I think Cheney is still in. I'm not sure he's that big of a liability. If he's dumped at the convention, I'm thinking Bush would go with Rice. Powell and Rumsfeld follow in order....
Originally posted by chu_bakka Rudy Gulianni sucks. I live in NYC... so I know from first hand experience. His last term as mayor was a complete joke.
Any reason? Examples? Or should we all just believe your blanket statement?
Quote:
I think Cheney is still in. I'm not sure he's that big of a liability. If he's dumped at the convention, I'm thinking Bush would go with Rice. Powell and Rumsfeld follow in order....
Cheney is a liability. He's in the same position as Quayle going into '92. So is Bush.
In fact, I think this whole election will be one giant '92 repeat.
Bush won't dump Cheney. It's not going to happen--it displays a bad sense of loyalty to the hawks in his cabinet. Dumping Cheney would look like an admission of guilt in regards to Iraq, and it makes Bush look like less of a "man of resolve," which is very important to his campaign.
Rudy Gulianni sucks. I live in NYC... so I know from first hand experience. His last term as mayor was a complete joke.
If Rudy was the PoTUS, there would be no crime and we would have a great economy, but the NEA would be shut down, there would be mass book burnings, Janet Jackson would have been sent to Guantanamo, and once a week a cop would have to shoot an unarmed black man (sodomizing with a plunger counts).
Cheney is a liability. He's in the same position as Quayle going into '92. So is Bush.
In fact, I think this whole election will be one giant '92 repeat.
Bush won't dump Cheney. It's not going to happen--it displays a bad sense of loyalty to the hawks in his cabinet. Dumping Cheney would look like an admission of guilt in regards to Iraq, and it makes Bush look like less of a "man of resolve," which is very important to his campaign.
Incredibly naive and unsupported.
1. There is no strong third party candidate to take 19% of the vote.
2. Bush is better funded is already running a much better campaign (edit: better than his father at both).
3. Kerry is much weaker than Clinton...and much more liberal too.
4. Cheney is not Quayle. Even those that disagree respect his intellect and experience. Hell, even those who think he's a corrupt SOB respect his intellect.
5. Bush is not his father. Not in any way. He hasn't broken a tax pledge, the economy is in a different spot than it was in 1992, and he'll benefit from his 9/11 leadership. Those are just to name a few.
He could lose...but it won't be 1992. I don't know any reasonable person that thinks that.
1. There is no strong third party candidate to take 19% of the vote.
2. Bush is better funded is already running a much better campaign (edit: better than his father at both).
3. Kerry is much weaker than Clinton...and much more liberal too.
4. Cheney is not Quayle. Even those that disagree respect his intellect and experience. Hell, even those who think he's a corrupt SOB respect his intellect.
5. Bush is not his father. Not in any way. He hasn't broken a tax pledge, the economy is in a different spot than it was in 1992, and he'll benefit from his 9/11 leadership. Those are just to name a few.
He could lose...but it won't be 1992. I don't know any reasonable person that thinks that.
Naive? Unsupported?
Bush's approval rating is hanging by a thread at 49%. Dick Cheney's lags behind by 10%.
Like it or not, America moved far to the left in 2003. We were definitely in the GOP's court in late 2001 and 2002, but there has been a snap back and right now it's playing into the Dems' hands. Howard Dean revitalized the party and Kerry stole it from him. Just because Cheney isn't a Quayle clone doesn't mean he's weak for the ticket. The fact of the matter is, he was chosen to bring alacking essence of professionalism to the GOP ticket--in 2000. The need for George W. Bush as an incumbent President with such an earmark as 9/11 has long since faded. He has low popular approval, health problems, a hawk background, and (disputable) connections to big name businesses. Dick Cheney is a weak VP candidate.
Okay, yes, this won't be 1992 in the sense that there was a sufficient electoral margin. I meant it in a much broader sense. Clinton came out of nowhere and won the presidency. I'll never forget the SNL skit, the race to not be the candidate to lose to President George Bush. Kerry has come from single-digit polls in 2002 to beating the President by as much as 11 points in February.
Not to mention that the Dems have been running circles around the GOP since January.
