Who would you like to see as the next president when Bush steps down... Not a Democratic fan but I wouldn't mind Hillary Clinton ;) She would and can do wonders for this country.
"To many people spend money on things they don't need, to impress people they don't like, with money they don't have."
"When all else fails read the directions."
December 12, 2005 - 23:56.
I do agree that McCain would almost definitely win if he ran. I'm not so sure about Giuliani, but I don't really know much about him. The problem I see with McCain running is that the Republican Party has been leaning towards conservative candidates for awhile, and McCain is far from conservative. Heck, if he ran, I'd vote for him.
[=RoyalBlue][=Comic Sans MS]
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It
December 13, 2005 - 00:04.
The Republican Party does not want to have to swallow a candidate McCain who has wandered from the camp. However, McCain is just as Republican as anyone when it comes to war and taxes. And faced with Hillary, they'll take McCain. What you will probably end up seeing is McCain paired with a conservative vice president. Now personally I think the best candidate for the Repulicans would be Colin Powell. He is a sure winner. Name one person who could beat him.
December 13, 2005 - 14:53.
dwalk4 wrote:The Republican Party does not want to have to swallow a candidate McCain who has wandered from the camp. However, McCain is just as Republican as anyone when it comes to war and taxes. And faced with Hillary, they'll take McCain. What you will probably end up seeing is McCain paired with a conservative vice president. Now personally I think the best candidate for the Repulicans would be Colin Powell. He is a sure winner. Name one person who could beat him.
Anyone from the Republican party. Colin Powell resigned as a Republican from a Republican held capital. He will most likely not be nominated at the primaries, and if he runs as an independent, he'll get stomped like Ralph Nader.
December 13, 2005 - 21:31.
Consider, however, that Colin Powell is the ideal nominee for the Republicans. He can steal votes away from the Democrats by attracting minorities. He is relatively disassociated with the current administration's war policies from the view of Democrats, but to Republicans he is a strong military hero with superb credentials as a general. He has real knowledge of how to win a war. Plus, Republicans know they can trust Powell when it comes to economic policy.
I envision in 2006 or 2007, Cheney will step down for "medical reasons" and the 2008 nominee will be chosen as Cheney's successor. Maybe Colin Powell will return to Washington that way.
December 13, 2005 - 21:42.
No republicans will not win the white house in 2008. If Hilary ran this year she would have won. Colin Powell is done in the white house. Also if McCain runs the Rebublicans won't back him because he always sided with democrats. The Rebublicans have ruined the country. Clinton had it on the right track while Bush ruined it with a "War." I conpare the Iraq war to a bodybuilder beating up a retard. Bush has done nothing but ruined the country. The only reason he won is because old people and women voted for him because he had good moral values. Like being iliterate. He is the worst president of all time, even behing Regan.
December 14, 2005 - 21:42.
I'm no Bush fan, but to complain that he has ruined the country with a war is proposterous. Probably not the best decison, but the war signaled a $200 billion investment into the United States economy. In the long term, it is very possible that a democratic Iraq will help bring stability to a region defined by religious despotism. Bush's tax cuts, although admittedly beneficial to the wealthy, have shown signs of working. Unemployment is at 5% even after the hurricanes, the markets are considerably stronger as the Dow nears 11000 again, and home ownership is at an all time high. Bush has run up the deficit, however any economist will tell you that it was Reagan's economic policies, which also ran up the deficit, that set up the Clinton administration to run away with the economy.
Now I cannot even believe that liberals still want to say that Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever. Even European "liberals" understand that Ronald Reagan along with a few others including Pope John Paul II and Lech Walesa were the winners of the Cold War. How can the man that won the Cold War be the worst president ever?
Back to the next president. I don't know if Colin Powell is in a position to return to Washington. What I do know is that he would be the ideal candidate. McCain, Giuliani, and Powell are all winning candidates, possibly with the exception of Giuliani. McCain will be on the ticket if the Republican Party feels like Hillary Clinton has a chance. They are not willing to risk a Clinton in the White House to spite John McCain.
Unless there is some severe change, I don't see how the Democratic Party will be able to win the presidency. The Democrats are divided on almost every issue. They lack a unified plan. And the one part of the Democratic Party that everyone knows about is the most unpopular. The Howard Dean/John Kerry/Hillary Clinton party cannot win the presidency. Democrats, by selecting liberal northeastern candidates have alienated the conservative-leaning "Sun Belt," which runs through the southern states into California. Every president except for George Bush was from the Sun Belt. The last Democrat to win from the northeast was John Kennedy. The losers: Kerry, Dukakis, McGovern, and Humphrey. None of them were from the SUn Belt. The only winner was CLinton. Oddly enough, he was from the Sun Belt. Gore was beaten by someone from the SUn Belt. The party of Dean, Clinton, and Kerry cannot afford to nominate another northeastern liberal. My advice: MARK WARNER D-VA or JOHN EDWARDS D-NC. They are candidates that can win.
December 19, 2005 - 01:48.
dbgt23 wrote:We should have black president, but is there anyone in the 2 Political Parties that has the chance to even get nominateed that is black? No, so thats why I said WHO should get a chance to be the next president...
Has anyone here heard of Illinois Senator Barrack Obama. He's a black senator who was just elected last year into the US Senate. Many democrats are hoping to get him on the ticket in 2010 or 2016. People are saying he has a very good chance of winning if he can get the nomination.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/zweibz7/Zweibz7.jpg[/IMG]
December 19, 2005 - 02:17.
Yeah, we kinda started talking about Obama but no one really noticed...
I like him though. I think he'd do a pretty good job.
[=RoyalBlue][=Comic Sans MS]
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It
December 20, 2005 - 01:33.
First of all, Obama won't get a nomination until 2012 or 2016. Second of all, although Obama is black, he is hardly the type the Democrats want to be running. The Democrats cannot and will not win the White House until they nominate a moderately conservative Democrat from the South or Southwest. That or the Republicans nominate a total extremist with a history of racial slurs or something. Unless the Republicans blow it, they are starting to have demographics on their side. The Democrats need a John Edwards or a Mark Warner.
December 20, 2005 - 02:30.
I agree with some of those points, and I disagree with others. Allow me to assess....
Quote:Obama won't get a nomination until 2012 or 2016
I agree with this. Obama's first term in the Senate ends in 2010, and if he is re-elected, he has a good chance of running in 2016 when his second term comes to a close. This is also to his advantage because if the president elected in '08 wins a second term, he will be done in '16, leaving no incumbant to battle against.
Quote:although Obama is black, he is hardly the type the Democrats want to be running.
This I disagree with. You go on to say that the Democrats need to nominate a moderately conservative Democrate from the South or Southwest. I think that Obama (and this is just speculation, because I haven't seen enough of him yet to pass judgement) will develop a moderate liberal view, and that's what the Democrats need. Democrats aren't going to nominate anyone who shows any even moderate conservatism, especially not after the way they've seen conservatives treat this country for the past 5 years *cough*Bush*cough*. Obama has the popularity locally, and if he's elected to a second term in the senate and doesn't make a royal mistake like some other aspiring presidents have made in congress, he will be in good standing to get the nomination and maybe even win the election.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/zweibz7/Zweibz7.jpg[/IMG]
Pages