Who will be Kerry's V.P.? and Bush's
 

I see Hillary Clinton as VP for Kerry and Rudy G for W.

yup, that idea has been kicked around for awhile...it's got obvious populist appeal, but is she ready for the bigtime? methinks not...like the rest of the administration. she seems to be in over her head with regards to Iraq.

besides, there is a pretty persistent buzz that she's gay....and we can't have that in a God-fearing Christian Republican administration, now can we?

yeah, is that "buzz" from Atrios or TPM? :RE:

protip: liberals fear a strong, black, conservative woman

i don't think cheney will retire just yet, but if he does i'd love to see rice as vp. she's brilliant, articulate, and inspires confidence. although, with powell stepping down...rice could most likely be the next secretary of state.

if cheney retires, the open vp slot will have to be someone who could go up against hillary in 2008...i think that would be giuliani, possibly giuliani/rice.

as for kerry, he could choose gephardt. but, in the long run, kerry is going to choose who the masters that be tell him to choose. if it's kerry/hillary, and they win (god forbid) kerry better start sleeping with one eye open.

rice wont get VP
the risk of something happening to the pres,would make her the first woman and first black president...they would never ever let that happen...

kerry/edwards.

seriously tho, outside the kerry camp (assuming he wins the nom) nobody really knows. the facts lean towards youth, to balance his age, and southerners, to appeal to non-northerners.

the nader thing complicates matters but edwards, should he want the position, would be logical choice, and a good set-up for 2012.

- js.

if the poll numbers remain low, i can envision Cheney stepping down for "health" reasons. Rudy would be an excellent choice, still riding high from post 9/11 goodwill.

Kerry better think twice before picking Edwards, because i don't think he'll even carry his home state North Carolina.

in another close election, with Florida as a critical must-win state once again, Kerry would be wise to choose popular Florida Senator Bob Graham.

Rudy needs to run for the Senate for NY in 2006. Get Mrs. Clinton out so then she can not run for President in 2008. Not that she would win anyhow but Why take a chance.

See Condi USED to be black. But the moment she became identified with conservatism, she became white in their eyes. That's because when it comes to minorities in general and blacks in particular, the left acts as if political views are transmitted genetically. If Condi Rice (who is pro-Affirmative Action despite what the cartoon implies) sounded like Ted Kennedy, reflexively opposed everything Republicans support, and referred to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton as her "leader," her blackness would never be in question. But since she's going her own way and not following the Democratic Party line, she's an "oreo," a "race traitor," and someone who deserves to be racially vilified.

Condi, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Armstrong Williams, Larry Elder, Jesse Lee Peterson, Walter Williams, Alan Keyes, Deroy Murdock, J.C. Watts and other black conservatives are a threat to the left. That's because they became popular and well liked in the conservative movement based on merit, not based on race. Their success is a continuing threat to the left, because it exposes the smears that liberals regularly hurl at conservatives on race for the lies that they are. That's why the left is willing to go to such lengths to try to discredit people like Condi & Colin Powell. Because the example that they provide is dangerous to the liberal stranglehold on the black vote and therefore to the left's political agenda....

RWN

minorities voting for republicans are like turkeys voting for thanksgiving.

- js.

lol, i guess they better vote Nader then

retire for health reasons is the excuse that will be used, but we all know that cheney is being brought down.

treason charges for outing valerie plame

the haliburton special interests

the secret energy meetings in 2001

his office being responsible for the misleading intelligence about the iraq wmd

perele is out now. all we need is for rummy and wolfie to resign and i will be happy to vote for bush. :)

as far as kerry, yes scoob his sleep will definately be needed to be cut in half. I agree dd, I would love to see bob graham as VP, hes been one of the few for accusing the white house about covering up 9/11 and stonewalling the investigation.

graham has been more than critical of bush, he's accused him of many things. he also said he wants bush impeached for leading america to war under false pretenses.

yet, graham has also made these statements:


in addition:
and:


seems cracker-boy just can't make up his mind on anything. he also was one of the primary authors of the patriot act, but he's also against it. yep...he'd be a good choice for kerry's vp, they could run as flip 'n flop.

now, as if haiti isn't in horrible enough shape, kerry wants bush to send graham there to "help". oh yeah...he'd be a big help.

