Glenn brought to my attention that Joseph Wilson has announced he may sue Bush and Cheney because of damage done to the career of his wife, the CIA agent who was outed courtesy of Karl Rove.
Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that the exact same conservative forces which stated–at the time of the Paula Jones civil suit–that a president should be able to be sued while in office, will now say that Bush simply cannot be allowed to be distracted by a civil suit?
PAD
• 
More importantly: Can someone please tell me why in the hëll Phil “Scrap Iron!” Garner didn’t have a reliever warming up as soon as Oswalt gave up two runs? Freaking idiot.
I’m slipping behind again, but I’d just like to say that I don’t entirely mind the idea of a waiting period, provided that we make an exception for those who’re obviously in danger (people who’ve received threats, or who’ve had to get a restraining order)
And see, this is why I have a problem with the 2nd Amendment in the first place.
People having guns for bad purposes is bad enough.
But to then arm everybody else in the name of defense against the people with bad purposes just leaves us with alot more dead people.
Say, PAD, are you just waiting for the indictments to come down from Fitzgerald’s office before starting another political thread?
It looks like the šhìŧ’s gonna hit the fan any day now, and the White House ducks (Rove, Libby, and Cheney at the very least) are all lined up to get smacked by that flying poo. 🙂
“And see, this is why I have a problem with the 2nd Amendment in the first place.”
Hey, the Second Amendment was great, when we didn’t have a standing army.
“his wife, the CIA agent who was outed courtesy of Karl Rove”
Apparently, being liberal means you can pronounce conservatives guilty until proven innocent, unless you’re Osama Bin Laden. Then Howard Dean will demand you get a fair trial before jumping to conclusions.
?(I forgot),
“And this would be a surprise how, exactly? The media haven’t been doing a proper job for at least as long as the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.”
I agree. When the news coming out of Iraq is all-negative, all-the-time; when Carole Simpson interviewed an author with new views on race and never ran it because she only did it to “get him”; when the Governor of Louisiana has not been called to task for being an embarrassment during and post-Katrina; when a former Clinton press secretary is head of one of the major Sunday shows (what odds do you give for This Week With Ari Fleischer?); when major network news anchors go to Democratic fundraisers and when everyone is already focused on the 2008 “horse race” rather than talking about the complexities of Iraq, the Medicare Reform Bill, No Child Left Behind and some of the proposed changes to Social Security, then, no, the news media is not doing it’s job.
Craig J. Ries,
Someone said: “Seriously, if the Democrats expect to regain any power, they’ve got to come up with something more than flinging poo against the wall to see what sticks.”
You said: “And yet, that’s exactly how the Republicans got into power”
Bull. They seized power because the country liked the Republicans’ ideas (balancing the budget, welfare reform, etc.) better than the ideas Clinton and the Democratic Congress were focusing on (gays in the military, more socialized health care). That is why.
This fact was driven home with such force that Clinton pretty much gave up pushing liberal ideas and signed welfare reform, the Defense Against Marriage Act, and worked with republicans to balance the budget.
The Democrats’ most popular politician in the past quarter century, and he spent three-fourts of his Presidency pushing conservative principles.
You can’t make this stuff up.
“lead us into Iraq”
First, it’s ‘led’. Please learn how to spell simple words. Especially when you’re constantly mocking Bush’s intelligence.
And yes, he led us. That’s what true leaders do.
“and in trying to change things such as Social Security”
Because instead of scaring seniors and sticking with a 70+ year program that has undergone no fundamental changes, Bush had the vision to see how people could create more wealth for themselves and their families, as has happened in places like Chile. It’s worth debating, but it definitely shows vision.
“Well, guess what? The president isn’t above the law.”
Dave never said he was. Unlike you, though, he uses the law, experience and reasoning to come to his conclusions rather than spout cliches.
Den,
“It’s only after they lost power that they gave up on ideas.”
Well, they gave up on LIBERAL ideas, sure. They had just lost a 40-year hold on the House of Representatives. There is no doubt Clinton would have been toast if the election were in 1994. I had doubted ever seeing a GOP-controlled House in my lifetime and yet here it was. And it couldn’t have been possible without Newt Gingrich and perhaps more importantly Bill Clinton. Thanks, Bill!
Knuckles,
“If the GOP was stupid enough to nominate Santorum, they’d more than deserve the ášš-whuppin’ even Kucinich could give that lunatic.”
Obviously, since you have described him as a lunatic, I can assume you don’t like him very much.
