Regarding John Edwards - I think he's an empty suit myself (although in my past life as a North Carolinian I voted for him) - I think he sees the world as one big jury pool, more interested in winning people over than having any strong views.

In any case, there's a largely positive article about him in Vanity Fair by Christopher Hitchens, for those who want to know more (and don't mind being seen reading a vacuous publication like Vanity Fair).

Going from Edwards to the current occupant of the White House: has anyone else heard the possibility that, if there is a second term, Dick Cheney will step down early in that term (health concerns, desire to make $$$ again, family) to allow Powell to become VP and position him for a run in 2008.

~Adam

the right will NEVER allow Powell to be VP candidate. and bush himself listens more to the neocons in his admin than a moderate like powell. the only centrist the right would be able to swallow, and somewhat grudgingly, would be giuliani.

i for one think powell would make an AWFUL president. for one, he's not strong enough anti-saddam, and two, he kow-tows too much to the pussy europeans

[quote]Originally posted by AZWildcat:
the right will NEVER allow Powell to be VP candidate.

---

WHAT?? I gotta disagree with that statement. Sure they will - especially if he can help Bush win a second term.

[quote]Originally posted by AZWildcat:
i for one think powell would make an AWFUL president. for one, he's not strong enough anti-saddam, and two, he kow-tows too much to the pussy europeans

---

Are you FOR REAL? Giuliani? The national Right Wing wouldn't stand for this man once they looked at him closely. He was disliked even by *New Yorkers* who voted for him. He carried on a public affair while still married, he was living with a mixed Asian-white homosexual couple on the Upper East Side (which I think was about the only decent thing he did beyond his 9/11 performance), and he has a pretty bumpy track record on many accounts as mayor, even though he did rise to the occasion after the terrorist atrocities. The RIGHT WING would NEVER let this man get far--he even supported Clinton in 1996. He also has a horrible reputation among Latino and Black voters. Don't believe the hype, please!

Powell not only could be elected President, but he could be elected Vice President with Bush, because that would bring Bush millions of moderate voters who think that Powell is the only sane, reasonable member of the current administration. (Which he is.) Among other proofs of his sanity and clear vision, he was the only one with the good sense to deny the nonsense about Cuba's biological weapons, which Jimmy Carter echoed a day ago.

And as for being anti-Saddam, I want someone to put forward a proposal that shows how toppling Saddam at this juncture would solve our ills in that region. It's all about oil and it's nonsensical. Turkey, our ally and not exactly stable right now, does not want Saddam toppled because of the vacuum it would create, particularly with regard to the Kurds, and we have ZERO support in the region, particulary from our Arab "allies," for this. Moreover, an attack on Iraq would put Israel in an even worse position (though I think Sharon wouldn't be unhappy about it). And who is then to stabilize Iraq and its restive millions? We can even be counted on to make long term pledges to Afghanistan. If there's a viable plan, please pass it on.

Here in DC, it's become almost a bit of an assumption that Dick Cheney won't be VP in 2004. Everybody's talking about who will replace him. Here are my guesses:

1) Cyd at Outsports. Just a wild guess, nothing to back that rumor up with. Actually, in another thread I kind of bashed this column he wrote, so I feel the need to make it up to him. Reading his column, I suspect he could make people cry during the debates, and the Bush brothers love a good cry. So he's definitely got a chance, in a snowball-in-hell kind of way. If he's overlooked for VP, Bush might name him t-ball czar and give him a weird nickname like "Cyd Vicious." Who knows?

2) Bill Frist. He made a name for himself during the whole anthrax scare. Conservative to moderate - the right wing will like him, but he also recently spoke at LCR event. His star will soar if GOP takes back the Senate (he's leading the effort).

3) Condoleezza Rice. I think I've mentioned this before. Apparently focus groups love her. She's "strong yet compassionate," or so feel the masses. GOP would love to claim the first black, first woman VIP. I think she's pro-choice, but not stridently so, from what I understand, and I think the right will be fairly accomodating to Bush on that issue as far as VP goes. She's very pro-gun, again from what I understand. I feel like I've said this all before.

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

If Condi Rice isn't VP, I suspect she might run against Barbara Boxer in California for the Senate seat there that's up in 2004.

Another prediction for '04: Current drug czar Asa Hutchinson runs against Blanche Lambert Lincoln for the Arkansas Senate seat. Hutch wins, the Hutches (Asa and current Senator Tim, who will win this year) become first brothers to serve together in the Senate. Unless, of course, it's happened before. Not sure.

