Republicans in the blogosphere want Rice in '08, will settle for Bush

by Jerome Armstrong, Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 08:58:45 AM EST

There is a ongoing poll on a Republican blogger's site over their '08 nomination. Ruffini is a sap for Condi Rice, but it appears from his analysis of the online poll that he considers it legit. Further, RWN did a poll of 200 conservative bloggers (50 replied) and likewise as Ruffini's poll, Rice was the "most desired", with the "least desired" being McCain.

Along those lines, Rightwing News has an interview with Dick Morris is which Morris states that neither Guiliani or McCain can win the nomination, and that neither of Allen, Frist, Pataki, etc, would defeat the 'presumptive' Democratic nominee Clinton.... "But Condi, who is not a moderate, can."

Rice, who hasn't fleshed out her abortion opinions raises a red flag for the conservatives, as you can see on these Baptist Board threads here, and here, because she's apparently voiced "pro-choice" thoughts. But like Bush did, Condi probably could modify her position enough to placate evangelicals.

McCain's fate seems reminiscent of Lieberman's in the buildup to 2004. He's just not partisan enough for the base. As for Guiliani, the gaps in her social views and actions that Rice might have (single, muddled pro-choice) pale in comparison to those of Rudy's (messy divorce, pro-choice, for gay marriage and gun control). WOT doesn't placate the Christian Soldiers & the NRA enough to have them overlook abortion & guns.

If you didn't know it, now you do, the darling of the rightwing blogosphere is Condi Rice. But even if Rice did come to disavow Choice, she hasn't given any indication at running, at all. No matter how much the 101st Fighting Keyboarders swoon over the hawk, it seems a pipedream. So if the Republican partisan blogosphere is intent upon denying McCain, and the evangelicals veto Guiliani, then it's either one of the second-tier candidates or whom?

That's right, Jeb Bush in 2008. Notice that Jeb Bush isn't mentioned by Morris as a loser, and Jeb places 3rd in the poll above, and 3rd behind Guiliani and Rice as most desired by the conservative bloggers in the other linked poll. George Bush has kept a tenuous EV majority & political coalition togther, but it's probably only replicable by Jeb Bush.




Tags: Republicans (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 87 Comments :: Post a Comment


The only one I worry about... (none / 0)

is McCain. Let's say, just for arguments sake, that we don't take back the WH in '08. C-plus Agustus and his cronies have set things up so that all (or most) of the bills from his disasterous reign will be coming due. McCain is just rational enough to try to bring together bipartisan support to bring real fixes. Any other repuke will probably carry on with the divisive business as usual.  At some point this slow train wreck will come crashing to its conclusion.

One way or the other, someone will be paying the price.

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." -- Denis Diderot
by Stoic on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 09:08:28 AM EST

Don't worry, they'll kill McCain (none / 0)

McCain will NEVER make it out of the primaries.  The GOP doesn't suffer remorse for screwing a good human being (say, as the Dems felt about Dean; although, in fairness, Dean made the closure phase easier).

Condi?  I'm surprised.

Are we sure a few Wes Clark supporters have been talking to the Condi supporters about how to freep polls?

by jcjcjc on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:16:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

that's too bad (none / 0)

mccain is the only republican i could see myself voting for.  in fact, i backed him in 2000 (don't throw any tomatos ok?).  

stupid stupid right-wingers.  if they wanted to hold the white house they'd pick mccain.  

as to jeb!, i've been saying for ages that he's the presumptive nominee.  he is not a lightweight like his brother.  jeb! is the one with the brains in that family, and i'd imagine his latina wife is an asset as well.  and although he's ruled in tallahassee with an iron fist, he is quite well-liked by the florida GOP.  yes, it will be jeb! - mark my words.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 11:32:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain Voted For Torture (none / 0)

That closes the book on him for me.
by Curt Matlock on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 04:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain Voted For Torture (none / 0)

Yeah, but to be fair, everyone of those other GOP candidates would have too.  
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:48:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Repub Senators Voted For Torture (none / 0)

No doubt. I address that in a comment below. I want to tar them all with that brush. Polls show this issue has a huge gender gap and I want Democrats to exploit it.
by Curt Matlock on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:24:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's too bad (none / 0)

Media keeps harping on the dems not doing enough to win moderates. Well, here is McCain who could have won 2000 and 2004 by bigger margins that bush did yet those republican idiots went for Bush because they are ruled by that evangelical fringe who turn out in huge numbers and dont become fringe when it comes to the polling booth.

If republicans had a brain, they could seal 2008 by nominating McCain even if McCain's stock has fallen  a tad for his being Bush's bitch during the reelection campaign and a couple of recent statements.

by Pravin on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 04:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's too bad (none / 0)

Why would we throw tomatos?  A lot of us probably backed him the GOP primary!!!  ;-)

I know you meant you would have voted for him in the General over Gore (I would not have personally) but I think if all of us HAD to pick a Republican, McCain would be the favorite.  He beats the rest of those guys on his policy, and he has better leadership skills than Guilliani.  

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:47:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't worry, they'll kill McCain (none / 0)

jcjc,

just had to take your shots at fellow democrats, huh? That's just great.  Calling the people on your side freepers is insulting and counter productive.  I know you hate Wes Clark, but please stop comparing his supporters to freepers, that sort of back and forth is not going to get us anywhere in '06 and '08.  

by JAmbro on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 12:24:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps (none / 0)

we ought to dig up the innumerable "diaries" enjoining "our side" to vote in one online poll or another. I am on nobody's side excepting those who want to put the preamble at the center of our government.
by Paul Goodman on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 01:19:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Anamolies deserve to be exposed (none / 0)

The Condi thing seems like the same sort of anamoly like the Clark polls, where Clark is trailing in third, trailing, trailing, then BAM becomes the front runner in less than a minute.

