Republican Presidential Candidates

[Taranne]

Un Démocrate ça vote toujours, non ?

Pas ces huit dernières années en tout cas.

[Saucer]

Pour une Républicaine, elle est bonne.

Sinon, d'accord avec Taranne,lui-même d'accord avec The Economist : bring back the real McCain

Bring back McCain ?

C'est gay.

[LeSanton]

Le casting des deux côtés est très "téléphoné": un vieux blanc pour compenser la jeune négritude d'Obama, une jeune femelle à poigne pour se rappeler à l'électorat féministe tenté par Hillary. Le vice-président est généralement d'une utilité accessoire, mais imaginez que McCain casse sa pipe après avoir été élu…Joe Biden paraît plus rassurant et identifié.

En tout cas, la chasse au barack est lancée, ça risque d'être fun:

[Ash]

Le casting des deux côtés est très "téléphoné": un vieux blanc pour compenser la jeune négritude d'Obama, une jeune femelle à poigne pour se rappeler à l'électorat féministe tenté par Hillary. Le vice-président est généralement d'une utilité accessoire, mais imaginez que McCain casse sa pipe après avoir été élu…Joe Biden paraît plus rassurant et identifié.

[LeSanton]

Je faisais allusion, bien sûr, à l'impression qu'il laissera à l'électorat qui oubliera bien vite ses quelques déclarations de campagne. Quant à miss Palin, j'ai le sentiment que l'on n'est pas au bout des surprises et des gaffes…mais c'est une indéniable battante lorsqu'il s'agit de remporter une élection.

[Pan]

Le casting des deux côtés est très "téléphoné": un vieux blanc pour compenser la jeune négritude d'Obama, une jeune femelle à poigne pour se rappeler à l'électorat féministe tenté par Hillary. Le vice-président est généralement d'une utilité accessoire, mais imaginez que McCain casse sa pipe après avoir été élu…Joe Biden paraît plus rassurant et identifié.

En ce qui me concerne, ce serait la meilleure raison de voter républicain plutôt que libéral.

[LeSanton]

Vous voulez dire: parce qu'il casserait sa pipe une fois élu, ou bien que Palin serait alors un bon président?

[h16]

Franchement, rien que pour l'aspect "nouveauté", je pense que Palin serait intéressante comme président. Une personne apparemment pas trop pourrie par l'establishment dans cette position là, ça pourrait donner lieu à quelques nouveautés politiques. On en manque, par les temps qui courent.

[Pan]

Franchement, rien que pour l'aspect "nouveauté", je pense que Palin serait intéressante comme président. Une personne apparemment pas trop pourrie par l'establishment dans cette position là, ça pourrait donner lieu à quelques nouveautés politiques. On en manque, par les temps qui courent.

Voilà. Et elle pense assez comme moi sur pas mal de points, contrairement au candidat à la présidence.

[LeSanton]

Mais c'est bien aussi sous l'angle anti-establishment que les stratèges de campagne de McCain (qui ne la connaît pas) ont envisagé sa candidature de VP, une réponse au "change we can believe in" d'en face.

[Ash]

Franchement, rien que pour l'aspect "nouveauté", je pense que Palin serait intéressante comme président. Une personne apparemment pas trop pourrie par l'establishment dans cette position là, ça pourrait donner lieu à quelques nouveautés politiques. On en manque, par les temps qui courent.

Et puis surtout…. (Via PF)

[Nick de Cusa]

Palin calls controversial Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul “cool.” “He’s a good guy,” she added. “He’s so independent. He’s independent of the party machine. I’m like, ‘Right on, so am I.’ ”

http://newsroom.mtv.com/2008/08/29/sarah-p…-mtv-interview/

[h16]

Et puis surtout…. (Via PF)

Striking.

Dans BG, l'ordre hiérarchique est cependant inversé.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

Franchement, rien que pour l'aspect "nouveauté", je pense que Palin serait intéressante comme président. Une personne apparemment pas trop pourrie par l'establishment dans cette position là, ça pourrait donner lieu à quelques nouveautés politiques. On en manque, par les temps qui courent.

