THE REPUBLICAN PLAN TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY AND BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS
>
Unlike Democrats, Republicans plan ahead. Right now they're doing two things about putting a jihad in place against President Clinton-- in 2010-12. They're grooming General BetrayUs as their "stabbed-in-the-back" candidate and they're positioning themselves as the anti Culture of Corruption party. Don't be confused.
According to Bob Novak, "it is hard to cut the gloom among Republicans on Capitol Hill about the 2008 elections. They see Democrats winning three ways-- actually increasing their margins in both the House and Senate and putting Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in the White House. These Republicans are counting on excesses of an all-Democratic government in 2009-10 leading to a GOP comeback in the 2010 election."
Individual members of Congress are no longer willing to fall on their swords for lame lameducks Bush and Cheney and we can expect to hear of more and more of them deserting that sinking ship-- on Iraq and everything else. In Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon, Minnesota-- 4 states trending blue but with rubber stamp Republican incumbent senators up for re-election-- and possibly Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, and maybe even Texas and Oklahoma, Bush is shaping up to be the biggest campaign issue with Iraq a close second. None of that cuts in favor of the GOP. Take out Colorado, where the far right incumbent decided to retire rather than face certain defeat, and we have 8 rubber stamp incumbents who have never raised a serious word against the public now overwhelmingly sees as the sordid record of Bush Regime excesses. Susan Collins (R-ME), for example, can hardly tell the people of Maine that she was a moderate and an "independent voice" when she and her rival, Rep. Tom Allen, were first elected on the exact same day and when he voted and spoke out loudly and clearly against the Bush/Cheney agenda and she voted for the entire thing.
Dick Lugar (R-IN) may be offering some Republicans cover to come out and oppose Bush's Iraq agenda-- and some grasped that straw immediately (even someone as 1000% rubber stamp as Sneaky Pete-- but the Regime's attempts to squash that by sending National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley over to Capitol Hill to blame Iraq on the military, only serves to put Republican incumbents in even greater positions of disrepute.
Meanwhile Republican strategists are counting on Democratic overreach after they win in 2008. K Streetwalkers Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel can hardly wait to out-DeLay Tom DeLay and it is more than apparent that Speaker Pelosi doesn't have the clout to stop them. Democratic pork and greed are no less repulsive than Republican pork and greed. And the Republicans will be far better at exploiting it. Worse, the Republicans are planning to use the Democrats' intention of trying to solve the immigration issues as a bat to bash their brains in with. It will be a full on nativist Know Nothing onslaught.
And then there's the little matter of Iraq. Suddenly it will be Hillary's war. You know the phrase about a rock and a hard place. It was invented for this moment. Her inner circle, the whole Clinton coterie believe in the underlying assumptions of the war. She really is a Lieberman-Democrat. That little Neocon circle, plus hysterical Republicans will be screaming "stab in the back" is she tries to end the occupation. The rest of the country will fall to pieces if she doesn't. Welcome back to 1600 Pennsylvania, Madame President. The honeymoon should last a week and a half... tops.
Labels: Culture of Corruption, Hillary
posted by DownWithTyranny @ 12:31 PM
8 comments
|
Reddit
8 Comments:
And they might. When Democrats wuss around and won't even mention the word "impeach", they give NO ONE any reason to vote for them.
It seems that in 2008 the Greedy Old Party will run against the Democrats by saying that the Dems promised change but didn't do much. The reality is that the Repubs have obstructed even the most popular Democratic bills through the filibuster in the Senate and the threat of a veto by the Resident.
I'm not sure what the best way to counter this is except to get as many seats as possible out of GOP hands. There is an outside chance that the Dems could get to 60 Senators in 2008, especially as some previously solid seats look vulnerable (such as Sen. Tubes of AK and your "favorite" Miss McConnell). The House could also use more real Democrats with actual spines...
who says our nominee will be Hillary? Just because she is ahead in the polls now means nothing. The republicans are praying and wishing for it to be Hillary as well as the media who shove their gushing of her down our throats on a daily basis.
But, I like to think democrats are smarter than that. They will pick someone so much better than the republican lite, Hillary.
Boy do I HOPE the Dems are smart enough not to nominate Hillary, but I fear the fix is in.
Despite all the talk about how 2008 is an unusual election because there's no incumbent (or VP) running, Hillary really IS like an incumbent, with all the hangers-on from Wild Bill's days just itching to get back into the EOB.
In my state [MD], Hillary & The Boys have already signed up most of the "name" democratic politicians, making it hard for Edwards & Obama to succeed in the primary. I'm sure it's the same in many other states.
While Bill did a lot of good stuff, he also ruined the "progressive wing of the Democratic party" by his, and his minions' triangulating, pandering, & just plain power-grabs.
I wish these wanna-bes would pause their mirror-gazing long enough to look around at all the people who HATE Hillary and will come out to vote -- who otherwise wouldn't have come out if she weren't the nominee.
This problem is easily solved by electing Barack Obama in '08.
Then, every criticism from any but the ugliest will turn bitter on their tongues.
In fact, if Obama can somehow overcome the widespread racism in this country to win the election, I could easily see a Democratic White House and Congress for more than a decade. If America was ever ready for a new FDR, it's today.
I echo the sentiment that the GOP is praying that Hillary is the candidate in 2008. People need to look at Edwards and Obama instead of going with a GOP-lite candidate that the Republicans are already prepared to take down.
Democratic pork and greed ARE different than Republican pork and greed, Democratic pork and greed center on constituents ie the working classes, NOT the industrialists........
It is not accurate to ust the equavialancy argument we are NOT like them even at our worst we are NOT LIKE THEM
Any form of progressivism has to come from the bottom up. If a sufficient number of progressives (I imagine 30-50% caucus would be sufficient) are elected in 2008 it won't matter whether the President is HRC, Edwards or Obama, the President will have to follow the party.
Unfortunately the reverse is also true: if enough progressives aren't elected it won't matter which of the above trio is elected because there won't be enough support for any presidential initiatives that the MSM considers "radical" (anything to the left of Herbert Hoover).
The race for president garners most of the news reporting (such as it is), but it is the Representatives and Senators who initiate legislation. Even if a President wants a particular bill, it must first be put in by a member of either House - and most members don't like to associated with legislation that doesn't pass.
A progressive Democratic Congress would also be more than a match for any present GOP contenders should that occur.
The deification of the presidency needs to stop and the only way to it is by electing progressive Democratic Representatives and Senators.
Post a Comment
<< Home