President Bush has predicted Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for president, saying she has the "national presence" and fundraising network to win.
That’s not a bad bet, since Clinton is clearly the front-runner for the Dem nomination, but is it also wishful thinking? Some have suggested that the GOP is pitching a Clinton nomination as the best way to re-energize the Republican base.
Moreover, Karl Rove and others believe the GOP can ultimately defeat Clinton because of her high negatives. Republicans have a familiar playbook on running against the Clinton era.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
110 Comments
I don’t care who the democratic candidate is. I want a GOOD republican candidate, leader, and platform I can support.
Hotdog1,
Thanks for using the proper name, “Democratic.” Much obliged.
Digby does a much better job thinking through this issue than CF2K could hope to match. Here’s a sample:
“If you’ve been following politics for the past few days you’ve heard this constantly, from virtually every Republican: Hillary Clinton has won the Democratic nomination and Republicans couldn’t be happier. This means they are going to win the election and live happily ever after! If I didn’t know better, I’d think they were trying to get the Democrats to nominate someone else, wouldn’t you? Or maybe not. In any case, it is a long established Republican tactic to try to pick the candidate they wish to oppose.”
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
The republican that has the best chance of winning is Rudy the question is will the Cons support a canidate who is antigun, pro gay, and often wears dresses and no im not talking about hillary
As long as Israel has Hillary one one side and Guilinai on the other side, Israel wins and watch Israel pump money into bothsides as they win the jackpot either way.
That prize is the complete takeover of the United States by the Neocon and Zionist and PNAC { The Project for the New American Century.
That is the Cabal.
The Israel LobbyJohn Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
Hillary is a crrupt, feckless gasbag. The days of picking the lesser of two evils is over. I smell a military coup in the air and that wouldn’t be such a bad thing as far as I m concerned. heck there has to be an Edwin Walker or a John Crommelin amongst the current crop of military brass?
Ed I didn’t think the issue was who Israel wants as a candidate.
“I smell a military coup in the air and that wouldn’t be such a bad thing as far as I m concerned. heck there has to be an Edwin Walker or a John Crommelin amongst the current crop of military brass?”
I smell a real traitor, advocating the overthrow by force of our democratic government.
I know and respect Senator Clinton a great deal. I believe she would make a fantastic president.
But, it should be obvious by now that she is the dream candidate–for Republican strategists.
John Edwards is their worst nightmare…and that’s just one more reason to support him.
Mr C- RE:”John Edwards is their worst nightmare…”
Why do you think that? Just curious.
Hillary is only there to make it look like an election.
I don’t really care who the democrat party puts up. Or should I say moveon.org?
I believe that Hillary would be the toughest candidate to run against, dispite her high negatives. She’ll run as a girl.
Edwards doesn’t stand a chance, nor does BHO.
As far a Giuliani goes, if he gets the nomination, I have no problem supporting him. Even tough he’s pro-choice he’s stated that he’ll nominate conservative judges.
Plus, he’s starting to come around on his position on guns.
However, I’m for Fred until Newt enters the race officially. I would really like to see Newt and the Hildebeast in a few debates.
Fred, Newt and even Rudy (if keeps moving to the right) can beat the Hildebeast.
And the republicans aren’t trying to ‘pick’ your candidate. We can beat anyone you put up in the arena of ideas!
Hank
Hillary “Her Royal Thighness” Clinton will have to contend with some “Swift boating” on Whitewater and Chicago Cattle futures, the closer it comes to election. In addition, the latest campaign financing scandals which will only grow more ugly as time goes on.
Hank Price,
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE nominate Newt!
“Arena of ideas”—ha ha ha ha!
Hank Price, yer killin’ me, ah tell yew whut…
Comeon CF2K,
You gotta admit that Newt would be the most entertaining choice.
Hank
Hank Price,
Indeed. But his voracious forehead always seems to be right on the verge of lunging straight at the viewer.
I would love to see the news specials on Newt’s marital infidelities, which was such a big issue for Republicans.
Hank- Not to rub it in, but you didn’t exactly sparkle in calling the last elections. Are you sure you really want to go there again??