But, please. He is one of the most powerful Senators in the nation. Livng in Pennsylvania, I see a lot of him, and he handles himself extremely well.
Just please ask yourself this.
Who has the most appeal to GOP primary voters? Giuliani, with his stance on social issues; McCain, with his “maverick” streak where he continues to say and do things the media likes but GOPers don’t? Or Santorum?
Also, name one red state Santorum would lose. Now, toss Pennsylvania in the GOP column this time around and it would be very hard for a Democrat to win.
Remember, Carter once prayed his opponent would be Ronald Reagan, the old conservative actor, rather than the more “electable” Bush Senior or Howard Baker.
Got his wish. Didn’t exactly turn out as he planned.
“If they are smart, the party will try and mend fences with McCain.”
First, a lot of this has been done, only it is McCain who has been mending fences with the GOP. What is this Democratic fascination with a man with a very conservative voting record and who is more eloquent than Bush about why we must win the Iraq war?
Craig J. Ries,
“The point some of you seem to be trying to make is that the president should be above the law (or immune from it) while in office.”
Nobody said any such thing. You just inferred what you wanted, whether it was there or not. As usual.
“Oh. Unless it’s Clinton we’re talking about.”
What an insighful, mature argument! David used SPECIFIC LEGAL DOCTRINES to support his opinions and you go off on another childish rant. Gee, what a surprise!
“I say no to that”
When it wasn’t even said! Right on! Keep speaking truth to power, brother!
“and you decide to be a prìçk. Thanks for playing “Who Wants To Be A Jáçkášš?”
Thanks for winning, which you do with with increasing regularity on these political threads.
Jerome: Santorum is the junior senator from PA. He is currently holding a favorable/unfavorable rating with his constituency (also known as PA voters) of 45/48. There is a slim possibility that he might get reelected next year, but it will be a dogfight. I think either Sherrod Brown or Paul Hackett will take him to the cleaners. We’ll see.
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/100USSenators1005SortbyApproval.htm
Bill,
“he could pretty much wipe the Plame story off the map with a chance to make history (coff, Condi Rice, coff)”
Yes!Yes! A thousand times yes! Such a move would help our country in so many ways! I feel like the guy on that diamond commercial whenever I think about her running in 2008. “I! LOVE! THIS! WOMAN!”
I am actively pushing for this to happen.
Rex Hondo,
“The very fact that a man unqualified to manage 7-11, much less a nation, speaks volumes.”
The very fact that you define such a rabidly partisan opinion as fact speaks volumes about yourself.
Craig J. Ries,
“Oh, and on that note, there was a bill passed earlier today that would shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits. Chalk up another one for the NRA.”
Yay NRA! Woof! Woof! Woof!
“another shield bill was up for vote for fast food chains as well”
And you’re against this? Why? Do you really want the government to control where and what we eat? Do you really feel people who have no self-control should benefit by blaming someone else?
“and see, this is why I have a problem with the 2nd Amendment in the first place”
Replace the ‘2nd’ with a ‘1st’ and see how it sounds. Now please realize that without a 2nd, there would be no 1st. Just ask Condi Rice and others who grew up in the South whose parents protected them and their families from the Klan with guns. People must always be able to protect themselves when the law fails.
“People having guns for bad purposes is bad enough. But to then arm everybody else in the name of defense against the people with bad purposes just leaves us with a lot more dead people.”
It leaves us with a lot more dead, bad people. Probably fewer overall, as well since the evil people in the world generally prey on the weak.
I remember when Milosevic was committing genocide and a reporter asked how so few could control so many and he said “When the few have guns and the many don’t, it is quite easy.”
Knuckles,
I never said it was going to be easy, just that if he could win a true swing state like PA and manage to win it decisively, it is a real possibility.
Apparently, being liberal means you can pronounce conservatives guilty until proven innocent, unless you’re Osama Bin Laden.
I’m sorry, how was Clinton treated again by your oh-so-loving hypocrits in Congress?
And who the hëll is this bin Laden guy?
If Bush doesn’t give a dámņ about him, why should I? Or do you not have a little retort for that?
They seized power
Well, you’ve got the ‘seized’ part right, cause Bush sure as hëll wasn’t elected into office in 2000.
Please learn how to spell simple words.
Oh, I’m sorry. Nobody’s allowed to make a typo.
Please, by all means, start bìŧçh-šláppìņg everybody with a dictionary if it makes you feel better.
I don’t want to misunderestimate you or anything.
It’s worth debating, but it definitely shows vision.