And, the practice is called "freeping".  Is it insulting?  Perhaps.  But, a spade is a spade, and freeping is freeping.

The Condi poll strikes me as being the same sort of poll.  I'd have to see a lot of scientific polls before I buy that Condi is a 7-to-3 favorite to win the nomination.  

If we haven't learned anyhting else from 2004, it should be that we can't just manufacture victories by committing vandalism against unscientific polls (which, admitedly, beg to be vandalized).

I don't feel I'm required to not talk down a candidate who I genuinely oppose.  Likewise, when the comparison is valid, why should it not be employed to make an obvious point?

by jcjcjc on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 01:47:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, I think Rice's numbers are legit (none / 0)

She was very popular over on a thread on the subject over at Free Republic.  They seemed especially pleased with themselves on how her (and Gonzales's) confirmations went (that is, they are playing the race and sex cards).  Whether her numbers in the right-wing blogsphere match real-world support, dunno.  If she does win the nomination, the easiest counter to her would for whomever wins the Dem nom to pick Richard Clarke (writer of the "Rice you idiot pay attention to Al Queda" memo in January 2001) as thier VP.

As for McCain, it sure seems like he is dead in the water in the primaries.  I agree with everybody that if he escaped the primary alive, he would win in a landslide.  He would probably even win if he lost the primary but decided to run an independent campaign afterwards (although he is a "loyal Republican", so I doubt he'll do that, but it is still a slim possibility, since his personal ambitions clash with his loyality to his party).  The Republicans here are acting the exact opposite of the way we acted by picking Kerry-we picked the guy who we thought (incorrectly) would win the general, even though we liked another guy better (Dean), they, on the other hand, are actively avoiding the one guy in thier lineup who would blow out the general election.

Now Guilliani apparently has real-world support amoungst some Republicans, but I can't jive that with his various un-Republican habits (pro-choice, pro-gay rights, divorced his wife and had his mistress live in the mayor's mansion, shared an apartment with two gay men after that, dressed in drag as a Halloween costume, etc.).  Besides, he wouldn't win his home state (or city).

by Geotpf on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 03:14:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pro-war the big hook? (none / 0)

What else could it be?

They're not overthinking with a black female candidate, are they?

I have to admit, she wouldn't surprise me.  To some extent, the Rovians will want continuity.

However, I don't see how she's going to be SecState and campaign.  Especially since the campaigning will begin sometime around August 2007.  

Given it's her only claim to fame, it could back her into a corner, especially on domestic policy.  It's a hell of a long pull to get folks to believe she can handle domestic policy when many would offer that she hasn't handle foreign policy so well either.

by jcjcjc on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:38:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-war the big hook? (none / 0)

Frankly, I would love Rice to be the nominee.  I think most of our people would beat her like drum.  Has she ever been in a campaign before?  I mean if she gets her LOTR Orc face on during the debates like she did in the 9/11 hearing, she is done... Scary Condi looks like a crazed person ready to attack you wiht a knife.  She freaks me out.

Look at some of our front runners

Clinton - Great speaker (better than Rice), fantastic fundraiser and campaigner.

Clark - Trumps her on National Security and has an IT factor people like.  He was poor on the stump in 2004 but if he spends the next 3 years working on that, he will be a big factor.  He has never been in a successful campaign, but against Rice that won't hurt him.

Feingold - Great Speaker, fires up the base.  Great experience.

Bayh - Personally, I think he doesn't have the charisma of other candidates (some disagree obviously) but he has been a successful statesman.  Excellent Campaigner and fundraiser.

Warner, Richardson...They all have things on Condi.

Unless we nominate a bonehead or they run a piss poor campaign, I think we beat anyone on that list but McCain.  Even Guilliani would be taken down.  

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:01:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I need to take a deep breath (none / 0)

Because I deplore the notion we should pick a candidate to maneuver . . . BUUUUUT . . . buuuuut . . . if they run Condi then I think we should very seriously consider running Hillary.

Then the GOP can just move on to race-baiting, which they're better at anyhow than gender politics.

The thing that worries me most about Condi is that it means another term of the Eunuchs running the show.  Especially due to her lack of domestic policy experience, which would entail that the eunuch who currently run Bush into the ground on foreign policy because he fails to get it in any shape or form, would do likewise to Condi.

Right now, domestic policy is at least regulated by George's ability to not totall shit the bed.  He may cut taxes, but isn't cutting LIHEAP or Head Start, and he's really tip-toeing around SocSec.

With Condi, I suspect the gloves would be off.  With a weak domestic policy leader and the reinforcement of a third straight computers-and-fraud election win, they'd feel they could burn everything right to the ground.

Also, Condi runs a very bad risk of not carrying California.  The odds of three straight elections going against California are very slim, especially since Condi won't play well in the South (strong black woman, not married, pro-abortion, no religion) while the Deaniac hell rampage of screams will be pounding every door in the South explaining exactly how voting Republican has made the South the armpit of Western civilization.