Dream on, Republican losers… Hillary is the next president of the U.S. Will that be good for our country? I don’t know. But it will be interesting to see the authoritarian kiss-ups peeing their pants when President Hillary has the same executive powers currently enjoyed by GW Bush. You will richly deserve everything she crams down your throat, I might add…
Remember, the Hill is different from Bill. It was both a blessing and a curse that Bill Clinton wanted everyone to like him. Hill, on the other hand, is ruthless and doesn’t have those dependency issues her hubby has.
Hillary will be this country’s penitence for electing GW Bush twice. It won’t be pretty.
In the end, I have to say I am against her being our next president, but I believe it is inevitable.
And yes, Hank, Newt carries more baggage than most full size passenger trains. He won’t get the nomination, much less any serious consideration for the presidency. I am surprised at your support of Giuliani – didn’t think he was your type of candidate at all; and I will take that as an example of how desperate your party is – which again leaves the door open for Hillary.
At least Hillary is getting good advice, and seems to be taking it, FROM BUSH:
http://www.examiner.com/a-953145~Bush_quietly_advising_Hillary_Clinton__top_Democrats.html
The Republicans expect to lose the Presidency in 2008 so naturally they want a Democrat who is bought and paid for by corporate interests.
The days of picking the lesser of two evils is over. I smell a military coup in the air and that wouldn’t be such a bad thing as far as I m concerned. heck there has to be an Edwin Walker or a John Crommelin amongst the current crop of military brass?
Posted by: Kansas Druid
wowyou’re an idiot.i’m always a little surprised when someone like you crawls out of the woodwork.
you are a good argument why the state run mental hospitals should open back up.
i don’t know why you should worry about the next election.
the repukes stole the last 2 presidential elections. it won’t be hard to steal this one too.
“A supporter of Rudy Giuliani’s is throwing a party that aims to raise $9.11 per person for the Republican’s presidential campaign.”
LOLgod does rudy have no shame??of course rudy has no shame.
i’m not sure who pimps 9/11 more tirelessly for their own good…rudy
orbush/cheney/roveormccain.
maybe thompson and his daughter rate up there too.
The biggest reason I’d like to see Hillary win is to see the reaction of traitors like so-called kansas druid.
“I don’t care who the democratic candidate is. I want a GOOD republican candidate, leader, and platform I can support.”
Posted by “hotdog” (MUST NOT BE WHATEVER, ‘CAUSE HE SAYS SO)
Shoot, I want a billion dollars, but I have as much chance of getting that as you do seeing a repub candidate, leader, or platform.
How about this for a possibility:
(a) Hillary as president
(b) 60 Democratic Senators – no filibuster
(c) A solid democratic majority in the House.
The Repukes may as well just stay home! Shut them out. 100%
Bush doesn’t care about what Americans want, just Israel, that’s all.
Talk about me being a “one trick pony” at least I mention the price of gasoline in the same breath as those G-D Zionists.
And America’s working-class losing their health, and Americans going bankrupt, losing their jobs and their homes.
“Hillary is a crrupt, feckless gasbag. The days of picking the lesser of two evils is over. I smell a military coup in the air and that wouldn’t be such a bad thing as far as I m concerned.”
Posted by not whatever, even though he outed himself yesterday.
Talk about your right wing taliban bozo. Damn good thing he can’t reproduce. Or if he can, lets make sure abortion is still in place, ordered and carried out.
repukes avoid black voter debates.
“I think the best that comes out of stupid decisions like this,” said former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts, is “that African-Americans might say,
‘Was it because of my skin color?’
Now, maybe it wasn’t, but African-Americans do say,
‘It crossed my mind.’”
hahahait’s sad to see a black repuke who sold his soul so those white folks would like him, gets shafted in the end by all those white folk.
was it because of the color of our skin…
and j.c. says “no it had nothing to do with skin color”
you are a sellout to your race j.c.
Hey Steve E,
I’m growing politically. I’m learning from the democrats. I now know that a man’s character has little to do with his qualifications for president, winning is everything!
So, if by some chance Newt wins, at least we know that American interests have bought him, not the Chinese!
Hank
Hey Ben,
Read the news. In thirty or more House seats that the dems think are vulnerable Hillary is a drag. Hillary at the top of the democratic ticket in ‘08 is starting to look like an overall loser for the dems in the House.
