I'm sure we can agree that the Republicans are going to have an uphill battle in the 2008 elections.

There has been speculation that a McCain/Gulliani ticket would be the strongest package they could come up with.

Any thought's?

I would suspect the most likely Democrat package at this time would be Hillary/Obama.

I should think it would be very interesting. These two line-ups would be tough to forecast.

You are probably right about the Rep. ticket being the strongest with those two. I know Mit Romney thinks he can win, which I don't think so, however he is a Republican Gov. in the land of Kennedy's so that might mean something. Hillary/Obama might have problems in the southern states. Lets face it Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, the Carolinas, and to some extent Texas and Arkansas, though they have a substantial black population, the rest of the voters have a "DixieCrat" leanings......The south has always been important in the elections as a block.

Granted if they (Hillary/Obama) were to take enough strategic states they could win. Presidential Politics in some ways reminds me of arbitron. You really aren't looking for 275,000 listeners you are looking for about 125 diaries.

I'm actually hoping we see some sleepers rise to the top. A good solid shake up would do everyone some good.

Look at what the freshmen Dems are doing. The DLC is totally bent over them just not staying on message. Good on them for actually representing those who put them there.

We need more of this.

Given your two choices Deane, it would be a good race for sure. It's still really early. We've not even started the real hardball mud slinging yet!

McCain's pro-Iraq war stance could well come back to bite him in the arse. As much as I like him, that could be a deal breaker with me personally ... that of course depending on who the Democrats roll out.

Romney is an enigma to me ... he just doesn't do it for me.

One strong Republican ticket indeed might be Giuliani-McCain.

Others might be Giuliani-Rice or McCain-Rice.

Herb

It's way too early to get serious about this. The fields in both parties have a long way to go before they settle out. I read a very persuasive online piece in Rolling Stone saying that Gore is probably the best-positioned 2008 Democratic nominee at this point, even though he hasn't declared and (if he were to) wouldn't probably do it until very late in the game.

That being said, I don't get too excited about McCain and/or Giuliani. All our elected presidents since LBJ have either been from the South or from California. McCain from AZ and Giuliani from NY don't fit the traditional mold. Granted, the mold can always be broken, but this makes it a bit more of an uphill battle for them. Giuliani strikes me as a one-note candidate, someone who shined brightly for the first six months after 9/11 and that's about it. Running as a Republican, he would almost certainly not be able to carry the very Democratic NYC, and likely not even the state. If you are not well received in your own state, what chance do you have? (see Gore in 2000)

I'm intrigued by Chuck Hagel (R-NE). He's coming out as the anti-McCain, a Republican maverick on the other side of the Iraq war from McCain. Depending on how the "surge" plays out, one of these two guys will come out smelling like a rose, and will be looked to as the voice of the post-Bush Republican Party.

Rudy "pro-choice" Giuliani has exactly zero chance of being nominated for president by a Republican party dominated by pro-lifers. Even if by some fluke he got nominated, the party faithful would stay home or split to some 3rd pro-life party and basically hand the election to the Democrats. Rudy could get in as VP, but I don't see what that buys him at this point in his career. He's already got national stature. VP is usually a slot for someone sort of well known but not yet a national figure. I don't think he'd do it. Anyway, McCain and Giuliani together seem a pretty bland pairing.

The Democrats certainly don't need the south to win; they could have won in 2004 without a single southern state simply by winning Ohio (had about 70,000 Bush voters switched to Kerry, Kerry would have won the election). Having a southerner John Edwards on the ticket apparently did nothing to help the party win there in 2004. True, Obama could alienate some white southern voters but he would bring out the black voters in droves, people who don't usually vote. What black person is going to turn down the opportunity to vote for the first black man running for president (or even vice president)?

Andrew

I think Obama's effect could be quite interesting. Many white voters will be uncomfortable with a black, but a lot of younger white voters possibly wouldn't be. And I agree, blacks are going to want to grab the opportunity to have a black in the White House. It could get out a lot of black votes in the South.

Mr. Hagel is as well-received by conservatives as Mr. Lieberman is with liberals.

His brand of politics is democrat-lite.

Herb

"Many white voters will be uncomfortable with a black"

Someday this will not matter.

I'm watching his run with interest, curious to see how that all plays out. The sooner we get over race, the better, IMHO.

How about Obama-Rice on an Independent ticket?

Herb

Can't deal with Rice at all. It's not race or gender with me. It's her period. I'm not convinced she is good for the nation. She does not have a solid set of character attributes. Smart though, that's a plus.

I disagree, the election is the republicans to lose. The electoral college is definitly tilted in favor or the republicans, all they have to do to win, is get a decent turn out in the south and mountain states.

And a Hillary or Obama running for the Demos, would guarantee a landslide turnout for the republicans.

What does her period have to do with anything?

Randy, that's the way I read it first, too.

A comma would have helped that sentence.


On another issue - I think it's interesting that with Clinton's candidacy, very few people are making an issue of her being a female. We're talking about a very viable major party candidate being a woman! This doesn't seem to be getting the historic play that it should be. Wonder why Obama's race is a bigger deal than Clinton's gender?

