Next Republican Presidential Candidate?

Ohhh... ban ban ban ban!

Until the United States denounces Saudi Arabia or boycotts doing business with Dubai Im not sure I see your point.

I'm going to guess that it just had its intended effect. The question is: do you feel better or worse now that you've ranted?

Personally, when I see that sig the lyrics to "Revolution" start running in my head.

While we're manufaturing false outrage....

OMFG! You make fun of the horrible affliction of mental illness in your sig line! I can't believe you are so insensitive to the millions of Americans who suffer from mental illness. There are even American Soldiers, Veterans and, (wait for it....) CHILDREN who suffer! And you make fun of their agony! How dare you!

FOX News knowingly interviews terrorists.

Right. I get sick of people thinking of McCain as a moderate; he's not. He's a conservative poser who likes to get on "Meet the Press" by disagreeing with the President. Notice how now that he's got a chance to actually win the nomination, he's toadying up to the right as much as Bush.



There's not much in there to change. They're already full. Even empty, they're full.


I agree with that, Rose, but I don't believe it's because Rice or Clinton are female, I think it's because of their individual drawbacks. Rice is brilliant, but she's too closely linked to this Administration to be viewed as anything but a stand-in for Bush. Plus, with no elected office on her resume, most of her political views are a complete mystery; the last time someone like that won was Eisenhower.
I think Hillary's way too abrasive to get elected President. It's not a matter of being too liberal; she can play at being moderate as well as her husband did, if not better. Many, many Democrats dislike her; she doesn't just have an issue with conservatives. If there were even one bright, non-drooling candidate running against her she'd have real trouble.
I truly think Colin Powell could have been President already, if he'd decided to run in 1996 against Bill Clinton. He would have been worlds better than Dole, and his moderate politics might have discouraged Perot from running again.
I don't buy the hype on Obama yet. He's young, inexperienced, and from one of the more solidly Democratic states in the nation. If he's able to put some major legislative accomplishments on his resumé and steer his way to the center, I'll take a second look, but for now he's the most overhyped politician in the country.


So Kiamat, your top two choices are two people who have never held or run for elected office in their lives, or a mayor who brought his mistress onstage with him at the Republican National Convention? I think the GOP can do better than that.
I'd love to see any ethnic minority and/or a woman elected President, but I'd hope it would be somebody who was experienced in politics and whose views were well-known beforehand.

Ah, Kendra-you never fail to support someone trashing your country. Mmmm...is that your patriotism roasting over that burning American flag?

-Kiamat Dusk

Every election seems like I'm Homer Simpson, faced with voting for Kang or Kodos.

"3rd Party? Go ahead! Throw your vote away!"

Considering the Presidency is currently held by a " small-minded jingoistic intolerant fascist (or their sock-puppet) who wraps himself up in the flag" I'd take it as a factual statement.

OTOH perhaps WE Americans are waking up at last and THAT would account for Bush's approval ratings dropping below 30%. If thats the case --I stand corrected.

I should have said KIAMAT and BRIANA tend to vote "for small-minded jingoistic intolerant fascists (or their sock-puppets) who wrap themselves up in the flag. "


My Bad.

Speaking of intolerance, so if someone disagrees with you, then they're not patriotic?

I'm not a Bushie by any means, but I wish those who criticize him would stick to the many legitimate points on which to criticize the man rather than going off on tangents. Talk about his lack of a clear plan for the war, don't say he's unpatriotic because he started a bad war. If every President who misused the military was unpatriotic, I think we haven't had a patriotic President in decades.

Nope. If someone supports BUSH they are not patriotic.



Actually he's a Traitor for starting an illegal war. He's unpatriotic because his allegiance is to Halliburton and Enron before the Country.



ding ding ding. exactly

Same difference. Not joining the Kendra Bancroft New World Order, you're un-American. Very tolerant and open-minded of you. Well done.


Illegal? What, because you disagree with it? There's nothing about this war that's illegal. Immoral, stupid, short-sighted, perhaps, but legally it's no different from dozens of other American military operations, from the invasion of Grenada to the war in Kosovo.

Well, calling someone a traitor because of their political policies, sounds kinda fascist to me. Amazing how by criticizing Bush you've made yourself sound even more intolerant and close-minded than he is. Well done, that takes skill.

Everybody line up to take the patented Kendra Bancroft Patriotism Test®

Kudos on spelling my name right

Damn skippy I voted for 43. I wanted someone who would dismantle the Middle-East. I've always seen the Middle-East as a world-wide threat and a direct threat to my country.

Hopefully in 2007 Bush will put an end to Iran's nuclear ambition.

Briana Dawson

The more SLefties like Kendra and Ulrika have tantrums about Bush, the more I realize I made the correct choice, not just the right one.

Kudos to Toni for being civil in disagreement.

-Kiamat Dusk

Not so. I would welcome a true Republican President in the tradition of real Conservative Republicans. I recognize that not all Americans have to agree with me. Bush is another matter. A dangerous matter. I'm sorry you don't see the difference.




Illegal because he attacked a sovereign nation that did not provoke us, and without the approval of Congress. Authorization for war in Iraq was granted to Bush IF he exausted all diplomatic measures. He didn't. It's incredibly different. Again how do you not see that?




