PDA

View Full Version : Newsmax Interviews Bill Clinton



Gerry Clinchy
09-22-2009, 09:22 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/clinton_obama_republicans/2009/09/21/262884.html?s=al&promo_code=8969-1

This is kind of humorous in a right-wing media interviewing Bill Clinton. Kind of humorous, too, that Clinton is giving political advice to the Republicans :D You'd think he'd be saving his best for Hillary's next campaign.

Seems he's better at running a charity organization than he was at running a Presidency.

YardleyLabs
09-22-2009, 09:32 PM
I enjoyed his interview with Letterman, and particularly his response when asked about Carter's claim of racism in the anti-Obama protests. Obama replied that "It's important to realize that I was actually black before the election..." (http://www.examiner.com/x-969-NY-Nightlife-Examiner~y2009m9d22-Obama-in-NYC-on-Letterman-video-and-recap (http://www.examiner.com/x-969-NY-Nightlife-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d22-Obama-in-NYC-on-Letterman-video-and-recap))

ALPHA-OMEGA
09-22-2009, 10:58 PM
See another interesting interview, bet that half those viewing do not finish, and that only a few who do, would have printable opinion. Many touchy subjects covered hitting very close to truth. Network shows bias but tends to push accuracy.
Andrea Mitchell / Rachel Maddow interview 22 Sept 09
LOCATION: Fixing the action plan in Afghanistan – AOL VIDEO
http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/fixing-the-action-plan-in-afghanistan/3685397280

SEMPER FI

ALPHA-OMEGA
09-22-2009, 11:14 PM
PS: Slick Willy, best Republican President since Tricky Dicky. Gave the Republican rank and file virtually everything they could hope for besides making it palatable for the DEM'S. Really infuriated the GOP Leadership. I took the wind out of their sails for years and probable RESULTED in the Bush meltdown.

Love this site. You need more of us recent republican turncoats here. We are the GOP's worst nightmare and will take on anything using inside trader knowledge.

SEMPER FI

BonMallari
09-23-2009, 10:57 AM
PS: Slick Willy, best Republican President since Tricky Dicky. Gave the Republican rank and file virtually everything they could hope for besides making it palatable for the DEM'S. Really infuriated the GOP Leadership. I took the wind out of their sails for years and probable RESULTED in the Bush meltdown.

Love this site. You need more of us recent republican turncoats here. We are the GOP's worst nightmare and will take on anything using inside trader knowledge.

SEMPER FI

AO , you arent a turncoat, you were probably more of a RINO ( republican in name only) and the republicans worst nightmare is real conservatives, not the moderate John McCain types that call themselves republicans when its convenient for their agendas. Good for you that you finally found your political identity. You only become a turncoat when you turn on the one thing that really matters and that is your country...

YardleyLabs
09-23-2009, 11:23 AM
Republicans have been successful in winning elections when they realize that Republicans are Republicans on key issues even if they are so-called RINO's or member of the RRW (rabid right wing). The minute you start yelling at each other and stop listening and compromising, your chances to win elections evaporate except if the other side decides to fight even harder to lose. Democrats have often had to relearn the same lesson. A successful Democratic party has room for more conservative blue dog democrats, right to lifers such as Bob Casey, old time liberals like Charlie Rangel, and the firebrands of the left and center.

The rules of elections are simple: the party with the bigger tent wins and the party that allows its more extreme elements to rule loses. For all the complaints about Obama on this forum, the reality is that he won because he was closer to the center than McCain at the time of the election and McCain was closer to the center than other contenders such as Huckabee, Romney, etc. If Republicans want to take advantage of Obama's problems to improve their position significantly, they had better figure out how to welcome all those RINO's back into the tent and find some leaders among their more moderate members.

BonMallari
09-23-2009, 11:47 AM
Republicans have been successful in winning elections when they realize that Republicans are Republicans on key issues even if they are so-called RINO's or member of the RRW (rabid right wing). The minute you start yelling at each other and stop listening and compromising, your chances to win elections evaporate except if the other side decides to fight even harder to lose. Democrats have often had to relearn the same lesson. A successful Democratic party has room for more conservative blue dog democrats, right to lifers such as Bob Casey, old time liberals like Charlie Rangel, and the firebrands of the left and center.

The rules of elections are simple: the party with the bigger tent wins and the party that allows its more extreme elements to rule loses. For all the complaints about Obama on this forum, the reality is that he won because he was closer to the center than McCain at the time of the election and McCain was closer to the center than other contenders such as Huckabee, Romney, etc. If Republicans want to take advantage of Obama's problems to improve their position significantly, they had better figure out how to welcome all those RINO's back into the tent and find some leaders among their more moderate members.

