Yeeeeeeeah! Vilsack headed for The White House! [Archive]

sam i am

11-13-2006, 01:18 PM

The guy's got a snowball's chance in Hell with Hillary, Obama, McCain, and Giuliani all running.

Just as an aside : what do you all think about Giuliani's chances? We've been debating it this past week since the election and most people I've spoken with (from all sides of the political spectrum) seem to think he's got the best shot....

Your opinion?

Schmeltz

11-13-2006, 06:20 PM

DroppinScience

11-13-2006, 06:31 PM

What's Giuliani's experience with federal politics? I'm sure many people are familiar with him in his capacity as Mayor of New York, but is that the sort of background that would really serve him well in a bid to be President? Does he have any experience in State politics, or in the House or Senate, or is his experience purely municipal? If I were an American I'd be skeptical.

It's only municipal. Granted, he was mayor of a hugely important big city, but I've never heard of a President being a mayor before heading to The White House. You gotta climb up... Governor, Senator, stuff like that. A mayor? Gimme a break.

QueenAdrock

11-13-2006, 06:37 PM

True. And Senators are usually out of the question too. Southern governors are the way to go. Senators can be hard-hit with things like "HE VOTED AGAINST BREAST CANCER RESEARCH!" because it could be riding on a "Let's give another $50 bajillion dollars to the war" bill that he voted against. And therefore, since he voted against the bigger bill, he must have seen the smaller bill and decided he hated it too.

Plus, they'll take 10-year old figures and hold them against you. Like when Kerry wanted to raise the gas tax by 15% back in 1990 when it was low and not an outrageous idea, they said "KERRY'S FOR RAISING YOUR GAS PRICES, LOL!" and had in TEEEEEENY print "...statistic from 1990."

If you have a voting record, they'll find plenty to hold against you.

DroppinScience

11-13-2006, 06:41 PM

True. And Senators are usually out of the question too. Southern governors are the way to go.

Well, governors period seem to work as of recent (Reagan was California Governor) and of course Vice-Presidents, but that's a different kettle of fish.

QueenAdrock

11-13-2006, 06:43 PM

First off, fish aren't in kettles.

Second off...well, actually that's all I wanted to say.

DroppinScience

11-13-2006, 08:17 PM

You stole my avatar! :mad:

QueenAdrock

11-13-2006, 11:35 PM

Did I now?

Schmeltz

11-13-2006, 11:55 PM

This is like some kind of internet PDA. Knock it off. (n)

Funkaloyd

11-14-2006, 03:23 AM

Yeeeeeeeah!
What's this got to do with Dean?

sam i am

11-14-2006, 12:01 PM

What's this got to do with Dean?

Dean was at a rally WITH Vilsack when he had his famous over-the-edge moment and "battle cry."

Vilsack is dead in the water....with or without a kettle of fish:p

As for Giuliani's experience : don't you think he has enormous name-recognition, a narrow record without a lot of baggage to hold against him, and "moderate" positions (pro-choice, anti-gun, etc.) to pull a ton of independents from the Dems to the Republicans in '08?

DroppinScience

11-14-2006, 02:24 PM

As for Giuliani's experience : don't you think he has enormous name-recognition, a narrow record without a lot of baggage to hold against him, and "moderate" positions (pro-choice, anti-gun, etc.) to pull a ton of independents from the Dems to the Republicans in '08?

This is under the assumption that if Giuliani were to run for President and still hold his currently more-liberal-than-mainstream-Republican stances. There's speculation that if Giuliani is gonna run for President, he'll move towards the right to court Christian conservatives, etc.

No matter the name recognition, I've just never heard of a MAYOR becoming the President. It just feels like a leap in terms of experience.

Schmeltz

11-14-2006, 05:55 PM

As for Giuliani's experience : don't you think he has enormous name-recognition, a narrow record without a lot of baggage to hold against him, and "moderate" positions (pro-choice, anti-gun, etc.) to pull a ton of independents from the Dems to the Republicans in '08?

Paris Hilton's got tons of name recognition and it wouldn't make her a good President; a "narrow record" sounds like just another way of saying "extremely limited political experience"; and his moderate positions are more likely to cost him the Republican nomination than to attract people away from a party that supposedly makes those positions part of their platform already. I should probably look into things a little more deeply before I form a more definitive opinion, but I still find it difficult to believe that somebody with no experience at all in federal politics could make it as a President.

sam i am

11-15-2006, 05:19 PM

Paris Hilton's got tons of name recognition and it wouldn't make her a good President; a "narrow record" sounds like just another way of saying "extremely limited political experience"; and his moderate positions are more likely to cost him the Republican nomination than to attract people away from a party that supposedly makes those positions part of their platform already. I should probably look into things a little more deeply before I form a more definitive opinion, but I still find it difficult to believe that somebody with no experience at all in federal politics could make it as a President.