Geeez, Toni --wake up! This isn't about politics! He's a traitor for lying to The American People and The 2 Houses in order to wage an illegal war of occupation. Bush is a War Criminal. 90% of th World agrees with me on this. He's a dangerous Fascist that allies himself with terrorists and is rapidly trying to set himself up the Office of The Presidency as a "Unitary Executive" or "Dictator" if you will.



Before it's too late --though I fear it already is too late.

The fact that they are people no doubt eludes you.

History will find you on the wrong side, Kiamat.

1. True Republican vs Socialism

True Republican: Limited, tiny Government No welfare, no affirmative action, no Pell grants, no state funded education

Socialist: State run everything.

True Republican: Low taxes

Socialist: You can't redistribute the wealth if you aren't getting the wealth.

True Republican: Privatization

Socialist: Private ownership is evil

So, you can see how I'd have a hard time believing that you would vote for a "true Republican", Kendra. Of course, you're as qualified to talk about what makes a "true Republican" as you are what makes a true man.

2. What other diplomatic steps were left to take after sanctions, no fly zones, etc?

3. 90% of the world is also content to sit back and let people die in Darfur, too. Doesn't mean it's the proper course of action. And he did not lie. But then you've never let the truth get in the way of some really dandy rhetoric.

-Kiamat Dusk

This is where Bush fails the "definition" of True Republican. Sadly, this is also where Ronald Reagan failed the "definition". I'm of the opinion that this part of the "definition" of Republican is erroneous, since I believe that both these men are True Republicans.

My revision:
True Republican: Large military-based Government economy

I'm sorry you don't see how dangerous your labelling of political opponents as traitors is. The last time that happened in this nation it was inspired by a rapid Senator from Wisconsin; if the left starts doing this with Bush they'll look as crazy (or crazier) than he did. Good luck with that approach, though, let me know how it works out for ya.


First of all, in my reality he did get the approval of Congress. Remember how Kerry voted for it? Secondly, in my reality there's also no law governing how and why the United States can take military action. Do you live in your own world, or just under a rock?
You know what, the law also didn't say "you can take military action as long as Kendra Bancroft is satisfied you've taken all appropriate diplomatic measures." Why should your standard get any special privilege?


I wouldn't expect people who label those with whom they disagree as fascists to understand this, but the Imperial Presidency has been a development over the past fifty-plus years, not a sudden development of the past six. The last President from Texas, who was a Democrat, lied more about reasons for war than this one did. I don't expect you to acknowledge this, but there is a difference between lying and being mistaken.
But you know, because I disagree with you I must be unenlightened, so I don't see why my opinion should be expressed at all.
Can you please cite a scientific poll that showed 90% of the world believes he's a "War Criminal"? Oh wait, you just made that up right now to sound good. Never mind.

Your incredibly naive understanding of socialists aside, I never said I'd vote for a Republican. I wouldn't. I said I'd welcome a Republican President instead of the Fascist thats in there now.

2) Oh I guess letting the inspectors finish their job would have been a good start.

3)It's already well established he lied us into war, Kiamat.

You're the one reducing it into politics. This is not a simple Democratic versus Republican problem any longer.




I know exactly what Kerry voted for. Do you? From your statement you don't. Kerry voted for authorization for Bush to go to war as a last resort with all dip0lomatic options exausted and a vote of confidence from the UN --we got none of thst. But did that stop Bush? No.




There certainly is a law! Congress must declare war. Bush did not meet the criteria for the congress's go ahead. Thus --HE BROKE THE LAW. What reality do you live in?




It's not MY standard --It's the US Constitution's standard. So screw you and your attempt to belittle me for pointing out the 800 pound elephant in the room.


I wouldn't expect people who label those with whom they disagree as fascists to understand this, but the Imperial Presidency has been a development over the past fifty-plus years, not a sudden development of the past six. The last President from Texas, who was a Democrat, lied more about reasons for war than this one did. I don't expect you to acknowledge this, but there is a difference between lying and being mistaken.
But you know, because I disagree with you I must be unenlightened, so I don't see why my opinion should be expressed at all.
Can you please cite a scientific poll that showed 90% of the world believes he's a "War Criminal"? Oh wait, you just made that up right now to sound good. Never mind.
[/QUOTE]

Well, first of all, only someone who had never actually lived under a fascist regime (not to say that I have) would think to call Bush a fascist. It's quite a reach, and it shows a lack of understanding of history and a failure to accomodate those whose views differ from your own.

Secondly, it's only firmly established in your own mind, Kendra. Much as you might feel otherwise, it being your opinion does not make it an absolute, undebateable truth. We can disagree with you and not be naïve, stupid, crazy, or ignorant.

What criteria makes Bush different than a fascist dictator at this point?



It's firmly established in many other and far greater minds than my own. I'm far from alone in this perception. You're usually a very thoughtful intelligent person --this blind spot of your's at seeing the truth is maddening. Kiamat I can excuse because he's a kneejerk follower of power --but you? So again I ask --what makes Bush not a fascist in your mind?