Et surtout, il paraît qu'elle a un beau cul.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/0392/92376

[Taranne]

Here’s how McCain can beat Obama to the White House

Reihan SalamWednesday, 27th August 2008

The acclaimed young Republican writer, Reihan Salam, says that McCain can win the presidency if he appeals relentlessly to the non-college-educated white middle class, pursues family-friendly tax reform and stands for global peace through American strength

In January, I met a friend of mine to discuss his impending departure from Washington DC. He was moving to Chicago to join Senator Barack Obama’s budding presidential campaign. At the time, it was hard not to have an instinctive sympathy for Obama, not least because the Clinton campaign had by that point attracted many of the most loathsome careerists in Democratic politics. Among other things, we discussed the general election landscape. My friend, confident even then that Obama would win the Democratic nomination, was convinced that New York mayor Rudy Giuliani would be Obama’s toughest opponent in a general election. Despite the many skeletons in Giuliani’s closet, he was the kind of candidate who could scramble the map by winning the white vote in the Northeast and the Midwest. In contrast, my friend saw Senator John McCain as the perfect foil for Obama. McCain’s advanced age would highlight Obama’s youthful vigour.

This week, as Democrats swoon over Barack Obama in Denver, one is tempted to think that my friend was right. Obama’s young family has proved to be a truly formidable asset. Michelle Obama, once considered a liability along the lines of the hilariously pompous Teresa Heinz Kerry, came across as a charming and bright mother, a humble and grateful believer in the American Dream. His daughters are, as no sane observer is prepared to dispute, the cutest children in American political history. As for Obama himself, well, the power of his charisma has salved all intra-party wounds.

The other striking thing about Obama is the manic loyalty he inspires. Among many of my friends and acquaintances, a mostly liberal and mostly earnest bunch, the prospect of an Obama defeat would be more than a mere disappointment — it would represent a stunning indictment of America’s national character. Conservatives in Washington and New York nervously joke that an Obama defeat will lead prosperous Obama-loving yuppies to turn to mob violence.

Well then, I for one will have to buy enough tinned food to last me through a minor civil disturbance, because despite the Obamania I believe that a McCain victory is looking more likely all the time. Though we can expect a handsome post-convention bounce for Obama, McCain has fought himself to a tie or a near tie in all major opinion polls. This is despite the fact that, yes, the Arizona Senator is ancient, irascible, and closely tied to perhaps the most persistently unpopular president in modern times. By all rights, Obama should be crushing McCain. Instead, Obama has seemed defensive and cautious. The selection of Delaware Senator Joe Biden as running mate is best understood as an effort to play it safe — to select a veteran legislator who is on record praising McCain, and who voted for the Iraq war. Meanwhile, McCain is the candidate who is growing more confident and aggressive. In my view, what he needs to do now to secure a Republican victory is to begin a revolution in Republican thinking. His party must become the defenders of the economic underdogs.

This notion — that Republicans ought to be the party of the aspirational classes, of those who want a low cost of living to better their long-term economic prospects — is the central theme of my book, Grand New Party. In truth, I think my co-author and I had both assumed that the Republican party would take years to reinvent itself. After a term or two of President Obama, the party would free itself of the taint of Bush. Thanks to a series of missteps by Barack Obama, the same virtuoso who defeated Hillary and Bill Clinton at their venomous best, Republicans have a rare and frankly undeserved opportunity to skip that wrenching ordeal and to reinvent themselves on the fly.

But how? First, Republicans need to learn from their mistakes.

President Bush didn’t just win re-election — Bush defeated Democrat John Kerry by 33 points among non-college-educated middle-class whites, a dramatic 15-point increase over his margin of victory in 2000. Bush had a preternatural bond with this all-important constituency — so much so that attacks against him often backfired. But shortly after his second inaugural address, he fumbled. He proceeded to pursue a domestic policy agenda that, among other things, alienated those very same non-college-educated middle-class whites. It turns out that these voters were not exactly enthusiastic about proposed social security benefit cuts right when private pensions across the country were crumbling. Nor were they thrilled with the prospect of a massive guest-worker programme, which sounded too much like a reward for wanton law-breaking. Coupled with the continued bloodletting in Iraq — an essential part of Bush’s political identity as a war president — and popular revulsion at what looked like a massive government failure in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, not to mention the accumulated weight of various mini-scandals ranging from Jack Abramoff’s influence-peddling to Rep. Mark Foley’s obscene messages to underage congressional pages, the Republican brand became toxic at lightning speed. All the while, the Democratic Left began to adopt a more forthrightly populist economic message.

