Rudy Giuliani for President - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-09-2006, 06:32 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




gee, first you say that a poll isn't indicative of whether or not a policy will be good in 20 years, but then you make the vastly premature statement that "Obama and Hillary cannot beat McCain!" if that isn't rich irony for you, i don't know what is.

i think McCain is electable, but he'll only get more electable the further and further he pushes away from Bush -- simply by saying that we need more troops is a deviation from the current Bush non-strategy. Bush is the polonium-210 of politics. everything he's touched since 2004 has turned to shit, and McCain, and the Republicans, know this. the more McCain can define himself in opposition to Bush and away from Bush, and to appear as an adult to Bush's spoiled man-child status, the better of he will be.

and i'm a fan of divided government. the 1990s were a golden age of political progress when you had the single most talented, intelligent president of the 20th century in office who was able to work most effectively with an oppositon Congress that, sadly, has grown more and more Christofascist with each passing election. thankfully, the democratic process works, so these architects of failure in Iraq have been rejected by the American people!

Bush has eeked out two victories and every single democrat who has run against him has received over 250 electoral votes! you only need 270 to win the presidency! Bush hasn't even gotten 290 electoral votes, which is pathetic for a president who has won 2 terms. his approval rating hasn't been above 50% since the 2004 election and he's been more unpopular for a long period of time than any president in the past 50 years. the American people resoundingly rejected his policies, with the failure in Iraq as the centerpiece, in the 2006 mid-term elections, not to mention the clear majority of governorships now held by Democrats.

as for Democrats throwing mud -- hilarious! rich with irony, since mud is precisely what Rove threw at McCain in the 2000 primaries.

just like the Civil War in Iraq, we're going to have a Civil War within the Republican party. the small government/libertarians (who ran screaming from the party in 2006 and now reject and repudiate all that Bush stands for) are going to hope for McCain, but the Republican party knows that they cannot ever win an election without both these people and the evangelical base. McCain must reach out to both these constituents (something Bush was able to do, pretending he's an evangelical when he's really the incurious spoiled brat of a political dynasty) and that's going to be very difficult for him to do. he has NO credentials within the evangelical community (and good for him, imho), unlike Romney who's doing a 180 on the political speech that got him elected governor of Massachusetts. if the Republican party decides that it cannot win the election without the evangelicals, McCain will NOT get out of the primaries. if the Republican party decides that it can win the election without the evangelicals, McCain WILL get out of the primaries but he'll have a nearly insurmountable hill to climb as he'll have to both distance himself from the train wreck of Iraq that he helped create as well as win an eleciton without the traditional Republican base of evangelicals.

which is why i think they're going to go with Romney. he can speak to the evangelicals, and he can speak to the wealthy. i don't think McCain can manage to keep the two groups together -- critical for the Republicans to eek out a win like they did in 2000 and 2004 -- in the way that Bush did and Romney possibly could.
Your mistake in this entire analysis is that you forget that Bush is not on the ballot in 2008 and the Democrats actually have to put up a single candidate in the spotlight again. By far the favored nominees for the Democratic party are Hillary and Obama. You can't just analyze the potential weaknesses of McCain without looking at the Democrats weakness's. Why would the majority of people believe that Hillary or Obama would make a better Commander In Chief than McCain?

Romney at this time simply does not have the recognition that McCain has or the ability McCain has to win votes beyond the Republican party. The results of the 2006 mid-term elections make things easier for McCain in winning the Republican primary.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 07:00 PM   #32
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Those that don't vote automatically approve of what ever the outcome is no matter how much they may object to that fact.
This is such bullshit.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-09-2006, 07:00 PM   #33
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Those that don't vote automatically approve of what ever the outcome is no matter how much they may object to that fact.
My issue was with your statement that a majority of Americans voted for Bush. It's a fact that no, a majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush. No matter how you slice it, Bush was not voted for by a majority of Americans.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 07:06 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


My issue was with your statement that a majority of Americans voted for Bush. It's a fact that no, a majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush. No matter how you slice it, Bush was not voted for by a majority of Americans.
Can you name a single president that was voted in by a majority of Americans?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 07:07 PM   #35
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Your mistake in this entire analysis is that you forget that Bush is not on the ballot in 2008 and the Democrats actually have to put up a single candidate in the spotlight again. By far the favored nominees for the Democratic party are Hillary and Obama. You can't just analyze the potential weaknesses of McCain without looking at the Democrats weakness's. Why would the majority of people believe that Hillary or Obama would make a better Commander In Chief than McCain?

Romney at this time simply does not have the recognition that McCain has or the ability McCain has to win votes beyond the Republican party. The results of the 2006 mid-term elections make things easier for McCain in winning the Republican primary.
Your mistake in the analysis is that you are stuck. Not everyone votes based on "will they be the better commander in chief" mentality, and given that fact most are fed up with how horribly wrong this Republican administration has steered this war I doubt they are excited about another Rep lead.

