A Gore/Clinton ticket in 2008 (sweet)

I realize we have not even arrived at the point where we can seriously consider the midterm elections in 2006. But even the thought of them, and then beyond, forces me to seriously consider 2008. If the midterms go as I expect, then 2008 is inevitable.

Everything I said seems to be coming true. Kerry lost because of his own arrogance and the Democrats inability to respond to the shoot from the hip, hard line, inflexible Republican style. It was not yet fashionable to embrace the Tortise while the Hare was making his dash for the second of many finish lines.

As much as I wanted to embrace a change in 2004, I knew it wasn't in the cards under any circumstances. Had Kerry been elected, aside from not having Bush, what would have been different?

Would he taken the oath of office and declared all American troops in Iraq would immediately come home? I don't think so.

What would he have done to control the price of a gallon of gas at the pump? Would he have slapped down the forces who are profiteering and collecting windfall profits by manipulating supply and demand? I doubt it. I beleive he would be just as silent as George Bush.

And what about the declining dollar? What would he have done to address the fact the value of the dollar has dropped 52% since the day Bill Clinton left office?

How would have a John Kerry Administration in the White House addressed reducing the trade deficit?

Right now Alan Greenspan is reluctant to admit that in our current situation either the value of the U.S. dollar will decline a whole lot more, or the trade deficit has to be drastically reduced. Knowing full well one inversely affects the other, what would John Kerry have done to save us? How would he have addressed the fact of life that both cannot continue rising?

How would a John Kerry presidency addressed the economic fact of life, the fact that U.S. interest rates WILL RISE in 2005? And what about 2006?

What measures would he have taken to deal with the Chinese? How could he have motivated China to make the currency exchange rate of the yuan flexible rather than its current status as being linked to the dollar?

I could never really get my arms around a John Kerry presidency. I didn't see anything changing. What's more, George Bush created this mess. I always thought he should be forced to live with it. And isn't it funny how things work out?

A recent Democracy Corps Survey indicates 86% of those surveyed voted in the 2002 midterms and 83% expect to vote in the 2006 elections. What was not only interesting but noteable was the fact a healthy majority, 56% of them, now feel the nation has gone in the wrong direction since the 2002 elections.

The five main reasons they give are: The Iraq War; Bush's leadership and direction; Jobs, income, and the cost of things; Health care problems; and, Retirement issues and Social Security.

While these concerns can be easily hung around the neck of George W. Bush, when asked about the 2006 elections, 47% of those surveyed indicated indicated they would vote for a Democrat over a Republican. Conversely, 42% said they would vote for a Republican over a Democrat.

That has to be disturbing news for Republican incumbants in Congress. Right now 55% of those surveyed believe the country has been taken in the wrong direction while only 41% believe we are on the right track.

This is where I want to go in another direction because a question asked in this survey may just give us a bit more insight into the 2008 election than we might realize.

When asked if the Constituiton was changed so there was no longer a term limit on Presidents and there was a choice between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton defeated Bush 53% to 43%.

And while this theoretical concept might be fun, it is also indicitive of the perception of the American voters regarding the two names.

People like myself who never voted for Bill Clinton, when forced to make a mental comparison between him and George W. Bush, now view his Presidency and the direction in which he took the nation in a very favorable light. That has to certainly be a plus for Hillary Rodham Clinton, not only for her incumbancy as a Senator in 2006, but also for a possible run for the presidency in 2008. A Clinton presidency, regardless of which Clinton it might be, has a strong appeal to a large segment of the American voting public.

The thought of Hillary Clinton running for President is as frightening to some as it is intriguing for others. I would dare say the idea of the possibility of her occupying the Oval Office would serve to polarize the nation in a way we have never seen. It would insure the largest single turnout for any election in our history.

Richard Nixon lost a very close race, a race that perhaps he actually won, to John Kennedy. That was 1960.

Let us not forget Al Gores loss to George Bush in 2000. The similarities are there including the fact both men ran for the presidency following eight years as Vice President.

Nixon, like Gore, did not run four years later. Also, the Republicans in 1964 as the Democrats in 2004, did not win the White House. When Nixon reemerged on the political scene just after the midterm elections in 1966, all the negatives that once surrounded him seemed to disappear. Might it not also work the same way for Al Gore?

Of course it can and probably will. That opens up the possibility for a spirited race between him and Hillary for the top spot on the ticket.

In 2004 Al Gore supported Howard Dean. Dean didn't win the top spot but he is now the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Will Gore have Dean's support?

Bet on it, and at the same time bet on Gore quietly picking up additional support in all quarters. By the time we get to the nomination process it will be Al Gore who will be standing head and shoulders over all others, and that includes Hillary Clinton.

