USA President for 2008?

[Marcio**]

Mel Gibson – Does anyone have better name recognition? And he's a fighter for life and values.

Judge Roy Moore – Does anyone better understand the threats we face as a nation from judicial tyranny and eroding morality?

Denzel Washington – He's not just a pretty face. He stands out in the entertainment industry as a courageous independent thinker and defender of American values.

J.C. Watts – He's a tremendously likeable man with a great smile and the core values of Ronald Reagan.

Steve Largent – From what I hear, there's nobody more principled.

Dr. Tom Coburn – This Washington rebel just proved his mettle by winning a Senate seat in Oklahoma despite efforts to portray him as a radical.

Tom DeLay – A solid conservative, well-spoken and experienced in the ways of Washington.


from
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41351


:)

[paul]

Of the choices in your post, Denzel would be my choice though quite honestly I know very little about his politics.
In the article, Hillary was mentioned. I think the right really wants her to run. As a liberal, I really don't think she has a snowballs chance in hell for a few main reasons. Her Iraq War vote (just like Kerry), and being a woman. By the way, I should say a Black man would not be elected just on race alone regardless of what's said. The right's hatred of her will motivate the wingnuts to vote for anybody but Hillary Clinton. That's in part why even though they say they fear her, they really want her to run hoping a bunch a dumb dems will fall for the mind tricks nominate her as they did Kerry.
My favorites are still Howard Dean, and Al Gore. Sadly at this point these guys who are most likely to beat any repub won't be running. That's one of the frustrating things with the Dem party. Their allstar players are not playing the game! :evil:

[DiscoMan]

You really admire Gore and Dean?

Only in America the land of fruits and nuts...

[dfc99bb]

For the Democrats - Don't bet on Hillary just yet. She has a compliant press in NY, but that will not help her in a national race. Plus can you see red-state democrats voting for her in the primaries? Joe Biden has criticized the Iraq war too much and in too hostile a way to be considered a good commander-in-chief. John Edwards may have a shot because he's considered as a moderate pro-defense southerner.

For the Republicans - Sen. George Allen (VA) is a likeable candidiate with solid conservative credentials. Rudy Giuliani says he will decide in 2006 regarding 2008. I'd vote for him but he might be perceived as too liberal by the conservative base of the party. Sen. John McCain (AZ) is a loose cannon who has pissed of the conservative base. Gingrich, no chance. Pataki, no chance.

My wild guess is George Allen vs. John Edwards. A lot can happen between now and then....

[paul]

dfc99bb, if only Biden voted the way he talked. He won't get my vote and from what I'm hearing not a lot of other liberal votes either.
Let me say something here that gives credit to the repubs. They learned a long time ago to pander to their base, esp. come election time. Dems have pandered to some mysterious middle that often makes them come off as duplicitous.
Having said that, the dem base wants someone who is not afraid to stand up and be outspoken against the Iraq war. That has been a big problem for the supposed opposition party. That is why I like Gore, Dean, and Barbara Boxer. Please, enough with the Republican lite approach. I know people respect politicians how aren't afraid to stand on principle.
I also really gotta say I really hate when we (esp. some of my northeast dems) play pundit and not vote for a candidate on issues they agree with. Instead they are voting for guys they think may play well in the South for example. That's a poor method IMHO.
Edwards will face the problem Kerry had. You can't criticize a war you voted for.
I do agree that Hillary is also being foisted on us by a NY press corp as well. What they don't get is Hillary doesn't mean anymore to us here in Cali as she would to voters in Minnesota.
I'd love to see Guilliani be the repug candidate. He has tons a baggage.

[DiscoMan]

Barbara Boxer!? Are you shittin' me? You really are a committed communist aren't you.

[paul]

Barbara Boxer!? Are you shittin' me? You really are a committed communist aren't you.

I guess Californians in general are communist then because Barbara is very popular (cute too :P ). She carried the state with more votes than Kerry got when both were running for their respectivew offices.
I love Barbara and she would make an excellent President. There is still the woman thing is this country. Having said that, I would vote for her in a heartbeat and would love to be proven wrong in a national election.
So why are you in love with this regime? Were you part of Cheney's secret energy cabal who are now reaping profits from the high gas prices? Did Bush promise you an undeserve position like the guy he appointed to the UN, screw the Senate? Perhaps you are in that core 20 to 30 percent lemming bush supporter who have swallowed the kool-aid and jump whenever your master says :roll:

[DiscoMan]

I'm not in love with this regime.

