Race for 2008

[Caine]

At your service:

PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP

The Democrats' Patriotism Problem
Whining about imagined attacks is not a winning approach.

BY JAMES TARANTO
Monday, August 30, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

NEW YORK--President Bush may or may not get a "bounce" out of his convention here this week, but one suspects John Kerry is grateful for a respite after weeks of pounding by Vietnam veterans angry over his past antiwar activities and his present war-hero braggadocio. Before we turn our sights to the festivities at Madison Square Garden, it's worth pausing to consider how the Democrats ended up in this mess. Why did they nominate a candidate whose almost obsessive invocation of Vietnam made it all but inevitable that this decades-old war would become a central issue in the campaign?

The answer, simply put, is that the Democratic Party has a problem with patriotism, a problem that Mr. Kerry's status as a decorated Vietnam veteran was supposed to obviate.

To say that the Democrats have a problem with patriotism is not to say that they are unpatriotic. But they are awfully defensive about their patriotism. "Of course the vice president is questioning my patriotism," Michael Dukakis fumed during a 1988 presidential debate. "And I resent it." After Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia lost his 2002 re-election bid, it became part of Democratic (and journalistic) folklore that he owed his ouster to GOP attacks on his patriotism. And last month in Boston, Mr. Kerry declared: "We have an important message for those who question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction for our country. . . . We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."...

(Snip)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/pl/?id=110005545

Really, people you should just stop with all the nonsense and listen to what I have already stated. I know these things about politics. The Democrats have a problem and they won't fix it with their tired rhetoric about the Republicans.

Again, for those who haven't already seen it. The presidential candidates will be among these people and these alone. You have my personal guarantee.

Repubicans: McCain, Guilliani, and Allen. (with Lieberman as a possible VP candidate on a McCain ticket)

At this present time the betting odds are that the Republican candidate has exactly a three percentage point lead over the Democratic candidate. Forget all the polls. They are meaningless. Follow the money.

Democrats: Hillary, Warner, Bayh (with Feingold a longshot.)

You can put all the rest to bed. They will NOT be the candidates.

Well, this proves someone has the same opinion as you!

 

[Missouri Mule]

Well, this proves someone has the same opinion as you!

Not really. I'm a political junkie dating all the way back to 1952. I've followed politicians almost my entire lifetime. It really isn't that difficult to figure these things out. What I did before I even looked at the betting odds was to look at all 535 members of Congress and 50 governors and by a process of elimination determine the possible contenders. You'll quickly winnow it down to about 20 or so that could even theoretically be considered. Then you look at their strenghts, weakness, and name recognition to get it down still further. In the end it comes down to a very small and select group. That's what I did. You can do the same. The oddsmakers just confirm what I already know. The reason I put more credence into what they say is because polls are so poorly done and especially today when many people will not respond or respond truthfully. They are guides and nothing more.

A lot of people would be surprised to see that I put Bayh in there. But it shouldn't be difficult to understand why. Bayh is a popular Democrat in a heavily Republican state. He would carry Indiana for sure and also neighboring Ohio. That and the "blue states" virtually guarantees election. Contrast this with say a Bill Richardson. Richardson gets you 4 electoral votes in NM and what else? The best he can hope for (and which I think is running for) is the VP position. Of the current Democratic candidates, Warner would have the best chance of actually winning the election on his own. Couple that with Bayh (or vice-versa) and it's a potentially winning combination. Hillary simply has too much baggage coming in although she is now the prohibitive favorite. Edwards wants to be president but I think his day is past. Kerry and Gore are has-beens and ought to crawl back under the rocks where they came from.

On the Democratic side, McCain currently has a commanding lead, although conservative Republicans loathe him. But they'll hold their nose if Hillary wins the nomination. (They damn well better.) Guilliani is pro-abortion and that won't fly. Allen might very well be the concensus candidate but he is not terribly exciting but he chooses his words wisely. I think it will most probably come down to McCain and Allen although if Guilliani has the fire in his belly he might pull an upset although I believe that would be extremely unlikely.

