Who will the Republicans choose in '08?

[wasteofo2]

Just for the sake of taking shots in the dark, why not make some predictions for what'll happen in about 3 year's time?

Should he run, I think (hope) Hagel will win the primary season, but hell, who woulda thought that John Kerry would win the Democratic nomination...

And on the topic, would any of the Republicans here want Frist or Gingrich as the presidential nominee?

[mattmns]

I think they will probably pick McCain. Also, what about the governator? lol

[wasteofo2]

I think they will probably pick McCain. Also, what about the governator? lol
Well, I was thinking McCain might be too old to want to run or for people to want him in office, but hell, Republicans seemed fine with Reagan, and I've heard anecdotal evidence that he had Alzheimers in office.

"The Governator" wasn't born in America, and there's hardly a chance that all the crap that needs to be done for a constitutional ammendment to pass through would pass to allow foreign born people to run for president.

[check]

*sigh* They're all losers.... Cept McCain... McCain kicks ***.... Other might be cool too, but I'll need to read up on him a bit more :p

Oh what the heck, I'll pick Rudy. He probably has more star power than anyone on that list...Cept McCain... McCain kicks ***.

And this is what two nights without sleep does to you. Forgive me.

[enigma]

They sent _Jeb_ over to Indonesia after the Tsunami.

Fair warning: They're running him in '08

[Polly]

I read somewhere that Jeb would be a sensible choice, given his brother will need to have many sensitive dossiers kept in the dark.

[cronxeh]

Condi Rice? you kidding right. After such a fiasco of 9/11 I dont think she'll ever hold an office again


Edit: I dont see Colin Powell in there. He is a good candidate

[kcballer21]

How is it that the Bush family is so presidential?

[Polly]

:biggrin: A good, thought provoking question.

[selfAdjoint]

How is it that the Bush family is so presidential?

Same as the Kennedies. They will pull any dirty trick to get to the White House, and they help each other out. Jeb was essential to Dubya getting in, so the clan owes him. And they'll rally round in '08. The mafia would understand perfectly.

[wasteofo2]

Condi Rice? you kidding right. After such a fiasco of 9/11 I dont think she'll ever hold an office again


If you mean that you doubt she'll hold office because 9/11 happened while she was national security advisor, consider the fact that 9/11 happened while George Bush was president, and he got to hold office again. If you're talking about the crap that went on with her and the 9/11 investigation, I don't see that as really affecting her chances to run for President, again, considering that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch and he was re-elected.

Though, the fact that she's a cranky ***** might hurt her...


Edit: I dont see Colin Powell in there. He is a good candidate
He's gone from politics forever now, and he's said he will not run for President. There was considerable buzz around him possibly running in '96, but he declined then and has said he wants to just be a normal person now.

[phatmonky]

McCain is old and a party traitor (to many, not myself). He's out for 2008.

[Gokul43201]

Hagel, McCain, Giuliani...are you guys kidding me ? There's no way conservatives will vote for a dissenter, a loudmouth or a liberal !

[Andromeda321]

Jeb might run but I do not see him as being able to win. People can accept two people running for president from the same family (precedent set with Adams, would've been followed by the Kennedys) but if it's three people in a short span of time it sounds way too much like a dynasty. Even if I find I agree with his policies I would not vote for him for this reason; irrational as it might sound. I don't like the precedent it would set.
I also think people are ignoring George Pataki possibly running in '08. The mere fact that he's the governor of New York is more then enough reason for Republicans to want him to run.

[russ_watters]

I voted John McCain, but that's mostly wishful thinking...

[wasteofo2]

McCain is old and a party traitor (to many, not myself). He's out for 2008.
From the perspective of someone who's not a hard-line Republican, not being totally loyal to your party can be a huge advantage. I'd vote for McCain if he ran in '08, and if I'd vote for him, imagine who else would...

[wasteofo2]

Jeb might run but I do not see him as being able to win. People can accept two people running for president from the same family (precedent set with Adams, would've been followed by the Kennedys) but if it's three people in a short span of time it sounds way too much like a dynasty. Even if I find I agree with his policies I would not vote for him for this reason; irrational as it might sound. I don't like the precedent it would set.
I also think people are ignoring George Pataki possibly running in '08. The mere fact that he's the governor of New York is more then enough reason for Republicans to want him to run.
I hope Jeb wouldn't be able to win if he gets the nomination, but you never know...

