I should bet on it. He sacks Cheney and it's in the 50's.
Machiavelli Wrote:I should bet on it. He sacks Cheney and it's in the 50's.
he sacks himself, its in the mid 80s-90s lmfao
Getting rid of Cheney could be very touchy because the base loves him. But 2 years is a long time, and if Hillary is the dem nominee the base will come back in full force.
Politically it might not be a bad idea.
A talking head just said, "Bush can't get rid of Cheney because he was elected".
Now the influence Cheney has in policies may be a whole nother matter.
Ninerfan1 Wrote:Getting rid of Cheney could be very touchy because the base loves him. But 2 years is a long time, and if Hillary is the dem nominee the base will come back in full force.
Politically it might not be a bad idea.
The Dims don't even know why they don't like Cheney. They just know they're not supposed to.
Machiavelli Wrote:A talking head just said, "Bush can't get rid of Cheney because he was elected".
Now the influence Cheney has in policies may be a whole nother matter.
Yeah, keep thinking Bush is an idiot that takes orders from Cheney.
BTW, when did you graduate from Yale? Harvard? USAF Flight School? OCS?
Bush by himself is a very likeable guy. He came off so much better on the campaign trail in 04' than Kerry. I was at a rally in Bowling Green and Kerry botched about three jokes in a row. I had to cheer, but inside I had a sinking feeling.
Love Him, Hate him... Bush is decisive and the Headline tomoorow won't be the Blue Tsunami but Rumsfeld resigns. It truly is brilliant. They gain traction. Plain and Simple!
and Reb quit attacking me. I would like to elevate some of our discussion here.
Machiavelli Wrote:and Reb quit attacking me. I would like to elevate some of our discussion here.
?? Hell with that. It's our turn to be mean now.
;-)
I can assure you, we will get over it a helluva lot quicker than the Dems have in the past.
Quote:?? Hell with that. It's our turn to be mean now.
I can assure you, we will get over it a helluva lot quicker than the Dems have in the past.
Fair Enough. Hammer away. Funny when your the winner it doesn't feel as bad. Just remember no one could of predicted this in 04'. The Republicans will rise again.
Now IMHO you would be better served trying to follow your CIC and show some humility or are you one of the true believers who REALLY do think that Iraq was well planned and ole Rummy was doing a great job.
Ninerfan1 Wrote:Getting rid of Cheney could be very touchy because the base loves him.
Really? I don't know much about him. I didn't think supporters felt that strongly about him.
Honestly? I think he should have stepped down, so they could groom a candidate to run in 2008. That's the way to keep momentum.
Well, that and stop dealilng w/ Abramhof(sp?)
(What happens if Murtha is found connected to Jack?)
DrTorch Wrote:(What happens if Murtha is found connected to Jack?)
Nothing. We are talking about a Democrat here, Torch.
If Bush has higher ratings by Christmas he better enjoy them, because those ratings will plummet when the new Congress starts issuing subpoenas and airing the administration's dirty laundry for all to see. It will be fun to watch!
wvu.... humility....................humility
or we will find ourselves back on the outside looking in. Oh I want investigations but I'm not going to throw it in people's faces.
Look at their demise. HOLY ****!!! Delay, Allen, six months ago could you have ever imagined this. Both freaking houses man!!!
wvucrazed Wrote:If Bush has higher ratings by Christmas he better enjoy them, because those ratings will plummet when the new Congress starts issuing subpoenas and airing the administration's dirty laundry for all to see. It will be fun to watch!
That does it. I'm not voting for Bush in '08.
By the way, when you start looking for a scape-goat, I'll tell you what I told Mach, you'll save time by starting in your own party.
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
Either these guys are lying to you when they say they were "lied" to or they are extremely incompetent.
Machiavelli Wrote:wvu.... humility....................humility
or we will find ourselves back on the outside looking in. Oh I want investigations but I'm not going to throw it in people's faces.
Look at their demise. HOLY ****!!! Delay, Allen, six months ago could you have ever imagined this. Both freaking houses man!!!
