Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion


Okay, Democrats, I'm here to help

By maxwell edison ·
The best thing you Democrats could do for yourselves (and for the country) is to nominate Joe Lieberman for your party's run for the White House in 2008. The worst thing you can do is to NOT nominate him. But you'll probably shoot yourselves in the foot again (and ignore what's best for the country) and nominate the likes of Kerry, Gore or Clinton. I'm telling you, if you nominate Lieberman, the White House will probably be yours! Trust me, I know these things.

(Don't ask me why I'm helping you guys. It's probably because you won't listen to me anyway!)

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Republicans can win regardless of the democrat running if.....

by faradhi In reply to Okay, Democrats, I'm here ...

the Republicans run a McCain/Giuliani ticket, the White House will the theirs no matter who the Democrats run.

You are correct that the best candidate that the Democrats have is Lieberman. However, I do not know if Lieberman is going to run. He is running for re-election this year for the Senate. Being so close to the presidental election, Why spend the war chest on the Senate.

Additionally, if any of the three that you mentioned actually wins the nomination, then many moderate democrats will be voting republican no matter who is running.

If McCain gets the republican nomination, then even if Lieberman runs I personally will vote republican. Apparently I am not alone.
Check out this site

What I find most fascinating is that there is one question "In general, would you rather see a Republican or a Democrat elected as our next president in 2008?" The results show Democrats in a strong majority. However when placed head to head, The only republicans that are shown losing is Jeb Bush and Rice (they are not likely to run). Rice still beats some. Both McCain and Giuliani show leads (Giuliani's are slight).

The reason is that the Democratic Party is still not putting up nominees for which moderates like myself will vote. The nominees have to appeal to the far left to get nominated.

One day, maybe just maybe, the moderates can take the democratic party back.

Collapse -

Just between you and me

by maxwell edison In reply to Republicans can win regar ...

Don't tell anyone, but I suggested that Joe Lieberman would win if he was nominated, but he won't. Rudy Giuliani will actually win -- and it won't be as second banana to John McCain. John McCain is too old with too much baggage, and too many Republicans just don't like him; he simply can't win enough primaries, and I doubt he will even run. (He might test the waters in Iowa and New Hampshire, but not much more.) Rudy, America's Mayor will be elevated to America's President in January, 2009.

Of ALL the Democrats wasting ... I mean breathing our air, I like Joe Lieberman the most, so I'll pump him up all I can. (Thus my message -- but just between you and me, remember.)

Why will Rudy run and win? Leadership. He's both a proven leader, and he will run on a leadership theme. No one can articulate the virtues and qualities of a leader better than Rudy, and the voters are thirsty for one. Moreover, of all the Republican potentials, Rudy is probably the most "hands-off" as far as personal attacks, although the Democrats will try, as that is their forte'.

Rudy versus Joe would be my dream match (as Joe is palatable to me), but I won't give the Democrats enough credit for being that smart.

You heard it here first (and I predicted the same thing about a year ago), Rudy Giuliani will win the next presidential election, not with an "issues" campaign, but with a leadership campaign. (Maybe I should send him a letter, and offer to be one of his campaign speech writers! Is that a little too presumptuous on my part?)

Collapse -

From your mouth to God's ear

by Tig2 In reply to Just between you and me

Max, I hope that you are correct on this one. Joe Lieberman IS palatable but Rudy would be a great president.

I agree- there is a feeling that there is no leadership and has been no leadership for some time. I personally would like to see a president that embodies the principles that USED to be America.

I shudder to think that Hilary would win. Hopefully she doesn't even make the run. I had wondered if Edwards would run again- I think that he could potentially show well.

Hmm. Time to pull out my copy of "Leadership" and reread it. And hope.

Edited for typo

Collapse -

Edwards? Show well?

by rhomp2002 In reply to From your mouth to God's ...

On what basis? He spent 6 years in the Senate and accomplished absolutely nothing and then ran for president and showed great hair and pearly teeth. The only thing he has shown that I know of is that he can channel a dead girl.

Collapse -

The key words

by Tig2 In reply to Edwards? Show well?

Were "potentially" and show "well".

Edwards was the candidate that the Bush camp was afraid of. That he has potential is not really deniable- while his senate record is not studded with achievement, that isn't what they tend to look for in a candidate, is it?

What was and possibly IS fearsome to the Republican party is that Edwards communicates well. Kerry obviously should have left that to the running mate, don't you think? Because Kerry spent an awful lot of time stepping on his ****.

And while I am thinking about it, so did the missus.

Edwards' wife is a cancer survivor. That should play REAL well in the news.

When the question is politics, d@mned few care much about what you stand for. Which is why the system needs an overhaul.

Collapse -

Well - I think

by j.lupo In reply to Just between you and me

Rudy would make a good president up to a point. Yes he has leadership and that is certainly what we need in this country. But I would be interested in seeing Ed Rendell (darn i can't spell, hate that) run. I think he could do a good job given the congressional situation with republicans in the majority in both houses.

Rendell was elected as Gov of PA with a big division between eastern and western PA. He basically belonged to the minority group in Harrisburg, yet he has one them over and has done a good job. I won't say a great job. Personally, even though he is funny on the football post-game, he needs to spend more time doing his job.

But overall I think he has done a great job and has the leadership to deal with bi-partisanship (sp?)

Collapse -

The sad part about John McCain ...

by Too Old For IT In reply to Just between you and me

... is that he's one of the few with any long-term first-hand experience with foreign despots.

Collapse -

Old? Anyone remember Reagan?

by dboxman7 In reply to The sad part about John M ...

The too old phrase was tossed around a great deal with Reagan as well and overall he was a good president (all relative, of course). The bottom line is that whether or not you think the wars we are fighting are right or wrong, WE ARE AT WAR!!! We need a warrior who has been there and done that. Kerry was in it and I respect that, but his faults outweighed his experience. McCain p1sses off a lot of people, but he is clearly the best wartime candidate...unless Cheney steps up :).

Collapse -

Sorry, double posted

by Oz_Media In reply to Just between you and me

Double posted

Collapse -

I would support him

by Oz_Media In reply to Just between you and me

Giuliani would most likely see me supportng a republican administration. It would almost be worth border hopping, getting citizenship, voting and pissing off again. :)

Related Discussions

Related Forums