Posted on 02/28/2005 7:01:04 AM PST by areafiftyone
Actually, not many candidates, have ever really done anything, prior to their first nomination, other than be maybe a governor....
don't be too sure we're nto ready for a liberal woman. who are we offering as a viable alternative?
they said the tortise would be lucky to go five paces.
Well it depends on what you mean by doing something. Being a governor in a large state is an good credential check as far as I'm concerned by itself.
I think most candidates I can recall over the last 30 years for the most part have had reasonable credentials until Edwards. Kerry never did anything as we all know but did spend 20 years in the Senate. Edwards and Hillary come to my mind as exceptions to a generally regarded notion that one should have spent some time in high public office before seeking the Presidency.
I agree...it'd be the last yr of Bushes term if the speculation by Jack Wheeler has got any feet to it at all.
I personally think Condi has been an extremely positive force in W's presidency. In fact, she's probably been one of the strongest forces in W's first term of almost anyone else, IMHO. I think she's the one who sees things in a way others do not.
I guess it depends on how you look at it...some presidents were career senators/congressmen, while others were governors for 4-8 yrs.
no, in fact I understand them completely. they would rather Hillary win and the take our party into a scorched earth obstruction mode during her presidency, then particiapte in a coaltion to elect a moderate and keep her out of the white house. and believe me, that is the dominant credo for most (not all) freepers.
our party stands for nothing if it allows the Clintons to walk back into the white house. better to elect a moderate, and maintain congressional control to check his actions we might disagree with, then to restore the Clintons to power.
Hell, we are having to use the Congress now to stop things that Bush wants to do - on immigration for example, some 2nd amendment issues, so what is the big deal.
who do you trust more to make SCOTUS nominations? Hillary, or McCain or Rudy? Do you think Republicans in the Senate would block Hillary's judicial nominations, like the Dems are doing to Bush? No way, they will fold.
indeed, and since the Republicans never did an effective job at pinning 9/11 on Bill Clinton's poor handling of US national security - she won't be dogged at all on that issue by 2008.
And your point is ...
Some would say that a career congressman would be better suited for the presidency than a 1 or 2 term governor, whether he did anything outstanding or not...while others would say differently. Who is to say which credentials are better? The fact that someone got elected for the same office over a period os 20 or 30 yrs, would say a lot, compared to someone that was a governor, like J. Ventura.
Well a governor demonstrates leadership experience in having ran a state, dealing with legislatures, dealing with budgets. Running a state is an excellent prerequisite for running a country. Senator and Congressmen that serve for a number of years garner some experiences also but never really run anything. That's probably why more governors become Presidents than congressmen. And just being reelected over and over in of itself doesn't necessarily mean too and depends on the district.
My original point was that Hillary has light-weight political experience being a one-termer and getting in on someone else's coattails. All she has going is so-called star appeal, name recognition and good BS skills, not political experience. I think the dems like her BS credentials. :-)
I just wish Cheney was younger and healthier so I could watch him humiliate whatever tomato can the dems put up. Fish those rivers Mr. Vice President. You've earned it.
"who received 48% of the national vote"
Honestly democracy doesn't seem like a great idea to me often. You know in the cold war we were facing some far leftists and they imploded on their own. So even with one hand tied behind are back, with our own left we still won.
Against the Mohammedan extremists things may be even more difficult. They are not lefties. They have a rapid birth rate, and their leadership has enormous amounts of money that they have invested. They aren't running for elections, and they aren't having to compromise.
Hillary, or McCain or Rudy
>>>
I don't trust any of them.
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.