I know, it's true. Humility is a good thing. After all, this administration and all their fans have been SO HUMBLE over the last 6 years lmfao If the wingnuts had won last night, they would be throwing it in everyone's faces yet again. Luckily, that didn't happen.
But seriously, you're right. Pelosi struck just the right tone today in her press conference. But I have a feeling that all of these conciliatory expressions of bipartisonship are going to go bye-bye very quickly once the real work begins.
Not like Cheney needs the work or the money. If I was him I would claim to have another Heart episode and step down. Bush makes Condoleza Rice Vice President and his approval really goes up and we have a successor in 2008 to go up against Hillary and Obama.
Machiavelli Wrote:Look at their demise. HOLY ****!!! Delay, Allen, six months ago could you have ever imagined this. Both freaking houses man!!!
I know your side is excited, but I just got to ask - doesn't knowing that the 6th year president's party has always taken a monster hit temper your excitement at all? The only President it didn't happen to was Clinton and that was because he lost both houses in his second year.
Just wondering and really not trying to talk junk, much, but you're all awfully excited over something that's essentially supposed to happen.
Anywho, subpoena the world, waste time and money and become irrelevant for another 14 years. Should be fun to watch at least.
RebelKev Wrote:wvucrazed Wrote:If Bush has higher ratings by Christmas he better enjoy them, because those ratings will plummet when the new Congress starts issuing subpoenas and airing the administration's dirty laundry for all to see. It will be fun to watch!
That does it. I'm not voting for Bush in '08.
By the way, when you start looking for a scape-goat, I'll tell you what I told Mach, you'll save time by starting in your own party.
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
Either these guys are lying to you when they say they were "lied" to or they are extremely incompetent.
WMD's is not the root of all the Bush administration's foibles, as you know. Does this argument really need to be rehashed again? Have you read Bob Woodward's book? How about Thomas Ricks'?
Oh, right, nevermind. They're in the media so they're liberals, right? So everything they report must just be more blind hatred Bush bashing.
Are you really taking the position that your guy shouldn't be held accountable for the disaster in Iraq?
Lethemeul Wrote:Machiavelli Wrote:Look at their demise. HOLY ****!!! Delay, Allen, six months ago could you have ever imagined this. Both freaking houses man!!!
I know your side is excited, but I just got to ask - doesn't knowing that the 6th year president's party has always taken a monster hit temper your excitement at all? The only President it didn't happen to was Clinton and that was because he lost both houses in his second year.
Just wondering and really not trying to talk junk, much, but you're all awfully excited over something that's essentially supposed to happen.
Anywho, subpoena the world, waste time and money and become irrelevant for another 14 years. Should be fun to watch at least.
lmfao I love it. "Well, we weren't supposed to win anyway." Tell that to Karl Rove, and all your candidates. I'm sure that will be a nice balm to ease their disappointment.
Ever hear of a little thing called redistricting? Or the vaunted GOP get-out-the-vote operation? Earlier in the year most pundits thought it doubtful the Dems could pick up the 15 seats needed in the House, and the Senate was out of the question. All these pundits knew the history of the "6th year." Why weren't they more confident then?
wvucrazed Wrote:lmfao I love it. "Well, we weren't supposed to win anyway." Tell that to Karl Rove, and all your candidates. I'm sure that will be a nice balm to ease their disappointment.
Ever hear of a little thing called redistricting? Or the vaunted GOP get-out-the-vote operation? Earlier in the year most pundits thought it doubtful the Dems could pick up the 15 seats needed in the House, and the Senate was out of the question. All these pundits knew the history of the "6th year." Why weren't they more confident then?
ECU didn't expect to beat WVU this year, either, but we still went out and put up a fight.
I was honestly asking if history made a difference in the level of glee. Really, I was curious.
If Pelosi starts pushing to subpoena everyone then I would expect a rift in the middle of the democratic party. A lot of moderate democrats were elected this time around, and the people who are going to push to go after the Bush administration are going to be the far left. Most of the moderates will not support a witchhunt, and it could end up giving the power right back to the republicans.
