The nail in the coffin

Diane Rehm:"Why do you think he (Bush) is suppressing that (Sept. 11) report?''

Howard Dean:"I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is?''

-- "Diane Rehm Show,'' NPR, Dec. 1

This statement tells me that Dean is doomed in a general election. Anger and paranoia may sell well to Democrats, but you will not win a single swing voter or conservative with this insanity.

Dean and Scully, X-Files 2!

Dean is as bad as Bush with all the stupid things they say when they''re talking off the cuff.

General Clark is the only worthy contender for the Democratic nomination. Bush would have a real problem against Clark. Hopefully the Democrats can dump the rest of the bunch

Dean''s one to talk about hiding information from the public.

"Slick" wrote:

Dean is as bad as Bush with all the stupid things they say when they''re talking off the cuff.

Except that when Bush falters, it''s due to presentation.

When Dean falters, it''s due to content.

General Clark is the only worthy contender for the Democratic nomination. Bush would have a real problem against Clark. Hopefully the Democrats can dump the rest of the bunch

When Clark officially jumped into the race, he still didn''t know his ass from a hole in the ground...and he''s still trying to solidify his platform.

It doesn''t matter, of course...barring a major catastrophe Dean will earn the nomination since he is the darling of the Democratic party''s vocal left wing.

This will, of course, cost the Democrats the election.

Which is exactly what Hillary Clinton is counting on, for 2008.

This will, of course, cost the Democrats the election.

If you say so, I can''t see any of the nine being a big threat to Bush.

The nine?! The Nazgul of Mordor?!

Does this mean that Bush is the hope of the Free Peoples of MiddleEarth?

I may as well sell my soul to Sauron now; Bush will claim the Ring as his own, rather than destroy it.

General Clark is the only worthy contender for the Democratic nomination.

Clark is not presidential material. Not by a long shot. The only Democrat of the bunch that is worth a damn is Lieberman.

Clark is not presidential material. Not by a long shot.

That didn''t stop our most recent president from being elected.

Zing!

I used to dislike Clark because he was a dishonest opportunist who invented an ideological affiliation so he could stay in the public spotlight - now I realize that he would be destroyed in a general election because of those very traits. The public doesn''t want Bill Clinton in a uniform, which is what they would get with Clark. To paraphrase: ""Bring him on!""

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:
General Clark is the only worthy contender for the Democratic nomination.

Clark is not presidential material. Not by a long shot. The only Democrat of the bunch that is worth a damn is Lieberman.

Lieberman is firmly in favor of censorship. He wants the Federal government to decide what you see, read, and hear. I would vote for any other candidate before him.

Lieberman is firmly in favor of censorship. He wants the Federal government to decide what you see, read, and hear. I would vote for any other candidate before him.

Untrue. Please link to whatever policy you are talking about. If you are talking about his support for rating systems and industries better controlling the content they offer, neither is censorship.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0...

It''s an older article, but his views haven''t changed much. Now, I think he does have some very good ideas, but crusading against the entertainment industry isn''t one of them. I don''t think the government has any business telling movie studios, recording industries or game companies how to run their business.
I think game and movie ratings are a good idea, as long as they''re voluntary. Putting the power of law behind them though takes the decision away from individuals. Some kids are mature enough to handle more adult themed movies or games, and should, under the supervision of their parents, be allowed access to them. Having the feds step in and say no, you''re to young for that, is wrong.

Anger and paranoia may sell well to Democrats

I think it sells well to Americans in general. This paranoid conservative friend of mine is always talking about some Hillary Clinton conspiracy to steal the 2008 election. Something like this:

Which is exactly what Hillary Clinton is counting on, for 2008.

It sounds like they are listening to some columnists theory of a left wing conspiracy. Please tell me where this is coming from. I don''t think she could even come close.

Anger and paranoia may sell well to Democrats

Isn''t that what the Administration is selling to America right now? Anger over 9-11 and paranoia that it could happen again from just about anybody?

"Slick" wrote:

I think it sells well to Americans in general. This paranoid conservative friend of mine is always talking about some Hillary Clinton conspiracy to steal the 2008 election. Something like this:

Which is exactly what Hillary Clinton is counting on, for 2008.

