Posted on 03/06/2008 5:33:47 AM PST by Nony
Liberal Democrats from the North haven’t had much success in recent presidential elections — not Hubert Humphrey, not George McGovern, not Walter Mondale, not Mike Dukakis, and not John Kerry. Democratic southerners — Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton — have done quite a bit better.
Sen. Barack Obama, of Illinois, knows this history. So why does he think he can be the first Northern liberal Democratic president since John F. Kennedy edged out Richard Nixon almost a half-century ago?
First, there is no incumbent president or vice president running for the first time in over 50 years. Add a controversial war, an unpopular incumbent, and a shaky economy, and you’ve got a wide-open race full of voters rethinking things as never before.
Second, as the first African-American candidate to seriously contend for either party’s nomination, Obama offers Americans a sort of collective redemption at home and admiration abroad.
(Excerpt) Read more at primetimepolitics.com ...
Kennedy stole that election.
. . since John F. Kennedy edged out Richard Nixon . . .
Kennedy stole that election.
You beat me to it; I was going to say because Kennedy stole the election in Chicago, and Obama already has Chicago roots ;)
Many differences with today. Where are the moral men who would rather lose and election honorably than win it dishonorably?
The nation has been replaced by whining politicians who want to win at any cost and will use lawyers, inner city blacks, or any other measure to win.
The 2000 debacle in Florida revealed this in spades. The 2004 election, with lawyers poised to claim fraud in Ohio and Florida, even before the polls opened, is more evidence. And the Dems still tried the "fraud in Ohio" schtick in '04.
Sheesh ...
...”there is no incumbent president or vice president running for the first time in over 50 years.” Wow, I didn’t realize that.
...”there is no incumbent president or vice president running for the first time in over 50 years.” Wow, I didn’t realize that.
Yet another gross miscaulation by the boobs running the Republican party.
I’m a Cheney fan, but he should have stepped down a few years ago in lieu of a younger VP, in order to help secure the line of succession.
Absolutely not! The purpose of the VP is not to establish a line of succession. It’s to step in in case the president dies and in Pres. Bush’s case, it’s to serve very actively at the president’s discretion. He trusts Cheney, so Cheny needs to remain in that position.
I had forgot about the Chicago connection, but that makes it all the more possible.
I had forgot about the Chicago connection, but that makes it all the more possible.
The Constitutional purpose of the VP is, of course, as you mentioned, but in a PRACTICAL, political sense, the incumbent party has always used the vice-presidency as a leg-up for the party in the succeeding election.
The Republicans should have had a solid, young conservative like Rick Santorum assume the VP duties around 2005-2006.
Historically, few VPs make it to the presidency. These days, the best past is through a governorship.
According to Saint Victor Davis of Hanson:
“In a broader sense, the pessimistic Obama theme is that elites have stacked the deck against the average Joe, who can’t get a doctor, pay for his children’s college education, or pay his mortgage. Therefore, we must take back more income from the better-paid and hire a lot more people in government like Barack Obama to more wisely administer the money.”
Obviously, VDH, up on his Mount Olympus, has no idea of the struggle working and middle-class people have to face every day, or he would never have made such a stupid, snide remark. Better he should go back to watching his “300” DVD.
Actually, he lost the popular vote by over 100,000, so that would have been a tough road to hoe, pragmatically speaking. Otherwise, Im sure Nixon would have done his darndest.
Enlighten us, newbie, do "average Joes" need more government beauracrats and "a long laundry list of new taxes and social programs " ? Is the solution "more taxes on the wealthier for more government services for the majority along with trade protectionism as the proper antidote to our problems"?
Is that what youre saying, Newbie?
You keep repeating the term “Newbie” as if this is some sort of union shop where seniority is all that matters. Are you some sort of labor goon?
Answer the question. Whats the point of your diatribe, or is there one beside class resentment?
—Answer the question—
Answer MY question. Is the middle and working class being raped economically or is it not?
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.