Salt, didn’t Shakespeare really say it best about lawyers?

Well, if you’re thinking of the quote I think you are, Shakespeare was actually praising lawyers by suggesting they are the keepers of civility.

I’m not anti-lawyer. They are certainly necessary given the complexity of our judicial system. I just think that particular duo can’t turn it off, so to speak.

I was inclined to suggest that lawyers are best placed in the judicial branch of government and not the executive, but Lincoln was a lawyer, so I suppose there are always exceptions.

Democrats see logic as their mortal enemy and the truth as their terrorism. Liberalism is an ideology designed to replace all others in ones daily life. That’s why it’s not popular, it leads directly to communism. Count the number of times the Democrat candidate talks freedoms, liberty, free markets and compare to the number of times they mention mandate, fair share, give, take and other collective communist buzz words.

Going to be a fun election, and the Rs are far more effective than the Ds, just watch.

Salt, didn’t Shakespeare really say it best about lawyers?

Wile E Coyote said:

A number of you folks are jibing the Democratic presidential contenders with statements like “don’t they know they are running against bush?”

And then a number of you folks start complaining about Bill Clinton.

Draw your own conclusions.

Along with Romeo13 (#44) and J S Ragman (#45), I would mention that Hillary doesn’t have much qualification to be President outside of the fact that she was once First Lady. In fact, I would argue that Hillary wants people to believe that she was co-president during those years. She’s counting on it. Without that, she’s just a junior senator from NY without any substantial executive experience.

Given that, a review of Bill’s years isn’t so far fetched, particularly since they seem to read from the same playbook. Were Laura Bush running for the office, I would argue the same for the other side.

Personally, I have no qualms about BDS continuing straight into the election… That would certainly make things much easier for the Republican candidate who need only point out that they are not George Bush. I may be wrong, but it doesn’t appear to me as if any of the Republican candidates have a de facto tie to the President or his platform. Seems to me that it’s bad strategy on the Dems side to plot the anti-W course. Whereas with Hillary being the presumed front runner for the Democratic ticket, her association with Bill’s presidency is relevant. If Obama wins the nomination, it would be pointless to be discussing Bill’s years (and I doubt you’d hear much about it).

Excellent points. But I harken back to the Clinton presidency where most of the policymakers that I knew (or heard about) wanted to be the last person to see the president because they knew they had the best chance of getting their way. How do you take a stance on any issue when you just go with the last opinion you hear?

#42 Wile E Coyote

Bill Clinton is making himself a very visible part of Hillary’s campaign, and trying to stay relevant. Why wouldn’t he be open to criticism? I don’t see any of the Bush family campaigning for any of the Republican candidates.

On November 28th, 2007 at 2:46 pm, Wile E Coyote

Sorry… false analogy.

Hillary is saying that, as a spouse, she had a major impact on Bill’s Presidency…

This puts Bill back in the Whitehouse… where, by Hill’s logic, he will have a huge impact on the sitting President…

Bush will be totaly out of the picture.

Draw your own conclusions.

And then a number of you folks start complaining about Bill Clinton.

Draw your own conclusions.

J S Ragman said:

That may be true, too, but I think more often than not, they just say whatever they were briefed to say on the spot, and then check the polls to see how it was received before having to go to damage control mode.

We might be saying the same thing. My point is that they do not necessarily always believe what they are saying, but rather they are more concerned about the strategic outcome of what they say.

J S Ragman also said:

…but they both have so many stories stacked up on top of each other that it’s hard to keep them straight.

Yep. If they were speaking from a position of what they really thought, this wouldn’t be so difficult. You really only get into the game of flip flopping when you care what the polls show. That’s not to say you can’t ever change your mind, but in those circumstances, I would expect that you would be able to clearly articulate why you changed your position.

We fondly remember many of our Presidents of the past, I believe, because they didn’t have the nearly instant gratification of polling. They actually had to believe and stand for something. Imagine what Lincoln would have endured if approval ratings were so quickly determined and published.

I would have more respect for a President who took a stance but with whom I might not agree than one that shifts according to the direction of the wind. The latter would make me more fearful of tyranny of the masses.

I wonder what would happen if we all (on the republican side of the isle) wrote in GWB and he won.

His candidacy would be disqualified since he already served two terms.

according to some he didn’t win the 2000 election…so he should be able to run again then.