Writing on RealClearPolitics.com today, Steven Stark offers his assessment, based on historical trends and individual appeal, of each major presidential candidate's chances at winning the White House next November. Of course, the assessment is hypothetical, based on the assumption that each candidate would secure his or her party's nomination.
First on his list is Senator John McCain, GOP candidate from Arizona. Stark says McCain is well known and trusted (by whom, I'm not sure), and that he has appeal to some Democrats and independents. How that's good for conservatives I can't quite figure out. McCain may not be doing so well in GOP circles, Stark says, but in a general election he's the guy with the best of chance of winning--unless Iraq falls apart.
The next one on the list I really don't understand. According to Stark's list, former Senator John Edwards comes in second in electability next Fall and his winning of the Democratic nomination would put some Republican states, like Virginia, into the questionable column for the GOP nominee. I still see Edwards as the shady trial lawyer that he is, and his extremely liberal views are not embraced by a majority of American voters.
Another GOP candidate comes in third--former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, because America's mayor pulls an Edwards for Republicans by putting New Jersey and Pennsylvania into question for Democrats. The danger, Stark warns, is that a Rudy nomination by Republicans might cause a third party social conservative candidate to enter the race, a move that could hand the White House to Democrats.
Stark has Senator Clinton and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee tied for fourth on his list, with Senator Barack Obama coming in sixth for electability to the presidency. Bringing up the tail end, Stark places Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson seventh and eighth, respectively.
I take his assessment for what it is--his opinion on the likelihood of any one candidate winning the White House next November. But what concerns me is the attitude toward "electability." My hope is that Republicans are more concerned about a candidate that best represents conservative values, and not about redefining conservativism to fit a candidate that has the best chance of winning. I can understand wanting to keep the White House after the poor showing by Republican candidates in November 2006. But I am convinced that the backlash against the GOP had as much to do with the Republican controlled Congress straying from conservative principles as it did with public dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq.
In the end, Republicans will likely support whichever candidate has the "R" after his name on the ballot. But it is important that whoever ultimately wins the GOP nomination best represents the majority of conservative voters and not the best odds of beating the Democratic candidate.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 37
Overall, the candidate who would win in an absolute landslide against any other candidate is John Edwards. His "extremely liberal views" just happen to be completely in line with what the vast majority of Americans favor, he's not a corporate whore, he's an honest and decent man, and he is not Bush, nor does he embrace any failed Bush policies.
Next in line of electability is Obama. Third would be Hillary, on name recognition if nothing else.
There isn't a single GOP candidate that has a chance, frankly, because they're either certifiably nuts, massive flip flopping hypocrites, or have fully embraced the failed policies of the worst president in US history. The average republican may not have quite figured this out yet, but the election of 2006 was a harbinger of things to come. The American voting public has finally come to realize how harmful the republican policies of massive federal government, massive federal debt, endless wars of aggression, lack of real national security, pro-corporatist/anti-union/anti-middle-class, anti-environment, anti-education, anti-social security, anti-health care, etc. really are to society and to American ideals.
Btw, the least of Romney's issues will be his odd religious beliefs. Only the extreme radicals that call themselves "fundamentalists" or "evangelicals" truly care about that, and they make up but a tiny sliver of the electorate. By FAR, his greater issues to be concerned with are his seeming inability to tell the truth, his obsessive flip flopping, and of course, his adherence to Bush policies that the American public has soundly rejected.
Just goes to show you that you have neevr actually heard the dumbest thing ever said on this website until you log on each new day and check out what Clark has written.
Clark rights about Romney's inability to tell the truth and then claims that Hillary is electable. That is the perfect example of the pot and the kettle.
What Clark doesn't realize is that the Dems will nominater Hillary and she will lose in a massive landslide to Mitt Romney much the way Reagan beat Mondale in 1984.
Romney does have the most superior resume by far. Typical moonbat Clark grossly underestimates the absolute hatred of the Clinton's that we on the right and many in the middle possess. Moonbats like komrade Kent think they hate Bush... all I have to say about that is"you ain't seen nothing yet." When Hillary is the Dem nominee...records for republican voter turnout will not only be broken but shattered.
And of course I will be arounf to gloat and rub it in because I hate you Clark.
Gee...you got me there, I guess. I'm stumped. You've provided such overwhelming "proof" to back your definitive and intelligent statement that I'm at a loss to even respond. In fact, every time you respond to any thread that I post on, and you do seem to follow me around an awful lot, which I guess makes sense when somebody has deep admiration for someone, you never fail to produce ample documentation to back up every single one of your statements.
It's simply impossible for anyone to refute anything that you say, because you back everything up. You never just cock off with some pointless, unfounded nonsense with no basis in reality. You're Mr. Encyclopedia of documented facts, and it's so awesome just to be in your presence, let alone to know that you have so much admiration for me that you can't help but comment on my comments.
"Romney does have the most superior resume by far."
Anybody can lie and flip flop. Look at our current resident. It's not an attribute that most would consider worthy, although I can certainly understand why you would.
"Clark grossly underestimates the absolute hatred of the Clinton's that we on the right "
"I hate you Clark. "
But gee...I thought it was only the left that was filled with seething, irrational, lunatic-fringe hatred?
"records for republican voter turnout will not only be broken but shattered."
HAHAHAHAHAHEHEHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Good one! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!
"And of course I will be arounf to gloat and rub it in"
My guess is that you'll be changing your name yet again on 11/5.
Is Pat Paulsen still around?
I'd have to say any of the GOP candidates who support the ultra-conservative Bush policies like massive deficit spending, no child, medicare part B, "guest workers," raising the "artificial" debt ceiling above $9 trillion, continued open-ended occupation of Iraq sans any benchmarks whatsoever, etc., etc., etc.
Barry Goldwater is positively gleeful at the state of the GOP under Dubya's leadership.