Now . . . I'm going back to my Russ Feingold chant.  Or Gore.

by jcjcjc on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:11:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The more I think about it... (none / 0)

...the more I agree that Hillary is a good counter for Condi.  The Clintons are beloved in the African American community, and Condi is pretty much hated.  Now, while I join in with your Feingold chant, he has a slight weakness amoungst blacks (quite possibly because of him being Jewish, unfortuantly).  The weakness is fixable (he is a member of the African subcommittee in the Foreign Relations committee), but Hillary would do better amoungst blacks than Feingold, I'm sure.  In any case, a Hillary vs. Condi race would remind me of the Obama vs. Keyes race (except women instead of blacks).  Oh, and Condi will not win California.  She is considered as much of a Californian as Al Gore was considered to be a Tennessean.
by Geotpf on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:42:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Weak with blacks: is it important? (none / 0)

In the gray calculus of American politics, being weak with black voters usually means being stronger with middle-aged whites.

It's ugly, but I struggle to believe that Feingold would turn off more black voters than he would bringing on board white voters.

I know, for the part of my red county I live in here in PA, Rendell's being Jewish meant nothing to the rednecks and bigots here.  His stance on guns meant everything.

Feingold wins big because of the gun issue.  It plays very well in the upper Midwest.  Really, it plays well everywhere except New England and California.

by jcjcjc on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's probably true (none / 0)

Being weak with blacks (and weak is a realative term, like getting 80% of them instead of 90%) probably isn't a big deal.

I really like Feingold.  He is both a liberal and a guy who can talk to the type of "common folk" who normally hate liberals.  In some ways, he's a left wing version of Dean.

His policy on guns is logical, too (he changed his mind against the assault ban, because a voter talked him through the (nearly nonexistant) differences between legal and non-legal guns during one of his (very cool) listening sessions).

by Geotpf on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 08:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's probably true (none / 0)

"In some ways, he's a left wing version of Dean."  What?  Dean's not left-wing?!

Geez.

I'm not sold that Feingold is a hardcore leftie.  I thing he's the lucky guy who found the happy balance between libertarianism and socialism.

But, I've always felt that one of the great failures of American progressives was their inability to frame a conservative argument for socialism.  

There's nothing wrong with arguing that a society that wants low crime and cherishes family values might, just might want to promote social and economic improvement.

by jcjcjc on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 10:03:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't worry, they'll kill McCain (none / 0)

You are taking that way to personally.  If the Feingold supporters or whoever JCs candidate is were stuffing the polls, he would still call it freeping.  The Freepers started it, that is the nickname for it.  Don't take it personally...It isn't like he was calling Clark an idiot or a bad candidate in that post...He simply said the Clark supporters had stuffed the ballot on Mydd and other sites, which is true.  
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:52:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you (none / 0)

I just want valid data.

2004 should have taught that stuffing polls doesn't work unless you work for Diebold.

by jcjcjc on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:14:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The tenuous EV majority & political coalition (none / 0)

Fleshed out a bit: The Bush coalition (partisans, corporate, military, evangelicals) is added with a bit more than usual of Latino and women supporters to win an EV majority. Most any GOP candidate can get the corporations and military on board, and manipulating insecurity through WOT is in the GOP playbook, but balancing the pragmatic partisans with the idealist evangelicals is tougher, and appealing somewhat to Latinos seems particularly a Bush thing.
by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 09:16:10 AM EST

It seems to me (none / 0)

That both McCain and Rice would be pretty tough to beat as Repug nominees, but I’m doubtful that either could get nominated, probably thankfully.

Jeb.  Well, for starters his name is Jeb.  He is stupid, shady and pretty much only pandering to moralists in order to get elected.  That would never work.

Ummm.  Shit.

"Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil."... Plato
by Spartacus on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 09:54:45 AM EST

Re: It seems to me (none / 0)

I dont think Condi Rice will have it easy. She may steal a few black votes(not as many as the repubs think she will get), but she will lose some redneck votes in the south who may not turn out. Bush is pretty colorblind when it comes to people who listen to him blindly, however the southern voters are not as "openminded". Bush Sr and Bush Jr both don't have a problem personally dealing with blacks, but they have won elections pandering to people who are racist. I just don't see Rice getting that segment of the population to vote for her. I was against democrats nominating a southern candidate just to pander to the redstaters. But if Rice runs and John Edwards is nominated(I normally dont like Edwards), dems have a good chance of stealing a southern state or two.
by Pravin on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 04:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cat fight? (none / 0)

The thought of Condi vs. Hillary in '08 is just delicious.
by evap on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 09:56:40 AM EST

Hillary is beating them all like a dirty rug (none / 0)

Condi, Jeb, Rudy.

And before you DLC types go all gaga in ecstasy... the key factor in Hillary crushing them is name recognition.

by afs on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 11:26:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly (none / 0)

It's too early for any poll of the general public to be anything other than a name-recognition chart.  Polls of politically motivated people are different (partisan meetings, on-line partisan blog polls), although those only guage the prefrence of those really interested as opposed to the half asleep masses.  True, accurate polls of general primary voters (or head to head matchups) won't be possible for at least a year or two.

Right now, on our side, Clark and Feingold are leading in the partisan on-line polls (although the Clarkies are freeping the polls, of course).  I like both Clark and Feingold, so I'm happy either way.

by Geotpf on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 03:23:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rice (none / 0)

Rice would be a horrible candidate for president for them...simply because she doesn't have the slightest clue when it comes to campaign politics. If you think John Kerry was aloof, Rice is aloof x10. Rice would be a near ideal VP nominee. I've also heard that Mel Martinez of Florida is considered to be a top VP prospect as well for '08.
by blueflorida on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:01:47 AM EST

Agreed (none / 0)

Has Rice ever run for ANY elective office?  Is there any evidence that she has ANY political skills to speak of?  Not to mention the rank incompetence she demonstrated as National Security Advisor (what was that PDB titled again Condi?).

