BF2S Forums The Next President

ThomasMorgan wrote:

I think it'll be someone from the Democratic party.  As shown by the recent changing of the guard in both the Senate and House of Representatives, the US is sick of being Republican run.  Unless Bush can do something to turn the appeal of the GOP around in the next year, we'll be seeing a donkey in the White House.

However, it also depends on who the Democratic Presidential candidate is.  If it's Obama, then I think the dems have a very real chance of occupying the White House.  If it's Hilary, well, I think that chance is much less likely.

From yesterday's NYT

Democrats Seek the Middle on Social Issues
By ROBIN TONER

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 — The promise may not outlast their political honeymoon, but Democratic Congressional leaders say they are committed to governing from the center, and not just on bread-and-butter issues like raising the minimum wage or increasing aid for education. They also hope to bring that philosophy to bear on some of the most divisive social issues in politics, like abortion.

In their first days in session, Senate Democratic leaders reintroduced a bill that they said was indicative of their new approach: the Prevention First Act, which seeks to reduce the number of abortions by expanding access to birth control, family planning and sex education.

In the House last week, Democrats showcased a vote on expanding federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, which, despite fierce opposition from many conservatives, has won bipartisan support among lawmakers — and voters — who are otherwise divided on abortion.

The mantra, for many Democrats, is the search for common ground. On gay rights, lawmakers and advocates said the most likely legislation in the new Congress would focus on hate crimes and employment discrimination, issues expected to be much less polarizing than the debate over same-sex marriage that was front and center in the Republican Congress.

“I don’t think the American people get mad if you say a woman shouldn’t get fired from her job because she’s a lesbian,” said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts.

Conservatives are skeptical that such a search for common ground is much more than a shift in tactics.

“I can tell you what I expect,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. “I think the Democratic leadership will seek to advance the policy agenda of the hardcore groups but do so under the cover of deceptive rhetorical campaigns.”

Whatever the Democrats do, these issues retain their power to divide. Monday is the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision recognizing a constitutional right to abortion; it will highlight anew, with a day of marches and protests, the fundamental question of abortion’s legality.

But the Democrats’ moves toward consensus-building on issues that often resist consensus reflect their effort to adjust to a new political reality. Their majority is slimmer than it was the last time they were in power, especially in the Senate. The country, some pollsters say, has grown more conservative on abortion and other social issues.

And conservatives, by controlling which legislation came to the floor, succeeded in defining the debate over social issues for more than a decade, through votes on same-sex marriage and the procedure opponents call partial-birth abortion, in ways that highlighted the political limits of liberalism.

One measure of how the legislative debate has shifted is that the last time the Democrats were in power, one of the biggest abortion fights was over whether abortions should be covered in the benefit package guaranteed under the Clinton administration’s national health insurance plan, which eventually collapsed. Abortion rights leaders focus on far more modest goals today.

In the past 12 years, Democratic strategists say they have learned some hard lessons. Many said they were dismayed to see the religion gap after the 2004 election, with the Republicans’ overwhelming strength among churchgoers and the widespread perception that Democrats were a secular party insensitive to issues of values.

Since then, party leaders say, they have tried hard to connect with those voters, to convince them that, as Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said, “We are not a bunch of libertines who want to see the superego of society disappear.” Some of the new, prominent Democrats in Congress, like Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, are social conservatives, recruited and cited by Democratic leaders as evidence of the party’s diversity.

Over the past two years, Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, formerly the caucus chairman, now the majority whip, has led a “faith working group” in the House in an effort, Mr. Clyburn said, to get members “more comfortable with these issues and more connected with values voters.”

Part of this effort involved broadening the definition of values-related issues, he said, to include economic issues like raising the minimum wage, assisting low-income children with health insurance and shoring up Social Security.

“That’s Old Testament Bible, taking care of widows and orphans,” Mr. Clyburn said.

Some House Democrats said they had also learned to be more open about their own religious life.

“We, for a very long time, left the definition of ourselves as Democrats to others,” said Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, an abortion-rights supporter and one of 55 Catholic Democrats in the House who signed a Catholic Statement of Principles last year, essentially saying that their faith involved more than their position on abortion. “But I think people finally felt enough. Enough. It’s about who we are, where we come from, what our culture and environment has been.”

Ms. DeLauro is one of the leaders in the House on legislation that would try to reduce the need for abortion and provide economic support to new parents.

Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, highlighted her Catholicism in her first week in office, with two high-profile church services in Washington. There have been occasional protests from religious conservatives, challenging the rights of Democrats like Mrs. Pelosi to present themselves as both good Christians and supporters of abortion rights. But Democrats did do better among Catholic voters in last year’s elections, carrying 55 percent of their vote in House races, compared with 49 percent in 2004.

In large part, analysts say, that reflects voters responding to the Democrats on Iraq and the economic agenda, another element of the Democrats’ common ground strategy, keeping the debate focused on issues of greatest concern to the voters in the middle. “Our first focus is on the meat and potatoes issues that affect all Americans,” Mr. Schumer said.

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who advises Congressional leaders, said, “Most swing voters think that these social issues are issues that both sides love to have fights over, but that they don’t really have a stake in.”

In fact, Democrats, like Republicans, have long had to fight the notion that they are in thrall to the advocacy groups because of these hot-button issues. Republicans clearly took a dip in the polls after their intervention in the right-to-die case of Terri Schiavo, and many strategists say their intense pursuit of a ban on same-sex marriage and other conservative causes ultimately backfired, making them seem out of touch.