And about Pataki, he's not that impressive, our Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer, was beating him 50-38 in a hypothetical Governor's race before he even officially announced he'd run for the governorship.

Hagel, McCain, Giuliani...are you guys kidding me ? There's no way conservatives will vote for a dissenter, a loudmouth or a liberal !
Keep in mind the primary schedule, Iowa, a moderate state goes first, followed by New Hampshire, a very free-thinking and independent state. Plus, Russ Waters wanted McCain, I don't think one would call Russ a liberal...

But hell, maybe I'm putting too much creedence into what voters want and not enough into what the political machine wants. Afterall, who would have thought Conservatives would vote for a former coke-head/alcoholic.

[BobG]

I'm hoping for Hagel. I wouldn't exactly categorize Hagel as a dissenter. I think Iraq is kind of a special case - dissent from people like Hagel or Lugar, based on intel, tend to lend credence to the fact that Iraq was a mistake rather than label Hagel or Lugar as dissenters.

McCain would be older than Reagan was, so you can't exactly use Reagan's age as a precedent.

Frist is the most likely alternative to Hagel and I definitely don't like him.

Guliani is still riding momentum from the way he handled 9/11, but I still think he's a long shot for nomination.

Jeb might not be presidential material, but how about his son as the first Hispanic president (Jeb's wife is Hispanic).

[loseyourname]

I honestly don't understand how anyone could vote against Giuliani after the absolute renassaince the city of New York went through under his reign. That said, I know he has no chance. The party base wants a preacher, not a leader. I still voted for him.

[wasteofo2]

I'm hoping for Hagel. I wouldn't exactly categorize Hagel as a dissenter. I think Iraq is kind of a special case - dissent from people like Hagel or Lugar, based on intel, tend to lend credence to the fact that Iraq was a mistake rather than label Hagel or Lugar as dissenters.

I don't know all too much about Hagel, but from what I've heard of him and from him, I think I would categorize him as a dissenter. Unless I misunderstood you, you seem to be using dissenter as a negative word, wheras I think freely voicing dissent is one of the best characteristics a politician can have. Would you rather vote for someone who went along with the party platform, smoothed over differences of opinion with party leadership, over-exagerated positives and denied/under-exagerated negatives, or someone who acknowledged when things were going wrong, said it regardless of who was listening, and helped fight to change them.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
-Thomas Jefferson

[wasteofo2]

I honestly don't understand how anyone could vote against Giuliani after the absolute renassaince the city of New York went through under his reign. That said, I know he has no chance. The party base wants a preacher, not a leader. I still voted for him.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, Republicans, I beg of you, PLEASE nominate someone like Hagel or Guliani or McCain. Please, try your darndest to get the men you really think would do well elected. I would be so ecstatic, probabally the whole country would be so ecstatic, if you guys nominated someone like that, as opposed to someone that 30% of the country would love and 30% would hate.

[Gokul43201]

If Giuliani runs, I can see a lot of moderates/liberals registering as Republicans.

[BobG]

If Giuliani runs, I can see a lot of moderates/liberals registering as Republicans.
That's an interesting prospect. I usually think of the more liberal dems when I think of the Democratic Party.

Moderate Democrats switching to the Republican Party would an interesting and unexpected response to Bush, and it would probably have a bigger impact than Dems putting up their prototype candidate.

For the last election, I'd considered swapping parties, but the chance the nomination would still be in doubt by time Colorado's primary came around wasn't worth the fact that the only important local candidate elections are the Republican primaries - Dems have no chance (the statewide election of Salazar for Senator being the exception).

I don't know all too much about Hagel, but from what I've heard of him and from him, I think I would categorize him as a dissenter.
Hagel's not afraid to speak his mind. I guess what I meant is that he is a pretty mainstream Republican, so the opportunity doesn't present itself that often - as opposed to someone like Specter, who might fit in better with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party (of course, then he'd probably be categorized as a Democratic dissenter because of the views he does share with Republicans).

[Moonbear]

Well, I don't know if the Republicans as a party will pick Giuliani, but I picked Giuliani. Why am I not sure they'll pick him? What has he been doing since being mayor of NYC? He's got this big gap in his record now, which I thought might be to keep him free for a cabinet appointment or a bid for Congress, but that hasn't happened. With the direction the party has gone under the Bush administration, I'm not sure they'd nominate someone as comparatively liberal as Giuliani either.