Feingold is definitely running. I'm on his e-mail list and he is running smart and is consistent and strong in his beliefs and he is squeaky clean. He would be a most formidable candidate in the general election especially if the war is going badly. Don't count him out.

My dream "unity" ticket would (at this time) be McCain/Lieberman. The more likely ticket would probably be a McCain/Allen or McCain/Owens ticket. Any of these tickets would likely crush a Hillary ticket in 2008 unless the economy is in the tank. Hillary is obviously running to the right but will that sell? I doubt it. Her past is just too negative to get her over the hump.

These Ventura trial balloons and such are so much pie in the sky. It won't happen -- not in a million years.

 

[Missouri Mule]

You sure do put a lot of faith into op-eds......

You said I was making it up. I said you could look it up. You refused and essentially called me a liar. So I looked it up for you. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

I said the Democrats had a "Patriotism Problem." I gave you the proof and you now turn it into a strawman argument that I never made. You said this is an opinion piece (which it is), but that was not the issue. My point was that I was not the only person holding the view that the Democrats had a "Patriotism Problem." The American people obviously agree having reelected one of the worst communicators we have ever had as president. What does that tell you?

 

[Missouri Mule]

Not that it proves anything, but Micheal Moore was also at the GOP convention.

He was there to "observe" and primarily to disrupt the convention. He was entirely at home in the Democratic party. I saw with my own eyes that he attended the Democratic convention seated the gallery. As far as I am concerned that makes him a Democrat. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck -- it's a duck.

 

[Caine]

You said I was making it up. I said you could look it up. You refused and essentially called me a liar. So I looked it up for you. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

I said the Democrats had a "Patriotism Problem." I gave you the proof and you now turn it into a strawman argument that I never made. You said this is an opinion piece (which it is), but that was not the issue. My point was that I was not the only person holding the view that the Democrats had a "Patriotism Problem." The American people obviously agree having reelected one of the worst communicators we have ever had as president. What does that tell you?

It tells me that Bush had better attack ads.
They both had them, but Bush and the GOP had better attack ads.

 

[Stace]

You said I was making it up. I said you could look it up. You refused and essentially called me a liar. So I looked it up for you. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

I said the Democrats had a "Patriotism Problem." I gave you the proof and you now turn it into a strawman argument that I never made. You said this is an opinion piece (which it is), but that was not the issue. My point was that I was not the only person holding the view that the Democrats had a "Patriotism Problem." The American people obviously agree having reelected one of the worst communicators we have ever had as president. What does that tell you?

I didn't say you were making it up, I simply asked for you to back up your claim.

You didn't give me "proof", you gave me someone else's opinion. Proof lies in the cold, hard, indisputable facts.

I do appreciate you providing a source, but it still doesn't make it fact....


And I'm not even getting into why Dubya got reelected, I'm not in the mood for that particular debate right now.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I didn't say you were making it up, I simply asked for you to back up your claim.

You didn't give me "proof", you gave me someone else's opinion. Proof lies in the cold, hard, indisputable facts.

I do appreciate you providing a source, but it still doesn't make it fact....


And I'm not even getting into why Dubya got reelected, I'm not in the mood for that particular debate right now.

Now what did I say? If memory serves me correctly I SAID that I wasn't the only person around who shared my opinion that the Democrats had a "patriotism problem." Now you are changing the argument into whether or not the writer of the opinion article was correct in his evaluation. That was not what I said or intended to say (which I didn't.) You inferred something I didn't say. Ball in your court.

BTW, it would be more useful if you would argue with the logic of how I arrived at the candidates for 2008. That I would welcome.

 

[Stace]

Now what did I say? If memory serves me correctly I SAID that I wasn't the only person around who shared my opinion that the Democrats had a "patriotism problem." Now you are changing the argument into whether or not the writer of the opinion article was correct in his evaluation. That was not what I said or intended to say (which I didn't.) You inferred something I didn't say. Ball in your court.

BTW, it would be more useful if you would argue with the logic of how I arrived at the candidates for 2008. That I would welcome.