It’s worth recalling that the most successful conservative leader in the modern West, Margaret Thatcher, was at her best when she was carefully attuned to the mood of the electorate. The Conservatives were very cautious about pushing the privatisation of nationalised industries — until the privatisation of British Telecom proved wildly popular. The same was true of the sale of council homes. Reagan and Thatcher both drew on the work of Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, yet Reagan slashed taxes and Thatcher raised them. Both Reagan and Thatcher responded to opportunities as they arose. And for all their reputation as diehard ideologues, both proved pragmatic when it mattered most. In contrast, the Bush White House lumbered ahead with its Rove-designed majority-building agenda only to find that it was a majority-destroying agenda — and still they lumbered. That was a costly mistake.

Second, Republicans need to be the pro-family party.

McCain has shrewdly built a reputation as a reformer — but instead of talking about reforming healthcare, long the central domestic issue in American politics, he’s talked about issues that only resonate with a small policy elite. Some of McCain’s pet issues, frankly, are of trivial importance — like the ineffective regulation of political speech, or his short-lived crusade against ‘Ultimate Fighting’. And on big issues, he has taken positions that cut against the interests of American workers — like embracing an expensive cap-and-trade system to address the real threat of climate change. This is simply self-destructive. As Bush White House veteran Yuval Levin has argued, McCain should talk about reforms that would make government more responsive and effective in meeting the needs of American families. Fortunately, there’s a straightforward way for McCain to take this step.

As a rebellious backbencher, McCain opposed President Bush’s proposed 2001 tax cut. He felt it was too strongly tilted to the rich, and that the country couldn’t afford it. Republicans at the time condemned McCain as a heretic, but it is difficult to deny that McCain’s stance was a prudent one. The deficit has swelled ever since, and it is by no means obvious that the fiscal stimulus was deployed as effectively as it could have been. Some tax cut was appropriate in 2001. But it should have been a tax cut that enhanced the economy’s long-term growth prospects, offered serious middle-class tax relief, and that simplified the tax code. Rather than stick to his guns, McCain has since embraced all of the Bush tax cuts, claiming that he would, as president, have them made permanent. Actually, he’s gone even further — he’s also called for a gas-tax holiday, a doubling of the child tax deduction from $3,500 to $7,000, an alternative tax filing system, a cut in the corporate income tax rate, and a whole host of other goodies targeted to key Republican constituencies. Naturally, all of these adjustments will cause a collapse in government revenue, which makes it all the more maddening that McCain insists he’ll be able to close the deficit at the same time. This approach won’t win McCain any votes. The obvious economic sleight-of-hand undermines his brand.

McCain’s best bet is to announce a new tax policy, preferably one based on the National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru’s call for a family-friendly tax reform. Ponnuru advocates a dramatic expansion of the child tax credit coupled with a broader simplification of the tax code. The basic effect would be to remove all but the richest parents of young children from the sting of the heavy taxes. The brilliance of the plan lies in the fact that it doesn’t pit rich against poor, or even parents against non-parents — it simply recognises that raising children is an expensive, time-consuming and very worthwhile commitment, and that it makes sense to ease the burden on this salutary activity. The Democrats, beholden to unmarried urban professionals and others who are unsympathetic to the parenting class, can’t take this route. Republicans can, and they should. McCain is one of the only politicians who could make so dramatic a shift. He already enjoys a reputation for independence from party dogma. This move would recast the Republicans in his reformist image.

Third, Republicans must move beyond Iraq and demonstrate that they are the party of peace through strength.

Because McCain’s national security advantage is so clear, I’ll be brief. The Iraqi government is negotiating a complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraqi soil within the next four years. Chances are there will be some residual American presence in the region, and we have good reason to believe that a sovereign Iraq will serve as a check against, not as a playground for, Iranian influence. The surge strategy, a gamble few believed would pay off, has proved extraordinarily effective. Now is the time for Republicans, led by John McCain, to build on their success. Iraq remains a crucial front in the war against Islamist extremism. But Barack Obama and Joe Biden are right to argue that Afghanistan is where the action is. Nato efforts in Afghanistan have failed to bring lasting security to the region, and we’ve failed to apprehend the killers who masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Who better to engineer the turnaround in Iraq than John McCain, who persistently fought for a better, smarter strategy in Iraq? And who better to deal with conflicts that will emerge elsewhere in the world?