No doubt, the nation will turn to the candidate who represents the most consistent continuation of his policies.
McCain in a shoe-in. You heard it here first.
You're joking, right? What makes you think the nation wants bush on steroids at this point? We really want MORE debt, MORE lies, MORE irresponsible and reckless leadership, MORE endless military quagmires, MORE corruption, and even LESS accountability? Get real. Ghouliani will never make it through another 2 months of primaries. Trust me, there's a very good reason why he's tanking faster than dumbya. The public is learning some truth about him, and would bath in vomit to get rid of him.
Huckabee...yeah, there's a lovely choice. Let's have another clueless religio-nutcase in office. Perfect. We can just abolish science altogether, tear down our houses, and live in caves, following the strict guidelines that Moses handed down. God, help save us from your followers.
Actually, the fact that Gomer is even being considered at this point is a screaming testament to how truly abysmal this year's GOP pool is. People are so desperate to move away from what the GOP has become that they're willing to latch onto a certifiable lunatic. I guess you could actually say that about any of the pathetic GOP "front runners." None of them is worth a shit, and none of them would have a prayer if there were anything left of the republican party, but, since the party has been literally destroyed by years of abusing the electorate, massive corruption, fraud, dishonest, and incompetence, the faithful few that remain loyal to the party are actually considering the likes of Fred Thompson, Rudy Guliani, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney, even though NONE of these candidates reflects true conservative ideals of the past. It's just downright sad what the religio-freaks and neocons have done to this party.
Remember, this is a state by state contest, and neither Hillary nor Obama takes a single state in the south in the general election.
Not only have polls consistently show the majority of the public to side with democratic ideals since 2006, but a recent Gallup Poll found that Edwards would be any GOP candidate by a wider margin than any other democratic candidate. I believe the smallest margin against any GOP candidate was something in the 20% range.
"The truth is that the country is pretty evenly divided and Republicans will vote for whoever has the R behind their name rather than vote for Hillary or Obama."
That's simply not true. There are approximately 44% of the voting public that is democrat, 35% that is republican, and the rest are independent, meaning that they'll go either way. The independents are the ones who've really been determining election outcomes over the past few decades. They very solidly swung democratic in the last election. There is no more "evenly divided" anymore.
Besides that, the fact is that many GOP voters will undoubtedly sit the next election out, rather than vote for a Ghouliani, a Chucklebee, or a Flip Flopney.
"Not to mention that both provide impetus to go to the polls rather than stay home in disgust. "
For you, perhaps, but not for enough to even give the GOP a chance at the white house in '08. Sorry, but your candidates all suck. None of them is drawing more than 20% support right now. That doesn't translate into grand support for any of them.
"Remember, this is a state by state contest, and neither Hillary nor Obama takes a single state in the south in the general election. "
Don't count on that. Obama has a real solid chance of taking more than one southern state, and let's not forget the pesky little fact that even in the south, the GOP is losing support in droves.
The simple, harsh fact is that the public has seen what today's republican party is all about, and they've soundly rejected it. We're sick of endless corruption, endless reckless debt spending, endless wars of aggression against nations that pose no threat, endless abuse of power, endless scandal, endless religious intolerance, endless bigotry and racial intolerance, endless divisivness, and a complete lack of accountability.
As for the poll on Edwards, I've seen multiple polls that show McCain and Giuliani beating any Democratic candidate. CNN gives Democrats the edge, Fox the same for Republicans. It's way too early to tell and Edwards can't even manage to get decent support from within his own party. And he represents the ideals the vast majority embrace? Hell, he couldn't even help Kerry carry North Carolina in 2004. What do the people in NC know that the rest of us should be wise to?
"The independents are the ones who've really been determining election outcomes over the past few decades." Then explain the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress, the holding of Congress until 2006, and Bush's election in 2000 and again in 2004. One Democrat victory in the last election does not make for a trend with independents. And the country doesn't get any more evenly divided than the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections.
"...the fact is that many GOP voters will undoubtedly sit the next election out, rather than vote for a Ghouliani, a Chucklebee, or a Flip Flopney." Simply not true. You are speculating. I travel in significant Republican circles and can tell you that the overwhelming consensus is that GOPers will vote for whoever wins the nomination. Period. Oh, and the thought of President Hillary Clinton just motivates Republicans like you wouldn't believe.
"Sorry, but your candidates all suck." As do yours. Seriously, you couldn't do better than your two frontrunners? One is despised by 50% of America and the other is an African-American with "Hussein" as a middle name. It is a sad and unfortunate, but true nonetheless, fact that America is not ready for Senator Obama, no matter how charismatic and appealing he may be. I personally wish voters would judge him on his ideas, but we as a nation have not gotten there yet. Hopefully soon, but we are not there yet.
"Obama has a real solid chance of taking more than one southern state, and let's not forget the pesky little fact that even in the south, the GOP is losing support in droves." Name one. Seriously, name one where he has a realistic shot.
Who's living in a fantasy world? Polling since 2006 has consistently shown the majority of America siding with democratic ideals. Sorry, but them's the facts. You clearly haven't been paying attention to the polling.
Just look down a list of key issues on voter's minds, and ask yourself which one favors republicans. The ONLY issue that republicans are even CLOSE on (and this is literally neck and neck at this point) is national security. On every other issue, social security, education, environment, fiscal responsibility, Iraq, health care, etc., the public favors democratic ideals. Your party has lost whatever principles and values it may have once had, and the American public has finally figured it out.
"As for the poll on Edwards, I've seen multiple polls that show McCain and Giuliani beating any Democratic candidate. "
McCain is, by far, the only real hope for the GOP in 2008, but he wouldn't win. His tight alliance with the worst presidency in US history over the previous 8 years would destroy him in a general election.
