Is at it again…
But then, that’s what they’d want me to say.
19 Replies to “Bush’s Brain”
This IS my last warning , dearest Kate ….. if that’s your real name ….. never , and I mean never speak of this again…. your friend forever ……
Darth Rove
lottsa nummies …
Somewhat silly theory…
It assumes that Edwards is the better candidate in the eyes of the Republicans. That is, to say the very least, debatable.
Edwards is clueless on what will be the number one issue in ’08 (and ’12 and ’16…) – US security and the war on islamo-fascism. Hillary has as good a track record as a democrat can have without being ostracized and kicked out of the party a la Lieberman. Obama is not even close to primetime.
So, in an election where the polarizing tactics that Mr. Rove was genius at will favour the Dems -not the Reps (especially if McCain runs as an independent who would attract moderates from both parties) – Hillary is the best option. Next to GWB she is easily the most polarizing of all the major candidates on both sides. Hillary is truly unique as she is the best fundraising tool for both parties.
As Rove understands better than anybody, if you can motivate just 15% of the total registered voters to vote for your candidate you probably win 40 or more states. Hillary is strong with the soccer-moms in the battleground states like Penn and Ohio and thus is the Dems best hope for victory in ’08.
Unfortunately for the Dems, any of the three top candidates on the rep side – Romney, Guiliani and Fred Thompson (McCain can only try and act as the spoiler/kingmaker – if he could pull back his ego a notch he would be everybody else’s #1 pick for VP) beats whoever the Dems put up like a rented mule.
The vast right wing conspiracy demands loyalty …….and silence!
OMMAG ,
The first rule of ” right – wing conspiracy club ” is don’t talk about right – wing conspiracy club ……and Holy sweet Jesus Christ , if you give away the secret handshake , your next cheque from EXXXON will be postdated…. shape-up slacker ……
Isn’t that what Harper and his gang did by releasing that fake secret memo warning about the threat of Steffi Dion?
Oh wait, the liberals aren’t that stupid to fall for that trick again.
and again and again and again…
Like Rove said, “It is what it is”.
I doubt Hillary will lose the Democratic nomination, and the result of a general election could go either way…
“It is what it is”.
… might just go down as the most useless phrase in the history of man/woman kind evah !
langmann: If I remember correctly, the CPC leaked a document saying that they were worried about Ignatieff, but made sure people knew it was intentionally leaked… Ignatieff seized on it saying the CPC was most worried about him, but word got around that the CPC had intentionally leaked it which actually brought him *down* a notch…
Hillary is the candidate Republicans want in the general election.
the picture of her and Chelsea smiling with Arafat and the picture of Hillary kissing Arafat’s wife
The law records which disappeared
the same law recards which reappeared after the statue of limitations had expired
Hillary’s records buried in Bill’s library
Hillary’s blatant pandering to blacks
Hillary thanksgiving 2003 visit to Iraq – “some people back home don’t support the war” – a classic quote from a commander in chief wannabe.
Yep, Hillary is the candidate Republicans want in the general election.
Actually, back when the Democrats were choosing their 2004 nominee, I remember thinking that they (at least the Hillary-backers) would want either Kerry or Dean precisely because they would be the most likely to lose.
After all, if the Democrats had actually won the White House in 2004, then Hillary would be forced to wait at least 8 years (and maybe 12) before she could take a run at it…assuming that Kerry would have run for a second term – which is a no-brainer…and that his VP (Edwards) would have wanted a run if they had have lasted two terms.
So, while the Republicans may have wanted the weakest candidate possible to go against Bush in 2004, I think that the bulk of Democrats (who we presently see backing Clinton) wanted exactly the same thing.
Just a theory.
So, Bill D.Cat, you’ve stormed your way on to this site, and, your point beyond a few flippant posts? I’m not getting it.
The Dems don’t have a contender to satisfy the American public’s perception of the Executive branch(with its special constitutional power to make war independently as need be) as their guardian if/when the terrorists do their thing again. That’s what really counts and isn’t lost on the electorate post-9/11.
