It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Hillary Clinton going to be President?

page: 9
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Well gentle men


After following the political candidates and what they are up to lately . . . I will say that Obama and Hillary are killing each other chances of wining . . . neither of them will win against Gulliani growing popularity.




posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   
It's going to be interesting to come back to this thread later on to see who was right and who was not right.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   


posted by marg6043

Well gentle men . . After following the political candidates and what they are up to lately . . . I will say that Obama and Hillary are killing each other’s chances of wining . . . neither of them will win against Giuliani’s growing popularity. [Edited by Don W]



You are right, Marg. The two camps must get their act together. This must be obvious to them, as it is to us. I like Obama, and wish him well in the future, but today, he can do no more that be a Jack and the Beanstalk type of giant killer. It is disappointedly unrealistic to harbor the very good belief that Obama could 1) get the Democratic nomination, and 2) have a 50/50 chance to win a general election in (racist) America. Red state versus Blue state. George Allen lost Virginia by 5,000 votes. That could never be read as an overwhelming rejection by the electorate of Allen’s notorious slip of the tongue and its necessary implications. I believe the Tennessee race ended 52% to 48%, again, while it was heart-warming to see 48% of Tennesseans reject racism as a factor in their choice, the 52% should serve as a warning. Oh yes, America is a far different place then when Senator Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi held the Senate spellbound by his endless and obnoxious anti-black rhetoric, or the governors, Faubus, Arkansas, Coleman, Mississippi, or Wallace of Alabama, stood “tall” in America’s Hall of Infamy.

Will the time ever be “right” for a person of color to be president? Yes, I do believe it will. Will it be Obama, maybe in 2016? Yes, it could be, but that depends on how he plays today’s losing hand. For some reason, he reminds me of Teresa Heinz, Sen. Kerry’s wife. I like’em both. She of Portugese descent via Madagascar. Him of color via Africa and Indonesia. But it is not for Obama in 2008. In part because Hillary is 61 years old and will be borderline old for 2012, and out of the field for 2016. This is her year, and it is the best chance women will have for a very long time to gain the presidency. Look how long it took to gain the Speaker-ship. Look at Pelosi’s long running rise from ward worker in Baltimore to long-time congressperson from SF. If we had term limits as J/O has below recommenced, she would not be speaker.



posted by Justin Oldham

From a sociological standpoint, latent racism will always be with us. We need more societal evolution to wash away what we think of as racism today.

Incumbency is the bane of modern politics. I’ve known the senior Senator from my home State for more than twenty years. He's in his late seventies and I can't recall the last time he had a new idea about anything. It is my hope that the average American will be ready to talk about term limits . . I'm hopeful that after being dominated by two dynasties, the political scene will change. It won't be fun to live through, but I remain hopeful that we'll be more enlightened for the experience. I hope that term limits for members of Congress will be more likely. [Edited by Don W]



And so it always has been. Daniel Webster and Henry Clay both overstayed their usefulness. After losing the shooting part of the Civil War, the South with slow and deliberate single-minded purpose, defeated the North in the battle of “hearts and minds” and ultimately restored 95% of pre War slavery conditions which lasted into the mid 1960s. Terrorism was their weapon of choice. The North won the war, the South won the peace.

But incumbency is not just the favorite way to power in the south, Hubert Humphrey was unbeatable. Patrick Moynihan likewise. Senator Kennedy and Senators Hatch, Lugar, Warner and so on. And don't forget the famous California senators, Hiram Johnson and William Knowland, puppets of commerce and finance, molded American foreign policy towards the Orient for decades.

Seniority. The root cause. The internal operating system of the Congress, more especially the Senate, but the House, too, in less dramatic ways. But this is also a “must.” To speak about term limits means that Congress would be gutted, hamstrung. Unable at all to resist either the Article 2 Executive Branch or even its own bureaucracy. Look back to Speaker “Mighty Joe” Cannon (R-Mo) would not allow a newly elected Representative to speak on the floor for his first year. Cannon had to approve the newbie’s maiden speech. Cannon personally sat on the Rules Committee. Cannon appointed not only the membership of each standing committee, but he also designated the chairman, and that when being chairman meant one man ruled. And last, Speaker Cannon personally allotted all bills filed to the committee he wanted.

