Bush vs Kerry

[a_majoor]

Here is another view on what a Bush "War Cabinet" might look like:

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200411090750.asp

 

[Infanteer]

Wolfowitz as NSC? 

Isn't that the guy with the nickname "The Prince of Darkness"?

 

[a_majoor]

The Archangel Gabrial being currently tasked...

 

[Spr.Earl]

What a wasted life. If he really wanted to do something, he could have sucked it up, and gone to work bringing the Democrats to an realistic appraisal of the world around them and developing policy alternatives that matched the real world.

I can't believe this was the party of Woodrow Wilson, FDR and John F Kennedy

I also thought the same as a kid watching the news when the buddist monk in Vietnam set himself on fire in protest of the War back in the 60's.
Is this a precursor of what is to be come from our past?
I hope not.

 

[canadianblue]

I'm sorry to say it, but alot of the people that I have heard talking about the election and how Bush is so "evil" all seem pretty stupid. Like I overheard this one guy say "Farenheit 911 was number 1 in the box office, yet they still voted him in even though he did all that". Whenever I hear a person refer to a Michael Pinko Commie Moore film to say how much they hate Bush, I always ask them if they are going to get an unbiased opinion from a left wing nut about a right wing president. I've also noticed that when Clinton was president I heard people talking about how terrible he was, then Bush was elected and then once again people were talking about how terrible he is. I think that it does'nt matter in the end who is president, some people will still find some way to rip into our brothers down to the south. Maybe we up here should wake up and look at our own politicians before ripping into those south of the border. Last time I remember that idiot of a PM Chretien was elected to three straight majorities, and Paul Martin won a minority.

End of rant :threat:

 

[pappy]

I also thought the same as a kid watching the news when the buddist monk in Vietnam set himself on fire in protest of the War back in the 60's.
Is this a precursor of what is to be come from our past?
I hope not.

some slacker killing himself over an election for someone who will be out off office in another 4 years is hardly equal to the Buddist monk setting himself on fire to protest the destruction of his entire way of life.  The US in 2004 is hardly in the crap state of affairs that South Vietnam was in the early 1960's.  South Vietnam was in the middle of a rather nasty civil war as well as the SVN catholics at war with the Buddhists.

The Buddhist monk was making a political statement.
The shotgun eater was just cleaning the gene pool.
I'm sure this guy would have eaten his shotgun for any number of reasons.

If Bush was as bad as the newsmedia would have you believe the democrates could have put up a dead man and won.

The fact that Bush won, and the Republicans won in both the house and senate goes to show the democrates have a losing agenda and the majority of US votes where tired of their liberal BS.

The US has survived any number of problems and sub-standard politicians since it's birth, it will surely survive Bush, just as it would have survived Kerry if he had had a single original thought and could make a decision and stuck with it for more then a few hours.

 

[Kirkhill]

Cheers Pappy.

 

[Infanteer]

A little tidbit from The Economist.   They stated that one of George W Bush's biggest strengths is that his character brings out the worst in his political opponents.   When you got clowns like Michael Moore leading the charge, Dubya looks so much more appealing to the average, middle-class meat and potatoes voter.

Interesting enough, The Economist also stated that this was a quality possessed by Senator Hillary Clinton as well.   She gets the conservative crowd so riled up (she's even better at it then her husband) that it may make the average American feel that not voting for her means Pat Buchanan instead.   Although she may not be up to rebuilding the Democratic Party, the "E" has her pegged as a likely successor (along with Barak Obama - all the rage these days in politics).

Pretty interesting if you ask me.   Perhaps the opposite can be said about Mr Harper's Conservative Party - everything it did brought out the best in Paul Martin and the Liberals.   Despite scandal after scandal, we were only to happy to give him another (albeit slim) mandate.

 

[a_majoor]

Big difference: Hillary will have to rebuild a shattered Democratic Party, while Harper was running the race with a "brand new" party, still fitting the PC parts to the Reform/Alliance machine. Let's see what happens in the next 18 months in Canada, and the next four years in the US.

Interestingly enough, American parties also change and die. The Federalist Party disintigrated over the War of 1812; and the "Radical Republican" party was born just prior to the US Civil War. Perhaps Hillary may find herself applying to join a new party instead (Prediction. the Dems split along the Democratic/Socialist divide and field two "left wing parties", a mirror image of the Reform/PC split here in Canada).

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Moving along, I notice that Bush has dumped John Ashcroft as the AG.  That is probably the first step into mending fences, that guy was one of the people I never liked in Bush's circle.