Yeah, a vision of the rich getting richer, while the poor get poorer.
It’s the only vision Bush knows.
It leaves us with a lot more dead, bad people.
I’ll remember that the next time a kid gets their hand on a gun and blows their sibling away. Maybe you should too.
Unless you’d like to make the piss-poor assumption that people that have guns suppposedly only for self-defense are somehow any more responsible individuals than the rest of us.
While we’re arming the entire world with guns to protect ourselves with, we can just put out our eyes. Obviously you’re hëll bent on the “eye for an eye” argument, and the blind generally aren’t good shots.
“It leaves us with a lot more dead, bad people.”
So now you are calling the over 2000 american soldiers killed in this stupid, mindless, pointless war bad people?
Obviously, since you have described him as a lunatic, I can assume you don’t like him very much.
But, please. He is one of the most powerful Senators in the nation. Livng in Pennsylvania, I see a lot of him, and he handles himself extremely well.
Just please ask yourself this.
Who has the most appeal to GOP primary voters? Giuliani, with his stance on social issues; McCain, with his “maverick” streak where he continues to say and do things the media likes but GOPers don’t? Or Santorum?
Also, name one red state Santorum would lose. Now, toss Pennsylvania in the GOP column this time around and it would be very hard for a Democrat to win.
Remember, Carter once prayed his opponent would be Ronald Reagan, the old conservative actor, rather than the more “electable” Bush Senior or Howard Baker.
Got his wish. Didn’t exactly turn out as he planned.
Yeah but Reagan was loved. Santorum is no Reagan. I think he would lose LOTS of red states, unless I am very wrong about Hillary’s chances.
I have to say, I am far less impressed with Santorum than you are. I don’t see a lot of him but when I do he provokes a dislike. that may not be rational, I realize, but something about him turns me off. That’s on top of the fact that I don’t think he articulates conservatism terribly well.
At any rate, the odds of him winning PA by a landslide are pretty much directly proportional to Mr Casey being photographed in bed with a male goat, which is to say, not very. Unless the democrats totally lose their minds and decide to let Casey go down in flames because of his anti-abortion stance, which doesn’t seem likely.
First, a lot of this has been done, only it is McCain who has been mending fences with the GOP. What is this Democratic fascination with a man with a very conservative voting record and who is more eloquent than Bush about why we must win the Iraq war?
Yeah, I’m amazed how many Democrats speak fondly of McCain, who is Bush with a gift for speaking. If he gets the nod for President in 2008 watch how fast he morphs into a crazed right wing loose cannon in the minds of some of them.
As far as the Plame investigation, I’m betting on at least a Libby indictment. Probably not Rove. 50/50 on whther any of the indictments are for anything worse than perjury (though perjury is bad enough–it was bad when Clinton did it and it’s bad when others do it).
But it’s their business to know how many cars you own, or how many houses you own? I fail to see the difference.
I can’t honestly say that I’m any more pleased with the requirement to register my car than I am the requirement to register my guns. Ditto for houses, though I have to say that I appreciate the need for a central location for land ownership records.
Hey, the Second Amendment was great, when we didn’t have a standing army.
I think that shows a fundamental difference in our philosophies, Knuckles. To me, the Second Amendment was unnecessary before we had a standing army (as there was no way the government would leave its citizens unarmed if they were the only defense it had), but now that we’ve got a standing army, the Second Amendment becomes infinitely more important.
but now that we’ve got a standing army, the Second Amendment becomes infinitely more important.
I see where you’re coming from with this, and I understand what you’re getting at.
My problem is that I don’t treat the 2nd Amendment as an “end all” sitaution.
There are restrictions on how far the 1st Amendment really goes (you know, we have laws for things such as libel).
But some fight any restriction to the 2nd Amendment, without fail, because they think it’s the only amendment that shouldn’t be restricted. And some of these people are the type that feel the 1st Amendment should be restricted more.
Yeah, the assault weapons ban had problems. But does anybody need an assault rift? or any machine gun? No.
Maybe for me it’s just the fact that I boggle at the concept of somebody wanting to have a collection of guns.
Oh, I forgot to reply to something:
The very fact that you define such a rabidly partisan opinion as fact speaks volumes about yourself.
The fact that you defend a moron like Bush speaks volume about you as well.
This is a man who has driven a few companies into the ground, and is in the process of doing the same to our country.
Yet you defend him as if he’s god’s gift to political discourse.
And yes, compared to Bush, McCain comes across as a freaking genius. But then, most people do.