I would vote for Mickey Mouse or Angela Davis before I'd vote for any of the current crop of DemocRats.

As I said I had my fill of your comrades during Vietnam.

[SandraDee]

I would vote for Mickey Mouse

Well, knowing US politics he must stand a good chance. :lol: I mean, he's male, got a tiny brain, not gay or black & he must be able to afford $3 million for a publicity trail campaign, eh? :-? (& I bet he doesn't know where Pakistan is!)

[DiscoMan]

Sandy baby, becuming the U.S. Prez costs ahelluvalot more'n $3mil.

[eddie]

I think both parties are going to lean anti-establishment domestically and isolationist in regards to the Middle East.

The Louisiana straw poll will play a major role in the Republican primaries because it is before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Because of the hurricane, moderate Republicans like Bob Dole can not afford to withdraw from the Louisiana straw poll.

I honestly hope the folks of New Orleans and adjacent suburbes will remember the scene of a woman clinging to an American flag yelling "Not in America!" as she was being led off her property with Bush's federal militia. There was no flood water there and she was hoping to reopen her small mom and pop store.

Bush and the neo-conservatives do not value the rights of individual ownership of property. They only value the land which they can make money off of. That's all the Iraq and Afganistan wars were about. Just look at Bush's face after the planes flew into the Towers. He sat for seven minutes in contemplation of his deeds while at a Kindergarden class in Florida.
Through great tragedies, hopefully voters and citizens will realize that liberals, investors, and neo-conservatives only serve their own interests. Right to life fundamentalists would not let people in nursing homes drown after 5 days of cell phone pleas.

Prediction:
1)Deciciveness will become valued (no more flip flop)
2)Much like the NYC Bloomberg mayor election, the tradition block votes (like Blacks, religious right, labor) may swing the other way.
3)Religion will play a much greater role in politics.

[paul]

eddie, just curious to know why you would put liberals and neo-conservatives in the same sentence? I'm not saying we liberals are perfect but what examples can you cite that show liberals do things to serve only liberals interests?
Funny you should mention troops forcing New Orleans residents to leave. I saw where they are confiscating their weapons. The irony here is for several years the right wingers were having babies for fear that Clinton was gonna take their manhood, their gun. Now the guy they voted for who they think represents their interest has troops taking their guns :lol: :lol:

[eddie]

Liberals & Neo-cons vs ET AL
Liberals tend to raise taxes and price people out of their homes. Banks and investors(moderate Republicans) make big off this.
I live in the New Paltz/Catskills area in New York and dozens of communities are recently being flooded. When I was growing up, floods happened on the Mississippi River- never here. It seems that the states and towns have not dredged these brooks in decades. If a private land owner puts a backhoe into the brook, he is taken off to jail and fined $10,000. Affluent environmental left-wing nuts have exclaimed "do not disturb acquatic wildlife" (lassez faire).
New York City controls the release of water from the Neversink River. They released it too early in 2005 and 100 homes were declared uninhabitable by local government after immense flooding. FEMA offers a penny an acre and Bush offers loans.

Liberals and neo-conservatives are both internationalists. A liberal may enjoy an exotic import or may feel that he's helping different ethnicities by legitimatly supporting an oversees worker. Republicans and neo-cons are calculating maximum comparative advantage in the labor market. Thus, the $15-$20 manufacturing jobs are gone from the U.S. The lack of the Nixon/Reagon protectionism in fair trade is where the Right went wrong.

Gun Control and Louisiana
Most conservative governments in Europe believe in strong gun control so the citizens don't revolt like they did in the French revolution. So, Bush flirting with this idea of mandantory evacuations doesn't surprise me especially when he can use this land for a Haliburten base or for oil riggs. Look for him to scapegoat the Democratic governor and mayor because these military evacuations are hitting white suburban faces. Barabara Bush thought that the Houston Astrodome was quite a nice spot since these refugees people were underpriveleged.