Reid and Pelosi are temperamentally well suited to follow the dictatorial habits practiced by Hastert and Frist. But they will not “fix” this problem. They will at best, undo some of the more glaring anti-democratic rules and practices. But to imagine a Congress limited to 2 terms in the Senate and 5 terms in the House would be equal to installing a Roman dictator, to making the president a perpetual Commander in Chief as VP Cheney has already implied. Let that idea sleep, if you please.

You cannot (should not) turn the country’s business (Congress) over to juvenile delinquents.

[edit on 3/9/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Your point is well taken, Don. My own thinking is that however they are meated out, term limits for Senators and Representatives are now necessary for the society's advancement. It's time to put an end to the notion that forty years in the House or Senate is "good."

The senior Senator from my own State has been in office longer than I've been alive. If he survives his next term in office, he will have put in 48 years. I know him, and I like him as a human being, but his days of real usefulness to the nation and to my State have passed. He's of the generation that is still grappling with the touch-tone telephone. I'm not practicing age-ism here, I'm stating a simple fact. I've had to try and explain desktop computers to him before, and it was like talking to the wall. The wall...by the way...was open-minded and only slightly confused by the keyboard and mouse.

I understand that politics can be addicting for some, and indeed I have yet to meet the human who could resist power--but--we can put some safeguards in place that will benefit the society by allowing for new blood at intervals shorter than 50 years. However they get implemented, I do think term limits are necessary. And yes, I do know that Mayor Daley of Chicago (either one, take your pick) would disagree with me.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

Your point is well taken, Don. My own thinking is that however they are meted out, term limits for Senators and Representatives are now necessary for society's advancement. It's time to put an end to the notion that forty years in the House or Senate is "good."

The senior senator from my state has been in office longer than I've been alive. If he survives his next term in office, he will have put in 48 years. I'm not practicing age-ism here, I'm stating a simple fact. I've tried to explain desktop computers to him and it was like talking to the wall.

I understand politics can be addicting and I have yet to meet the human who could resist power - but - we can put safeguards in place that will benefit society by allowing for new blood at intervals shorter than 50 years. However they get implemented, I think term limits are necessary. And yes, I know that Mayor Daley of Chicago (either one, take your pick) would disagree with me. [Edited by Don W]



J/O, are you from Alaska or West Virginia? Joke. Quick idea. First, we need to do away with the plurality law in Federal elections. In every case where there is less than 50% +1, there should be a run-off between the 2 top finishers. Then, that same amendment would provide that after 10 years service in Congress, the incumbent must poll 55% to win, and after 20 years, 60%. Failing that, the next 2 candidates would be in the run-off. But not the incumbent. And while we’re improving things vis a vis age, why not go ahead with FDRs failed attempt and arrange to appoint an extra justice to the SC for each one over age 70? If youth is good for Congress, it must be good for the courts.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Hm. I have been to West Virginia, but I now live in Alaska. Do I need shots? I get your point about the courts, but I will remain in favor of term limits.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Term Limits

After the 22nd Amendment (March 1, 1951) implemented the tradition begun by Washington to serve but 2 terms as president, we are left with the terms of the Congress to discuss.

US Con. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1. Establishes 2 year terms. I find it interesting that the original Congress allotted 1 representative for each 30,000 people. Here is a listing of the original membership of the first Congress, by state, MA 8, CT 5, RI 1, NH 3, NY 6, NJ 4, DE 1, PA 8, MD 6, VA 10, NC 5, SC 5, and GA 3 . Total, 65. In 1911, Congress limited its size to 435 members. There are four non-voting delegates, District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands. The Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico is the same as a Delegate but with a different title and is No. 5. Delegates are allowed to vote provided their vote is not the decisive vote in which case the vote is re-done but the second time the Delegate cannot vote.

