Rolling politics thread...

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 08:45:55

Ha Ha Curt.

Looks like Huckabee only got this far because everyone underestimated him and let him be. Since he's taken the top spot, the skeletons won't stop busting through the closet.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:36:53

VoxOrion wrote:Ha Ha Curt.

Looks like Huckabee only got this far because everyone underestimated him and let him be. Since he's taken the top spot, the skeletons won't stop busting through the closet.

Just over on Redstate--the Dumond stuff is getting some attention there, but nothing about his statements regarding AIDS yet.

by **dajafi** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 15:33:51

Shorter Hillary: I Want to be President Because I Want to be President

(note: I'm quoting the whole answer because, one, this is the response she gave when asked point-blank why she wants the job, and I think you need to see the whole thing in its stunning lack of substance to fully get the point; and two, as a spoken answer to a spoken question I don't think there's a copyright/intellectual property issue... but I'll pull it down if Vox/others disagree, and/or pay the Clinton campaign 100 percent of whatever money I make off posting this here.)

"I think I have the best chance to win and I think I would be the best president. Whoever we nominate is going to have to be prepared to run a vigorous campaign against the full array of the Republican attack machine. I have been vetted for 15 years. You know everything about me probably including my blood type and there aren’t going to be any surprises. And I know what it takes to run against Republicans who are coming at you full bore and I know what it takes to beat them.

You know, when I ran for the Senate in 2000 I had a very vigorous campaign. I ran first against Mayor Giuliani and then he dropped out and then I ran against a young congressman who had the full force of the Republican party behind him. Between him and former Mayor Giuliani they raised and outspent me two to one. They ran ads against me accusing me of everything.

But I know what it takes to stand your ground and defeat Republicans and I have a track record that proves that. Nobody else has been through it in the way I have been through it. And I think it’s going to be important to have somebody who will be ready immediately in the campaign to stand up and fight back.

Secondly, for 35 years I have been working in the private sector, the advocacy world, as well as the public sector, on a broad range of experience that I think has given me the insight and understanding about how our country works and that will equip me to deal with the full range of problems we’re going to face.

And uniquely I have eight years of being in the White House as part of a presidential team working on issues from healthcare to welfare reform, to changing our adoption and foster care system, to representing our country around the world in more than 80 countries.

And it’s impossible to describe how difficult this job is on a daily basis because in the modern world it’s getting harder and harder because the demands are greater and you’ve got all kinds of incoming pressures every single minute of every single day.

And I have the experience now of having been on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue when I won that first race for the Senate, much to everyone’s surprise who said that I wouldn’t. And then I went to work for the people who sent me to the Senate, the people of New York, to get results for them, to bring economic development to rural areas, to work with the family farms – we have 34,000 of them in New York – to bring broadband to rural areas, to look for ways to improve the lives of the people I represented. So that when I ran again I was re-elected with 67 per cent of the vote, in Republican areas as well as Democratic areas.

So my range of experience is broader and deeper and I think well equips me for doing the tough job we have to have done starting as soon as you’re inaugurated. We’re not going to have any time to waste, we’re not going to have any margin for error and I believe that I can be the president that we need starting on January 20th 2009 and I hope you’ll look at my website and look at what I’m proposing and keep your mind open. Thank you.”

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 15:36:21

I just don't see it, Jeff. Seems like a strong answer to me.

What would you prefer? "Heal the world"?

by **The Red Tornado** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 15:41:02

It's probably the most honest thing she's said

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 15:48:17

I think it matters whether the question was why she wanted to be president or why she should be the nominee. If it was the latter, I think the answer is fine. If it is the former, I think it's a little weird she spent all that time talking about being able to win.

by **The Red Tornado** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 15:51:12

jerseyhoya wrote:I think it matters whether the question was why she wanted to be president or why she should be the nominee. If it was the latter, I think the answer is fine. If it is the former, I think it's a little weird she spent all that time talking about being able to win.

kinda like climbing mount everest

(because it's there)

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 16:09:40

It's obvious she wants another crack at that furniture. And this time, she won't wait until the last few weeks of her administration.

by **dajafi** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 18:24:05

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I just don't see it, Jeff. Seems like a strong answer to me.

What would you prefer? "Heal the world"?

Think of it this way. Here's my list of why I think various other candidates are running--what they want to do in office.

Obama: reform, generational change
Edwards: economic and social justice
Biden: put the grownups back in charge of foreign policy
Dodd: restore the rule of law
Kucinich: enact the workers' paradise
Gravel: get the ducks off my damn lawn
Giuliani: Bush didn't go far enough on those war, secrecy or executive-power things
Tancredo: I hates the dark-skinned peepuls
Paul: smaller government, more freedom for better and for worse
Huckabee: maybe "compassionate conservatism" works if the guy in charge is competent

Weed out the smartassery and you get my point: these candidates all have articulated a rationale, a narrative, for their campaign. The only ones I see who haven't are Clinton and Romney to a great extent, and McCain and Richardson to a lesser extent. In McCain's case, he at least once had a very clear and compelling narrative--"national greatness conservatism." Richardson might have a broad theme, but he's proven such an incompetent candidate that I can't tell what it is.

