As of now, says [Democratic consultant Chris] Lapetina. “there really isn’t any enthusiasm” for the non-Hillary Democrats already flirting with a run—Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb—meaning no one would instantly lay claim to the Clintons’ vast network of donors.
Still, the Democratic bench is hardly shallow. Among other possible candidates who might suddenly find a fire in their belly: Gov. Andrew Cuomo, former Gov. Deval Patrick, former Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Sens. Sanders, Mark Warner and Kirsten Gillibrand. Lapetina believes pressure would build for a few really big names to enter, such as Al Gore.
And then there’s Elizabeth....
March 4, 2015
"In the shock scenario where Hillary bows out, the Democratic establishment would be initially stunned and directionless."
Says Bill Scher (at Politico), seeming to argue that some sort of order would emerge from the chaos, but — and I've read the whole thing — I'm really not sure what. Key passage:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
115 comments:
Given their narcissism she would only bow out if well bloodied.
popcorn...
"What Democrats have, and Republicans lack, is a higher tolerance for differences of opinion and a greater willingness to compromise."
At this point, I knew I was reading fiction.
What about John Kerry? He seems tolerant and willing to compromise.
The Republicans are directionless, but they'll manage to pick a candidate.
I'd say that there are a bunch of definitely "shallow" people, not to mention lightweights on that Democrat bench. But then their putative frontrunner, Granny Hillary is no great prize either.
Somewhere in that seething mass of Republicans in the statehouses, there's someone who could kick any of these Democrat tomato cans waaaay down the road in 2016.
At this point, I knew I was reading fiction.
I actually laughed out loud when I came to that line.
Interesting that he went for Al Gore and Kirsten Gillibrand before Elizabeth Warren.
But then, as noted by TosaGuy, this is clearly fiction.
I don't think the Dems have any obvious heavyweight if Hillary drops out, but that could be a good thing--whoever they do nominate would be a blank slate with the voters and could distance himself from the unpopularity of Obama (not so easy, as McCain learned re: Bush) and bridge the centrists with the populists. It might benefit them to have to consider alternatives to Hillary.
Nevermind, he mentions Warren right up front, the Althouse excerpt made it sound like he forgot her...TosaGuy's observation stands.
The truth is, the Democratic coalition is really fragile because it's made up of ethnic/racial groups or urban/suburban "limousine" (even if it's just a Volvo) liberals, and those groups see the world & their political interests very differently. Much more so than the Republican coalition. The Democrats may talk big on how wonderful "diversity" is, but, truth be told, it's a pain in the butt for day to day politics.
Barack Obama won twice because he could gin up enthusiasm among the base, especially blacks & urban whites. All the candidates, with the exception of Gov. Patrick, are white, and after Obama, the black community isn't going to turn out for just any ol honky with a "D" after his name. They won't vote "R" -- they just won't vote.
Combine that with Latinos who want open immigration & amnesty -- but just for their kind, donchaknow, the Left wing who feel betrayed by the Obama admin's inactivity on their pet causes, and the Jewish "moneybags" (Debbie Wasserman Schultz DNC's words) who are finding out that they're now funding a party that's decisively turned against Israel, and you have a Democratic Party that has a very, very, tough row to hoe if it's to keep the White House in 2016.
She won't bow out. She values her victory more than another Democrat's victory. The more you press her, the more indignant and nasty she becomes. The Clinton's never forget and never forgive.
She has to drop out. There is no way the entire Democrat party will go for the "nuts and sluts" defense that is no being mounted against the underage girl. Seriously, they are blaming her.
President Obama is not unpopular. President Obama's appeal has become more selective. Turn the collectivism up to 11.
It used to be that Democrats, and Republicans, could say different things to different people, each group convinced that they were lying to the other guys.
That stuff doesn't fly anymore. The difference is that the Republicans are an ideological party, more cohesive, and the Democrat Party is a party of log rollers, all trying to gang up to 51% to rape the 49% and loot the treasury.
Still, the Democratic bench is hardly shallow
Only by 'participation trophy' standards.
If by competence, then, oh, it's shallow as hell.