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

WOW, didn't think i'd strike such a nerve with all these powell worshippers (sheep?) out there!

now, we're kinda getting off topic, but i can just give you my own opinion from experience. conservatives are the ones who vote in republican primaries. colin powell is currently at his low-water mark amongst conservatives. the weekly standard/foxnews crowd basically runs this admin and the republican party. and they are suspicious of powell and are now even called "The War Party" in some quarters for their virulent "axis-of-evil" drum beating. btw, for the person who is against moving on saddam: i ain't that excited about war either, but sooner or later he will develop nukes and we don't want one shoved right up our appeasement, head-in-the-sand asses which it undoubtedly will if we, and only we, do somehting about it!!!

i will bet ANYONE on outsports a grand that powell will never be a GOP nominee for either VP or, dare i say president.

two other observations: 1) most of the powell people replying on this forum are from moderate to liberal states (eastern establishment, california)--news flash--those regions are NOT who controls the GOP, ie., he may be popular there, but not in the sunbelt, midewest, and especially the south; 2) condi rice notwithstanding, no republican will win statewide in california for a major office (senate, gov, attt general) in the rest of our lifetimes. if you look at the numbers, cali is now more democratic, numbers wise, than even massachusetts. and the trend only gets more pronounced year after year.

oh, and bill frist? he's supposedly very highly regarded by the white house. the only problem? he only brings with him tennessee (which would go republican anyway).

just my observations...i'm sure they will elicit even more responses. hee hee

Election results are easy to find on the 'Net. Here are a few numbers courtesy of CNN.com: first, California went decidedly Democrat in the 2000 presidential election [54% Gore, 42% Bush, 4% Communist Freak Loser, I mean, Nader], but Cali has a long way to go before it surpasses Massachusetts [60% Gore, 33% Bush, 6% CFL, and 1% Browne (Libertarian)]. In response to Joe-in-Philly's earlier assertion that Pennsylvania wasn't that close, Gore won Pennsylvania with 51% of the vote, followed by Bush with 47% and Nader with 2% -- not exactly Florida, but close enough to keep it in the GOP sights for 2004.

The California GOP has made itself extremely unpopular with a number of anti-immigrant actions, and they're not improving matters much with their selection of uber-conservative candidates. But while Massachusetts will remain staunchly Democrat for the foreseeable future (ok, probably forever), I don't think California is a total lost cause for the GOP. Sure, it'll take a long time for the Cali GOP to recover, but it's at least a possibility.

Good point about Powell being too moderate. Since the voting demographics for primaries are so different from those for general elections, the candidate of choice for the party die-hards often doesn't play well with the general electorate. No better example of this than the selection of the very conservative Simon (a sure loser) over Riordan, a moderate with broad bipartisan support. But let's not forget the primary reason neither Powell nor Rice will be running for political office any time soon: neither one of them want to.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
Since the voting demographics for primaries are so different from those for general elections, the candidate of choice for the party die-hards often doesn't play well with the general electorate. No better example of this than the selection of the very conservative Simon (a sure loser) over Riordan, a moderate with broad bipartisan support. But let's not forget the primary reason neither Powell nor Rice will be running for political office any time soon: neither one of them want to.

---

In all fairness, Riordan's loss was completely his own fault. He did absolutely nothing to appeal to conservatives, which is something you simply have to do in a primary. It's politics 101 - in primary, you appease your base, in general elections, you reach out to "independents" (I hate that term - I'm a Republican and I'm not dependent on anyone but myself, but never mind) and other-party voters. That's why parties try to avoid primaries like the plague. They tend to get messy. But if Riordan had done anything, just thrown a bone or a crumb or anything, to send conservatives the message, "Hey, I don't think you're scum of the earth lowlifes who are beneath contempt," he'd be the candidate right now.

But Riordan in fact seemed to actively scorn conservatives, implying he did not want their votes. And he got his wish, but you can't blame conservative primary voters for not rushing to kiss the ass of someone who seems to hate them.

And I don't think Simon is a sure loser. Look back through political history at all the sure losers who went on to sure victories (particularly note the entry for "Reagan, Ronald"). Stranger things have happened.