I trust African-Americans not to fall for a Condi candidacy the way Republicans appear to assume they would.  As Thurgood Marshall said re Clarence Thomas, it doesn't matter whether a snake is white or black, it will bite you either way.

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean
by Jim in Chicago on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 03:30:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agreed (none / 0)

If Rice runs, and Hillary is candidate...It wouldn't matter.  You just send Bill into the African American community and Clinton still draws 90+ of the vote.  
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:05:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not a Hilary fan (none / 0)

and I certainly dont listen to slimey Dick Morris, but I think Hilary could probably beat anyone other than McCain and Giuliani.
by jj32 on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:08:20 AM EST

Hilary is crushing Giuliani (none / 0)

The only one of the bunch that's polling well against Hillary is McCain, and he has 0% chance of escaping the primaries.
by afs on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 11:28:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

relating to a single black woman as president (none / 0)

being that I am a white, married catholic liberal democrat with two children, I'm sorry but I just can't relate with Rice
by gasperc on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:12:38 AM EST

i would imagine... (none / 0)

...that the more racist wing of the GOP wouldn't take too kindly to condoLIEzza.  in fact i think she would have a real problem getting votes from the dixiecrat south.

i have no problem with her being single or black; i have a problem with her utter lack of integrity and the fact that she's a pathological liar.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 11:34:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Only a Republican (3.00 / 1)

Just as only a Republican could be the first president to recognize Mao's China as the real China, only a Republican woman or African American can be the first of those groups to be elected president.  Republicans will vote for anyone who is at the top of their ballot, unlike Democrats who are a lot more picky.  The media will have a field day slandering any woman or African American who the Democrats run as a candidate, but will tone it down if that candidate is a Republican.  So, my prediction is that HIllary will be a loser if she is our candidate, but Condi would stand a very good chance of winning.  After all "we" elected little George, so there can't be a Republican that is unelectable.
by Sacramentohop on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:26:41 AM EST

They've been attacking Hillary for 12 years (none / 0)

There's nothing left for them to fire at Hillary. Literally. The magazine is empty.

She's still beating any Republican that can win the GOP nomination like a red-headed stepchild.

..and this is coming from a Boxer fan.

by afs on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 11:37:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They've been attacking Hillary for 12 years (none / 0)

Yeah, because they need to come up with something new on Hillary. Please. RNC has more oppo on her than they do on Dean, and they (1) sure as hell aren't afraid to use it and (2) don't need anything new to scare up the same coalition, plus sexist voters, that they got this time.
"into your illusion, i make my intrusion"
by fng on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 12:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They've been attacking Hillary for 12 years (none / 0)

If there was anything new to use on Hillary, they would be using it already. They can't help themselves. It's a reflex action.

The same coalition they got together this time is what Hillary is beating like a dirty rug.

by afs on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 01:10:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

'08 (none / 0)

I agree that neither Guliani nor McCain will ever be nominated by that party.  I don't consider Rice to be a serious option either.  I've that thought all along that it will be Jeb Bush, despite what he may say now about running.  That's one of the reasons Cheney was picked as VP.  Because it was understood that he wouldn't run in '08.  If Bush does end up not running, then probably Frist would be the frontrunner.
by Paleo on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:35:57 AM EST

It's All About Who Rove Picks (none / 0)

Who will Karl get behind?  That's the key question.

Rove can work his channels to corral Rel Right support.   That will be the key to winning.   To me it looks like Frist or Jeb would be Karl's picks.  

Why did Frist decide so firmly to not run in '06?  Gee, what a mystery.    Look for any early signs that the Rel Right is behind him.   That would prove that he's Karl's choice.   I doubt that they'd prefer a competitive primary.    

OTOH,  Jeb is putting himself in a good place - as the "go to guy" to unify the party if there is a contentious primary field with nobody exciting anyone.    But that kind of a model seems to fit the Dem primary process much better than the GOP.

by Andmoreagain on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 01:47:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I want either Frist or Santorum to win the primary (none / 0)

Frist is so boring that he puts everybody to slezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  Santorum is so right-wing that he causes everybody to want to hang him in effigy.
by Geotpf on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 03:29:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I want either Frist or Santorum to win the pri (none / 0)

Santorium is going to lose to Bob Casey for the Senate race or didn't you get the memo.  
Councilman Bill Painter
by Painter2004 on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 05:45:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know (none / 0)

I'm almost annoyed about that, because that certainly kills his chances for getting the presidential nom.

Almost.

by Geotpf on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 06:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've been making the point for weeks (none / 0)

that George Bush's something, whatever it is, is not 'transferrable" to another Republican candidate.  Not even Jeb.  If they don't run McCain, and things continue as they've been we should have no trouble winning back the White House in 2008.  (Even McCain has the look and feel of someone who could have a meltdown during a Presidential campaign) I still think the hypothesis from Texiera and Judis's Emerging Democratic Majority is on the mark.  (Don't tell me W lost in 2000 and barely won in 2004 so exactly what is "transferrable/" I know that)  What I'm saying is it won't be close enough for them to steal a Florida or Ohio.  We'll pick up more Midwestern and Southwestern states and maybe even a place like Montana, and hold on to our 20 states.  And don't most of you think events are going to make things even worse for Republicans?
by fred on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:38:09 AM EST

It's called pity (none / 0)

-nt-
by Paul Goodman on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 01:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rudy (none / 0)

Guiliani is "too liberal" for the GOP.  McCain will be older than Reagan.

Rice, now that's not surprising since they want to pander to minority groups.