US Con. Article 1,Section 3, Clause 1, provides for 2 senators from each state and chosen for a term of 6 years. Total, 26. It is interesting that Clause 2 provided that the first Congress shall divide the senators into 3 nearly equal classes. Class 1 shall have a 2 year term, class 2, a 4 year term and class 3, a 6 year term, and thereafter, all senators shall serve for six years.

Contemporary usage is “Member of Congress” when referring to all members and “congressmen, congresswomen or congresspersons” for Members of the House of Representatives, and senators for member of the Senate. By tradition the two bodies are given equal pay. The Rules for the House are adopted by each new Congress. The Rules for the Senate are considered to be “continuing” and are not voted on in each new Congress.

Other noteworthy amendments: The 11th Amendment, 1798, restricted the jurisdiction of the Federal courts as relates to citizens or foreigners suing a state.

The 12th Amendment, 1804, corrected the method of casting votes in the Electoral College for president and vice-president. This was made necessary by the botched election of 1800, out of which ultimately came the duel between Alexander Hamilton and VP Aaron Burr, in which Burr killed Hamilton. In NJ, as dueling was against the law in NY, where the capital was located.

The 14th Amendment. 1868. This may be the single most important of all the amendments. It established national citizenship. Before, people were citizens of their states. We are still fighting this issue. This is also the amendment at the root of the endless Roe v. Wade dispute; it uses the word “person” respecting the denial of rights, and in English, a fetus is not a person.

The 17th Amendment (1913) took the election of senators away from state legislatures and put it the public’s hands.

The 19th Amendment, 1920, extended the franchise to women.

The 20th Amendment, 1933, changed the presidential inauguration day from March 4, to January 20, thereby shortening the governmental hiatus between election day - first Tuesday after the first Monday in November - and taking office.

The 23rd Amendment, 1961. This gave the residents of the District of Columbia the right to vote for the president. (DC has never failed to vote for the Democratic nominee.)

The 25th Amendment, 1967. Presidential disability and succession act.

The 26th Amendment, 1971, extends the franchise to citizens 18 years old or older.

The 27th Amendment, 1992. The Most Stupidest Amendment which proves even amending the Constitution of the United States can be done dumbly.

Resume. On term limits. Generally speaking, we are mad when some guy gets re-elected so many times. Although the fellow - so far it has always been a man who is the subject of the term limits debate - must stand for election every 2 or 6 years, a lot of us are peeved that he keeps winning.

J/O is griping about Ted Stevens, long-time Republican senator from Alaska. I don’t like him but it’s not because he is old, it’s because he is a shrewd (and excessively) partisan Republican in a “safe” state. On my side of the aisle, I’ll show you the President Pro Tem of the Senate, from West “By God” Virginia, Senator Robert Catlett Byrd. No. 4 in the succession to the presidency. No. 1 in Senate seniority. I am hoping he can live out this term he was just re-elected to, so he can surpass Strom Thurmond who holds the record for service at 52 years.

Massachusetts Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy is No. 2, Senator Inouye of Hawaii is No. 3, Senator Stevens of Alaska, No. 4, Senator Domenici of Arizona is No. 5, Senator Biden of Delaware is No. 6, Senator Leahy of Vermont is No. 7, Senator Lugar of Indiana is No. 8, Senator Hatch, of Utah, is No. 9, and Senator Baucus of Montana, is No. 10. Baucus came to the Senate in 1978. Giving him about 29 years. John Kerry, Mitch McConnell and Jay Rockefeller all have 22 years in service. John McCain and Harry Reid both have 20 years in service. Illinois Senator Barack Obama is No. 88 in seniority. Of the last 11 senators elected since 2006, there are 9 Dems, 1 Ind voting with Dems and 1 GOP. Hmm?

