Jump to content

Bush, Dole or Nixon?


Recommended Posts

Since 1952 every U.S. Presidential election but one has had a Bush, Dole or Nixon on the ticket for the G.O.P.

Richard Nixon - 52, 56, 60, 68. 72 (Veep 52-56 and Prez 60, 68-72)

Bob Dole 76, 96 (Veep and Prez respectively)

GHW Bush 80, 84, 88, 92 (Veep 80-84 and Prez 88-92)

GW Bush 00 and 04 (Prez)

So who will it be in 2008? Jeb? Liddy?

Random fact 1. The 1964 Republican ticket was Barry Goldwater and Congressman William Miller (NY).

Random fact 2. Nixon is the only man to win to elections as Veep and two as Prez.

Random fact 3. The 1964 election, the only one in 56 years without a Bush, Dole or Nixon on the Republican ticket, was the Republicans biggest defeat of all the Presidential elections held in that time span.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am saying if your last name is one of those three there is a good chance, 1 in 4 you will see it at the top of the Republican ticket in 2008.
Your original reference was to a place on the ticket (Pres or V-P). Now, you refer to the "top" of the ticket.

Would you include maiden names? Is there a draft Julie Nixon Eisenhower campaign? Because otherwise, I see no Nixons on the horizon.

Elizabeth Dole "tried" and walked away.

That leaves Jeb Bush. Do you mean that he'll be the Republican nominee? Maybe.

----

BTW, a much more relevant observation concerns Democrats. Kennedy, in 1960, was the last non-Southern Democratic President - and he barely won. Since then, it's been Johnson (Texas), Carter (Georgia) and Clinton (Arkansas). Gore (Tennessee) won a plurality of votes in 2000.

The others, McGovern, Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry were all non-Southern, and all failures.

The Democrats can only win with a red state, good ol' boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your original reference was to a place on the ticket (Pres or V-P). Now, you refer to the "top" of the ticket.

My bad, meant on the ticket.

Elizabeth Dole "tried" and walked away.

Why couldn't she run again? Reagan lost the first time he ran for the nomination. So did Papa Bush.

That leaves Jeb Bush. Do you mean that he'll be the Republican nominee? Maybe.

Again, my bad. I think Jeb will be in the veep slot in 08. I truly think a McCain-Jeb ticket is possible. With McCain not seeking a second term.

----

BTW, a much more relevant observation concerns Democrats. Kennedy, in 1960, was the last non-Southern Democratic President - and he barely won. Since then, it's been Johnson (Texas), Carter (Georgia) and Clinton (Arkansas). Gore (Tennessee) won a plurality of votes in 2000.

The others, McGovern, Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry were all non-Southern, and all failures.

The Democrats can only win with a red state, good ol' boy.

If you were right I would say that is very bad news for the Democrats. The five biggest names being floated are Hillary, Obama, Wesley Clark, Evan Bayh and John Edwards. Edwards is the only *true* southerner of the bunch. Edwards couldn't even win his own state in 2004. No way he gets the nod in 2008. The Democrats are going to pick somebody who can win.

The whole good ole southern boy thing is an illustion. Johnson won in 64 due to the grief over Kennedy plus a very unattractive to moderates Barry Goldwater. Carter *barely* won in 76. Bill Clinton was a rockstar - and the only candidate of the "southern" presidents who was truly helped by his southerner status. Gore was pathetic and should have won easily....

The southern states are so solidly red now that they don't really care if a Southerner is the Presidential nominee. Gore won *zero* southern states in 2000. (Florida, whatever...)

The Democrats will be focusing on states like Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, maybe Virginia or Florida. I don't see any southerner helping win those states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your original reference was to a place on the ticket (Pres or V-P). Now, you refer to the "top" of the ticket.

My bad, meant on the ticket.

Elizabeth Dole "tried" and walked away.

Why couldn't she run again? Reagan lost the first time he ran for the nomination. So did Papa Bush.

That leaves Jeb Bush. Do you mean that he'll be the Republican nominee? Maybe.