During the Saddleback Civil Forum, the celebrated evangelical pastor Rick Warren asked McCain to name a time when he went against his party’s interests and his own interests to serve a higher cause. McCain’s answer was instructive. He chose the time when he opposed Ronald Reagan’s decision to deploy US Marines to Lebanon on a peace-keeping mission.

‘My knowledge and my background told me that a few hundred Marines in a situation like that could not successfully carry out any kind of peacekeeping mission. And I thought they were going into harm’s way. Tragically, as many of you recall, there was a bombing in the Marine barracks and well over 100 brave Marines gave their lives. But it was tough, that vote, because I went against the president I believed in, and the party that believed that maybe I was disloyal very early in my political career.’

McCain’s meaning is clear. Whereas Democratic partisans accuse McCain of being a warmonger, the truth is that he believes that force should be used sparingly. And he believes that when force is used, it must be used effectively and with a clear goal in mind, a belief that was at the centre of his dispute with Donald Rumsfeld. Barack Obama and the Democrats made great hay out of McCain’s assertion that it would be fine for US troops to remain in Iraq for 100 years provided there were no casualties. What they don’t mention is that in 2004 McCain explicitly opposed the creation of permanent US bases in Iraq. Whereas Obama’s foreign policy ideol- ogy led him to oppose the surge, McCain’s foreign policy pragmatism will make him a more effective commander-in-chief. That is a message McCain needs to get across.

There’s no guarantee that McCain will take any of these steps. And there’s no guarantee of victory if he does. But if McCain can forcefully advance policies that make it easier for working- and middle-class Americans to get ahead, he will leave the Republican party in fighting trim. The next Democratic Congress will have to live up to its grandiose promises — vastly to expand federal involvement in healthcare while cutting taxes, to reduce carbon emissions without punishing coal-producing regions or drivers or blue-collar workers, to raise trade barriers while keeping the cost of goods and services low. And when they falter, it will be a renewed, reformist Republican party that will take their place.

[Aurel]

A en croire Karl Rove dans politique internationale, ce n'est pas vraiment ça…

Voilà ça me parait plus réaliste.

Tout témoignage de Rove est à prendre avec une combinaison anti-radiation. Tout y est manipulation, mensonge et manipulation. Franchement, je ne donnerais pas un cent à ce type là après avoir lu son CV.

Qui en sait un peu sur Bob Barr ?

[Hidalgo]

Moi, je connais sa femme:

[Taranne]

Et leur fils Laurent.

[Hidalgo]

Et leur fils Laurent.

Et sa soeur Amine.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Et leur fils Laurent.

Et le grand-père : Murray-Ross.

[Taranne]

Sans oublier le cousin d'Afrique, Twatute.

[Rincevent]

Et le grand-père : Murray-Ross.

C'est plus marrant avec la grand-mêre, Mary-Rose.

[Hidalgo]

Sans oublier ceux qu'on ne peut omettre: ceux qui font un tabac.

Et aussi Alphonse et ses cousins gascons.

[Nick de Cusa]

Le Gouverneur Palin n'aurait pas que des fans

July produces bumper crop of scandals

DAN FAGAN

COMMENT

(08/02/08 23:36:00)

What a month July turned out to be in the world of Alaska politics. First the governor, while out of town, has an underling abruptly fire her popular Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.

The department needs to go in a new direction, we are told.

What's the new direction? We'll get back with you on that.

Seemed odd, but days passed without most of us realizing this was more than just a typical firing. It was in actuality a Beverly Hillbillies moment.

Lo and behold, blogger Andrew Halcro does the job the mainstream media refuses to do and digs up strong evidence that, in part, a family feud motivated the governor to fire Monegan.

Why is the mainstream media less than enthusiastic about looking deeper into the Palin administration? Could it be her far left policies are so left the media finds her irresistible? What's not to like about an anti-oil, tax-and-spend liberal with a nice smile and a pretty face?

The day will come when we will know the full extent of Troopergate. I expect we will learn that, contrary to what the governor says, Walt Monegan faced constant, unrelenting and never-ending pressure to do something about the governor's former brother-in-law.