"It's way too early to tell and Edwards can't even manage to get decent support from within his own party."
He's not being given equal time by the corporate media. He is the one candidate that strikes the most fear into every corporate entity, not the least of which the mega-conglomerate media. He will dismantle their monopoly and they know it.
"Then explain the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress"
Brilliant marketing through the rightwing media, that fooled enough independents into voting against their own best interests. The rightwing media used Clinton's budget proposal of 1993 to catapult themselves into power in congress in 1994. It was brilliant marketing.
Btw, that was 1994. We're talking about 2008 right now. Things change. Independent voters don't lock themselves into a party. That's why we're called "independent."
"holding of Congress until 2006, and Bush's election in 2000 and again in 2004."
Both the past 2 presidential elections were stolen, so those hardly count as a "mandate" for republicans. 2002 and 2004 also saw widescale election fraud in congressional elections, including bizarre vote flipping with electronic machines, that caused all pundits watching given races to say "WTF?" Additionally, republicans marketed fear in both 2002 and 2004, and smeared their opponents with allegations of supporting terrorists. Complete bullshit tactics, but, they allowed just enough doubt to creep into some people's minds to cause them to once again vote against their own best interests.
You'd be far more likely to find accurate trending by looking at polling on specific issues, rather than past elections, which were marred with numerous questionable tactics, outright fraud, and the false aura cast by 9/11. On specific issues, the American public has rejected republicans.
Religion and politics - NO
Gutting Social Security - NO
Destroying the environment - NO
Massive corruption in government - NO
Total lack of accountability - NO
Gutting public education - NO
Gutting funding for infrastructure - NO
Privatizing EVERYTHING - NO
Iraq - NO
Allowing insurance and pharmaceuticals to rape us - NO
Corporate cronies in positions of power - NO
Massive, hyper-intrusive government - NO
Illegal spying on US citizens - NO
Illegal torture and rendition - NO
Stripping away of civil liberties - NO
Massive debt - NO
As I said before, the only issue that you can actually even claim to be close on is national security, but that's yet another fraud, and when it's exposed as what it is, that falls apart. Are the borders secure? Are the ports secure? Is Bin Laden behind bars? Is al Qaeda demolished? Is the anthrax killer behind bars? Do we REALLY know what happened on 9/11, so we know that it cannot happen again? It's nothing but a myth that republicans and republicans alone can offer national security. In fact, as we've seen since 9/11, the exact opposite is actually true.
"Simply not true. You are speculating."
So are you. I know a helluva lot of republicans who want nothing to do with any of these motley crew of cheaters, liars, religio-freaks, and corrupt scoundrels. Trust me, the evangelical religio-nuts are NOT going to vote for habitual adulterer and liar Rudy, or flip-flopper Mitt. And, the anti-immigration and fearmongering crowd is NOT going to vote for Huckabee. Your only hope is McCain. Trust me on this. Your party is in disarray, and is being shattered to pieces. None of your freakish front runners will resolve that. McCain MIGHT be able to.
"Oh, and the thought of President Hillary Clinton just motivates Republicans like you wouldn't believe. "
The Clinton haters will always be a factor, and that is the greatest concern for most democrats, including those who support her. However, the GOP field is astonishingly weak this year. Any other election, and you'd have a point. Not this one. You simply have nothing to offer, and most people recall 8 years of peace and prosperity associated with the Clinton's as being sort of a good thing, now that we've seen the opposite. Don't allow yourself to forget the tremendous negative impact that harboring the worst president in US history will have on this upcoming election.
"As do yours. Seriously, you couldn't do better than your two frontrunners?"
Actually, I don't have any. I'm independent. However, any one of the democrats is infinitely favorable to any of the utter losers in the GOP race. Seriously. Your dudes have some VERY serious defects. Sure, Hillary is a Clinton, and Obama's name will be smeared by morons and bigots, but neither one of them has even near the ugly baggage that a Guliani, a Romney, or a Huckabee has. Not only do they hold ideals that are in direct opposition to what the majority of America wants right now, but they've got serious, damning personal defects as well, any one of which could easily derail them in a general election.
Read and learn the trend:
http://peasantswithpitchforks.com/point/2007/06/13/conservative
-america-is-a-myth/
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/
MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173353684749
http://www.progressivestates.org/content/597/public-opinion-
supports-bold-progressive-leadership
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/05/17/livingwage_politics.php
"Name one. Seriously, name one where he has a realistic shot."
Just about anything is in play at this point. Even the rednecks are beginning to realize that they've been getting screwed sideways. You'll see. 2008 is going to bring democratic gains in congress that will make 1994 look like nothing. The white house will depend upon whether or not McCain gets the GOP nod, and whether or not the democrat can run a campaign anywhere above "incompetent." But, congress is going to be an absolutely landslide. Any GOP candidate but McCain will also ensure a landslide democratic victory for the white house as well.
He claims the 1994 congressional wins by the GOP was a media trick but that the 2006 wins by the Dems was a true indicator of what the AMerican public desires. He always wants to have it both ways.
He claims that all of the GOP candidates have more political baggage than Hillary?
What planet has this guy been living on for the past 20 years?
Planet moonbat.
It's nice to see others calling this idiot out on his ever increasingly deslusional bullshit.
I wonder if he will have to be committed after the GOP retains the white house in 2008.
"You clearly haven't been paying attention to the polling." Depends on the polling source.
"On every other issue, social security, education, environment, fiscal responsibility, Iraq, health care, etc., the public favors democratic ideals." There's no way. Social Security, okay, but that's because people like the idea of a government safety net. But Democrat answers to education (throw more at continually failing schools), environment (an international treaty that is so bad for the American economy that Bill Clinton wouldn't even agree to it--not to mention a global warming theory based on incomplete science), fiscal responsibility (Rangel's proposed mother of all tax increases), Iraq (rapidly fading as an issue), and health care (socialized--where will the Canadians go now?) offer nothing new and nothing that the general public is willing to embrace.
