Shucks, man. Thanks for the support. I note with some small degree of aumusment that the media is still giggling over McCain's American Idol moment. Sad to say, but I think that one will be ranked with How Dean's scream.

If you go back to the very start of this thread, my prediction (made 8-7-2006) remains in force. Hillary dominates her party's base, and Obama appears to be losing steam. With Republicans in total dissaray, it seems likely thatthe immigration bill that is now up for debate will pass. That bit of treachery by itself will ensure that Hillary Clinton is our next President. Leads me to think that George W. Bush was the best thing to happen for the Democrats since Bill Clinton. Ouch.

On GW being ‘the best thing for Dems’ I offer instead this simile: it’s like Hillary making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

On the Immigration Bill. I hate it! It is anti-American. It represents the surrender of our core values to the mob. It is so bad it cannot be “fixed” in 2009. I say, P L E A S E don’t do this to us!

You know what I don’t like: a Berlin Wall - that itself is a fool’s errand - fines of any amount but all the more at $5,000, a sum so large no poor person can accumulate. That will make our new 'immigrants' easy prey for loan sharks, a problem we seem to be gleefully laying the ground work for, a new (Latino) Mafia.

The proposed law does not support family values by placing priority on completing nuclear families already here. And it goes on and on. It is surely a bill ‘Made In Hell’ and unworthy of the United State of America, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, which I thought stood for something, not against everything.

Where is our sense of charity? Where is our hospitality to strangers? Where in this bill do we honor the Golden Rule? Those people - unlawful immigrants - came here at our implied request. They have been significant contributors to the American Way of Life for several generations in some instances. Where is our sense of fair play that we are so boastful of?

What is there in this proposed law any American can be proud of? That you would want to read at the next 4th of July picnic? What provision of it would you be willing to die for? To make a Bataan Death March? To freeze to death at the Chosen Reservoir? Or to die by IED in Baghdad?

[edit on 5/30/2007 by donwhite]

In my thread, "The Shape of Things to Come," a central part of my thesis is that we're going to see more laws coming out of Congress which are, as you say, "anti-American." Good for them, and bad for the rest us.

We have yet to see the final language of this bill, but its not hard to figure out that we're about to shoot ourselves in da foot. In many respects, this really is just what I'd expect from a Democrat controlled Congress. Trouble is, its being championed by a Republican President. When this law fails, Democrats will find it very easy to generate political capital.

I now subscribe to the poison pill theory. I smell Pelosi, too. She's really quite sharp. In certain respects, I think the Dems are out-maneuvering the GOP...again. I think they know they're going to pass a bad law, and they're itching to hang it on the Republicans. I arrived at this point of view after I heard the news that Hillary voted against the latest Iraq war spending bill.

Today on CSpan, I watched the NEW John McCain. And I like him! His new litany is to recite about 20 issues rapid fire, then to utter the following mantra afer each. “That’s not good enough for America and that’s not good enough for me when I’m president!”

[edit on 5/30/2007 by donwhite]

Senator McCain may have gotten himself a style consultant, or some new handlers. That much seems clear. His new demeanor doesn't seem to fit him very well. Say what you will about Hillary's brusque manner but it's all her and she doesn't care who knows it.

When he was running for office in 2000, Bush43 was so well packaged that he fooled everyone. I'm still hearing about people who were dazzled by the way he suddenly got stupid after taking the oath of office. Americans want theri leader to be who they are. We don't always get that, but it's what we would would like to see.

Yes, Bush43 is so shallow. Every time he answers questions about our commitment to Iraq, it is the same dumb response. Never adding anything new. In fact, last week at a news conference - a misnomer - he was challenged about citing 2 years old INTEL regarding Iraq. He did not respond directly; he neither admitted it nor denied it. Neither did he offer to explain it. Using old stuff. Instead, he said, “I read the material” and then asserted we could trust him to make the right decision. Hmm?

I can’t assign seriousness to the McCain campaign. It’s the last gasp of a man driven to public service. The GOP looks much like a 2 man race to me, Romney - the conservative’s favorite son - and Rudy - all the rest of the GOP faithful.

PS. What did you think about my dramatic pictorial presentation of the Rudy nomination acceptance speech?

[edit on 5/31/2007 by donwhite]

You're the first that I know off to make such a guess, so I'll hold off on a monetary bet just now.

[edit on 31-5-2007 by Justin Oldham]

I will go with answering the OP.
Yes.

Hillary will win, much to all of our chagrin.


I feel it in my bones and have 'known' this was coming for a while now.......
I was predicting this, as the origonel intent of fixing the last US elections to make Bush president........was all to pave the way for Hillary.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

(because Bush sux SO BAD the American public will vote for anybody just to get him the hell out.........and with Hillary as the forerunner for the Dems this NEXT pre planned and fixed election will seem to be a true election IMO............and in doing it this way they can create the 'illusion' that our votes still count for anything)



[edit on 1-6-2007 by theRiverGoddess]

I make no secret of the fact that Hillary provided me with some 'inspiration' for my first novel. A lot is being made of a possible Fred Thompson candidacy, but the Republican base is just too fragmented to put any one GOP contender in to striking distance of the Presidency.

