Name me one thing Bush has been right about.

THEN I may listen to his prognostications.

Well you don't have to be Einstein to know that. Duhhhh. I wonder if Bush is going to predict who the Republican nominee is going to be. Most people are aware that he supports the buffoon Giuliani. It's going to be fun to watch his campaign do down the toilet (where it belongs).

Let's see Dubya grow a pair and tell us who the GOPer nominee is going to be.

Looks like Mr. Karl Rove is speaking through Mr. Bush.

Clinton? We already know what the Republican is going to do: just run a lot of ads and publicity on negative ads about campaign.

I would be careful thought: There might be a sequel to "Clinton Strikes back"

We'll see how much dirt can be dug. The Republicans aren't immune to scandals, fund raisings; since, they are the biggest recipient of corporate welfare!

It's too early to tell. In a normal election year Hillary wouldn't have much of a chance. But, after eight years of Bush even Hillary starts to look good.

He's just doing one of the few things he's actually been successful at, rally the base into a frothing frenzy. The GOP is dying to run against Clinton, and while I can see this being a viable strategy -- talk her up to help deliver what they want -- I wouldn't totally bank on it working out for the GOP. Hilliary seems to be growing more and more adapt at flicking away critics without breaking a sweat. It'd be interesting to see her run against Mitt and watch him effectively have to critize the same health care plan that he established in Massachusetts. He may need to be fitted with multiple pairs of flip-flops to pull that off.

All of the Republicans want Mrs. Clinton to be the nominee. They realize that they have their best shot at winning in 2008 with her as the Democratic nominee; as she is truly a polarizing figure who can be demonized by the Roverians during a national election. Such a campaign will drive up turnout among the Republican base as well as those middle class and lower middle class "swing" voters who were misled and voted against theo own economic interests in 2000 and 2004. Additionally, the Republicans have a considerable stockpile of ammunition to use against her - while they have less to use against the other leading Democratic challengers.

What Mr. Bush does not say, of course, is that Mrs. Clinton is connected to the same international circles of power that he is. Not only is she a member of the CFR, she's allied with the Tavistock Institute, The Royal Academy of Internatinal Affairs, and got the Imprimatur from Pamela Harriman years ago. If these names are not familiar to you; these are the power elites that rule the world. The Bilderburg Group is a farm team by comparison. Add to that her astonishing history of law-breaking, of taking money from the Chinese military, of illegally getting hold of FBI files to find dirt on her opponents, the clearing out of a crime scene before investigators arrived (Vince Foster's office), and a slew of other offenses for which she was never indicted. Were she an ordinary person Mrs. Clinton would have been sent to jail long ago on any one of her misdeeds. But she is a "made" guy and enjoys the protection that only the elites can offer.

And yet, Mr. Bush is right. Through the various manipulations of the media (i.e., lapdogs of the administration) and the highly corruptible Diebold voting machines, Mrs. Clinton is very likely to win.

What baffles me is that most voters of either party have not looked into her reeky past; many still think she is just ducky. To me, however, she is Lady Macbeth on steroids; she is mean, vindictive and calculating. A far cry from what this Republic needs as president; a far cry from the humble and sensible Ron Paul.

Bush WON those elections?

No, no...here's the clincher in the book that didn't make this story:

A “senior official” in the White House of George W. Bush tells journalist Bill Sammon why Barack Obama won’t be the next president of the United States: Obama is intellectually “capable” of the job, the official says, but he relies too much on easy charm. “It’s sort of like, ‘That’s all I need to get by,’ which bespeaks sort of a condescending attitude towards the voters … and a laziness, an intellectual laziness.”

Does this qualify as irony?

C. Spanecki:
"… and a laziness, an intellectual laziness.

Does this qualify as irony?"

Does this qualify as racism?

First, "Slick Willy." Or "Slick Billy."

Now, "Slick Hilly." Or "Slick Hillary."

And they want to give us the Arkansas twins known as "Slick HillBilly!"

I say we should do what Bill won't do: "Dick Hill!!"

Another story that we will all view and comment on based on our pre-set political viewpoints and not much independent thought

Name one thing Bush has been right about? I'm not going to waste my time going into great detail, because that would obviously be a waste of my intellect, and would only fall on deaf ears. I'll take a wild guess that you're against the insurgency in Iraq. Which FYI, is not a "War", which by definition is one Nation delaring War against another. Quite the opposite we are trying to enstill a democrocy and support the Iraq government to be able to protect and sustain their indepedence. No small task by any means, but to those of us who actually have family memebers or friends that are putting their lives on the line, plese remeber this date: 9/11/01, when thousands of innocent Americans lost their lives becaue of insane Islamic extremists.
And another FYI, why don't you do some research and let me and others know how many U.N. sacntions and for how long Mr. Husian violoted and ingonred them. And also please note that U.S intelligence, British and Russia, all came to the consensus that Mr. Iraq was working on building weapons of mass destruction. How sorry that George Bush was looking out for the interests of the American people based on the information he was given to protect more innocent Americans.

Slick Hillbilly. That's a good one. Ron Paul, Barack Obama. Different ends of the spectrum but our country would fare better with either one.

s

"Does this qualify as irony?"

Posted by: C. Spanecki | September 24, 2007 4:16 PM

More like projection.

I said it first long ago: the Bush Administration might run huge deficits at the Treasury and allow massive trade deficits with our partners, but there will NEVER be an irony deficit from this White House.

here's the deal ron paul boy,

since the 1920s, "politician" has been synonomous with "corrupt." every president since Harding (and perhaps before) has been involved in secret affairs and international scandals. you cannot be elected to the presidency if you aren't willing to be completely scummy, because chances are your opponent will be too. don't try to use political schemes and corruption as a reason not to vote for someone, because its been the main reason to vote for someone for a really long time. research and names aren't impressive if you can't grasp concepts. get with it, son