Again, my bad. I think Jeb will be in the veep slot in 08. I truly think a McCain-Jeb ticket is possible. With McCain not seeking a second term.

----

BTW, a much more relevant observation concerns Democrats. Kennedy, in 1960, was the last non-Southern Democratic President - and he barely won. Since then, it's been Johnson (Texas), Carter (Georgia) and Clinton (Arkansas). Gore (Tennessee) won a plurality of votes in 2000.

The others, McGovern, Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry were all non-Southern, and all failures.

The Democrats can only win with a red state, good ol' boy.

If you were right I would say that is very bad news for the Democrats. The five biggest names being floated are Hillary, Obama, Wesley Clark, Evan Bayh and John Edwards. Edwards is the only *true* southerner of the bunch. Edwards couldn't even win his own state in 2004. No way he gets the nod in 2008. The Democrats are going to pick somebody who can win.

The whole good ole southern boy thing is an illustion. Johnson won in 64 due to the grief over Kennedy plus a very unattractive to moderates Barry Goldwater. Carter *barely* won in 76. Bill Clinton was a rockstar - and the only candidate of the "southern" presidents who was truly helped by his southerner status. Gore was pathetic and should have won easily....

The southern states are so solidly red now that they don't really care if a Southerner is the Presidential nominee. Gore won *zero* southern states in 2000. (Florida, whatever...)

The Democrats will be focusing on states like Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, maybe Virginia or Florida. I don't see any southerner helping win those states.

I personally like Edwards, I think he's a very rational and clear thinking man, very intelligent. If any Democrat could do it this time, its Edwards. He's a great debater too, in a country where debate is very important to the political campaign!

I also like Wesley Clark, he's a good one too and has done alot of great work in his time. Not likely to get anywhere though.

For the GOP, McCain will probably be the Prez nominie, not really sure who would be the VP to that, I don't follow internal US politics enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting comments guys... I had never even considered a Mccain-Bu$hiíte ticket. If the Dems don't run a governor instead of a Senator they're doomed again! They... the leadership of the democrapic party... are the only people on earth than are bigger dumbazses that Geoooooooooooooooorge W. Bush! At least he apparently knows and accepts that he isn't the brightest bulb in the house and allows his handlers to dictate what he should and shouldn't do.

The Dems had a candidate in Richardson in New Mexico... lots of experience at various levels of government, a Clinton man, a governor who CUT taxes, and a host of other credible qualifications... but he's blown it before he can even get into the race on silly shiite.

Hillary draws as many negative numbers as positive... even the disenchanted right will vote for any Republican candidate to assure her defeat! And voting against someone is a much stronger drive than voting for someone... Hilliary is a GUARANTEED democratic lost in 08!

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also like Wesley Clark

Interesting. He kills more Americans in a day than Insurgents in a month and you think he's fit to command.

Other than his Rambo style in Waco where he brought in every special forces unit ion the planet (some foriegn to boot, so why are some peopleagainst contracting US ports to foriegn companies, they give up special operations don't they?} here is a short list of his contreversial behavior;

the Guardian wrote

"No sooner are we told by Britain's top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the west's war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if NATO's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the cold war. "I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the internationalK-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen. Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital. . . Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said NATO's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose".
And on November 12, 1999, at the beginning of the Kosovo conflict, Counterpunch delved into the military career of General Clark and discovered that his meteoric rise through the ranks was the result of "the successful manipulation of appearances: faking the results of combat exercises, greasing to superiors and other practices common to the general officer corps. We correctly predicted that the unspinnable realities of a real war would cause him to become unhinged. Given that Clark attempted to bomb the CNN bureau in Belgrade and ordered the British General Michael Jackson to engage Russian troops in combat at the end of the war, we feel events amply vindicated our forecast. "With the end of hostilities it has become clear even to Clark that most people, apart from some fanatical members of the war party in the White House and State Department, consider the general, as one Pentagon official puts it, "a horse's ass." Defense Secretary William Cohen is known to loathe him, and has seen to it that the Hammer of the Serbs will be relieved of the NATO command two months early."