"Your party has lost..." Yes, Republicans in Washington have lost their way, but voter disgust with a loss of conservative values does not equal the embracing of democratic values. Two different monsters.
"McCain is, by far, the only real hope for the GOP in 2008, but he wouldn't win. His tight alliance with the worst presidency in US history over the previous 8 years would destroy him in a general election." Only when talking about Iraq, which is fading as an issue. Other than the war his views are closer to moderates and Democrats than they are to Republicans. As for Iraq, even Nancy Pelosi has said she is shifting away from Iraq in 2008 as a key issue. Couldn't be because the place isn't falling apart anymore, could it?
"He's not being given equal time by the corporate media." Typical tactic. Blame someone else. The fact that Edwards is NOT the most desirable democratic candidate has nothing to do with it, I'm sure.
"Brilliant marketing through the rightwing media, that fooled enough independents into voting against their own best interests. The rightwing media used Clinton's budget proposal of 1993 to catapult themselves into power in congress in 1994. It was brilliant marketing." Again, someone else's fault. It must be tough for Democrats to be so right and have the entire world conspire against them.
"Things change. Independent voters don't lock themselves into a party. That's why we're called "independent."" Yes they do. My caution to you was not to read too much into one election. The trend line is Republican, with only the last election favoring Democrats. That may well change, but one election does not mean anything for historical purposes.
"Both the past 2 presidential elections were stolen..." Now you're just being idiotic.
Religion and politics - NO--I agree here.
Gutting Social Security - NO--again, safety net, but the Congress needs to stop spending SS revenues on other projects.
Destroying the environment - Prove man is the cause. The science is incomplete, despite Al Gore's claims; wonder why he won't agree to a debate on the issue (someone might call him on his theory).
Massive corruption in government - Look no further than Clinton Inc. and a host of congressional members of BOTH parties.
Total lack of accountability - Are we talking about Clinton again?
Gutting public education - Throwing money at public schools has done nothing in 40 years. Why keep upping the ante with no tangible results?
Gutting funding for infrastructure - Talk to the democratic congress that voted to keep earmarks in the appropriations bills this year instead of increasing funding for infrastructure repair. By the way, despite Ms. Pelosi's pledge to cut earmarks in half, the total for the year ended about the same as under Republican congresses.
Privatizing EVERYTHING - Private industry does virtually everything more efficiently than government does.
Iraq - Disappearing as an issue.
Allowing insurance and pharmaceuticals to rape us - Supply / Demand; free market?
Corporate cronies in positions of power - How is this any different from when Democrats are in charge? It's the way of the world.
Massive, hyper-intrusive government - The definition of the Democratic Party.
Illegal spying on US citizens - correction, terrorism suspects
Illegal torture and rendition - prove it; and how are international agreements with other nations involving prisoner transfers illegal?
Stripping away of civil liberties - Which of your civil liberties have been stripped?
Massive debt - Another Democratic hallmark, unless of course we raise taxes.
"Are the borders secure? Are the ports secure?" Talk to Congress about authorizing measures but not appropriating the funds for them. "Is Bin Laden behind bars?" Irrelevant to a global war on terror, no matter how satisfying his capture or killing might be for Americans. It's not all about one man. "Is al Qaeda demolished?" Yes, the core group under bin Laden and Zawahiri. Fringe groups with questionable ties to the original aq-Qaeda are losing around the world. "Is the anthrax killer behind bars?" A law enforcement question, not a republican or democrat question. "Do we REALLY know what happened on 9/11, so we know that it cannot happen again?" Yes, 19 Muslim extremists hijacked four airplanes, killed the crews, and crashed 3 of them into buildings.
"...are NOTgoing to vote for habitual adulterer and liar Rudy, or flip-flopper Mitt. And, the anti-immigration and fearmongering crowd is NOT going to vote for Huckabee." They sure aren't going to sit home if Hillary is the nominee.
"...the GOP field is astonishingly weak this year." No argument here, but that doesn't translate into a guaranteed Democratic win nor an embracing of democratic ideals. "...8 years of peace and prosperity associated with the Clinton's..." Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia? "
Don't allow yourself to forget the tremendous negative impact that harboring the worst president in US history will have on this upcoming election." In twenty years, history will regard him as a visionary.
"Your dudes have some VERY serious defects." So do the Dems. And don't discount Hillary's baggage. It is significant, and that's just what we know about.
Again with the liberal web sites. How about something from a reputable source.
"Even the rednecks are beginning to realize that they've been getting screwed sideways." But that doesn't mean they'll vote for Hillary or Barack Hussein.
You'll see." Yes, Clark, we will see. I expect slight democratic gains in congress, but not because of agreement with democratic ideals. Rather it will be because of republican ineptitude.
The truth is that there are many instances of fraud in ALL elections. It's just not important to the Democratic leadership when they win.
C'mon, Greg. You're talking out of both side of your mouth. You've written, repeatedly, that, in your opinion, Iraq was a "poor choice" in the so-called war on terror.
History will look back and see what we've all already seen: no WMD, no connection to 9/11, no links to al Qaeda, no plan for an insurgency, de-baathification mistakes, corruption at every level ($9 billion in cold, hard cash simply growing legs and walking off, to cite just one glaring example), sectarian divides, a huge leg up for the only other Shia-dominated country in the region (our good friends Iran), a growing arms race led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia (the first shipment of the $20+ billion arms deal we recently did with the Saudis should be arriving soon), a return of the taliban to Afghanistan, Bin Laden living to a ripe old age and making more mischief with his al Qaeda buddines a la Bhutto, etc., etc., etc.
You cannot point to one single "visonary" accomplishment at the domestic or international level for this administration, and history will regard that in its propere light.