See, that's kinda my point.

Maybe someone WITHOUT federal experience can bring something new (and better?) to the table than the candidates we've had recently.

Plus, even if Giuliani runs "to the right" during the primaries, he'll still be on record for his "moderate" positions and be able to run back to the center to win the Presidency.

Hmmm.....

Interesting to ponder. From a conservative's point of view, he's not the ideal candidate, but Gingrich might have too much baggage.

QueenAdrock

11-15-2006, 06:29 PM

Gingrich might have too much baggage.

HA! Yeah, just a little.

Schmeltz

11-15-2006, 06:37 PM

Plus, even if Giuliani runs "to the right" during the primaries, he'll still be on record for his "moderate" positions and be able to run back to the center to win the Presidency.

Without being accompanied by a deafening chorus of "FLIP-FLOPPER FLIP-FLOPPER FLIP-FLOPPER" from his opponents within the party? I highly doubt that. As for Gingrich - I didn't even know he was considering it.

Can I ask, sam - as a Republican, what is your view of McCain? Do you feel he would make an effective party leader and potential President?

yeahwho

11-15-2006, 07:06 PM

I know that Rudy would be foolish to not explore the job. From a purely political and nuetral position his odds are as good or better than any other Republican candidate for clinching the nomination at this point in time.

Early 2008 Presidential polls show him with one of the highest levels of name recognition and support. A recent Gallup poll found Giuliani to be the most "acceptable" nominee for Republicans, with 73% giving him a thumbs-up and 25% dismissing him as "unacceptable." By this measure, he led both Condoleezza Rice (68%-29%) and John McCain (55%-41%).[30] The same poll also found Giuliani leading the Republican field with 29% support, with John McCain at 24%, Newt Gingrich at 8%, and both Mitt Romney and Bill Frist at 6%.

He was named TIME magazine's Person of the Year for 2001, and given an honorary knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II on February 13, 2002 for his leadership and handling role during the 9/11 crisis.

The "Black Cloud" #1 in his presidential run will be the downplaying of the abestos and other airbourne carcinogenics from the WTC fallout. There are other mitigating factors but he will be taken to task for the health effects still lingering with rescue workers.

And Rev. Al Sharpton seems to hate his guts. That will make for some juicy media coverage and insane quotes.

D_Raay

11-15-2006, 11:28 PM

John Edwards already has my endorsement. I don't care who runs from the other side.

DroppinScience

11-15-2006, 11:39 PM

McCain is joining the race (not news, duh)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/15/presidential.bids/index.html

But what's interesting is Tommy Thompson (former Health & Human Services Secretary) is considering a run.

That's about as likely as Vilsack.

QueenAdrock

11-16-2006, 12:03 AM

I wonder if Rove will start rumors about McCain's "illegitamate black child" again, or if they'll just let him go through the primaries and leave him be. Hmm. I guess it depends who's running against him.

McCain's been pissing me off as of recently, but I wouldn't mind him as much as some of the others. Just no Jeb Bush pls.

D_Raay

11-16-2006, 03:44 AM

sam i am

11-16-2006, 12:20 PM

Without being accompanied by a deafening chorus of "FLIP-FLOPPER FLIP-FLOPPER FLIP-FLOPPER" from his opponents within the party? I highly doubt that. As for Gingrich - I didn't even know he was considering it.

Can I ask, sam - as a Republican, what is your view of McCain? Do you feel he would make an effective party leader and potential President?

McCain, IMO, is a bit off his rocker and a poseur to boot. McCain-Feingold finance reform, IMO, was a terrible idea, limiting free speech in politics.

His record has been solidly conservative, however, and he does have appeal across to independents, so he wouldn't be a horrible candidate.

I think we can do better in '08 : even Giuliani would be stronger.

sam i am

11-16-2006, 12:23 PM

Just no Jeb Bush pls.

That's quite insightful of you, Queenie.

Jeb's got a lot going for him and a lot less of the baggage that his brother has/had.

Plus, he fluently speaks Spanish, is on record supporting immigration, has governed one of the key states needed for election in '08, etc., et al.

I'm impressed you brought him up.(y)

DroppinScience

11-16-2006, 06:06 PM

That's quite insightful of you, Queenie.

Jeb's got a lot going for him and a lot less of the baggage that his brother has/had.

Plus, he fluently speaks Spanish, is on record supporting immigration, has governed one of the key states needed for election in '08, etc., et al.