Gore, Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Warren, Sanders.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick!
When will these fossil relics of the 1960s finally go away and leave us alone?
O'Malley may have been a miserable mayor of Baltimore and an even worse governor of Maryland, but at least he doesn't need a walker and Metamucil.
"Party of youth," indeed.
The Dem bench may or may not be shallow, but if those are the examples of its depth it's pretty toxically polluted...
Scher lives in an alternate reality.
It's impossible to compare Bill and Barack. When Bill had his hat handed to him in 1994 in losing the House, he retooled and worked with a Congress that forced budgetary and economic sense on him. While not high praise, Bill had a much higher respect for the Constitution, laws, traditions and institutions of our country.
Obama never learns anything. He lost the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014, but somehow feels it's not his fault and he still has a mandate to press on and seems to show more disrespect for the Constitution, laws, traditions and institutions of our country as time goes on.
Bill wanted to be President. Obama wants to be Dictator and he may achieve that.
Hillary just wants and things she is owed.
Ken, Lonny, l'd like you to meet Mohammet, Jugdish, Sidney and Clayton. Grab a seat and make yourselves at home.
"The truth is, the Democratic coalition is really fragile"
Right, but never enough is their super glue.
Hillary will not drop out. She could concievably drop dead, but her supporters and handlers would just strap her to a cross and parade her around the primaries...
So, are we seeing a lot of revelations about Clinton now because some in her party want to take her out early, giving someone else some breathing room? Or, to make those scandals old news by the time the election rolls around?
As probably everyone here knows by now, two scandals with her in the middle have broken in the last week or so. The first was some $100 million or so collected by their family foundation/slush fund from foreign countries, some of which was when she was Secretary of State. What that means is that some of the countries that she was dealing with at State were sending her family large chunks of money. And, no, it wasn't all approved by the State ethics office - that was Bill's speeches that were run by them.
And, then there were the sole use of a private, instead of government, email account throughout her term as Secretary of State. Normally, the issue is whether someone in government used their private email account for business, or their government account for private business. Not here - there was no attempt to ever even get a State Department account, and apparently, when the IT people tried to get her to, her people essentially laughed at them. Of course, it is probably a federal felony, since much of that involved official records, which she was able to control when she finally turned over a bunch of them recently. You will hear the excuse that any document searches through the department's email servers for emails in response to, for example, FOIA requests, would pick out other recipients of those emails. EXCEPT, that at least two of her closest people at State (including Mrs. Weiner) also had clintonemail.com email accounts.
We also have her imperiously telling us how broke they were when her husband left office, and we now find out that they probably have an eight figure net worth, and another half a billion in their private foundation/slush fund to spend on whomever or whatever they want.
So, back to my question - are they getting the dirty laundry out early? Or are some Dem operators trying to sabotage her campaign?
The Republicans aren't directionless. Their base wants one thing and their leadership doesn't want to give it to them even if they promised. That's two directions right there.
Bill had a much higher respect for the Constitution, laws, traditions and institutions of our country.
In Obama's estimation, this was Clinton's key weakness as a president.
I say the same thing about Jeb Bush and Rick Perry.
I want some candidates from both parties whose young adulthood formative memories include the fall of the Berlin Wall, not the bad acid at Woodstock.
But if Bill Scher thinks Bernie Sanders is a viable option for POTUS, he should simply retire from political writing right now.
Oh - I forgot the scandal of Bill Clinton hanging around the private island of a convicted child molester with a lot of underaged young women.
How can the article not mention fauxcahontas? Sure, that was not enough to defeat EW in Mass. But Mass also had no problem with Teddy leaving Kopechne to drown, and elected Martha Coakley (!!) as its AG. Stuff that may be brushed/laughed off as unimportant in Mass may not be treated the same way in "less sophisticated" parts of the country. I hope Elizabeth runs.
It doesn't matter, there isn't any chance the liberal media will allow a Republican to win. They (the whole liberal culture) realize their power and they lack any scruples to prevent themselves from doing whatever it takes to insure that no Republican is elected.