While the idea of being the first woman President of the United States might still be out of her reach, she could become the first woman Vice President of the United States, and a single heart beat away from the Presidency. Why wouldn't she take it?

It would be a difficult thing for anyone to turn away from, let alone a driven person like the Senator from New York and former First Lady of the United States. What's more, a Gore/Clinton ticket would almost surely convert to a win. Hillary Clinton has always liked to win and in winning she will make history.

But then, maybe they aren't and maybe, just maybe, once more I am alone calling what will really come to pass.

Bud Beck, also known as Harold Thomas Beck is the former host of the Bud Beck Show and the author of: Ripe For The Picking (The Story of the Kathy Wilson Murder), Cornplanter Chronicles, The First Terrorist Act, and Tyrannus Bush?

Iced Tea - revisited:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl000328.shtml
David Limbaugh (archive)

March 28, 2000

Phantasma-Gore-ia

We can all snicker about Al Gore's fantastic delusions about inventing the Internet and his connections with the Love Canal and "Love Story." But the growing evidence of his personal corruption is not a laughing matter.
I'm not sure which is more cynical -- Gore making campaign finance reform the centerpiece of his campaign or his iced tea defense (i.e., his statement to FBI investigators that he may have been in the bathroom during discussions about illegal hard-money solicitations from the Oval Office).

His assertion that he is particularly qualified to lead the charge for reform because of his own campaign finance "mistakes" is as laughable as a felon running for prosecutor on the theory that he is intimately qualified in criminal matters.

Gore's iced tea whopper takes me back to my brief stint as a criminal lawyer early in my legal career. An appointed client, accused of stealing a TV, protested that he had not stolen the television set the police caught him carting down the street on a dolly at 3 o'clock in the morning. He had just left his girlfriend's house when a stranger approached him on the dark street and made a gift to him of the TV. My client would have been better off entering a plea than to try to sell that tale to the jury. But so far, Al Gore has no reason to fear his jury -- the American people. He and Clinton have yet to pay for any of their outrageous behavior, let alone their outrageous whoppers about their outrageous behavior.

I admit I'm alarmed at how lightly we are treating Al Gore's corruption. We now know that there is no real remedy for gross presidential misconduct by a Democratic president. Democratic congressmen and senators constitute an absolute shield for their miscreant presidents. And the electorate has no stomach for removing felonious presidents from office. Elections are the only way to keep misfits out of that office, so we better start paying attention during the campaign season. And we better insist on character being a major issue -- for both congressional and presidential candidates.

The level of corruption pervading the entire Clinton/Gore administration is staggering. After sitting on the allegations for over a year, the Clinton/Gore Justice Department just opened an investigation last week into whether e-mails from Gore's office and other parts of the White House were hidden from criminal and congressional investigators who had subpoenaed them. Is it a coincidence that Justice was finally motivated to act at the same time a congressional inquiry opened in this matter?

How far will Gore go in straining our credulity? Consider:

He just unveiled a proposal to finance American elections with a public-private endowment fund after raising $2 million of soft money for the Democratic National Committee last week.

In an effort to establish credibility for his finance plan, he said, "I know firsthand what is wrong with the way we fund our political campaigns." Yet, when pressed by FBI agents about his knowledge about the nuances of the law, such as the distinction between hard and soft money, Gore told them that while "he had been a candidate for 16 years," the details of donations are "a science he did not involve himself in." So does he have firsthand knowledge or not?

While taking up the reform mantle and proclaiming his own integrity, he staunchly defends his campaign coordinator Tony Coelho. Coelho is not only the original poster child for harvesting soft money, his career has been shrouded in charges of corruption. Though Coelho is currently the subject of a criminal investigation involving his activities while serving as U.S. commissioner general of Expo '98 in Lisbon, Portugal, Gore says, "Tony Coelho is doing a terrific job day after day. He will continue to do a terrific job."

The National Journal reports that "Gore was in such a hurry to announce that he was bringing Coelho aboard that he decided to go ahead without a routine background check; he instead relied on Coelho's 'nothing there' assurances."

Clinton and Gore ran in 1992 on a promise of "fixing" the campaign finance system, then egregiously exploited loopholes in the system and never seriously attempted reform.

Al Gore has even developed Bill Clinton's insufferable habit of rubbing our noses in his corruption and daring us to hold him accountable. At Saturday night's Gridiron Dinner, Gore, in a mocking reference to the Buddhist temple event, quipped, "Oh, before I forget to ask, this isn't a fundraiser, is it? My antennae go up whenever I'm in a room where everyone's dressed the same."
Very funny, Al. I agree. If you manage to get elected with this kind of behavior, the joke is on us.

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.