columnist Robert Novak-

"Members of Congress who, during their spring recess, met in Brussels with Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO supreme commander, were startled by his bellicosity. According to the lawmakers, Clark suggested the best way to handle Russia's supply of oil to Yugoslavia would be aerial bombardment of the pipeline that runs through Hungary. He also proposed bombing Russian warships that enter the battle zone.
I personally like Edwards

I liked his conciliatory speech myself. Kerry earns the respect of the nation by saying how they ran a hard campaign and wil now work towards uniting the country and Edwards pouts and vows that he will not stop until he can prove the Republicans cheated. Quite the realist. And you want him in charge?

Take Uncle Krusty's advice. The Dem's are not going anywhere without Hillary. And, furthermore, she is going to be a bit more right than you want her to be. While this will piss a lot the extreme left off, so much so that you may see a party split in the near future, it's the only way she can get the core voters on the right to come over.

And take my word for it, Edwards is a slip and fall lawyer, he isn't going anywhere. He's hated in North Carolina by the right - outwardly hated like the Liberals were here in Canada and only held on by deals. Deals he can't make nationally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Dems don't run a governor instead of a Senator they're doomed again!
That's a good point too. Congressmen from either party have not done well since Kennedy either.

Bush Snr was an insider and a one-term congressman (and a one-term President) but I think he got there on Reagan's popularity. Johnson was the ultimate Washington insider as was Nixon.

Excepting Bush Snr, all the Presidents since 1976 have been ex-Governors. Since Kennedy, no sitting Senator has become President.

----

Incidentally, the winning president is highly correlated with the economic situation. If good, the incumbent party usually wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also like Wesley Clark

Interesting. He kills more Americans in a day than Insurgents in a month and you think he's fit to command.

Other than his Rambo style in Waco where he brought in every special forces unit ion the planet (some foriegn to boot, so why are some peopleagainst contracting US ports to foriegn companies, they give up special operations don't they?} here is a short list of his contreversial behavior;

I didn't know you elected Presidents based on their +/- tally in killing enemies... seems kind of silly from my perspective.

Personally outside of those suggestions, I don't care for any American political party. The Republicans are big government, low taxes, high deficit, the Dems are big government, high taxes, low deficit.

I pity you yanks that have that choice to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know you elected Presidents based on their +/- tally in killing enemies... seems kind of silly from my perspective.
You don't. You elect them on their ability to handle pressure and situations. In this case, he did not handle them in a good way. As for killing 'enemies,' Clark would have probably done a fine job except for the fallout afterwards but, I would hardly call the women and children at Waco enemies in the loosest sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wesley Clark is a wuss and won't win crappola... the same goes for the Breeck gurl Edwards who probably can win ONLY the fruit vote and probaly the ugly, flat-chested, frigid, nagging boitch vote.

The Dems had better run a governor or they are going to be crying again. Someone who won't have all those years of a liberal voting record... and if they don't get off their one single issue... ABORTION... they are doomed!

McCain-Bu$h... God help us... the Manchurian candidate and yet another Arab hugging globalist. A country of almost 300 million... and all we can come up with are dem and repub combinations of dumb and dumber.

Probably better if we just throw up the white flag and surrender anyhow... it's less painful than this process of losing the nation a piece at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ninty in a day is about what insurgents do in a week or a slow month.

From Waco to Yugoslavia:

Clark Ok'd The Use of Military

Based on the fact that military equipment from Fort Hood was used in the siege and that training was provided there, say critics, it is clear the commanding officer of the 1st Cavalry had direct knowledge of the attack and, more likely than not, was involved in the tactical planning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good topic!

Y'all be surprised at my prediction:

George Allen will be the 2008 Republican nominee. Arrghhh...another 'George'. ;)

-Rudy Giuliani could reasonably be called the front runner based on his tough on crime rep, his performance after 9/11, the great work he did on the campaign trail during the 2004 election cycle, and his charisma. However Guiliani's weaknesses will likely hurt his candidacy. He's pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage and is divorced from a woman who accused him of "open and notorious adultery". With the voters in the Republican primary being more conservative than the general public, I think Rudy is not a lock like many think.