MORE Later

[edit on 3/10/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I freely admit that my bias is due to time spent in Federal civil service. I am rather partial to the advantage that 'turnover' grants to the private sector. I do think that the lack of turnover in elected Federal offices does harm the national evolution. The current status quo encourages corruption, and it marginalizes civic virtue. They serve us, or we serve them.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I don't like Hillary any more than Obama...I don't think they have the interest of the people in mind. I'd take McCain over either of them anytime. And though I would support a black/woman president, that's not the criteria the will earn them votes.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Hello laiguana, welcome to the discussion. As you can see from the numbers, we've been at this for a while. Lots of good stuff in this thread. Feel free to read the old stuff. Everyone is welcome.

As xpert11 points out, the GOP candidates have a lot of baggage to carry around. McCain seems to be fading fast in the polls. At this point, it may be fair to say that the shine has come off his campaign wagon.

I watched him make the rounds on thevarious news programs Friday and Saturday. He was certain showing his age. I was surprised that any of his handlers let him get in front of a camera when he was so clearly run down from road fatigue. Ouch. As if that weren't bad enough, his answers to some pretty stock questions showed that he was clearly pooped. Again, bad handling.

If Don is right and public performance matters more than what goes on in a person's private life, we may need to re-focus the question to ask what the PR ramifications are of those private lives.

What says you?



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   
McCain didn't make it a career priority to become a politician, that's what I look for most in a candidate. McCain has the background to make executive decisions regarding our current mission in Iraq and Bush jr should have listened to him. Hillary pretty much tagged along after her husband and is now trying to make a second hit like Bush jr did after his daddy. Obama seems shady to me, especially what his views are on issues and if he's serious about securing America from terrorism. Anyone who caters to terrorists isn't worth to step foot in this country imo.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Okay, we seem to have stopped. Let me try to get us going again.

Bush43 returns from a moderately successful trip to South America in the next day or so. Today, he meets with the President of Mexico. He's coming home to some pretty bad news all the way around.

If you are Hillary Clinton, you couldn't ask for a better storm. when looked at through a purely political non-partisan lense, I'd have to say that Machievelli would be pleased with what he saw...if he were with us today.

As long as she doesn't mess up, I expect Hillary to make some good gains in both money and infrastructure during the rest of this month.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

I admit that my bias [favoring term limits] is due to time I spent in Federal civil service. I am partial to the advantage that 'turnover' grants to the private sector. I think the lack of turnover in elected Federal offices does harm to the nation’s evolution. The current status quo encourages corruption and it marginalizes civic virtue. They serve us, or we serve them.



1) The private sector serves its purpose, but governments - all, federal, state and local - serve a very different purpose. Whereas flexibility and innovation in the one is desirable, stability and predictability are substantial virtues in the other, even if not always readily apparent. I’d argue that such stability in governments is the very backbone of a good society.
2) Turnover and evolution. Key words. Let’s look at the two states I’ve mentioned, Alaska and West Virginia. In Alaska Lisa Murkowski was elected in 2004 (appointed in 2002, see below), and Senator Ted Stevens, in 1970. His current term expires in 2008, her’s in 2010.

All in the Family. Lisa is daddy’s favorite girl! Her father, Frank Murkowski was the US senator when in 2002 he was elected governor of Alaska. After taking his new office, he resigned his old senate seat. His daughter, Lisa, resigned her seat in the US House of Representatives. As governor he promptly appointed her to fill the vacancy his gubernatorial victory had created. Nepotism at its worst. Or as they say in Appalachia‘s hills and maybe Alaska's mountains, “incest is best.”

In West Virginia, Senator Byrd has just finished his 48th year of service, and is entering upon his 9th term, which expires in 2013, if the good Senator Byrd does not expire first. West Virginia’s junior senator, Jay Rockefeller (John D. Rockefeller IV), was first elected in 1984, and is up for election in 2008. Since 1932, no Republican has defeated an incumbent Democrat seeking another term in WVa.

