PDA

View Full Version : Dick Morris: Condi for prez


Cochise
02-09-2005, 08:25 AM
To stop Hillary, draft Condi

As she tours the continent after her Senate confirmation, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is like a rock star — her every movement, her every meeting covered by an adoring media.

America’s first black female secretary of state is doing in public what she has always done in private — speaking frankly about America’s priorities and the realities of the post-Cold War world. As she jokes with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, loosening up his dogmatic anti-American policies, lectures Russia about freedom and warns Israel of tough decisions ahead, one thing is obvious: A star is being born.

Traveling without the entourage customary for secretaries of state, on time, mapping out in advance her first six months of travel, Rice is a new force in American politics.

As the Republican Party casts about for a viable presidential candidate in 2008 to keep Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) out of the White House, attention will inevitably focus on Rice, the woman who may stand between Clinton and the presidency.

Since Bush’s success in Iraq has laid the basis for negotiation in the Middle East, there is every prospect that Rice may preside over a diplomatic triumph in catalyzing the discussions between Sharon and Abbas. The firm American stand in Iraq will also make more likely success in Korea and Iran, all of which would add to the prestige of Rice.

The political fact is that a Rice candidacy would destroy the electoral chances of the Democratic Party by undermining its demographic base. John Kerry got 54 percent of his vote from three groups that, together, account for about a third of the American electorate: African-Americans, Hispanics and single white women. Rice would cut deeply into any Democrat’s margin among these three groups and would, most especially, deny Clinton the strong support she would otherwise receive from each of them.

Rice’s credentials for a candidacy are extensive and will grow throughout her tenure at the State Department. As former chancellor of Stanford University, she would have much in common with the pre-political careers of Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower, presidents of Princeton and Columbia universities. Her service as national security adviser during a war and her current efforts as secretary of state demonstrate her ability to handle crises and to conduct herself with dignity and impact on the world stage.

As a social conservative and deeply religious person, she would face no bar in winning the votes of the Christian right, so crucial to winning the Republican nomination. Unlike former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani (R) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — both of whom could probably win in November — she would be very attractive to the pro-life, anti-gun-control, anti-affirmative-action base of the GOP.

America longs to put the period on the disgraceful chapter in our nation’s history that began when the first slave arrived at Jamestown, Va., more than 400 years ago. We also want to send a message to every girl, and every African-American or Hispanic baby, that there is no ceiling and that you can rise as far as your ability will carry you. The day Condi Rice is sworn in as president, regardless of the fate of her administration, that message and the punctuation of our history of racism will be obvious.

Of course, she isn’t running — nor is there any indication that she is harboring thoughts of a candidacy. But as her visibility increases, so will her viability. It may just be possible to draft Condi into the race. A real presidential draft movement hasn’t happened since 1952, when Republicans urged Eisenhower to get into the race. A draft-Condi movement seems almost antiquated in this era of ambitious and self-promoting candidates, but it may well fill a deep need in the electorate to vote for someone who is running in response to a genuine call of the people.

Condi Rice is a work in progress. Her rise has been impelled by her merits and achievements rather than any efforts on her part to curry favor in the media. She is still working and still progressing. But keep your eye on this political star. It is rising and may one day be ascendant.

Morris is the author of Rewriting History, a rebuttal of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) memoir, Living History.


:hmmm:

whoman69
02-09-2005, 08:36 AM
If the Republicans are really scared of Hillary Clinton, then by all means they should nominate a candidate with a lack of charisma, no experience in domestic matters, and despite her religious background someone southern white evangelicals will not vote for. It should be clear to everyone that Hillary cannot win. For the Republicans to feel they need some answer for her actually lends her legitimacy. She doesn't really have any. The first time we hear her speaking across the country, Hillary Clinton is stuck.

alnorth
02-09-2005, 09:17 AM
then by all means they should nominate a candidate with a lack of charisma,

FALSE Good Lord, did you bother to listen or watch her speeches in Europe this week? She is a terrific speaker. Maybe not on Bill Clinton's level (who is?), but definitely more than a match for Hillary and far better than anything GWB could have ever hoped to deliver on even most of his good days.

no experience in domestic matters

Perhaps, but that is something that a good campaign could make up for. Besides that, foreign policy is still king these days, and you could easily argue that anyone the Democrats could nominate would have no foreign policy experience. Condi has that by the truckload.

Really its going to depend on what happens in the middle East. If Iraq is a resounding success with massive US pullouts to let a capable elected Iraqi government take over, and if we have anything resembling some kind of peace in Israel, then Rice is going to be a star that no one could simply deny.

