White which ping....
Posted on 01/16/2006 4:38:45 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
President Bush's advisers are resigned to the Democratic capture of the White House in 2008, according to senior Republican sources close to the White House.
GOP sources said White House strategists have attempted to persuade Mr. Bush that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat and her party’s current front-runner to be the next presidential nominee, cannot be defeated in 2008. Bush strategists said the president should instead focus on seeking to retain the Republican majority in both houses of Congress in 2006 and 2008.
"There is nobody in the White House that will openly say we lost the presidency in 2008," a senior GOP source said. "But while the Democrats are completely focused on 2008, the White House has been completely aloof."
The strategists have argued that given the forecasts of a downturn in the economy, crises with China and Iran, Mrs. Clinton would be besieged with major problems that would ensure a one-term presidency, the sources said.
The strategists have pointed out that Mr. Bush, given the failing health of Vice President Dick Cheney, does not have a natural successor. Recently, Mr. Cheney, who suffers from heart problems, was rushed to the hospital because he had difficulties in breathing.
The sources said the strategists have assessed that Mrs. Clinton would easily win the Democratic leadership and the subsequent race for president. They said Mr. Bush has pledged to campaign vigorously for any GOP presidential nominee.
Administration sources said Mr. Bush has discussed the prospect of a Clinton presidency. But they asserted that the president has focused on the 2006 elections for Congress and the need to maintain the GOP majority.
"If we lost our majority in Congress, then the president immediately becomes a lame duck," an administration source said. "So, the talk of 2008 is not only premature, it's harmful."
Would that lightning strike Her Heinous..
The heir apparent GOP nominee is building his War on Terror bonafides as we speak.
I actually agree with him, which tells me he's playing to win this go. Mind you, I don't trust nor believe him for a nanosec, nonetheless, he's playing his cards right now.
The torture crapola, among the rest of his schtick, will wear off in no time.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1558619/posts
Unnamed sources paraphrasing other unnamed sources. I do not Grock!
Torture crapola = insulation for the race ahead
Now there's an idea!
Exactly right. However, a 'centrist' Republican won't ever win, except maybe, if he ran against someone like Hillary Clinton.
So, the choice in '08 for Conservatives looks like McCain vs Hitlery.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Son of a b.
This is just plain silly. The Dummies must be behind this post.
(See how easy that is?)
Ease up please. Feel free to disagree with me, but don't let's be rude.
He even fired the guy that had the job Melhman and Gillespie previously held because he produced poor results in 2000 with Reps losing seats.
It's normal for a President to put his own RNC Chair in. That doesn't prove that Bush cares more about his party than anyone else. I will state for the record that Bush is the reason why the party has comfortable margins in the House and Senate. His work in 2002 and 2004 was yeoman and admirable with the glaring exception of Pennsylvania, which stunted the career of Pat Toomey, elected a leftist in Specter, and in the end Pennsylvania went Democrat anyway. It accomplished nothing for Bush or the Party in the long term.
He's practiced some conservative philosophies, but in that sense he wasn't like Reagan who devoted himself to growing the conservative movement but didn't grow the Party.
He had the opportunity to do both. Few Presidents are presented with a fanatically loyal base coupled with successful leadership during a national security crisis. Bush has the chance to change American politics for decades to come ala Roosevelt, and it is slipping away unless he finds his legs now.
The conservative movement is big enough now to grow itself, G.W.'s turned his eye to growing the Republican Party instead.
A party without a purpose or guiding principle is no party at all. The base is unsure what the party stands for, and at this point will not bother turning out the vote this fall. The Republican Party will have to work hard to pick up the pieces in time for 2008, much less 2006.
Whatever one's opinion of the decision, he can't be held responsible for not being a rhetorical movement conservative when everyone knew that when he was first nominated.
Like you, I knew exactly what we were getting in 2000, but I still fault him for it. Bush's political ideology, though far more complete than his father's, was never fully formed. The Iraq invasion was literally the first time in his political life that Bush ever risked losing an election for the sake of an issue. He handled it admirably, without backing down for even an instant.
Yet there is more to a polical philosophy than that. Bush believes in loyalty, service, patriotism, etc., but when you get down to concrete issues he allows simple political calculation to guide him too often. Social Security reform was a real stab at greatness, but Bush tried to give people half a loaf; he failed to advocate a complete break with a failing system, and tried to toe the political line with a "personal accounts" scheme without explaining to people exactly why taking more money out of the system would save it. It was a political plan, not a decisive one, and it failed completely.
My bottom line: Bush nudged above true Greatness on several occasions, but has lost all momentum. Along with 9/11 the next 11 months will be the biggest test of his Presidency.
Respectfully, Tom Tancredo has absolutely no chance. He will never gain the nomination, and would be engulfed by the Clinton machine in a moment. Tancredo is known by hardcore Republicans because of one issue; Hillary Clinton is the titular head of the American New Left. Politically they exist on entirely different planes.
Did you really believe this crap? It is very sad that some people on this great forum will feel for such delusional stories and consider it as genuine news.
And Hilary Clinton, should she be the Democratic nominee in 2008, can be defeated by a principled, socially conservative Republican nominee.
She only wins if the GOP sells out social conservatives by nominating a social liberal like Giuliani.
No time to read all the posts..but this 'strategist' has 'Dick Morris' written all over it. Move along..nothing to see here.
President Bush cannot run again. Whether or not Hillary is elected President or not depends on who the Republicans nominate.
I'm thankful that Bush won't be allowed to stick a "North American Union" feather in his cap by the end of his term.
However, it's only a matter of time before it happens, since both major Parties are bent on it coming into being.
NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, FTAA, GATT are all just run ups to the ultimate goal.
Ultimately, the other charades are all just window dressing. Always keep your eye on the most deadly ball, not just any ball.
White which ping....
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.