On the other hand, he'd really draw in the moderate democratic vote (any Republican that can win NYC definitely has strong democratic support), and depending on who the democrats toss out against him, he could possibly sweep the democratic vote.

The only thing I'd find funny about having Giuliani as a president is that I'd be laughing over the NY accent every time he gave a speech!

[Mattius_]

please let it be newt...

[Gokul43201]

Well, I don't know if the Republicans as a party will pick Giuliani, but I picked Giuliani.

Is everyone here voting for who they would like to have nominated ?

I thought the poll was about who the Republicans would nominate ? I really can't see how the republicans that voted in Bush will pick Giuliani or McCain. Bill Frist looks like just their kind of guy !

Frist still will not admit that HIV does not get transmitted through sweat. Or, if he did, it must have slipped past me.

[wasteofo2]

Frist still will not admit that HIV does not get transmitted through sweat. Or, if he did, it must have slipped past me.
So? Bush still thinks that Homosexuals marrying will somehow affect the sanctity of heterosexual marriages...

[kawikdx225]

I thought the poll was about who the Republicans would nominate ? I really can't see how the republicans that voted in Bush will pick Giuliani or McCain. Bill Frist looks like just their kind of guy !

Given the choice of Bush vs Kerry I voted Bush due to Kerry's Far left history. But given the choice of Bush vs Giuliani I would have chosen Giuliani.

He would most likely get my vote in 08 if he runs.

[Gokul43201]

Fair enough. But I was thinking more along the lines of the 2000 Republican Primary, where GW trounced McCain in every state except Arizona, and the some of the bluest states (like in California and the New England States - where it was much closer).

And I wouldn't, in general, consider a Republican member of a physics forum a good representation of the demographic.

[GENIERE]

...And I wouldn't, in general, consider a Republican member of a physics forum a good representation of the demographic.

Well the engineering guys are more likely to have voted for the President.

URL: http://www.eet.com/article/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=31600006

From the link: "[I'm a] typical engineer — conservative."

[GENIERE]

I like Condi! - Like my Mom, she was out of high school at 15 yrs old.

[Gokul43201]

Well the engineering guys are more likely to have voted for the President.

URL: http://www.eet.com/article/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=31600006

From the link: "[I'm a] typical engineer — conservative."

From the same link: "Kerry wants to tax the income levels I want to reach someday. Screw that!" :biggrin:

[SOS2008]

John McCain has been considered many times but never makes it. Also, the fundamentalists don't much care for him—though I don’t know why. Maybe he forgets to say “May God Bless You” at the end of each speech.

Jeb of course has stated he will not consider running--like that means anything. He doesn't have much recognition or charisma, but definitely would get the Hispanic vote. Democrats who gave Bush his chance with a second term because of terrorism won't be swayed by family name.

Guliani was keeping options open for a cabinet position, and even though he kissed up to Bush like crazy he couldn't get into the neoconservative club. What makes you think anything will change at primary time?

Frist has even less recognition than Jeb.

What about Pat Buchanan? Maybe like McCain, he's tried unsuccessfully too many times. Or what's up with Dennis Hastert? The real power, but also too unknown? Oh I know, maybe Karl Rove will come out from behind the wizard's curtain!

A candidate for the Democrats is the problem…

[wasteofo2]

A candidate for the Democrats is the problem…
Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, maybe a few others...

It'll be fun at least, and if John Kerry can get 48% of the electorate, imagine what someone who doesn't suck balls and contradict himself every minute could do.

[mattmns]

Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, maybe a few others...

It'll be fun at least, and if John Kerry can get 48% of the electorate, imagine what someone who doesn't suck balls and contradict himself every minute could do.

Take Bill Richardson out of the mix, also Kerry.

Kerry lost to Bush, I think that says enough of how bad a candidate Kerry is.

Richardson is governor of New Mexico. Do we want to have a president who can not even run a state? NM is what 49th or 50th in education?

Edwards, I do not think he would win either.

If McCain runs, I will probably vote for him. If Hillary runs, I will vote for her. If they both run, I will vote for Hillary. I would only vote for Hilary for the sake of having a female president.