Q. In a few words, Mr J/O, can you describe any difference in the legislative philosophy between the junior and senior senator in either state? Are not all 4 highly predictable according to the issues before them? Would Sen. Murkowski vote any differnelty than Sen. Stevens? So what gains would term limits offer us in this instance?



posted by Justin Oldham

Hello laiguana, welcome to the discussion. As Xpert11 points out, the GOP candidates have a lot of baggage to carry. McCain seems to be fading fast in the polls. It may be fair to say the shine has come off his campaign wagon. I watched him on the news programs Friday and Saturday. He was showing his age. I was surprised his handlers let him get in front of a camera when he was so clearly run down from road fatigue. Ouch. As if that weren't bad enough, his answers to some pretty stock questions showed that he was clearly pooped. Again, bad handling. If Don is right and public performance matters more than what goes on in the bedroom, we may need to re-focus the question to ask what are the PR ramifications of those private lives. What say you?



At the risk of being redundant or repetitive, the voters are much brighter than the pundits give them credit to be when it comes to giving appropriate weight to a candidate’s prior misconduct. I assume you are referring to Giuliani and Romney? I’m a Dem by birth so I may not be able to stand inside the GOP mind and it may be that - infidelity - sex outside marriage - is more important to them than it is to me. Oh, Cleveland won the race in which his illegitimate offspring was mentioned.



posted by laiguana

McCain didn't make it a career priority to become a politician, that's what I look for most in a candidate. McCain has the background to make executive decisions regarding our current mission in Iraq and Bush jr should have listened to him. Hillary pretty much tagged along after her husband and is now trying to make a second hit like Bush jr did after his daddy. Obama seems shady to me, especially what his views are on issues and if he's serious about securing America from terrorism. Anyone who caters to terrorists isn't worthy to step foot in this country IMO.



Whoa up there, Mr laiguana. What is it you are not so thinly veiling about Obama that makes you say “ . . Anyone who caters to terrorists isn't worthy to step foot in this country . . “ I am unaware of any misconduct on Barack's part and he certainly had nothing to do with his middle name. Half of all Arabs are named Ali and the other half Hussein. Except of course, those who are named Mohammad.



posted by Justin Oldham

Okay. Let me try to get us going again. Bush43 returns from a moderately successful trip to South America in the next day or so. Today, he meets with the President of Mexico. He's coming home to some pretty bad news all the way around. If you are Hillary Clinton, you couldn't ask for a better storm. As long as she doesn't mess up, I expect Hillary to make some good gains in both money and infrastructure during the rest of this month. [All the foregoing was heavily edited by Don W]



Look here, J/O. Republicans always carry empty promises to our neighbors south of the Rio Grande. Democrats always carry half filled promises, both subject to unilateral modification by CitiBank and Exxon. It all started with James Monroe when he warned Europe the US considered this Hemisphere to be its own. With very few exceptions before this century, that has been the case. Fidel - may he outlive Bush43's term - is the last remaining leader from the 20th century who will not kowtow to the US. We have condemned 600 million people south of the Rio Grande to suffer political abuse and economic exploitation almost without exception. After 4 invasions and the 1918-1933 occupation by the uSMC, Haiti is still the poorest country in the Hemisphere.

If the saints answered prayers, you can be sure we’d all be in Hell right now.

[edit on 3/13/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   
McCain's effort does appear to be fading. Seems like every time I see him on t.v. these days, he is suffering from road fatigue. He also seems to be a little glum. I'm sure it must frustrate him to know that Rudy's standing is all based on better PR.

As i watch events unfold in the financial markets, I begin to think he's not eager to win the White House because of what's coming. I've actually gotten a significant number of e-mails relating to the predictions I made in my published work. Man, I'm gonna have to sit down and re-read my own book. Ha.