"I got a lot of Ph.D.-types and smart people around me who come into the Oval Office and say, 'Mr. President, here's what's on my mind.' And I listen carefully to their advice. But having gathered the device, I decide, you know, I say, 'This is what we're going to do.'" --George W. Bush, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
WMD was an intelligence failure, not a Bush failure. I've heard Senator Clinton make statements about the intel that was presented to her husband, and it was the same intel presented to Bush. The buck does stop at the top, but Bush is not the only world leader, or leading official in the U.S. that believed Saddam had WMD.
No links to al Qaeda, but Saddam was a supporter of Palestinian terrorism against Israel, which is a very thin connection to a global war on terror. Plan for the insurgency--no question that much blame belongs to the generals and planners at the Pentagon. To say they underestimated the task is to put it mildly. De-baathification was a bad decision, but what war does not involve bad decisions. The same can be said for the corruption. We can look at politicians from both parties in Washington to find corruption, no need to go to a war zone (not to mention that every war involves questionable uses of money / corruption).
Sectarian divides have existed in Iraq, and in the Middle East for generations. Iron-fisted dictatorships have been the solution in Iraq prior to OIF. Pick your poison.
Iran, got it. I've made the point myself about emboldening and strengthening Iran. And don't kid yourself, the Sunni-led arms race is in response to Iran on a number of levels, not just Iraq. Try sponsoring Hezbollah in Lebanon, pursuing nuclear technology that could be used for weapons at any point, being a state sponsor of terrorism. The Sunnis are worried about Iran, but it goes much deeper than just Iraq.
The taliban is losing in Afghanistan. Limited attacks that periodically make gains before being squashed again does not equate to a return of the taliban to Afghanistan. And as for bin laden, you know that I've said before one man does not make a difference in a global war on terror, even if it would be satisfying to see him brought to justice.
The vision is as I said: ridding the world of terror. A noble ideal that has been pursued poorly, for sure, but a noble ideal nonetheless. Tactics and strategy are not the same thing.
What's the point of the quote. It's no different for any president. He listens to advice and then makes a decision. That's what he's paid for.
I just got through explaining that. Thanks for not paying attention once again. Gee, I wonder why everything you say is always so full of ignorance?
It really doesn't matter if you two want to believe me and the polls or not. The 2008 election should serve to convince you. The American public has been trending progressive for quite some time. 9/11 and tainted elections managed to throw that trend aside briefly, but they will not do so in 2008. 2008 will mark a dramatic shift back to the center, away from the radical position of the rightwing extremists that have controlled the government in the recent past.
You don't have to believe me or the polls (from numerous polling outlets, mind you, not "liberal" sites). You can continue to ignore these facts for as long as you wish. You have nothing to back your beliefs. I have polls, which consisently show that independents have swung decidedly left, and appear cemented there. We'll see which is a more reliable method upon which to base beliefs, won't we? We'll see whether blind faith in ideology or documented polling results prove more accurate in predicting electoral outcomes.
As for 2000 and 2004, yes they were absolutely stolen. You can google up enough documented evidence to kill a herd of elephants, and the fraud goes FAR beyond the illegal caging and phone line jamming that the GOP has already been found guilty of. Again, if you choose to ignore the facts, that's fine. I can't force you to accept them. You can continue believing that both elections were completely valid, if you wish. That alone, however, will not make it so. The evidence is overwhelming and thoroughly convincing to anyone with the courage to actually view it.
"In November 2006, Howard Dean and Terry McAuliffe said they had thousands of lawyers ready to swoop in after the elections to challenge fraud."
There were thousands of lawyers and volunteers overseeing the elections, all across the nation. There simply was too much blinding light cast upon the elections for wide scale fraud to take place, as it had in previous elections.
"How is it that there is only challengeable fraud when Republicans win? "
What I find interesting is that there is documented proof of GOP election fraud, yet there never seems to be any to demonstrate democratic election fraud. Why is that, do you suppose? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that the companies that manufacture these mysterious voting machines that "count" votes behind closed doors are run by devoted GOP supporters, or perhaps, that US attorneys with non-partisan oversight have been replaced with partisan ideologues?
"The truth is that there are many instances of fraud in ALL elections."
There hasn't been the type of orchestrated, wide-scale, massive, multi-layered election fraud that we've seen since 2000. In fact, I can't recall a single election since 2000 that has been proven to have been swung democratic due to democratic fraud. Perhaps, you can prove me otherwise?
"It's just not important to the Democratic leadership when they win. "
Actually, the left has been howling for public oversight of elections ever since these "invisible" electronic voting machines began to appear, and began to demonstrate the mysterious ability to produce thousands of GOP votes in precincts with only a few hundred people registered, or to "magically" flip democratic votes to GOP votes overnight, or to simply defy every known polling method used prior to elections, and produce a "winner" that NOBODY would predict.
For years now, the left has been trying to get a paper trail for these machines, to get oversight for the management of them, or to get rid of them altogether. We're FINALLY beginning to make headway, as more and more states move to decertify them entirely, and there is a national lawsuit under way to attempt to prevent ALL states from using them at all.
If you are unaware of the dangers that these machines pose to a democratic society, I would strongly suggest that you begin doing some research into the subject, beginning with Bev Harris' site "blackboxvoting.org." On that site, she provides a free, downloadable E book that documents the overt, large-scale fraud that she was able to uncover after the first time that these machines appeared.
The fact is, election fraud is unacceptable at ANY level, and any REAL American would rail against it, regardless of which party was responsible for it. The left sees it for what it is: A direct assault against our democracy.
