What will Q say when Bush is out of office?- Page 3

[matt schneider]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 1:31am

"George Bush was only for now"

wont work because all around it are things saying are only for now so..

"sex is only for now
your hair is only for now
George Bush was only for now"

would only make the song sound worse.

[Hawker]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 7:35am

"Guiliani hasn't even been nominated by the republican party and if/when he is, he has to accept the nomination."

This is an example of political savvy? What presidential nominee was nominated two years in advance of the election.

If you think Rudy would be nominated but not accept than I wonder how politically savyy you are.

[Hawker]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 7:39am

Both Bush elections were absolutely pristine compared to the vote-box rigging by Papa Kennedy during the 1960 election. Nixon was one of America's shrewdest constitutional lawyers and he KNEW he had won Chicago--and it was Chicago that made the differance-- but chose not to subject the country to the scandal and indiginities of accusing the Kennedy camp of rigging the election.

[wicked_mimi]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 12:08pm

"If you think Rudy would be nominated but not accept than I wonder how politically savyy you are."

He has expressed interest but definitely has never committed to it. The reason NY has Hillary Clinton as a senator (as big a joke as that is) is because Guiliani decided for health reasons not to run, as well as wanting a break after 9/11. I don't know how sure he is that he wants to commit to something of such high magnitude again. We shall see, it is far enough off.

And jimnysf, I think you meant your comment about the respect part. I personally hated Bill Clinton but still smiled and shook his hand and would never disrespect him. If the comment was about the clean election, he did win (this time) cleanly.

[Hawker]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 5:36pm

I thought that Clinton's sexual escapades in the Oval office were as vile as Opie and Anthony sponsoring a couple to have sex in St. Patrick's Cathedral. Nonetheless, as I witnessed the excoriation of the man I sent him a letter at the White House (and I'm neither a democrat or republican)tellling him to stay the course and weather the witch hunt.

As far as Rudy goes, he might not have formally thrown his hat in the ring but he IS going for the gold. His silence speakes volumns just as Jerry Jones' did when he said repeatedly he had no interest in signing Terrell Owens.

It would be a grave mistake for Giuliani's opponent to underestimate the legend of his leadership during the aftermath 9-11. Bobby Kennedy rode the eternal wound of the assassination of Jack to a senate seat in New York and would have almost certainly been elected president himself if not murdered.

The image of Giuliani in September of 2002 will slay any weaknesses he has as a candidate.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 5:53pm

"The image of Giuliani in September of 2002 will slay any weaknesses he has as a candidate."

Huh? I'm sure you meant Sept 2001 but with any luck, he will never be President of the USA. The right wing Christian voters are not happy with his pro life position and they won't forgive him for being having an affair while he was married.


Also I will never believe that he didn't run for the Senate because of "health reasons". He was in the middle of a scandal at the time. He was afraid of what the spotlight would reveal.

Updated On: 7/28/06 at 05:53 PM

[Hawker]

Posted: 7/29/06 at 9:48am

Again, thinking INSIDE the political box is no longer realistic.
9/11 has had and will have a far more profound on the election than issues America has been grappling with for 20 years--guns, gays, and abortion. It's the seminal American historical event of the past 40 years and its impact on the collectice American psyche and the shadow it has thrown across every aspect of our lives cannot be marginialized.

Furthermore, Giuliani knows how to shapeshift his views just enough to close the deal and the idea that the just as democrats winked at Clinton getting a hummer in the Oval office because of the man's charisma, conservatives will have little problem with Giuliani's extramarital escapades.

[EdmundOG]

Posted: 7/29/06 at 3:31pm

[i]...he will never be President of the USA. The right wing Christian voters are not happy with his pro life position...[/i]

A Clinton/Guliani race would be great. Will conservatives vote for a pro-life candidate? Will liberals vote for a pro-Iraq war candidate?

[jimnysf]

Posted: 7/29/06 at 3:44pm

"A Clinton/Guliani race would be great. Will conservatives vote for a pro-life candidate? Will liberals vote for a pro-Iraq war candidate?"

...or will many people stay away from the polls as is usually the case in the USA and then we end up with someone like Bush. People like to complain but then when it comes time to do something about it, like vote, they have a million excuses like:

"Their all the same."
"What does it matter if I vote or not."
"I was too tired."
"The weather was not good."
"I forgot it was Election Day."
"I don't like his/her looks."

[musicalsaregreat]

Posted: 7/29/06 at 5:10pm

I'm a little confused. Why is it a question whether Right wing Christian voters would vote for a pro-life candidate. Most Christians are pro-life. The Catholic Church is Pro-life. As for Giuliani, I understand he was put into the political spotlight after 9/11, but beside "cleaning up NYC" can anyone share what he has proven politically beside being in the right place at the right time? Also for those of you who say, "Bush is the President and deserves respect," my reply is I respect everyone until they prove otherwise. President Bush has lied to the world and the American people, he has broken Constitutional Law, he has not taken any responsibility for past mistakes, and he is not open to debate or differing opinions. Why should I ever respect him?

[Hawker]

Posted: 7/29/06 at 10:48pm

"he has broken Constitutional Law,"

Please be more specific.

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 7/30/06 at 1:55am

"or will many people stay away from the polls as is usually the case in the USA and then we end up with someone like Bush. People like to complain but then when it comes time to do something about it, like vote, they have a million excuses like:"

In my opinion, the people that don't care enough to vote are probably the people that are ill-informed about the candidates and the issues at hand, and we are probably better off with them not voting.

And back to the Q debate:
I think saying something like "George Bush! was only for then" or anything like that is more funny to those of us who know what the original line was...it would probably be funnier to an audience that is unfamiliar with the show if they change it to the new President's name.

Also, I think Ave. Q would work great as a Showtime made-for-TV movie (think Reefer Madness)

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 7/30/06 at 2:44am

hopefully "gas prices" or even better, "fossil fuels"

[goldenstate5]

Posted: 7/30/06 at 2:50am

^I like that. By 2009, if Ave. Q is even still on Broadway (though it most defintely will still be on tour [which starts in 2007]), this could very well apply. Can you imagine? Prices might be up to unimaginable heights!...

[SweetQintheLights]

Posted: 7/30/06 at 2:53am

"most defintely will still be on tour [which starts in 2007]"

Oh! I know there was thought of a tour but I never heard anything specific. Where is this information?!