Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

For a presidential candidate to put up a petition to have the Sec. of Defense resign in the middle of a war, tells me he isn’t the man.

Regardless of the situation, there needs to be accountability. If replacing Rumsfeld is what is necessary to begin to rebuild credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world, then that’s what needs to be done. Same justification as your suggestion that Bush not run again.

To say that one shouldn’t be replaced because we’re at war is basically allowing for Bush to instill himself as Emperor. If the Defense Secretary shouldn’t resign because we’re at war, then surely the Commander in Chief cannot be replaced! So therefore we cannot have an election in the fall. And since the “War on Terror” will last decades by most accounts, well then I guess Bush is going to be in office a long time. Seeing the way the adminsitration runs roughshod over the Constitution, I don’t see the 22nd Amendment to be a hurdle…

It is slightly ludicrous to suggest that Kerry’s endorsement of Rumfeld’s resignation is cause for dumping Kerry. Many mainstream publications have endorsed this effort (including Economist and Army Times). This is a sign to me that Kerry’s in touch with what’s going on in mainstream politics and Bush is not. Rumsfeld is not a bad man nor deserves sole blame for this fiasco. But at some point a president needs to signal his commitment to accountability by starting out with new leadership. From Bush’s point of view, it makes sense to distance himself from defense leaders tainted by this scandal.

On Senator Kerry:

There are several reasons Democrats should consider dumping Senator Kerry. The polling data shows that except for the “anyone but Bush” vote, he is turning out to be a dismal candidate at a time when our country needs strong leadership. Why isn’t he ahead by 10 to 15 points right now??

Craig

I wish too that edwards vs. mccain was my choice, however mccain didn’t even run and edwards will probably be the vp canidate(or at least I hope)behind kerry.

this is what the dems failed to relize eary this year and late last year, Kerry is boring and doesn’t apeal to anyone specific, he is the safe choice for the dems and I am afraid of four more years of the bush administration.

Martiniwitz:
Well I’m puffing but not inhaling. This whole business shows some serious issues that face the whole world community. There is more info to come out in the media and from the government. It will be interesting to watch as the political cards are played.

I think the shrillness from the left is a turn off for many voters. It is obviously using the war to score political points. The campaign itself could cause many american deaths. It is a very difficult time.

Craig

During the 2000 election I supported Orin Hatch for president (go ahead, laugh at me- he is a great man and would have made a damn good president- who cares if he got less votes than Al Sharpton), but I have to admit that I was happy to see Bush defeat John McCain. Its not that I liked Bush at all, its that I think campaign finance reform is extremely dangerous and violation of the 1rst amendment (imagine allowing elected officials to make laws decided who can criticize them and when!)

Last night, however, after watching John McCain on the Daily Show, I fully recognize that I couldn’t have been more wrong when I was happy when Bush beat him out. McCain is a man of honor and of principle (plus, its not like that spineless Bush even stood up to campaign finance reform when it passed- he just signed it into law- principles be damned). I have come to the conclusion that almost no one seriously thinks that Bush would make a better president than John McCain- seriously, what can Bush do better than McCain? I guess raise money, that’s about it. Since this is the case, why cant we just pull a double switch and run McCain instead :(?

As for John Kerry, I am still shocked that the democrats actually nominated him. Bush is doing most everything wrong and the people are turning against him, and yet Kerry cant gain ANY ground, and is amazingly LOSING ground. He is pliable and unprincipled as Bill Clinton but with the charisma of Al Gore.

Something is seriously wrong with the electorate when two candidates that very very few people believe have any chance to be great presidents are what we have to choose between. The funny this is- why did Bush become the republican’s nominee in 2000? thats right, electability. Sound familiar Mr. Kerry?

in fact, Bush’s approval ratings are the lowest they have ever been, and yet Kerry is slipping in the polls (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1471&u=/ibd/20040511/bs_ibd_ibd/2004511feature&printer=1). This has to be unprecedented.

Craig, according to the polls, Bush’s approval ratings and the support for the war are hitting all times lows. I think it’s time your people consider the publications value, both negative and positive of performance. Spin, in either direction and from either party, works best when it doesn’t look like spin, when the propaganda can nail a real failure, rather than suppose an ideological sin.