So... hopefully she plays this smart.
corruption was mentioned on 42% of the post election poll. I'll give you a couple of weeks b4 I answer.
wvucrazed Wrote:WMD's is not the root of all the Bush administration's foibles, as you know. Does this argument really need to be rehashed again? Have you read Bob Woodward's book? How about Thomas Ricks'?
Oh, right, nevermind. They're in the media so they're liberals, right? So everything they report must just be more blind hatred Bush bashing.
Are you really taking the position that your guy shouldn't be held accountable for the disaster in Iraq?
.....but a majority of the anger was the decision to go into Iraq. WMD's was one of the main reasons we went into Iraq. This shows that Democrats stated the same thing. Stop moving the damn goal posts. If you're pissed at Bush about Iraq, you need to spread the anger.
RebelKev Wrote:wvucrazed Wrote:WMD's is not the root of all the Bush administration's foibles, as you know. Does this argument really need to be rehashed again? Have you read Bob Woodward's book? How about Thomas Ricks'?
Oh, right, nevermind. They're in the media so they're liberals, right? So everything they report must just be more blind hatred Bush bashing.
Are you really taking the position that your guy shouldn't be held accountable for the disaster in Iraq?
.....but a majority of the anger was the decision to go into Iraq. WMD's was one of the main reasons we went into Iraq. This shows that Democrats stated the same thing. Stop moving the damn goal posts. If you're pissed at Bush about Iraq, you need to spread the anger.
Oh, there's plenty to be pissed at about Iraq that have nothing to do with WMD's.
Let's assume for a second that Bush didn't ignore contradicting intelligence, and that going into Iraq was a smart idea. For the sake of argument, we'll take any pre-war issues off the table. Clean slate. Let's go into Iraq and do the job.
Well.... look at what has happened. We went in with too few troops, as Bush and Rumsfeld were warned. We went in without the realization, despite what history tells us, that we would be treated as occupiers. We went in with zero plan for the post-Saddam era. We went in disshevelled and disorganized. Who was in charge of this? Not Madeline Albright. Not Bill Clinton. George Bush is the one who made the decision to go into Iraq, and it was his responsibility to do it right - and he has clearly, clearly failed.
mlb Wrote:If Pelosi starts pushing to subpoena everyone then I would expect a rift in the middle of the democratic party. A lot of moderate democrats were elected this time around, and the people who are going to push to go after the Bush administration are going to be the far left. Most of the moderates will not support a witchhunt, and it could end up giving the power right back to the republicans.
So... hopefully she plays this smart.
Since when is issuing subpoenas to investigate serious problems in our government a "witch hunt?" Did the congressional republicans engage in a "witch hunt" against Bill Clinton? Remember Whitewater? They hounded Clinton every inch of the way, was it a "witch hunt" then, or only when republicans are the target? It's quite confusing.
wvucrazed Wrote:Did the congressional republicans engage in a "witch hunt" against Bill Clinton? Remember Whitewater? They hounded Clinton every inch of the way, was it a "witch hunt" then, or only when republicans are the target?
That was a VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY
wvucrazed Wrote:Since when is issuing subpoenas to investigate serious problems in our government a "witch hunt?" Did the congressional republicans engage in a "witch hunt" against Bill Clinton? Remember Whitewater? They hounded Clinton every inch of the way, was it a "witch hunt" then, or only when republicans are the target? It's quite confusing.
The difference is that the republican party was doing it with the full support of their party. I don't think that they would have the full support of the democratic party. If the democrats are smart they stay within this "moderate" area of the politics, as it will help them gain all kinds of control.
Ninerfan1 Wrote:Getting rid of Cheney could be very touchy because the base loves him. But 2 years is a long time, and if Hillary is the dem nominee the base will come back in full force.
Politically it might not be a bad idea.
I think you're right. Bush has already sacrificed Rummy, to do that to Cheney would be suicide with his base. I remember Hannity talking about this prior t the 2004 election and predicted that the base would abandon him.
If Hillary is the nominee, I seriously don't think that will happen, I predict a huge victory for republicans. If Hillary were the nominee I would probably vote for a republican candidate for president for the first time. Look for a governor to get the nomination, Vilsack has just announced his candidacy for POTUS.