Page 5 of 294 FirstFirst 1234567891555105 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 4400

Thread: Race for the White House

  1. #61

    Default

    Excitement abounds as Obama brings campaign to SC

    JIM DAVENPORT
    Associated Press

    COLUMBIA, S.C. - Sen. Barack Obama's first presidential campaign visit to South Carolina on Friday is generating excitement, and officials predict a crowd of several thousand people in this early voting state where half the Democratic primary voters are black.

    Several outlets giving away tickets to the Columbia event had exhausted their allotment by Friday. Lachlan McIntosh, executive director of the state Democratic Party, said blacks picked up more than half of the 1,000 tickets the party distributed.

    "This is going to be the most diverse group of people to attend a presidential primary rally in South Carolina this year," McIntosh said.

    White voters have been anticipating Obama's visit, too, notes Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen, who closely follows South Carolina presidential politics.

    Since 1980, he said, he can't recall any primary candidate drawing such a crowd, which will likely be filled with curious and undecided voters.

    White Democrats have found something in Obama that they've been looking for since President John F. Kennedy, Thigpen said.

    "I don't think they thought the Kennedy they were looking for would be a black man," Thigpen said.

    Obama's South Carolina campaign is just getting off the ground. His two staffers have no statewide campaign experience and he is far behind Sen. Hillary Clinton in fundraising, Thigpen said.

    Clinton this week received endorsements from two key black leaders who backed former Sen. John Edwards in 2004.

    "I don't see him beating Mrs. Clinton among blacks here," Thigpen said.

    Obama also was set to visit Claflin University, a historically black college, on Saturday. His campaign said it will decide later Friday whether to scuttle the event because of an expected vote in Washington on the Iraq war resolution.

    Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., also changed his South Carolina campaign plans. Dodd was scheduled to make an appearance in Columbia on Saturday morning, but his campaign said a surrogate would be sent to other planned events.

    The campaign events come during a busy weekend for presidential politics in South Carolina, which holds the first Southern primary for both parties in 2008.

    Clinton opens her bid Monday at Allen University, a historically black college, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona has a visit scheduled for Spartanburg on Sunday.

  2. #62
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    Id assume that Obama will win this Primary State

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rapunzel View Post
    If Hillary is elected, he's going to be our next Secretary of State.
    Good choice.

    He sure knows how to make friends.

  4. #64

    Default

    Or...

    Some mull idea of Sen. Bill Clinton

    Could Bill Clinton take over his wife’s Senate seat if he becomes the first first husband? Some think so.
    Bill Sammon, The Examiner

    Feb 18, 2007 9:57 PM (14 hrs ago)

    WASHINGTON - If Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the presidency, some top Democrats would like to see her husband, former President Bill Clinton, appointed to serve out Hillary’s unexpired Senate term.

    “As a senator, he’d be a knockout,” said Harold Ickes, who was once a top White House aide to Bill Clinton and now gives behind-the-scenes advice to Hillary. “He knows issues, he loves public policy and he’s a good politician.”

    Some Democrats and political analysts say Bill Clinton would thrive in the world’s greatest deliberative body, much like Lyndon Johnson did before he became president.

    “President Clinton would excel in the Senate,” said Paul Begala, who helped Bill Clinton get elected and served in the White House as a top aide.

    “Why not?” Begala added. “He excelled as attorney general and governor of Arkansas, he excelled as president and he’s been a model of the modern Senate spouse.”

    Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, agreed.

    “Clinton is a natural for the Senate,” Sabato said. “He loves to talk and schmooze. He could be a great vote-organizer. Majority Leader Clinton?”

    Such a scenario is not beyond the realm of possibility now that the governor’s mansion in New York is occupied by a Democrat, Eliot Spitzer, who succeeded Republican Gov. George Pataki last month. If Hillary Clinton wins the White House, Spitzer would likely appoint a fellow Democrat to take over her Senate seat.

    So far, speculation about potential successors has focused on New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose father once held the same Senate seat.