The television talking heads keep bringing up the same names for vice president and oddly it is the name of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani that always comes up as a replacement for Dick Cheney. The only way that will happen is if the Iraq occupation goes so bad or Bush's poll numbers go so bad that the only way out of the funk is a fresh face on the ticket; it could happen but I wouldn't count on it...

For the Democrats the name of Hillary Clinton is always brought up, usually by Republicans hoping for a gift from God. Senator Kerry would be foolish to put the former first lady on the ticket; nothing against her she is a fine senator and a smart lady. I like her but she would defeat the purpose. Democrats are united, they all can't stand Bush; even those that voted for Nader have fallen in line behind Kerry. Many Dems are still pissed off about the last election and many others are pissed about Iraq and even more don't like the right wing actions of Bush; at the same time many Republicans are lukewarm to Bush's big spending, budget busting, big government policies. That all translates to a massive Democratic turnout on Election Day, while some Republicans stay home stewing. Many in the National Guard and military are not exactly happy with their extended stays in Iraq and might swing over to the former Vietnam vet Kerry. Having Hillary on the ticket would motivate Republicans to vote and contribute even more money to the Bush campaign and quite possibly cost Kerry the election. The only person Hillary helps being on the ticket is Bush, so the Dems would be smart to forget Hillary, no offence to the good senator but forget her...

The name often touted by the media as a good number two on the ticket is John Edwards. Somehow winning the primary of his birth state makes him qualified, that and being from the South. The television talking heads stereotype southerners as dumb bigots, as if southerners aren't smart enough to understand the issues and only vote for one of their own kind. Generally I don't think southerners vote for southerners just because they are a southerner. I do think that if Kerry named a respected proven politician from a state that last voted for Bush as his VP, that politician might be able to carry his or her own state. Bob Graham may be able to carry Florida, John Breaux may be able carry Louisiana, Harold Ford Jr. may be able to carry Tennessee but since John Edwards has never attempted reelection in North Carolina it is anyone's guess whether he could actually carry the state, never mind the South...

People vote for the president not the vice president although in times of war and according to Bush the country is at war, even though the only bombs in the country have been on the WB Network but in times of war a vice president should be qualified to become president. Guys like Dan Quayle aren't up to being picked for the Democratic vice presidential nominee, the number two on the ticket should have gravitas, besides guys like Dan Quayle are already on the top of the Republican ticket. Wesley Clark has what it takes to be vice president; he has gravitas. If General Clark was the vice president and something happened to the president, America would feel pretty secure with the general in charge. At first I wasn't sold on the good general but he fits the Kerry campaign's 'Band of Brothers' brigade. In a time of war who better to be the number two than a retired general? Clark might help swing more of the military vote towards Kerry and he has that needed qualification, he is a southerner. A Vietnam vet and the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, yea that's the winning ticket...

WASHINGTON - No. Yes. Probably not. Maybe.

Those were the wishy-washy answers yesterday from four top Democrats thought to be on John Kerry's short list of potential running mates.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...p-149526c.html

'Scary John Kerry' lying to Americans?


Posted: March 10, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


On Monday, John Kerry shocked the reporters in attendance at a Florida fund-raiser when he declared to the audience that "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that."

CNN did a search of the available records of Kerry meetings over the course of his candidacy and could not find any meeting with any foreign leader. The generous want to credit possible phone calls, but look at Kerry's phrasing – he says he met with foreign leaders, and the leaders "look at you and say" stuff like what a godsend you are, John Kerry.

It seems clear to me that John Kerry made this up – is lying, in short. An Al Gore-like move eight months out. Why would he do such a stupid thing? After all, it is easily checked, and reporters were in the room.

My guess is this: John Kerry knows two things: The election will turn on the war, and on the war, John Kerry is incredibly weak, having flip-flopped and back-flopped and never stopped talking about it from every direction. He is to defense and national security what heterosexuals are to gender – blurring the lines and all things to all people.

