotov Cocktails. Thus, Election 2004 is no shoe-in for Republicans despite encouraging trends, given the antiBush (antiwar, anti-America) passions inflaming Democrat loins and the relentless connivance of the liberal press.
I was hoping Hillary would hop into the campaign to run this year, under the theory she is probably more beatable in 2004 than in a year less proximate to her White House occupation. The sooner her potential/power is destroyed, the better for America. But a GIGO outcome is becoming less likely.
Thus, it appears to me Dean has a wrap, as he benefits from his Mojo -- like someone who has goes over a cliff tends to pick up speed, and not a few endorsements and more money. Compared with Hillary, he's agile/facile, has a more likable personality, and has a better organization -- look at whom the Clintons sent to help Wesley. But those repelled by Dean fearing another McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis-Gore candidate who is soft on defense, loves costly entitlements and wants to raise taxes, are not likely to switch to her since Hillary embraces the same core positions, plus stratospheric negatives, despite what cleverly-worded polls may show today.
As for Hillary, she will probably decide she would have a better chance in 2006 beating her opponent in NY -- it may not be Giuliani, which would be bad news for her -- but even he doesn't have a lock as we saw in the first part of the last go-round. Then, assuming a Dean debacle, she might still have a chance in 2008, with better odds than she may get in the current campaign, and a chance to realize her lifelong ambition/dream (our nightmare) of becoming the first female US president.
But what do I know? At this time in the 1992 campaign, I thought there was no way Bush 41 could lose to Clinton 42.
Could you back that up? Her margin of victory was 5% **LESS** than Al Gore's margin of victory in New York, and much of her victory was due to voter fraud.
I can back that up from personal experience. I am a New York voter. I had no trouble turning the lever for George Bush. However, the lever to vote Republican for Senate was disabled. Lazio ran on the Conservative line, so I voted for him on that line. This experience was not a fluke. The same thing happened to a friend who lived in another area, Crown Heights, of my borough (Brooklyn) and a co-worker who lived in Bay Ridge. It also happened to Don Imus when he voted in Manhattan!
The Democratic Party needs to run someone who can get *more* votes than Gore, not *fewer." And with John Ashcroft at Justice it has to be a candidate who can get votes without the benefit of (too much) fraud!
That candidate is not Hillary and I think you live in a fantasy world if you think she won the election on the basis of conservative Republican women upstate. That makes almost as much sense as saying that Haley Barbour won his election on the basis of the vote of Delta black women.
Get a clue. Republican conservative women HATE Hillary!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.