>>>"Mr. Hagel is as well-received by conservatives as Mr. Lieberman is with liberals."

Nebraskans no longer like Hagel.

Nwokie, one could argue that this election may be one of the first evenly handicapped elections in some time (the 1992 election may also qualify) It is going to be a contest between Bush conservatism and Clinton progressivism. Both (will) have had eight years to prove their mettle. We are well enough beyond 9/11 so that we can have a clear-eyed view of both administrations. Both men clearly made some mistakes, but if you put together an accomplishments v. failures tally sheet, the Clinton policies win out. The successful candidate in '08 will be the one that is best able to distance him/her self from the failures of their party's previous White House occupant.

The GOP has occupied the White House but not because they received a mandate from voters in either of the last two presidential elections.

The deteriorating war in Iraq coupled with the results of the recent congressional elections ('06) seem to indicate the Republicans have more than an "uphill battle" come '08, rather it is a near impossible task.

That is not a partisan driven opinion, just common sense.

Andy, you're pretty much correct, IMO. I think they will have a better chance in the presidential race if the right ticket is put together. People are looking for a new beginning and if the Republican candidate has a good enough story with the right experience, it's possible he could succeed. And, it certainly makes a difference who the Democrats run. If it's Hillary, that could go either way. Conventional wisdom would be out the window then.

Congress is a different story. I doubt there is any chance of the Republicans regaining control.

The election is close to two years away, and that's an eternity in politics. Lots of things can happen.

With everything going for them, in the last congressional election, the demos barely won a majority in the 2 houses, and in that election, and a lot of republicans stayed home.

The demos are going to nominate an extreme liberal, it wont even be close.

"the demos barely won a majority in the 2 houses"

Actually, in terms of the congressional history, the victory in the house is considered quite large, similar to the '94 reversal.

In the senate, anything less than 60 seats can be considered a small majority.

The democrats know better than to propose an "extreme liberal" to the nation. The presidential election has become a race to the center, dems coming from the left, repubs from the right.

Nwokie, I think you misjudge the 2006 election results. Many of the Democrats who were elected were moderate Democrats, not extreme liberals. Look at who gave the Democratic response to Bush's SOTU address: Jim Webb, hardly a flaming lefty. He's a former Republican, former Reaganite. Some of the Dems elected in 2006 were pro-life.

Whether the Dems nominate a liberal in 2008 or not is irrelevant. In 2004, Kerry came very close to winning - and he lost not because of his liberal background but because of campaign mistakes, unlikeability, etc. Personality and image are huge in presidential campaigns. Issues, for better or worse, are secondary to the swing voters who make the difference in every presidental election. People to whom issues matter have probably already made up their minds about who they would vote for in 2008 anyway.

Andrew

Don't forget that 13 of the Republicans who lost their seats were involved in some sort of scandals.

A lot depends on what the Democrats do between now and the election. The Republicans certainly squandered their opportunity when they were in charge.

I think its the demos who are misreading the 2006 election, its nothing like the 94 election where the demos lost over 40 seats, and had a sitting speaker defeated.

"its nothing like the 94 election where the demos lost over 40 seats, and had a sitting speaker defeated."

That's just snowblind.

The final result was a thirty-seat pickup for the Democrats. Democrats defeated twenty-two Republican incumbents and won nine open Republican-held seats. Republicans won no seats previously held by Democrats in either the House or the Senate, and it was the largest seat gain for the Democrats since the 1974 elections.

"She does not have a solid set of character attributes."

I'm still waiting for more than the wave of a hand at Ms. Rice.

She's black. She's a Christian.
Are we ok so far?

She's indeed smart.
Fine with that?

She's conservative.
Is that where we lose you?

Herb 'Rice for VP' Milhous Nixon IV

You "lose us" with Rice's incompetence as Bush's National Security Advisor (the jury is still out on her performance as Secretary of State). By several accounts, she was a disaster as head of the NSC. I think her performance in that job disqualifiers her in the eyes of many, including some Republicans. And as I recall, she has some liberal social positions (perhaps pro-choice; definitely pro-affirmative action) that would probably disqualify her in the eyes of social conservatives.

Hey, Herb, how about a Rudy-Condi ticket in 08? That would get a lot of pro-lifers to stay home or vote for a 3rd party candidate, as happened with Ron Saxton in 2006 in Oregon. I'd probably give money to the Rudy-Condi (or Condi-Rudy) ticket if those two got nominated together. Dream ticket for the Democrats!

Andrew

What if she actually is gay, Herb. Would you still vote for her?

Is it Queen Latifah that says something like "what's up with her hair? There's not another black woman in the US with hair like that..."?

Condi does have those great legs, though.


http://sparklepony.blogspot.com/2005/07/condoleezza-hairdo-alert-system.html

"Rice's incompetence as Bush's National Security Advisor (the jury is still out on her performance as Secretary of State)."

Incompetence? So far, you've given us nothing. Facts, please.

"By several accounts, she was a disaster as head of the NSC."

Disaster? Again, what facts? Nice ham-fist job, though.

"I think her performance in that job disqualifiers her in the eyes of many, including some Republicans."

Fine. Let's talk performance and not trash talk.