However, if the middle east is a disaster by 2007, then forget about it.

, and despite her religious background someone southern white evangelicals will not vote for.

OK, now your just being stupid. Condi's conservative credentials are all in order, socially conservative, economically conservative, strong foreign policy vision, ideologically she's the ideal candidate with the right-wing beliefs packaged in a charismatic person who could get the moderates to overlook things that a crusty old Senator couldnt.

I guess your basically saying that the GOP is nothing but a pack of racists and would refuse to vote for a dream candidate because she has some melanin in her skin. Get over yourself, its not the 19th century anymore. If the candidate has the right ideology, and if they look like they could win, their appearance really doesnt matter. The racist troglodytes who would behave as you imply are all either dead, dont vote anyway, or are composed of such an insignificant number of people that they wouldnt matter.

Cochise
02-09-2005, 09:19 AM
and despite her religious background someone southern white evangelicals will not vote for.

I think a blanket statement that white southern evangelicals won't vote for a black lady is in itself a bigoted and offensive statement.

I only hand out negative rep when joking around with someone.. but this one had me considering. :shake: :shake:

Radar Chief
02-09-2005, 09:26 AM
It should be clear to everyone that Hillary cannot win. For the Republicans to feel they need some answer for her actually lends her legitimacy. She doesn't really have any. The first time we hear her speaking across the country, Hillary Clinton is stuck.

This part I agree with. Billary as a presidential candidate doesn’t scare me in the least.

alnorth
02-09-2005, 09:32 AM
Forget Hillary, some other Republican might come along who could be a better choice, but as of right now, Condi seems to be the best candidate regardless of who the Dems put up.

RINGLEADER
02-09-2005, 09:35 AM
If the Republicans are really scared of Hillary Clinton, then by all means they should nominate a candidate with a lack of charisma, no experience in domestic matters, and despite her religious background someone southern white evangelicals will not vote for. It should be clear to everyone that Hillary cannot win. For the Republicans to feel they need some answer for her actually lends her legitimacy. She doesn't really have any. The first time we hear her speaking across the country, Hillary Clinton is stuck.


Lack of charisma? Look at Bill Frist or Richard Lugar or Chuck Hagel if you want to see Republicans without charisma. Also, I'd betcha that the number of Southerners who would be turned off by Condi would be more than offset by the blacks that would vote for her. As far as evangelicals are concerned, all she has to do is run as a Republican and she'll keep them in the GOP column...I mean, after all, she is going to be running against a Dem right? That automatically means she'll be running against someone who's pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and pro-stem cells...or pretending not to be.

siberian khatru
02-09-2005, 09:36 AM
Will evangelicals like Condi when she's outed for being a lesbian?

(At least that's what the rumors have been ...)

Cochise
02-09-2005, 09:37 AM
Will evangelicals like Condi when she's outed for being a lesbian?

(At least that's what the rumors have been ...)

We'll know that the libs consider her a serious threat to Hillary's coronation when they start attacking her, or publically pimping theories like this.

alnorth
02-09-2005, 09:38 AM
My biggest fear is that Condi doesnt run, (or news developements make her an unviable candidate) in which case Guiliani or McCain are the strongest November candidates.... but they lose in the primary to some crusty old "its my turn" senator who goes on to lose the election.

You wanna see a GOP candidate with no charisma, you dont have to look far, we've got a ton of them. Just dont look at Condi for lack of charisma, or youll just make yourself look foolish.

Cochise
02-09-2005, 09:41 AM
My biggest fear is that Condi doesnt run, (or news developements make her an unviable candidate) in which case Guiliani or McCain are the strongest November candidates.... but they lose in the primary to some crusty old "its my turn" senator who goes on to lose the election.

You wanna see a GOP candidate with no charisma, you dont have to look far, we've got a ton of them. Just dont look at Condi for lack of charisma, or youll just make yourself look foolish.

I wouldn't care if McCain were the running mate, but I think he's me-first enough to not be willing to play second fiddle to anyone.

I would like a Condi/Rudy ticket though. I think Condi/Rudy vs. Hillary and whoever would equal total destruction.

siberian khatru
02-09-2005, 09:42 AM
We'll know that the libs consider her a serious threat to Hillary's coronation when they start attacking her, or publically pimping theories like this.

Maybe they'll just play it safe and stick with the Aunt Jemima slurs.