    But Spitzer could just as easily appoint Bill Clinton, who, under New York law, would fill his wife’s Senate seat through 2010. A special election would then be held, and the winner would serve the final two years of her term, which expires in 2012.

    Although Ickes would love to see Bill Clinton in the Senate, he considers the scenario a long shot.

    “I think there’d be a real call on [Spitzer] to appoint a black senator,” Ickes said. “I think there’d be a real call on him to appoint a Hispanic senator.”

    Bill Clinton, who was once dubbed America’s “first black president” by author Toni Morrison, would not be the first former president to serve in Congress. John Quincy Adams had a long career in the House after his presidency, and Andrew Johnson served briefly in the Senate after a stint in the White House. Johnson and Clinton are the only two presidents in history to have been impeached by the House. Both were acquitted by the Senate.

    Political analysts say a Senate seat for Bill would go a long way toward solving a potentially nettlesome problem for Hillary — what to do with her husband if they return to the White House. The former president currently maintains an office in Harlem and a home with his wife in Chappaqua, N.Y.

    “Nothing will solve the Bill problem entirely,” Sabato said. “He will be restless and underfoot for Hillary, in part because he is the more talented pol.”

    There would also be financial ramifications.

    “It would certainly lower the family income because there are restrictions on how much a senator can bring in on speeches and so forth,” said presidential scholar Stephen Hess of George Washington University. “Of course he’d have housing, because she’d put him up in the Lincoln Bedroom or something.”

    bsammon@dcexaminer.com
    Examiner


    A Conservative Republican nightmare.

  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Some mull idea of Sen. Bill Clinton
    We need him even more as Secretary of State --to fix the mess that Bush has made.

    Obama for President.

    Hillary can soldier on in the senate.

  6. #66

    Default

    American Rudy: Hot Dog
    Wants to Be Corn Dog


    Can Our Ex-Mayor Find His Icy Right Center? G.O.P. Squints Hard

    By: Jason Horowitz
    Date: 2/26/2007

    Rudy Giuliani now comes in a new package. Social conservatives still aren’t buying it.

    “It’s a sleight of hand,” said Bob Barr, a former Georgia Congressman and champion of small government. “On issues that I consider extremely important to conservatives, such as respect for the Second Amendment, he is nowhere near even remotely in the ballpark of a conservative philosophy.”

    The famously resolute, plain-spoken and uncompromising former Mayor has unveiled new shades of nuance to go along with his historically liberal positions on abortion, gun control and gay marriage, which pose the major obstacles to his pursuit of the Republican nomination for President in 2008.

    But as he inches up to an official declaration of his candidacy—he’ll be campaigning among Southern primary voters in South Carolina on Wednesday—Mr. Giuliani has his work cut out for him. This is, after all, the thrice-married Mayor who once lived with a gay couple, who supported the Brady bill and who once said of abortion, “I’d give my daughter money for it.”

    The trick is that Mr. Giuliani’s newly articulated, conservative-sounding positions have been carefully calibrated to appeal to a conservative base without definitively contradicting any of his past statements, which would run the risk of undercutting his iconic image as the unwavering leader of Sept. 11.

    The result has been a somewhat dizzying dose of coded talk and footnoted arguments from Mr. Giuliani and his political surrogates.

    On Feb. 14, Mr. Giuliani conceded to Larry King on CNN, “I am pro-choice, yes,” but he quickly added that he would only appoint strict constructionist judges to the federal courts.

    His campaign invited national reporters onto a conference call earlier this month with Representative Candice S. Miller of Michigan, who, despite Mr. Giuliani’s strong record on gun control as Mayor, said he assured her that “he is a very strong supporter of the Second Amendment.”

    Mr. Giuliani, who signed something called the Domestic Partnership Law when he was Mayor, now stresses the notion that marriage is sacred and should be between a man and a woman.

    “I have watched this process,” said Dick Armey, the former House Majority Leader and a principal author of the “Contract with America” that helped bring about the 1994 Republican revolution. “He is somewhat artfully juxtaposing one small-government conservative value against the other.”

    In a Republican field without a conservative champion who is both viable and impeccably credentialed, Mr. Giuliani is betting that primary voters will be willing to endure his complicated explanations.

