Election '08 - Hillary Watch

[quote]
jsbrook wrote:
Yeah-I agree. And the Republicans (at least a lot of them-not all) have bad messages, poor plans, and lousy leadership. I find it very disheartening.

rainjack wrote:
The Republican party(on the whole) is a well oiled machine compared to the DNC.

I will agree that on an individual basis, the current crop of leadership is sorely missing their cajones when it comes to leadership in Congress.[/quote]

Nationally I think the Reps are doing better – unfortunately there are several states, including biggies like CA, MA and NY, in which the Rep party is in a sad state of disarray.

Here’s an interesting take on Romney from a Mormon law-school prof (whom I had as a teacher when he was visiting on the Vanderbilt faculty):

http://www.theconglomerate.org/2005/07/mitt_romney_for.html

Mitt Romney for President?

Posted by Gordon Smith

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has presidential aspirations. He is a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. He is the son of George Romney ( Amxfiles.com ), three-time Michigan governor who famously tanked his own presidential campaign by claiming that his initial support for the Vietnam War was due to the fact that he had been “brainwashed” by the U.S. military. Like his father, Mitt Romney has been a successful businessman. (He founded Bain & Company, a private equity firm). He also has a JD and an MBA, both from Harvard. And he gave Ted Kennedy a surprising run for his money in the 1994 Senate race.

Romney’s official bio ( http://www.mass.gov/portal/index.jsp?pageID=gov2terminal&L=2&L0=Home&L1=Romney%20Team&sid=Agov2&f=gov_mittromneybio_homepage&csid=Agov2&b=terminalcontent )touts his work in resuscitating the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee as his greatest pre-gubernatorial achievement. Unless you followed that story closely, it is easy to forget what a job Romney did with it. This from Rocky Anderson, the Democrat mayor of Salt Lake City, who is not known for praising Republicans:

He was absolutely spectacular. He was a strong leader, extremely competent. He walked into an utter disaster, and slashed spending without cutting corners on what was necessary to put on an absolutely extraordinary Olympics. With his unique management skills we came out in the black–which no one ever dreamed.

More important than all of this to some people, however, is the fact that Romney is a member of of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ( http://lds.org/ ). Predictably, some people are starting to ask: Would America elect a Mormon as President?

The big concern is that Romney may feel beholden to follow instructions from Church leaders ( Are we ready for a Mormon president? - The Boston Globe ): “So would Romney likewise feel obliged to follow the dictates of the church’s president, whom Mormons believe to be a divinely inspired prophet?” Of course, this question reminds us of a similar question posed to Jack Kennedy about his relationship to the Pope. Kennedy responded:

I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic . . . I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me.

Could Romney give a Kennedy-esque response? I doubt that would suffice in today’s political environment, at least on a national stage (see more below), but if that is Romney’s intention, he had better tell his spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, who offered this statement:

[Governor Romney’s] first obligation is to fulfill his duty of office, and that would take precedence over anything… This is a governor who has signed a law permitting Sunday alcohol sales, and who has been open to an expansion of gaming. This is by no means someone who is marching in lockstep with his church.

My impression is that Romney, like all Mormon politicians, usually tries to walk a thin line. He does not want to be portrayed as the Church’s puppet, but at the same time, he does not want to defy the Church. Most Mormon politicians avoid this dilemma by noting that the Church has never told them how to vote on a particular piece of legislation. And as far I can tell, it is true that Church leaders do not attempt to exert direct influence on Mormon politicians. This was essentially Kennedy’s position with respect to the Catholic church, and it still works in local and state elections.

Fehrnstrom’s statement, however, does not take this tack. By asserting that Romney was not “marching in lockstep with his church,” Fehrnstrom staked out a position of defiance. Consider Romney’s actions with respect to gaming. The Church has an official policy in opposition to gambling and urges members to oppose its legalization. [UPDATE: this portion of the post has been edited to remove a quotation from the Church’s General Handbook of Instruction, which is not a public document.] This anti-gambling message is repeated often in Church publications ( The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ). To the extent that Romney “has been open to an expansion of gaming,” he appears to be in direct conflict with the Church’s teachings. Not being all that politically savvy, I wonder how being portrayed as a hypocrite helps Romney. This reminds me of John Kerry’s cafeteria Catholicism, which raised more questions than it answered.