The Abu Ghraib prison scandal should have been taken care of immediately. It would have been a non-item for the administrations detractors, if these people had been brought up on charges and court-martialed immediately, instead of people sitting on this thing for months.

Whatever your subjective opinion is about the left’s “shrillness”, this scandal represents a genuine international incident with huge repercussions for our ongoing war efforts.

Your party has used the War on Terror to political benefit. They have used it to beat down Democrat opponents as lacking patriotism, lacking resolve to fight the enemy, being too bleeding heart, and too dependent on international permission slips to fight it properly. Even you are using that appeal to fear to argue that Kerry is an inappropriate choice in the election.

But the conduct of the war has left many of us unsatisfied, even disgusted with your administration and your party’s policies. Hell, even your own people are asking questions about it. We are wondering how things could have been so mismanaged as to have things be this bad at this point. So, to us, appeals to the fear like yours just seem to be you trying to distract us from real incompetence and mismanagement by raising partisan fears of our hypothetical lack of qualifications to run the war.

Maybe that works on conservative moderates. But it will only work as long as the real problems in Iraq stay low grade enough. If things screw up enough, people will take their chances with Kerry.

I thought in 2000, and still believe, that John McCain was a good man and a great candidate. He would have been an excellent president. Unfortunately, he was steamrolled by the Bush/Cheney machine.

Edwards’ ideas are good, if not yet fully formed for a presidential candidate. I think the GOP would have had a field day with his trial attorney background and support. He may have been a better candidate than Kerry, but I didn’t think so during the primaries and I still don’t think so.

That’s all fine and if the Republicans replaced Bush (and/or the Democrats replaced Kerry), I’d have a decision to make on November 2.

But with that said, I really don’t understand this notion that Kerry should be ahead in the polls by 10% or 15%. On what grounds? Because Bush is getting bad publicity over the war?

Consider the following:

- Bush spent over $50 million in ads attacking Kerry in March, but Kerry stayed in a statistical dead heat.

- Bush is a sitting president who earned approval ratings above 90% following 9/11.

- The war is keeping Bush in front of the public, for good or bad, and keeping Kerry’s message in the background.

- The economic numbers have steadily improved throughout the year.

- Kerry has yet to name a VP.

- Neither party has had its convention yet.

- Kerry’s numbers in the battleground states are promising and he’s even finding “red” states such as Arkansas, Colorado, and Tennessee suddenly in play.

- And most importantly, Bush has a solid base of Right Wing supporters who will vote with him no matter who the Democrats run. He owns the pro-life and gun lobbies, as well as states such as Utah, Texas, and Alabama.

Kerry’s poll numbers tell us nothing about how strong or weak a candidate he is. Not on May 11.

Did you read Zogby’s analysis of this election. He believes it’s Kerry’s to lose. But his analysis is based not only on the polls taken in May, but on his observation of how close races and undecided voters typically break in the actual election. Zogby, of course, was the only major pollster to predict that Gore would win the popular vote in 2000 (while calling the electoral race too close to call).

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=825

As someone completely dissatisfied with the presidency of George W. Bush, I’m equally satisfied with his opponent. And when Kerry starts campaigning in earnest and the swing voters get to know him, I’m confident he’ll win over the great majority of them. Mabye even you, Craig.

Craig I agree(Damn it!)

Kerry is a farcical choir boy with an inopportune sense of timing with his aquisition of brownie points. A petition to remove Rummy makes Rummy only a more permanent fixture in the Bush camp during an election year, correct?

Think about it for Bush to dump Rumsfeld is admitting defeat, so the Rumster stays on. What is the point from the Kerry perspective? Isit to make Bush less marketable because the K-man knows what Bush’s reaction to it is going to be, keep Rummy.

Bush is looking sad and doltish these days. And is actually not directly responsible for Abu Ghraib as I see it. He has just been beat to sh*t and shows the wear and tear. Each speech getting more and more Nixonian until I suppose he will reach the I am not a crook thing eventually. The man is a media pinata and the photos are like a woodburning kit burning right into the man’s political image.

But why Craig Holmes are the republicans throwing in the towel on Bush I’m seeing this even by conservative writers, a twinge of all being lost. Why shouldn’t the man run for re election? Okay his attack team is having a devil of a time deconstructing Kerry as many of Bush’s admin. were Vietnam dodgers and people are finding out why he opposed the 87 billion.