-John McCain will not get the nomination (sorry Americain--just my gut feeling). He is perceived by conservatives to be a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) who publicly undercuts the Repubs on important issues just to gain favorable (he's a maverick!) press from the liberal media. McCain's very soft stance on illegal immigration, his age (he'll be 72 in 2008), and the McCain-Feingold legislation - widely disliked by the base - will also hurt him.

-Jeb Bush has virtually no chance. He's a very good Republican, but I feel that the base (and public) does not want another Bush, a Bush dynasty.

-Condi Rice would whip all of these nominees as she is wildly popular among the base...but she has said she has no intention to run, she's inexperienced (never run for any office), and she is an unmarried 50 y/o woman and you know darn well that the Dems and their cohorts in the media would hint at "lesbiansim".

However it would be delightful to see the left's notorious racism exposed (I doubt even the liberal media could hide it from the public) as they would attack "Aunt Jemima" a la Ted Rall etal....

As for the Donks:

-Wesley Clark has no chance. The guy is a flake.

-Breck Girl John Edwards (remember that video of him primping and preening with his hair?) has no chance. Like al-Gore, he lost his own state and is perceived to be a flake. He has "channeled the dead" when winning multi-million dollar lawsuits against doctors--causing the rise of healthcare to rise greatly, he claimed that if ppl voted for John Kerry, "people like Christopher Reeve would rise from their wheelchair and walk again". Additionally, his claim to fame seems to be that Cheney didn't utterly destroy him in the debates--he merely gave him a spanking like an adult does to a child. However after the clobbering Cheney gave to Joe Lieberman (a good decent Democrat) in 2000, the bar was set lower.

-John Kerry has no chance, even with Terr-ay-za's Republican dollars. He lied about releasing his military records (despite building virtually his entire candidacy on his "war hero" status). Indeed, he has STILL refused to release his military record. He is an egomaniac who took a film camera to Vietnam to tape his "heroism", 264 of 270 of his Swift Boat mates hated his guts after a mere 4 months of service, he abandoned his mates after 4 months instead of serving his 1 year term, he has Walter Mitty-like fantasies about President Nixon sending him on secret missions to Cambodia on Christmas Eve in Cambodia in 1968 (despite Nixon not being Prez then), and he said he would turn over US sovereignty to Fwance, Communist China, and Russia--all 3 who were in bed with Saddam...."we'll use our troops if it passes the global test".

-Joe Lieberman has no chance. The Dems dislike him for not being a loony lib.

-Hillary Clinton will have a tough road to hoe. First, the hard-left that has hijacked the Democrat Party despises her for pretending to be a moderate. Second, the Repubs are gleefully licking their chops at the chance to savage her--they despise her even more than her loathsome husband. She also tried to implement socialist healthcare in the US--a grossly expensive inept bureaucratic plan that plays with people's lives (see Canada's socialist healthcare plan). And this June 2004 quote by Hillary will come back to haunt her:

"Many of you are well enough off that the [bush] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Stealing from the productive and giving to the non-productive: Socialism. NOT popular in the US.

To sum it up, I think that George Allen will win the Republican nominee.

The Democrats? I'm not sure. Republicans would love a crack at hatemonger Howard "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for" Dean, or Billary. ;)

Seriously though, I don't know who the Dems can pick who would have a chance. Perhaps Evan Bayedh. He doesn't seem to be as loopy as most of the Party. But will the base support him?

Let's face it. The Dems have nothing. Nothing! They have no plans, no ideas, they even stood up and applauded when Bush said - at the Jan 31 SOTU address - that Social Security reform was a no go.

Even though Social Security is going bankrupt, the Dems applauded this--this a govt program, and the Dems are for big govt. It was truly a sad sight. :( The only thing the Dems have to offer is that they hate Bush. That's it.

