Cynical Nation

The ticket will be Bloomberg-Hagel. I also think it is good news for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, because it will gurantee a Hillary win. Hillary can still win is a 2-way race with Giuliani, but it would be close. In a 3-way race she wins easily.

If Rudy is elected, he'd have to resign shortly afterwards anyway because the presidency would interfere with his paid speechmaking commitments...

"If Rudy is elected, he'd have to resign shortly afterwards anyway because the presidency would interfere with his paid speechmaking commitments..."

Excellent point. The guy is soooo greedy that even JMK would approve of him despite his socially liberal positions.

Blue, with Bill Clinton garnering eight-figure fees for HIS speaking engagements, you're on real shaky ground throwing stones at Rudy's glass house from your own.

Clinton gets TEN MILLION BUCKS for a speech? Wow; did he crap out on the Iraq Study Group, too, to rake in the 9/11 bucks?

I don't know, I mean if I'd been Rudy I'd have probably quit the Iraq Study Group too.

On that score, I can't see any upside for him to have been a part of that group, whose recommendations have been cooly (to be polite) received by the Pentagon.

AND I agree with Bill Clinton on the subject of remuneration - "We (politicians) should be free to make the most money that we can. This is out livelihoods after all."

I liked his Cap Gains tax cut.

Loved his support for Gingrich's Welfare Reform.

Didn't care for the "Don't ask, don't tell," policy. I don't think it's discriminatory for the Military to bar gays from service, if they feel that's the way to go.

I reviled their attempt to scuttle American healthcare.

Still, I agree with him on remuneration - pols probably should be allowed to make as much as they can, while they can. They do have a shelf life you know.

Shelf life? Carter has exceeded his "sell by" date.
If Bloomberg ran as a third party candidate, wouldn't that take votes away from Hillary? My fear is a Libertarian or other right of center upstart who captures just enough disgruntled Republicans to put Hillary in the White House.
(Assuming she is nominated.)

Did you ever notice how the most likeable candidate seems to always win the Presidency? Like Kerry, Hillary just isn't very likeable. I think Gore is more likeable than he was when he lost to Chimp. Then again, who will be the Repug candidate?

They have some likeable guys, like Giuliani and Romney. Some day they might even allow women and minorities to join the party, thus increasing their appeal.

Anyway, don't think that theh Repug machine is dismantled just yet. Once they go into 24/7 smear, lie, and distort mode on radio and television, people get weak and confused.

The best thing to do would be to push Hillary up front, but pick someone likeable at the convention and limit the time Repugs have to gather up liars like "Swift Boat Veterans Paid For By Bush".

"I think Gore is more likeable than he was when he lost to Chimp."

Chimps are likeable in gereral. But you are giving them a bad name by comparing them to you know whom.

"Some day they might even allow women and minorities to join the party, thus increasing their appeal." (BH)


Now THAT'S funny...perhaps unintentionally so, but it really IS funny!!!

Oddly enough, the MSM has made a big deal out of ONE "positive thing" in regards to the G W Bush administration, that it had "more women and minorities in Cabinet level positions than any before it."

Beyond that, Libby Dole, Mike Steele, Lisa Murkowski, Sue Collins, Lynn Swann (that last one's a guy Barely, a former Pittsburgh Steeler, no less), Gary Franks, J C Watts all ran, and have won as Republicans.

And Condi Rice has been recruited to run for President but has refused.

Swann, Franks, Rice, Watts all have one thing in common - they're all legitimately "blacker than Obama." (There's my attempt at a little humor)

Um, I meant they were allowed to *PARTICIPATE*, not just be arranged behind Chimp as bobble-headed token yes-persons.

According to you, the Old South was a bastion of black representation because look how many blacks were employed by slavery!

No woman or minority has any real say or power in the Repug Party.

"No woman or minority has any real say or power in the Repug Party." (BH)


Once again, I understand your misconception, coming as it does from a self-avowed "racist" (evidenced by your rants against Indians and others) and "anti-Semite."

C Rice has had the two most vital Cabinet posts in this administration - National Security Advisor and Secretary of State...they tend to go to HER for advice, not the other way around.

And all those Congressional people mentioned vote autonomously WITHOUT the strictures of a "black caucus" or "women's caucus" that tries to strong-arm them into voting Liberal positions, ALL of which are designed to empower government at the expense of the individual and do irreparable harm to working people.

Conservative principles are almost always in the best interests of working people - low tax, tough on crime, smaller, less intrusive government, etc.

"As terrible as I think a Bloomberg administration would be, I do kind of like the idea of a Bloomberg campaign." (BNJ)


Yes, a Bloomberg administration would almost certainly be an intrusive "big government nightmare," but I don't think there's much chance of one, given that most voters, despite their current antipathy for BOTH Parties will almost certainly continue to vote the "lesser of two bad choices."

Bloomberg WOULD almost certainly take votes away from the Liberal Democrat in places like NYC and SF and other large urban areas, just as Ron Paul WOULD almost certainly take votes away from the GOP, as much of the heartland likes the "government OUT" message of the Libertarians.

I'd actually like to see a 4 candidate race. That might actually spur real debate. But that's very wishful thinking on my part.

"I'd actually like to see a 4 candidate race. That might actually spur real debate. But that's very wishful thinking on my part. (K)


Well K, we now have a TWO YEAR campaign season, so who knows...

When Bush Sr ruled the roost, I used to say the difference between the Democrats and Republicans was about the same difference between Coke & Pepsi and that seemed to be true, at least for the difference between Moderate Republicans (the Nixon's, Bush Sr's, Dole's) and Centrist Dems like Bill Clinton, etc.

There's certainly been more of a stark difference since those days (1988 - 1993). As the Dems have veered Left and the GOP more to the Right.

The GOP took over Congress after the 1994 election on the reform package introduced by Newt Gingrich, but then Delay moved in and brought the system back its default positions.

Today the Democrats are the Red Sox to the Republican Yankees. Politics has largely become a team sport.

Me, I'd take a Jim Webb over a Christie Whitman, a Zell Miller-type over a Bob Dole-type, a Bob Casey over a Link Chafee and a Walter E Williams over any of them, but for many people it's Blue against Red, the Donkey versus the Elephant. I'd bet BW would vote for a Pat Buchanan Conservative Democrat over a very Liberal Republican, because it seems to be more about "teams" than ideas and views for most people.

I think, given four choices, the vast majority of people would "stick with their team." I'd like to be wrong about that, but I don't think I am.