Why?

I can't see the Democrats splintering.  They know it would mean permanent political exile.  They will do what the two parties always do after a period of pointless flirtation with their extreme fringes: ignore the extremists.

 

[a_majoor]

The extreme fringe has a lot of the money (Hollywood, George Soros and co, the MSM) and clout, so it would be hard to "ignore them". I also think they control much of the Democratic party machinery. So moderate Dems will have to make some very hard choices:

1. Fight a vicious battle to regain control of the party
2. Go over to the Republican party
3. Make a fresh start

 

[muskrat89]

Well, even before I read the article that I have attached, I had a theory about Kerry's campaign. It seemed to head south when Clinton's campaign team swooped in and took over. I suspected that Hillary actually wanted Kerry to lose, while making it look like she was backing him. A loss sets her up to run in 2008. A Kerry win would not have. Imagine a future where Hillary is President of the US, and Bill is Secretary Genral of the UN (which he has made mention of).. shudder. 

Kerry Strategists: Clintonistas Torpedoed Our Campaign

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NewsMax.com ^ | Nov. 12, 2004 | Carl Limbacher


Top strategists with John Kerry's presidential campaign are blaming his crushing defeat last week on bad advice from Clinton operatives who took over the campaign after Labor Day.

"When [James] Carville and [Stan] Greenberg tell reporters that the campaign was missing a defining narrative, they forget that they were the ones insisting we had to keep beating the domestic-issues drum," complained David Thorne on Thursday.

Thorne - a brother-in-law from Kerry's first marriage to Julia Thorne - was one of Kerry's closest advisors throughout the campaign.

Thorne told political gadfly Arianna Huffington that because of the misguided Carville-Greenberg strategy, "We never defended John's character and focused on his leadership with the same singularity of purpose that the Republicans put on George Bush's leadership."

Kerry's brother Cameron agreed, telling Huffington, "There is a very strong John Kerry narrative that is about leadership, character and trust. But it was never made central to the campaign."

Tom Vallely, the Vietnam War veteran whom Kerry tapped to lead the response to the Swift boat attacks, told the columnist: "The Clinton team, though technically skillful, could not see reality â ” they could only see their version of reality. And that was always about pivoting to domestic issues."

Reports Huffington:

"In conversations with Kerry insiders over the last nine months, I've heard a recurring theme: that it was [Bob] Shrum and the Clintonistas [including Greenberg, Carville and senior advisor Joe Lockhart] who dominated the campaign in the last two months and who were convinced that this election was going to be won on domestic issues, like jobs and healthcare, and not on national security."

The failed strategy apparently originated with ex-President Clinton himself, who trumpeted the domestic issues mantra in repeated calls to Kerry.

Writes Huffington:

"Behind the scenes, former President Clinton also kept up the drumbeat, telling Kerry in private conversations right to the end that he should focus on the economy rather than Iraq or the war on terror, and that he should come out in favor of all 11 state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage â ” a move that would have been a political disaster for a candidate who had already been painted as an unprincipled flip-flopper."

 

[clasper]

So is Clinton a political mastermind who is willing to screw his own party for personal advancement, or is he a bumbling oaf who was just following his 1992 strategy for defeating Bush?  Given his record, I'd think he's more susceptible to a simple lapse in judgement than a Machiavellian desire to become first lady.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Clasper,
Though I was never a Bill Clinton fan, I can't see him wanting his party to lose......now would Hillary stab all of them for personal advancement?..... damn skippy she would!!!

 

[muskrat89]

Clasper (and bruce)  I think Hillary's hunger for power knows no bounds....  jmo

 

[clasper]

I read an opinion piece last week (I wish I could remember where...) that suggested one of Bush's keys to political success was that he engenders such hatred in his opposition that they end up looking like frothing-at-the-mouth-idiots, rather than reasoned people in disagreement.  Bill Clinton had this quality to a certain degree, but Hillary has them both trumped in this regard.  (That being said, I think the Republicans would love to face her in 2008- it would be an easy victory.)

Yes, she's a very ambitious woman, but what has she done to show that she's treacherous or disloyal to her party?

 

[Infanteer]

Clasper, see my earlier post.  The Economist mentioned that in an article on Hillary Clinton.

 

[clasper]

d'oh! :blotto:

 

[Rushrules]

The way things are going, at least we won't get 4 more years out of Cheney. :crybaby: 

 

[Spr.Earl]

Of late what has surprised me is nearly 50% of Dubya's cabinet has resigned.
Why?