President John D. Rockefeller IV???

rambling man

Somewhat Deadly
Joined
May 16, 2001
Posts
1,558
He yesterday sent a warning letter to the heads of the European Union to approve of the GE/Honeywell merger or face US reprisal. This is no different from the tack George W. Bush took, but it is significant that he is taking steps to raise his profile nationally an dinternationally.

The Democrats really have no one else, Clinton actually won in 92 by stealing most of Rockefeller's ideas when he did not run. Rockefeller is fairly centrist, a strong family man, and has proven himself able at many levels. He is active on social issues but also has usually voted consistently with the NRA line in gun issues. He has extraordinarily strong relations with Japanese business and government. Finally, a man with such a war chest as a Rockefeller would have the financial independence to be able to back real campaign finance reform. The Democratic Party's usual suspects are not very inspiring characters, Al Gore, Bruce Babbitt, etc. Rockefeller is not the most charismatic guy but he is a fresh face with past successes as a social worker, governor, and senator.

Of course this is all moot is Bush produces a good 4 years. If the economy continues to improve, if our international position (in our own eyes if no one else's) stays strong, G.W.B. will be re-elected and Colin Powell will be his heir apparent. That man of ability would definitely be around for 8 years ( of course that was said about Herbert Hover, too)
Bottom line, Rockefeller will represent the Dems in 2004.
 
But is he leftist enough for the Greens to get behind him? West Virginia is a big coal state. Someone like Nader might only get 3% but that could make the difference.
 
The Rockefeller name will kill him in the south, and with a lot of the union vote.
 
I don't think Colon will run. I'd look for Condoleezza Rice to be on the VP ticket in 2004. Then in 2008 we'll have our first black and first woman president.
 
I'm placing my bets on John Kerry to run in 2004. But I'm usually wrong. Hell, if a southern democrat can't win in the south, why bother even trying?
 
WriterDom said:
I'm placing my bets on John Kerry to run in 2004. But I'm usually wrong. Hell, if a southern democrat can't win in the south, why bother even trying?

Joh Kerry will run. And he will be a formidable candidate. The media loves him..
 
A Democrat in West Virginia would die without the union vote. The UMWA supports him 100% and they are one of the most strident unions around. I don't think the Naderists, unless it is uncommonly close, will matter any more than pissing in the ocean. I also think that Naderists saw they screwed up royally when they could have at least had, in their minds anyway, the lesser of two evils in office. Also, if he ran, West Virginia would not be in the Bush camp anymore. However, he does not give an environmentalist or a gun control person much to love.

I like Rockefeller, though I am a Republican. He is more of a social liberal but business-minded as well. He is a leader and basically sticks to common sense methods. He is no raving partisan and gets along well. If Bush's presidency starts to falter (and I think he's done a fairly good job overall) I would vote for him.

He would be a hell of a lot better than Clinton anyway. When he left office as WVa governor he bought new furniture for the governor's mansion and gave it to the people of the state as a gift, as opposed to backing a U Haul in and stealing it.
 
Texan said:


Joh Kerry will run. And he will be a formidable candidate. The media loves him..

with a little green makeup and two bolts in his neck, he'd look like Hermon Munster. Check it out sometime
 
Back
Top