The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:38:22 AM EST

Re: Rudy (none / 0)

I think the idea upthread about Mel Martinez as the Veep in 08 is enough pandering to keep the right wing in line. Can't see them nominating Condi when the voteing booth curtains are closed.
"into your illusion, i make my intrusion"
by fng on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 12:52:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No way will Condi win (none / 0)

as you can see on these Baptist Board threads here, and here, because she's apparently voiced "pro-choice" thoughts. But like Bush did, Condi probably could modify her position enough to placate evangelicals.

But she can't do much about her skin color.  An African-American candidate is simply unacceptable to the Republican base in the South.  Believe me,  the people in my ex-in-law's church in Chattanooga, Tennessee are not going to vote for a black woman--or even a black man.  They have a hard time not calling them "niggers".  The white, conservative, so-called christian vote that delivered the "morals" vote for Reagan and both Bushes from Virginia to Texas will not vote for Condi.  Add to that the inevitable lesbian rumors that are sure to arise and she is sunk.  They will stay home in droves or find an alternative (a new George Wallace?).

by Freder Frederson on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:43:12 AM EST

Rice deserves the 9/11 monniker of abysmal failure (none / 0)

We have the evidence on her on that now,,,I would
keep pounding with it,until the word incompetent
and rice are synonymous. I would love to run
an add showing her making her remarks about 9/11.

is Rice's claim after the attacks that no one could have imagined terrorists using planes as missiles to hit buildings.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that ... they would try to use an airplane as a missile," she said at the May 2002 press conference.

I would run that sound bite 24/7 until the
american people finally afix blame to someone
for 9/11 and I hereby endorse Condolezza Rice
as the one because it is pure truth brother.

its time to stop the free pass lunch program
for republicans.

evidence demands a verdict.

and of course sisters :)

aslanspal

p.s. just an observation on rice she seems to

get really stressed out as she gets more and more
into a job...noticed that when she was NSA.
Now her first week as Secretary of State she looked really relaxed and cleared up, but saw
her on a c-span news conference this morning
again I saw the stress and complexion break out
just an observation with the opinion could she
handle a presidential campaign and will she
really be that good of Secretary of State imho
her track record as NSA was average at best.

by Aslanspal on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:48:50 AM EST

Republican Candidate is Not Biggest Problem (none / 0)

Here's a slightly more cynical take on Republican candidates.

Democrats need to beat the Republican coalition and the Republican machine and had better not get caught up in worrying about what candidate the Republicans will choose.

Any one of the candidates on that list could have beaten John Kerry because the Republicans beat the Democrats on strategy, and beat them in the media. I don't like it, but that's the reality as I see it.

To win the next Presidential election Democrats had better seriously upgrade their game or we'll be looking at President Smith, Republican from Anystate, USA.

by Curt Matlock on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:50:11 AM EST

Wanting Rice Means They're Not Racist--NOT! (none / 0)

Rightwing bloggers support Rice for President because they think it means they're not racist.  Not consciously of course. But that's obviously what's going on.  

It's the oldest trick in the book--it was already old when the Roman Empire adopted it--adopt a pet ruler from the conquered people to "rule" on your behalf.

Let me tell a little story about a black president. I went to white super-majority high school back in the 60s. There were some latinos and maybe a few Asian-American students, but there was just one black kid.  Just after I left, he was elected student body president.  I had--and still have--very complex feelings about that. For one thing, I'm pretty damn sure it would have never happened if 10% of the student body was black.

But one thing is for sure: the student body of Campbell High in the late 1960s was a good deal less hypocritical than the rightwing blogosphere today.  We may have been beneficiaries of white privilege, sharing some of that privilege out of guilt.  But none of us had built careers intimately linked to maintaining that privilege.  At least not when that black president was elected.

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:51:24 AM EST

GOPers are test marketing a new package (3.00 / 1)

Dick Morris also had an editorial over at The Hill last week about drafting Condi. This much noise is too much of a coincidence not to be a planned beta test for the Right Wing Noise Machine.

This looks to me like a reasonably sophisticated beta test of different new packages for the Right Wing Noise Machine to select from. Bush is not a President, he is a marketing tool for radical conservatism. Scaife et. al. are searching for the right package to sell their "New And Improved Tide" candidate in 2008. They could care less who it is and what they believe. Will it sell? Can it be marketed? How can we design the package so it has sizzle?

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 11:24:09 AM EST

Re: GOPers are test marketing a new package (none / 0)

Exactly. What he said.
by Curt Matlock on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 11:55:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOPers are test marketing a new package (none / 0)

I just don't think that many Republicans are ready for the first Lesbian President.  Running for President would put her under the sort of scrutiny which would make denying her sexual orientation impossible.  Half of the Stanford faculty knows about her relationships.  It's a very poorly kept secret.
by ortcutt on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 07:29:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmmm (none / 0)

I can't find anything on the internets (all of them) that even hints of lesbian relationships at Stanford in particular.  The closest I can come is this column:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9165

Which indicates that the Washington Post refused to run a Boondocks comic strip where the characters (black kids in the suburbs) joke that if Rice could get laid, maybe she would be less likely to blow up the world.  What triggered the speculation was the stated reason behind not running the strip:

"We had no way of knowing whether Mr. McGruder's assertion that Condoleeza Rice had no personal relationship was true or not".

That is, the fact that they used the term "personal relationship" instead of "boyfriend" indicates that people at the Post have unpublishable info that Rice is gay.  Of course, this is a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly-although quite possibly an accurate "reading between the lines".