The "right" sees it as something to be protected and defended, and they do so by flatly refusing to read the moutains of documented evidence of wide-scale fraud, by turning the other way when secretaries of state are the chairmen of one party's statewide campaign, or when hundreds of thousands of legal, mostly black (i.e. democratic) voters are illegally removed from eligible voter lists, when tens of thousands of provisional ballots are thown away without being counted, when a corrupt and highly partisan supreme court oversteps its constitutional bounds and selects a president, when a corrupt movement steps in to stop a mandated statewide recount, when candidates' "wins" defy the most accurate polling method known to man (exit polling), when voters in democratic precincts are forced to stand for hours and hours in pouring rain because far too few voting machines are in place for them, when over 5,000 votes appear for one candidate and zero for the other in precincts in which only a few hundred people live, or when democratic votes are magically flipped to republican overnight, behind closed doors.
Luckily, there are enough people in this country that care that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to pull off the fraud, especially at the level that it's been conducted over previous elections. A blinding light has been shone on this, beginning in 2004, but especially in 2006. It's no coincidence at all that democrats swept so convincingly in 2006. I assure you that would not have been the case, had there not been thousands of lawyers and concerned volunteers watching the elections so closely.
If you wish to continue to disbelieve this, you're going to have to first embark upon some research to back your position. You simply saying "There was no fraud" isn't going to cut it, believe me. I can produce millions of links to support what I'm saying. If you can't do the same, or at least provide a significant number of credible sources to back your belief that there has been NO election fraud conducted by the GOP, you have no say in this issue. I've been studying this for years. Trust me, I've got a massive head start on you, and you're not going to sway me with your unfounded opinion.
The evidence at hand would seem to indicate otherwise. The Taliban now has a permanent presence in 54% of the country, and is poised to regain total control. Again, facts bely your position. But, I'm sure you can just brush them aside as coming from a "liberal" source, and therefore not worthy of consideration. That seems to be a habit of those from your political persuasion.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2007/1122/1195680558174.html
"And as for bin laden, you know that I've said before one man does not make a difference in a global war on terror"
This would seem a rather stunningly ignorant statement, considering that the US, and really, the entire western world, has long considered Bin Laden to be THE number ONE public enemy. How can you possibly hope to minimize or limit global terrorism without taking down your number one enemy? That simply makes no sense. Sure, it's easy to brush him aside, as your pretendident has done, but the fact that you can NOT deny is that our inability to capture him has absolutely harmed us by emboldening al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
If he had been immediately brought to justice, and his entire organization crushed, we would not even be discussing the threat at this point. Of course, that is the real reason why he has not, and never will be captured. It's rather difficult to justify the hundreds of billions of dollars in war profiteering cash, and the continued assault on our constitution and civil liberties when your enemy is gone. for as long as it takes to create another boogieman to hold in front of the public.
Not according to the intelligence that's been uncovered since the illegal invasion of Iraq. BushCheneyCorp intentionally removed parts of intelligence reports that didn't back their passion for war with Iraq, and liberally inserted fictitious claims that supported that goal.
The failure wasn't due to "bad intelligence," but rather, due to deliberate attempts to deceive, on the part of this corrupt white house. Just as has been said over and over and over again, by former white house insiders, this administration had made up its mind long before 9/11, that they were going to war with Iraq, and they set about making their case for that immediately. The moment 9/11 happened, Rumsfeld went around saying "This is our opportunity to hit Iraq."
"I've heard Senator Clinton make statements about the intel that was presented to her husband, and it was the same intel presented to Bush."
How can this possibly be true, when Clinton left office in 2000, and Bush was using (presumably) 2003 intelligence? Aside from this, the UN inspectors were doing their job, and finding nothing. Why weren't they allowed the additional 30 days that they requested, in order to complete their task? You don't suppose it could be because Bush knew that WMD would not be found, and couldn't risk losing all public support for his illegal invasion, do you? Nah. Can't be.
"No links to al Qaeda, but Saddam was a supporter of Palestinian terrorism against Israel"
This is yet another bullshit rational. In fact, Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations show as much "support" for these terrorists as Iraq ever did. The "support," btw, amounts to offering surviving family members financial support. And, surprise, surprise, 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were of Saudi descent. Not a single one was Iraqi. Go figure.
"Plan for the insurgency--no question that much blame belongs to the generals and planners at the Pentagon. To say they underestimated the task is to put it mildly
More blind rationalizations for complete failure. Guess what? The pentagon specifically told the white house how to prevent an insurgency, and also told them precisely what would happen if they went in with too few troops to begin with, and if they failed to secure the nation within a very short period of time.
The failure was absolutely NOT on the part of the pentagon. The white house INTENTIONALLY refused to follow the advice of leading military experts, specifically so that they could create chaos. There was no intention of stablizing Iraq once we invaded. It's far easier to steal a nation's wealth, and to war profiteer in the midst of vast, unchecked chaos. Why do you think bush left those hundreds of weapons caches unguarded, even after the UN offered to provide troops to guard them, to prevent looting? It was no accident, and it was not a failure on anyone's part. It was intentional.
"And don't kid yourself, the Sunni-led arms race is in response to Iran on a number of levels, not just Iraq."
The vast majority of funding for Sunni insurgents has come from Saudi Arabia. Good thing we're ignoring them.
"2008 will mark a dramatic shift back to the center, away from the radical position of the rightwing extremists that have controlled the government in the recent past." Extremists exist on both sides of the aisle, and I suspect any shift will not be nearly as dramatic as you believe.
"As for 2000 and 2004, yes they were absolutely stolen. You can google up enough documented evidence to kill a herd of elephants, and the fraud goes FAR beyond the illegal caging and phone line jamming that the GOP has already been found guilty of." Again, it's the GOP committing electoral fraud. Never the Democrats. I didn't realize you could find so many scholarly sources on google (note sarcasm).
"The evidence is overwhelming and thoroughly convincing to anyone with the courage to actually view it." Anyone on the left, that is. Your problem is that it is inconceivable to you that anyone else might have a different point of view.