    “In politics, you’ve got to go with what you have. It’s the only hand they could play on this one,” said Charles W. Dunn, dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University, a school founded by the Christian conservative Pat Robertson, where Mr. Giuliani is scheduled to give a speech in April. “It could be a successful hand.”

    So far, at least, it seems to be paying off. A Fox News poll of 900 registered voters released last week showed Mr. Giuliani crushing Mr. McCain, 56 percent to 31 percent, among Republicans. Forty-two percent of the Republican respondents were aware that Mr. Giuliani was pro-choice.

    Some of Mr. Giuliani’s supporters argue that he might not even need social conservatives to win the nomination in 2008.

    “The hard-right conservatives are a very small percentage of the electorate today,” said Barron Thomas, a Giuliani supporter and former “Pioneer” fund-raiser for George W. Bush.

    Either way, Mr. Giuliani’s campaign firmly rejects the notion that he had shifted in any way to appeal to conservatives. If the Mayor is giving new answers, the argument goes, it’s simply because no one ever asked him the right questions.

    “You now have to talk about things in a larger scale than you did in the past, because when asked these questions in the past, he was Mayor, and he couldn’t affect certain things,” said Anthony Carbonetti, a senior advisor to Mr. Giuliani. “He’s explaining more fully what he has always thought, but now they are relevant to the position he is seeking.”

    Mr. Carbonetti also argued that Mr. Giuliani wouldn’t be able to get away with changing his core beliefs.

    “It would be disingenuous for him to say something he didn’t believe in,” said Mr. Carbonetti. “I believe there would be a backlash for that.”

    Mr. Carbonetti’s insinuation seemed clear enough: Mitt Romney, the former governor of left-leaning Massachusetts, used to support both gay rights and abortion rights. He is now opposed to both, and he joined the National Rifle Association just months before announcing his candidacy.

    Meanwhile, Senator John McCain reminded the Republican base this weekend of his conservative credentials by pledging to overturn Roe v. Wade. Mr. McCain has been trying to improve relations with evangelical Christians after dubbing Jerry Falwell an “agent of intolerance” during his 2000 bid, but recently suffered a setback when Christian leader James Dobson said that he could not support the McCain campaign.

    John Weaver, a senior strategist to Mr. McCain, pushed right back, suggesting that it was unfair to compare his candidate’s appeals to the party’s conservative base with the apparent overtures of Mr. Giuliani.

    “He is a conservative,” Mr. Weaver said of Mr. McCain. “He doesn’t have to shift rhetorically or be nuanced or explain away anything. He has a record that he is proud of.”

    Pushed by Conservatives

    Mr. Giuliani’s new articulation of his previously unuttered beliefs coincides with a push by some influential conservative opinion-makers to establish his bona fides, and to do so on his particular terms. The winter edition of City Journal, a quarterly magazine published by the conservative think tank Manhattan Institute, went out this month with a nearly 6,000-word manifesto headlined “Yes, Rudy Giuliani Is a Conservative,” which argued that his successes cutting taxes and reducing crime in New York City should be all the qualification he needs.

    And Deroy Murdock, a contributing editor at the National Review Online and a vocal supporter of Mr. Giuliani, wrote on Feb. 9 that “New York’s former mayor is the leading fiscal conservative among 2008’s GOP presidential contenders.” That followed a piece a month earlier, entitled “Giuliani’s Abortion Record Should Hearten Pro-Lifers.”

    “There is not much an American President can do on abortion,” Mr. Murdock said in a telephone interview. “What they can do is appoint judges.”

    Still, such arguments can come across as academic—as clever, counterintuitive theses generated by intellectual conservatives that don’t actually square with the more visceral perception of him among the values-centric base.

    “He’s definitely not a social conservative,” said Tom Minnery, senior vice president for public policy for Focus on the Family. “He is pro-abortion; he is friendly to same-sex marriage; and his personal life is a problem. I have seen photos of him in drag.”

