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."
Either Moveoncommie or McCain, I can't decide yet.
Insight is clearly awful offal!
She's from Chicago.
"Either Moveoncommie or McCain, I can't decide yet."
Interesting..why don't you explain to us the difference?
Well, we might be running our VP in '08, and it might be Condi.
"If the prospects of whoever wins in a McCain-Hillary Presidency doesn't motivate Conservatives to get with the program, nothing will."
Aren't you leaving out an important component to this race...LIKE THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES?....lol
Us? If you can see a difference between McCain and the Rats in practical application, please enlighten 'us'.
That USC team was arguably the worst of the last 4 years. Kind of fun to listen to Texans get excited - USC almost won that game against a better Texas team. Win it next year, then get to the final the year after, and lose by 30 seconds, or a knee, or ... - then talk. (I'm not complaining - USC made too many mistakes - but that does not mean it wasn't literally this close.)
Texas had 4 years to say something about it - they showed up with a great team this year, I guess whooped USCs butt so bad they needed every tick on the clock. That was not domination I saw - much closer to parity. (Although I think Texas was better). That's one.
I think it is a shame people don't appreciate what they were looking at. This year the media fimally hyped it.
30 fewer, or more, ticks on the clock (or 1 DE who could contain VY on the left side)and they would have had 3 straight. 2002 they were #4. Carson Palmer was QB (Heisman)(Cincinatti) Troy Palamalu was safety (Pittsburgh). They played the hardest schedule in NCAA, and had #1 defense. They beat the #3 Iowa 38-17 in their bowl matchup. Not even close. (A great vote for need for playoff - a dumb early loss messed them up all year.) (I won't even start on how you can trounce the #3 team going into bowls, yet end up #4?)
In the last 3 years they have lost two games - one in 3OT on the road (Cal) (after they fumbled a sure winning touchdown, similar to Bettis yesterday). Second loss was Texas.
Loss prior to Cal was 11 games earlier, Washington (#5) on the road, in 2OT. USC missed their field goal. This is the 2002 season - a field goal one way or another and they might have been playing for FOUR straight.
Texas won this year - think they are in a hurry to play that one again? USC has played the overall toughest the last 4 years, and held an amazing record.
Texas beat them fair and square - no sour grapes here. But Texas beat arguably the fourth best USC team of the last 4 years. (USC defense #39. Offense hid it. Pac division was not as strong this year.)
Bowl games last 4 years -
def #3 Iowa 38-17
def #4 Michigan 28-14
def #2 Oklahoma 52-19? (going by memory)
lost #1 Texas 41-38 (19 seconds) (too many mistakes)
How about a Heisman QB with 2 National Championships turning down the sure thing draft, to return to his team to play for the 3rd championship - and getting to the last game? That is a team you can root for. See any trash talk? Any late hits? That is a team to admire.
They are arguably the best college team of all time. 2004 was the peak (although I really liked how tough the defense was in 2002). But over 4 years, a very impressive record. Heisman QB returns to team to try for 3 straight - than wins it for me, just on heart points. (VY already declared, but hey, I probably would too.)
The media just caught on late last year, and this year. But that team was awesome. Texas was great too - just two more years to go - then talk.
The Primaries, IMO, are over before they start. Whomever the sitting President pushes in his own Party gets the nomination.
No one has that good a crystal ball. Two and a half years in advance?
1990's Cornhuskers for $1,000 Alex. I would put hard cash money on the '95 Nebraska squad against any other team, on any field, any day of the week. Including any of the recent USC squads.
You mean, like Miers...?
"The question, though, is whether she will be the last President of the United States."
If, and this is unquestionably a big IF, Hitlary were to win the '08 presidency GWB would be the last President, as Hitlary would become the first United States Socialist dictator.
McCain staffer? I'll vote for a 3rd party candidate before I vote for McKeating.
Conservatives should not support the Republican Party anyway. They've long since sold us out.
If it comes down to it, I'm more worried about the people in this country with the foil wrapped around their heads than the ones wrapped with towels. No effective WOT until we "get ourself straight" first.
I will never understand that nomination so long as I live.
No one puts up a USSC candidate hoping they'll get sunk before hearings.
Of course, there's also CFR, which I've heard was genius gone awry.
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.