Kerry was an idiot, but not nearly as much of one as Bush. What Kerry needed was a good propoganda mouth piece like Rove.
Yeah, I’m amazed how many Democrats speak fondly of McCain, who is Bush with a gift for speaking.
Unlike Bush, McCain has actually done things I approve of.
I mean, isn’t it ok to have an interest in somebody that even the Republicans slandered, a member of their own party, back in 2000? 🙂
To call McCain ‘Bush with a gift for speaking’ is somewhat akin to calling Santorum ‘Reagan, if he were gaffe prone’. McCain is conservative, true. But he is a legitimate conservative in the Goldwater vein, as opposed to whatever the fûçk Bush is. You know, someone who understands the concept of the seperation of church and state.
Bill: Santorum is no Reagan? Hëll, he’s no Slade frickin’ Gorton.
But, please. He is one of the most powerful Senators in the nation. Livng in Pennsylvania, I see a lot of him, and he handles himself extremely well.
Funny, I live in one of the most conservative parts of Pennsylvania, and the more Santorum opens his yap, the more people here are embarrassed by him. If the current polls hold, he’ll likely lose his Senate seat next year, much less have a shot at the presidency in 2008.
I will, however, admit that he likely has stronger appeal to GOP primary voters than McCain or Giulliani, which speaks to how radicalized the base of BOTH parties have become in recent years.
Also, name one red state Santorum would lose. Now, toss Pennsylvania in the GOP column this time around and it would be very hard for a Democrat to win.
Tell will tell. As much as pundits like to refer to states as “red” or “blue” these trends aren’t fixed in stone. There was a time when the south was solidly Democratic. The Civil Rights Act and Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” changed that. I don’t think you can count on any state as a “lock” forever. Santorum’s extremist views on education and his general sleaziness has worn out his welcome in PA. Add to that the likelihood that he’ll turn off moderates in swing states like Ohio and Florida, I wouldn’t be picking up curtains for the Oval Office just yet if I were him.
I can’t honestly say that I’m any more pleased with the requirement to register my car than I am the requirement to register my guns. Ditto for houses, though I have to say that I appreciate the need for a central location for land ownership records.
The difference being that ownership of a home or car is not protected in the Constitution like guns are. In fact, just ask the people of New Haven, CT, how easily their homes can be taken away from them.
Knuckles. To me, the Second Amendment was unnecessary before we had a standing army (as there was no way the government would leave its citizens unarmed if they were the only defense it had), but now that we’ve got a standing army, the Second Amendment becomes infinitely more important.
You know, for all the arguments in favor of the 2nd Amendment, I find this one the most laughable. The US military has tanks, anti-aircraft cannons, bombers, fighter jets, fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, aircraft carriers, etc. And they’re the most highly trained soldiers in the world.
Anyone who thinks a bunch of duck hunters can take on the US military with hunting rifles has got a serious screw loose.
This is a man who has driven a few companies into the ground, and is in the process of doing the same to our country.
I still marvel at the fact that Bush actually ran in 2000 on the promise to run the country like a business. Didn’t anyone besides me notice his repeated failures as a businessman?
To call McCain ‘Bush with a gift for speaking’ is somewhat akin to calling Santorum ‘Reagan, if he were gaffe prone’. McCain is conservative, true. But he is a legitimate conservative in the Goldwater vein, as opposed to whatever the fûçk Bush is. You know, someone who understands the concept of the seperation of church and state.
I may not agree with McCain on every issue, but at least when he speaks, I know his opinions are his own and not being fed to him by the triumvirate of Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.
Would I vote for McCain in 2008? Possibly. It would depend on a lot of factors. Of course, I believe that Rove his minions will be backing a different horse and will be out slandering McCain every bit as much as they did in 2000.
As for Rove, I don’t think he’ll be indicted in the current scandal. “Scooter” Libby seems like a more likely fall guy at this point. although even an indictment and conviction against him looks like a longshot. Of course, you never know how these investigations will play out.
Den,
Private ownership of a home or car is protected in the Constitution. That the Supreme Court chose to ignore that in the Kelo decision (and, yes, in many, many prior decisions… I know, Kelo didn’t destroy private property rights by itself; it was simply yet another straw being tossed on the back of a long-broken camel) doesn’t change the substance of what’s written there.
The guns that I’m permitted by the Second Amendment are, undeniably, more effective in defending my home against invaders than against the government. I honestly don’t believe that the even entirity of the American civilian population, legally armed, could stand against the force of the U. S. Army if it were brought to bear on us, I still believe that being armed to protect us from the government is one of the more important justifications for the Second Amendment.