That's it.  I couldn't find anything else remotely suggesting Rice was gay, other than bad poetry and other nonsensical stuff.

by Geotpf on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 09:01:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmm (none / 0)

The scrutiny of your personal life is much greater when you are running for President than it is when you are being confirmed as Sec. of State.  If she did decide to run, it would certainly come out.
by ortcutt on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:45:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOPers are test marketing a new package (none / 0)

It would be a huge mistake.  The only winning presidential candidate to come out of the cabinet in the 20th Century was Herbert Hoover.  Plus, we know she's well-versed in foreign policy, but what about domestic.  She has no experience at all in domestic policy.  She won't get the nomination.  No way.  My guess is that someone will rise within the GOP in the next two years.
The Methodist Democrat: Where It's Happening
by Joshua Smith on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 11:32:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rice? Fine for dreams, no chance in reality. (none / 0)

No way does the Southeast GOP, the current power base of the party, allow Rice to be the candidate, she's their two greatest fears all rolled up into one.

With over 20 GOP officials connected to the White Supremecist Council of Conservative Citizens, there is not a chance that state with allow a black person to be their nominee.  CCC influence is bound to affect adjacent states too.

We've already seen in 2000 what South Carolina GOPers think about those who have sex with black women.  I don't see a likely turnaround for an acutal black woman.  Bob Jones University may no longer "officially" outlaw interracial dating, but the sentiment remains among its supporters.

The Southern Baptist leadership don't believe women should be pastors, I don't see them allowing their flocks to choose one to lead the country without a fight.

She has as little chance as moderates McCain or Giuliani

We've already seen the Bush crew try to push Jeb to the forefront with his Tsumani trip that the media somehow managed not to fall for.

Jeb is clearly the GOP power-brokers choice.

by EarthX on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 11:48:47 AM EST

Re: Rice? TYPO (none / 0)

Should read:

With over 20 GOP MISSISSIPPI officials connected to the White Supremecist Council of Conservative Citizens, there is not a chance that state will allow a black person to be their nominee.  CCC influence is bound to affect adjacent states too.

by EarthX on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 11:50:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

All Name Recognition (none / 0)

The whole reason Condi is doing well is also name recognition.

The Republican slate in '08 will come down

Bush, Hagel, Romney and Tommy Tancredo doing his best impression of Dennis Kucinich.

Hillary leads in name recognition, but it will be undermined as more candidates become name worthy. My thinking is that Kathy Sebelius of Kansas the most likely choice to run against the Republicans unless Bush is very strong in which case it will be another "lamb to the slaughter" like Kerry.

by risenmessiah on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 11:50:21 AM EST

No-it's not name recognition (none / 0)

This is not a poll of the general public.  This is from people who know all the canidates (like us).  It's some sort of racial thing, either "we're not racists see see SEE!", or "haha watch the quota-happy liberals try to run against a black woman".
by Geotpf on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 03:34:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Romney, are you serious? (none / 0)

Romney is a freaking Mormon!  You think a Mormon is going to play well in the Baptist south?  Come on.  I don't know how he managed to win in Massachussets but  I guess it was because Mass. voters think there are only two religions in the world--Catholic and not Catholic.  And since Mormons have a lot of kids, are pro-life, and have a lot of missionaries they probably just thought it is some secret Catholic society like Opus Dei.
by Freder Frederson on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 12:07:13 PM EST

Re: Romney, are you serious? (none / 0)

Deadly serious. He raised a ton of money as a director for the Salt Lake City Olympics, and his biggest supporters in Mass are Catholic voters. He will do well because it's playing against type: governor from the Northeast who supports the death penalty, against more stem cells, etc, etc, but equally avowed in faith.

I don't think Romney will in unless Dean or someone else pulls a Bull Moose. Though I have to say, if Hagel runs against Hiliary I could see myself choosing Chuck. But that's about the only chance I see myself crossing lines for like, the entire decade.

by risenmessiah on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 12:13:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Romney, are you serious? (none / 0)

Yes but the faith is wacky.  In the liberal northeast or Utah you can get away with being a Mormon because religion is a personal matter or practically everyone else is equally deluded, respectively.  But if you try to run as a Mormon on a national level the truly disturbing aspects of that faith will become an issue in the campaign.  Do you really think he will stand up to scrutiny when he has to explain that a woman's salvation depends on her husband's standing in the church?  Or that blacks were not allowed to have positions of leadership in the Church until the 1970's?  Or that the Mormon Church teaches that all other Christian denominations are "the Whore of Babylon," the "Great and Abominable Church."  
by Freder Frederson on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 12:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Romney, are you serious? (none / 0)

I'm not sure you follow me. I'll try and say this again.

Romney will be a competitive primary candidate but he's not going to win. The only scenario where Romney could win the election is if the Dem vote splits. But, depending on the shape of the river in '08 many big time GOPers might avoid the scrum. That's why Romney would outlast other candidates who have bigger name recognition. He'd play against type, run a strong campaign but lose to [fill in the blank here].