    When reminded that Mr. Giuliani had appeared in drag as part of a comic performance for an audience of reporters and political insiders, Mr. Minnery said, “That gag may work on Manhattan Island, not on the mainland.”

    Asked about Mr. Giuliani’s assertion that he would appoint only conservative judges despite being personally pro-choice, Mr. Minnery responded: “That creates cognitive dissonance—either he supports abortion or he opposes it. It sounds like he is trying to split the baby in half, as it were.”

    Things don’t get any easier for Mr. Giuliani with gun-rights advocates.

    Mr. Barr dismissed as illogical Mr. Giuliani’s argument that the interpretation of the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” should be left up to individual states and municipalities.

    “They’re not going to accept his explanation that we have to practice gun control in New York, not in Boise,” said Mr. Barr.

    “Just dancing into a room and saying, ‘I’m America’s Mayor, I’m America’s Mayor’— that’s not going to cut it with Second Amendment people, I’ll tell you that.”

    A Pragmatic Way

    Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, who used to run the famous Tuesday strategy sessions that shaped a national conservative agenda each week, thinks that Mr. Giuliani may have hit on a reasonable way forward.

    “If you are speaking to a pro-lifer who is serious about his cause, he wants one thing and only one thing from the President of the United States: judges,” he said. “That’s the only thing you need from him. The rest is only so much fluff.”

    Such sentiments seem to ratify the validity of the course that some of Mr. Giuliani’s supporters have been urging for months. Back in October, one frighteningly prescient pro-Giuliani blogger urged the former Mayor to emphasize the appointment of judges as a way to placate pro-life voters without explicitly going back on his track record of pro-choice positions.

    “Rudy MUST pledge to appoint strict constructionist judges to the Federal bench,” wrote the anonymous (and appropriately named) RudyBlogger on the unapologetically partisan Giuliani Blog, adding: “Ultimately, the judges argument is a VERY good fit for Rudy because it fits with his prosecutorial, criminal justice background.”

    This may just be a time when conservatives are prepared to live with such compromises. After enduring a disastrous setback in the 2006 midterm elections, some conservatives are resigned to supporting whichever candidate has the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton in a general election.

    “Conservatives right now are hungry,” said Mr. Dunn. “You can overlook some issue differences in order to win.”

    The question is: When do those differences simply become too great?

    Mr. Norquist suggested that Mr. Giuliani’s recent pronouncements on abortion and guns did not yet add up to a platform that social conservatives could embrace.

    “He has not yet specifically enunciated a position that passes muster on the right-to-life issue,” Mr. Norquist said. “And he needs to do something on the gun issue that makes people comfortable with him.”

    Bill Lauderback, executive vice president of the American Conservative Union, a conservative grassroots organization, grades members of Congress on how they vote on conservative issues. His personal take was that even if Mr. Giuliani voted for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control, he could still be considered a conservative if he proved himself on taxes, defense and crime.

    But, he said, “clearly there are those in the conservative movement whose primary issue set are abortion, gay marriage and gun control. For conservatives who consider themselves social conservatives first before all else, those would clearly say: ‘Rudy Giuliani is not one of us.’”


    copyright © 2006 the new york observer, llc

  7. #67

    Default

    February 21, 2007

    Op-Ed Columnist

    Obama’s Big Screen Test

    By MAUREEN DOWD

    BEVERLY HILLS, Calif.

    Hillary is not David Geffen’s dreamgirl.

    “Whoever is the nominee is going to win, so the stakes are very high,” says Mr. Geffen, the Hollywood mogul and sultan of “Dreamgirls,” as he sits by a crackling fire beneath a Jasper Johns flag and a matched pair of de Koonings in the house that Jack Warner built (which old-time Hollywood stars joked was the house that God would have built). “Not since the Vietnam War has there been this level of disappointment in the behavior of America throughout the world, and I don’t think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is — and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? — can bring the country together.

    “Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television.”

    Barack Obama has made an entrance in Hollywood unmatched since Scarlett O’Hara swept into the Twelve Oaks barbecue. Instead of the Tarleton twins, the Illinois senator is flirting with the Dreamworks trio: Mr. Geffen, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, who gave him a party last night that raised $1.3 million and Hillary’s hackles.