Say, thanks for lumping me in with your ""friend"".

Hillary''s ambitions are well-known, and she obviously hasn''t ruled out a run for the White House since she denies any 2004 ambitions but has stayed mum on her plans beyond that.

And unlike your ""friend"" I don''t believe in any conspiracy. She''s just waiting until her chances improve -- that is, once the existing Democratic clowns get trounced and she doesn''t have to run against an incumbent president.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
Anger and paranoia may sell well to Democrats

Isn''t that what the Administration is selling to America right now? Anger over 9-11 and paranoia that it could happen again from just about anybody?

8.2% economic growth.

*cough*

The US unemployment rate dipped to 5.9 percent in November as businesses hired a disappointingly modest 57,000 people, data showed, dampening optimism over the economic outlook.

The jobless rate -- the lowest since March -- was down from 6.0 percent in October. But Wall Street analysts had been expecting a surge of 150,000 jobs as the unemployed finally got some crumbs from economic growth.

If you want your job back...move to India!

And unlike your ""friend"" I don''t believe in any conspiracy. She''s just waiting until her chances improve -- that is, once the existing Democratic clowns get trounced and she doesn''t have to run against an incumbent president.

She''s a joke. Just put her at the top of the list of clowns. Though, I do look forward to Bush being out whether it''s 2004 or 2008.

Rantage. Sorry for lumping you in with my friend. Nobody is as paranoid as he is.

I tend to be somewhat a conservative person, but at the same time, Hillary Clinton gives me a very bad vibe.

I think I will let the hippie out & listen to my intuition on this one.

She just might be Evil....

Some kids are mature enough to handle more adult themed movies or games, and should, under the supervision of their parents, be allowed access to them. Having the feds step in and say no, you''re to young for that, is wrong.

So you''re ok with parents taking 6 year-olds to x-rated movies?

If you want your job back...move to India!

There''s a lot of potentially false information on the current unemployment figures. The way the government measures unemployment is by tracking the number of unemployment claims by individuals who have lost their jobs, and also by taking a survey of a few large corporations and tracking their hiring. That''s it - they really don''t have any idea what the real figures are, they are just measuring trends, some of which are not valid. The number of small businesses and sole proprietorships, which are not tracked for the unemployment numbers, are the highest they have ever been - which contributes to all of the other good indicators we have been seeing without making a blip on the labor statistics.

Mark my words, jobs will continue to be a buzzword for the media and liberals for a few more months, but will not be a factor in the election.

Hillary''s ambitions are well-known, and she obviously hasn''t ruled out a run for the White House since she denies any 2004 ambitions but has stayed mum on her plans beyond that.

There are two definite indicators that Bush is going to win in 2004, and that even the Democrats think so. One is Howard Dean. In today''s environment, the anti-war candidate will get crushed come election day, but he''s the one the Democrats apparently want. This tells me that the activists in the party no longer care about winning this time around, but want to vent their anti-Bush and anti-war feelings as loudly as possible.

The second indicator that Bush is a lock is Hillary. If there was any chance Bush could be beaten, she would have run - but she knows better. She will run in 2008 as a centrist, but lose - maybe even in the primary - because she is utterly reviled by half the population, making her unelectable.

As an aside, I consider Clark part of this phenomenon. Given that the Democrats are anti-Republican, anti-war, and anti-military as a rule, the idea that a general who was a Republican 3 months ago and recently prosecuted a war that had the extreme left calling him a war criminal could be so embraced as to be a front-runner tells me a lot about the weakness of the Democratic field and party these days. I guess when it comes down to it, Democrats may hate the military, but swoon like a cashier at the Piggly-Wiggly whenever someone in uniform actually pays a little attention to them.

So you''re ok with parents taking 6 year-olds to x-rated movies?

I''m more in favor of that than of them watching stuff like Kill Bill.

[edit]Let me clarify: I don''t mean twisted/violent x-rated stuff, else that contradicts my comparison. I mean Skinemax-type stuff.[/edit]

I find it odd that we in the US find violence more ""ok"" for our children than sexuality. Frankly, both are inappropriate for very young children, but this double-standard puzzles me. You know, the classic ""is it Terminator R or Basic Instincts R?"" quandary.

