Are you a moderate or a liberal?

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If Gore had allowed Clinton to campaign for him he would have been elected and America wouldn't be in the mess it is today.

I'm curious as to why Gore wouldn't want a president with a 66% approval rating campaigning for him...

What an idiot.

American was tired of Clinton by that time though. The scandals had wore most people down, I think everyone was happy that Clinton just went away.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Not to bring up old sore subjects... but Gore really DID win that election guys. Not only did he win the popular vote, but lets face it. It's very unlikely that all those Jews in Florida went out of the way to vote for Pat Buchannan the raging anti-semite.

I'm not trying to argue that he should be president... what's done is done, but nobody would be second guessing him or talking trash if he had won by 500 votes instead of lost. (can you believe how different the world would be today if 251 or so people had changed their mind?)

I think a better way of stating your argument is "Gore SHOULD have won that election."
However, the ballot mess in So Florida really hurt him, if not totally cost him the election.
However, Bush DID win the real vote in Fl and therfore became the President.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
While it's true that there's only been 2 Dem Presidents in the past 40 years, there's only been 5 Republicans. Of which, one resigned (Nixon), one got the job b/c his boss was a crook (Ford), another got the job b/c his boss was popular (Bush41), and the last got his job despite more people voting for the other guy (Bush43). That's nothing to brag about.

Oh yeah, starting from the first true postwar President (JFK) that would be 4 Dems and 5 Republicans.

Ok... since Truman (war President) left office in 1952 there have been 14 elections.
Republicans have won 9 of them.
Democrats have won 5.
Meaning the Republicans have won nearly twice as many as the Democrats. On top of that, 2 of the Democrat victories came with less than 50% of the popular vote, while only 1 Republican victory came with less than 50% of the popular vote.

When Bush leaves office in 2009 we will have had 20 years of Republican rule verse only 8 years of Democratic rule since the post Wategate victory of Carter.
No mater how you look at it, Republicans have dominated the national elections for the past 50 or so years.

And yet liberals have ruined your country?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
And yet liberals have ruined your country?

The great society and Social Security both Democratic ideas.
I believe over half the money spent by congress today goes to programs created by Democrat Presidents.

BTW: I don't think our country is 'ruined' However, I do think we spend WAY to much money on social programs that have had little effect, other than to hurt many of the blacks in this country who have come to rely on the welfare/social spending programs to get them through life.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: EXman
Osama Obama bin Laden (Love *Sen. Kennedy fellow asshole) is lucky to be in washington at all the stupid jokers in IL could not find a decent candidate to save their ass. If it wasn't for that Hot Star star Trek chic getting a divorce and ratting her sex club crazy hubby out Obama would still be flippin burgers in IL. He won by default and it is funny how everyone thinks his crap don't stink.

Well Boy, since you put it such a well thought out convincing manner I'll take your POV into consideration..NOT

Well he does have A point. Obama went from beating Alan Keyes to Presidential front runner? huh? Even Dave could have beat Keyes...

That's pretty much nonsense.
As I recall correctly, Obama was still ahead in the polls even before the Jack Ryan scandal.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121385,00.html
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=News&id=1731345
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123716,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/25/il.ryan/

Obama is supported by 52 percent of the state's registered voters while 30 percent favor Republican Jack Ryan (search), according to the first statewide Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll since the two won their primaries in March.

Barack Obama's lead over Jack Ryan in the last three polls was 8, 11, and 22 points.
Ryan says Obama may have a double-digit lead in the polls today...

Obama, who had been leading polls since the March primary, avoided getting in the way of Ryan's fall, and said Friday he didn't care to talk about the allegations.

Even before the lurid allegations, Obama held a lead over Ryan in various polls.

Even FOX news says so...
If you still want to argue that Obama only won his seat because of "Alan Keyes" or the "Jack Ryan" scandal, you're welcome to keep putting your head in the sand.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If Gore had allowed Clinton to campaign for him he would have been elected and America wouldn't be in the mess it is today.

I'm curious as to why Gore wouldn't want a president with a 66% approval rating campaigning for him...

What an idiot.

American was tired of Clinton by that time though. The scandals had wore most people down, I think everyone was happy that Clinton just went away.

Americans were tired of Clinton?

Can you give us a concrete explanation of why he's approval rating of 68 percent was higher than that of any other departing president since polling began more than seventy years?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If Gore had allowed Clinton to campaign for him he would have been elected and America wouldn't be in the mess it is today.