Cochise
02-09-2005, 09:44 AM
Maybe they'll just play it safe and stick with the Aunt Jemima slurs.

I would imagine that it won't be any less shrill than the "uncle Tom" cries they directed at Clarence Thomas.

RINGLEADER
02-09-2005, 09:51 AM
My biggest fear is that Condi doesnt run, (or news developements make her an unviable candidate) in which case Guiliani or McCain are the strongest November candidates.... but they lose in the primary to some crusty old "its my turn" senator who goes on to lose the election.

You wanna see a GOP candidate with no charisma, you dont have to look far, we've got a ton of them. Just dont look at Condi for lack of charisma, or youll just make yourself look foolish.


Yep, if you want to see the 2008 GOP version of John Kerry you have to look no further than Frist, Lugar, Alexander, Hagel or even McCain. Honestly, I don't know who I would want to be the candidate for the GOP in 2008 but if the Republicans nominate any of these guys and the Dems nominate Biden I'll be voting Democrat in 2008.

I could vote for Guilliani. I could vote for Rice. But if any of the wishy-washy GOP senators wins the nomination I'll pass.

Taco John
02-09-2005, 11:29 AM
Condi for president would be very scary, IMO. I like Dick Morris, but he needs to quit smoking so many turpentine balls.

StcChief
02-09-2005, 11:37 AM
Senator's don't normally make it to presidency,
or are not very good ones.

Look at history

patteeu
02-09-2005, 11:53 AM
Yep, if you want to see the 2008 GOP version of John Kerry you have to look no further than Frist, Lugar, Alexander, Hagel or even McCain. Honestly, I don't know who I would want to be the candidate for the GOP in 2008 but if the Republicans nominate any of these guys and the Dems nominate Biden I'll be voting Democrat in 2008.

I could vote for Guilliani. I could vote for Rice. But if any of the wishy-washy GOP senators wins the nomination I'll pass.

I don't understand your fondness for Biden. Other than a better personality, I don't see much that would attract you to him over the field of republican stiffs and self-interested opportunists you listed. (None of them have any appeal to me).

AustinChief
02-09-2005, 11:59 AM
I would love to live in the " perfect world" that this guy lives in.. but sadly, America is not even CLOSE to electing a FEMALE PRESIDENT AND ESPECIALLY NOT A BLACK FEMALE. She would be a great candidate for the GOP.. in 2040... not likely to be any sooner than that.

Political biases are learned long after cultural biases have set in... until those cultural biases are further weakened a few more generations) .. the idea of Condi being electable is ludicrous.

--Kyle

alnorth
02-09-2005, 12:17 PM
but sadly, America is not even CLOSE to electing a FEMALE PRESIDENT AND ESPECIALLY NOT A BLACK FEMALE.

More women vote than men. You think they are going to be biased against a woman, to disqualify her without looking further? Female governors and senators all over the place, including the south, and dont give me that "senators are different" crapola. We've had a black Republican elected with a HUGE popular support in Okla-freaking-homa.

Your the one who is living in a fantasyland. I like to think that I'm pretty well in touch with how the mainstream and the conservative wings of the GOP thinks and feels, and the simple fact is, especially in these times, that ideology and charisma trumps everything. If you are telegenic and conservative, thats all that matters, race and gender are almost irrelevant.

You seem to get some perverse satisfaction with self-loathing, believing that America is still 10 years after the end of Jim Crowe, but your reality is not the vast majority of American's reality.

Ringleader, you would vote for Guiliani and not for McCain? Are you basing that exclusively on personality, or what? Because McCain is FAR more conservative than Guiliani. Neither men are exactly far right-wingers, but Guiliani is actually left of center, the last of a dying breed: the liberal Republicans. If you think McCain couldnt win in November, your looney. A superior candidate might beat him, but he's far from a liability. Hell, the man is the most popular Senator in the country, he's the closest thing the Senate has to a rock star, though that could change with Obama's rising popularity. I know lots of Republicans like to deride his widespread popularity as selling out for the cameras, but you can not deny his excellent charisma and popularity.

If you want to say McCain is not conservative enough, fine. Then you must reject Guiliani as well, because when you dig beneath the surface, youll see that at least McCain is right of center, which Guiliani can not claim to be.

As for Biden... ROFL zzzzzzzZZzzzzzzzzZZzzz

Please oh please God let the Democrats nominate him so I can stop worrying about the election.