The worst mentality the Republicans can have going into this election is superiority. Those who are convinced of their security will quickly find themselves without any.
Let's be careful about characterizing others' responses. "Unsupported" is fine, it addresses the content of the post. Naive sounds a bit like it's making assumptions about the person's state of mind, which is somewhere between commenting on the person and commenting on the opinion. Just don't move too far away from the latter.
-----
Quote:
Like it or not, America moved far to the left in 2003.
I think the public has moved towards the left but isn't in the left so to speak. The country is split down the middle apparently, and they still hold some more socially conservative views like the issue of gay marriage and such. So the difference is relative and limited. The coasts are more left-leaning than the middle or south too so personal experience may not be completely representative.
Quote:
Not to mention that the Dems have been running circles around the GOP since January.
Meh. I'm not sure anyone is running circles around anyone else. Certainly, all eyes are focused on the Dems right now, so in the sense of media dominance, yes, definitely. Now that the Dem ticket is starting to solidify, the GOP is going to grab more attention for itself. I think we're seeing some of that already with the whole controversy over the GOP 9/11 ads.
Toward the beginning of this transcript, Cheney jokes about the VP ticket in 2004 and Guiliani. It's just a matter of time before someone takes Cheney out and Guiliani steps up.
Comments
Originally posted by chu_bakka Rudy Gulianni sucks. I live in NYC... so I know from first hand experience. His last term as mayor was a complete joke.
Any reason? Examples? Or should we all just believe your blanket statement?
I think Cheney is still in. I'm not sure he's that big of a liability. If he's dumped at the convention, I'm thinking Bush would go with Rice. Powell and Rumsfeld follow in order....
Rummy is more of a liability than is Cheney
In fact, I think this whole election will be one giant '92 repeat.
Bush won't dump Cheney. It's not going to happen--it displays a bad sense of loyalty to the hawks in his cabinet. Dumping Cheney would look like an admission of guilt in regards to Iraq, and it makes Bush look like less of a "man of resolve," which is very important to his campaign.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Rudy Gulianni sucks. I live in NYC... so I know from first hand experience. His last term as mayor was a complete joke.
If Rudy was the PoTUS, there would be no crime and we would have a great economy, but the NEA would be shut down, there would be mass book burnings, Janet Jackson would have been sent to Guantanamo, and once a week a cop would have to shoot an unarmed black man (sodomizing with a plunger counts).
Originally posted by iSushi
Cheney is a liability. He's in the same position as Quayle going into '92. So is Bush.
In fact, I think this whole election will be one giant '92 repeat.
Bush won't dump Cheney. It's not going to happen--it displays a bad sense of loyalty to the hawks in his cabinet. Dumping Cheney would look like an admission of guilt in regards to Iraq, and it makes Bush look like less of a "man of resolve," which is very important to his campaign.
Incredibly naive and unsupported.
1. There is no strong third party candidate to take 19% of the vote.
2. Bush is better funded is already running a much better campaign (edit: better than his father at both).
3. Kerry is much weaker than Clinton...and much more liberal too.
4. Cheney is not Quayle. Even those that disagree respect his intellect and experience. Hell, even those who think he's a corrupt SOB respect his intellect.
5. Bush is not his father. Not in any way. He hasn't broken a tax pledge, the economy is in a different spot than it was in 1992, and he'll benefit from his 9/11 leadership. Those are just to name a few.
He could lose...but it won't be 1992. I don't know any reasonable person that thinks that.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Incredibly naive and unsupported.
1. There is no strong third party candidate to take 19% of the vote.
2. Bush is better funded is already running a much better campaign (edit: better than his father at both).
3. Kerry is much weaker than Clinton...and much more liberal too.
4. Cheney is not Quayle. Even those that disagree respect his intellect and experience. Hell, even those who think he's a corrupt SOB respect his intellect.
5. Bush is not his father. Not in any way. He hasn't broken a tax pledge, the economy is in a different spot than it was in 1992, and he'll benefit from his 9/11 leadership. Those are just to name a few.
He could lose...but it won't be 1992. I don't know any reasonable person that thinks that.
Naive? Unsupported?
Bush's approval rating is hanging by a thread at 49%. Dick Cheney's lags behind by 10%.
Like it or not, America moved far to the left in 2003. We were definitely in the GOP's court in late 2001 and 2002, but there has been a snap back and right now it's playing into the Dems' hands. Howard Dean revitalized the party and Kerry stole it from him. Just because Cheney isn't a Quayle clone doesn't mean he's weak for the ticket. The fact of the matter is, he was chosen to bring alacking essence of professionalism to the GOP ticket--in 2000. The need for George W. Bush as an incumbent President with such an earmark as 9/11 has long since faded. He has low popular approval, health problems, a hawk background, and (disputable) connections to big name businesses. Dick Cheney is a weak VP candidate.
Okay, yes, this won't be 1992 in the sense that there was a sufficient electoral margin. I meant it in a much broader sense. Clinton came out of nowhere and won the presidency. I'll never forget the SNL skit, the race to not be the candidate to lose to President George Bush. Kerry has come from single-digit polls in 2002 to beating the President by as much as 11 points in February.
Not to mention that the Dems have been running circles around the GOP since January.
The worst mentality the Republicans can have going into this election is superiority. Those who are convinced of their security will quickly find themselves without any.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
You don't live in NYC. So kiss my ass.
Now there is an intelligent response.
Naive? Unsupported?
Let's be careful about characterizing others' responses. "Unsupported" is fine, it addresses the content of the post. Naive sounds a bit like it's making assumptions about the person's state of mind, which is somewhere between commenting on the person and commenting on the opinion. Just don't move too far away from the latter.
-----
Like it or not, America moved far to the left in 2003.
I think the public has moved towards the left but isn't in the left so to speak. The country is split down the middle apparently, and they still hold some more socially conservative views like the issue of gay marriage and such. So the difference is relative and limited. The coasts are more left-leaning than the middle or south too so personal experience may not be completely representative.
Not to mention that the Dems have been running circles around the GOP since January.
Meh. I'm not sure anyone is running circles around anyone else. Certainly, all eyes are focused on the Dems right now, so in the sense of media dominance, yes, definitely. Now that the Dem ticket is starting to solidify, the GOP is going to grab more attention for itself. I think we're seeing some of that already with the whole controversy over the GOP 9/11 ads.
I live in NYC and have very good reasons for NOT liking Rudy.
He isn't even that conservative... he just stank as a mayor.
Bloomberg is better.
He just ended up being a TV hero post 9/11.
Originally posted by rageous
Yeah, Rudy isn't exactly revered by most people who got to watch him work.
He just ended up being a TV hero post 9/11.
Wasn't that the general "consensus" about Rudy before 9/11? I thought it was. I could be wrong.
Edit:Oh yeah, and I think Cheney will be the VP although I'd love to see a DUHbya/Quayle ticket if it were at all possible.
"Potatoe" and "Weapons of MATH destruction".
Maybe GW should pick his brother Jeb so he can try and win florida...
where he's TRAILING at the moment. hehe.
I wonder if they've fixed their voting systems yet.
Toward the beginning of this transcript, Cheney jokes about the VP ticket in 2004 and Guiliani. It's just a matter of time before someone takes Cheney out and Guiliani steps up.
I don't agree Cheney is weak. I think maybe he'll be replaced...but I wouldn't say he's "weak" either.
As for your getting all excited over the poll numbers, I'd caution you that it's very early. Don't underestimate Bush, and don't overestiamte Kerry.
Originally posted by SDW2001
iSushi:
I don't agree Cheney is weak. I think maybe he'll be replaced...but I wouldn't say he's "weak" either.
As for your getting all excited over the poll numbers, I'd caution you that it's very early. Don't underestimate Bush, and don't overestiamte Kerry.
I was only using the polls to support the idea that he really is "The Comeback Kerry"
I understand what you are saying.
Originally posted by iSushi
I was only using the polls to support the idea that he really is "The Comeback Kerry"
I understand what you are saying.
Good. And btw, I think Kerry's comeback was pretty amazing. Though, he hasn't really been tested. He's had no serious opposition since Dean imploded.