Democrats, after 12 years in the wilderness, say they are not likely to repeat those mistakes. But as Mr. Johnson of the right to life committee and other skeptics note, the true test of the Democrats’ common ground campaign may not come until there is a major court fight, especially a vacancy on the Supreme Court. When the fundamental debate over the extent of abortion rights is front and center, common ground will be hard to find.

The Republicans only hope is John McCain - the only man who openly stood up to the incumbent madman in the oval office. Having said that I don't know where a reasonably electable Democrat is gonna come from. Wesley Clark maybe. I don't know if the US is mature enough yet to elect a female or someone of non-caucasian ethnicity.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-17 10:40:43)

Why would they not blame everything on their predecessor, hell, Bush did.

Republicans in office as a whole are not as conservative as they used to be.  When they hold true to their values, they win like 1994.  The problem is they made too many concessions to the Dems and have become  too moderate.  They are certainly more conservative than the Democratic Party who still push abortion, gun bans, and tax hikes.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The Republicans only hope is John McCain - the only man who openly stood up to the incumbent madman in the oval office. Having said that I don't know where a reasonably electable Democrat is gonna come from. Wesley Clark maybe. I don't know if the US is mature enough yet to elect a female or someone of non-Caucasian ethnicity.

I hate to agree with you on that last part but I do...  It just goes to show how immature this nation is..

Hey Obama is half Caucasian, he has a chance. (Please note this isn't my personal view but an unfortunate reality) He just has a very limited track record to examine.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-17 16:55:24)

fadedsteve wrote:

Obama has no chance, he only has been in his own state legislature for a few years, and has only been in the Senate for two as well. . . .

NOT QUALIFIED to run the most powerful nation in the world!

I wish George Bush Sr. would run again, or a freeze dried Reagan could be brought back to life!! I know it aint goin' to happen, just dreams!!

In all seriousness, Hillary will win the Democrap nomination (you heard it hear first), and as far as my beloved GOP, the jury is still out on that. . .However, if McCain gets tough on immigration(which remains to be seen) I might vote for him.  Rudy Guiliani is also a possibility! He is the only one I could see stand up to Hillary's cunt ass!!

Anyway, its all cyclical anyway. . .I would imagine a Democrap will win just because.  However, the Democraps are such a skrewed up party right now, they might run Howard Dean and get their ass's beat!! Bottom line is who really knows!!

Not qualified? FFS we have George W Bush running our country!!!  Jesus Christ, by that standard a three year old child could run our country.

Okay that's kinda harsh, maybe a four year old..

It's that damned PC movement showing up again.  If we elect a minority we get a gold star because it proves we support diversity.  Never mind qualifications, we're diverse! That said, Dr. Rice for president.  She'd take Obama anyday when it comes to qualifications.

DesertFox423 wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The Republicans only hope is John McCain - the only man who openly stood up to the incumbent madman in the oval office. Having said that I don't know where a reasonably electable Democrat is gonna come from. Wesley Clark maybe. I don't know if the US is mature enough yet to elect a female or someone of non-caucasian ethnicity.

I hate to agree with you on that last part but I do...  It just goes to show how immature this nation is..

I hate to disagree on the last part but I do... how exactly would focusing on skin color or gender show maturity? You can't say it's because voters currently have a "girls are yucky" mindset or like the person I know who thought when he was younger that being black was a horrible skin disease.

okay, then discriminant, ignorant, call it what you want.  It's still stupid either way you look at it and you can't argue that point.  Just because my skin is white doesn't make me any better than anyone else...

And Steve, I don't care how Texans fill about Bush, his national popularity ratings tell a much different story.

Reciprocity wrote:

btw, texas is a weak governor state, as most southern states are.  their constitution requires a plural exective, in which cabinet secretaries are elected by the citizenry, and do not serve at the please of the governor.  Bush did succeed, somewhat, at governing Texas, because he had to cooperate with people who weren't in his pocket.

Well Bill Clinton was the govenor of Arkansas and its improved since he left state office. . . .

When Clinton was there, Arkansas had THE WORST school system in the nation!!! Not too mention, he had the Whitewater scandal of money laundering etc etc etc

Btw who wasnt in Bill Clintons pocket??? Are you kidding me. . . . do we really need to go down this road, cause in case you didnt already know this, but Bill Clinton's past is a tad checker'd(and thats being nice)!

Im not saying GWB is any great shakes, but he gets way more bad press than he deserves, and thats a fact! He gets hammered in the press by and large due to the fact that THEIR IS a left wing slant in our mainstream media figure heads.  All GWB flaws are out for everyone to see, and anything he has done that has been good has been shunned/"put on the back burner" by NBC, CBS, ABC's nightly news coverages. . . .Dan Rather anyone! Not too mention the nations news papers!!! Jesus!

I am also not saying dissent is bad either, without dissent their is no USA. . . but Bush is demonized to a degree I have never seen before. . . The comparisons to Hitler and other dictators are downright insulting and not indicative of who he is as a person whatsoever!

Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-01-17 22:04:31)

Reciprocity wrote:

ok 












might wanna readjust that aluminum foil helmet.

sure buddy. . . . if thats all you got

Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-01-17 22:06:22)

fadedsteve wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

ok 












might wanna readjust that aluminum foil helmet.

sure buddy. . . . if thats all you got

that's all I need.

damn, our liberal hippyness didn't rub off on you?  have you tried hugging a tree?