So if that's not the driving factor what will be? Will it be another election where the nutjobs are looking for another "moral" vote? If so count McCain out.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-09-2006, 07:13 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Your mistake in the analysis is that you are stuck. Not everyone votes based on "will they be the better commander in chief" mentality, and given that fact most are fed up with how horribly wrong this Republican administration has steered this war I doubt they are excited about another Rep lead.

So if that's not the driving factor what will be? Will it be another election where the nutjobs are looking for another "moral" vote? If so count McCain out.
Yeah, but were not just talking about any old election are we? Were talking about an election during a war, and that factor will be on peoples minds more so than it was during other presidential elections prior to 2004.

Again, Bush is not on the ballot in 2008, the Dems are going to have to put up a candidate, and the Republicans are going to want someone who can capture the center of the political spectrum again and McCain is the person to do that. Why else would the parties largest fund raisers already be lining up behind McCain as the did for Bush in 1998?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 07:55 PM   #37
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 12:13 AM
No shit Bush isn't on the ballot, what does that have to do with anything?

Believe what you want, your alternate universe usually does entail ignoring such factors...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-09-2006, 08:09 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Bush wasn't on the ballot last month either.

Didn't Republican candidates try to hammer that point home over and over and over again? And didn't they fail?

Bush will be de facto on the ballot in 2008, not personally, but in terms of his failed policies and how many of them the Rep candidate will choose to endorse.

If you think Bush won't be a factor in 2008, well keep wishing.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 09:31 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Bush wasn't on the ballot last month either.

Didn't Republican candidates try to hammer that point home over and over and over again? And didn't they fail?

Bush will be de facto on the ballot in 2008, not personally, but in terms of his failed policies and how many of them the Rep candidate will choose to endorse.

If you think Bush won't be a factor in 2008, well keep wishing.
I've not said that Bush would not be a factor at all, just that the Democrats would not be able to ride disatisfication with him to victory as they did in a mid-term election in 2006. The Democrats made the campaign about Bush. Mid-terms are notoriously difficult for sitting Presidents because the President receives all the fire, while not having a specific target to fire back at unlike years that involve the other party putting up a candidate.

Again, the biggest factor in 2008 will be the Republican candidate VS. the Democratic Candidate. This is the first election since the 1920s that does not have a member of the current administration running for office, primarily because Dick Cheney never had any intention of an 08 run back when they ran in 2000 and that has not changed. There for, the current administration in power in many ways will have less impact on the 2008 election than in any other prior election.

Presidential elections are more about the individual candidates rather than their party, the administration in power, than what is seen in a mid-term election.

The Democrats have to field a seriously competitive candidate for the national election and they have yet to do that. Hillary and Obama can't win the national election.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 09:42 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
No shit Bush isn't on the ballot, what does that have to do with anything?

Believe what you want, your alternate universe usually does entail ignoring such factors...
The tactics used by the Democrats in the 2006 mid-terms will not be effective in a Presidential election in 2008 when no one from the administration is running for the office of President.

Continuing to focus on Bush instead of the candidates or in fact who the Democrats are going to put up as their candidate is indeed a way to insure a Republican presidential victory in 08. It won't matter how bad people think Bush is in 08 if the Democrats cannot put up a candidate that can compete with John McCain. Hillary and Obama don't cut it in that playing field.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 09:42 PM   #41
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Hillary and Obama can't win the national election.
Is that because one has a vagina and the other is one of them black people?

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 11:12 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:13 AM
I would think that McCain has a better chance against Hillary. She voted to authorize the war, as did he.

Obama had nothing to do with the vote. He can take a stance that contrasts McCain's more than enthusiastic support for the war, including STILL wanting more boots on the ground.

Obama, lacking experience, has the difficult task of facing a war hero, a "maverick", and a man who had the support of many Democrats in 2000.

I like the Obama McCain matchup best.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 11:49 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Guiliani supports continuing the war, therefore, he doesn't get my vote.

Same for McCain.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 12:50 AM   #44
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Can you name a single president that was voted in by a majority of Americans?
I realy don't care either way. I was amused by your insistance that Bush was so popular, that's all.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 04:05 AM   #45
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The tactics used by the Democrats in the 2006 mid-terms will not be effective in a Presidential election in 2008 when no one from the administration is running for the office of President.

Continuing to focus on Bush instead of the candidates or in fact who the Democrats are going to put up as their candidate is indeed a way to insure a Republican presidential victory in 08. It won't matter how bad people think Bush is in 08 if the Democrats cannot put up a candidate that can compete with John McCain. Hillary and Obama don't cut it in that playing field.
You really have a knack for not reading people's post, it gets old.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com