Herb

"A comma would have helped that sentence."

That's a gaffe for sure!

Andrew basically nailed it with Condi. I've no problem with religion, race or gender where government office is concerned, provided the elected do not exploit any of those.

Quit copping out Herb, would you support her if she was gay?????????????????????????????????

Again.

You dismiss someone, but won't give any supportable rationale. She must be terrific, especially if the left is so scared of her.

Herb

Quit copping out Herb, would you support her if she was gay?????????????????????????????????

A gay candidate would not typically be my first choice. However, I would certainly consider her.

Herb

Herb, I can give you plenty of references about how bad Condi was as NSA, but who cares? Your mind is already made up and anything negative about her you will deny anyway.

For everyone else, check these out:

http://www.slate.com/id/2098499/
http://www.antiwar.com/bandow/?articleid=10266

FYI, many Republicans quietly concur, but of course they can't say so openly now. Wait until 2009. Try reading "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward.

Andrew

I'm not scared of her at all Herb.

I don't like her, have not been pleased with her performance and her support of the Bush administration qualifies her as one I won't encourage to continue public service.

Remember, I was a registered Republican for many years. That changed with Resident Bush. I won't again cast a vote that will strengthen the GOP.

Now, that does not mean I won't vote for a Republican in the future. I will, but this crowd needs to completely cycle out first. I want no chance of this crap festering again on my vote.

I'm not gonna list all the bad deeds here, sorry she's just not a solid choice, IMHO.

And now for something completely different (but it sorta' fits the topic).

McCain falls asleep during SOTU speech.

"I'm not gonna list all the bad deeds here, sorry she's just not a solid choice."

Classic.

Yet another ham-fisted, unsubstantiated trash job on a strong conservative woman in high office fighting terror.

Yet I constantly get wailed on by the left here and am accused of the exact same thing...except I provide facts.

Spin on.

Herb

I provided facts - you no read.

Andrew

In this case, I'm just not inclined to consider her a choice. You do, we disagree.

That's all really, and it's not an attack.

Honestly, if you set aside all the stuff I brought up, her loyalty to the Bush administration ALONE is enough to disqualify her for my vote. My reason already given is that vote would strengthen the GOP and I'm not willing to do that until all of the supporting players that matter are gone from the party. Ideally gone from public service.

At that point, we might have a GOP worth looking at again.

Does that make it more clear?

For what it's worth, that qualifier exists for anyone really. If it means reinforcing this administrations view on power and the law, I'm not for them no matter what their other qualifications are.

Anyone who is so closely associated with Iraq policy will not have much political standing in 2008 and that certainly includes Condi Rice. Iraq effectively ended Colin Powell's career; he ruined his credibility with that infamous UN speech in early 2003 laying out the "evidence" of Iraqi WMD that was later proven to be mostly false. Condi's career is still going only because she has basically kissed Bush's ass and does not have her own political agenda separate from hers - and Bush seems to value loyalty above all else.

Even Democrats (e.g. Hillary, Edwards) who voted for the resolution authorizing force against Iraq in late 2002 will have some rhetoric to work out. Edwards has already said simply that his vote for the war was a mistake. Hillary is still working on it.

Andrew

Herbie,

I'm actually sort proud of you for even considering voting for a gay person.

P.S. My brain keeps reading Rep-bully-cans when I see the thread title spelled Rep-buli-cans.
I get an ironic little chuckle...

Also, I've been thinking of you yesterday and today, just re-watched after many years "Where the Buffalo Roam" last night on cable with Bill Murray playing Hunter S. Thompson on the 72 campaign trail, and confronting Nixon alone in the bathroom while he's at the urinal, then tonight, by coinkydink, I watched the documentary on HST called "Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride", with makes several references to Nixon, and referred to this quote of his:

"Richard Nixon has never been one of my favorite people anyway. For years I've regarded his existence as a monument to all the rancid genes and broken chromosomes that corrupt the possibilities of the American Dream; he was a foul caricature of himself, a man with no soul, no inner convictions, with the integrity of a hyena and the style of a poison toad. The Nixon I remembered was absolutely humorless; I couldn't imagine him laughing at anything except maybe a paraplegic who wanted to vote Democratic but couldn't quite reach the lever on the voting machine."

Pageant (July 1968)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hunter_S._Thompson

http://teaching.arts.usyd.edu.au/history/hsty3080/StudentWebSites/Nixon%20Obits/ source9

I highly recommend watching "Where the Buffalo Roam" and "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" followed by the doc., lots of great interviews with his friends (Johhny Depp, Sean Penn, Bill Murray, his widow, Geo. McGovern, Ed Bradley, Steadman, and many more)

It is with a clear conscience that I can say I do not like what Rice stands for. So, no. She would not get my vote.

"My reason...is that vote would strengthen the GOP and I'm not willing to do that until all of the supporting players that matter are gone from the party."

Fine.

So even if she were Mother Teresa, you wouldn't vote for her, because of her party affiliation.

That's the same sort of tripe that democrats rail about when practiced by Republicans, decrying "guilt by association." We heard from the left ad nauseum [and ad hominem] when Mr. Clinton was dealing in Whitewater with unsavoury types.