That might seem silly to you. That’s fine. It seems somewhat silly to me, as well. It also seems true. That may be contradictory, but… that’s still how I believe.
Private ownership of a home or car is protected in the Constitution.
Considering the automobile wasn’t invented until over a century after the adoption of the Constitution, I’d love to see where that is listed.
As for homes, again, it’s not explicitly stated. The closest that comes to it is the prohibition against unwarranted searches and seizures. But that amendment only says that the government has to follow due process of law to search or seize your home. The government can take your home for nonpayment of taxes. It can take it if it can establish that you were using it as part of a criminal enterprise (such as selling drugs out of your home). Hëll, it can take it to build a shopping mall as we’ve seen. Your only right is to get paid compensation at fair market value if they take your home by eminent domain.
Hate to burst your bubble, but it’s not there.
Craig,
If you don’t mind, if you’re quoting multiple people, could you indicate who you’re quoting? Mostly because the proximity to my post above you makes it obvious who said, “…but now that we’ve got a standing army, the Second Amendment becomes infinitely more important”, and I don’t want people to think that I was also the person who wrote, “The very fact that you define such a rabidly partisan opinion as fact speaks volumes about yourself.”.
Anyway, Craig wrote:
I see where you’re coming from with this, and I understand what you’re getting at.
My problem is that I don’t treat the 2nd Amendment as an “end all” sitaution.
There are restrictions on how far the 1st Amendment really goes (you know, we have laws for things such as libel).
To be fair, laws against such things as libel aren’t really designed to silence you, but rather to force you to face the consequences of your exercise of free speech rights. It seems to me that a similar law for the Second Amendment would be one that allowed me to be sued if I fired a gun and damaged someone’s private property, and I’d be completely in favor of that (you know, if those laws didn’t already exist).
But some fight any restriction to the 2nd Amendment, without fail, because they think it’s the only amendment that shouldn’t be restricted. And some of these people are the type that feel the 1st Amendment should be restricted more.
Yes, some people are idiots. However, I don’t think that I’ve ever called for a restriction on the 1st Amendment, except in that your exercising of it can’t hurt someone else unjustly (telling the truth isn’t unjust, but libel or slander is).
Yeah, the assault weapons ban had problems. But does anybody need an assault rift? or any machine gun? No.
No one needs a MINI Cooper, eith… Actually, scratch that… No one needs a Hummer, either. That doesn’t mean we should ban them just for the sake of banning them. Ban the misuse of them? Fine. I’m with you.
Ban the tool? Why bother? If those people prone to violence don’t have machine guns, they’ll use a pistol. Or a knife. Or a baseball bat.
Maybe for me it’s just the fact that I boggle at the concept of somebody wanting to have a collection of guns.
I boggle at the concept of someone wanting a collection of all sorts of things, but as long as they’re not hurting anyone with that collection, I don’t see any reason to try to stop them from doing so.
Den,
You’re playing with semantics. No, the Constitution doesn’t say you’ve a right to a car, but it does say that the government can’t take your property from you for public use without due process or just compensation. That “cars” are a subset of “property” seems like a simple enough conclusion to me.
Again, “Private ownership of [property] is protected in the Constitution. That the Supreme Court chose to ignore that … doesn’t change the substance of what’s written there.” The government’s perversion of “public use” to mean “whatever the hëll we want to take it for” doesn’t change the fact that your right to your private property is enumerated in an amendment.
Robin,
I’m not arguing semantics. I’m discussing the law and the Constitution. The Constitution explicitly states only that the government cannot seize your property without due process of law and without just compensation in cases of eminent domain. In others, the government can and does seize your property so long as it does within the requirements of the law as written by Congress or state legislature.
That’s it. That is the sum total of your property rights as defined by the US Constitution.
In contrast, the 2nd amendment states that your right keep and bare arms “shall not be infringed” (no exceptions). In other words, the government cannot take your guns away from you, but it can, under certain circumstances, take your house or your car from you.
That you don’t agree with how SCOTUS has intepreted this amendment does not change the fact that the rules on owning a home or car are different from owning a gun.
I mean, isn’t it ok to have an interest in somebody that even the Republicans slandered, a member of their own party, back in 2000? 🙂
Obviously you meant to write “some Republicans”. The ones who supported him in the past, present and future did not slander him. Actually, neither did ALL of those who did not support him.