I believe the G.O.P. will get it together in time and yes, Rudy seems likely to win the nomination in my opinion. I would rather see Satan himself run and win than have Hillary elected as President.

You really should be careful about what you wish for.

Based on what I see at this time, the GOP will suffer from Fritz Mondale syndrome. The only question will be, how badly do they lose? I think the RNC has already made up its mind that they want Rudy, in much they same way that that were so insistent on Bob Dole. I do think that Republican leaders in general are ready for the loss. They'd like to avoid being thrashed so badly that it hurts to see on t.v.

You're right, and I figure Obama won't make the cut THIS TIME anyway.

I am not so quick to write off the R.N.C. Time will tell.

The Sunday night Dems Debate Special from NH was terrific for the Dems. And Hillary carried the ball! I guess all will now exclaim how wise it was for the Dems to “forego” the (rather dumb) offer from FOX? Thanks but no thanks, Rupert. How could any Dem trust FOX? Hillary even had to set Wolf straight on asking divisive questions. CNN is about 10 miles out in front of FOX in talent, style and format. Like day is to night. Why go with a slug No. 2 when you can go with the quick No. 1?



Suppose the GOP RNC is controlled by real conservatives, that is by ultra cons and not by what I call the Eastern Establishment Republicans, the kind of people I can live with. Foreseeing a loss this year - Iraq is the killer - then why not run a pseudo-liberal type such as NYC’s own Rudy Giuliani? It’s a triple whammy! 1) you pacify the leftist in your own party, and 2) you shut up the liberal types for a decade or two and 3) you assure the next round goes to the conservative type that you really wanted to run in the first place.

It’s one cheap way to assert definitive control over the RNC at least through to 2016. (Assuming no one expects to defeat a well received Dem incumbent in 2012).

[edit on 6/3/2007 by donwhite]

I think there is wisdom in some of what you say. I'm not sure that some of the folks who read and participate in this thread will know what you mean by Eastern Establishment Republicans, but I think the analogy holds water so let's run with it.

I do think they've made up their minds to run Giuliani to take some of the tarnish off their image. I sense the hand of Newt in this. If he runs at all, it will be to alter the image of his party rather than to win. He has worked hard to establish himself as a Republican elder Statesman. I think he's the only one of them smart enough to know that if they lose with grace now, then can win with pride later on.

I don't accept losing. When you say you're going to lose, you have already lost.
Go Rudy!

Eastern Establishment Republicans. The Robert Alphonso Taft wing of the party in 1952. The Thomas E. Dewey wing, the GOP candidate for 1944 and 1948. He was accused by the rambunctious Western Wing of being a “me too” candidate to the Democrats. They were internationalist which meant opposing the rather strong isolationist sentiments in the late 1930s and which is visible today in the ‘Berlin Wall on our Southern Border’ wing, the anti-immigration-ist theology.

Socially conscious. Not afraid to support food stamps when too many are going hungry, a lesson they learned in 1932. Moderates in tax policy, realizing the advantaged must pay more. Willing to support EPA when it becomes obvious the environment is a crucial component of long term success as a human race. Not ideological in judicial nominations, but putting the emphasis on quality of thinking and not on steadfastness of position. In other words, people I can live with.

[edit on 6/5/2007 by donwhite]

I had lunch with a friend today, and he points out that the GOP could actually turn left for its own politicla survival. Cold be that the old fossil deal makers at the top want to keep their jobs so badly that they would risk such a course change just to stay in charge for even a few more years. I'm gonna kick this around for a while before I say any more.

J/O: I had lunch with a friend today, and he points out that the GOP could actually turn left for its own political survival. Could be that the old fossil deal makers at the top want to keep their jobs so badly that they would risk such a course change just to stay in charge for even a few more years. I'm gonna kick this around for a while before I say any more.

DW: J/O, do you really think the Pope believes in God? OK, ok, maybe that is a bad choice to make my point. More Dems in Congress are millionaires than are GOPs. So what, you ask? Well, you know I do not believe in conspiracies, but I do believe in convergences of interest. I also happen to think there is much good (and bad) in nuances. A tweak here and a tweak there can make a lot of difference on the bottom line.

[edit on 6/5/2007 by donwhite]

Well, okay. I have had time to kick it around and I do now think that the party bosses have 'sanctioned' Giuliani to be the sacrificial lamb. He can't win, so what the hey? the move looks like a course correction, but it doesn't have to be if things change on down the line.

But way-tuh, you're saying "what about Fred?" We're all studying the Fred Thompson bid, and its just too early to tell. His plan seems to be as follows. a) Rack up ten million dollars. b) Announce just after the 4th of July holiday. As gambling goes, this is a low risk big win proposition for Fred, and I'm sure he knows it. He is, after all, gambling with other people's money.