[Useless]

Originally Posted by ken_o

none of the above, its time for a change and not one with a R or a D before the name. this 2 party circus is old allready.
how about a libertarian with a little common sense.

Nice idea, but who is going to fund his/her candidacy?? Like it or not, (and I Don't!!) the fact is it takes a whole lot of dinero to run an effective presidential campaign!!

Let's say for a moment, that by some wild chance the Libertarian candidate WAS elected.

What political base would this new Libertarian President have on Capitol Hill??

Hey, I'd like to see a third party as much as anyone; I think that we need it. Nonetheless, there are some very difficult realities that come into play here.

[ken_o]

okay useless ill chip in a few bucksand for me the fewer the better now lets all chip in a few bucks.
just because their r some very difficult realities here, is not a valid reason to vote for the lesser of two evils or too throw your vote to another political party just to c that the other party doesnt get in.
people of this country have been duped into believing only r/d have a chance.
useless on what libertarian stances do you agree with?

[Rev.Vassago]

Giuliani has begun fundraising for a presidential run. Unless he really screws up in the next 2 years, he is likely going to be the nominee. I would still love to see a Giuliani/McCain ticket.

[Useless]

Guliani/McCain would make a good ticket, but I am stil hard pressed to envision them as a winning ticket. Without the "Christian Fundamentalist" right to back them (and, I do not think they will back either one of them enthusiastically) I just don't see either one of them, or both of then together as being able to out perform the well oiled Clinton fundraising machinery.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by Useless

Guliani/McCain would make a good ticket, but I am stil hard pressed to envision them as a winning ticket. Without the "Christian Fundamentalist" right to back them (and, I do not think they will back either one of them enthusiastically) I just don't see either one of them, or both of then together as being able to out perform the well oiled Clinton fundraising machinery.

I still contend that Hillary is not as loved as you (or she, for that matter) believe.

A Guiliani/McCain ticket crosses party lines, and would provide the Republicans with a much-needed boost.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

I still contend that Hillary is not as loved as you (or she, for that matter) believe.

Rev.:

I am NO lover of HRC or Bill Clinton; my personal opinion of them does not change the fact that the two of them make a very formidable political machine, especially in the fund raising arena.

A Giuliani/McCain ticket crosses party lines, and would provide the Republicans with a much-needed boost.

To a certain degree, there is some truth to what you are saying here; yet, with the Democrats in control of The House and The Senate, at this point in time, I see this race as the Democrat's race to win or lose.

I do believe that the only way people will cross party lines will be if, and only if, the Democrats give them sufficient reason to do so. The answer to that remains to be seen.

Right now, there are too many unanswered questions. What will the next two years hold??

How will Bush's policies and actions in handling the war in Iraq evolve or change??

Will Nancy Pelosi lead the house from more of a centrist position than she would like, or will she vector the Democrat's agenda too far to the left??

Will The Republicans embrace a centrist ticket, or will they line up behind Mitt Romney?? (My guess is that the money powers of the Right will be very unenthusiastic about supporting Giuliani/McCain, and the Christian Right will demand a "like minded" candidate, even if it means losing the election.)

A BIG wild card in all of this mix is Bill Clinton; will another one of his tawdry escapades rise to the surface?? After eight years of Bush, The American People may be willing to stomach him, or maybe not!!

It will be interesting watching developments!!

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by Useless

Rev.:[/b]

I am NO lover of HRC or Bill Clinton; my personal opinion of them does not change the fact that the two of them make a very formidable political machine, especially in the fund raising arena.

I didn't say you were a lover of the Clintons - I said that you believed they were loved.

While they may be a formidable opponent, I think there is too much of the country that resents them, and they have no chance of actually winning. I wouldn't even be surprised if she doesn't get the nomination.

To a certain degree, there is some truth to what you are saying here; yet, with the Democrats in control of The House and The Senate, at this point in time, I see this race as the Democrat's race to win or lose.

2 years is an eternity in politics. GWB is already considered a lame-duck president, and the Dems are going to prevent him from making any major mistakes, as they are going to try and block EVERYTHING the Republicans attempt to do.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

2 years is an eternity in politics. GWB is already considered a lame-duck president, and the Dems are going to prevent him from making any major mistakes, as they are going to try and block EVERYTHING the Republicans attempt to do.

And, therein lies the rub, Rev.!!

If the Dem's are successful in preventing Bush from making any major mistakes, then they will be perceived as the party of leadership. Hence, there won't be any groundswell movement to replace Democratic leadership with Republican leadership, and their won't be much in the way of momentum to carry the next Republican candidate into The White House!!

As it stands right now, the Democrats have an arsenal of political ammunition to base a campaign upon the repudiation of Bush's policies; so, we would expect them to seek the White House by, in effect, campaigning against Bush, even though he won't be running for another term!!

At the same time, as it now stands, the only hope that thew Republicans have of holding on to The Oval Office is if they ALSO, in effect, run against Bush as well!! By the time Ronald Regan had completed his sixth year in office, was obviously midway into his second term, but he was by no means a "lame duck" President.

Bush, however, is not only a "lame duck" President, he has been very severely crippled by the war in Iraq, and there are absolutely NO indications that he can somehow turn that situation around.

Consequently, I don't see how he can possibly bring much strength to The Republican Ticket in 2008.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next two years. As you so correctly pointed out, in political terms, that really is an eternity!!

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by Useless

If the Dem's are successful in preventing Bush from making any major mistakes, then they will be perceived as the party of leadership. Hence, there won't be any groundswell movement to replace Democratic leadership with Republican leadership, and their won't be much in the way of momentum to carry the next Republican candidate into The White House!!

You give the public too much credit. :wink:

[Useless]

Not meaning to engage in mindless or pointless bantering with you, Rev., but I do NOT think that I give them too much credit....

If I tried to argue that the voters in 2008 would hearken back to The Clinton Era, and before filling out a ballot, stop to remember that President Elect Clinton, who pledged that his administration "Would avoid the mere appearance of impropriety" wound up giving us one tawdry spectacle after another, I think that THAT would be giving people too much credit. By the time Nov.'08 rolls around, through selective memory, they will have also forgotten that Co-President HRC had her numerous episodes of ethical lapses as well!!!

The memory of the average American voter is all too short.... in a way, I think that reflects the correctness of your observation that "two years is an eternity" in the world of politics.