Hank
Good one, Hank. Still laughing.
I suppose I’ll vote for whoever the Dems nominate, since four more years of same-old same-old is intolerable. Hillary would be my choice except for the fact that she, for whatever reason swallowed Bush’s line on Iraq.Hillary and Obama are entirely different candidates who would run entirely different administrations, either of which would be a distinct improvement over our current situation.
The Republicans, no matter how hard they try will never be able to break away from the Bush legacy.
“At least Hillary is getting good advice.”
Paul inadvertantly brings up a valid point. I heard the pollster who worked for Bill (I am not recalling his name) on NPR last week. He was the guy who came up with the demographic “soccer moms” and he has just written a book about “micro trends”. For reasons not completely clear to me, the Clintons always get smart people to work for them. And usually, brains beat brawn in the campaign game.
Jed
“Hillary would be my choice except for the fact that she, for whatever reason swallowed Bush’s line on Iraq.”
Jed, You don’t know?
Hillary is not my first choice but against anyone the Repubs might put up she would get my vote.
“I think the best that comes out of stupid decisions like this,” said former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts”
I’d like to see JC Watts reemerge in politics. He is a very sharp guy who could help break the futile cycle of dependency that African Americans have with the Democrats.
Futile because their leaders, with active Dem endorsement, betray them with demands for entitlements, quotas and reparations. This does nothing more than continue and deepen the racial divide to their detriment. All so black votes can continue to be delivered to their Democrat masters.
All this, by the way, in direct contradiction of Dr. King’s vision of a color blind society.
“The Republicans, no matter how hard they try will never be able to break away from the Bush legacy.”
Hit the nail on the head, Jed, hit the nail on the head; (”we tanned his hide, when he died, Clyde; tanned his hide when he died” – pardon the flashback there :))
I wonder how many years it will take before the voting public uncouples the concepts Bush/Republican.
Jed
Hillary might not follow through for the Zionists.
We stand a better chance of retaining America { constitutionally } as being a woman gives her the insight to see those Zionists for what they really are all about.
Giuliani wants to be a dictator.
JedClintons usually get OTHER people to “swallow”
Something to consider. If Hillary wins the nomination, it will turn out the conservative base like abortion and homosexuality never did. Bill Clinton spent 8 years making republicans look like fools. They’ll go after Hillary by proxy.
While I have no doubt Hillary would be a great president, that would cause polarization like we have yet to see.
outlander,I have a black woman friend who says that Democrats have hurt her cause more than Republicans ever have. Interestingly though, she consistently votes Democratic because she agrees more with their positons on the issues.
I do object to your implied assertion that the social justice agenda was pursued with the express purpose of keeping black voters enslaved. I think it more likely that the folks pushing that agenda thought it was the best thing to do and I would submit that affirmative action, school desegregation, etc. have had a net positive impact for black people.
And don’t you think that Watts has some serious baggage problems also?
“While I have no doubt Hillary would be a great president, that would cause polarization like we have yet to see.”
Without question, and that is the main problem with her presidency. Bush has been polarizing enough, do we need 4 to 8 more years of that? I don’t think so.
and j.c. says “no it had nothing to do with skin color”
you are a sellout to your race j.c.
Posted by: call me JC, boys. | September 25, 2007 at 03:29 PM
Damn, boy, you have stones to mention racial treason on this blog. The sound of breaking glass is deafening!
PS: Any government as evil, corrupt and out of touch with the people as our is DESERVES to be deposed by ANY MEANS NECESSSARY! SAVVY!!!!
XXX,Of course they’ll go after anyone that doesn’t fit their image of a perfect little world that they control. Given how often the subtext of howling KKK racism appears here, I imagine they’d attack Obama with equal fervor. The real question is who’s got the cajones to stand up to them.
“Jed”Clintons usually get OTHER people to ’swallow’”.
Once more, Paul is factually inaccurate. Go back and re-read your Ken Starr porn report – it details the Clinton ejaculatory experience as well as many other things we did not need to know about.
Who wouldn’t want to run against this?
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/09/24/hillarys-biggest-problem-that-laugh/
“The real question is who’s got the cajones to stand up to them.”