BoSoxRudy,

i understand where you're coming from as far as the "democratness" of states. However, internal republican operatives really see California as hopelessly democratic. Hotline (of hotline.com), which is probably the most respected political dot-com there is, broke down Bush's approval ratings state-by-state at the peak of his post 9-11 popularity. It found that his approval was the lowest in California at an anemic 54% (sounds high but not when Kentucky had him at 91%), when he was at 80% in the nation as a whole. And yes, 54% was much lower than what Mass had him at.

so basically Cali is out of the republican column forever. the state has changed dramatically demographically since reagan held the presidency. mcuh less the governorship. there are simply too many democratic-leaning immigrants and granola Berkeley-types and many republicans, especially from orange county have moved into AZ, UT, NV, and MT (wouldn't you agree, MSUBobcat?).

and i say all this as a recovering former republican campaign strategist. i'm very moderate, but still to liberal to be a republican anymore. but the dems incompetence on military, guns, and criminal justice matters bothers me greatly.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Another prediction for '04: Senator Tim, who will win this year.

---

I don't think so -- Mr. "Family Values" Hutchison recently left his wife for a young staffer -- a big scandal in Arkansas. Plus hes running against a scion of the politically powerful Pryor clan.

AZWildcat, thanks for the scoop on California. It seems that comparison between the "Democrat-ness" of Massachusetts and California is like splitting hairs on the difference between tangerines and tangelos. I've read a few articles since reading your post, and it seems that indeed, Cali (and its 55 electoral votes ... heavy sigh) will be staunchly Democrat for some time to come.

Well, 55 electoral votes, over one-fifth the total necessary to win the presidency, are nothing to shake a stick at. I can see why Karl Rove and his cronies invested so much time and money in California. Granted, Cali was a lost cause for the 2000 election, but I can't imagine the RNC can afford to toss in the towel forever on the Golden State's 55 electoral votes.

Maybe, just maybe, the changing demographics in Cali will cause the GOP to think twice about some of its more extreme and/or ridiculous conservative stances. Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

[quote]Originally posted by AZWildcat:

so basically Cali is out of the republican column forever.

---

Not forever - maybe for a while but all things change and evolve. Remember when it was uncool to be patriotic (never thought it would EVER come back in style)- remember when Detroit made "the last convertible - ever"-then they started making them again about 10 yrs later. Remember when " the sitcom was dead ?" ( right before the Cosby show revived it.) At the mid 40s mark I know things come & go and ebb & flow. Repubs are definitely down right now in California (especially state office holders) but so are the Dems in ohio (most every state wide elected official is a Repub. including both our Senators.) Both parties will bounce back -give em time. <---- Officer Optimistic

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: copman ]

[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:

I don't think so -- Mr. "Family Values" Hutchison recently left his wife for a young staffer -- a big scandal in Arkansas. Plus hes running against a scion of the politically powerful Pryor clan.

---

Hutchison got a divorce? When? I actually know the details of the AR Senate race. Thanks, though. The divorce and remarriage is not that big of a scandal in Arkansas. It hasn't had the impact people thought it would. The NY Times ran a piece on it - the Times was shocked, shocked! that a politician from Arkansas would do anything morally inappropriate. Criticism from the Times probably helps candidates down south, though Arkansas is only marginally southern and is to me more midwestern. But still.

And one man's "scion of the politically powerful Pryor clan" is another man's spoiled brat running on his daddy's coattails. Remember, W is a "scion of the politically powerful . . . clan." It's not necessarily bad, but it's not necessarily good either.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
the Times was shocked, shocked! that a politician from Arkansas would do anything morally inappropriate.

---

Well you know what they say: Clinton dumped his girlfriend and saved his marriage while Hutchinson dumped his marriage and saved his girlfriend.

At any rate, it's gonna be an interesting race -- but I wouldn't put my money on either of them yet.

[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:

Well you know what they say: Clinton dumped his girlfriend and saved his marriage while Hutchinson dumped his marriage and saved his girlfriend.

At any rate, it's gonna be an interesting race -- but I wouldn't put my money on either of them yet.

---

Were Clinton and Lewinsky ever boyfriend/girlfriend? The high-schoolness of it seems to fit their level of maturity. I could see Clinton sending Miss Lewinsky a note by White House courier. "Do you love me? Check yes or no." I suppose you could possibly be talking about some other girlfriend, I guess, I mean there might have been a few others.

You know, it is possible that Hutchison's wife was a complete bitch and got what she deserved. Why do we always side with the wife, anyway? So unfair.

I avoided this thread cuz I figured it was about the Crossing Over charlatan.

Edwards... Ho hum, another "centrist" (read spineless) DLC robot. Not that I expect a Dem candidate with a 'chance to win' to point out the Thief Executive's *atrocious* handling of our domestic security -- reading Page One the last couple days?

My early choice for prez in '04 is still No One.

The family values lawyer boys from Arkansas are Tim and Asa HutchiNson with an N, guys. The only one with the misspelled last name is the big hair senator from Texas.