"So, are we seeing a lot of revelations about Clinton now because some in her party want to take her out early, giving someone else some breathing room? Or, to make those scandals old news by the time the election rolls around?"
I think the former--many in the media want a race, and a cakewalk gives them NOTHING to really write about for those on the Democratic primary beat. Democratic populists were never happy with Hillary, and other Democrats who are turned off by Clintonian sleaze would rather an alternative as well.
As for whether these things innoculate her by being "old news" that's a pretty risky strategy--sometimes these gaffes and scandals tend to snowball, particularly when they feed pre-existing notions about the candidates (as these do for Hillary). They also often lead to more revelations that snowball over time. It would be different if these scandals could be spun as positives, but I don't see how these ones can.
Vote for Hillary because we need a Woman President...er... whose husband walks all over her...
The writer forgot Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis.
And then there's Maude...
Personally, I think the whole thing has been a scam up until now. Hillary wants to raise as much money as she can for the war-chest, then suddenly decide she wants to be a grandma and bake cookies for Chelsea's kid(s). Then all the campaign money has to go to charity, which just happens to be (whoops!) the Clinton Foundation!
Of course the reality is that no Democrat wants to have to follow Obama, simply because of the mess they'd have to clean up. They'd much rather sit on the sidelines and make nasty comments while the GOP does it.
Hey! Maybe they'll run Biden after all!
"Of course, it is probably a federal felony, since much of that involved official records,"
Sandy Berger could not be reached for comment.
Well, he is ready to sign up for Hillary.
Berger must perform 100 hours of community service and pay the fine as well as $6,905 for the administrative costs of his two-year probation, a district court judge ruled.
Probation's over.
No no no no no to Gillibrand. Oy. She's a finger in the wind. All for the second amendment as a "blue dog" Representative from upstate and then she gets appointed Senator to replace Hillary and she discovers that criminals use guns downstate and she changed her mind. Please.
More recently Gillibrand has publicly called that German boy at Columbia that "mattress girl" has accused of rape a serial rapist. She's a lawyer. She knows better, but she thinks she an raise her profile with this issue
Warren is a full on commie that even moderate Dems don't like. Never gonna happen.
@Bruce H.
....there was no attempt to ever even get a State Department account, and apparently, when the IT people tried to get her to, her people essentially laughed at them.
Do you have a source for this? I'd love to read about what the DoS IT thought about this business the whole time.
You're all forgetting Sen. Cory Booker of NJ, who has the same exact sort of non-resume that Obama had when he ran for President, and can run as Obama III and Obama IV. Any skeletons in his closet will be hidden by the MSM just as Obama's have been, and he'll have the same sort of blind support from Democrats, especially blacks.
Deval Patrick is no doubt eyeing his chances right now too. Son of Obama.
Don't dismiss Martin O'Malley. He speaks well, has a sunny disposition, and he's happy to promise the voters anything, no matter how obviously impossible. I'm a conservative Republican and I heard him speak. He seemed very likable and made a good impression. I'd never vote for him, of course.
In 2008, Hillary was thought to be inevitable and only Obama challenged her and now he's president. Once again Hillary is supposed to be inevitable but she's such a bad campaigner and has so many flaws that she'll implode; maybe we're seeing the start of her collapse right now. That will leave the nomination to someone who had the gumption to challenge her when she was the prohibitive favorite. It might well be O'Malley.
Bernie Sanders made news by suggesting to Obama that he could unilaterally raise taxes 100 billion dollars by re-writing IRS interpretations of actual laws.
I am sure that will get him far.
Hillary is hiding out 'til this stuff blows over too, and the press lets her.
I would love to ask her what she thinks of the Keystone veto. But there is no way she gets through the campaign and debates without taking a position on that.
@matthew49,
It might well be O'Malley.
Oh, Lord, matt. Everything you say is true. But I live in Maryland, and I know first hand that O'Malley sees we citizens as ATM machines with feet. We're here to fund the governments schemes & dreams.
I don't think Hillary recovers from the email scandal. If she's out Warren will feel a great deal of pressure to run. She should scare the Republicans to death.
Al Gore! Oh please, oh please!!!
You forgot about 1st Lady Michelle. She's everybit as unqualified as her husband. I think she'd be an excellent choice.
If Warren chooses to run, she will win the nomination.
The current support for Hillary! among the Dem primary voters can be best described as broad but very shallow.
Warren is no sure thing in the general election.
Sooper Sekkrit emails!
Soooper Sekret gmail accounts. Still haven't heard your take, garage, on why the investigators in the john doe thing were using secret accounts to keep the Republicans in the dark.
Sooooper Seekret gamail accounts!
Hillary take a position? prone or supine.
"Oh, Lord, matt. Everything you say is true. But I live in Maryland, and I know first hand that O'Malley sees we citizens as ATM machines with feet. We're here to fund the governments schemes & dreams."
As another Maryland resident, I think O'Malley is dead in the water. His chosen successor lost the governor race (in arguably the bluest state in the country) largely because the voters were so disatisfied with O'Malley. He'd be pretty vulnerable in the primaries, to say nothing of the general.
"You're all forgetting Sen. Cory Booker of NJ, who has the same exact sort of non-resume that Obama had when he ran for President, and can run as Obama III and Obama IV."
I'm surprised we haven't seen more in the media about him as a possible nominee--he has a reputation as a reform mayor who improved a troubled city (whether that's true I don't know, but that is his rep), a good speaker and likeable. He's shrewd enough not to have gone against Christie in 2013, and likely won't run against Hillary for the same reasons, but if she were to drop out I could see his name popping up.
"No no no no no to Gillibrand."
The "mattress girl" crap disqualifies Gillibrand, if nothing else.
Just to set the stage...
Democrat's 2016 presidential ambitions are tied to a woman who held a senate seat for 4 years, was SoS for 4 years, has no clear notable accomplishments in either, has been scandal plagued for multiple decades, and comes across (is?) as elitist and nothing more than a political poll calculator...
And they readily acknowledge they have developed no one else who seems ready to run the country in 24 months...
And they just suffered devastating defeats at the local, state, and federal level in all elections...
And the party has only doubled down on all current approaches...
But the issue is Republican obstructionism and lack of ideas.
Given his adultery and conviction for leaking sensitive information, Petraeus now disqualified as a Republican, emerges as a contender for the Democrat nomination.
Or the party could rebel against its recent nature and go for Jim Webb, who seems to be a decent human being.
If we follow the banana republic rules that Obama likes then we should draft Michelle Obama as our Female Ruler for life.
Boy would that stick it to the Clintons good.
Elizabeth Warren will be the Dems nominee, you betcha.
Besides paid for bots on Twitter, has anybody seen a place where Hillary is widely championed by actual web denizens, or real citizens, rather than the press?
The most vocal support of her from an actual citizen I can find is on this video
You have to go to about the 2 minute mark to hear her support for Hillary. but the rest of it provides some real context.
It's begun.
O’Malley has been quietly preparing for months to run for president, despite the appearance that Hillary Rodham Clinton has the Democratic nomination all but locked up, without even having announced.
The way non-Hillary contenders are likely thinking is: We are due to lose this election and Hillary is almost impossible to beat in the nomination.
Why try?
"Besides paid for bots on Twitter, has anybody seen a place where Hillary is widely championed by actual web denizens, or real citizens, rather than the press?"
That's her glass jaw--most on the Left like Hillary only when they see her as an alternative to the GOP (though I'm sure some also like the idea of breaking the gender barrier, the novelty of breaking barriers was worn off with Obama and they can see other possibilities, like Warren, if Hillary wasn't the one).
What's really keeping Democrats from challenging her is the Clinton freeze-out--consultants and donors are being told that if they pull what they did in 2008, and Hillary wins this time, they will be closed off from the administration even if they eventually came around to her side. They've been psyched out.
"What about John Kerry? He seems tolerant and willing to compromise"
HALP US JON CARRY! WE R STUK HERE WITH NO KANDIDATE!
Isn't there broad enough support to repeal the 22nd Amendment by Executive Order? Isn't that what Dems want in their heart of hearts?
What about John Kerry? He seems tolerant and willing to compromise.
I think you meant, "He seems equine and willing to graze." At least, that's how I read it.
"Isn't there broad enough support to repeal the 22nd Amendment by Executive Order?"
Not gonna happen. Zero's looking forward to the post presidency, when he can really cash in.
Like Billary already did.
And then there's Maude...
I read that as Meade first.
But now I'm singing the song.
Jerry Brown. If you're going to nominate a 60s retread, might as well do it right. He has more executive experience than any other candidate, and more experience in running for president.
The Clintons were Dem centrists. Bill signed DOMA. Bill signed Glass-Steagall. Bill signed welfare reform. There are people on the Left who considered these actions to be betrayals. They have not forgotten.
Hillary is the Jeb Bush of the Democrat party.
Oh, please please please let it be Schweitzer.
It would truly be a "pass the popcorn" election.
Al Gore! I laughed out loud. How out of touch can you get.
I think it's high time a pair of Fresnel lenses occupied the White House.
C'mon....'tween the Dems and their monstrous propaganda machine (the MSM), they could make ANY turd electable.
When did Hillary bowing out become a shock scenario? I've been predicting that from the beginning -- she's just hanging on for the contributions to the Clinton Foundation.
Forget scandals, her health isn't up to the rigors of the campaign trail.
We're also assuming Hillary Clinton doesn't develop some health problem between now and next year. That's a non-trivial chance. Many people are dead before they get that old.
It was OK to talk about McCain's age (and Reagan's) so it seems to me that potentially being the second-oldest President-elect is legitimate issue.
If she served two terms she would be 77, near the life expectancy of women in America.
People slow down in their 70s. Reagan certainly did.
Prof.
Once again I say: This will NOT matter.
Nothing will stick.
We in the Democratic Party will do anything and everything to prevent GOP and the bad Press to hurt our HRC.
HRC has right "in letter and in spirits" to take back the White House.
It is her house and only hers.
You cannot stop her. You cannot handle the truth.
Walker/Petraeus 2016
PAUL/VENTURA 2016
Terry said...
Hillary is the Jeb Bush of the Democrat party.
Except that her significant other was not the least successful president of the modern era.
Vote for Bush, bubbles and bust.
AReasonableMan unreasonably wrote:
"Except that her significant other was not the least successful president of the modern era."
Assertion = fact to AReasonableMan.
Less successful than Coolidge? Hoover? Kennedy accomplished squat. Carter couldn't even get re-elected. Ford couldn't get elected president, ever. Obama has overseen the most miserable economy for working people since the great depression.
Terry said...
Kennedy accomplished squat.
Big difference between achieving nothing and overseeing the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression and the stupidest war since the war of Jenkins’ ear.
"But the issue is Republican obstructionism and lack of ideas."
So, you prefer leftist ideas and actions.
Got it.
Thanks.
"Big difference between achieving nothing and overseeing the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression and the stupidest war since the war of Jenkins’ ear."
One. The worst attack on American soil was the result of her husbands blithe ignoring of al Qeada. As Madeline Halfbright stated, "Of course we took terrorism seriously. We had a meeting very week."
The biggest financial collapse since Roosevelt mishandled the Panic of 1929, was brought about by policies that forced banks to make unsound loans and those practices continue to this day.
Now, the banks and some other financial people foolishly merged those loans into "Mortgage Backed Securities" but the risk was not appreciated by any of the bond rating agencies. It had nothing to do with Bush. I wish he had done more to stop it but the Democrats took Congress in 2006 and stepped on the accelerator.
The "Stupidest War since Jenkins Ear" was not a choice but it is too complicated to explain to someone who does not want to listen to the story. I'm afraid you prefer bumper stickers.
Point of Order. The war of Jenkins Ear was important around here. The Georgia settlers fought and routed the Spanish expeditionary force from St, Augustine at the Battle of Bloody Marsh located half way from their landing on south St Simons Island from Ft Frederica on north St Simons Island.That saved Charles Town, which was our job, and bought us 250 years of a good neighbor border with Hispanics speaking Spanish Thatis the same border that Obama ordered effectively removed.
Brando said...
"Besides paid for bots on Twitter, has anybody seen a place where Hillary is widely championed by actual web denizens, or real citizens, rather than the press?"
That's her glass jaw--most on the Left like Hillary only when they see her as an alternative to the GOP (though I'm sure some also like the idea of breaking the gender barrier, the novelty of breaking barriers was worn off with Obama and they can see other possibilities, like Warren, if Hillary wasn't the one).
What's really keeping Democrats from challenging her is the Clinton freeze-out--consultants and donors are being told that if they pull what they did in 2008, and Hillary wins this time, they will be closed off from the administration even if they eventually came around to her side. They've been psyched out.
---
That sounds about right. If it is, look for a "preference cascade" effect when she starts to look less inevitable. Perhaps very soon.
AReasonableMan unreasonably wrote:
"The "Stupidest War since Jenkins Ear""
Hillary voted for it. Kerry voted for it. Obama opposed it as state senator from a liberal district in Illinois with zero responsibility for national defense matters.
Enjoy casting your vote for Hillary, fool.
Elizabeth Warren has something to say, and it won't be long now before she speaks out. Then it will be a cat fight between a mean blue collar girl from Scranton and the brilliant Okie from Muscogee.
No, the Democratic bench is shallow — very, very shallow, and getting shallower by the year.
Seriously, Martin O'Malley? Jim Webb? Bernie-the-self-described-Socialist Sanders?!? And supposedly there's more such "talent" behind them?
No, there's Hillary; there's the comedy duo of Biden & Fauxcahontas; and that's it for them. The rest are all the faceless, nameless clowns who pile out of the clown car before they start squirting seltzer.
AReasonableMeltdown: "Big difference between achieving nothing and overseeing the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor..."
Wow, that's the first I've heard anyone say the FDR oversaw the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Can a part Indian be a natural born citizen?
Mick?
traditionalguy: "Elizabeth Warren has something to say, and it won't be long now before she speaks out."
Cherokee People!
Cherokee Tribe!
So proud to claim minority status to obtain coveted roles!
So proud to lie!
AReasonableMeltdown: "Big difference between achieving nothing and overseeing the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor..."
Why didn't Bill Clinton stop the first attack on the WTC that, apparently, he oversaw?
They took a piece of the Cherokee nation,
and put them on the Crimson reservation!
State Department technology experts expressed security concerns that then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was using a private email service rather than the government’s fortified and monitored system, but those fears fell on deaf ears, a current employee on the department’s cybersecurity team told Al Jazeera America on Tuesday.
The [State Department] employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said it was well known that Clinton’s emails were at greater risk of being hacked, intercepted or monitored, but the warnings were ignored.
“We tried,” the employee said. “We told people in her office that it wasn’t a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed.”
Do you believe that Clinton was not informed abut these objections?
I do.
The amoral tribe that follows HRC from job to job has one overriding responsibility. Protect Clinton. They know that the dirty work has to be done, and they can be trusted to do it without her express bidding. She doesn't want to know. Certainly, if messages were scrubbed from HRC's email server before they were turned over to State, she did not select them and did not choose what to delete. She has people for that.
As Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton seemed far more concerned about conducting the American peoples' business in a way that could not be examined by the American people, than she was about about conducting the American peoples' business in a way that could not be examined by America's foreign enemies.
Despicable, yet somehow not surprising.
Big difference between achieving nothing and overseeing the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor
So would that make FDR a bigger fuck-up than George Bush?
Don't fear Liz for her mixed blood. Cherokees were friendly compared to the savages from Tallahassee.
We replaced the Cherokees with banjo playing mountain folk like the ones in Deliverance.
"Don't dismiss Martin O'Malley."
He's on the record as a rabid gun-grabber. I hope he runs, the NRA needs a new chew toy.
Don't fear Liz for her mixed blood. Cherokees were friendly compared to the savages from Tallahassee.
Except, of course, that Warren is most likely not Cherokee. She just claimed it because of her high cheekbones and the help that gave her in her career as a law professor - it is highly unlikely that she, not having graduated from a top law school, would have ended up tenured at Harvard without being an affirmative action hire. And, that is if her research and writing had been that good - apparently, it wasn't. But, it has been shown that she did have Indian killers in her ancestry. That should count for something.
"So would that make FDR a bigger fuck-up than George Bush?"
Yes!
Bush never put Americans in internment camps.
Revenant said...
So would that make FDR a bigger fuck-up than George Bush?
If he had also melted the economy and started a war against Paraguay in response to Peal Harbor.
Let's just concede reality on this one, can we? George Bush was a fuck-up for the ages. The Picasso of fuck-ups, without the artistic talent.
Hillary won't win a primary. Bowing out now would be less humiliating than losing to lightweights.
It would not be shocking for Hillary to bow out. She was supposedly inevitable 8 years ago and lost to a guy with no resume. No reason to think 16 would be different. Her record as Secretary of State didn't erase any doubts about her judgment; if anything, it increases those doubts. She'll opt not to run.
Let's just concede reality on this one, can we? George Bush was a fuck-up for the ages. The Picasso of fuck-ups, without the artistic talent.
Talk about blind.
Hillary is a zero. Even the die hard operators on the left realize that given the current residents qualifications they are going to have to field somebody that can actually punch in that weight class.
They are going to have a difficult time finding someone to go up against Walker, or Cruz, or Paul.
Reasonable said: "If he had also melted the economy and started a war against Paraguay in response to Peal Harbor."
Not to split hairs, but FDR did go to war with Germany and Italy after Pearl Harbor, and the US economy was chronically stagnant during FDR's first two terms.
Bush 43's presidency didn't happen in a vaccuum. The alternatives were Gore and Kerry (both son-of-privilege f*ck ups in their own right). Voters decided that Gore and Kerry were not better alternatives than W.
I often wonder at the obtuseness of people who see no relationship between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein had been thumbing his nose at the US for years and we had ample justification to go back and finish the job. The United States suffered no strategic loss in the 9/11 attack but took a major hit to our reputation.
We killed two birds with one stone in the Iraq II war--Reminded the world that we can knock-down a regional power half way around the word, single handed if need be and we got rid of a festering sore that was going to have to be dealt with eventually.
Voters decided that Gore and Kerry were not better alternatives than W.
Wait! I thought the EC and the courts actually decided Bush v. Gore. I voted for Gore in 2000 but I hold no malice towards the deciders. Gore was a bad choice.
"George Bush was a fuck-up for the ages."
Again, compared to which president? Ford? Carter? Carter's fecklessness led to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and indirectly to the creation of al Qaida. Carter's fecklessness led directly to the birth of the current Iranian regime.
"George Bush was a fuck-up for the ages."
GW Bush is looking better and better, as contrasted to his immediate successor. Not only did Obama oversee the longest recession since FDR's Great Depression (and, both can be attributed to brain dead economics implemented by Dem politicians), but he also oversaw the greatest weakening of American political power in our lifetimes. While throwing our hard fought victory in Iraq away, allowing ISIS to retake that land with impunity, murder the troops that we trained, and take the arms we gave them, to use against us, and the rest of the world.
Bruce Hayden said...
Not only did Obama oversee the longest recession since FDR's Great Depression (and, both can be attributed to brain dead economics implemented by Dem politicians)
The US has outperformed every other western power economically since the Great Bush Recession.
dbp said...
We killed two birds with one stone in the Iraq II war
Wasted trillions and got stuck in quagmire. Maybe not the two birds one might want to hit.
The US has outperformed every other western power economically since the Great Bush Recession.
Easily discredited.
But, Obama is all about strengthening other nations at western nations' expense. No surprise there.
But, Obama is all about strengthening other nations at western nations' expense. No surprise there.
It is after all what his mama preached.
The US has outperformed every other western power economically since the Great Bush Recession.
What is funny. And I mean Truly funny. Is that you think this economy is an accomplishment.
Post a Comment