And that's not going to fly in the election. Any more than his opposition to the first Gulf War, to the B-1 and B-2, the Aegis cruiser, the M1-Abrahms tank, the Patriot missile or all land-based missile-defense systems. John Kerry would be a disaster for the defense of the United States, and his record of weakness on these issues is long and detailed. Just Monday, in fact, President Bush highlighted Kerry's strange legislative proposition of 1995 calling for a $1.5 billion dollar cut in the funding of the intelligence agencies --a bill that failed to attract the support of even one other senator. Not even Boxer would sign on to that crazy proposal.

So Kerry knows his own record and knows his vulnerability. His response is to create out of whole cloth mythical "foreign leaders" who support his election. Like Harvey the Rabbit, John Kerry has Harvey the "foreign leader" whispering encouragement to him.

That's troubling. Very troubling, and the press doesn't quite know what to do with this odd duck from Massachusetts, but are reluctant to see him implode the week after locking up the nomination. So they aren't pressing very hard.

Here's a suggestion: Just track the "foreign leaders" story with half the energy you tracked the "yellowcake" story. That'll do.

Scary John Kerry. Next thing you know he'll be making up defective voting processes in Florida and hiring lawyers to stake out the Sunshine State.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=37514

John Kerry, according to a Reuters story that got a lot of attention yesterday, claims that foreign leaders are telling him that he's their preferred candidate:

"Kerry opened another front against Bush on Monday when he said foreign leaders have told him privately that they are eager for him to win. "They look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said in Florida, Reuters reported. Kerry declined to name those leaders."

That's because, as Hugh Hewitt notes, no one has been able to substantiate a recent meeting between John Kerry and any foreign leader. Since Kerry isn't elaborating, we can assume one of two things: either Kerry is lying, or Kerry is telling the truth.

Option 1: Kerry Lied -- If Kerry lied, then this is an egregious lie. It would be a lie designed to hide a particular weakness of Kerry's -- that his foreign-policy approach would leave the US weaker internationally by tying our ability to act to the whims of countries like France and Russia, two countries that made a fortune off of Iraqi kickbacks from the oil-for-food program. It demonstrates yet again Kerry's propensity for saying whatever he thinks will sell at the moment instead of standing for something and sticking with it. Like I posted earlier -- Clinton without the charm.

Option 2: Kerry Told the Truth -- If Kerry really is in clandestine communication with foreign leaders and discussing changes in American foreign policy under his proposed administration, then he is interfering with the foreign policy of the current administration, which may be an actionable offense, depending on the circumstances. It certainly would demonstrate his willingness to subordinate the country's security and interests to his own political ambitions. Nations currently negotiating on trade and security with the Bush administration would suddenly have incentives to stop, or to issue hard-line demands with no flexibility, assisting Kerry's election effort in order to get a better deal in 2005. Such contacts during presidential campaigns are so inappropriate that it's hard to believe Kerry bragged about them. That's why I'm betting on Option 1.

Kerry needs to answer for his statement and detail exactly what contacts he had and their nature so that we can understand what damage has been done to our foreign policy as a result. His failure to do so either demonstrates his lack of honesty or his avaricious pursuit of his ambitions above the national interest.

blogsforbush

ooh ooh - foreign leaders spotted in washington! stop the presses!

wait wait - no need to overheat that brainpan - i have lots of hay in the back when you need more straw to grasp at. :BL:

i used to live in dc. you meet foriegn leaders there all the time. they're called "parties." they have 'em at embassies, concerts, charity events. kerry's been around for years. get real you dimwits.

- js.

Kerry calls Republican critics 'crooked, lying'


lol, so kerry must consider these guys "the most crooked, you know, lying group" he's ever seen as well.....


Harshest Attacks on Kerry Come From Democrats

NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, March 5, 2004

WASHINGTON – John Kerry has been described as a waffler who blathers, a son of privilege who won't stand up to millionaires, a Washington insider who's a handmaiden to special interests and an inconsistent candidate whose word is no good.

All of that comes from fellow Democrats.


Here is what Wesley Clark had to say about Kerry (and fellow rival John Edwards) on Feb. 5:

"The American people don't want another Washington insider who never plays it straight. They don't want a follower who makes decisions by licking his finger and sticking it up in the wind."