But it doesn't matter here, because it's all about getting democrats elected. Can't you see what you're doing? Claiming the moral 'high ground' whilst doing the same partisan bologna.

Herb

Mrs. Merkin-

That you would believe a drug-addled, suicidal man like Hunter Thompson is sad.

Herb

So I shouldn't like, or even read Hemingway, Plath, Woolf, et al. either? Puh-leez! And what about musicians, while you're at it. That's an even bigger club.

"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is one of my favorite books of all time, and one of the funniest. I used to keep a copy in my car, and it still always cracks me up. I still have it and it's beat to hell.

Of course his writing is often a mix of fact and fiction and HST is always part of the story itself. Just like many, if not most, writers who follow the adage "write what you know".

The part that is true is that HST had actual conversations with Nixon, and as far as I know, you have not. He wrote "Fear & loathing on the '72 campaign trail" because he was there. As far as his death, he chose his own way out, and the movie explains that pretty well, as does his suicide note. Still, it's a tragedy, and stupid. It can increase book sales, though.

Have you ever read him? Seen the movies? You do know it can't hurt to see the opposite side of something you love to have a well-rounded opinion of your "hero". Plus, it's good to laugh. Hysterically.

He was a voice for my generation, old man.

And voting for Mother Teresa? That pruny hypocrite? She couldn't shouldn't be elected to the vermin-control officer, let alone sainthood.

Plus, this just in, she's dead.

It's not quite guilt by association.

I claimed no moral high ground.

Mother Teresa would not be supportive of the Bush Presidency, nor would anyone else that's good for us. Non issue.

The nation took a bad turn. Right now, the majority of the GOP is still focused on that direction. That does seriously taint the party and makes it difficult to vote on merit.

When that changes, then I'll reconsider. That's one of the bad things about having a two party system. As long as the core of the GOP insists on doing things the way it has been doing things, it's a major issue, and one I'm not inclined to support.

Rice is one of the movers and shakers in this and thus does not get a vote for any reason.

Hey, some of the better GOP members could always go independant, or switch to the Democratic party. I'll consider a vote then.

Sorry, but that's just how it is. The years of GOP control have not been good for us. I see no reason to reinforce that by voting against my own interests.

Essentially, the entire power structure behind this crap has got to go. The elections we just had are a great start. We've got new blood that is gonna bring some sanity to government. That needs to continue.

Well said, MK, I concur!

KSKD - bravo. You listed every reason why I have become so disenchanted with the GOP and the direction of the party. They believe that people like Herb are what "mainstream America" is, and that is simply not the case. I don't think it's a case of America being more liberal (though that MAY be, the general consensus is cyclical in nature) as much as the Republican Party, since 1994 with the Republican Revolution, has become much more conservative. Instead of the George H.W. Bushes of the world carrying the banner, it's been people like Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott and Bill Frist and George W. Bush who have muddied the GOP. Even Ronald Reagan, who was VERY conservative, conceeded on areas and worked with a Democratic congress.

Both sides are to blame, IMO, for what we have today - partisan gridlock and bickering and sniping between the two parties. In the last six plus years, it's been Bush against EVERYONE, which is becoming more and more apparent as even his Republican constituents are railing against his policies, especially Iraq. I really foresee bipartisanship, the Republicans and Democrats joining together AGAINST Dubya in a lot of areas - the Democrats because they CAN since they have the numbers, and the GOP because so many are fed up, like KSKD, Trixter, myself, and others in here, at the current administration and its ineptness ... and to cover their own arses come 2008.

Yep. Look at the gridlock put forth by our OBSTRUCTIONIST GOP on the minimum wage raise!

Good grief. Over 70 amendments to what should otherwise be slam dunk.

And yes Herb, I am using that label proudly. The people have spoken for a new direction very clearly. We do have a representative government, not a GOP dictatorship.

They will gridlock, but it will just reinforce what I wrote earlier.

Randy, that's classic! How much you wanna bet that gets used on him more than once!

Happens to everybody once in a while though. I recently did this during a high level presentation. Nobody said a word, but I knew they all saw it! Man, that sucks!

The worst is when you just wake up and wonder: did they see? OF COURSE THEY FRICKING SAW! But it feels better to leave some doubt in the air for the greater good.

"And voting for Mother Teresa? That pruny hypocrite? She couldn't shouldn't be elected to the vermin-control officer, let alone sainthood."

I gave you more credit than to mock such a woman who served the very least of us. Who's next to incur your wrath, the Salvation Army, Billy Graham and NW Medical Teams?

Make fun of Mr. Nixon. Make fun of me. But please don't belittle those who are out in the field, whilst making life better for the most impoverished and doing the dirty work that no one else will.

Herb

Well, the Salvation Army is considered BY SOME to be a sort of cultish-religion, but not by me; all three are above reproach, as far as I know.

But you might want to research Mom T. a little further whilst you launch dirt clods back at me, especially since you have no idea what kind of "field" work I support, both financially and volunteering locally for.

Yes, MT did many good things, but she was also responsible for causing misery as well, and I stand by my opinion that she was a hypocrite in some areas, and not saint material.

