Hi Frank,
Frank Reichert to Douglas Friedman:
>
> > I wouldn't trust Henry Waxman if he said the sky was blue. If Congress
> > didn't pass it, how could Bush have gotten a copy - with the signatures
> > of Hastert and the president pro tem of the Senate - to sign?
>
> I sort of understand your propensity to discredit Wasman. On the
> other hand however, I don't have much sympathy for the Shrub
> Regime either, whether telling the truth, or pulling shenanigans
> that circumvent the checks and balances of the Federal
> government. At least some of the allegations might have some
> validity, particularly whether or not the bill in question really
> did actually pass both houses in Congress.
You didn't answer my point. When the president signs a bill into law, he signs a copy that has the signatures of the Speaker of the House and President pro tem of the Senate certifying that the bill passed those houses. If that were not the case, how did Bush get a copy of a bill that had not been signed by Hastert and whoever the pres pro tem is these days. (I'm embarrassed that I don't know.)
>
> The so-called 'liberal media' wouldn't necessarily touch an issue
> that might be better served to ignore if that was to the benefit
> of the globalist vision of conforming to global standards and
> perhaps enforcement. The Shrub's neo-conservative don't back off
> in supporting just such an agenda, and the liberal press has been
> onboard this same agenda for decades.
Somehow the argument that Waxman is standing against a globalist agenda seems implausible to say the least. And even if the media liked what Bush is doing, they are so hostile to him that they would certainly bring this up and give it play. Someone would.
>
> In fact, it's interesting you just brought this up. I just
> finished reading a new book that will obviously become enormously
> popular in the coming months leading up to the next national
> election for US President. The book is titled: "Hillary vs.
> Condi".
Dick Morris is a good analyst, but consistent lousy prognosticator.
>
> Admittedly, there are factual material presented that I can
> likely support, that Condi Rice would be the ONLY GOP candidate
> who might have a prayer of a chance of defeating Hillary Rodham
> Clinton, should she be nominated during the 2008 Democrat Primary
> as the Democratic candidate. There are a variety of reasons that
> the author brings up, such as 55% of Americans would consider
> voting for a woman for the office of President of the United
> States, and that Condi Rice would be the post candidate over
> Hillary for becoming just such, namely that if elected, she would
> end the decades racial division that has existed in America since
> the early 1960s. That I have to agree with, and if that were the
> only stipulation, then I might go onboard and support it as such.
If Hillary is the Dem nominee then the Republican, whoever he is, will win in a landslide or near landslide. Dick Morris underestimates how much hatred there is for Hillary. And if Rice were the GOP candidate, then the Dem share of the black vote might drop from 85% to as low as 80%. (Bush got only 10%, but that was below historical Republican levels.) IOW, Rice would not be seen as a black president by most blacks. They would assume she was just a figurehead being manipulated by whites (probably Jews). I can't see what Rice would do that would end or even diminish racial divisions.
>
> But the author goes much further than this. Now he is talking in
> terms of Condi's experience on the world stage as an
> internationally acclaimed globalist that understands how America
> needs just this sort of leadership in the coming years of the
> 21st century. In other words, and extrapolation of the current
> Shrub Regime's ideal of 'global law' will continue.
I am no fan of Rice. I think she has been totally inept as Secy of State. I think she would be a totally incompetent, clueless president. Would I vote for her against Hillary? Of course. I'd vote for Ctulhu before I'd vote for Hillary. (At least in a Hillary-Ctulhu race, the battle would be for the greater of two evils.)
>
> My suggestion to you might be, if you have NOT read this book, do
> so now before first replying to my fears. I am convinced that
> there will be a real effort on the part of the GOP neo-cons, to
> draft Condi Rice, particularly if Hillary Clinton becomes the
> leading Democratic candidate for office during the 2008 State
> Primary processes. The book points out honestly that the GOP has
> no one, no one at all, who could hope to prevail against Hillary
> Clinton for the reasons that I just mentioned above, other than
> drafting Condi Rice.
I'll read it when I get a chance, maybe in a month or two, but Morris is wrong when he says no one can beat Hillary. If Giuliani were to get the nomination and keep the anti-abortion folks in the fold (likely if the alternative is Hillary and he has a pro-life VP), then the GOP would win 40+ states, around 400 EVs. If McCain wins (not that I'm a fan of his) and mends fences with the base, then he could win 35+ states, over 350 EVs. But any Republican who gets the base to turn out (shouldn't be hard vs. Hillary) can win.
>
> In my judgement anyway, that isn't much of an answer.
>
> And, to answer your concerns, the Liberal News Media would love
> just such a race, since there isn't really any major difference
> between the likely objectives of Hillary Clinton, or Condi Rice,
> and it will be, simply put, the entire game plan played all over
> again to an American audience that would rather watch the Super
> Bowl play out than studying and understanding the underlying
> issues confronting US foreign policy, and how we got into this
> stinking mess in the first place.
I'm sure the media would love Hillary vs. Condi. I don't think that will be the race though.
Doug
_______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