AustinChief
02-09-2005, 12:43 PM
More women vote than men. You think they are going to be biased against a woman, to disqualify her without looking further? Female governors and senators all over the place, including the south, and dont give me that "senators are different" crapola. We've had a black Republican elected with a HUGE popular support in Okla-freaking-homa.

Your the one who is living in a fantasyland. I like to think that I'm pretty well in touch with how the mainstream and the conservative wings of the GOP thinks and feels, and the simple fact is, especially in these times, that ideology and charisma trumps everything. If you are telegenic and conservative, thats all that matters, race and gender are almost irrelevant.

You seem to get some perverse satisfaction with self-loathing, believing that America is still 10 years after the end of Jim Crowe, but your reality is not the vast majority of American's reality.


No offense... but you are dead wrong on this. Try living in the South and you will see.

No one is arguing that it WILL happen .. someday. But it is idiotic to ignore the numbers ("At the start of the new millennium, there were 9 women among the 100 senators, and 65 women among 435 members of the House. At the current rate, it will be 250 years before the number of women reaches parity with the number of men in the Congress. ")

Change will come two generations AFTER kids grow up seeing women in these roles as the RULE and not the exception.

A mid-January poll by Hillary's pollster, Mark Penn, confirmed the attitudinal hurdle that confronts women seeking elective office. "Across the board, including women, the public is more likely to vote for a male candidate," says Penn. "There is a net ten-point edge that a woman candidate has to overcome." Women have an edge on honesty and caring, but on the qualities that matter most, leadership and the ability to be decisive, men rule. Among those polled, including women, 9 percent declared they were "against women in political offices," and 7 percent thought women are "not capable of doing the job." Penn believes the real numbers are several times higher. "You've got to figure a lot of people are hiding what they think. Women have the opportunity to run but we shouldn't kid ourselves. There's an electoral hurdle to overcome."

...and ...

A poll conducted by the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche and released in January 2000 deflated the rosy prospects. It found that three-quarters of Americans don't expect a female president in the next decade, and a third of the public believe that "there are general characteristics about women that make them less qualified to serve as president."

...and ...


One in ten Americans thinks the United States will never elect a female president, and more women hold that view than men. Some of the most ardent feminists are the most pessimistic. They joke darkly that when the first woman president stands on the stage to be sworn in, her hand on a Bible held by her husband, her mother will nudge the person seated beside her in the audience and declare, "You see that woman up there? Her brother is a doctor."

MOST importnatly is that this "comraderie" that you seem to think black and women have.. just isn't true.
for example..
Shirley Chisholm stunned friends and colleagues in 1972 when she announced she was running for president. "I suffered from two obstacles -- I was a black person and I was a woman," Chisholm recalled in an interview from her Florida home. "I met far more discrimination as a woman in the field of politics. That was a revelation to me. Black men got together to talk about stopping me. But I was not any weeping Annie. I confronted them. They said I was an intellectual person, that I had the ability, but that this was no place for a woman. If a black person were to run, it should be a man."

and if you honestly feel that WOMEN will "stick together", you are mistaken again... here is a quote that offers a very "mild" example of what I'm talking about ..
Women are often hard on other women running for office. They don't want to be embarrassed, and if one woman fails, all women feel the anguish. There could also be a touch of envy. The full range of human emotions comes into play when women judge each other. For whatever reasons, and some are better than others, women want more than gender to decide their vote.

I get no "satisfaction" from this.. but facts are facts... I DO take satisfaction in knowing that things are getting better every day and will continue to do so.

memyselfI
02-09-2005, 03:28 PM
I would love to live in the " perfect world" that this guy lives in.. but sadly, America is not even CLOSE to electing a FEMALE PRESIDENT AND ESPECIALLY NOT A BLACK FEMALE. She would be a great candidate for the GOP.. in 2040... not likely to be any sooner than that.

Political biases are learned long after cultural biases have set in... until those cultural biases are further weakened a few more generations) .. the idea of Condi being electable is ludicrous.

--Kyle

Interesting timing on this. Just yesterday, I had this disagreement with a friend of mine who is a hardcore feminist, she makes me look like an amateur. She agreed with you. I said no way...

I think if there is one thing BOTH parties can agree on (but is more blatantly apparent on the CONS side) is political expediency and if a Conservative black woman (who could be a front for the politicos behind her) like Condi Rice were up against a liberal man then hardcore RWNJs will vote black woman.

There are people who would vote conservative corpse over a liberal...Condi would not scare those folks.

alnorth
02-09-2005, 03:48 PM
Good lord, your forcing me to agree with memyselfI. WHY?!?!