"whilst you launch dirt clods back at me, especially since you have no idea what kind of "field" work I support..."

Wait a minute.

I'm not throwing anything at anybody. Read your text and you'll see who was throwing what at whom.

My simple suggestion was that you reconsider defaming people you don't know.

By the way, I'm not Catholic, so I don't have a denominational dog in this fight.

Herb

Is it just me, Herbie, that thinks you started it with:

"That you would believe a drug-addled, suicidal man like Hunter Thompson is sad."?

I meant no disrespect.

It is sad that he was addicted to drugs.

It is sad that he was suicidal.

It is also sad that you would buy into his world view.

Herb

Republicans would never buy into the world view of a drug addict. Oh, no, never. That's why Rush Limbaugh's show went off the air and millions of Republicans don't listen to him anymore.

Andrew

Snicker.

I second that snicker!

I'm guffawing so hard I just peed my pants!

Wasn't there just a suggestion for a new thread for "best posts ever"? I'll nominate this little discussion above.

At least HST was totally honest about his drug use and other hijinks.

He'd so tell the truth (or brag) about taking an industrial-size container of Viagra illegally in someone else's name to a third world country known for it's underage enslaved prostitutes.

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.

I don't support Newt Gingerich for President.

I feel sorry for Hunter Thompson and believe Rush and Newt are hypocritical.

That said,
it doesn't mean those who are so-called 'pro-choice' when it comes to the very issue of life and death of the unborn... or those who are AGAINST choice in education with vouchers,
are right.

In my view they most certainly are wrong.

Herb

"That said, it doesn't mean those who are so-called 'pro-choice' when it comes to the very issue of life and death of the unborn... or those who are AGAINST choice in education with vouchers, are right"

Huh? Say what?

I have no idea why you're bringing this up in this thread, or if this even has anything to do with, or it relates to the above three people.

I'm totally lost here. What is your point? Are you just trying to change the subject? What? Help me out here, Herb.

So Herb, do you find it sad that so many Republicans would buy into the world view of the Republican drug addict Rush Limbaugh? Or do you feel sorry only for those who buy into the world view of a drug addict with whom you disagree?

Andrew

"I'm totally lost here. What is your point?"

Let me be clearer for you, then.

Just because a handful of hypocrites call themselves Republicans doesn't mean democrats have a lock on honesty and valour.

There is no shortage of hypocrites on the left. I could name plenty, starting with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Mr. Clinton, Sandy Burglar and go right on down the list.

I've also admitted to Mr. Nixon's many flaws right here on this board.

So continue to cowardly snipe from behind your computer keyboards whilst claiming you're so enlightened. I've yet to hear liberals here name names and distance themselves from the same type of partisan hacks on THEIR side of the aisle.

Spin on.

Herb

Oh, so we are gonna just blow up the thread when caught in a corner then?

Nobody said anybody has a lock on honesty and valour. However, plenty of people have indicated there is a substantial amount less of this in the GOP, in it's present state, than would otherwise be found among politicians. That's a fairly easy burden to meet these days.

Cherry picking a few outside the GOP really does nothing but make you look kind of petty Herb. I know you can easily do better.

You do get top marks for admitting we have some hypocrites call themselves Republicans though! Care to give us a list? Hehe...

I think this whole thing just chaps your ass that Mrs Rice is not voteworthy for her support of our Resident President Bush! That goes for the lot of them having anything significant to do with this war on Iraq.

And here come the usual names: Heck, damn near the whole cast is in this one!

Clinton, Nixon, Rev. Jesse Jackson (been a while since you brought him up). With a bit more work, I'm sure you could have worked Carter in there too.

And then we have the backhanded name calling by implication --on all of us too! Nicely done Herb.

So everyone here is a coward and we claim we are enlightened? I've not read that anywhere, and the responses were honest enough too. Everybody has given their reasons for their positions on this thread. Andrew even ran cover and provided a nice body of initial facts to work from. He was ignored!

(Thanks, BTW!)

Oh yeah, us Liberals too! Sheesh, how many times do we have to do this Herb? I could ask you for a list of Liberals, and you will of course utter some dodge. So why bother? Let's just cut right to the bone and be honest? Anyone that's not aligned with your particular worldview is really a Liberal. The only real distinction is flaming or not.

And finally there is the undercurrent of all politicians being corrupt, so why not just ignore that for future votes?

Here's why:

That's a blatent marginalization of the total crap brought to us from the GOP over the last 6 or so years. This stuff has affected a lot of Americans in a seriously bad way. Somehow trying to imply that it does not count and that we need to look forward only when considering potential government representatives is just goofy!

Remember it was their show, their mess and their accountability. I know I've personally wrote that here many times about the GOP. You've supported them nearly completely here the entire time Herb. The number of times you've been in a position where you have the high ground can be counted on one hand over the 4 or so years we've been doing this!

Now that we are finally into the accountability phase, you are upset that people don't want to cast votes for these clowns?

Spin indeed.

To put this somewhat back on topic, IMHO the strongest Republican ticket would include non-establishment Republicans (as in non Repuglicans!), having few ties to the current administration.