"There simply was too much blinding light cast upon the elections for wide scale fraud to take place, as it had in previous elections." That's ridiculous. Fraud occurs in every district of every state in every election. But Democrats don't care when the fraud results in victory for them. Ask Mary Landrieu of my home state of Louisiana whose more than 10,000 votes from dead people got her re-elected to the Senate. No fraud there, I'm sure. Now, if the Republican had won......
Your conspiracy theories are out of control, my friend. It's all the big, bad GOP.
Documented proof from left wing sites is valid for those on the left, but it doesn't hold up in court, Clark. You want fair elections? How about picture ID cards at the polls? That's a start. Democrats object to that idea even when states offer to provide the ID cards free of charge to the poor.
You just keep on going in your conspiracy / fantasy world. We'll see in November. Democrats are sure to make some gains in congress, but the White House is up for grabs and any Democrat wins will be much less dramatic than you believe.
"If you are unaware of the dangers that these machines pose to a democratic society, I would strongly suggest that you begin doing some research into the subject..." As opposed to partisans trying to decipher what a voter meant by an indentation on a paper ballot?
"...a corrupt and highly partisan supreme court..." Would that be the Florida State Supreme Court?
You are so blinded by your hatred for the right that you rely on unscholarly documents found on the internet to support your beliefs. You believe that only the GOP is bad, when the reality is that significant elements of both parties are.
"You simply saying "There was no fraud" isn't going to cut it, believe me. I can produce millions of links to support what I'm saying." Again, millions of links to sites established by anybody with an internet connection. You ask me for credible sources, but your sources are only credible to conspiracy theorists and left wing republican haters. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true.
For the record, I didn't say the GOP hasn't committed election fraud. But the Democratic Party is just as guilty. That's the difference between you and I. You only see one side.
"You're not going to sway me with your unfounded opinion." Ditto.
If bin Laden were killed or captured today, someone else would step into his place. It's not about the man anymore.
And there you go with the conspiracy again. That damned GOP. Going to war just because they love it......
"...they were going to war with Iraq, and they set about making their case for that immediately." Have you read Woodward's book "Bush at War." Paints a different picture from what you're saying, if you're interested in a different point of view.
Rumsfeld, yes. Bush no.
"How can this possibly be true, when Clinton left office in 2000, and Bush was using (presumably) 2003 intelligence?" The intelligence has been ongoing since we went to war with Iraq in 1991. It's not like we all of a sudden decided Saddam had WMD, especially since he used them in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and against the Kurds within Iraq. This is not something new that arose when Bush was sworn in.
"...UN inspectors were doing their job, and finding nothing." Iraqi government obstruction did wonders. It's real tough to fool the UN. "Why weren't they allowed the additional 30 days that they requested, in order to complete their task?" Because they had twelve years to complete their task.
We've been down this road before and it is doubtful that any new arguments will be presented. So what's the point?
"This is yet another bullshit rational. In fact, Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations show as much "support" for these terrorists as Iraq ever did." Yes, and I have argued that Iraq was a poor choice of targets in a global war on terror.
The pentagon specifically told the white house how to prevent an insurgency, and also told them precisely what would happen if they went in with too few troops to begin with, and if they failed to secure the nation within a very short period of time." But Tommy Franks said he could do it with the forces available and in very short order.
"There was no intention of stablizing Iraq once we invaded. It's far easier to steal a nation's wealth, and to war profiteer in the midst of vast, unchecked chaos." Prove it.
I was there in OIF I, Clark, and we didn't have the manpower to secure all the weapons caches. Where would these UN troops have come from, given that all the member nations that were willing to participate were already in Iraq? Was the UN going to suddenly be able to convince France or Germany or anyone else to send troops to Iraq? Wishful thinking.
I hate to point out the obvious here, but "a world without terror" is hardly visionary. Any old every day pedestrian politician will tell you they envision a world without terror.
The execution of that "vision" is absolutely paramount. Clearly, and by your own admission, Dubya and the people he surrounded himself with got that part very wrong.
I've posted this before, and I'll do so again: whether Dubya and company lied about the intel on Iraq or simply fumbled it doesn't mean anything to the sum of the equations... which, of course, is that Iraq is a colossal military/geopolitical blunder for which Bush will rightfully be remembered throughout history.
It will be left to his successors to straighten this mess out over the coming decades, and they will get any credit for "fixing" Dubya's visionary blunder.
You've blithely excused away pretty much everything this administration has done over the course of the last seven years without really standing up and saying "Bush got it right, and here are specific examples of where and how."
We were wrong to not finish the job in Afghanistan, capture bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda there. We were wrong to invade Iraq. We are wrong to continue an open-ended occupation of Iraq. We were wrong to run up record debt and threaten the financial futures of succeeding generations, etc. etc., etc.
I challenge you to point specifically to where Bush got it right both in ideal and in execution on anything of any consequence either domestic or international.
His presidency has been a disaster for this country and will have lasting negative consequences for may years to come.
To your original question regarding electability: if the GOP nominee stands before this nation and declares that Bush got it right, and they will continue to work within his framewok, they will get slaughtered at the polls. I don't care who they run against.
"I'm with Bush" is a political death wish.
"Iraq is a colossal military/geopolitical blunder for which Bush will rightfully be remembered throughout history." Iraq isn't over yet. What if it stabilizes? It will then be the shortest insurgency in history. It's not guaranteed to fail, yet.
"You've blithely excused away pretty much everything this administration has done over the course of the last seven years without really standing up and saying "Bush got it right, and here are specific examples of where and how." I have excused hardly anything, but instead have pointed out that there is much we don't know and definitive statements about lies and illegal wars are not based in fact but in partisanship. There is plenty I do not like about President Bush and I don't think he's a very good president at all. But I put that aside when looking at strategic national security interests for the nation.
"We were wrong not to finish the job in Afghanistan, capture bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda there." We turned Afghanistan over to NATO, a military alliance we are in with critical allies. Bin Laden is irrelevant at this point except for the satisfaction of Americans who want to see him dead or captured as vindication for 9/11, and al Qaeda is essentially destroyed. Bin laden controls nothing at this point. He's too busy looking over his shoulder for American bombs and missiles. Splinter groups across the globe have become more active, many claiming a link to al Qaeda where one does not exist, except perhaps in Afghanistan and the Maghreb.
"We are wrong to continue an open-ended occupation of Iraq." Is it an occupation if we are now there at the request of an elected Iraqi government with a mandate from the United Nations? Inconvenient facts that should be included when talking about an "occupation." If al-Malike went on TV tomorrow and said he wanted us out, we would have no choice but to leave.
"I challenge you to point specifically to where Bush got it right both in ideal and in execution on anything of any consequence either domestic or international." I haven't said he did get it right. I've said he had the constitutional authority, funded by the congress, and that there was not sufficient evidence to say he lied.
"I'm with Bush" is a political death wish. Probably. I'm sure that's why he's not on the campaign trail for anyone. But the next election isn't about Bush, it's about what's best for the country, and so far I'm not impressed with anyone that's running.
Without us, al-Maliki is done.
Last summer, Iraq's parliament voted to endorse that the renewal of the UN Security Council mandate for the American occupation for 2008 be submitted to a vote in parliament. In that vote, 144 members of the 275-member body voted to make clear that the parliament gets a say. The Iraqi constitution (Article 73, Section 2) requires that any international treaties and agreements be subject to a two-thirds approval by the parliament.
Prime Minister al-Maliki flagrantly ignored both the parliamentary vote and the constitutional requirement. He submitted the request to the UNSC on his own authority, and got it.
In addition, poll after poll show a clear majority of Iraqis want us to leave their country.
We are occupying that country at the "request" of a leader we helped to power and who without our support would topple. Pretty convenient arrangement to get around using the term "occupation."
And explain to me again why Bush is dead set against benchmarks for gauging progress in Iraq and determining when we will no longer need to accept our "invitation" to stay there?
None of them has one bit of a notion what is like to be me - to live the way I live - out of choice AND necessity because the economy is so bad and the housing market is so bad, and the war in Iraq is bankrupting America.
The highest standard of living our family enjoyed was during the Clinton years -- that's Bill Clinton, not Hillary. Doesn't mean he was a great president - just means I won't be voting for a single Republican this go round:~)
I understand what you're saying about the Iraqi Constitution (which is being re-written because of its many flaws), and I think the section you're referring to is Article 58, section 4, which covers treaties and agreements. Truth is that the mandate is from the UN is neither. It gives me an opportunity to make a point that I have made many times before. The UN is meaningless. Their mandate has no power or authority and Iraq's government is not bound by it because the UN can't enforce anything it resolves to do. The UN is used as an international "can't we all just get along" politically correct, make everybody feel good forum. It is not a formal treaty or agreement bound by law, negating the requirement for the parliament's approval.
That could be why Reuters, IHT, and the UN news organization discounted the parliament's objections. Even al-Jazeera didn't address their concerns. Of course, a web site called The Real News covered the subject.
"And explain to me again why Bush is dead set against benchmarks for gauging progress in Iraq and determining when we will no longer need to accept our "invitation" to stay there?" It depends on how you work the benchmarks. The problem so far is that they are not well defined, meaning what about partial progress, what about the threat to pull forces if they are not met (if the first one is not met, you automatically default on the rest, while progress may be being made in other areas), etc., etc., etc.
Benchmarks can be done, but they have to be flexible and the subjectivity in their assessment eliminated.
You're right, I wrote the wrong numbers for the section dealing with treaties and agreements. Thanks for the clarification. The point is, al-Maliki did not have authority to act unilaterally in "requesting" the occupation continue.
I love how you folks twist with the wind when it comes to the UN. First, you want UN sanctions against Iraq and use the excuse that Iraq isn't abiding by UN resolutions to invade. Then, you say the hell with the requirement that all permanent members of the security council approve such and move and invade any way. Then Bush asks the UN for military and financial help with the mess. Then you want UN sanctions against Iran... I mean make up your mind already. "The UN is worthless, help us UN. The UN is powerless, please pass a sanction UN".... c'mon already. If it's so worthless and powerless, then why don't we just pull out and stop owing them all that money altogether?
As for benchmarks, no one is questioning nuance (though, as I understand it, Dubya "doesn't do nuance"). The point is he's not going down the benchmark road at all.
Look, the invasion of Iraq and continued open-ended occupation, sans benchmarks, are mistakes. Start to finish, every thing we've done there should never have taken place. It was a mistake, and those who succeed Dubya will have to figure out how to fix it.
It's a shame Bush was ever foisted upon this nation in the first place. We'll pay the price in blood and dollars for decades.
Lies or plain incompetence, a blunder is a blunder. And this one's a doozy.
No question Iraq will continue into the next presidency, but it's a hell of a lot better today than it was at this time last year. Less to fix, I guess.
You say you never cared about Un sanctions..but I bet that sheep herder in Tikrit cared when there was no medical supplies for his sick kid- all the while Cheney and his oil buddies were making money off oil for food scam.
You disagree with politically acceptable?
I do disagree with politically acceptable. The UN is ineffective in handling world security matters because individual countries put national self interest above global interest. And for the record, no one in Iraq provides more medical supplies to anyone,sheepherders included, than U.S. forces. Humanitarian missions are undertaken every day by U.S. soldiers.
How exactly have Cheney and his oil buddies benefited from the oil for food scandal? If I remember, that was France, and Kofi Annan's son at the UN.