She's right tho, if everything, and I mean absolutely every-fricken-thing was totally equal, then would the fact that candidate A is male win over candidate B who is female? Maybe, I dunno. However, I believe, and who knows, I may be wrong, but I believe that gender is the dead last tie-breaker, like theoretically one NFL team could beat another into the playoffs via a coin-flip, but theres no way in hell well ever get that far in the tiebreakers.

All things are never equal, give me condi vs anyone who has a chance of winning the Democratic nomination, and I wont think twice. Now personally, I also like Condi based on her own merits, unless some better Republican runs, but I dont see anyone I like more than her, so I am tentatively supporting her for the nomination regardless of opponent.

Would she have difficulties in the primary? Well, if she does I think itll be based on the fact that she's not married, not on her gender or race. Some conservatives in Peoria might not like the idea of nominating someone who is single, but when you get to the general election, meme is 100% right, the right-wing base will vote for a Republican corpse over a Democrat. (Why not? The Democrats already have proven that they'd vote for a corpse over a Republican in Missouri! :) )

DanT
02-09-2005, 04:09 PM
What was the biggest national security failure in the history of this country?

alnorth
02-09-2005, 04:22 PM
Clinton failing to get Bin Laden when he had the perfect opportunity?

(A partisan political question deserves a similar answer!)

AustinChief
02-09-2005, 04:46 PM
Good lord, your forcing me to agree with memyselfI. WHY?!?!

She's right tho, if everything, and I mean absolutely every-fricken-thing was totally equal, then would the fact that candidate A is male win over candidate B who is female? Maybe, I dunno. However, I believe, and who knows, I may be wrong, but I believe that gender is the dead last tie-breaker, like theoretically one NFL team could beat another into the playoffs via a coin-flip, but theres no way in hell well ever get that far in the tiebreakers.


I think you are about 20 years ahead in your thinking... and 40 years ahead of when someone will actually prove you right...

The "stats" (not exactly the most trustworthy thing) say that a woman starts with a 10point deficit just by being a woman. I think as the current youth grow up with strong female political figures (Hillary, Condi, Dole, etc) then raise THEIR youth with little or no gender bias... THEN we will see legitimate change. It is just too ingrained right now...

Remember, there is a large voting block (a majority of voters) who grew up before or during the time when women started to receive equal treatment under the law. (1964 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act passed including a prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.)

Just give it two more generation (maybe just one..) and the changes will happen... but not this go aroundm for sure

--Kyle

RINGLEADER
02-09-2005, 05:57 PM
I don't understand your fondness for Biden. Other than a better personality, I don't see much that would attract you to him over the field of republican stiffs and self-interested opportunists you listed. (None of them have any appeal to me).


Dunno. I just like the guy. He doesn't take s**t and he's not the type to set around and whine about things. Sure he criticizes the administration, but he doesn't do it with either the venom or the lack of reality that other Dems employ. My only concern is that he'd propose some stupid economic policy. But my main concern remains national defense and I can't find a lot of fault with much he's said since 9/11.

Of course it might just be the fact that we have a mutual friend that has something to do with it.

Taco John
02-09-2005, 07:52 PM
I can't believe anyone would think that the National Security Advisor responsible for the most devestating dereliction of duty in the United States histroy is deserving of a promotion to president. If I get careless and leave my sprinklers on too long, my neighbors want to hang me.

memyselfI
02-09-2005, 08:48 PM
I would love to live in the " perfect world" that this guy lives in.. but sadly, America is not even CLOSE to electing a FEMALE PRESIDENT AND ESPECIALLY NOT A BLACK FEMALE. She would be a great candidate for the GOP.. in 2040... not likely to be any sooner than that.

Political biases are learned long after cultural biases have set in... until those cultural biases are further weakened a few more generations) .. the idea of Condi being electable is ludicrous.

--Kyle

Again, it's not about culture or even prejudices...it's about POWER. The Neo-Con regressive RW machine would make Condi look like a heavily tanned albino by the time they were done with her. Any semblence of her actually being African American would be gone. I think the fact that she is a woman would be a non-issue. If they can overcome her color, she'd get elected.

I think her chances are far better than Hillary Clinton. :shake:

They'd frame the argument of a regressive conservative woman watching the store would be better than a liberal who'd give Homos the keys to the WH...

PunkinDrublic
02-09-2005, 09:01 PM
Dick Morris is such a parasite he only comes out on Fox news or interviews on Hannities talk show whenever he needs to shill one of his anti-Clinton books. I wouldn't even care if he was just another conservative hack but Morris has made a career out of smearing the Clintons. At least liberals divide their hate up evenly between Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Halliburton.