Both parties need some seriously new blood for the choices to be viable. That's, of course, IMHO, but it happens to be opinion a whole lotta people share these days.

The Democrats got this done and are likely to continue this trend. It's all good in that we are getting a nice wide set of Democrats working for us. That means a nicely balanced view on policy that should be in all of our best interests.

Heck, we've got everything from very moderate to pretty flaming liberals in the party now. Not a bad mix overall. That's at least fairly representative of the people as a whole. That's as it should be.

If that were not the case, we would not have seen a Democratic trifecta in the house, senate and majority of Governorships. Again, the people have spoken and they are not singing your tune Herb.

What did the GOP get? Nothing, zero, nada.

So, the new blood process has yet to begin. I'm assuming the bleeding has not yet reached the point where the realities of solid change outweigh the ass covering and preservation of the diminishing power structure we are saddled with today.

I'm seriously hoping the GOP ends up like the Democratic party is going to. We get a nice diverse set of party members that make it difficult to do the kinds of things this administration has done.

That in turn will put us largely in the center where we can address the things that really impact people, while keeping debate on divisive issues relevant, but not overpowering.

"cowardly snipe?"

Oh, for crying out loud! That's a low blow, even for you, HerrB.

I have many, many friends who are/were staunch R's. Of course that includes my husband (We even sleep together!!!), my beloved brother-in-law, and my father. (Mom switched to D shortly after Bush was "selected"). And my sis, whilst a liberal dem, loves Lars most of the time. Go figure. Do we ever call, or even consider each other "cowardly snipes? Hell no!

Are you actually reading posts from (your labeled) "Lefties" and "Righties" (Ex: Trixter) who don't like people on their "own side of the fence". There's tons of them. Did you miss those?

Reverends (of what, exactly?) Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are total idiots who make me gag every time they open their mouths, and it has nothing to do with color, that's for sure.

OK, now I'd STILL like you to answer my original question, without inflamatory statements, a derailment or cheap diversions, regarding:

"That said, it doesn't mean those who are so-called 'pro-choice' when it comes to the very issue of life and death of the unborn... or those who are AGAINST choice in education with vouchers, are right".

Once again, Herb, what does that statement have to do with the previous discussion?


Also, please feel free to show up to our get-together, Herb! Of course you're welcome to attend! I think we would like YOU just fine.

Totally agreed on that. I personally would not have it any other way.

Yes...that would be great. They only have a limited number of dart boards and we sure could use you. LOL

I hope you know I am only kidding! I just could not resist it! Would be interesting if all of the regulars got together for sure. One rule though if I am going to attend and yes I will play by it as well. Please no personal attacks! Just a friendly get together!

Battery meter must be wrong...laptop still going but not sure for how long though!

See you there....Maybe! LOL

Off topic, I know!

I know I'm relatively new to the board but if the place did have dart boards (the real kind, not the plastic tip ones) I'd be there!

Don't if I'm on the "A" list either, as Darktemper so aptly put it!

Beer, darts and good people. What else could one ask for!

Everyone, but stalkers, is on the A list!

"I'd STILL like you to answer my original question, without inflamatory statements, a derailment or cheap diversions, regarding:"

'That said, it doesn't mean those who are so-called 'pro-choice' when it comes to the very issue of life and death of the unborn... or those who are AGAINST choice in education with vouchers, are right.'

Once more, my point was simple. Conservatives on this board are often asked to provide specific examples.

So I did. And if you think I'm a 'one-note Johnny' on abortion, you're probably right, because it's so heinous to everyone involved...except the abortionist's blood-stained pocketbook. That includes "planned" parenthood. Odd though, how the child didn't "plan" on being exterminated.

Even a handful of liberal faithful on this board admit late term abortions are horrible. I'm asked to be more 'gray' yet here it's the 'pro-choice' crowd that is typically all or none.

MANY Americans believe opposite the democrats on certain key planks. Abortion and vouchers are two bold examples.

The left doesn't get it. To MANY, MANY voters, abortion is a LOT like slavery. Both deny the recognition of humanity and personhood. Remember when blacks were considered only fractionally human? Well, to 'pro-choicers' the unborn is usually considered UNhuman.

On top of all this, liberals deny 'choice' in education, yet promote 'choice' in abortion...an issue of life and death itself.

That is just as hypocritical as Rush and Newt.

Herb

"Even a handful of liberal faithful on this board admit late term abortions are horrible"

You're wrong Herb! Absolutely Horrible.

Every. Single. Person. Knows and agrees with you that late term (or any) abortions are horrible.

You are a man. You will never, never, never, ever know what it's feels like to be pregnant. Or need to make that decision.

Thankfully, late term abortions are rare, and aren't done routinely, frivolously or without a medical or valid reason. You will never be faced with this decision unless it is your daughter, wife, or girlfriend. It's devasting.

That doesn't mean you (a man!) should get to legislate (impose) your rule for the rest of us. If it's not legal, it will still happen, medically or not, and you know that. Abortion has never stopped, since the beginning of time, legal or not.

NOBODY here has "asked" you to be "gray". Ever.