    She didn’t stand outside the gates to the Geffen mansion, where glitterati wolfed down Wolfgang Puck savories, singing the Jennifer Hudson protest anthem “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going.” But she’s not exactly Little Miss Sunshine, either. Hillary loyalists have hissed at defecting donors to remember the good old days of jumping on the Lincoln Bedroom bed.

    “Hillary is livid that Obama’s getting the first big fund-raiser here,” one friend of hers said.

    Who can pay attention to the Oscar battle between “The Queen” and “Dreamgirls” when you’ve got a political battle between a Queen and a Dreamboy?

    Terry McAuliffe and First Groupie Bill have tried to hoard the best A.T.M. machine in politics for the Missus, but there’s some Clinton fatigue among fatigued Clinton donors, who fret that Bill will “pull the focus” and shelve his wife’s campaign.

    “I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person,” Mr. Geffen says, adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they’ll wait until Hillary’s the nominee to use it. “I think they believe she’s the easiest to defeat.”

    She is overproduced and overscripted. “It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t,” Mr. Geffen says. “She’s so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.”

    The babble here is not about “Babel”; it’s about the battle of the billionaires. Not only have Ron Burkle and David Geffen been vying to buy The Los Angeles Times — they have been vying to raise money for competing candidates. Mr. Burkle, a supermarket magnate, is close to the Clintons, and is helping Hillary parry Barry Obama by arranging a fund-raiser for her in March, with a contribution from Mr. Spielberg.

    Did Mr. Spielberg get in trouble with the Clintons for helping Senator Obama? “Yes,” Mr. Geffen replies, slyly. Can Obambi stand up to Clinton Inc.? “I hope so,” he says, “because that machine is going to be very unpleasant and unattractive and effective.”

    Once, David Geffen and Bill Clinton were tight as ticks. Mr. Geffen helped raise some $18 million for Bill and slept in the Lincoln Bedroom twice. Bill chilled at Chateau Geffen. Now, the Dreamworks co-chairman calls the former president “a reckless guy” who “gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country.”

    They fell out in 2000, when Mr. Clinton gave a pardon to Marc Rich after rebuffing Mr. Geffen’s request for one for Leonard Peltier. “Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice?” Mr. Geffen says. “Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

    The mogul knows it’s easy to mock Hollywood — “people with Priuses and private planes” — and agrees with George Clooney that it’s probably not helpful for stars to campaign for candidates, given the caricatures of Hollywood.

    I ask what he will say if he ever runs into Bill Clinton again. “ ‘Hi,’ ” he replies. And will he be upset if Hillary wins and he never gets to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom again?

    “No,” he says with a puckish smile. “It’s not as nice as my bedroom.”


    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

  8. #68
    Senior Member Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    926

    Default

    Fred Thompson/Zell Miller.

  9. #69

    Default

    February 24, 2007

    Op-Ed Columnist

    A Cat Without Whiskers

    By MAUREEN DOWD

    SEATTLE

    So some guy stands up after John McCain’s luncheon speech here yesterday to a group of business types and asks him a question.

    “I’ve seen in the press where in your run for the presidency, you’ve been sucking up to the religious right,” the man said, adding: “I was just wondering how soon do you predict a Republican candidate for president will start sucking up to the old Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party?”

    Mr. McCain listened with his eyes downcast, then looked the man in the eye, smiled and replied: “I’m probably going to get in trouble, but what’s wrong with sucking up to everybody?” It was a flash of the old McCain, and the audience laughed.

    Certainly, the senator has tried to worm his way into the affections of W. and the religious right: the Discovery Institute, a group that tries to derail Darwinism and promote the teaching of Intelligent Design, helped present the lunch, dismaying liberal bloggers who have tracked Mr. McCain’s devolution on evolution.