Would America elect a Mormon as President? Perhaps. But as noted above, I doubt that Kennedy’s elegant fudging of the role of faith in politics would suffice today. As Ann Althouse has observed ( Althouse: American politics and the pope. ), the world today is much different than Jack Kennedy’s world, and “personal moral questions have become central” to politics in a way that they were not in 1960. In that milieu, I have serious doubts about the ability of a faithful Mormon to win an electoral majority, and I sincerely hope that no Mormon would be elected President on a platform that defies Church teachings. If so, it would be without my vote.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
As things sit now, i.e. the Democratic Party in total disarray, I think the Republicans could go to any zoo in the U.S. and pick out a chimp and win in 2008.
[/quote]

Shit, they did it in 2000 and’04.

[quote]slimjim wrote:
rainjack wrote:
As things sit now, i.e. the Democratic Party in total disarray, I think the Republicans could go to any zoo in the U.S. and pick out a chimp and win in 2008.

Shit, they did it in 2000 and’04.[/quote]

hahaha! That’s funny

santorum already said he isnt going to run

i have money on george allen as the nominee, although giuliani would be the best president

[quote]slimjim wrote:
rainjack wrote:
As things sit now, i.e. the Democratic Party in total disarray, I think the Republicans could go to any zoo in the U.S. and pick out a chimp and win in 2008.

Shit, they did it in 2000 and’04.[/quote]

I could not disagree more…but that does make a good joke.

I am pulling for Jeanine Pirro to unseat Hillary in the next Senate election.

Jeanine Pirro would make a fantastic Senator and not to mention she is HOT!

Unfortunately her husband has been indicted on 66 counts of federal tax fraud.

The Clintons are WT but I do respect the fact the Clinton did not leak the Iran-Contra documents to the press while he was being indicted by a grand jury.

It is not secret why H.W. and Clinton are good friends to this day.

[quote]biltritewave wrote:
santorum already said he isnt going to run

i have money on george allen as the nominee, although giuliani would be the best president [/quote]

Santorum just changed his mind and said he might run.

My vote is for a McCain/Jeb Bush ticket.

That is a sure fire winner.

Marm wrote:

"My vote is for a McCain/Jeb Bush ticket.

That is a sure fire winner."

That is a very clever pick. I’d prefer a top pick from up North to balance the regions. It would be nice to keep making inroads into “dem territory.”

I’m not sure Mitt Romney brings enough to the table from a regional standpoint. lumpy will admit his democrats made mistakes before massachusets votes democratic (aka never).

I’d like a blue-stater with a realistic chance of carrying the state.

Pataki interests me.

Make no mistake about it, the 2008 election is an absolute watershed for the democrats. They will throw EVERYTHING behind hillary. Had billy boy not come around, they may not have had any Presidents since carter. dems feel excitement and hope with the mention of the name “clinton.” It’s no secret why she has kept the name.

I mean this in all seriousness, if the democrats do not win this Presidental election, they are done on the national level. I fully expect to see the democrats relegated to third party status. You watch, it will be the liberal/conservative wing of the Republican party and the democrats.

The Supreme Court will be Conservative, the dems will lose more seats in Congress, and another Republican in office should just about do it.

JeffR

McCain is unelectable in the top spot, in my opinion. We live in a media age and while you don’t have to look like Brad Pitt, McCain looks like a tired old man. I don’t even want to think how he would look after several months of campaigning. The public is not looking for a Grandfather image, this Eisenhower look alike better sit it out! (Ike was the last guy to be able to get away with looking like that).

Jeb Bush’s big problem is his last name. While he might help on the bottom part of the ticket, I think people want a break after 12 years of Bush (father and son).

Pataki has zero charisma and would not make a good choice for the top of the ticket. However, he could be an asset as VP running mate. New York is a big state and could help the republicans ina major way electorally.

Geroge Allen is one my of top picks for the Presidency. He’s smart and a former Governor so he knows the executive side of things.

Hillary will be formidable as she will have mega bucks to spend. However, will the entire democratic party be behind her, or will key people stay home thus sending the wrong signal to the voters? I wonder if there will first be a blood letting with in the democratic party for the nomination. If that does occur the democrats might not stick together after the primary. The Kerry faction, Gore faction, etc.

One more thing about Hillary, she tends to wear a little thin the more you see her. Some candidates grow on you, others aggravate you as you get to know them. Hillary has that “finger nails on chalk board” quality that could naturally push all but the ultra liberals away.

If the republicans are smart they will retire Cheney and bring in a fresh face to the VP’s office. This way Bush could virtually pick the next republican Presidential nominee. And the people could also familiarize themselves with him prior to the race.

PCH

But who are Republicans going to run in '08? That’s the connundrum:

Arlan Spector

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
PCH

But who are Republicans going to run in '08? That’s the connundrum:

Arlan Spector[/quote]

Bite your tongue. If the Republicans run that waste of DNA as thier guy, I’m voting Green Party.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
PCH

But who are Republicans going to run in '08? That’s the connundrum:

Arlan Spector[/quote]

Arlen Specter. And I doubt it.

A proposed dark horse: Fred Thompson. Tall, no-nonsense Southerner with a national profile. He is a bit old, and he has said nothing about running. I’m just throwing it out there.

As for Democrats in 2008, whatever happened to a guy named John Edwards? Wow, he didn’t even get his full 15 minutes of fame in.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
A proposed dark horse: Fred Thompson. Tall, no-nonsense Southerner with a national profile. He is a bit old, and he has said nothing about running. I’m just throwing it out there.

As for Democrats in 2008, whatever happened to a guy named John Edwards? Wow, he didn’t even get his full 15 minutes of fame in. [/quote]

He will run no doubt! An he’s going to be one of those folks who won’t be all that happy about rolling over for Hillary!

Going to be a nasty, nasty fight for the democratic party nomination…

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
A proposed dark horse: Fred Thompson. Tall, no-nonsense Southerner with a national profile. He is a bit old, and he has said nothing about running. I’m just throwing it out there.

As for Democrats in 2008, whatever happened to a guy named John Edwards? Wow, he didn’t even get his full 15 minutes of fame in. [/quote]

He’s been hanging around in Iowa… I think his PAC is active too…

BB and Zeb,

Been trawling a few blogs and there is a bit of a rumble that Thompson is ready to drop into hill climbing gear and go for it in 2008.

Some folks are suggesting a Thompson/Rice ticket.

In truth, the acting gig is like a weekly campaign ad for himself, and better yet, they pay him to do it.

I like Thompson quite a bit. In interviews, he is one of the most articulate speakers on politics I have seen.

Hillary would be a great fund raiser: remember how she gave a commodities trader $1000, and ‘earned’ $100,000 in a month?

She’s be great at getting her agenda put through too! Remember what a good job she did with health care reform?

Seriously guys, how can anyone even consider voting for these people again? They make banality into an art form!

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
BB and Zeb,

Been trawling a few blogs and there is a bit of a rumble that Thompson is ready to drop into hill climbing gear and go for it in 2008.

Some folks are suggesting a Thompson/Rice ticket.

In truth, the acting gig is like a weekly campaign ad for himself, and better yet, they pay him to do it.

I like Thompson quite a bit. In interviews, he is one of the most articulate speakers on politics I have seen. [/quote]

I like Thompson, but I think it’s a stretch that he could get elected President. I love Rice and think she is the most articulate speaker that the republicans have. She would be a great VP!

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Hillary would be a great fund raiser: remember how she gave a commodities trader $1000, and ‘earned’ $100,000 in a month?

She’s be great at getting her agenda put through too! Remember what a good job she did with health care reform?

Seriously guys, how can anyone even consider voting for these people again? They make banality into an art form![/quote]

Here’s how:

  1. National name recognition. What did Arnold know about governing?

  2. Money-She has lots of it and will likely have more as she runs for reelection to the Senate and will not need to spend big to win big.

  3. The machine-The Clinton political machine is already in place. They have the people who have been there and know what they are doing. They would dearly like to return to power.

  4. The Clintons are sort of like Vampires. You can’t kill them or scare them away. They just keep coming back.
    Let’s call it “persistence.” If anyone of us went through what Bill Clinton did in his second term we probably would have resigned and walked away, or went out of our minds. Both Bill and Hillary are made out of some mighty tough stuff! I give them their due in this regard.

Hillary will be a tough opponent for anyone. However, as I stated I’m hoping most of the heavy lifting will be done by those in her own party as she claws her way to the top of the democratic heap. Leaving the bloody and unforgiving carcasses of her fellow democrats along the road might be her undoing in the race for the Presidency.

I think guys like Kerry, Gore, Edwards and others will simply stay home after they get a taste of Clinton style politics via Hillary. She might very well win the nomination, but get abandon by all but the ultra liberal in the race for the Presidency.

The republicans must still field a strong candadate as the idea of having a women President is appealing to many-Any woman! One reason that I would like to see Cheney step down early is that this would give the next republican candadate a great first step onto the national scene.

I would love to see Rice take over the VP slot right now! Even perhaps Elizabeth Dole, or Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. If you nullify Hillary’s strongest asset, her being a woman, it makes it easier to run on the issues.