Is George really dead meat?

There’s a good op-ed in the New York Times about this.

Basically, the guy is saying it’s wrong to seek a one-to-one relationship between Bush’s approval rating and his standing in the election polls.

The real reason that Mr. Kerry is making so little progress is that voters are now focused almost exclusively on the president. This is typical: as an election approaches, voters first decide whether the incumbent deserves re-election; only later do they think about whether it is worth taking a chance on the challenger. There is no reason to expect a one-to-one relationship between public disaffection with the incumbent and an immediate surge in public support for his challenger.

He cites Carter’s dipping approval rating while maintaining a dead heat, and sometmes the lead, in the election polls against Reagan in 1980.

I think Kerry is a good candidate right now. Once he chooses a running-mate and the televised debates start the poll numbers will continue to change.

I don’t think this is even an issue right now. Unless the Republicans really want to boot Bush in favor of McCain. That will change everything. :)

I think it would be a sure victory for the right to put mc cain in as either the vp or the top man! Luckily for me that isn’t going to happen, but bush still might win!

Skunkbud:

My thoughts are about what is best for the country. I am not sure (not inhaling but puffing), but it seems to me that eventually there a calculus could be done, (should events further deteriorate) where no matter how gifted a leader a person is, it is still better for a new leader to take over because they can lead without the baggage.

Senator Kerry on the other hand comes across as a great big zero. I think the Democrats made a mistake in the nominating process. I think it should have gone on further. If it had and it was only now that the nomination was becoming obvious, I think it likely would have been Senator Edwards.

I would argue in light of the National struggle (war) that old rules can be changed. The Democrats can change nominees before the election. I think that would be good for the country.

Ya know what? I think I just know what I think of Senator Kerry. He looks like VP material to me. I think Senator Kerry would make a good Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrats. No vision, attacks the opposition regularly, in a pinch could run a caretaker government if the number one guy gets knocked off, understands the military.

Craig

I can think of a hundred Democrats and more than a few Republicans who would make a radically superior President than George W. Bush. I could make a list as long as my arm of good potential Presidents. John Kerry would certainly be near the top of that list. Maybe he wouldn’t be at the tippy top but he’d be way up there.

-Cf

If it had and it was only now that the nomination was becoming obvious, I think it likely would have been Senator Edwards.

Craig, Edwards never ever would have gotten the nomination. He’s not a strong candidate and he has some wacky ideas about the economy. He’s far more liberal and less experienced than Kerry.

CRAIG,

I concur(damn-it again)with Kerry being such a lack-luster candidate and atleast his scripted speeches truly yawn-worthy. I do like his Q&A sessions he has with audiences where he gets away from the fluff and pomp and seeks shelter in substance for a while, too bad this segment is only about one third the size of his scripted monotonal trudge through the land of meaningless buzzwords(Round Robin/Benedict Arnold/As far as the eye can..ZZZ stuff). But I do think Kerry is a bright man, no doubt about it.

We really had poor choices and the press got in it with it’s 24/7 coverage and made Kerry what he is in several short weeks, the phenomenon of nuthin’. I personally wanted Joseph Biden or Gary Hart to make a bid. Bright fellas with personality, that would have been nice.

Edwards was charismatic but underneath it all a hostility that you could see beaming underneath the mister rogers act. Plus he was imbedded so deep with trial lawyers that it would be like Bill Clinton on steroids to have in office.

Sensible Kerry, snowboard and all, was what we had left after we clear the smoke out of the circus tent, a man of responsibility. Patricianly as he is, and a bore delivering those prepared speeches using the word “I” too much early on, but a responsible choice.

I think the responsbility will be a nice change from Bush/Clinton/Bush-1/Reagan. A damn good number cruncher/pencil pusher and understands that this is wartime. He actually may be good Craig.

WHEN HOUSE SPEAKER DENNIS HASTERT LECTURED SEN. JOHN MCCAIN ON WAR & SACRIFICE HE ATTACKED EVERY AMERICAN WHO HAS WORN A UNIFORM. I WOULD HOPE THE HOUSE CONSIDERS RECALLING HIM AND HIS CONSTITUENT’S VOTE HIM OUT 111

I think that both bush and kerry would make horrible presidents by the fact of their lying and inventing things if they are ellected or reellected