And I’d be perfectly happy to see many Democrat voters switch to the winning team in 2008 if McCain runs. 🙂
To call McCain ‘Bush with a gift for speaking’ is somewhat akin to calling Santorum ‘Reagan, if he were gaffe prone’. McCain is conservative, true. But he is a legitimate conservative in the Goldwater vein, as opposed to whatever the fûçk Bush is. You know, someone who understands the concept of the seperation of church and state.
I understand that but what I find suprising is that liberals consider McCain as someone they would vote for when he is very conservative. I can understand them not hating him or wanting him dead. But voting for him?
And Santorum ISN’T gaffe prone?
I will, however, admit that he likely has stronger appeal to GOP primary voters than McCain or Giulliani, which speaks to how radicalized the base of BOTH parties have become in recent years.
There have been several (admitedly non-scientific) polls taken asking Republicans who they would like to see run. Santorum, if he shows up at all, is in single digits, behind people who have all but stated they won’t run, not to mention “the animatronic Reagan robot from Disney’s Hall of Presidents”. Now if the poll was Who Would Democrats Like To See Run it might be different. Santorum would be right up there with Pat Buchanan, Dan Quail and, oddly enough, Walter Mondale.
Well, Bill, if the polls aren’t scientific, then they should be taken with a grain of salt. I don’t take a Santorum candidacy seriously at this point, basically because it’s looking likely that he won’t even have a Senate seat in 2008.
As for McCain: I don’t consider myself a liberal but a moderate. I’m all for personal responsibility and fiscal restraint (not a popular stance in either party these days), government regulation only where it is absolutely necessary, but that also means that the government has no business promoting personal beliefs like religion or regulating people’s sex lives.
Admittedly, I’m very strongly anti-Bush, but that’s because I believe he’s a liar and an incompetent. Bill Clinton wasn’t my favorite president either, but I joined the Democratic party this year for the first time because I believe of the two, they are the most likely to field a moderate in 2008.
So, there are things about McCain I like, such as his personal integrity, and things I don’t like (McCain-Feingold being one of the worst attempts at election “reform” ever). I would consider his candidacy with an open mind.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t vote for Santorum if he was running against Spongebob.
“And Santorum ISN’T gaffe prone?”
Read my poorly-crafted sentence again. “Reagan, if he were gaffe prone” meaning “Reagan, if Reagan were gaffe-prone”. I may not like Reagan, but he was anything but gaffe prone (setting aside, of course, the “Bombing will commence in…” comment).
I read it the same way that Bill did.
Hey, I admitted it was poorly crafted (it was also early, and I had only had a few sips of coffee).
Yeah, but it makes a lot more sense the way he meant it. No harm.
Anyway, Santorum is a non-starter. His getting the nomination is about as likely as the draft being reinstated (and it’s amazing how quickly after the election that prediction was forgotten).
If I had to handicap the Republicans I’d have it as follows:
Guliani
Allen, McCain (tie for second)
Romney
Someone Nobody Is Talking About
(Big Gap Here)
Jeb Bush
Rice
Frist (A few years ago he would have been second or third, which shows how valuable these predictions are)
The animatronic Reagan robot from Disney’s Hall of Presidents
I’d say Romney is probably a non-starter at this point as well.
I’d put both Allen and Romney ahead of McCain and Giuliani. I’d rate McCain ahead of Giuliani. A few months ago, I would have rated him below Giuliani, but with the recent rebellion in the GOP against the neocon cabal, there’s an opening for him to rise into. Plus, if Rove starts to look like too much damaged goods, he won’t be around to slander McCain.
And don’t count the animatronic Reagan-bot out just yet. There are a lot of Republicans out there who might believe that Saint Ron has come back from the dead to lead them into the promised land once more. 🙂
I’d drop Jeb Bush off the list since I don’t think he’ll run in 2008 with the country just starting to get sick of the Bush family.
I hope you’re right about Santorum. Unfortunately, he retains a lot of support within the national party, so I won’t call him a non-starter so much as a dark horse at this point.
and it’s amazing how quickly after the election that prediction was forgotten
Not forgotten. We’re still in Iraq, and there’s still the occassional frothing over Iran. 😉
If I had to handicap the Republicans I’d have it as follows:
What about The Newt? There was discussion just recently that he might be interested in running.
One would assume the fact that Gingrich is on the same moral pedestal as Clinton would disqualify him. But based on the investigations into Frist, DeLay, and the White house, morals may not be much of an issue.