    A reporter asked the senator if his pandering on Roe v. Wade had made him “the darling and candidate of the ultra right wing?” ( In South Carolina earlier this week, he tried to get more evangelical street cred by advocating upending Roe v. Wade.) “I dispute that assertion,” he replied. “I believe that it was Dr. Dobson recently who said that he prayed that I would not receive the Republican nomination. I was just over at Starbucks this morning. ... I talk everywhere, and I try to reach out to everyone.”

    But there’s one huge group that he’s not pandering to: Americans.

    Most Americans are sick and tired of watching things go hideously backward in Iraq and Afghanistan, and want someone to show them the way out. Mr. McCain is stuck on the bridge of a sinking policy with W. and Dick Cheney, who showed again this week that there is no bottom to his lunacy. The senator supported a war that didn’t need to be fought and is a cheerleader for a surge that won’t work.

    It has left Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, once the most spontaneous of campaigners, off balance. He’s like a cat without its whiskers. When the moderator broached the subject of Iraq after lunch, Mr. McCain grimaced, stuck out his tongue a little and said sarcastically, “Thanks.”

    Defending his stance, he sounds like a Bill Gates robot prototype, repeating in a monotone: “I believe we’ve got a new strategy. ... It can succeed. I can’t guarantee success. But I do believe firmly that if we get out now we risk chaos and genocide in the region.”

    He was asked about Britain’s decision to withdraw 1,600 troops from Iraq. “Tony Blair, the prime minister, has shown great political courage,” Mr. McCain said. “He has literally sacrificed his political career because of Iraq, my friends,” because he thought “it was the right thing to do.”

    He said he worried that Iranian-backed Shiites were taking more and more control of southern Iraq. (That was probably because the Brits kept peace in southern Iraq all along by giving Iranian-backed Shiites more and more control.) And he noted that the British are sending more troops to Afghanistan, “which is very necessary because we’re going to have a very hot spring in Afghanistan.”

    But then he got back to Tony Blair sacrificing his political career, and it was clear that he was also talking about himself. When a reporter later asked him if Iraq might consume his candidacy, he replied evenly: “Sure.”

    I asked him if he got discouraged when he reads stories like the one in The Wall Street Journal yesterday about Ahmad Chalabi, the man who helped goad and trick the U.S. into war, who got “a position inside the Iraqi government that could help determine whether the Bush administration’s new push to secure Baghdad succeeds.”

    Or the New York Times article yesterday about a couple of Iraqi policemen who joined American forces on searches in Baghdad, but then turned quisling, running ahead to warn residents to hide their weapons and other incriminating evidence.

    He nodded. “I think one of the big question marks is how the Maliki government will step up to the plate,” he said.

    And how, I asked him, can Dick Cheney tell ABC News that British troops getting out is “an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well,” while he says that Democrats who push to get America out would “validate the Al Qaeda strategy.” Isn’t that a nutty?

    But Senator McCain was back on his robo-loop: “I can only express my gratitude for the enormous help that the British have given us.”

    Sometimes I miss John McCain, even when I’m with him.


    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

  10. #70
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    I think they ought to give Hillary majority leader position and get her out of the race. She's a hawk and panders.

    Obama is interesting, but I'm not inclined to support him right now.

    I like John Edwards. He's a populist, but I agree with his stance on all issues. I would support a Gore run as well.

    Republicans need to be reduced to a substantial minority for what they have done to this country. Let them wallow a while and learn that divisive politics is losing politics. I hope for indictments right up to the top and convictions. Libby, Cheney, Rumsfeld. Impeach Bush and send Condi packing. Truly the very worst presidency in my lifetime if not the history of the country.

  11. #71
    Senior Member Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    926

    Default

    Carter was no prize, either.

  12. #72
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    His was a very interesting Presidency. He actually accomplished alot. His presidency is eclipsed by the Iran hostage affair. If you read his presidential memoirs, so much of what is happening today is unfurling to his narrative of what would happen if irresponsible leadership and corporates interests ever wrested control of the US government from the people. Sorry, he's under-rated and a true visionary. He was a deeply religious man, who chose NOT to exploit his faith. He was truly a fiscal conservative, a conservationist, a diplomat, and a good politician. Surprisingly his biggest adversaries were the Kennedy Democrats in Congress, who were very much to the left of his centrist positions. I'd vote for him in a secomd if he ran - and he has it EXACTLY right on the Israeli aphartheid system.