If you look at the 1988 Presidential election and the 1992 and 1996 Republican primaries, you'll find that Bush1 and Dole were literally hated in Louisiana.

[paul]

Hey eddie,
Some points we may differ on esp. in terms of the implications of your arguments. What strikes me more however is something that perhaps is a precursor to upcoming elections. Your insistence on drawing parallels with neo-cons and liberals where little exists is a new one for me. I guess some repubs seeing the failings of this republican neo-conservative government will try to connect neo-conservatives with "liberalism" when they are polar opposites ideologically :roll:
What sort of protectionism did Reagan institute? I seem to remember high trade deficits in the Reagan era. This would seem to counter the fair trade argument.

[eddie]

That's a very good question. In the mid 1990's, the greatest portion of manufacturing jobs were lost to oversees workers. A few conservatives said that certain abuses would not be allowed if Reagan had still been President. MFN (most favored nation status) would not have been renewed for China due to their execution of Christians and backroom deals to undersell U.S. labor markets. NAFTA and GATT would not have been passed under Reagan. The second bolt from conservatives came when some supported Perot instead of Bush1.
Reagan was also a military protectionist. He rarely put massive U.S. troops in harms way. Reagan would use other regional factions against hostile communist regimes. When fighting Russia, he used Bin Laden and the Mojah Haddein (sp). Another example was the Iran contras.

[paul]

Interesting take eddie.
I would beg to differ though. On matters of free trade, Reagan was a big advocate of this as were/are many consevatives. One would have to believe that Nafta and now Cafta would been endorsed by him. Also, Reagan was hardly known for his genuine compassion for the working man. I don't know if you were around but one of the first things he did was bust up PATCO, I think that was what they were called. They were the air traffic controllers union.
As for military protection the way you describe it, I remember hundreds of servicemen killed in a disco in Syria or Lebanon. As it has been for the last 60 years, that part of the world has been an especially dangerous place.
Reagan also supported Saddam Hussein and it was during his time in office Saddam allegedly gassed the Kurds. By the way, he was our boy and the CIA gave him logistical info. Fighting those commies weren't the only foreign policy interest Reagan had. As can be seen with Saddam and despots in Central America for example, it mattered little how humanitarian these people were that Reagan got in bed with.
Not trying to be contentious eddie but recent history has shown me that it's better to nip these things in the bud early when possible.

[Mixmachine]

[quote="paul"]

Reagan was hardly known for his genuine compassion for the working man. I don't know if you were around but one of the first things he did was bust up PATCO, I think that was what they were called. They were the air traffic controllers union.

What a crock of Bullshit this statement is, I was all for firing this Patco Union members, they were making 100 times more than the average workers including huge benefits and yet they wanted more, they violated their federal contract, signed by all, which stipulated that they will be fired if they walked out, they were warned repeatelly and shown the WRITTEN PORTION IN THE CONTRACT THEY SIGNED!, but they couldn't care less if they bankrupt the economy by paralyzing air transportation and taking the jobs of millions of regular working Americans with them, their leftist Union bosses pushed them into a confrontation with a fresh President that did what He promised and fired their greedy asses out in the streets, replaced them all with fresh blood and military personal and kept the air traffic open for America like He promised the American people, Now, that's a President with Balls that keeps his word!, Oh yes, those that complied with the contract , not only kept their jobs but later got a raise!

As for military protection the way you describe it, I remember hundreds of servicemen killed in a disco in Syria or Lebanon. As it has been for the last 60 years, that part of the world has been an especially dangerous place.
Reagan also supported Saddam Hussein and it was during his time in office Saddam allegedly gassed the Kurds. By the way, he was our boy and the CIA gave him logistical info. Fighting those commies weren't the only foreign policy interest Reagan had. As can be seen with Saddam and despots in Central America for example, it mattered little how humanitarian these people were that Reagan got in bed with.

They were killed by terrorist in Lebanon in their sleeping quarters while they were there
in a humanitarian mission helping refugees victims of that civil war, not as an invasion force. And the USA doesn't get to pick who are the leaders of this countries with whom we need to work with to protect our interest and that of the free world, they may be friendly and harmless today (Osama) and enemies and killers later, this is a well known fact acknowledge by all but by self-serving leftist like you and yours, this type of necessary alliances and betrayals have been part of human history since the beginning of civilizations, read a History book or watch the History channel :lol:

Not trying to be contentious eddie but recent history has shown me that it's better to nip these things in the bud early when possible.