That leaves the panderers, Clinton and Romney. Aside from Boomer self-infatuation and Type-A personality competitiveness, I don't get why they're in the race and I have no idea what they want to do.

(And no, I don't accept "bring back the 1990s" or "I have two x chromosomes" as compelling visions. The former is absurd on its face as a course of action, and the latter might be compelling but doesn't tell us anything about why she wants the job, other than TRT's Everest analogy.)

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 23:42:27

The first "negative" ad!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hei8iDK61do&e[/youtube]

Mike Huckabee better enjoy his Newsweek cover and such. It's going to get worse before it gets better. And I'm guessing it's never going to get better. Eh, he had his fifteen minutes.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 01:41:25

While Dana Perino is just the White House Press Secretary and isn't involved in policy making, she is a senior White House official...

Dana Perino don't know jack about the Cuban Missile Crisis

MS. PERINO: I had a situation the other day when they said President Putin thought that our missile defense program was like the Cuban Missile Crisis, and so I got asked about the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I was - panicked a bit because I really know about nothing - (chuckles) - about the Cuban Missile Crisis.

MR. BLOUNT: It was just last week.

MS. PERINO: It had to do with Cuba and missile, I'm pretty sure.

MR. SAGAL: Yeah, it had to do - it did in fact have to do with Cuba and missiles, Dana.

MS. PERINO: Yeah, so I'll have to get back to you on that.

MR. SAGAL: Really? Like, "I have to go Google this..."

MR. ROCCA : It's a tropical drink. You should try it on spring break.

MS. PERINO: Well, I came home and I asked my husband -

MR. SAGAL: Yeah?

MS. PERINO: I said, wasn't that like the Bay of Pigs thing?

MR. SAGAL: (Gasps.)

MS. PERINO: And he said, "Oh, Dana."

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 09:38:34

unbelievable.

by **The Red Tornado** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:11:34

we're missing the "tee hee" part at the end

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:16:51

Monkeyboy wrote:believable.

by **VoxOrion** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:13:50

Makes you miss Tony Snow (then again, I don't think people really disliked him that much, did they?)

by **Woody** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:21:36

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20050406.html

by **VoxOrion** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:35:15

Interesting read - nothing none of us already didn't have a sense of. For those of you tracking the evil party of torture vote, I think I'm leaning Thompson at this point, which surprises me as much as anyone.

Among Republicans, 76 percent of respondents said that they could still change their mind about who to support, compared with 23 percent who said their decision was firm. Among Democrats, 59 percent said they might change their mind.

LOL:

the poll found, but more Democrats said Mrs. Clinton could bring the country together than those who said Mr. Obama was someone who could unite different groups

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:38:21

VoxOrion wrote:
Among Republicans, 76 percent of respondents said that they could still change their mind about who to support, compared with 23 percent who said their decision was firm. Among Democrats, 59 percent said they might change their mind.

LOL:

the poll found, but more Democrats said Mrs. Clinton could bring the country together than those who said Mr. Obama was someone who could unite different groups

I've suspected that Democratic primary voters were utterly delusional (how else could you explain Michael Dukakis?) but this confirms it.

That's almost as crazy as thinking nominating Mitt Romney.

by **phuturephillies** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:10:47

A choice between Huckabee and Clinton is pretty much my Doomsday scenario

by **VoxOrion** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 13:21:35

TenuredVulture wrote:I've suspected that Democratic primary voters were utterly delusional (how else could you explain Michael Dukakis?) but this confirms it.

That's almost as crazy as thinking nominating Mitt Romney.

That's an interesting point. The GOP has presented duds like Dole and Ford, but for the most part (before this cycle), their candidates were pretty much the "right" guy, even if he wasn't electable or who the country wanted at the time.

I read something recently (a liberal and conservative pundit were doing a back and forth) where a Democrat was saying that it took a long time for the Democrats to snap out of it and realize that America wasn't interested in the politics of Dukakis, Carter and Mondale - the realization was reflected in Bill Clinton. He suggested that the Republican party is clearly going through something similar right now when you look at the field of primary candidates. The conservative agreed - it's a weird time and Bush brought a lot of conservative issues to a head, when he wasn't altering and changing them. Some might say this is good - Huckabee's Compassionate Conservativism 2.0 (or Republican Progressive), Thompsons more traditional Reagan Republicanism, McCain's... McCainism, Guiliani's half liberal half far right winger, etc. It's going to be interesting to see how it shakes out and which interests seemed to cause it to shake out the way it did. No matter what, I don't think it will in the next year.

Archived

Rolling politics thread...