Here's where anyone: Repbulican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, or whatever can promote their favorite presidential team for 2004. Here's the question for debate: Is there a better team to lead our country than who we have now?

I haven't made up my own mind as yet, and so would like input from all perspectives. It's okay to defend our present administration here, but I would appreciate it if supporters would avoid sound bite arguments. Also, I think links to candidate Websites would add to the value of this topic. For example, I watched a good portion of the first Democratic debate on the Web. This is tremendously great stuff! No more scheduling around television dates/times.

Here's a link:

Demo Debate, SC, 05/03/03

Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh, the Indiana Senators, would make a great team. Too bad nobody outside of Indiana would vote for these two.

In Lugar, you have a fiscal conservative and a person who is extremely competent to handle US foreign affairs. Lugar is probably the best influential Republican at the moment to help repair the international ties that have been damaged during the current Bush administration. Lugar thinks things through and is out to make the right decision, not the popular one. Unfortunately, this is why he got about 3% of the vote in the Republican primaries in 1996.

Bayh is an Indiana Democrat, or one that is hardly different from many of the Republicans in the state. He works well with both parties, and being former governor of Indiana, understands the budget process for an executive. He is a social reformer and understands the average person's concerns when it comes to government.

Both are weak on economic policy, but I do not think the President's economic policy really has a lot of effect. Congress and the Federal Reserve have much more control over the economy. The President sets a tone for the economy more than anything, and both are capable of doing this well. Both are also considered political insiders, as both have been in politics for many years. This may not be that big a handicap though, as people tend to say they are against political insiders, then turn around and vote for them.

2004 GOP : George W. Bush and Alan Keyes.

2004 Dem : Hillary Rodham Clinton and Al Sharpton

The GOP team is advanced because I believe that setting Alan Keyes up for a run in 2008 would serve the country and GOP well, and because I doubt if any other potential Republican Presidential candidates in 2004 a] have any shot, and b] would do enough of a better job than Bush to cover the damage done by unseating him during the primaries.

The Dem team is advanced in the hopes that they would be so thoroughly embarrassed and humiliated that any pretensions or hopes of national office will be dashed forevermore. Essentially, innoculating the electorate against the extreme Left of the Democratic party.

There may be qualified Democrats out there right now, I just haven't seen them and fear that unless the Pelosi/McGovern wing of the Democratic party is gutted, they'll never manage to get through the primaries. My guess is its another Governor.

Here's interesting tidbit of info for you, Hodur. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution states in part: So only one person from Indiana may run on the same ticket at the same time.

If you'll recall that is why Cheney got some scrutiny in the 2000 election Cheney Veep Pick Would Face Constitutional Hurdle, July 20, 1999 (ABC).

I'm still mulling over who would be on the ideal ticket for me but I can tell you who I won't vote for again...

Republican ticket Ron Paul-President, G.W. Bush VP. Paul to head us down a libertarian road, need Bush to help get the votes.

Yeah, but I figure, if I'm going for dream candidates here, then I'm not going to worry about little things like ineligibility. They are also in different parties, which I'm sure is another roadblock to the Lugar/Bayh ticket.

An LP ticket --

President: Walter E. Williams, Prof. of Economics at George Mason U., popular syndicated columnist and occasional guest host on the Rush Limbaugh show. A highly articulate and likeable black libertarian.

Vice President: T.J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor. One of the few outspoken ideological libertarians in the business world.

You could flip that ticket over and put Rodgers for Pres and Williams for Veep and I'd like that too. The only problem with it is that both have been asked and have refused... but they could change their minds.

For the Republican Party Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only choice from my PoV. He's just about the only Republican elected official that I agree with on most of the issues. Uh, Hugo, he and G.W. are both from Texas.

But no, I don't think the GOP will be ready for Ron Paul, or if it is, we won't need the LP anymore because the GOP will have converted en masse. But maybe, just maybe ...

Let's try this GOP ticket --

President: Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-WA)
Vice President: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

That'd work, and I feel pretty comfortable with it on the issues. Dunn isn't is as libertarian as I'd like but she's definitely on the libertarian side of conservative. We'd have our first woman President, and I think a very good one. I know Dunn from when she was King County GOP chair, and she was extremely capable.

For the Dems I have no suggestions. I can't think of anybody they could plausibly nominate that I'd vote for. Camille Paglia maybe, but she's not very plausible. The aforementioned Evan Bayh would do as a solid centrist caretaker if Bush absolutely had to go.