"Slick" wrote:

She''s a joke. Just put her at the top of the list of clowns.

I agree that she''s a joke -- the health care fiasco in her husband''s first term pretty much proved that. Still, many worship the ground she walks upon and the fact that she has been constantly peppered with ""will you run in 2004?!?"" merely fuels her ego and ambition. It probably also skews her assessment of her chances of winning a general election.

because she is utterly reviled by half the population, making her unelectable.

I hate to be a broken record, but this didn''t stop our current president.

The second indicator that Bush is a lock is Hillary. If there was any chance Bush could be beaten, she would have run - but she knows better.

There''s the Hillary thing again. The conservatives sure do put a lot of weight behind what Hillary is doing. Maybe Oprah supports her, but I just don''t see why she gets so much attention from the Right.

Democrats may hate the military, but swoon like a cashier at the Piggly-Wiggly whenever someone in uniform actually pays a little attention to them.

Please explain how the Democrats hate the military. I don''t see this as anything but extremist retoric. Maybe you can explain this to me.

Clark is so centrist in his positions that he could be in either party. John McCain is an example from the Republcan side. Their needs to be a new Centrists party so the views of the majority can actually be heard instead drowned in partison bickering.

"Elysium" wrote:
because she is utterly reviled by half the population, making her unelectable.

I hate to be a broken record, but this didn''t stop our current president.

a) when Bush''s approval ratings are in the 60% range it''s rather hard to argue that half of the people out there hate the guy and b) technically the Electoral College elects presidents, not the general population.

Still in light of all this I''d be willing to say she has the same chance of winning the Presidency as Bush.

"Rantage" wrote:

when Bush''s approval ratings are in the 60% range it''s rather hard to argue that half of the people out there hate the guy

And when polled, the number of people who say theylikeBush and think he is a good person is closer to 80% - just a gut feeling, but I don''t think Hillary would poll the same way

"Rantage" wrote:

Still in light of all this I''d be willing to say she has the same chance of winning the Presidency as Bush.

I disagree. No way our first woman president is going to be someone as widely disliked as Hillary. There are ""Reagan Democrats"" and ""Bush Democrats"" - there''s no such thing as a ""Hillary Republican"". Factor in the fact that a Hillary presidency means putting Bill back in the White House, and no way will the American public go for it.

I just don''t see why she gets so much attention from the Right.

Beacuse we know her better than most. The fact that I know she can''t win, doesn''t mean she won''t try. Why wouldn''t she? She had no motivation to run for the Senate outside of ego and personal ambition - or are you going to say she felt she had a duty to her fellow Yankee fans? She''s young enough and there are enough sycophants around her (not to mention Bill''s own power-based co-dependency) to ensure she''ll make a go. But in the snake oil business, Bill was all oil, while Hillary is all snake - she has no charm to make people want to buy.

The reason Democrats hate it when Republicans talk about Hillary is that they know we''re right - and it reflects poorly on both their current and future prospects...

The reason Democrats hate it when Republicans talk about Hillary is that they know we''re right - and it reflects poorly on both their current and future prospects...

Talk about her all you want. I don''t hate it. It makes me laugh.

She had no motivation to run for the Senate outside of ego and personal ambition - or are you going to say she felt she had a duty to her fellow Yankee fans?

I don''t like her, never said I did. I''m sure the entire future of the Democratic party rests on her shoulders.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Factor in the fact that a Hillary presidency means putting Bill back in the White House, and no way will the American public go for it.

Unless, of course, the GOP candidate is even less appealing.

In 2008, this is hardly an impossibility. The only possible Republican contender that I''ve heard mention for 2008 so far is Bill Owens (governor of my state of Colorado), and while he seems to be a pretty good guy we have seen time and again -- in both parties -- how the right candidate often isn''t the party''s nominee.

and while he seems to be a pretty good guy we have seen time and again -- in both parties -- how the right candidate often isn''t the party''s nominee.

Ya, I was ready to vote for McCain in 2000 and then the Republicans picked Bush.