I feel that the Democrat Party is dying before our very eyes. You might not believe this, but I find that sad. A credible opposition keeps the governing power honest, or at least semi-honest--and yes, that includes Republicans/conservatives.

As the ever quotable Ann Coulter quippped:

"The common wisdom holds that "both parties" have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."

I agree. I am instinctively suspicious of both. Look at the pork barrel crap the Repubs have implemented. $28 million to the arts community? Compassionate Conservativism. Pffft.

However the Dems are truly frightening--especially during wartime....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Allen is an interesting name. I don't think he will win, but he could be a dark horse like Kerrey. About as appealing in the general as Kerrey was. So I hope you are correct! :lol:

Hillary will not have a tough time getting the nomination. The left-wing of the Democratic Party that might turn against her isn't big enough to affect the outcome. They couldn't get Dean the nomination, but they are gonna give Hil the boot? come on...

Your quote from Ann Coulter goes to prove everything that is wrong with her. Outright lies and histrionics. The Democrats *always* double-cross the voters? wtf? How? When? (btw, her second sentence doesn't even contradict her first, even though she used the phrase "to the contrary....")

Hmmm, Clinton actually ran surpluses, fought a successful war in Kosovo. What was scary about that? Monica? Sure scary, but just goes to show how desperate the Republicans were to find something on Clinton.

Good topic!

Y'all be surprised at my prediction:

George Allen will be the 2008 Republican nominee.

-Hillary Clinton will have a tough road to hoe.

I feel that the Democrat Party is dying before our very eyes. You might not believe this, but I find that sad. A credible opposition keeps the governing power honest, or at least semi-honest--and yes, that includes Republicans/conservatives.

As the ever quotable Ann Coulter quippped:

"The common wisdom holds that "both parties" have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."

However the Dems are truly frightening--especially during wartime....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shoop:

George Allen is an interesting name. I don't think he will win, but he could be a dark horse like Kerrey. About as appealing in the general as Kerrey was. So I hope you are correct!

Allen is popular amongst the base even though he is a "nobody" in the mainstream. But Howard "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for" Dean was also unknown until he caught fire with the Democrats.

Guiliani could still pull it out though. He is a rock-hard conservative when it comes to crime, refused to take that $10 million cheque from that Saudi Prince (the prince wanted him to blame 9-11 on the Jews), and would be a steely leader in the WOT. So maybe the conservative base would possibly overlook his weaknesses in moral values.

Hillary will not have a tough time getting the nomination. The left-wing of the Democratic Party that might turn against her isn't big enough to affect the outcome. They couldn't get Dean the nomination, but they are gonna give Hil the boot? come on...

Howard Dean was the front-runner until the "yeeaarrgghh scream" sunk him. Then who did they pick? The #1 rated liberal in the Senate as the ADA (a liberal organization) proudly pointed out. Michael Moore was delighted that the Dems picked the most liberal Senator to run against Dubya.

I maintain that she will have a tough road to hoe. The far-left has hijacked Democrat policy and has shunned moderates like Lieberman. Coincidentally, they were talking about Hillary's chances on Fox News yesterday. She is an excellent fundraiser but she is having difficulty trying to play to the moderates and the far-left at the same time. Many pundits accuse her of being politically schizophrenic (sp?). Where does she stand? Is she a moderate or a far-leftist? That hurt John Kerry in 2004.

And Hillary has a LOT of baggage. Whitewater, the Vince Foster murder, the Clinton administration selling secrets to the Communist Chinese, giving nuclear material to North Korea, and her attempt to implement a socialist healthcare system that is grossly expensive, inefficient, and literally plays with people's lives. Plus, the Dems are nervous about the Republicans salivating at a crack at Hillary. Many think she is political suicide.

Here's just one (of many) poll(s) from the largest American leftwing blog on the Internet, Daily Kos:

Would you vote for Hillary in the 2008 primary?

No - 83%

Yes - 16%

You might say it is only a blog, but these guys and gals raise a lot of money and Democrats, including John Kerry, post on their site.