And I am talking to you as a woman (a mom) who's driving a POS (piece of shit car, see other thread) because we spent every cent we did (and didn't) have to create and give birth to our beloved baby. We are now poor (financially) because I wanted to stay home and enjoy every minute with her. So you don't need to talk or pontificate to ME about conception, fertility, birth, serial miscarriages, or hard decisions about reproductive issues, adoption, and the many ways to start or grow a family. I don't need or want your advice. Especially here. Wrong forum to make a difference for your passion.

Take it to your church, the junior high or grade school and educate those who could use it. Abstinence, Birth control, self control, adoption, whatever.

So you actually think you supplied a "Specific Example"? It was not that or even a fact, it was your opinion, and it STILL had nothing to do with the topics being discussed.

You're still throwing abortion back in here (yet again!)to obfuscate (spelling?) and derail your lack of legitimate arguments above and obviously I took the bait. Again.

Silly me.

NOBODY here has "asked" you to be "gray". Ever.

That's not correct.

Scroll through the posts on this board and you'll see where I've been taken to task repeatedly for being 'too black & white.'

That's asking me to be gray.

Herb

Aw cmon....being gray is easy....I do it all of the time and it ain't so bad! LOL

Damn, I knew there was a good reason why I love Merkin! That was one good smackdown!

New Grandpa Warner

Congrats Warner, and I agree. A solid *PLONK!* if I ever saw one.

Mrs M, enjoy your daughter! It only goes by once!

Also driving POS cars after having adopted 4 (Fricking FOUR --what what I thinking?!?) foster kids after not being able to financially afford what you and Mr M did.

They are teens now, and one has left the house. (not nicely, but that's her deal) I have second thoughts from time to time. Then I do something like attend a sporting event, or receive something made in school and it's all good! Funny how that all works.

Herb: The difference between black and white and everything else comes down to being reasonable or not --your choice man.

Merkin is the *PLONK* Champ! PLINK, PLONK, PLUNK hands down no one better!

The pdxradio.com board is among the few places where democrats give themselves high-fives whilst defending the 'right' to snuff out an unborn child's life.

Herb

Actually, it's the choice to do so. And it's a physical reality Herb. Pass all the laws we want, it will remain a physical reality, eliminate all the doctors and it still will remain a physical reality, but that's not the point Mrs M was making.

The point was injecting this topic into this thread really adds no value, and it's not something your average woman would consider any man authoritative on. She bit, as did I.

We all know how we all feel about it. If you are feeling the need for this topic, start up a thread. We had a damn good one a while back, why put it here?

On a side note, do you have any support for the "one of the few places" bit?

Just curious on that one.

Back on topic, any new Republican blood that you think has merit?

Herb...
EVEN if you made it 100% illegal it would still happen. Meth is 100% ILLEGAL but it's being used more and more each day. Making it illegal will only enable to to thrive. You can't see that???
Are you willing to pay the TAX to help young women through unwanted pregnacies? Are you??? How is it going to be payed for? By the young UNWED mother??? More than likely NOT! So YOUR going to have to pay for it.... Just like you do know....
Making it illegal doesn't make it better. You should know that by now in life Herb...

This is the only board where hypocritical Republicans can laud pro-choice Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and in the same breath criticize Democrats for wanting "to snuff out an unborn child's life." Guess it's OK for Rudy to support abortion rights but not Democrats, eh Herb?

Andrew

Herb wants Rudy??
So Herb agrees with adultery??
WOW!!!!
After giving Slick Willy such a bad time for having an CONSENTING ADULT relationship it hard for me to think Herb would vote for Rudy???
WOW!

I have not seen and Republicans or Democrat's that I want to support right now. Can we add a "None of the Above" answer for 2008? Or lets have a write in for big ears H Ross Perot!

Heck...Reinstatepete for President....hooo baby watch out!!! LOL

"How is it going to be payed for?"

That's the EXACT SAME argument made about slavery. How will the south ever survive without slave labour? It didn't wash there and it doesn't wash here.

"any new Republican blood that you think has merit?"

Before you guys beat me up about Mr. Giuliani, I merely posited that he might run and that he would be a strong candidate. For possible 2008 candidates, my flavour runs more along the lines of someone like Condoleeza Rice or maybe Jeb Bush.

Herb

Jeb has not got a chance thank's to Dad in 08...he should hold off until 2012 at the very least. Coming off of the heels of the great candidates we have for president right now should be a whole lot easier by then!

2012 might even be pushing it a little as George W. has done enough damage to the Bush presidential name to make it difficult for Jeb to ever run for president. As for Condoleeza Rice, she is a passenger on what is now the W. train wreck. I doubt anyone remotely affiliated with the current administration will ever have a legitimate shot at the presidency.

Sorry, just a few more comments on the thread-jacking:

HerrB,

I firmly stand behind my statement "NOBODY here has "asked" you to be "gray". Ever."

Your post "Scroll through the posts on this board and you'll see where I've been taken to task repeatedly for being 'too black & white.' That's asking me to be gray."...

...is still 100% untrue, utterly ridiculous, and you know it. Crying "innocent" and/or "martyr" is a cheap shot, even from you.