Figuratively, Hillary does. Another downside to her presidency, howver, is that she has the same sneering derision of the press that GW Bush does. Her presidency will be as opaque as the current administration. We don’t need, and indeed our country may have difficulty surviving, with 4 to 8 more years of what we’ve had the last 7.
The real question is who’s got the cajones to stand up to them.
Posted by: Jed | September 25, 2007 at 04:12 PM
I agree, Jed. I think it would be great to see the first woman president in my lifetime, and Hillary would be a great choice. But in this real world, this election has to be about winning. We absolutely cannot abide another 4-8 years of what passes for republican leadership. Republicans have driven this country into the ground and that has to stop.
Hate to say it, but IMHO, we may have to sacrifice the best for the most electable. I’d hate to see Democrats go charging over the cliff in the name of principal.
Just my opinion.
“…and indeed our country may have difficulty surviving,…”
Difficulty surviving? You people are too funny! Typical and funny.
“Hit the nail on the head, Jed, hit the nail on the head; (”we tanned his hide, when he died, Clyde; tanned his hide when he died” – pardon the flashback there :))”
Oh God steven, you have to be at least as old as me!
Republicans have driven this country into the ground and that has to stop. Posted by: XXX | September 25, 2007 at 04:23 PM
Hmmm, I’m better off now than I was in the 90s.
Exactly what has been driven into the ground?
List them so I can pick them apart so you really won’t have a leg to stand on. :D
Oh wait, never mind, Libs don’t give facts. They just list whines and moans about…blah blah and blah blah.
“Republicans have driven this country into the ground”
If I hated America, that’s what I’d say, too.
The “Nation” will survive but our current form of governemt will not and it is not deserving of survival.
“List them so I can pick them apart so you really won’t have a leg to stand on. :D”
Gee, then I’d be like you.
Hate to say it, but IMHO, we may have to sacrifice the best for the most electable. I’d hate to see Democrats go charging over the cliff in the name of principal.
Just my opinion.
Posted by: XXX | September 25, 2007 at 04:23 PM
We Dems ain’t got no principles anyway!
You said it all XXX.
Why settle for our best when we got Hillary instead.
And our best can’t get elected no how.
Oh, and which one was the Best one? I forgit.
XXX,”Hate to say it, but IMHO, we may have to sacrifice the best for the most electable. I’d hate to see Democrats go charging over the cliff in the name of principal.”
Bush was electable. Do you really want to do to your party what Bush did to his?
“”While I have no doubt Hillary would be a great president, that would cause polarization like we have yet to see.”
Without question, and that is the main problem with her presidency. Bush has been polarizing enough, do we need 4 to 8 more years of that? I don’t think so.”
IT’S CALLED PAYBACK! SCREW THE REPUKES! CRUSH THEM!
Heard on the radio Giluani is trying to distance himself from some of his fund raising staff that sent out request letters for $9.11 donations. Such blatant profiteering off of the dead! Typical repub.
Phantom, sorta like the Dems profiting off the dead in Iraq, huh.
Friedmann, I would normally consider your statements ridiculous. That is, until I saw the slimy activities of AIPAC.
Hillary is who the GOP wants. She will not be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Edwards moves up daily.
You Hillary haters are complete assholes. Is there no shot too low for you scum?
The fact that you hate her SO much is indication that she’s doing something right for this country.
We Dems ain’t got no principles anyway!
You said it all XXX.Posted by: Dimmocrat | September 25, 2007 at 04:39 PM
And that from a republican…go figure, lol!
Political Mom, you come up with great slogans every day.
“Vote for Hillary! She is Hated Sooo Much that She Must Be Right for This Country!”
(This Ad brought to you by AMWHH -American Moms Who Hate Hillary)
political_mom, I usually agree with you here. And the puke comments towards HRC are to be expected. But I do not believe she is the best thing for our country. There are other, better candidates. Of course, it goes without saying that she is exponentially better than any Repuke.
“Donald Trump tells CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: ‘I think President Bush has to go into a corner and hide if a Republican is going to get elected.’”
The Donald is correct of course.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/09/25/BL2007092500855_5.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
“IT’S CALLED PAYBACK! SCREW THE REPUKES! CRUSH THEM!”