Alright...how did you arrive at the logic for the 2008 candidates? :mrgreen:

 

[Missouri Mule]

It tells me that Bush had better attack ads.
They both had them, but Bush and the GOP had better attack ads.

Would you rather have a pit bull chasing after our enemies or a chihauhau yelping at their heels. As much as I loathe pit bulls, I would rather have the pit bull under those set of circumstances. The American people chose between the devil they knew rather than the devil they didn't know. It strikes me as quite odd that if Bush is incompetent he keeps winning elections. Doesn't that strike you as somewhat odd?

 

[RightinNYC]

Not really. I'm a political junkie dating all the way back to 1952. I've followed politicians almost my entire lifetime. It really isn't that difficult to figure these things out. What I did before I even looked at the betting odds was to look at all 535 members of Congress and 50 governors and by a process of elimination determine the possible contenders. You'll quickly winnow it down to about 20 or so that could even theoretically be considered. Then you look at their strenghts, weakness, and name recognition to get it down still further. In the end it comes down to a very small and select group. That's what I did. You can do the same. The oddsmakers just confirm what I already know. The reason I put more credence into what they say is because polls are so poorly done and especially today when many people will not respond or respond truthfully. They are guides and nothing more.

A lot of people would be surprised to see that I put Bayh in there. But it shouldn't be difficult to understand why. Bayh is a popular Democrat in a heavily Republican state. He would carry Indiana for sure and also neighboring Ohio. That and the "blue states" virtually guarantees election. Contrast this with say a Bill Richardson. Richardson gets you 4 electoral votes in NM and what else? The best he can hope for (and which I think is running for) is the VP position. Of the current Democratic candidates, Warner would have the best chance of actually winning the election on his own. Couple that with Bayh (or vice-versa) and it's a potentially winning combination. Hillary simply has too much baggage coming in although she is now the prohibitive favorite. Edwards wants to be president but I think his day is past. Kerry and Gore are has-beens and ought to crawl back under the rocks where they came from.

On the Democratic side, McCain currently has a commanding lead, although conservative Republicans loathe him. But they'll hold their nose if Hillary wins the nomination. (They damn well better.) Guilliani is pro-abortion and that won't fly. Allen might very well be the concensus candidate but he is not terribly exciting but he chooses his words wisely. I think it will most probably come down to McCain and Allen although if Guilliani has the fire in his belly he might pull an upset although I believe that would be extremely unlikely.

Feingold is definitely running. I'm on his e-mail list and he is running smart and is consistent and strong in his beliefs and he is squeaky clean. He would be a most formidable candidate in the general election especially if the war is going badly. Don't count him out.

My dream "unity" ticket would (at this time) be McCain/Lieberman. The more likely ticket would probably be a McCain/Allen or McCain/Owens ticket. Any of these tickets would likely crush a Hillary ticket in 2008 unless the economy is in the tank. Hillary is obviously running to the right but will that sell? I doubt it. Her past is just too negative to get her over the hump.

These Ventura trial balloons and such are so much pie in the sky. It won't happen -- not in a million years.

Right. And do you know what they said in 1991 about this small time hick w/o name recognition named William Clinton?

It's not even 2006. Saying the candidates are "locked in" is stupid no matter what side you're on or how long you've been following politics.

 

[Thorgasm]

Right. And do you know what they said in 1991 about this small time hick w/o name recognition named William Clinton?

It's not even 2006. Saying the candidates are "locked in" is stupid no matter what side you're on or how long you've been following politics.

That's what I said in a thread about hillary.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Galenrox:
you must be pretty confident, cause
a) if Hillary either doesn't get the democratic nomination or loses the election, your words must be eaten, meaning a much larger chance for me to win
b) I'm a terrible cook

Anywho, if it seems like she's gonna win, trust me, I'll start toking up to get my munchies going to eat my words!