I'm curious as to why Gore wouldn't want a president with a 66% approval rating campaigning for him...

What an idiot.

American was tired of Clinton by that time though. The scandals had wore most people down, I think everyone was happy that Clinton just went away.

Americans were tired of Clinton?

Can you give us a concrete explanation of why he's approval rating of 68 percent was higher than that of any other departing president since polling began more than seventy years?

i'm honestly not sure who ProfJohn includes as 'everyone,' but it is clearly not everyone in the US, nor even a majority of it.

 

[extra]

While america may have been tired of Clinton (he did many things I did not like)... Most of Americans, I believe, were much less *concerned* with politics in 2000 than they are today.

I believe if Clinton could have ran again, he would have won.

Not because he was necessarily better or worse than the other candidates (I don't believe I can play God and decide that) but because he was doing a decent job, the economy was good, gas prices were low, life was good, etc. Why screw with what is working?

These days there is tons of outrage, more than there ever was in the 90's.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: EXman
Osama Obama bin Laden (Love *Sen. Kennedy fellow asshole) is lucky to be in washington at all the stupid jokers in IL could not find a decent candidate to save their ass. If it wasn't for that Hot Star star Trek chic getting a divorce and ratting her sex club crazy hubby out Obama would still be flippin burgers in IL. He won by default and it is funny how everyone thinks his crap don't stink.

Well Boy, since you put it such a well thought out convincing manner I'll take your POV into consideration..NOT

Well he does have A point. Obama went from beating Alan Keyes to Presidential front runner? huh? Even Dave could have beat Keyes...

And Bush went from snorting coke and avoiding active militairy duty to getting his family to buy him the presidency so he could send thousands of US soldiers to their deaths.

No matter how little experience Obama has, he can't be worse as president than what's in the White House now.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rudy is 'right' on the issues that really matter to the country right now.
Which are the war on terror, defense, spending etc.

Now if there was someone running who had all that, plus the social conservative part, and had a chance to win then maybe Rudy wouldn't be doing so well.

But remember, the Republicans have a history of picking the person they think will win, as opposed to the person who fits all their views.
Which is why we have semi-conservative Bush as President.
And a certainly liberal Kerry is still as a senator.

It is also explains why we have had 2 Democrat Presidents in the last 40 years. One of which won after Watergate (during which any Democrat would have won) and one that won during a bad economy. And if the Democrats win in 2008 it may not be because they picked a great candidate, but because of the backlash against the war.

WTF? Bush is a free wheeling, out of control radical! :|

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: EXman
Osama Obama bin Laden (Love *Sen. Kennedy fellow asshole) is lucky to be in washington at all the stupid jokers in IL could not find a decent candidate to save their ass. If it wasn't for that Hot Star star Trek chic getting a divorce and ratting her sex club crazy hubby out Obama would still be flippin burgers in IL. He won by default and it is funny how everyone thinks his crap don't stink.

Well Boy, since you put it such a well thought out convincing manner I'll take your POV into consideration..NOT

Well he does have A point. Obama went from beating Alan Keyes to Presidential front runner? huh? Even Dave could have beat Keyes...

And Bush went from snorting coke and avoiding active militairy duty to getting his family to buy him the presidency so he could send thousands of US soldiers to their deaths.

No matter how little experience Obama has, he can't be worse as president than what's in the White House now.

The problem is we currently REQUIRE a substantially better President than Bush. Dare I say, we need a President that would be among the best of the past century in order to extricate ourselves from just a portion of Bush's BS.

I'm not saying Obama couldn't possibly be that person. I am saying Giuliani couldn't possibly be that person. He has a record of 'achievement' that makes it self-evident. Obama doesn't have much of a record at all.


As for the OP, my general perspective is that Giuliani (once well known by the voters) wouldn't stand a chance in even a purplish red state such as mine (NC) against either our 'typical' Republican or even a 'typical' Democrat. Giuliani appeals to GOP moderates in part b/c the raving loon wing has caused much of our nation's (and world's) distress over the past decade. But it's foolish to believe the raving loon wing will not have a substantial impact in the primaries. Just as Hillary will have to make some kind of inroads among the true left in order to get the nomination.

 

[jjzelinski]

I agree, BBD. Guilliani is a flash in the pan.