Hillary has played so many disingenuous games like Kerry she isn’t going to get the presidential victory. Very few, but, the cultivated and shrinking victim and union base want a Clinton redux. It won’t happen.
The Dems have vacuous Breck Boy, second time loser, Edwards, Obama(“invade Pakistan”) the teenager of of foreign and Hillary(whose baggage is gargantuan) as their best shot. Pathetic.
I must admit, I have been wondering why Rove badmouthed HC this weekend.
“I must admit, I have been wondering why Rove badmouthed HC this weekend.”
Because he doesn’t like her? That she was behind the special prosecutor business?
They were playing this same game and coming to the same non-conclusions on Meet The Press yesterday. My theory (and you knew this was coming) is that Rove was playing head games and just wanted some funny transcripts to read while he was cleaning out his desk.
Clinton or Obama? Clinton’s negatives are high but she’s a smart politician who could use a version of Rove’s turn-out-the-base method to get the 270 electoral votes she needs to be elected. Obama, on the other hand is a rookie politician who makes the sort of mistakes you would expect of a guy who’s only been in the Senate for two years and has never run a national campaign before. You can drive his negatives up, especially if you play the national security card and keep replaying some of his foreign policy statements from the past month or so. Also, he’s a guy who likes to talk in breezy generalities, and he can be nailed if he’s pushed to be specific about particular issues: his foreign policy blunders are good examples of the sort of traps he can wander into or make for himself. I’d be more worried about Clinton: she’s a disciplined politician who is playing a good front runner campaign and the national and state polls are showing the results: she’s up by 30 points in California right now, for example.
penny ,
…meant nothing by it …
penny,
Why the upset? We, up in the frozen north, have our leaders decided decided by a couple of cities. You can’t really believe these sh*tholes have any influence in the US.
BILL CLINTONS BRAIN A TOXIC WASTE DUMP and AL GORES BRAIN A LOT OF EMPTY SPACE FULL OF HOT AIR
Ahh but in a truly machiavellian coup de grace, the Democratic leadership yielded to the Supreme Court stratagem in 2000, ensuring an abiding Democratic political preponderation.
This IS my last warning , dearest Kate ….. if that’s your real name ….. never , and I mean never speak of this again…. your friend forever ……
Darth Rove
lottsa nummies …
Somewhat silly theory…
It assumes that Edwards is the better candidate in the eyes of the Republicans. That is, to say the very least, debatable.
Edwards is clueless on what will be the number one issue in ’08 (and ’12 and ’16…) – US security and the war on islamo-fascism. Hillary has as good a track record as a democrat can have without being ostracized and kicked out of the party a la Lieberman. Obama is not even close to primetime.
So, in an election where the polarizing tactics that Mr. Rove was genius at will favour the Dems -not the Reps (especially if McCain runs as an independent who would attract moderates from both parties) – Hillary is the best option. Next to GWB she is easily the most polarizing of all the major candidates on both sides. Hillary is truly unique as she is the best fundraising tool for both parties.
As Rove understands better than anybody, if you can motivate just 15% of the total registered voters to vote for your candidate you probably win 40 or more states. Hillary is strong with the soccer-moms in the battleground states like Penn and Ohio and thus is the Dems best hope for victory in ’08.
Unfortunately for the Dems, any of the three top candidates on the rep side – Romney, Guiliani and Fred Thompson (McCain can only try and act as the spoiler/kingmaker – if he could pull back his ego a notch he would be everybody else’s #1 pick for VP) beats whoever the Dems put up like a rented mule.
The vast right wing conspiracy demands loyalty …….and silence!
OMMAG ,
The first rule of ” right – wing conspiracy club ” is don’t talk about right – wing conspiracy club ……and Holy sweet Jesus Christ , if you give away the secret handshake , your next cheque from EXXXON will be postdated…. shape-up slacker ……
Isn’t that what Harper and his gang did by releasing that fake secret memo warning about the threat of Steffi Dion?
Oh wait, the liberals aren’t that stupid to fall for that trick again.
and again and again and again…
Like Rove said, “It is what it is”.
