Politics: A new beginning - Page 197

Not Me · 12-12-2003, 11:49 AM

Anyone disagree with this characterization of what they are calling The Evolution of the Bush Doctrine:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/cron.html

Just curious as to what other's thoughts are.

bilmore · 12-12-2003, 11:49 AM

New poll in New Hampshire shows:

Bush 51%, "Anon Dem" 34%

Bush 57%, Dean 30%

-----------

I'm betting Hilary gets "drafted". It's the only viable option now, especially since it sounds like Nader's running.

Not Me · 12-12-2003, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm betting Hilary gets "drafted". It's the only viable option now, especially since it sounds like Nader's running.

The thing about Hillary running is that there are women who will vote for her because she is a woman and men who won't vote for her because she is a woman. I wonder which group is larger?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 12-12-2003, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
The thing about Hillary running is that there are women who will vote for her because she is a woman and men who won't vote for her because she is a woman. I wonder which group is larger?

The larger group is people who wont vote for her because she's a Clinton.

Hillary won't run. But she'll quietly lobby to be a running mate for the winner.

Gattigap · 12-12-2003, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
The thing about Hillary running is that there are women who will vote for her because she is a woman and men who won't vote for her because she is a woman. I wonder which group is larger?

There are bigger issues. Hillary is the most polarizing figure in American politics today. If Rove loves Dean, he's be downright orgasmic over Hillary running. Forget $250m -- Hillary would cause every Rebuplican wallet to open, and Bush would raise $1B in campaign funds within a few months.

Hank Chinaski · 12-12-2003, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Ah. So, basically we don't get mad when they kill our soldiers -- after all they signed up for it. That would explain why Bush doesn't go to funerals.

well they also had blown up the Embassy. Question then was who-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...anon.anniv.ap/

sounds like Reagan's only real option was to attack Iran. In 83 that wasn't possible. Plus, he had to be mindful of the USSR. Note, these guys were multinational peacekeepers trying to get Israel out. they also blew up a French base. But maybe it was a mistake.

The African embassy bombings were different. We knew Afghanistan was supporting it, we knew al queda was a purely anti-US organization, whereas whoever blew us up in Beirut was more anti-Israel.
Clinton should have demanded OBL from Afghanistan.

sgtclub · 12-12-2003, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Anyone disagree with this characterization of what they are calling The Evolution of the Bush Doctrine:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/cron.html

Just curious as to what other's thoughts are.

That's how I understand it as well.

Hank Chinaski · 12-12-2003, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Chretien says Bush tells him the contract policy will NOT affect Canada.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105564,00.html

He quit! New guy will try and smooth ties with US

sgtclub · 12-12-2003, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
There are bigger issues. Hillary is the most polarizing figure in American politics today. If Rove loves Dean, he's be downright orgasmic over Hillary running. Forget $250m -- Hillary would cause every Rebuplican wallet to open, and Bush would raise $1B in campaign funds within a few months.

I've heard you say that before, but I don't buy in to it. It's not as though Bush is having trouble raising money. He's got plenty. Unfortunately, I think she could win, not in 2004 (and that is why she won't run, she's smart) but in 2008.

sgtclub · 12-12-2003, 12:07 PM

Anybody catch the 3 city protect in Iraq yesterday (or the day before, can't remember)? They were marching IN FAVOR of reconstruction and AGAINST terrorism.

Not Me · 12-12-2003, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Unfortunately, I think she could win, not in 2004 (and that is why she won't run, she's smart) but in 2008.

I agree that she won't run in 2004 because she would lose and she knows it. But whether she could win in 2008 or not is entirely dependant on who she would be running against.

God I hope Jeb Bush is not the Republican nominee in 2008.

Secret_Agent_Man · 12-12-2003, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I think we agree. See my earlier post re: Bush forever?

Apparently so.

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Here we diverge. I think the HOW is turning out to be more important than the WHAT. I would rather someone who was about to mess with us, or a friend or ally, be certain that, while they can't really predict WHAT we'll do, we'll damn well do SOMETHING bad to them. I think that's a good attitude to foster. I think Bush's HOW does just that.

We do diverge at this point. I'll fall back on my thought that there are other/better ways to foster the same desirable attitude.

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I remain convinced that, had Bush I won, 9/11 would never have happened, we'd be on top of the world in an intelligence sense, and the economy would have actually turned out better. Having said that, I think the temperament (if not the experience, and maybe raw intelligence) of Bush I is not as well suited to a post-9/11 world as is the cowboy. I like the cowboy to a great degree because he is a cowboy, and we need a cowboy right now.

No way to prove that, of course, but if so, you can lay those in part at the feet of two GOP excesses of the 1980s. In my view, the defeat of Bush I in 1992 was a hidden and unforeseen cost of: (a) the religious right fervor that helped sweep Reagan into office (i.e. "Pitchfork Pat" and his boys helped Clinton mobilize the Democratic base as it had not been mobilized since 1968. I remember watching his speech at the GOP convention and cringing.); and (b) the huge budget deficits which began under Reagan -- which led to Perot (and which forced Bush I to alienate much of his base when he did the only responsible thing he could do and raised taxes).

S_A_M

bilmore · 12-12-2003, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
There are bigger issues. Hillary is the most polarizing figure in American politics today. If Rove loves Dean, he's be downright orgasmic over Hillary running. Forget $250m -- Hillary would cause every Rebuplican wallet to open, and Bush would raise $1B in campaign funds within a few months.

Well, fine, if you all want to talk logic, nevermind.

But, if you want to talk reality - you know, American election illogical reality - how do you think Hilary would poll against Dean in NH? In Iowa? In Bumfuck, WherethehellamI? I think the Dem turnout would soar, and she'd take most of it.

The next phase - contra Bush - sure, it would be ugly. Yeah, she's a polarizing figure - but she's been positioning herself very nicely as a semi-supportive-warrior and a centrist in most respects, and there are an awful lot of centrist Ds'/R's who might suddenly wake up to see a choice they never thought they were going to have, given the Dem candidate lineup so far. and be quite relieved that they don't have to choose between Dean and Bush.

It all depends on how safe she sees 2008 otherwise, I guess.

sgtclub · 12-12-2003, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
I agree that she won't run in 2004 because she would lose and she knows it. But whether she could win in 2008 or not is entirely dependant on who she would be running against.

God I hope Jeb Bush is not the Republican nominee in 2008.

Of course it is. But she's in the game.

I've been thinking the same thing on Jeb. It would be a disaster if he ran. Amercians don't want a monarchy.

Secret_Agent_Man · 12-12-2003, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
He had been planning those eight years ever since he was fifteen. That was his very focused life goal. No way was he going to be napping once he finally made it. He had too much to do. And, undisciplined? A guy who worked for one goal and one goal only for his whole sentient life? No way. He was very disciplined, and focused, and driven - but he was also king of the world, and knew he could wing it, whether "it" be professional or personal.

That was his ultimate undoing, but he came very close to pulling it all off. Think of what enormous worldwide prestige he'd have today had he not seen Monica. He'd probably be the head of the new EU, the titular head of every American to the left of Lieberman, and the behind-the-scenes manipulator of the UN.

And I didn't even particularly care for him.

So, you think it was hubris rather than lack of focus or discipline? That makes sense.

S_A_M

S_A_M