RINGLEADER
02-10-2005, 09:28 AM
I can't believe anyone would think that the National Security Advisor responsible for the most devestating dereliction of duty in the United States histroy is deserving of a promotion to president. If I get careless and leave my sprinklers on too long, my neighbors want to hang me.


Oh yeah. 9/11, which was planned during the Clinton administration by a guy that Clinton passed on nabbing more than once and orchestrated by a bunch of terrorists who were already in the country before Bush took the oath of office was the responsibility of Condi Rice.

The libs like Taco who blame Bush/Rice for not taking action quicker to stop the terrorists who planned and carried out 9/11 are the same ones who say we acted too quickly in Iraq. I'm sure Michael Moore (who already thinks we went into Afghanistan to set up an oil pipeline instead of take down the Taliban) and the Dems in congress and Taco would all have been supportive of unilateral action against Afghanistan (and their allies in Pakistan who we would have had to fight through to get to the Taliban) before 9/11. :rolleyes:

RINGLEADER
02-10-2005, 09:31 AM
Dick Morris is such a parasite he only comes out on Fox news or interviews on Hannities talk show whenever he needs to shill one of his anti-Clinton books. I wouldn't even care if he was just another conservative hack but Morris has made a career out of smearing the Clintons. At least liberals divide their hate up evenly between Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Halliburton.


I agree with you that Dickie sure had his ego bruised or something by the Clintons. Some of the insider comments he has about the Clintons are fun, but with each passing day his stories become a little less relevant...except where they show the Clintons to be purely calculating political animals (which isn't necessarily a bad thing when you're in politics ;) ).

StcChief
02-10-2005, 09:56 AM
Clinton failing to get Bin Laden when he had the perfect opportunity?

(A partisan political question deserves a similar answer!)

Seems he couldn't be found... No one knew where he was, by the time they found him, the opportunity was gone.

Says something about how he ran his administration, and the cast of characters involved.

RINGLEADER
02-10-2005, 10:05 AM
Seems he couldn't be found... No one knew where he was, by the time they found him, the opportunity was gone.

Says something about how he ran his administration, and the cast of characters involved.


I seem to remember seeing a video tape taken during the Clinton years that showed bin Laden taken from a Predator. It wasn't 100% that it was Usama, but the reasons they didn't act were just stupid. I also know that Richard Clarke lobbied for action and was rebuffed. I also know that Sandy Berger, on at least one occasion and probably more, stopped progress that was being made toward getting him and pulled back.

I don't like to blame Clinton for what happened or didn't happen because Reagan's action in Beirut had as much to do with cementing an image amongst the militants/terrorists that the US was a paper tiger as anything Clinton did (although Clinton did update that rap with Somalia and his inaction after the Saudi bombings, after the Cole bombing, and after the first WTC attack). I do find it borderline absurd when people like Taco, however, claim that Bush and/or Rice are responsible for 9/11 when there are plenty of others from the previous administrations that should, IMO, shoulder more of the blame.

And that's not even addressing the hypocrisy of those who bitch and moan that Bush/Rice didn't do more...they're generally the same cast of liberals who drone on incessently about how we rushed to war in Iraq. Can you imagine the lib reaction to Bush sending ground troops in for a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan in June or July of 2001? What most of the libs don't seem to want to recognize is that the 9/11 attacks were already well underway before Bush took office.

Bush could have killed Usama in February, 2001 and it's very likely the 9/11 attacks would have still happened based on where they were in the planning stages. And you can bet that if that happened the libs would be blaming Bush's careless rush to war in Afghanistan as the precipitating factor for why the 9/11 attacks happened.

Calcountry
02-10-2005, 12:13 PM
If the Republicans are really scared of Hillary Clinton, then by all means they should nominate a candidate with a lack of charisma, no experience in domestic matters, and despite her religious background someone southern white evangelicals will not vote for. It should be clear to everyone that Hillary cannot win. For the Republicans to feel they need some answer for her actually lends her legitimacy. She doesn't really have any. The first time we hear her speaking across the country, Hillary Clinton is stuck.So you are saying that all southern white evangelicals are racist?:shake:

Calcountry
02-10-2005, 12:15 PM
Senator's don't normally make it to presidency,
or are not very good ones.

Look at historyDon't think that the Republicans wont force vote after vote in the Senate on issues dear to the Democrats base to force her hand either.