Gotta be a loophole somewhere, I think GW can move to Dad's house in Maine. I guess George 41 still has that property, have not seen Demo's renting out his hotel room lately.

AHHHHHHHH

If that ever happened, i'd move to Canada.




Okay:

Gop Team 2004: Bush II and Frist
Dem Team 2004: Gephart and Liberman

GOP:

Bush would do well in the Foriegn Policy by handling the War on Terror situation (because God knows what a Democrat will do to it if Bush II leaves) & he can work on his domestic stuff while Frist, being a doc & all, would be the right guy to promote a healthcare bill that works


DEMS:

Gephart & Liberman's healthcare plan will rock the nation positivly & they both wouldn't let the military go to pot

Colin Powell and Rep. Harold Ford in 2004 on a unity ticket.

Why not the best?

If powell ran for prez i'd shoot myself.

I say: Gephardt and Sharpton

One person I think is very overlooked is Howard Dean. He said one thing that really struck a note with me, "I'm from the democratic wing of the democratic party." Too many democrats seem like republicans these days.

If Ron Paul ran it would be the first time I ever voted Republican, he is an upstanding man and a correct human being. I wish he would run.

I see Powell as a wishy washy, bought, diffused uncle Tom, sorry NT. I dont believe he has what it takes, not anymore.

Hillary and Sharpton? This is a joke the Rebublicans are trying to play. Disgusting. Noone can vote Sharpton who has a singular and radical agenda. Like Jesse Jackson, his life belongs to the outer wings.

I am liking Howard Dean but dont know if he can win.

Are we talking about runners or just brainstorming?

I could swear I posted to this thread yesterday, but I guess I didn't...

OK, my dream candidates for 2004:

Ralph Nader for President. I think he could do a lot for our domestic well being.

Noam Chomsky as vice prez. He's strong on foreign policy issues and is undoubtedly one of the smartest people on earth.

Of course, I can't picture Chomsky going for it...

Maybe Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize winning economist and former top dog of the World Bank. He'd be great at the job.

I could swear I posted to this thread yesterday, but I guess I didn't...

OK, my dream candidates for 2004:

Ralph Nader for President. I think he could do a lot for our domestic well being.

Noam Chomsky as vice prez. He's strong on foreign policy issues and is undoubtedly one of the smartest people on earth.

Of course, I can't picture Chomsky going for it...

Maybe Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize winning economist and former top dog of the World Bank. He'd be great at the job.

Back in August when we were just getting started, I said this:



While it's not my "dream ticket", I do think it is a guaranteed winner.

Just about everyone likes Tom Hanks. He'd bring the veterans' vote to the ticket.

Oprah gets the black vote and the women's vote, and she'd be both the first black VP and the first female VP.

Maybe that's the internet rumor we can start...

Mike

when i said gephardt and sharpton, it was PURE sarcasm. I don't quite know who i'd pick for the dems, but sharpton is definitly not it.

Well, at this early stage of the game, I'd say Howard Dean teamed with John Edwards as Veep would be a better team than Bush/Cheney.

The only reasons for thinking this are general in nature. I don't know enough about either's policies and visions to address that yet, but Dean has the presidential look and strength of delivery. Edwards has the spiff and polish, plus all the animated hand movements.

I suppose someone is going to place hand to mouth and *gasp* that I consider physical attributes important in politicians. Hey, don't get on my case: I'm just facing the reality of things. Besides, give a *gasp* that the war in Iraq was marketed to us like potato chips.

Just picture GWB and Dean standing side by side behind podiums. Now try to imagine the voices. See what I mean? Now do Cheney and Edwards, same idea. The snear meets the smooth.

Now, if only this team can come up with a compelling platform.

I really wish that Cheney would not run on the Repub ticket. I mean, what does this guy do except hide in bunkers and duck controversy. He has nothing to offer the Republican ticket. On the other hand, my choice for 2004 would have a lot to offer, in my opinion.

G.W. Bush
Condeleeza Rice

The beauty of this ticket is in the layers. First, it would place the first black person in the VP seat. Second, it would place the first woman in the VP seat. Third, it would help to dissuade the argument of those radicals who opine the Republican Party is racist. Lastly, it would place her in a position to run against Hillary in 2008.

See, I'm brilliant!! Brilliant I tell you!!! Don't you think so? Anyone? Anyone?