The sad fact is that the coming economic crisis plays very well for the Democrats. History is not going to be kind to Bush43. I begin to think that future historians will blame him for what will at the very least be a recession.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

McCain appears to be fading. He is suffering from road fatigue. He seems to be glum. It must frustrate him to know that Rudy's standing is all based on better PR . . As I watch events unfold in the financial markets, I begin to think he's not eager to win the White House because of what's coming. Man, I'm gonna have to sit down and re-read my own book. Ha. [Edited by Don W]



Although as you point out above, J/O, the glitz is wearing thin on John McCain, I’m sitting here asking myself, what is it about him that so much appealed to good, old line Republicans? I’ve seen thoughtful people call him a “closet” Neo Con. We know for a fact he is advocating more troops than Bush43 asked for.

He seems to be suffering from the Vietnam Syndrome. Has he forgotten we lost there because we could not “win” the heats and minds of the Vietnamese people? Has he ignored the fact that is the root cause of our dilemma in Iraq. How does the current American designated government of Iraq differ from our endless line of lackey governments in Vietnam? Where does McCain stand on affordable health care for 100% of Americans? Where does he stand on dealing forthrightly with the11-13 million undocumented workers already in the US? And how does he propose to regulate - not control - cross border travel with Mexico? If the unregulated mortgage industry has dragged down our economy by 2009, what would he propose to prevent a re-run of greed inspired lending? And not of least importance, how is he going to balance the budget?



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Let me put on my thinking helmet and see if I can guess what the postmortum will be on the McCain campaign, and its reasons for failure.

*think*

Why did the McCain campaign fail in 2008?

I suspect future historians are going to decide that John McCain did not change with the times. His last "real" chance for the Preidency came in 2000. Aside from being slightly out of touch with the national mood, he associated himself too closely with the Buish administration's war policy.

The most significant factors that contributed to his fall from power will be determined to come from two sources. Being unable to distance himself from the failed war policies of George Bush, he also failed to make the voter believethat he could be trusted to handle major issues like border security and the future of social security and larger health care considerations.

It's likely that John McCain will fade from public life after 2008. He may not seek naother term in the Senate.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I'm watching the House, and Speaker Pelosi. Yikes, but they've got some cut-throat tactics going on. As you know, President Bush has asked for 124 Billion dollars in new war spending.

The Dems are set to bring a bill out committee in the House that will have a timetable for withdrawl, and 20 billion in pork added on.

Machievelli would be proud. Bear in mind that this bill would still have to get through House and Senate conference, but hey; if it did...

Option A:

If Mr. Bush vetos this bill, he loses funding for his war.

Option B:

If he signs this bill in to law, he is obliged to abide by the withdrawl plan.

As you know, Hillary has recent stated that she'd leave "some" troops in iraq if elected to the Presidency. Her bets are hedged no matter which way this thing goes.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
THIS is something I wrote for another thread but i am tossing it in here as well because I think it bears repeating: with some additions.

As for the Democrats not having a winnable candidate the only thing I can say is that the Republicans don't either. It really is on both sides a sorry mess.

What I am thinking could happen on the Democratic side is that with this long run up Obama and Clinton will so bloody themselves in infighting that neither of them will be able to get the nomination (because no one will want either by then) which will open the door for the convention to actually become a nominating convention (finally) and have a dark horse like Al Gore to step into the gap (or be drafted) into offering himself as the candidate.... and he can definitely win especially if he gives all those "advisor's" the boot and runs as himself.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

Let me put my thinking helmet on and see if I can guess what the postmortem will be on the McCain campaign, and its reasons for failure. *-think-* Why did the McCain campaign fail in 2008?

Future historians are going to decide that John McCain did not change with the times. His last "real" chance for the presidency was in 2000. Aside from being out of touch with the national mood, he associated himself too closely with the Bush administration's Iraq war policy.

The most significant factors come from two sources. Being unable to distance himself from the failed war policies of George Bush, he also failed to make the voter believe that he could be trusted to handle major issues like border security and the future of social security and larger health care considerations.