How can you blow potatoes? There easier to cook up than a Presidential election. The biggest reason I think Hillary is going to win is the fact that I'm no political expert. It's just my gut feeling that this country is fed up with Republican rule since Katrina showed their dark side. McCain is more hated by his own party than Hillary is. The Republicans are dead in 2006 and 2008. They got nothing to offer that anyone wants to listen too.

 

[hipsterdufus]

A couple of years from now I am going to make you eat these words.

I second that.
Hillary - NOT A SHOT IN HELL for the nomination.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Right. And do you know what they said in 1991 about this small time hick w/o name recognition named William Clinton?

It's not even 2006. Saying the candidates are "locked in" is stupid no matter what side you're on or how long you've been following politics.

Clinton was always a serious and highly skillful politician and always wanted to be president. His whole life was devoted to that singular purpose. To compare these other clowns like Ventura to Clinton is just silly.

 

[Thorgasm]

Clinton was always a serious and highly skillful politician and always wanted to be president. His whole life was devoted to that singular purpose. To compare these other clowns like Ventura to Clinton is just silly.

I missed where anyone in funny makeup and big shoes compared Ventura to Clinton. Ventura will admit his mistakes before they get dug up.

 

[RightinNYC]

Clinton was always a serious and highly skillful politician and always wanted to be president. His whole life was devoted to that singular purpose. To compare these other clowns like Ventura to Clinton is just silly.

No, to call an election 3 years before it happens is just silly.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I missed where anyone in funny makeup and big shoes compared Ventura to Clinton. Ventura will admit his mistakes before they get dug up.

The point is that Ventura is not a viable candidate.

 

[Missouri Mule]

No, to call an election 3 years before it happens is just silly.

Actually, that's not true. The next presidential election begins the day after the date of the last election.

But what could change is if we have a nuclear attack or all of these candidates I mentioned drop over dead with a heart attack or we have a military takeover of our government. All of these things are possible, but not likely.

I was just giving the folks here the benefit of my learned wisdom. I'm right on the money. If you want to make a difference, choose your poison and then support them to the hilt. Don't waste your money on non-viable candidates like Ventura, Obama or Howard Dean. Won't happen.

 

[imprtnrd]

I think its funny even the Repbuplicans are crying fowl on Bush! LOL

 

[Missouri Mule]

I think its funny even the Repbuplicans are crying fowl on Bush! LOL

Really? Comes as news to me. Spector doesn't count.

 

[Caine]

Don't waste your money on non-viable candidates like ...... Howard Dean. Won't happen.

Of course it won't, because he has already stated he has no plans to run for president in 2008.

 

[Thorgasm]

The point is that Ventura is not a viable candidate.

Only because he won't run. I am sure he could decimate whoever the two parties put up in a debate.

 

[Caine]

Only because he won't run. I am sure he could decimate whoever the two parties put up in a debate.

But, as we saw in the 2004 elections..... The debates hardly mean anything anymore.

Bushy-boo got his ass stomped in all 3 debates like a retard, but still won the election.

Thanks to the GOP attack ads, and the "scare tactics" of Cheney telling the people that "they have to make the right decision or another terrorist attack will happen".

 

[Missouri Mule]

Of course it won't, because he has already stated he has no plans to run for president in 2008.

Probably not, but he is the Democratic mouthpiece for their policies.

Add Mitt Romney to the roster of Republican candidates. That makes four. Dems the same.

 

[RightinNYC]

Actually, that's not true. The next presidential election begins the day after the date of the last election.

But what could change is if we have a nuclear attack or all of these candidates I mentioned drop over dead with a heart attack or we have a military takeover of our government. All of these things are possible, but not likely.

I was just giving the folks here the benefit of my learned wisdom. I'm right on the money. If you want to make a difference, choose your poison and then support them to the hilt. Don't waste your money on non-viable candidates like Ventura, Obama or Howard Dean. Won't happen.

Well, pardon me if I'm not swayed by your amazing learned wisdom that consists of listing the candidates with the top odds at Tradesports. It's stupid to claim that certain candidates are the only viable ones THREE YEARS before the election. When was the last election where neither party had an anointed son or an incumbent running?