This is what Clark had to say about Kerry eight days later, after abandoning his own quest for the presidency: "I believe John Kerry has the right experience, the right values and the right leadership and character to beat George W. Bush."

More comments from Clark:


"We need leadership that will take responsibility in this country, and I'm very disturbed that John did not do that." – on Kerry's comments related to racial preferences.

"With all due respect, he's a lieutenant, and I'm a general."

"Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards are good men, but they don't have the leadership to stand up to millionaires."

"I don't think people understand in this country how politicians in Washington can say one thing and do something else."

"Part of the Washington way of doing things." – again on Kerry and Edwards.


Comments from Edwards:


"What he's saying now [on trade] is different than what he did in the past."

"Do you believe that change is more likely to be brought about by someone who has spent 20 years in Washington or by someone who is more of an outsider to this process?"

"I don't take contributions from lobbyists. He obviously does."

"I think he's said some different things at different points in time. So I think there's been some inconsistency."


Here's a sampling of what Dean had to say about Kerry in earlier days:


"President Kerry. Please, spare us."

"He's going to turn out to be just like George Bush."

"John Kerry is part of the corrupt political culture in Washington."

"It appears that his word is no good."

"I'm just incensed by his hypocrisy."

"This is not the person we need to head the Democratic Party. I think Senator Kerry is clearly not the person to carry the banner of the Democratic Party because he has acted so much like a Republican."

"Senator Kerry apparently supports the kind of corrupt fund raising, politically corrupt fund-raising mechanisms that George Bush has also employed."

"We are not going to beat George Bush by nominating someone who is the handmaiden of special interests."

"A special-interest clone."

"A candidate of no principle."

"Just another inside-the-Beltway guy who's played the game for 15 years."


Other Democrat also-rans now backing Kerry include Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sen. Joe Lieberman. That would be the same Gephardt whose mailings said Kerry is "no friend to family farmers" and the same Lieberman who called Kerry a "waffler."


More comments from Gephardt:

"We can keep pursuing George Bush's tired, old, failed economic policies like Senator Kerry and other Democrats in this race have suggested. Or we can learn from the policies that worked for us."

"Kerry's explanation of how he'll pay for his [health] plan doesn't add up. He's trying to have it both ways."

"I don't think cheap sound bites hiding expensive plans are the answer." – on health-care proposals from Kerry and Dean.


Comments from Lieberman:

"This is about the votes [on Iraq] that he's cast that I believe are inconsistent."

"We also don't need a waffler in charge of our country's future."

"I do think that Senator Kerry was sounding an uncertain trumpet about that particular battle." – on the Iraq war resolution.

i got a kick out of that. apparently it's ok to like like a rug when you're president bush, but a candidate who points it out is, in raciot's tunnel vision, excersing poor taste. :RI:

just this week the head of the cia revealed he had to ah "correct" vice president cheney. cheney was telling intelligence whoppers last weekend - again. here's a thought: when bush and cheney stop the lying, people might stop calling them liars. they've been lying so long it might be too late for that, but still, they ought to at least try to stop. it's simply unbecoming for a head of state.

- js.

tenet, (a clinton administration holdover) should have been fired 9/12/2001. ever consider the possibilty that tenet is the one telling the intelligence whoppers?


TENET, UNREPENTANT


February 6, 2004 -- The buck used to stop at the top.
No more.

The fact that Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet still has a job proves that.

It was on Tenet's watch that terrorists carried out the deadliest surprise attack on America since Pearl Harbor.

Yet Tenet has never so much as apologized for that massive failure.

Now it appears that the intelligence community overestimated the extent and success of Saddam's weapons-of-mass-destruction programs (though not Saddam's desire for WMDs and the means of delivering them).

This doesn't begin to undermine the case for establishing a strong U.S. military presence in the Middle East, but it is unquestionably another major failure.



Tenet, speaking yesterday at Georgetown University, said "in the intelligence business, you are almost never completely wrong or completely right."

Who can disagree with that?

Then, however, Tenet displayed a bit of his true character, asserting that the CIA never claimed that Iraq posed an "imminent threat."

Not his agency. No, siree.

What a butt-covering weasel.

