The next presidential campaign (really to far in the distance to even speculate about) is obviously of great importance. In the past conservatives have been no as involved as we could , and should, have been. While we work our primaries to get the result for the republican presidential nominee, the other side contributes a huge portion of the race by choosing an opponent. Why should we simply watch them create winning probabilities? Why not play both sides to get the best result? In looking at the following democratic candidates we could promote and influence to run in the 2012 primaries, we do just that, create unheard of possibilities that could lead to a more favorable outcome, win or lose, November, 2012.
While Lieberman is considered a nice guy by most of the senate, his actions for McCain and his position on the surge (which, by the way, worked) in the War on Terror (note that I did not say War in Iraq) have probably alienated him from the democrats who aren't aware of his personality. Although he is a democrat, he is one of the few noble senators who actually use their minds when voting, he votes for bills he thinks are good (especially if he thinks they are good for his state) and votes against bills that violate the principles he believes in. Joe doesn't seem to care if he is one of the only democrats voting for a bill, if he thinks it's the right thing to do, he does it. Unfortunately, the sixty-six year old Joseph Lieberman probably wouldn't get the liberal vote, upon which democrats depend on in the primaries, if he ran in 2012 (when it would be his last chance at the age of 70). He is one of the best democrats there is, but unfortunately that may cause his downfall.
Unfortunately, Lieberman probably won't be able to win in the primaries. Feingold, on the other hand, could give Obama quite a run for his "money". All Feingold has to do is call Obama on the carpet for the national debt and Obama has another nightmare of a primary race. Obama will no doubt counter that he had to save the economy before focusing on the national debt, to which Feingold should say: “The national debt is the economy, stupid!” Here is another campaign line that would go over pretty well: "What President Obama did was outstanding he prepared America for change, now it's time to get that change. For four years we've heard the talk ...how about four years to see the walk? How about eight? You can see my record, you can see my promises to the people of Wisconsin and how I kept 'em. What about my promise to never take a pay raise while in the senate, not ever? I've kept that promise, you can ask your brother Americans, my neighbors, in Wisconsin. They'll tell you, go ahead and ask 'em. Four years is a long time, long enough to enact fiscal reform and positive change for America. Did President Obama do that? You can look at what I did and you can look at what Barack Obama did. There's a big difference in those four years - one politician from Chicago appointing his friends and political allies to positions better served by others who actually knew how to do those jobs, and one guy from Wisconsin fighting for your respect, your rights and your money!"
If you want to see the good looking, smooth talking, fiscally straight walking democrat from Wisconsin, click here to see a quick movie clip. Here is another, a clip of a Feingold speech. What about the very inspiring story of how he got to the senate, and all that he has done while there? Check this page. Now this guy is in no way perfect. He is not somebody I would normally like to see as president, but he's better than Obama. The hope here is to cause a division in the democrats and have ugly primary race that rattles President Obama, with all his powers of incumbency, to the bones. If Feingold wins the primaries, I won't support him in the general election (unless the republican nominee is completely terrible), but if he should win the general election, I wouldn't feel too bad.
Feingold 2012!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment