Anyone want to take there shot at being a Bush speechwriter?

I'm thinking something where he thanks America for letting him do everything he has done in a short 8 years ...

*Raising unemployment from 4% to 7.2%
*Increasing the price of oil 2 1/3 times
*Presiding over America being engaged in 2 seperate and seemingly endless conflicts
*Witnessing North Korea acquiring Nukes and allowing Iran to make headway toward developing them
*Increasing government spending by 55% (oh yeah, non-defense spending is up 23%)
*Outing a CIA agent for political purposes
*Keeping abortion legal (while saying it is bad)

Wow ... when you really look back at it Bush has failed by every measure possible.

The Dem candidates would certainly not be nearly as strong or charismatic, but George W Bush and the Republican GOP have demonstrated to the country that they can't run the country so ultimately Biden/Casey win.

Actually to get a Dukakis victory in '88 all you need to do is turn out the black vote in the same amount as Mondale did in '84.

This comes to mind ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbwNSNLPIfw

Ok, this assumes that economic conditions are the same as in reality.

* = Winner

1980: *Carter-Mondale vs Reagan-Bush
1984: Mondale-Ferraro vs *Bush-John Danforth

The economy was still having problems in 1984.  Mondale was a terrible candidate, possibly the worst of the 20th century.  Bush Sr was a great candidate (he never gets the credit he deserves).  John Danforth was a moderate Senator from Missouri who fits all the criteria for what Bush would have been looking for in a running mate.

1988: Dukakis-Bentsen vs *Bush-Danforth
1992: *Clinton-Gore vs Danforth-Lamar Alexander

Naturally the sitting VP gets the nom.  He picks Alexander, a moderate but popular Southerner.

1996: *Clinton-Gore vs Dole-Kemp
2000: Gore-Leiberman vs *W Bush-Cheney
2004: Kerry-Edwards vs *W Bush-Cheney
2008: *Obama-Biden vs McCain-Palin

If only Lee did'nt lose Special Order-191...

Do you really think the world would be a better place if the South had won?

Will we ever have another president with facial hair? And why hasn't one run in sometime?

I think the modern perception of facial hair is that it is for the more casual/laid back man.  And for the most part I don't think that attitude plays well to voter.

I think you would actually see a gradual seperation of both the USA and CSA into independent states.

• Certainly the most likely state to break away would be Texas who would be eager to intercede in the French involvement in Mexico (I doubt the rest of the CSA would be as interested in another war).
• New York City might break away from the USA and become a small corrupt nation run by Tammany Hall.
• As slavery becomes less useful/cost effective I can see some of the CSA states doing away with it and others hanging on.  Just as this created a problem with the Northern states it will create problems between the CSA members and you would see further seperation.
• The issue of women's suffrage would almost certainly create problems and division as the 19th century winds down.  Some states would accept it, others would not.
• Just as problems/wars occur between European nations I think you would see them occur between American nations.
• With the rise of Communism a few American states would likely adopt it as a form of government (Minnesota seems like a likely early adopter).
• I suspect WWI would happen without much American involvement ... meaning it would drag on longer and be bloodier but likely would end with the same result.
• The Nazi's still come to power in Germany, the US is slower to intercede, the Japanese dominate the Pacific, there is no Manhattan Project, and the overall international influence of the Soviet Union is greater.

When all is said and done if the North loses the Civil War I don't think we have a happier or more pleasant world.  A United American state has been a much greater force for Good in this world than it would be if it were divided.

Ayman al-Zawahri is a boil on the backside of humanity.

You know, it is a little ridiculous for the auto industry to come asking for money from the tax payers when they won't cut the super expensive perks for their top management such as the private jets.

I always find it interesting that so often on this political forum we find ourselves discussing the Civil War.  We discuss it more than WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam.  Why?  Why are we hanging onto a conflict from 150 years ago?

But if you had a dollar for every Democrat I had named most partisan, you'd only have one dollar, wouldn't you?

I can honestly say I haven't read every one of your posts and even if I had I doubt I'd remember every detail.  But I can speak in generalities regarding things I've heard before from conservatives.  And frankly during this election cycle some conservatives called Obama "the most liberal member of Congress" only a few months after they called Hillary the same thing and only 4 years after they called John Kerry the same thing.  The point is, charging someone as "the most" whatever has become a tired and old charge.

Andy Card was a weak Chief of Staff.  Rahm won't be.

Considering that we're less than 100 hrs removed from the election and you aren't an insider to the Obama camp I think it is ridiculous for you to say that you know how strong or weak of a CoS Emanuel will be.

Most Chiefs of Staff do run the government to a large extent, thought the exact degree depends on the President.  Don Regan had more control than Hamilton Jordan, for example.

And here you admit that how much power a CoS has is dependent on the President.  As Obama is not yet in office and you're not part of his inner circle I think you're not qualified to say how much power he will give to his CoS.

I think your comment is basically an admission that Supersoulty is right.  The Rahm pick is the first step in a plan to exact revenge out of pure bitterness.

A selection of a CoS is a "first step in a plan to exact revenge out of pure bitterness"?  Are you next going to say there is a vast left-wing conspiracy??

I can honestly say I have no idea if Obama and the Dem Congress plan on "exacting revenge".  My bet is that they will not (because doing so will ensure they lose office in the next 2-4 years and politicians care MOST about staying in office).

I think it is telling though that Republicans are afraid that Democrats will do the same things which THEY did while THEY were in office.  It more or less tells you that Republicans were knowingly acting improperly and sometimes to the detriment of the nation.  Yeah, I just can't wait to return someone like THAT to power.

For any Republicans saying, "I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt", well, guess what, the doubt is removed.  Obama isn't here to make the country better, only to grow the Democratic Party.

LOL ... you're basing this outlandish statement on who he picked as CoS???  48 hours after the election and you're already condemning him.

You clearly don't get how important the Chief of Staff is.  With the exception of GW Bush's administration and the first half of the Carter administration, the Chief of Staff is basically co-President.

Do you really think any of Bill Clinton's CoS's were "co-President"??  Do you think Alexander Haig was co-President for Nixon??

As you've pointed out, the CoS's power is largely dependent on the President.  I think it is too early for you to say that Obama will just be a yes man for his CoS.  And for my 2 cents, Obama doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who will just say yes to whatever one of his people tells him. 

The most partisan member of Congress for Chief of Staff?

If I had $1 for every time I heard a Republican charge that a Democrat was "the most liberal" or "the most partisan" member of Congress I would be a very rich man.

This essentially means Rahm is running the US government,

So Andy Card was essentially "running the US government"?  Or was Scooter Libby running it from the VP Chief of Staff office?

and I consider it a declaration of war against the GOP.  Rahm has no core beliefs except the desire to elect Democrats.  His hiring cannot be interpreted as anything other than a clear signal that this administration's sole purpose is to build a bigger Democratic Party.

Hmm ... what do you think ... there will be redistricting?  Or maybe there will be an attempt to do away with the filibuster?  Or maybe judges who Congress has rejected will be appointed during vacation periods.

Boy, it must really stink to have to worry that the other side will do to you exactly what you did to them.

For any Republicans saying, "I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt", well, guess what, the doubt is removed.  Obama isn't here to make the country better, only to grow the Democratic Party.

LOL ... you're basing this outlandish statement on who he picked as CoS???  48 hours after the election and you're already condemning him.

Guys, Palin was a HUGE drag on the ticket.

This is not gloating.  I respect John McCain and his service to America.  I think gloating happens when you aren't necessarily happy about winning as you are about not seeing the other guy win.  I would have gloated about a victory over George W Bush, I will not regarding John McCain.  Good luck to he and his family!

Very negative.  I'm sorry, the man is utter slime, plain and simple.  And if you can't see that, then you're deluded.

Not for nothing but I kinda get the feeling you would have said that about any of the Democrats running for President.  I kinda get the feeling you would have said the same of Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, and Carter.

And if that is the case then maybe ... just maybe ... you are a "one-party" guy.

Very Positive

As I have said several times before, I have come to really like this man. I'll be very disappointed if the country passes on the opportunity to have this man as Commander in Chief.

The country passed on him in 2000.  Well, actually it was the GOP which passed on him in favor of the drunk, semi-retarded George W Bush.

[Obama]

Obama - Cincinnati, OH (a bigger turnout here by African-American voters in 2004 or in 2000 would have swing Ohio)
Biden - Tampa, FL (swing the aging transplant Northern population)
McCain - Denver, CO (try to energize Air Force voters in a battleground)
Palin - Indianapolis, IN


Hillary Clinton - Pittsburgh, PA
Bill Clinton - Northern VA
Joe Leiberman - Miami, FL

Absolutely.  If conditions were the same as today then the ticket of Jeb Bush/Condi Rice would probably be leading Kerry/Edwards by about 15 pts.  Republicans would blame the economy and the lack of progress in Iraq on Kerry.  Throw in the Edwards affair and the map would look something like this ...

So your question is ....

What if Obama's VP were an ulta-liberal governor w/ questionable ethics, a limited grasp of the issues, and very little experience and McCain's VP were a very experienced Senator w/ a history of party loyalty?

I think in that world McCain would be doing a lot better.  Personally I would be a lot more nervous about the Obama ticket.

Republicans, a week out from the election and it seems inevitable that Barack Obama will defeat John McCain.  Seeing this now, would you rather have had Hillary Clinton as President?

True

Carnegie Mellon University

72% Obama
24% McCain
4% Other

Here's the problem there are some individuals who are working in law enforcement who really should not be.  Some of these people are "burned out", others are just natural bullies.  It places a giant stain on all law enforcement officers when individuals like this feel they can "do whatever they want".  This cop should be immediately disciplined.