[franznietzsche]

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, Republicans, I beg of you, PLEASE nominate someone like Hagel or Guliani or McCain. Please, try your darndest to get the men you really think would do well elected. I would be so ecstatic, probabally the whole country would be so ecstatic, if you guys nominated someone like that, as opposed to someone that 30% of the country would love and 30% would hate.


I would love to nominate guliani, with mccain a moderately close second.

But i don't think it will happen.

[franznietzsche]

I would only vote for Hilary for the sake of having a female president.


And liberals say bush supporters had bad reasons for deciding their votes...

[loseyourname]

I would love to nominate guliani, with mccain a moderately close second.

But i don't think it will happen.

I wouldn't mind seeing them break off and run as a ticket. Bull-Moose all over again.

[SOS2008]

I wouldn't mind seeing them break off and run as a ticket. Bull-Moose all over again.

Hey now there's an idea. And anything but Jeb! It makes me think of Billy Carter, and I can already hear the Beverly Hillbilly jokes...

[SOS2008]

Oh sorry, that was "Jed" right?

[franznietzsche]

Guliani was keeping options open for a cabinet position, and even though he kissed up to Bush like crazy he couldn't get into the neoconservative club. What makes you think anything will change at primary time?



You don't know what you're talking about.

Guliani repeatedly said he would not take a cabinet position.

[wasteofo2]

Take Bill Richardson out of the mix, also Kerry.

Kerry lost to Bush, I think that says enough of how bad a candidate Kerry is.

Richardson is governor of New Mexico. Do we want to have a president who can not even run a state? NM is what 49th or 50th in education?

Edwards, I do not think he would win either.

If McCain runs, I will probably vote for him. If Hillary runs, I will vote for her. If they both run, I will vote for Hillary. I would only vote for Hilary for the sake of having a female president.
Kerry is a potential candidate regardless, not necessarily the best, but a potential one. How many times did William Jennings Brian run, like 4?

Richardson in the governor of New Mexico, however, George Bush was the Governor of Texas, and Bill Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas. How educated a Presidential Candidate's state is really doesn't seem to matter...

[franznietzsche]

Kerry is a potential candidate regardless, not necessarily the best, but a potential one. How many times did William Jennings Brian run, like 4?

Richardson in the governor of New Mexico, however, George Bush was the Governor of Texas, and Bill Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas. How educated a Presidential Candidate's state is really doesn't seem to matter...

WJB ran 3 times. Lost all of them, and was the only person to ever lose 3 times.


William Jennings Bryan, three-time Democratic candidate for President and a populist, led a Fundamentalist crusade to banish Darwin's theory of evolution from American classrooms.

My, how the times have changed. How the times have changed...

So just remember, you may be a democrat today, but tomorrow you'll be a republican.

[wasteofo2]

WJB ran 3 times. Lost all of them, and was the only person to ever lose 3 times.

That's a bold-faced lie; there's Nader :biggrin:




My, how the times have changed. How the times have changed...

So just remember, you may be a democrat today, but tomorrow you'll be a republican.
Yeah, I'm aware Bryan was a Christian Fundamentalist, he was the prosecuting lawyer in the Scopes Monkey Trial, was he not? Don't matter much, the history of the Party isn't what determines my affiliation, it's the present actions of the Party. Besides, if I was voting back in the day I would have totally been voting for TR.

[chound]

Can't G.W.Shrub Become the president again in '08?????

[franznietzsche]

That's a bold-faced lie; there's Nader :biggrin:

Nader only ran twice, '00, and '04. It was Perot the two elections before that. Unless nader ran back in the antiquity of the '80s....


Yeah, I'm aware Bryan was a Christian Fundamentalist, he was the prosecuting lawyer in the Scopes Monkey Trial, was he not? Don't matter much, the history of the Party isn't what determines my affiliation, it's the present actions of the Party. Besides, if I was voting back in the day I would have totally been voting for TR.

Yeah he was the prosecuting attorney, and got his arse kicked around the room by Darrow. You should read 'Inherit the Wind', its a play about the trial, the trial itself in the play is very interesting, especially when Darrow(drummond in the play) questions Jennnings on the stand, which actually happened. Pretty spectacular dialogue there actually.

[Polly]

Can't G.W.Shrub Become the president again in '08?????

:bugeye: Please, make no joke of this kind, I can have a heart attack :yuck: .

[chound]

:bugeye: Please, make no joke of this kind, I can have a heart attack :yuck: .
No really! I'm dead serious! Why isn't it possible?