Jeff , even though its a moot point, I would have to respectfully disagree with you about BHO being closer to the center. your party did a masterful job of energizing your party and getting them to vote.
The republican party was and still is in disarray because they let themselves believe that a moderate could win a national election.They dont need to have a far right wing candidate, just a candidate that caters to the hearts and souls of conservatives and can energize people to get out and vote instead of sitting on the sidelines and complaining

YardleyLabs
09-23-2009, 12:08 PM
Jeff , even though its a moot point, I would have to respectfully disagree with you about BHO being closer to the center. your party did a masterful job of energizing your party and getting them to vote.
The republican party was and still is in disarray because they let themselves believe that a moderate could win a national election.They dont need to have a far right wing candidate, just a candidate that caters to the hearts and souls of conservatives and can energize people to get out and vote instead of sitting on the sidelines and complaining
With only 63% turnout in 2008, it would be fair to say that all Presidential elections in America are effectively decided by those who fail to vote. Polls suggest that, if turnout were 100%, the voting results would shift strongly toward Democrats since the lowest turnouts are among those professing support for Democratic candidates and Democratic positions. There are two ways to stimulate turnout. The first is to run a candidate that elicits strong emotional support. as Obama did in 2008 and McCain failed to do. The second is to field a candidate who elicits strong, emotional opposition. Once again, Obama succeeded in this category and stimulated higher turnout among conservatives who hated him. The higher turnout in 2008 included more liberals and more conservatives.

Realistically, however, Obama's victory was not produced by his strongest supporters. They voted for the Democratic candidate in 2004 but Bush still won. Obama's victory came from the votes of independents who gave their votes to Bush in 2004 but to Obama in 2008. Those independents are the source of victory and will not be won by a candidate who does not appeal to their more moderate positions.

BonMallari
09-23-2009, 12:59 PM
With only 63% turnout in 2008, it would be fair to say that all Presidential elections in America are effectively decided by those who fail to vote. Polls suggest that, if turnout were 100%, the voting results would shift strongly toward Democrats since the lowest turnouts are among those professing support for Democratic candidates and Democratic positions. There are two ways to stimulate turnout. The first is to run a candidate that elicits strong emotional support. as Obama did in 2008 and McCain failed to do. The second is to field a candidate who elicits strong, emotional opposition. Once again, Obama succeeded in this category and stimulated higher turnout among conservatives who hated him. The higher turnout in 2008 included more liberals and more conservatives.

Realistically, however, Obama's victory was not produced by his strongest supporters. They voted for the Democratic candidate in 2004 but Bush still won. Obama's victory came from the votes of independents who gave their votes to Bush in 2004 but to Obama in 2008. Those independents are the source of victory and will not be won by a candidate who does not appeal to their more moderate positions.

now there is something I can agree with you about...:)

Gerry Clinchy
09-23-2009, 01:16 PM
For all the complaints about Obama on this forum, the reality is that he won because he was closer to the center than McCain at the time of the election


I might correct that to read: ... he won because he purported himself to be closer to the center than McCain.

Many of his individual statements, even during the campaign, when he got to specifics on occasion, would have indicated otherwise.


The first is to run a candidate that elicits strong emotional support. as Obama did in 2008 and McCain failed to do.

That was surely true in 2008.


Obama's victory came from the votes of independents who gave their votes to Bush in 2004 but to Obama in 2008. Those independents are the source of victory and will not be won by a candidate who does not appeal to their more moderate positions.

Absolutely the independents are the important factor for the winner. I don't think McCain couldn't appeal to moderate positions. He lacked the "emotional" quality that O brought with him. I think it's always a bit easier to bash the party in power & promise to do better than they have done. And even easier when the economy is going down from a peak.

Marvin S
09-23-2009, 04:19 PM
using inside trader knowledge.

I have yet to find anything in your posts that I waste the time reading that could be construed as knowledge.


A successful Democratic party has room for more conservative blue dog democrats,

I would find this statement to be true were Stephanie not their elected leader & Nancy not trying to drum many of them from the party.

YardleyLabs
09-23-2009, 04:38 PM
I have yet to find anything in your posts that I waste the time reading that could be construed as knowledge.



I would find this statement to be true were Stephanie not their elected leader & Nancy not trying to drum many of them from the party.
While Nancy may be Speaker of the House, she appears to have almost no influence at all concerning campaign funding and support. My Congressman is a freshman named Patrick Murphy, who is a blue dog dem who won his seat in a traditionally republican district. My Senator if Bob Casey, a RTL supporter is is generally on the conservative side within the party. Both receive substantial support from the national party with frequent WH visits. PA is a swing state. Santorum lost his seat because, after initially fronting himself as a moderate, became a leader in the most conservative positions of the party. That alienated the majority of the electorate. If Bob Casey or Patrick Murphy begins to act like members of the Pelosi camp, they will lose their jobs and they know it. To date, the party has made both welcome because they know it's the only way to win. What did the Republicans do? They drummed Specter out of the party and lost a seat that they could have retained. Not too smart.

Gerry Clinchy
09-23-2009, 04:52 PM
What did the Republicans do? They drummed Specter out of the party and lost a seat that they could have retained. Not too smart.

What good was having Specter's seat if his views/votes better reflected D positions? Seems like nothing lost.

Specter was afraid that his constituency no longer believed he was the best man for the job. Maybe they're right? Once the Ds got Specter in their camp, he didn't get treated much better by them. It was good PR to have a high-profile guy change affiliation, but it doesn't appear that the "machine" will give him much support if there is a viable up-and-comer they think is a better vote-getter.

I think that Specter's party change lost him both R and D votes.

Sorry, I can't get over his remark that he wouldn't let the voters stand in the way of his career. Excu-u-u-se me? A 36-year career seems like it might be enough already, if he has come to think he is "entitled" to be more important than his constituents.