:lol: :lol: :lol: and yet you want to extend all the credit in the world to the likes of Chavez :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Your kind always want to “Nip it in the butt” right here at Home first to weaken us in the face of our enemies, Sure, we got your number pal, You are really quite a character :lol: :lol:

[paul]

Hey Mixmachine,
Glad to see you back in the mix :lol:
So I guess what Reagan did and how you feel about dem greedy union workers is what's called compassionate conservatism :D The nerve of them guys trying to make all that money and trying to become rich. Better to drag there asses down with the rest of us and maintain just a handful of wealthy people
So the USA doesn't pick leaders of nations huh...ohhhhh kay :roll: I guess the History Channel hasn't gotten around to Iran ~1953, or the various regimes or juntas that popped up from 60s, 70s, 80s in Central and South America.
Believe me, whatever I or other Liberals have said can't compare to what the Bush crime family has done in the face of our enemies. More than making the US look weak, this spawn of Barbara "Alien" Bush has emboldened the enemy with the havoc he and his ilk are wreaking on the planet.
As for being a character, coming from you I'm blushing all ohva 8)

[Mixmachine]

Hey Mixmachine,
Glad to see you back in the mix :lol:
So I guess what Reagan did and how you feel about dem greedy union workers is what's called compassionate conservatism :D The nerve of them guys trying to make all that money and trying to become rich.

The rules were spelled out in the Federal employment contract they signed pal, I know this means nothing to the likes of you, you have no honor and/or respect for anything or any one and your word means nothing, so I don't expect the likes of you to abide by a signed contract, right? but the President stood by his word and did what He promised and your previous description of what happened with Patco is pure BULLSHIT. If any other members of any Union can get rich so be it, as long as they follow the rules they agreed in the first place. Patco was not allowed to STRIKE! PERIOD!

Better to drag there asses down with the rest of us and maintain just a handful of wealthy people

I'm not one to drag anyone down, I'd leave that job to scummy leftist like you since you have more experience with destroying the human spirit. The reason I called them "greedy" is because they rejected a generous offer and were willing to disrupt the lives of millions of average Americans by illegally striking to further enrich them selves at our expense.

So the USA doesn't pick leaders of nations huh...ohhhhh kay :roll: I guess the History Channel hasn't gotten around to Iran ~1953, or the various regimes or juntas that popped up from 60s, 70s, 80s in Central and South America.

Yeah, I know, you rather Castro or Brezhnev (sp) had picked the leaders instead, but we already established you are and anti-American lunatic doing the enemies work from the inside Right? The Chinese are your "Daddy" now right ? :lol:

Believe me, whatever I or other Liberals have said can't compare to what the Bush crime family has done in the face of our enemies. More than making the US look weak, this spawn of Barbara "Alien" Bush has emboldened the enemy with the havoc he and his ilk are wreaking on the planet.

If only you democraps could produced a family of leaders with 10 % the qualities and success of the Bush family may be you could see the inside of the White House again soon, instead you give us screaming maniacs and unbalanced fool instead, :lol:

[paul]

Well, Mimachine it may surprise you but in some ways I agreed with Reagan on Patco with regards to honoring the contract. Patco did have some legitimate grievances but it's been over 20 years so I can't remember clearly everything.
Patco and the government always had issues and it never came down to firing thousands of people prior to this.
As for picking leaders, I'd rather have the governed select their leadership. I know that is something you wingnuts have trouble with. Ya see, liberals believe democracy shouldn't just be some abstract cliche never to be practiced.
As for the Chinese, they may be all of our daddies the way Bush has screwed this economy up.
We would all be better served if we had the screaming maniac or unbalanced fool. Instead we've got the mush mouthed awol convicted drunk along with his drunk 5 deferment tin man buddy who talks a lot crap then runs to bunker at the first sign of trouble.
I'm glad Dean scares you guys. He's like sunlight to you neocon life suckin' vampires.