[Gokul43201]

Because there's a limit on the number of Presidential terms a person can have. When FDR looked like he might keep getting re-elected even efter he was dead, it struck people that perhaps two terms is as much power as one person should be given.

[selfAdjoint]

Because there's a limit on the number of Presidential terms a person can have. When FDR looked like he might keep getting re-elected even efter he was dead, it struck people that perhaps two terms is as much power as one person should be given.

Struck Republicans, that is. That was back when there were Repubicans.

[franznietzsche]

Struck Republicans, that is. That was back when there were Repubicans.


:rofl: :rofl:

Yeah, the democrats were just fine with having their president for eternity.

FDR was a real maniacal sob. Just as bad as Bush, for all you bush haters out there. He was the only president to ever seek more than two terms, the rest had the good grace to step out of the way after two, even though they were not required to do so by law.

[BobG]

John McCain has been considered many times but never makes it. Also, the fundamentalists don't much care for him—though I don’t know why. Maybe he forgets to say “May God Bless You” at the end of each speech.

Jeb of course has stated he will not consider running--like that means anything. He doesn't have much recognition or charisma, but definitely would get the Hispanic vote. Democrats who gave Bush his chance with a second term because of terrorism won't be swayed by family name.

Guliani was keeping options open for a cabinet position, and even though he kissed up to Bush like crazy he couldn't get into the neoconservative club. What makes you think anything will change at primary time?

Frist has even less recognition than Jeb.

What about Pat Buchanan? Maybe like McCain, he's tried unsuccessfully too many times. Or what's up with Dennis Hastert? The real power, but also too unknown? Oh I know, maybe Karl Rove will come out from behind the wizard's curtain!

A candidate for the Democrats is the problem…
McCain started in politics after a 20 year military career, which means he started out old - he'll be in his 70's come 2008. 2000 was his only realistic chance.

Frist's name recognition isn't a problem just yet. The important thing is who knows his name. He's the heir apparent to the religous right and the neo-con Bush sector. With their backing, he'll be a familiar name come primary time and will gave good financial backing for the campaign.

Hagel's already building up his name recognition. You see him on TV all the time, now. If he can gen up the financial backing, he'll be the second favorite. The more moderate side of the Republican Party needs to get its act organized for Hagel to win.

If the moderate Republicans don't get organized to stand up to the right wing side of the party, Giuliani's the only one with enough personal reputation to challenge Frist, but he'd be the underdog.

As to the Democrats, mattmns said you could take Richardson out of the mix due to New Mexico's education system. Actually, you can take him out of the mix because the Eastern Dems will think "What's the point of winning if we have to nominate Republicans?" The Western Dems have no chance. They have to survive in heavily Republican states, which probably means they'd be better able to win a Presidential election, but the Eastern Dems will never nominate one of them because they're conservative enough to survive in the Republican states.

[wasteofo2]

FDR was a real maniacal sob. Just as bad as Bush, for all you bush haters out there. He was the only president to ever seek more than two terms, the rest had the good grace to step out of the way after two, even though they were not required to do so by law.
He sought 4 terms and was elected by a huge majority - what's so wrong with that? And TR sought a third term as well...

[wasteofo2]

Nader only ran twice, '00, and '04. It was Perot the two elections before that. Unless nader ran back in the antiquity of the '80s....
Nader ran as the Green Part candidate in '96 as well, and was a write-in candidate in the '92 Democratic primaries in NH.


Yeah he was the prosecuting attorney, and got his arse kicked around the room by Darrow. You should read 'Inherit the Wind', its a play about the trial, the trial itself in the play is very interesting, especially when Darrow(drummond in the play) questions Jennnings on the stand, which actually happened. Pretty spectacular dialogue there actually.
Already saw the movie actually, and I can't stand to read plays...

[franznietzsche]

He sought 4 terms and was elected by a huge majority - what's so wrong with that? And TR sought a third term as well...


LEgally nothing.

But he did many of the same things bush has done, only worse. Limiting civil liberties, quarantining US citizens without due process, bullying the legislature into doing what he wanted. When the supreme court tried to oppose him, he decided to try to expand it and fill all the new spots with his own cronies, something eve bush wouldn't dare to try.

i can't stand to read plays

Illiterate Schmoe.