While the popular perception is that the White House termed Saddam to be an "imminent threat," the popular perception is flat-footed wrong.

For Tenet to imply otherwise to save his own skin is just despicable.

What Tenet was desperately trying to obscure is that the CIA, with all its huge resources, had no clue about what was really going on in Iraq's WMD programs.

And that, in the end, is his fault.

Just as, in the end, the United States simply can't afford a dysfunctional CIA.

And certainly not a CIA director more concerned with his own reputation than with the nation's safety.

George Tenet already has two strikes on him. Can America afford a third?


http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/15963.htm

yeah, he also said he didn't think the administration exaggerated any intelligence material. nice of you to overlook that.

tenet's a diplomat...

ah. i get it. it's all clinton's fault, bush has no responsibility. since according to this theory clinton is running the country, george bush is going to be the first president in american history who "wasn't there." well, if you say so scooby. probably learned that trick ducking the guard.

hey i know, since he's still the president you can spend another four years and forty million of the taxpayer's money impeaching clinton again. you guys had so much fun the last time you tried it. c'mon, you love that stuff, and it gets the country's mind off the problems caused by republicans, like all those new jobs we have and that disappearing "middle class tax break." what a whopper that one was lol.

or just vote for kerry, since bush can't rid himself of clinton let's elect someone who can.

in any event, intelligence was cleary misused by the present administration, and is still being misused. re: cheney.

cheney was chosen by bush, and bush was chosen by republican voters. clinton bears zero culpabiliity for this cockup.

- js.

Tenet warns of al Qaeda's 'spectacular attacks' plans


CIA Director George J. Tenet warned Congress yesterday that the threat of al Qaeda terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction is growing and the group continues planning "spectacular attacks" against the United States and its allies.

"Over the last year, we've ... seen an increase in the threat of more sophisticated chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear capability," he said. "For this reason, we take very seriously the threat of a [chemical, biological or nuclear] attack."

Mr. Tenet noted that captured al Qaeda members have said the United States remains the group's "main enemy," and al Qaeda's effort to produce deadly anthrax bacteria is "one of the most immediate" terrorist threats.

He also said al Qaeda remains decentralized and dangerous. "Across the operational spectrum — air, maritime, special weapons — we have time and again uncovered plots that are chilling."

Mr. Tenet spoke in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he again defended U.S. intelligence agencies from partisan critics who said the CIA and other agencies misread intelligence indicating Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological arms.

"I think it's too early to make judgments about what happened to Iraqi arms stockpiles," Mr. Tenet said.

"We want to know whether we were right or wrong. We want to know what the disposition of these programs were. We do need to understand whether there was any secondary proliferation, which would be of great concern to us."

Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and ranking member of the committee, said American credibility was damaged by what he called "the intelligence fiasco" of not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after predicting the arms were there before the war.

"Initiating a war on the basis of faulty or exaggerated intelligence is a very serious matter," Mr. Levin said. "Life and death decisions are based on intelligence. The fact that intelligence assessments before the war were so wildly off the mark should trouble all Americans."

In a sharp exchange with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, Mr. Tenet said he did not believe intelligence was misused by the Bush administration to launch the war with Iraq.

Mr. Kennedy said Mr. Tenet failed to correct exaggerated statements made by Vice President Dick Cheney and other policy-makers that the senator said were tantamount to "warmongering."

Regarding a classified Pentagon intelligence report produced in October 2003 that suggested there were operational links between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda, Mr. Tenet said the CIA "did not agree with the way the data was characterized in that document."

Mr. Tenet said the relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda included "contacts, training and safe haven," as well as help for al Qaeda collaborator Abu Musaab Zarqawi, his role in the assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan and operations in Baghdad.

On the terrorists' pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear arms, Mr. Tenet said networks of people are helping terrorists with scientific knowledge and their hunt for material in areas stretching from the Near East to Europe.

Osama bin Laden has said that to acquire chemical, germ or nuclear arms is a religious obligation, and in addition to al Qaeda, more than two dozen terrorist groups are seeking chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials, Mr. Tenet said.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...2643-5367r.htm

tenet's pleasing two masters...

righto.

substitute "used" for "characterized."

- js.