here
Posted on 09/28/2005 2:47:53 AM PDT by Crackingham
In 1990, did anybody outside of Arkansas know who the heck Bill Clinton was, except as the guy who gave the worst nominating speech ever at the 1988 Democratic convention?
The Rats had a "weak" field in 1992, and look what happened.
}:-)4
You sound like that rat that was carrying that sign the other day that said he was a disgusted Republican. But, all his political donations were to liberals.
Virginia Senator George Allen deserves a close look. Will need a female vp IMHO.
"This is such an "I got nuthin'" column, you wonder why Barnes bothered to write it."
You have hit the nail on the head with that statement.
Hillary? I've seen a number of 'Dean/Obama 2008' stickers around Vermont over the past few months.
And the media,------, will be more pro-Democratic than ever.
LOL! Sorry, that's just not possible unless they come right out and announce they are the prpoganda arm of the Dem party.
Giuliani?
Bill Clinton was President because The Little General ran a campaign designed to siphon off Republican votes. You should remember that Clinton never won a majority of the vote.
Good analysis. Including this: "Further Republican gains in 2006 will make them even more shrill, more desperate, more beholden to the moonbat wing of the party, and push them farther from the main-stream."
Many people I talk to fear a Hillary candidacy, while, at the same time, overlooking 2006. First things first. Let's clobber them in '06.
The republican congress was more effective under Clinton than they were under Bush because at least then they could be against something.
The SCOTUS issue is a big one I'll grant you, but at the rate the republicans are going I'm not convinced it's worth it anymore. Besides, Roberts wasn't a conservative appointment, he was a compromise. I may be wrong but it seems to me that when you hold both houses and the executive, it's not the time to compromise with the opposition, it's time to squash them like bugs. But not Bush...
It's true, I'm fed up with being ignored, but I don't see how staying faithful to the party line has gotten me a damned thing. He may have cut taxes, but he dramatically increased spending. So he took his hand out of my pocket and put it into my child's. doesn't sound like a bargain to me.
As for the war, it's a decision I've supported since the beginning. I escaped the trade center by the skin of my teeth on September 11th, and had friends of 25 years lose their lives that day. So your insults don't hold much water.
If you don't like that I don't want to tow the party line you can take your opinion and shove it.
Rudy will also 'turn' off many pro-life, pro-gun voters. While I have great respect for Rudy, those are my reasons for looking more closely at George Allen. Bill Frist is my senator, but I don't see him as presidential material. I don't want to have to 'hold' my nose and vote in '08, and I suspect a great many others feel like I do and would choose to sit home instead.
You hit the nail on the head there. As lacking as the Republicans are in leadership the Democrats are in worse shape.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Hillary will not win the dem nomination, no chance. She is the most polarizing and divisive politician in America today. Liberal moveon.org types don't trust her because of her vote for war in Iraq, and more moderate dems don't trust her chances of winning because they know she won't be able to take away one Red State. While it's way too early to predict who the nominee of each party will be, I'll go out on a limb with these picks:
Evan Bayh or Joe Biden for the dems
John McCain or George Allen for the Repubs.
I support George Allen, but I fear McCain will try and possibly succeed in wooing some conservatives by standing very tough on federal spending.
Giuliani would crush all Dem candidates...yes, even Shrillary. Everyone likes Rudy... even the conservatives like me who disagree with him on social issues. The libs of course would dredge up all of Rudy's private peccadilloes, but after Clinton, who are they whine about private lives?
After that, who knows. Maybe the Donks will re-group and finally realize that their dalliance with the Clintons has been one long, sleazy, slow-motion nightmare. But I just don't see that happening. The worse the Donks do, they more they will be driven into the arms of Hillary!
Unless Hillary! loses to Jeanine Pirro for Senate in 2006...
If that happens, Hillary! will become the emblem of Donk failure, and they will finally break the spell. Much as I relish the thought of the Donks falling into irrecoverable Clinton-induced dementia, putting a stake through Hillary!'s chest (figuratively speaking, of course) might just be worth it.
Condi will not win, she will not even run. I would never vote for a woman for president.
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.