I doubt Hillary will lose the Democratic nomination, and the result of a general election could go either way…
“It is what it is”.
… might just go down as the most useless phrase in the history of man/woman kind evah !
langmann: If I remember correctly, the CPC leaked a document saying that they were worried about Ignatieff, but made sure people knew it was intentionally leaked… Ignatieff seized on it saying the CPC was most worried about him, but word got around that the CPC had intentionally leaked it which actually brought him *down* a notch…
Hillary is the candidate Republicans want in the general election.
the picture of her and Chelsea smiling with Arafat and the picture of Hillary kissing Arafat’s wife
The law records which disappeared
the same law recards which reappeared after the statue of limitations had expired
Hillary’s records buried in Bill’s library
Hillary’s blatant pandering to blacks
Hillary thanksgiving 2003 visit to Iraq – “some people back home don’t support the war” – a classic quote from a commander in chief wannabe.
Yep, Hillary is the candidate Republicans want in the general election.
Actually, back when the Democrats were choosing their 2004 nominee, I remember thinking that they (at least the Hillary-backers) would want either Kerry or Dean precisely because they would be the most likely to lose.
After all, if the Democrats had actually won the White House in 2004, then Hillary would be forced to wait at least 8 years (and maybe 12) before she could take a run at it…assuming that Kerry would have run for a second term – which is a no-brainer…and that his VP (Edwards) would have wanted a run if they had have lasted two terms.
So, while the Republicans may have wanted the weakest candidate possible to go against Bush in 2004, I think that the bulk of Democrats (who we presently see backing Clinton) wanted exactly the same thing.
Just a theory.
So, Bill D.Cat, you’ve stormed your way on to this site, and, your point beyond a few flippant posts? I’m not getting it.
The Dems don’t have a contender to satisfy the American public’s perception of the Executive branch(with its special constitutional power to make war independently as need be) as their guardian if/when the terrorists do their thing again. That’s what really counts and isn’t lost on the electorate post-9/11.
Hillary has played so many disingenuous games like Kerry she isn’t going to get the presidential victory. Very few, but, the cultivated and shrinking victim and union base want a Clinton redux. It won’t happen.
The Dems have vacuous Breck Boy, second time loser, Edwards, Obama(“invade Pakistan”) the teenager of of foreign and Hillary(whose baggage is gargantuan) as their best shot. Pathetic.
I must admit, I have been wondering why Rove badmouthed HC this weekend.
“I must admit, I have been wondering why Rove badmouthed HC this weekend.”
Because he doesn’t like her? That she was behind the special prosecutor business?
They were playing this same game and coming to the same non-conclusions on Meet The Press yesterday. My theory (and you knew this was coming) is that Rove was playing head games and just wanted some funny transcripts to read while he was cleaning out his desk.
Clinton or Obama? Clinton’s negatives are high but she’s a smart politician who could use a version of Rove’s turn-out-the-base method to get the 270 electoral votes she needs to be elected. Obama, on the other hand is a rookie politician who makes the sort of mistakes you would expect of a guy who’s only been in the Senate for two years and has never run a national campaign before. You can drive his negatives up, especially if you play the national security card and keep replaying some of his foreign policy statements from the past month or so. Also, he’s a guy who likes to talk in breezy generalities, and he can be nailed if he’s pushed to be specific about particular issues: his foreign policy blunders are good examples of the sort of traps he can wander into or make for himself. I’d be more worried about Clinton: she’s a disciplined politician who is playing a good front runner campaign and the national and state polls are showing the results: she’s up by 30 points in California right now, for example.
penny ,
…meant nothing by it …
penny,
Why the upset? We, up in the frozen north, have our leaders decided decided by a couple of cities. You can’t really believe these sh*tholes have any influence in the US.
BILL CLINTONS BRAIN A TOXIC WASTE DUMP and AL GORES BRAIN A LOT OF EMPTY SPACE FULL OF HOT AIR
Ahh but in a truly machiavellian coup de grace, the Democratic leadership yielded to the Supreme Court stratagem in 2000, ensuring an abiding Democratic political preponderation.
You’re scared.