And I expect we will learn the governor's unelected husband, Todd Palin, was the point man in applying the pressure. Monegan has already said Todd Palin on several occasions pressured him to do something about trooper Mike Wooten. Palin denied it.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

July brought birth to the scandal surrounding Monegan's replacement, Chuck Kopp. You know you are in trouble when in front of the media you have to blurt out the words "I am not a sexual harasser."

Kopp's version of the truth kept changing after he was appointed.

At the governor's brief and not-so-open-and-transparent press conference announcing Kopp's resignation, she said, "Now you know why more people don't enter politics and public service."

I guess the governor was sticking to her original claim there was nothing to the sexual harassment accusations and thought of Kopp as a victim.

You'll remember Kopp's accuser contacted the governor's office twice begging the administration to look further into the situation. Both times the woman was ignored. I wonder if the governor ever did talk to the supposed victim? I doubt it.

And who vetted Kopp in the first place? When the administration announced early on in the scandal that there was nothing to the sexual harassment complaint, how did they come to that conclusion? Did they ask Kopp and base their findings solely on his answer? All questions the governor has yet to answer.

July also brought us the e-mail controversy. The governor's office withholds hundreds of e-mails claiming executive privilege and deliberative process. E-mails with topics like re: Andrew Halcro or re: Lyda Green or re: The Alaska Ear or re: Channel 2 or re: Dan Fagan.

Do these topics sound like official executive business to you? Why can't the public see them? Could it be they are embarrassing to the administration?

We could ask citizen Todd Palin. Some of these e-mails deemed so top secret the public can't see were forwarded to Todd. Where's the media on this one? Outrageous!

Yes, the month of July was full of scandals but none bigger than the indictment of the Alaskan of the Century, Ted Stevens.

I'll admit this one hurt like a kick in the gut. I hope the senator is proven innocent.

I don't know about you, but I've had my share of scandals as of late. But I'm afraid there is more to come.

I long for the days when the landscape of Alaska politics involved issues like, just how many billions can we transfer from the private sector into government and then how many hundreds of millions can we give away to people we feel sorry for? Oh yes, those were the good old days.

——————————————————————————--

Dan Fagan is a radio talk show host on KFQD, 750 AM. E-mail dan@kfqd.com.

http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/story/482537.html

[José]

Le Gouverneur Palin n'aurait pas que des fans…

Palin Makes Good First Impression: Is Viewed More Favorably than Biden

Sarah Palin has made a good first impression. Before being named as John McCain’s running mate, 67% of voters didn’t know enough about the Alaska governor to have an opinion. After her debut in Dayton and a rush of media coverage, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 53% now have a favorable opinion of Palin while just 26% offer a less flattering assessment.

Palin earns positive reviews from 78% of Republicans, 26% of Democrats and 63% of unaffiliated voters. Obviously, these numbers will be subject to change as voters learn more about her in the coming weeks. Among all voters, 29% have a Very Favorable opinion of Palin while 9% hold a Very Unfavorable view.

By way of comparison, on the day he was selected as Barack Obama’s running mate, Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was viewed favorably by 43% of voters.

[…]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con…ably_than_biden

Bref, à ce stade de la course, les Américains semblent bien préférer une inconnue à un vétéran de la politique politicienne.

[Nick de Cusa]

Chuis curieux de voir la séparation homme femme dans la soudaine popularité de Palin.

[José]

Chuis curieux de voir la séparation homme femme dans la soudaine popularité de Palin.

Palin is now viewed favorably by 48% of women. That figure includes 80% of Republican women, 23% of Democratic women, and 61% of women not affiliated with either major party.

[Nick de Cusa]

Ca donne presque 60% pour les keums s'ils sont un peu moins nombreux que les femmes.

[Nick de Cusa]

Le buzz du jour c'est que des photos d'elle nue circulent. Vu sur Het Laatste Nieuws. Google qui veut.

[MMorateur]

En regardant sur les blogs francophones ce qui été dit de Palin, je suis tombé sur un cousin de Ptit Suisse, se fendant d'un article qui montre le visage des grands démocrates que nous avons en Europe.

http://rienquelaverite.blog.tdg.ch/archive/2008/08/31/sarah-palin-et-son-qi-d-huitre.html ://http://rienquelaverite.blog.tdg.ch/…-d-huitre.html