Posted by: Not-a-Repuke
I’ll have to confess that at times I am almost sympathetic to this self-destructive attitude. But, we’d all pay in the process and we have already paid too long now.
http://www.deletehillary.com/rubesgld.html
Just for fun, let Hillary run.
http://www.deletehillary.com/newdirection.html
We Need a New Direction.
Better watch out, Rove. Her poll numbers are better than your boys. Be careful what you wish for.
However, I’m for Fred until Newt enters the race officially. I would really like to see Newt and the Hildebeast in a few debates.
Fred, Newt and even Rudy (if keeps moving to the right) can beat the Hildebeast.
And the republicans aren’t trying to ‘pick’ your candidate. We can beat anyone you put up in the arena of ideas!
Hank
Posted by: Hank Price
Hillary would flatten little Newt to a pulp. I can see him now stammering, shuffling, pushing that white hair up off his fat face.
All Hillary has to do is to remind the voters that it was Newt that brought the 1994 Republican Revolution and their Contract ON America. That was the group of such moral Republican leaders such as Mark Foley, Bob Barr, David Vitter, and others who have muddied the waters with their sex and/or money scandals.
And this Republican group was also the group that ran the impeachment proceedings into a multi million dollar fiasco.
All the time Newt and his cronies were pointing their finger at Bill Clinton, Newt and his cronies had their own mistresses secretly tucked away in the hotel down the street. Even Henry Hyde had to confess to his ‘youthful’ indiscretion at some time in his 60’s (now that’s enough to make anyone puke).
So, let’s have Newt come onto the scene Hank – and let’s let Hillary let loose on Newt’s so-called morals.
http://www.deletehillary.com/newdirection.html
We Need a New Direction.
Posted by: Rove
You know, for a hack piece, that’s got to be the MOST PATHETIC…what did a 2nd grader do that? Not even a decent argument against voting for her.
Well I disagree with you other than Obama. I like Edwards, but I think Hillary is the most qualified.
“We Need a New Direction.Posted by: Rove”
They are really afraid of this woman.
“I think Hillary is the most qualified.”
Posted by: political_mom | September 25, 2007 at 06:03 PM
Qualified???
She’s had one term as a Senator and one disaster after another prior to that: Whitewater, failed attempt at socialized healthcare, screwed up marriage…
She’ll be the Democrat party nominee – just as I predicted three years ago. And, with her 49% negatives, she’ll lose to Rudy or Fred or Newt. By 10 points or more.
Personally, I’d love to see Newt debate her. That would be like watching the Dallas Cowboys scrimmage the West High Pioneers. =)
In some ways I do see this as being part fortune telling, part reverse physiology. Hillary is the only candidate who would get into the trenches in a “swift boat” attack. She would give back as good as she get and this would be real “entertainment TV.”.
Republican strategist are banking on the bitter taste that the name Clinton leaves in the mouth of even the most moderate Republican. This may be the only hope the Republicans see of rallying the troops and drawing back those that get a bitter taste from the current field of GOP candidates.
The problem is that even with Thompson entering the race there is no one candidate that will close ranks within the party. Though I have grown from the single issue voter and Giuliani in spite of his stance on gun control has some stances that appeal to moderates. He still strikes me as a one trick pony and I feel he would be lost in the oval office.
This strategy could back fire though, to give her credit Hillary is a real card carrying politico. I think if give all the face coverage. She will draw in many of those that now want to spit every time they hear her name.In 08, for all her down points if put up against the down points of the current administration which is the baggage that every GOP candidate carries. The vote will be once again not about who is the best candidate but whom is the lesser of two evils. The guy that kicked your dog or the one who killed it.
Dearest maidmarian!
You can’t rail against hypocrisies on our side by being hypocritical yourself!
Sure Newt has some problems, we all do. But I have learned from the left and I’ve become a better man. Bill Clinton, the greatest president in the 20th century (according to the Goracle) had a few little moral problems but if Hillary and all the democrats can get past them, so can I. I’m willing to elect a president without judging his character.
Maidmarion, get over it. It’s easier to live your life without being so judgmental!
Hank
Many people hold newt responsible for the start of the decline of the middle class with his ‘Contract on America’, he wouldn’t have a chance in hell.
Just think if Hillary wins, Rush’s ship will come in, and he’ll be back on top with his daily diatribe on clinton.
If you think the Bush administration has not done harm to our country, I would invite you to read Jown W. Dean’s _Conservatives Without Conscience_ for a different view.
You Bush apologists are not funny, but you are quite predictable.
I think the only hope the Republican party has in escaping the legacy of Bush in ‘08 is to kick his incompetent stupid ass to the curb this year. Of course that would take some balls and you can bet that won’t happen.
The Republican heir apparent, Giuliani, is content to rerun Bush’s 2004 campaign – “9/11, 9/11″ ad nauseum – so it mystifies me how you Repub die-hards can have any hope for your chances in 2008.
Shaking my head.
I believe we can beat the Repukes with any of the Democratic candidates including Hillary. The question is do we want to beat them easily and badly and go to bed at 11PM on election night with a smile or do we want to beat them barely and have to stay up until 3AM hoping to God we carried the one western state we need to seal a victory. If the nominee is Hillary we will be up late. If it is any of the others, we can go to bed early.
John Dean? (cough, spew!)
Now there is someone definitely not to look up to or get advice from.
Even Darth Cheney is expecting a Democratic take over of the White House and expects the “gains” he and Bush made will be overturned.
“And unlike Bush, according to Sammon: ‘Vice President Dick Cheney was philosophical about the possibility of a Democratic president fundamentally reversing the policies that he and Bush have worked so hard to implement in Iraq.
“‘It’s the nature of the business, in a sense,’ he shrugged during an interview in his West Wing office. ‘I mean, you get two terms. We were fortunate to get two terms. And I think we’ll increasingly see a lot of emphasis on deciding who the next occupant of the Oval Office is going to be.’”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/09/25/BL2007092500855_5.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
I would love for Newt to run. We can put an ad on TV showing a sick dying woman in a hospital room and then cut to Newt at the courthouse filing for a divorce from her. That should just about do it for “family values”.
“John Dean? (cough, spew!)
“Now there is someone definitely not to look up to or get advice from.”
The only man in the Nixon administration who told the truth about the Nixon administration — it is easy to see how he would earn your derision – since the truth is such a foreign concept to you.
“”"How about this for a possibility:
(a) Hillary as president
(b) 60 Democratic Senators – no filibuster
(c) A solid democratic majority in the House.
The Repukes may as well just stay home! Shut them out. 100%”"”
I would love to see that but even if we do not get the 60 Senators, if the Repukes start up with the fillibuster shit, time to use the “nuclear option” and do away with it- like they were going to do with the judicial nominees. Payback is going to be such a bitch!
The only man in the Nixon administration who told the truth about the Nixon administration — it is easy to see how he would earn your derision – since the truth is such a foreign concept to you.
Posted by: Steven Davis | September 25, 2007 at 07:54 PM
Can you say “Plea Bargain?” That’s exactly what John Dean got for his testimony.
Telling the truth? Yeah after he got his “get out of jail free card.”
If Hillary wins, people are going to think they can push her around because she is a woman. She is going to have to be ruthless with not only the Repukes but with some wayward members of the Democrat Party too.
Also the Republicans are up to their usual dirty tricks and trying to steal elections. Right now the Repukes are trying to figure out a way to steal the election again and one idea is to try and FOOL California into changing its “winner take all” electorial college to one that would allot the votes based on who won each Congressional district plus the winner would get the 2 Senate EC votes. Only 2 states use this system now. On the face of it, it sounds like a fair way to do things but only if it were done in each state the same way. So if the Republicans want to go down that alley, do they want to do the same in places like Texas, Georgia and North Carolina which all have a number of Democratic districts?
dirty tricks and trying to steal elections.Posted by: Kev
Kev if you are worried about anyone stealing elections, why not endorse the idea of presenting a photo id to vote?
I know the democrats cry that poor people, or minorities will be left out, but that is BS.
Make the election honest for all sides – require photo id’s to be presented at the election booth. Law would not take affect until after it is PROVEN that all people have photo id’s. This puts the work/effort of ensuring everyone gets a card – on the republicans you fear are trying to steal it.
That will not resolve the issue you have presented, but it sure would make me feel better about our elections. I don’t think our nation can take too many more big fraud cases of election rigging and dead people voting.
I do not have any problem with a photo ID to vote so long as there is an exemption for elderly and disabled people that would allow them to use an expired state ID or DL to vote. There are many people who live in nursing homes and care facilities who do not renew their IDs because they no longer have use for them. They have the right to vote too.
I don’t think anyone will think they can push Hillary around.
The republicans had the opportunity to make things right, and they still choose to cover for Bush.
If you like the way things are now, VOTE REPUBLICAN. More of the same. They haven’t pulled their heads out yet.
I know they’re hardheaded, but come ON. I think it is going to take a FULL out majority in all races to put them back in their place. SO it’s your duty as an American to tell them enough.
That goes for local too.
Perhaps PMom, Hillary will tell us how she turned a $1000.00 investment into $100,000.00 in less than a year trading in cattle futures.
I mean, we investors want to know. :)
Don’t mention the term “White River” until just before the election.
Uhhh…do you mean, white WATER?
Phantom, sorta like the Dems profiting off the dead in Iraq, huh.
Posted by: Rove
The only ones profiting off the dead in Iraq are the people with Halliburton stock and oil stocks.
I bet there are more than a few Republicans in that bunch – what do you think?
Perhaps PMom, Hillary will tell us how she turned a $1000.00 investment into $100,000.00 in less than a year trading in cattle futures.
I mean, we investors want to know. :)
Posted by: Kansas |
Kind of the same question as to how George W. Bush bought a baseball team and turned that into a profit in a short time?
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..so the repukes want to “swiftboat” Hilary? That’s laughable considering all their antics lately!
She’s had one term as a Senator and one disaster after another prior to that: Whitewater, failed attempt at socialized healthcare, screwed up marriage…
She’ll be the Democrat party nominee – just as I predicted three years ago. And, with her 49% negatives, she’ll lose to Rudy or Fred or Newt. By 10 points or more.
Personally, I’d love to see Newt debate her. That would be like watching the Dallas Cowboys scrimmage the West High Pioneers. =)
Posted by: KSGolfnut
Failed marriage – and you think Newt is better than Hillary? Do you not know that Newt has had mutliple marriages, served his first wife with divorce papers when she was in the hospital recuperating from cancer.
Newt – a slime ball’s best friend.
Maidmarion, get over it. It’s easier to live your life without being so judgmental!
Hank
Posted by: Hank Price
You don’t care about the candidates’ morals? Then why do you still rant and rave about Bill Clinton? The mere mention of the man’s name makes any loyal lapdog Republican foam at the mouth.
Isn’t it interesting that a professing Christian, such as yourself, sees nothing wrong with Newt’s multiple marriages, his adultery, his hypocrisy and his downright lies.
I guess you leave your Christian conscience at the door of the voting booth if the dirty bum happens to be a Republican? Now what would God say to that?
Don’t you love it when stupid people post?
That was in reference to AR kansas btw.
I hope when Hillary gets elected she takes out all those traitors like “Kansas Druid” who call for armed insurrection. I’ll even give her the rope.
Republicans want to run away from themselves, so they can only hope to run against clinton, and yell ‘Look, over there, bright shiny object!’.
I have noted early today that a number of Talk Radio shows are beginning to call for armed insurrection against illegal immigration, and Democrats, who they are now calling Communists.
They are telling people to get their guns ready, and using a rally cry from an old movie: Go Wolverines! From the old movie, “Red Dawn”.
Well Sugar, I mean Cosmos, you may want to buy all the guns you can before Hillary bans automatic weapons again. Like her husband.
YYY
Her husband did not ban “automatic” weapons; they’ve been banned for many, many years. The “Assault Weapon Ban” banned SEMI-automatic, scary looking weapons because they are scary looking.
A silly and pointless law, yes. But it is important to get the facts right, and not continue the misinformation by some on this issue, either by ignorance (often) or outright lies.