I like Condi Rice and I like that idea, Beladonna.

I agree with your entire post. I too thought they would be a good team. Only problem is they have a very different war stance and Dean has already critisized not only Edwards but also Kerry and ruffled their feathers.

I'm thinking a good combo would be Gary Hart for President and Sen. Russ Feingold for VP.

Danya,

Okay, but consider this: Nobody is going to win over an incumbent presidential team without ruffling a very many feathers along the way. Dean strikes me as the guy with the guts to do this. He also seems intelligent enough to know that running against an incumbent requires the attack dog mentality. Fearing this will inevitably lead to defeat, and probably a big defeat.

Here's something interesting--so far, nobody has promoted the Bush/Cheney ticket, which will, of course, be the choice for those on the right. A reverse defense has been given where the alternatives within the GOP, such as Powell, are criticized. Wishful thinking has been brought out that Rice would make a better president or veep.

This indicates to me that there is an undertow of uncertainty for the Bush/Cheny ticket leading us into the next term. This uncertainty cannot be addressed because the choice is locked. Nobody will be challenging the team within the GOP.

Meanwhile, something happened just recently in Colorado that indicates to me that the GOP fears the loss of Congressional control come November, 2004. What happened was an unconstitutional and illegal re-redrawing of congressional districts in this state. Here's just one link to a description of the dirty deed:

GOP Re-redraws Districts

Democrats and independents have picked up on this with gusto. The GOP was caught in a blatant and arrogant cheat. This indicates weakness, and so onward we go! I love this stuff

AM, I'll defend the Bush/Cheney ticket. I don't think that any of the conservatives here have any doubts about their ability to do the job. Its simply that Bush/Cheney is just as electable as Bush/Rice-Keyes-Watts-Powell, and the latter pairing(s) present a BETTER springboard for 2008, since few of us think that Cheney is electable on his own due to the hay his opponents will make of his health history.

When I read the article, and see one democratic judge did the redistricting, I can see where Republicans have a gripe.

Gerrymandering is hardly even news. Both parties have a long tradition of it, which continues to this day. For every case of it where one party is guilty in one state, there's another state where the other party is guilty.

You'll not hear a lot of enthusiasm from me for the Bush/Cheney ticket for a very simple reason: I was never much in favor of them to begin with. I did prefer them over Gore, but only as the lesser evil. I voted for Harry Browne and I'm still happy with that. But Bush/Cheney still looks better to me than any Democrat alternative that seems plausible at this stage.

Izdaari,

Maybe so, but when it is done in this manner, it is news:

Unconstitutional GOP Gerrymandering

I think the PR on this will be a lot more damaging to the GOP than any political gain. The smart thing to have done was to go through normal legislative procedure, put up the usual fight with Demos, and either succeed or lose. That's how government is supposed to work.

But, that's apparently not on the GOP agenda. It looks like our way any way we can, legal or illegal, type of mentality.

To keep on track, I'll add this:

Why has the Bush/Cheney ticket been successful? Here's my take:

1) Successfully used 9/11 to push agendas for Afghanistan and Iraq, and possibly others like NK.

2) Successfully avoided world war, so far.

3) Successfully suspended some civil rights, for now.

4) Successfully supported airlines that are now heading into bankruptcy.

5) Successfully made a show about punishing crooked coporate officers.

6) Successfully raised the national deficit and put us back in the red.

7) Successfully ignored the economic slide into a possible depression.

8) Successfully drug weakwilled Demos to their side in the 2002 elections and thereby retained the House and regained the Senate.

I don't know exactly how this will play, but there's lots to play with.

Well, if you're talking about an African American that enjoys a great deal of personal popularity, is well-respected by both Democrats and Republicans and seen as a strong leader to most of the nations outside of America, I don't think there's anyone else who meets those qualifications besides Colin Powell.

Sharpton isn't running to win. He's running to force whomever the eventual Democratic nominee is to pay attention (or homage) to the issues he considers important. He's just like Ralph Reed when he ran back in 2000 in the Republican Primaries.

Hillary is waiting for 2008 when there will be no incumbent Republican to run against. That is why I can't understand why Bush wants Cheney on the ticket next year. Cheney just has too much going against him to think he'd be a credible candidate in 2008. I would think Bush would be thinking long-term as to whom is going to carry on his presidency.

But there I go again: using the words "Bush" and "thinking" in the same sentence.