What about The Newt
Again, I just want to limit my guesses to people that REPUBLICANS want to see run. I’ve yet to see an iota of evidence that Newt or Santorum are on the wish list of anyone NOT named Howard Dean.
Looks like the indictments will be announced thursday.
If Fox Had Been Around Throughout History
Don’t know where else to put this, but dammit, it’s funny.
With first-quarter grades due at the start of next week, there’s no way I’m getting involved in any major way, but I’m pleased to see that Jerome is being his usual fine and upstanding self, yelling at other people for allegedly labeling partisan opinions as fact while his own partisan opinions were apparently facts delivered directly to him by the Almighty. As Melinda Snodgrass wrote in one of my favorite TNG episodes, “It lends a sense of order and stability to my universe to know that you’re still a pompous ášš.”
Bill:
I understand that but what I find suprising is that liberals consider McCain as someone they would vote for when he is very conservative. I can understand them not hating him or wanting him dead. But voting for him?
I don’t know that I’d ever truly vote for him, though it would depend on who the Democrats put up. (They put up, oh … Lyndon LaRouche, I’d vote for McCain. Hëll, they put up LaRouche and I’d vote for a ticket of Mayor McCheese and Spuds McKenzie.)
McCain, on the other hand, is someone who at least 90% of the time speaks with true conviction and who is coming by his opinions honestly. He shows evidence of having thought through issues. He shows evidence of being able to learn and grow from new experiences. In short, he shows he’s a rational human being who is difficult to pigeonhole. Most of his ideas are such that I’d be unlikely to vote for him, but I very much respect him as a person and would respect the man holding the office of president, in a way that I don’t now. (The most complimentary things I can say about Chimpy McFlightsuit are (a) he appears to be a very canny politician, and (b) he’s at best an empty suit.)
(As others have said, he’s a conservative in the true sense of the word, and while I disagree with some of his positions I don’t think he’d be likely to decide the Renaissance was a fiendish French plot to topple Christianity. Bush, I could see deciding exactly that.)
Back to grading.
TWL
Well, the good news is, you won’t have to worry about voting for Bush. The bad news is, I’m not sure that the Democrats have anything else to run on.
At this point it’s hard to imagine the Democrats NOT winning big in the 2006 elections (with the caveat that a year is an eternity in politics) but the Republicans potentially hold a much stronger hand in the presidential election. They have Guliani and McCain, either (or both) (!) who would win huge. The democrats have Hillary, who I think is very capable of winning but I keep being told by Democrats that I’m wrong, and I have to give consideration that they may know something I don’t.
There are a few other Democrats who I think would make excellent potential presidents but they will have a hard time getting attention if, as I suspect, we get a knock down drag out battle of titans between Clinton, Kerry and maybe Gore for the nomination. Yeah, a dark horse might slip in when the smoke clears but could they win when their own party is exhausted and bitter?
But now I’m talking 3 years out which is eternity cubed. So I’m probably just performing ventriloquism with my hindquarters. But I’m gonna put McCain at the top now (Guliani had the position for almost 5 hours). Republicans almost always nominate the front runner and they are very willing to nominate those who were previously losers. Democrats almost never nominate the front runner (Dean should have known he was toast when people said his nomination was inevitable) and they are not too forgiving. That should rule out Gore and Kerry. So I’m saying Clinton.
McCain vs Clinton. Would be good. I think it would be McCain’s to lose.
Well, McCain, at least, would spend some time trying to find competent people to helm his administration….
Gore’s said he’s not running. Maybe he’ll change his mind, but I’m not betting on it. I could see Kerry trying again, but he’ll get his ášš handed to him. Hillary is possible, but my gut tells me that it’s not one that would fly in the general election. Too many people are absolutely opposed to her for a variety of reasons. (I also am not especially impressed with some of her shifts of position since becoming a senator.) I’d vote for her, but not as enthusiastically as I voted for Dean in the 2004 primary, or as enthusiastically as I voted for AnyoneButBush in the general election.
Of course, I still have the occasional wistful daydream that I was in the universe where the 2000 election was Bradley-McCain.
TWL
My completely unscientific guess for front runners for the Democratic nomination goes thusly:
1) Wes Clark
1) Hillary Clinton
3) Evan Bayh
4) Russ Feingold
5) John Edwards
Some of this would be thrown off if Gore changed his mind, but that’s the field as I see it right now. Joe Biden is also a possibility, but I don’t think he’d get very far.
Go without an internet connection for a week and look what happens…
Jumping back in late on the previous discussion I was in, I’d just like to say that even if a small minority of brilliant people is keeping us afloat scientifically, that does not disprove in any way that the Nascar, reality TV and creationism crowd are a growing majority.
On the subject of gun control. Gun registration is necessary for the same reason registering your car is necessary, only more so. Registering your car means you can’t run somebody over and just park somewhere quiet and walk away.
Also, the camera analogy is a specious argument at best. A camera has legitimate, perfectly legal uses, and people will always find ways to use legal items illegally. The ONLY function of a gun is to kill, and no civilian needs an assault weapon. (I’m all for allowing special dispensation for law enforcement, however.)
And any paranoid, dystopian fantasy about the army coming to get you as reasoning is just that, a paranoid fantasy, and a lousy excuse, at that. If, for whatever reason, the government decides it wants you dead, you’re f’ing DEAD, no matter how many uzis you own.
-Rex Hondo-
Not sure if this was mentioned already in this lengthy thread, but speaking as the only non-hunter in a family of hunters and gamesmen as well as the son of someone in the wholesale hunting and firearms business, I can tell you that one of the main concerns from this side regarding the ban of assault weapons is that this may be the first step in opening the door for more invasive and widespread bans. While I have absolutely no use for owning a weapon and don’t agree with the need for an assault weapon, I see their point.
Fred
I wouldn’t call McCain a lock on the nomination just yet as his maverick status has left him more than a few enemies in the GOP, but if Bush continues to display the arrogance and incompetence that has been the hallmark of his administration, that will only strengthen McCain’s hand.
As for the Democrats, I see Chillary much the same way that Bill sees Santorum: she’s the candidate that most republicans would like to see run, but I don’t see a huge groundswell of support for her candidacy on the democrat side. Gore has ruled himself out, so unless he changes his mind, he’s not going to be a factor.
Assuming both men would run, I’d say the two strongest candidates for the dem nomination are Wes Clark and John Edwards, although if Bill Richardson decides to run, he could throw a huge monkeywrench into the mix.
Maybe it’s still too early, but in all honesty though, I don’t see anyone on either side having the potential to just run away with the 2008 election. I think it’ll be another close one, unless some real serious šhìŧ hits the fan in the Bushite camp.
As for the 2006 congressional elections, I predict that the democrats will pick up seats, but not retake either house simply becaue they still don’t have a coherant plan as a party for where they want to take the country. Again, that prediction is subject to change depending on how badly Bush bungles things this year.
I can tell you that one of the main concerns from this side regarding the ban of assault weapons is that this may be the first step in opening the door for more invasive and widespread bans.
This is always a concern and talking point. Some have made the claim that opening the door for gay marriage allows for polygamy and bëášŧìálìŧÿ.
Obviously, it doesn’t mean that that is what is going to happen.
Oh, I love this article from the LA Times about how the White House plans to deflect criticism if indictments come down from Fitzgerald.
In particular, I enjoy this bit:
“White House officials and allies are hoping that intensive news coverage of the Fitzgerald investigation will be short-lived. On Nov. 7, they predicted, attention would shift to the Senate confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers.
“Let’s say something happens in the next 48 hours,” said one official. “It will dominate the news cycle until the 7th of November. Then a new cycle begins: Harriet will be the news.”
I wonder what the strategy will be now that Miers withdrew her nomination this morning.
*rofl*
>>I can tell you that one of the main concerns from this side regarding the ban of assault weapons is that this may be the first step in opening the door for more invasive and widespread bans.
Craig:
>This is always a concern and talking point. Some have made the claim that opening the door for gay marriage allows for polygamy and bëášŧìálìŧÿ.
>Obviously, it doesn’t mean that that is what is going to happen.
Obviously, though understanding their concerns, whether they are simply talking points or legitimate in their minds, goes a long way in communicating with “the other side” and even empathsizing…. both can be beneficial in effecting change.
Fred
The counter-argument to the slippery slope fear about the assault weapon ban is that, in the 80 years since fully automatic weapons were outlawed, there has been no nationwide effort to strip hunters of the guns that have a legitimate use in hunting.
Anyone who thinks a bunch of duck hunters can take on the US military with hunting rifles has got a serious screw loose.
Tell that to the soldiers hunting the Taliban in the Afghan/Pakistani mountains. For that matter, tell that to the NVA. If you get to pick your battlefield and fighting style, the duck hunters can eliminate the threat of the US military – which is not, after all, designed for fighting duck hunters.
Students of history may remember, that’s how we won the Revolution…