Your quote from Ann Coulter goes to prove everything that is wrong with her. Outright lies and histrionics. The Democrats *always* double-cross the voters?

If you would put aside your *leftist* hatred for Coulter, you might learn not to take every sentence she utters so literally. Everyone knows she uses hyperbole and is a flamethrower; that's her shtick. However she is nearly always dead-on in her analysis and she has that unique ability to get under the Dem's skin.

wtf? How? When?

Let's take a look at the last Dem Prez. Clinton ran against Bush Sr saying that Bush went back on his word not to raise taxes. Clinton said he would not raise taxes. What did he do in 1994? He implemented one of the biggest tax increases in American history.

(btw, her second sentence doesn't even contradict her first, even though she used the phrase "to the contrary....")

Her quote makes sense. Not my prob you can't understand it. Perhaps you can move on to Mark Steyn's "lies and histronics". ;)

Hmmm, Clinton actually ran surpluses,

Which means he had taken more money from the taxpayers than was required. That's a good thing? :o

He raised taxes bigtime, slashed funding for the military and the intelligence services, and was able to actually gain a surplus by doing so.

Color me unimpressed. Hardly a brilliant accomplishment.

fought a successful war in Kosovo.

He attacked a country that was absolutely no threat to the US and didn't even get approval from Congress (ignore the UN not giving him permission--I don't have much use for those corrupt gangsters). He said the troops would be home by Christmas 1996; the troops are still there.

What was scary about that?

Good grief. Have you forgotten your history? The Balkans is the powderkeg of Europe. It always has been. Where did WWI start? Indeed, that idiot Wesley Clark nearly started WWIII with Russia during this scary incursion. Even today, you read stories (mostly ignored by the MSM) about the tensions in the Balkans. Clinton took a serious risk by invading this powderkeg that was no threat to the US.

Monica? Sure scary, but just goes to show how desperate the Republicans were to find something on Clinton.

You might shrug off lying under oath, obstructing justice and having sex with an intern in the White House, but many think that a President should not be having sex with interns in the White House, should not lie under oath, and should not obstruct justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the Question, I like Nixon, Let's bring back old Bluebeard himself. I'll bet he's tanned rested and ready to go. And He could probably follow the Bush act with a really big show. Let's not let the fact that he's long dead bother us, With the smell in Washington these days few would notice and fewer still would comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore Shoop, the Commander-in-Chief has to be respected by the military. Can you imagine John Kerry being CIC--after he had accused the troops in Vietnam of committing crimes reminiscent of "Gin-Jis-Khan"? Remember the frosty reception Kerry got from those 4 Marines at Wendy's? You could tell in the pics that they were a bit ticked off, and to make it worse, they told a reporter that they resented Kerry.

Hillary Clinton got a cool reception when she visited the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. She told the soldiers in Iraq that they were doing a good job, but some ppl back home are wondering why you are here. What a great morale booster for the troops. :(

Bill Clinton wasn't respected by the troops. They sensed he had little use for them.

Jimmy Carter was a wimp. The 2004 DNC was the first time the Dems allowed him inside the building (Michael Moore sat beside him) That is an example of how the far-left have hijacked the Democrat Party. Before, the Dems were smart enough to keep Carter "hidden" so that the public would not be reminded of what an idiot he was--and still is.

LBJ never fought the Vietnam War to win. He fought to "contain" the enemy--causing thousands of needless deaths.

JFK was the last Dem president that had an adequate foreign policy. He fought the spread of the murderous ideology of communism, but let down the Cuban fighters at the Bay of Pigs by backing off on air support for them.

FDR was probably the last Dem Prez that took no crap and fought hard to defeat America's enemies--Japan, Germany, and Italy.

The US is at war against Islamic extremism. Bush has repeatedly said that this will likely be a long war.

Rudy Guiliani and George Allen are steely-resolved Republicans and if I was an American, I would have more faith in them when it comes to fighting the WOT, than I would Hillary Clinton, al-Gore, or John Kerry.

Perhaps Evan Bayedh. He's not a wuss. But I fear he is not "left enough" for today's Democrat Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore Shoop, the Commander-in-Chief has to be respected by the military. Can you imagine John Kerry being CIC--after he had accused the troops in Vietnam of committing crimes reminiscent of "Gin-Jis-Khan"? Remember the frosty reception Kerry got from those 4 Marines at Wendy's? You could tell in the pics that they were a bit ticked off, and to make it worse, they told a reporter that they resented Kerry.

Kerry actually fought in Vietnam. GW got into the Guard and didn't even perform that service. Swiftboat Veterans for Truth was a pathetic attempt at covering up this fact. Kerry deserved to lose the election for not fighting their attacks more strongly and persistently. He should have committed to fighting that issue to the exclusion of all others. He didn't and it cost him the presidency.

LBJ never fought the Vietnam War to win. He fought to "contain" the enemy--causing thousands of needless deaths.

Using your logic GW definitely isn't in Iraq to win. A winning strategy there would take another mebbe 50,000 troops. Which would probably require re-instituting the draft. Will he do what it takes to win in Iraq?

Perhaps Evan Bayedh. He's not a wuss. But I fear he is not "left enough" for today's Democrat Party.

It's Evan Bayh, not Bayedh.

Really do remember that you are in Canada. Take a time to do the research into the platforms on which Clinton, Gore or Kerry actually ran. You would find them much more in tune with the CPC than anything GHW, Dole or GW ran on....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, my bad. I think Jeb will be in the veep slot in 08. I truly think a McCain-Jeb ticket is possible. With McCain not seeking a second term.
Bush Snr might have played second fiddle to Reagan but no way Barbara will let one of the boys walk behind, and certainly not someone like McCain. Anyway, Jeb just won't do it and, despite the name-recognition, I think American voters have had enough of Bushes for a generation or two.
The five biggest names being floated are Hillary, Obama, Wesley Clark, Evan Bayh and John Edwards. Edwards is the only *true* southerner of the bunch. Edwards couldn't even win his own state in 2004. No way he gets the nod in 2008. The Democrats are going to pick somebody who can win.
At the moment, I'd pick Edwards - running a Clinton-style campaign to win (as opposed to what Gore and Kerry did). But first let's see how the Congressionals shake out.
The whole good ole southern boy thing is an illustion. Johnson won in 64 due to the grief over Kennedy plus a very unattractive to moderates Barry Goldwater. Carter *barely* won in 76. Bill Clinton was a rockstar - and the only candidate of the "southern" presidents who was truly helped by his southerner status. Gore was pathetic and should have won easily....

The southern states are so solidly red now that they don't really care if a Southerner is the Presidential nominee. Gore won *zero* southern states in 2000. (Florida, whatever...)

The Democrats will be focusing on states like Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, maybe Virginia or Florida. I don't see any southerner helping win those states.

I disagree.

The South used to be a chip on a shoulder. Now, it (and the South-West) are a State of Mind. Standard-issue northern Dems don't get it.

Edwards can win Florida, and Ohio - but he may not need it.

He should have committed to fighting that issue to the exclusion of all others. He didn't and it cost him the presidency.
Interesting idea. I tend to agree.
LBJ never fought the Vietnam War to win. He fought to "contain" the enemy--causing thousands of needless deaths.
Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon fought a war to "contain" the Soviets and the war was successful. My God, the deaths were not in vain. We should all be grateful for what ordinary Americans did in Vietnam.

This so-called war on terror is different, but concerns a similar threat to liberty. IMV, the Soviet threat was far more grave. Unfortunately, I don't think individuals in western societies could stand up to such a threat now. We should be maybe thankful that we only face a rag-tag group of Islamofascists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon fought a war to "contain" the Soviets and the war was successful. My God, the deaths were not in vain. We should all be grateful for what ordinary Americans did in Vietnam.

Er...Vietnam had nothing to do with the Soviets per se (you're confusing symbols and reality: bad August!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...