Dick Cheney retire?

[memyselfI]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060302/i/r2741520107.jpg? ROFL

[Chiefs Express]

I hate republicans:shake:

[Mr. Kotter]

John McCain would look mighty nice, for them, as VP....if they wish to setup a 12 year run.

Depending, of course, on who our party nominates (your kind of candidate, or an actual potential winner--my kind of Democrat).... :banghead:

:)

[WoodDraw]

McCain taking the VP position right now would do more to hurt him then help him. The rough 2000 campaign has put a distance between Bush, the Republican Party, and him that is helpful right now. The last thing he wants to do is jump in on a lame duck, falling Presidency.

As for the Democrats, I don't see it as a separation between the too liberal Democrat and the conservative Democrat. Kerry wasn't too liberal; he was just a bad campaigner. The Republicans created a straw man Kerry and beat the hell out of him. Kerry didn't have the ability to fight back and bring emotion to his candidacy. There was nothing for people to be proud about in Kerry - no hope for something better. Now you might disagree with the policies of some of the Democrats who could be nominated, but that doesn't mean they aren't potential winners.

[Mr. Kotter]

McCain taking the VP position right now would do more to hurt him then help him. The rough 2000 campaign has put a distance between Bush, the Republican Party, and him that is helpful right now. The last thing he wants to do is jump in on a lame duck, falling Presidency.

As for the Democrats, I don't see it as a separation between the too liberal Democrat and the conservative Democrat. Kerry wasn't too liberal; he was just a bad campaigner. The Republicans created a straw man Kerry and beat the hell out of him. Kerry didn't have the ability to fight back and bring emotion to his candidacy. There was nothing for people to be proud about in Kerry - no hope for something better. Now you might disagree with the policies of some of the Democrats who could be nominated, but that doesn't mean they aren't potential winners.

McCain's best way to avoid messy primaries, and to position himself for 2008, would be to take it; it wouldn't hurt Bush's image and legacy either. I do, agree, if the ideologues hold the power on the Republican side, like I think they still might, it's unlikely though.

You are just wrong about Kerry; yes, he was a bad campaigner, but 50% plus of America was convinced he was too liberal--because he is.

You read it here, first: unless a DLC or Bluedog Democrat wins the nomination, the ONLY way the Dems win....is if the Republicans nominate someone from the Santorum/Hatch/Gingrich wing of the party--and even then, Gingrich would beat Hillary.

[WoodDraw]

McCain's best way to avoid messy primaries, and to position himself for 2008, would be to take it; it wouldn't hurt Bush's image and legacy either. I do, agree, if the ideologues hold the power on the Republican side, like I think they still might, it's unlikely though.

I'm not sure it is possible for McCain to avoid a messy primary with his history. Jumping on a sinking ship and attaching himself to Bush would just hurt his best advantage - independents and moderate Democrats. But I see no effective way for Bush and McCain to work well together. If it were to happen, it would be a signal of Bush all but stepping aside which seems completely out of character for him.

You are just wrong about Kerry; yes, he was a bad campaigner, but 50% plus of America was convinced he was too liberal--because he is.

50% of the country was convinced he was too liberal because the Republicans successfuly painted him that way. Give me a canidate with actual charisma and I guarantee you he can win a Presidential election, even with Kerry's voting record.

You read it here, first: unless a DLC or Bluedog Democrat wins the nomination, the ONLY way the Dems win....is if the Republicans nominate someone from the Santorum/Hatch/Gingrich wing of the party--and even then, Gingrich would beat Hillary.

I'm not really sure what a DLC or Bluedog Democrat is anymore, other than a fancy name. No canidate is going to win based on what faction of the Democratic party they are in. It is all going to depend on whether they can sell the American public on their vision of the future, in contrast with the last eight years. I'm thinking it is going to be another "Are you better off now than you were X years ago?" election.

[WoodDraw]

Here's a Newsweek poll that kind of shows what I'm saying.

h. Is too liberal
Current Total 45 43 12 =100
Trends
(7/29-30/04) 40 50 10 =100
(7/8-9/04) 38 46 16 =100
(1/29-30/04) 32 45 23 =100


That's yes, no, don't know. Kerry trends from 32% thinking he is too liberal at the beginning of '04 to 45% by the Republican convention. I'll go searching for some better polling info later, but I'd bet you that Kerry will have strong negative trend lines in all similar questions while Bush stays fairly steady.