Jeb would run as Bush 2.0 which is largely good enough to ensure he'd win over a Dem candidate unless there's seriously hell to pay domestically or internationally. If the hell is in the form of intenrational problems, Hagel will sound like Heartland conservative man but with a more internationalist bent than Bush. Romney is the guy they call if they need another Herbie Hoover.

by risenmessiah on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 06:11:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think they'll offer us another Bush, but... (none / 0)

not one named Bush --  I don't think Americans are QUITE ready for that sort of dynastic succession.  Instead I would expect a Bush clone -- someone very conservative but also folksy, who doesn't give the IMPRESSION of being a rabid extremist. Maybe Senator George Allen of Virgina?
by lkusmin on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 12:19:00 PM EST

Re: I think they'll offer us another Bush, but... (none / 0)

Ooops, of course that's VirginIa.
by lkusmin on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 12:19:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cultural Elites (none / 0)

As I read through many of the comments here I got pretty pissed off. Why? Because it showed how once again liberals, and I use that term purposefully, so often deserve the term cultural elites. I'm black, from the south, and a former conservative Christian. I know about these folks in an intimate way. And Condi Rice could definitely be elected. Yes, there is racism in the south. But, racism is not how it is caricatured in the comments above. Yes, there are some folks like that. But, they are a very small portion of the population. The only real concern voiced above about Rice being chosen is her lack of electoral experience. But, the charges of racism are pretty vacuous, I think. Rice has already pierced the proper networks to make it. And if you don't think that the country would jump at the chance to name it's first black, female president even over Clinton, then . . . I fimrly think that if Rice were the Republican candidate then the Democrats could kiss many of our coalitions goodbye -- the black, Latino and potentially Asian ones.

But, that's just me.

by blackmahn on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 12:39:32 PM EST

Racism and voting in the South (none / 0)

Racism will play an effect in the South. I was there and saw it happen in a big race. Doug Wilder's election as Governor in VA. Doug Wilder was cruising in the polls with a 10%+ lead coming up to election day over a real doofus anti-abortion couple time loser named Marshall Coleman. Wilder ended up winning by a few thousand votes. The pollsters tried to figure out what happened, and they found out that 10% swing was caused by people who told a pollster they were supporting Wilder, but in private wouldn't vote for him.

So... you're talking about a 10% racism swing among Democratic Party voters in VA. What do you think the swing will be in the GOP?

It will happen like this. Rice will do well in opinion polls all the way up to the election, but on election day, her numbers will collapse like Wilder's did.

by afs on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism and voting in the South (none / 0)

It's called the halo effect where people lie and say what they think is the right thing.  It's why when pollster ask if someone voting it's always a few points higher than who actually voted.
Councilman Bill Painter
by Painter2004 on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 05:50:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cultural Elites (none / 0)

Why? Because it showed how once again liberals, and I use that term purposefully, so often deserve the term cultural elites. I'm black, from the south, and a former conservative Christian. I know about these folks in an intimate way.

Well, sorry to tell you, but if you are black and from the south you don't know about these folks in an "intimate" way.  You know about these folks when black folks are around.  

I am white, grew up solidly middle class in the North, but have lived most of my adult life in the south.  I am hardly part of the cultural elite, I have never attended a private school in my life--public schools and universities.  I have lived in all-white middle class suburbs and mixed race urban neighborhoods and consider myself an extremely liberal upper-middle class (barely) professional, not part of any "cultural elite".  

My first wife was the first one in her family to graduate from college.  Her parents came from rural TN but moved to Chattanooga and were solidly working class, barely above what would be considered working poor.  They went to church three times a week (First Free Will Baptist Church), never drank, tithed ten percent of their meager salary, and considered themselves wonderful Christians.  They were civil and respectful to black people when they interacted with them. They owned a couple rental houses.  They would have never have rented their houses to a black person.  In fact I was there when my ex's dad hung up the phone after explaining to someone that a house that I knew was on the market was not available.  After he hung he explained to his wife that it was a nigger on the phone.

by Freder Frederson on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 01:20:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rice's Problem: Candidate Skills (none / 0)

Echoing what a previous poster said,  Condi's style is very detached, and she has less of a common touch than even Kerry.  

She's bookish, she's passionless, she's intellectual....when the give and take in the primary started, she'd get hammered.   Can she hit back hard?  Never remotely seen that.

The problem is NOT that Repubs wouldn't vote for a black woman.   It's that they won't vote for a secular, intellectual, passionless woman who has poor message skills.  

However, the Condi '08 folks would by far have their case strengthened by asserting that Hillary would be the nominee.   That is the closest I could come to imagining Condi - as a strategic female choice on the part of GOPers in response to Hillary.    

by Andmoreagain on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 01:41:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rice's Problem: Candidate Skills (none / 0)

I agree. Rice has no charisma at all. She has an impressive life story even if she has been totally incompetent in recent years. Still she needs some charisma. She looks like Bugs Bunny's girlfriend. Has a speaking style that rivals Hillary's in coldness. She's got eyes that make Hillary's cold eyes seem warm by comparison. And those eyebrows!.
by Pravin on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 04:52:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cultural Elites (none / 0)

Well I am not black  and I am not white. So i get to hear from both sides. I can guarantee you there will be whites who support Bush and who cheer Rice on right now, who won't vote for her as President. It's a big step for some of these southerners to make the leap from electing a black as governor or senator vs President.
by Pravin on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 04:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton leads Rice (none / 0)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Election%202008--Kerry,%20Clinton,%20Rice.htm

Clinton 47%, Rice 40%.

Dick Morris is off his rocker.  Not only is Rice pro-choice and supports affirmative action, but she'll cut into women voters as much as Keyes cut into black voters in Illinois.

McCain, Giuliani, enough has been said, they won't be nominated.

Pataki, Romney, Santorum, Warner, Pawlenty...you gotta be kidding me.

Jeb ain't running, and if he tried to, the public wouldn't stand for it, him immediately taking his brother's job...Jeb may run in 12 years or so, but not yet.

The only one who scares me is Frist.  He'll own the South and Mountain West.  He's got that small-town charm that Bush uses.  He's not near as charismatic, but I see him as being groomed into a formiddable alternative to Hillary.  If anything, he is probably the most likely guy the Republicans will nominate.

by Skaje on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 01:52:06 PM EST

Frist - He's no electoral killer (none / 0)

As long as we don't nominate a coastal type, no way Frist will "own" the Mountain West.    Competitive, sure, since he'd be an 'R' nominee.   But not 'own'.  