I'm impressed you brought him up.(y)

No, we don't need THREE President Bush's, thank you very much.

QueenAdrock

11-16-2006, 06:12 PM

True. Though Jeb may not have baggage, the family name does. I'm not sure how many people out there will want another President Bush when they've gotten pretty sick of this one.

sam i am

11-16-2006, 07:33 PM

True. Though Jeb may not have baggage, the family name does. I'm not sure how many people out there will want another President Bush when they've gotten pretty sick of this one.

Because we judge individuals on their merits, not their family names?:confused:

Anyhow, Jeb may not run, but he'd sure be a top-notch contender if he did.

QueenAdrock

11-16-2006, 08:25 PM

Because we judge individuals on their merits, not their family names?:confused:

But by that reasoning, we should have judged the Republican running for Mark Foley's seat by his merits. That didn't happen. They just definitely didn't want another Republican in there because of how badly Foley besmirched that position.

Is besmirched even the right word? You know what I'm saying. It's late and I'm tired.

Either way, people pass judgement on others because of their predecessors that have ties to them.

DroppinScience

11-17-2006, 12:21 AM

Because we judge individuals on their merits, not their family names?:confused:

Maybe so, but I suspect people would grow tired of the same family name, especially within such a short time frame.

I mean, how would you have been if there had been THREE or more President Kennedys? :p

sam i am

11-17-2006, 01:55 PM

But by that reasoning, we should have judged the Republican running for Mark Foley's seat by his merits. That didn't happen. They just definitely didn't want another Republican in there because of how badly Foley besmirched that position.

Is besmirched even the right word? You know what I'm saying. It's late and I'm tired.

Either way, people pass judgement on others because of their predecessors that have ties to them.

That's a sad but true observation. And, BTW, "besmirched" IS the correct word....kudos!

sam i am

11-17-2006, 01:57 PM

Maybe so, but I suspect people would grow tired of the same family name, especially within such a short time frame.

I mean, how would you have been if there had been THREE or more President Kennedys? :p

There very nearly were : first John (although his father Joe also had lofty political aspirations), then Bobby (until Sirhan Sirhan came along), then Teddy (who barely lost to Carter, if I remember correctly, for the Demo nomination in 1976).

Bobby may not have been too bad, but Teddy would have been (and is) a disaster.

Family names in the US are quite common in attaining offices : look at the Roosevelts as an archetype for family dynasties dominating an era or two.

DroppinScience

11-17-2006, 05:42 PM

There very nearly were : first John (although his father Joe also had lofty political aspirations), then Bobby (until Sirhan Sirhan came along), then Teddy (who barely lost to Carter, if I remember correctly, for the Demo nomination in 1976).

Bobby may not have been too bad, but Teddy would have been (and is) a disaster.

Family names in the US are quite common in attaining offices : look at the Roosevelts as an archetype for family dynasties dominating an era or two.

I thought Ted Kennedy tried to get the nod in 1980? Maybe he tried in '76 as well, but I know it was 1980 for sure.

Bobby probably would have been a better President than JFK, I think.

Oh and of course there have been many family dynasties throughout American politics. But at least Teddy Roosevelt and FDR (both excellent Presidents) were 25 years apart.

QueenAdrock

11-17-2006, 11:41 PM

Bobby probably would have been a better President than JFK, I think.

FUCK YOU.

Oh, my GOD! Someone took a bite out of the giant Rice Krispies square!

sam i am

11-22-2006, 12:16 PM

FUCK YOU.

Oh, my GOD! Someone took a bite out of the giant Rice Krispies square!

You have GOT to stop drinking so much, Queenie;)

QueenAdrock

02-23-2007, 03:13 PM

In other news...

Vilsack drops out. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022300775.html)

AND THEN THERE WERE FOUR...TEEN.

DroppinScience

02-23-2007, 07:49 PM

The dream is over.

I wasn't exactly super-enthusiastic over him, but he should've stayed at least until the first debates (which are on April 4 and 5 for both the GOP and Democratic candidates... I highly suggest you all watch both and be an informed citizenry). Ah well.

sam i am

02-27-2007, 01:51 PM

You realize he dropped out because he could "only" raise around a million dollars thus far?

What the heck is the world coming to when Hillary can rest assured of 300-500 MILLION dollars for her run and poor little Tommy Vilsack is left to whitewash the fence (a little Tom Sawyer reference there for those of you who still read;) )?

Obama's the only one who can stop the Hillary express....I might even vote for him if that weasel McCain gets the Republican nod....at least Obama's got the courage of his convictions.