The law applied to SEMI-auto rifles. For those of you who don’t know, SEMI auto means the weapon fires each time the trigger is pulled, up to the limit of the magazine; an automatic weapon continues to fire if the trigger is held down, i.e. like a machine gun. semi autos are common; pistols, either revolvers or autos, are all semi-automatic. Semi-auto rifles or shotguns are also common.
Full autos have been banned since, I think, 1968. In some states, one can own a full auto weapon, with a federal license, but only a weapon manufactured before the ban date. Kansas, BTW, is not one of those states.
Look, over there, bright shiny thighs!
They want to run from bush, like I said previously.What to do with Bush on the 2008 campaign trail? By Steve Holland
Wed Sep 26, 7:16 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – His poll numbers are in the doldrums, he is presiding over an unpopular war and he is promising to campaign vigorously for Republicans in next year’s elections.
ADVERTISEMENTBut will Republicans want President George W. Bush’s support on the campaign trail?
The answer is yes in many cases, but a certain amount of caution will be in order, according to Republican strategists and political experts.
Bush is seen as a prodigious fund-raiser who will be able to bring in millions of dollars for the fight against the Democrats.
But with many Americans up in arms about the Iraq war and looking for change, Bush’s public appearances may be limited to targeted Republican areas where he can rally the party’s base.
“Bush will have a large role, after there’s a nominee, to help unite the party,” said Republican strategist Scott Reed. “And he will still be a strong fund-raising draw with segments of the party. His real strength will be in helping turn out the hard-core base of the party.”
The key Republican candidates for president, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson support Bush’s current strategy in Iraq but tend not to mention his name a lot in their stump speeches.
Indeed, at a Republican conference at Mackinac Island, Michigan, last weekend the candidates largely avoided talk of Bush while frequently mentioning conservative Republican hero Ronald Reagan.
“Let’s face it, you’ve basically got a president who is radioactive,” said Norman Ornstein, a political expert at the American Enterprise Institute. “I’m sure he’ll be active, as he said, on the campaign trail. But frankly he’s not going to be very visible on it.”
If this election has any resemblance to the past, Bush’s role will be limited, because the Republican candidate in the November 2008 election will need to escape the shadow of the president.
“I think the instruction will have to come from who the nominee ultimately is,” said presidential scholar Stephen Hess of George Washington University.
SUPPORTING ROLE
Former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush recognizes the need to play a supportive role because the Republican nominee “is going to have to define himself on his own terms.”
Charlie Black, a Republican strategist advising McCain’s campaign, said Bush will likely help state parties raise money for get-out-the-vote efforts.
He said the real question will be how to use Bush after Republicans nominate their candidate next September.
“That’ll just depend on what the political circumstances are then. With any president, you have to see what his popularity is, which issues he’s popular on and which issues he’s not. Some states are better than others for him,” Black said.
Ron Kaufman, a senior adviser to Romney’s campaign, said Bush absolutely will be needed on the campaign trail.
“Today’s polling numbers mean nothing to tomorrow’s polling numbers. I am absolutely convinced the president will be a more popular president than he is today. And he’s always strong among the base,” Kaufman said.
A year ago, when Bush was campaigning for Republicans in mid-term elections, he argued strenuously for sticking with the Iraq war, a strategy that backfired when Democrats ousted Republicans from control of the U.S. Congress.
Democrats would not mind playing that movie again.
“The guy’s numbers are at Nixonian levels,” said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, referring to Watergate-tarred former President Richard Nixon. “Whether you do or do not do events that are public, I think any connection to him by the Republican Party is a major problem in the general election.”
This is for all you paranoids out there.
“Make the election honest for all sides – require photo id’s to be presented at the election booth. Law would not take affect until after it is PROVEN that all people have photo id’s.”
To make photo Id’s work to keep people from voting at several polling places, those Id’s would have to be scanned into a database for facial recognition software. Such a database connected to cameras that already exist in many places, and you have the ability to track any registered voter anywhere in public. They can watch you pick up your white sheets from the cleaner and follow you on camera to your next cross-burning. They can tap into the security system at your gun shop and watch you buy That assault weapon. Who needs firearms registration? They can also film you going into that motel with your neighbor’s teenage daughter, and use that to blackmail you into turning in all your militia buddies. Sounds like a great idea, huh?
I like your website; I will share this with friends