[As I write this] I'm watching the House, and Speaker Pelosi. Yikes, but they've got some cut-throat tactics going on. President Bush has asked for 124 Billion dollars in new war spending. The Dems are set to bring a out bill in the House that will have a timetable for withdrawal, and 20 billion in pork added on. Machiavelli would be proud. Bear in mind that this bill would still have to get through House and Senate conference, but hey; if it did?
Option A:
If Mr. Bush vetoes this bill, he loses funding for his war.
Option B:
If he signs this bill in to law, he is obliged to abide by the withdrawal plan.

Hillary has recently stated that she'd leave "some" troops in Iraq if elected to the Presidency. Her bets are hedged no matter which way this thing goes. [Edited by Don W]



In Re Hillary, there is some hazzard to a delicate part of the anatomy when “sitting on a fence.” I do hope the fence is a rail fence and not a picket fence. See also my B43 commentary, far below.

In Re Bush43. I believe he was getting contrary advice from Nov. 7. Someone in the WH was arguing the new reality of the Congress made it desirable to foster a conciliatory stance. On the other side, he was advised being the nice guy it is not going to work. The gap is too great to bridge. You will lose your core supporters if you kowtow to the Dems. And it’s not your personality, anyway. He laid down the gauntlet Tuesday night.

I prefer that. I’d rather keep his non-compromise position before the public than him trying to be the nice guy. I’m satisfied he could have endeared himself to the American people if he had “accepted” the ISG Report, even if he later modified it substantially. But no, he said “jam it.”
"I AM THE DECIDER."



posted by grover

I wrote this for another thread but I am tossing it in here because I think it bears repeating with some additions.

As for the Democrats not having a winnable candidate the only thing I can say is that the Republicans don't either. It really is a sorry mess on both sides. I am thinking what could happen on the Democratic side is that with this long run up Obama and Clinton will bloody themselves in infighting that neither of them will be able to get the nomination because no one will want either of them. That will open the door for the convention to finally become a nominating convention and a dark horse like Al Gore steps into the gap as the candidate . . he can definitely win especially if he gives all those "advisors" the boot and runs as himself. [Edited by Don W]



Yes on Gore. Being himself. But I’m sorry to say, I think that is true of most of the candidates. They are all trying to fit a profile the advisers say will garner the most votes.

The Bush43 speech on The Surge was the best speech I have ever heard him give. He actually impressed me he believed what he was saying. I disagree with him, but there is a very good precedent for the position he is taking. I came away from the speech thinking for sure he’d get a surge in the polls - yes, a pun was intended - but according to the talking heads, he did not. Which by the bye makes me skeptical of the polls.

I do not believe the Iraqis will necessarily kill more of each other after we leave than they are killing of each other now. That makes no sense. If the Iraqis want genocide then they will have genocide whether this year or next year. I do not think the Iraqi are nearly as dumb as we seem to think they are. That is not a sufficient reason to stay on in Iraq past our period of usefulness. And “usefulness” must be measured in American terms.

Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968 when the public wanted an end to the Vietnam War. Nixon promised, “I have a plan.” He implied he would end the War promptly. He would not reveal his plan, but he managed to eek out a narrow victory over Hubert Humphrey. Then Nixon did not end the War.

Instead, he carried it on for 6 years. He called it the “Vietnamization” of the War. 22,000 men went KIA in those 6 yeas. Bush43 is saying he wants to stay until the Iraqi Army and maybe the Iraqi police are capable of keeping law and order. Nixon knew what he was doing, and I give Bush43 the same credit.

Nixon wanted to show the USSR and China that even though we “lost” the War, we could inflict so much pain and destruction on anyone, that winning was not as good an option as you might at first think. I think this is the reason Bush43 is defying all common sense and reason. He wants the Iranians (and NK) and the Hezbollah and Hamas not to think that “wining” is something they really would want to do.

[edit on 3/21/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 06:18 AM
link   
On the basis of what you've just said, what will your expectations be from a Hillary Clinton administration? Will her party become more unified, or will we see more of the same juvenile behavior that the Republicans have become so "good" at?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join