I'm not interested in changing your mind because:
A: I can't, and
B: well, I can't think of another reason,

But I can share my own viewpoints here so maybe you'll know where someone else is coming from. Know thine enemy, right?

Anyway, if you believe that people here are "asking (you) to be gray.", then maybe you should reconsider participating here to avoid being a victim of this attempted brainwashing, and being viciously attacked and by roving packs of rabid, foaming "liberals" (i.e. anyone who disagrees with you).

If you still honestly believe that, then you are just as guilty of taking your despised liberals "to task" by doing the exact same thing you're whining about! So, anybody who disagrees with you is a bully, and you're just a poor widdle innocent victim here?

Maybe you should take demeaning, creepy, hateful crap like "snuff out an unborn child's life" somewhere else, where you'll be showered with accolades about your "deep insight".

Can somebody please dial 911 for the Waaaaaambulance?

I don't know if you've ever answered this Herb, but are you currently, or have you been, married or involved in a relationship? Do you have any children? Daughters?

Why, you ask? I brought up adoption, specifically thinking about Missing KSKD's, and my situation. Have you read his posts regarding his children? I admire anyone, more than you'll ever know, Herb, who can take someone else's unwanted or neglected children, and their problems and baggage under their wings, into their life, permanently, and try to repair or minimize the damage that's been dealt to these kids. Show me an adopted person (kid or adult) who doesn't have (or has had) issues.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to even find a healthy (non-drug/alchol affected) infant-baby-child to adopt (buy), no matter what the race? I honor and admire the people who do take in these "damaged" kids, kids who maybe should not have been born to selfish, weak, sick women. I wish I was a big enough person to bring even one home right now! My sister has been waiting, for ANY adoptable tribal baby for a few years now, and we have far less hoops to jump through as we are also Native American and have the advantage of using the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Adoption/Foster parenting is much harder and takes much longer, and has a million more hurdles, than going to, and paying for the fertility clinic and having your own baby that you have no one to answer to, and you're solely responsible for either messing up or raising well.

So when you cavalierly write about "snuffing out an unborn child's life" you've lost me, Herb. I want to vomit at your erronious attitude towards women and the fact that you think so little of of any woman who considers an abortion. You are sadly out of touch if you believe any woman has that ("snuff") thought. Any female can be desperate, drug/alchol addicted, or whatever, but I doubt they ever considered an abortion so crudely.

As I've said before, we have many blastocysts in deep freeze, and we are struggling about what to do with them. Another baby for us? Donate to an infertile couple, thus giving Baby M. a sibling somewhere that she'll never meet? Donate to research for a possible cure to something devasting like your, mine, or my parent's possible Alzheimer's or cancers? Legitimate research is a tantalizing option and a big, but very-sad-not-happy FUCK YOU to idiots like Resident Bush.

Do I consider those blastocysts babies?
Well, you know what? Thankfully, that's NONE of your business, Herbie.

You feel that it's all "black and white" in your nice little reproductive-rights world, Herb, but don't try to "force" that on me.

Or any other woman other than your daughter, wife, or sex partner.

Poke me with a fork, I'm (hopefully) done with this issue!

**********************************

Congratulations, Grandpa Warner! (Aren't you younger than me?)

Missing, I admire you, and your posts. Thank you.

And sure, I'd vote for a "R" president if they have a realistic plan and were a good choice to turn this country around and could get us out this hell-hole mess that Bush & Co. are personally responsible for.

So, no, it doesn't really bother me if they have publically and messily cheated on their spouse, ala Guiliani. As long as it doesn't affect his job, it's none of my business.

Herb, real simply; It's not so much I would "defend the right to snuff out an unborn baby's life", it's much more I resist the government interfering in personal choice. I would think being a conservative, you would agree. The government shouldn't have the "right" to do that. Yet, you seem want to legislate morality.

"I resist the government interfering in personal choice."

Because I'm often called one, I usually run from any nazi analogy. Yet this "personal choice" is a euphemism, and eerily close to nazi Germans who held ultimate power over human life. THEY decided which lives had value. THEY decided who should live and who should die. The parallels are there.

To use Mrs. Merkin's own words against her 'pro-choice' argument, many find THAT kind of "personal choice" truly "...demeaning, creepy & hateful..."

In response to Mrs. Merkin's following comment:

"I admire anyone, more than you'll ever know, Herb, who can take someone else's unwanted or neglected children, and their problems and baggage under their wings, into their life, permanently, and try to repair or minimize the damage that's been dealt to these kids."

I'm glad I have your admiration.

And by the way...we disagree, but I have no personal animus toward you. Among many other cogent reasons, I simply find the 'slippery slope' argument apt in this area.

Herb

See. There's something good in everyone, and you do have my utmost admiration for taking care of kids that you didn't give birth to.

(those last six words are tongue-in-cheek, of course)

"...you do have my utmost admiration for taking care of kids that you didn't give birth to."

Thanks for your kind words.

Which reminds me...when I hear the comment that one shouldn't talk about alternatives to abortion unless they've adopted a child from a less-than-ideal situation, I smile. Then I say: "I did."

Sometimes their jaw drops...they may turn red, but usually grant me the right to have an opinion on the topic.



Herb