[Mr. Kotter]

I'm not sure it is possible for McCain to avoid a messy primary with his history. Jumping on a sinking ship and attaching himself to Bush would just hurt his best advantage - independents and moderate Democrats. But I see no effective way for Bush and McCain to work well together. If it were to happen, it would be a signal of Bush all but stepping aside which seems completely out of character for him.

Two years is an eternity in politics; McCain could appeal to the Republican base, and simultaneously hold onto enough "moderates" that a "low-key" but statesman like approach to a two year stint as VP would serve him well. As for Bush, he has NOTHING to lose.

50% of the country was convinced he was too liberal because the Republicans successfuly painted him that way. Give me a canidate with actual charisma and I guarantee you he can win a Presidential election, even with Kerry's voting record.

We'll have to disagree; his voting record gave Republican charges credence...that was his problem. Howard Dean and John Edwards had "charisma"....and you saw what happened to them--in the primaries. Either of those guys would have served the party better in the general election, on THAT note...

I'm not really sure what a DLC or Bluedog Democrat is anymore, other than a fancy name. No canidate is going to win based on what faction of the Democratic party they are in. It is all going to depend on whether they can sell the American public on their vision of the future, in contrast with the last eight years. I'm thinking it is going to be another "Are you better off now than you were X years ago?" election.

If the 2008 candidate comes from the Hillary/Jesse Jackson/Howard Dean faction of the party, the only hope the Dems would have of winning the general election, IMHO, is if the Republicans nominate an actual Neanderthal....fortunately, for Democrats perhaps, there will be a couple of Neanderthals running in the Republican primaries (Brownback, Santorum, etc)

[WoodDraw]

We'll have to disagree; his voting record gave Republican charges credence...that was his problem. Howard Dean and John Edwards had "charisma"....and you saw what happened to them--in the primaries. Either of those guys would have served the party better in the general election, on THAT note...

I don't know... I never felt inspired by Dean or Edwards. By charisma I don't mean the ability to talk in complete sentences. I want someone who has a vision that works and can passionately articulate it to the public. Find me that person and I'll place my money on him/her to win.

If the 2008 candidate comes from the Hillary/Jesse Jackson/Howard Dean faction of the party, the only hope the Dems would have of winning the general election, IMHO, is if the Republicans nominate an actual Neanderthal....fortunately, for Democrats perhaps, there will be a couple of Neanderthals running in the Republican primaries (Brownback, Santorum, etc)

I agree with what your saying, but I see that faction as being the shitty canidates faction, not so much the too liberal faction. Clinton's a good example. She's trying to run to the center, but it won't work. Not because she is too liberal, but because people don't care what she is talking about. She is cold and unable to get those who don't already like her to care about what she believes in. It's phoney.

I'm not saying that there's no such thing as too liberal, just that I'm not sure it exists in canidates capable of winning primaries. I'm also not sure what I'm saying is really making sense so maybe I should get some sleep and try to explain it better tomorrow. ;)

[banyon]

We'll have to disagree; his voting record gave Republican charges credence...that was his problem. Howard Dean and John Edwards had "charisma"....and you saw what happened to them--in the primaries. Either of those guys would have served the party better in the general election, on THAT note...

Charisma is not for winning the party's base, it's for winning the 20% in the middle who don't ID with either party. Bob Dole has 0 charisma and won his primary, same with Al Gore.

[Mr. Kotter]

Charisma is not for winning the party's base, it's for winning the 20% in the middle who don't ID with either party. Bob Dole has 0 charisma and won his primary, same with Al Gore.

And you've just put your finger on why the party keeps losing the general elections....they nominate for the base, and ignore the folks who will actually decide the election--or they try to dress their candidate up, unconvincingly, as a moderates (Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, now Hillary.) Dole was offered by Republicans as a sacrificial lamb--and to reward him for his "service" to the party; they knew 1996 was a lost cause.

The only times the Dems have won since '68? In '76, in the aftermath of Watergate; and twice with Clinton in the 90s....because he's been the one real "centrist" nominee out of the last 10 from the party. You'd think they would learn the lesson.

[Chiefs Express]

And you've just put your finger on why the party keeps losing the general elections....they nominate for the base, and ignore the folks who will actually decide the election--or they try to dress their candidate up, unconvincingly, as a moderates (Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, now Hillary.) Dole was offered by Republicans as a sacrificial lamb--and to reward him for his "service" to the party; they knew 1996 was a lost cause.

The only times the Dems have won since '68? In '76, in the aftermath of Watergate; and twice with Clinton in the 90s....because he's been the one real "centrist" nominee out of the last 10 from the party. You'd think they would learn the lesson.

That's not something they have been known for in the past as well as pretty much beyond their collective abilities.