Frist doesn't project "man's man" the way that lifelong brush clearing, hoe-wielding, horse-fearing dude George Walker Bush does.

by Andmoreagain on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 05:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frist - He's no electoral killer (none / 0)

I'm just wondering how a Hillary vs. Frist campaign would go.

Could Hillary hold Arkansas?  Missouri?  Could she take Ohio or Florida?

Frist is going to run a lot like Bush...talking bout "values", security, cutting taxes...

I just don't see where Hillary is going take states from Bush and Frist, besides maybe Colorado and Nevada, which are trending our way anyways.

by Skaje on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 08:59:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frist - He's no electoral killer (none / 0)

I'm of the opinion that Hillary could only defeat a true nutball conservative candidate, like maybe a Roy Moore type.     So I agree, Frist would beat her, and soundly.    She wouldn't get all of Kerry's states.    Frist couldn't beat a good D, IMO, with a well run campaign.   He's just not that interesting, but hey, what do I know, I'm talking about my gut here.

I think Jeb is a wild card.   If things don't look so good in 08, the public might be in the mood for change, regardless of Jeb's talents.   Any other GOP candidate could fake "change,"  but not Jeb.

by Andmoreagain on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 10:31:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your opinion isn't based on evidence (none / 0)

The polls down the thread clarly show Hillary crushing almost everyone in the field.

You have the right to believe whatever opinion you like, but that opinion is contradicted by real evidence that indicates your opinion is incorrect.

by afs on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 11:26:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your opinion isn't based on evidence (none / 0)

Guess what?  My opinion is based on Nothing but my imagination.   I actually know that!!  Crazy, the ideas I get sometimes.

But if you think polls this far out mean anything, then I'm guessing you're very young and don't know that it's all about name ID at this point.   It's truly meaningless to assert polls as evidence at this point in time, and I would say more meaningful to hear the opinions of seasoned observers (people who've at least watched half a dozen Prez elections.)

by Andmoreagain on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:27:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Frist (none / 0)

Coming from Tennessee, I've seen entirely too much of Frist playing doctor as a way to cover up his deep ties to big pharma.

Frist will be a formidable candidate unless the Dems manage to shift the rhetorical field. The way to attack Frist (or almost anyone else the right wing names) is by making the election about corporate greed versus caring for folks, because Frist's voting record is firmly on the side of greed.

Now that we've seen what can be done with a senator's voting record, we can dish some out as well. That, actually, is one reason I think Frist may not win the nomination, despite his good reputation within GOP circles.

by willpax on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 02:29:54 PM EST

Frist's brother makes $250 mil/yr CEO of HCA (none / 0)

How's that for a starter? The Frist family believes it's reasonable for Bill Frist's brother to take $250 million dollar a year of people's health care dollar.

Don't forget the billion dollar fines of HCA for Medicare fraud, too.

by afs on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 03:18:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frist's brother makes $250 mil/yr CEO of HCA (none / 0)

Agreed. And if Frist can be tied to Big Pharma (as above) and the price of medical insurance and copays for medications continue to increase with no end in site, it will be quite effective to lay all of it at Dr. Frist's feet.
by MD in MA on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 04:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frist's brother makes $250 mil/yr CEO of HCA (none / 0)

That would work especially well if the Democrats are simultaneously using health care as a primary campaign theme.

Here is Dr. Frist. Look what a bunch of nothing he has done as a Senator to make health care better for America.

by Curt Matlock on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 05:04:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jeb in '08 (none / 0)

I actually hope the Goopers nominate yet another Bush to run for the presidency.  Remember the talk about Clinton fatigue in 2000; by '08 Bush will be so discredited that his brother won't have a chance. . . and if he is not and the American people are prepared to choose yet another Bush, it will indicate that the Democratic Party is so moribund that it ought to go the way of the Whigs , , ,and I'll have to give serious thought to moving to Canada
by MD in MA on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 02:36:59 PM EST

Jeb and conservative christians (none / 0)

what are Jeb's credentials with the religious right?  does he have a following the way that W does?  additionally, does anyone think we can count on W's jealousy regarding intra-family politics to get him to veto Jeb?
by benchcoat on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 02:46:45 PM EST

Candidate Senators on Torture / Gonzales (none / 0)

Many of the listed candidates are U.S. Senators. Those Senators heard many hours of testimony during the confirmation hearings of Alberto Gonzales. Each of these men were told about the outrageous perversion of U.S. and International Law that was crafted by Gonzales in his role as White House Counsel to President Bush.

Alberto Gonzales wrote an opinion for President Bush that justified torture. Further, Gonzales crafted an opinion, which he still has not repudiated, that the President has an "override" authority which allows him to ignore the law and torture prisoners.

The following Republican Senators voted for Alberto Gonzales confirmation and thereby went on the record as endorsing torture.

Yeas on Gonzales:

  • Frist

  • McCain

  • Allen

  • Santorum

  • Brownback

Republicans in the poll cited above consider these senators serious candidates for the presidency. I consider them immoral and un-American for their endorsement of torture.  They have voted for a policy unprecedented in American history that has damaged our standing in the world for a generation. Their willingness to use the most brutal means in routine fashion indicates they are men who care more about power than humanity.

Senators voting for torture should never be allowed possession of the great power held by the President of the United States.

by Curt Matlock on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 04:59:56 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: