![]() |
|
|||||||
| Parking Lot Off-topic chatter pertaining to movies, TV, music, video games, etc. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
#1 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manassas
Age: 55
Posts: 3,048
|
Re: Let's impeach the president.
Quote:
The only problem they have in terms of this plan to freeze the status quo and get a Dem President is Hillary. She is so apalling (a-pauli-ing, not a-peel-ing) that even with Bush in the low 30s and the mainstream press doing all they can, and Iraq etc, she could still lose. They may need to engineer some sort of 3rd party candidacy based around immigration, for example, so she can win with,say, 43% of the vote. I can't see her breaking 50. And if she does win you can count on her keeping at least 50,000 troops in Iraq for most of her first term. Anyone who thinks she will pull out hasn't been paying attention. She would love the idea of flying into Bagdhad to visit the troops. Great photo-op. Florence of Arabia. I pity the anti-war types. They have given the Democrats power and the Democrats have thanked them by taking a great big dump on their front porch. Oh that stinks.
__________________
This Monkey's Gone to Heaven |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
Uncle Phil
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,256
|
Re: Let's impeach the president.
Quote:
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manassas
Age: 55
Posts: 3,048
|
Re: Let's impeach the president.
I'm not sure I have a good feel for who they would take votes from. They are both anti-war, so in a Hillary/Rudy race, for example, you would think that it would hurt Hillary. The question is would an anti-war activist, who hates the Republican Party and hates corporations and who normally would revile Bloomberg, vote for him in spite of all that because of Iraq? I don't have a good feel for that. It's hard for me to figure out if these people really hate the war or Bush. Is Iraq merely a device that gives expression to a feeling that would still be just as strong without the war? Bush was plenty hated in those circles before March of 2003. If it's not really about the war, but about hating Bush, then Bloomberg can save his money. They will hold their nose and vote Democratic.
Bloomberg and Hagel have no traction among Republicans. I can't see them stealing a lot of votes there. Support for the President continues to be strong among his base. There is no anti-war constituency among conservatives. Immigration is another matter. I think what Hillary would like to see is a viable 3rd party candidate like Tom Tancredo who is a hardliner on immigration. This could appeal to enough of the good old boys in a state like my own to (amazingly) throw Virginia to the Democrats for the forst time since LBJ in 1964. She wins here and it's a skate. A revolt over the illegals would be a disater for the GOP up and down the ticket. In short, I'm not sure I see a rationale for Bloomberg/Hagel beyond the hard core, single issue anti-war folks. But, politics rarely proceeds down a straight line that is in any way predictable. That's why there is an inherent danger in the Democratic strategy of stall-ball. That's what it is. It's the four corners. The zeitgest could shift against them and they'll be left out there hanging with their dicks in the wind. The do-nothing Dems. It's not likely to happen because the NYT etc has their backs, but major events can alter history and perceptions, as we know from 9/11. The Republicans need a turnover and they need one bad.
__________________
This Monkey's Gone to Heaven |
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|