    Now, I didn't post anything to argue with, did I?

  13. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynRider View Post
    I think they ought to give Hillary majority leader position and get her out of the race. She's a hawk and panders.

    Obama is interesting, but I'm not inclined to support him right now.

    I like John Edwards. He's a populist, but I agree with his stance on all issues. I would support a Gore run as well.

    Republicans need to be reduced to a substantial minority for what they have done to this country. Let them wallow a while and learn that divisive politics is losing politics. I hope for indictments right up to the top and convictions. Libby, Cheney, Rumsfeld. Impeach Bush and send Condi packing. Truly the very worst presidency in my lifetime if not the history of the country.
    agree with you on hillary... edwards is right on the issues, but i am not sure he has the spine to be president.. i hate to say this, but he reminds me of john lindsay a bit... i am still not sure about obama.. need to see more

    I like gore...he is very accomplished and seems to be right on a lot of issues. He was in the forefront on global warming. he had the right position on both iraq wars. despite all the crap he took, he really was a visionary on the internet having sponsered legislation that lead to the commercialization of what was at the time nothing more than a tool for the scientific community. and he was instrumental in reducint the size of the federal budget. all impressive stuff.

    I also think bill richardson could be a dark horse. governer, energy secretary UN ambassador... very impressive credentials, kind of like Bush 1. But he will be crunched for funding.

  14. #74

    Default

    ^ Gore: good alternative if Obama self-destructs.




    Bad judgment, bad policies, bad character: Hillary seems to share two of these with the current president. Her presidency would likely continue the country's downward trajectory.

  15. #75
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Romney will have a hard time convincing a lot of folks that he's not a panderer ...

    Romney smears Giuliani:
    'He is pro-choice, he is pro-gay marriage, and anti-gun'



    rawstory.com
    03/01/2007 @ 8:38 pm
    Filed by Josh Catone

    ABC News reports that in an interview taped for the Christian talk show The 700 Club and set to air March 6, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney smeared contender Rudy Giulani, saying, "He is pro-choice, he is pro-gay marriage, and anti-gun. That's a tough combination in a Republican primary."

    Because of a 1997 bill that then-mayor of New York City Giuliani signed creating domestic-partnership benefits for homosexual couples, he is often considered "pro-gay-rights," writes ABC News. However, Giuliani has never been considered "pro-gay-marriage."

    However, in 2004, Giuliani told NBC's Meet the Press that he would oppose a federal ban on gay marriage.

    "When contacted by ABC News, the Romney campaign was not able to provide substantiation for the governor's claim that Giuliani is 'pro-gay marriage,'" continues the report.

    Mitt Romney at one time expressed views very similar to each of the things of which he accuses Giuliani.

    In a 1994 gubernatorial debate, Romney said, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country... I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it. And I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice."

    In 2002, Romney told NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, "I respect and will protect a women's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."

    He has since shifted toward a pro-life stance.

    Regarding gay marriage, Romney wrote to a group of Massachusetts gay Republicans in 1994, as "we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent [Ted Kennedy]."

    In 2002 the Boston Globe reported (via CBN) that then-Governor of Massachusetts Romney would condemn a federal ban on same-sex marriage.

    On gun control, OnTheIssues.org reports that Romney supported the assault weapons ban and Brady Bill in 1994. "I don't think [the waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect," Romney said at the time.

Similar Threads

  1. Race to build at ground zero
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: August 16th, 2007, 02:12 PM
  2. Random House Building
    By MikeV in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 21st, 2005, 04:32 PM
  3. The Porter House - 366 West 15th - Conversion/Addition by SHoP Architects
    By Kris in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: February 1st, 2005, 02:37 PM
  4. The House Filmgoers Love to Hate
    By ZippyTheChimp in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 11th, 2003, 12:16 PM
  5. Town house market slips
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 18th, 2002, 11:07 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software