[russ_watters]

He sought 4 terms and was elected by a huge majority - what's so wrong with that? And TR sought a third term as well... He was elected during a tumultuous time and was popular because he made radical changes to the way the government/country works: some of the biggest changes in the history of the country, and that includes just after the Civil War. And that, without a Constitutional Amendment.

Besides popular opinion, historians and economists are pretty mixed (to put it lightly) about whether or not those changes were good. And to a small-government republican, he may as well be the antichrist.

Basically, his response to the depression was to spend a crapload of money and he created things like Social Security. Many economists think his polities actually prolonged the depression because they pre-empted (cut off at the knee?) the market's self-recovery.

[wasteofo2]

LEgally nothing.

But he did many of the same things bush has done, only worse. Limiting civil liberties, quarantining US citizens without due process, bullying the legislature into doing what he wanted. When the supreme court tried to oppose him, he decided to try to expand it and fill all the new spots with his own cronies, something eve bush wouldn't dare to try.

That's true, FDR was indeed a scumbag in many ways, just like most of our good Presidents who got anything done.

Maybe in 50 years people will look back on Bush and say "well, he plunged the nation into huge debt, destroyed the environment, and turned the whole world against us, but in the long run he lead to several Democracies in the middle east, so it's excusable."


Illiterate Schmoe.
What's the point of reading plays? They're meant to be acted out and watched, not read. Call me crazy, but I like to read literature and see theater acted out.

[franznietzsche]

What's the point of reading plays? They're meant to be acted out and watched, not read. Call me crazy, but I like to read literature and see theater acted out.


scripts are literature.

And i'd rather read a play than watch a bad performance.

[SOS2008]

LEgally nothing. But he did many of the same things bush has done, only worse. Limiting civil liberties, quarantining US citizens without due process, bullying the legislature into doing what he wanted. When the supreme court tried to oppose him, he decided to try to expand it and fill all the new spots with his own cronies, something eve bush wouldn't dare to try.

Holy cow, for a while there I thought the discussion was about Mousalini.

Now back to the topic of Republican nominees... I know a lot of you favor Guliani. When ever I listen to him during interviews, etc., he has been very pro-Bush, pro-war, etc. (i.e., even to the right of McCain). Yesterday I attended a seminar at which Guliani was one of the speakers. Just thought I'd let you know he used the emotional issues of 9-11 and his belief in God very effectively.

As stated before, the problem is who will the Democrats nominate...

[franznietzsche]

Holy cow, for a while there I thought the discussion was about Mousalini.

Nope, FDR :rolleyes:

Now back to the topic of Republican nominees... I know a lot of you favor Guliani. When ever I listen to him during interviews, etc., he has been very pro-Bush, pro-war, etc. (i.e., even to the right of McCain). Yesterday I attended a seminar at which Guliani was one of the speakers. Just thought I'd let you know he used the emotional issues of 9-11 and his belief in God very effectively.


No one is pro-war. God you people and your catch phrases. Its like calling anti-abortion people pro-life as if poepl in favor of abortion are pro-death. Its sheer stupidity.

He was in favor of going into iraq, yes, but no one in their right mind is "pro-war". Certainly pro-"kicking the **** out of genocidal arseholes", but not "pro-war".

Yes he's conservative, hence why republicans would vote for him. But he is not nearly as conservative as Bush.

UNfortunately, the one person i would love to see nominated most won't be (our esteemed governator). He's practically saved this state from being dragged into a rotting socialist cesspool and almost single handedly. And he's done that by basically going around the socialist traitors in the legislature and putting all of his initiatives on the popular ballot (something which the national government would never allow, after all they don't want the people to actually you know, get what they want. We have Hiram Johnson to thank for that, without him we'd be doomed.)

Were he able to run, he'd almost be gauranteed to win. He won the governorship with 50%, and that was with a second republican running as well (actually there some 130 people on the ballot, but the 3 important ones were Arnold, McClintock (the ohter republican) and Bustamante,the democratic racist). He would no doubt win california, without which no democrat could win the presidency.

[SOS2008]

No one is pro-war. God you people and your catch phrases. Its like calling anti-abortion people pro-life as if poepl in favor of abortion are pro-death. Its sheer stupidity.

He was in favor of going into iraq, yes, but no one in their right mind is "pro-war". Certainly pro-"kicking the **** out of genocidal arseholes", but not "pro-war"

Yes, it's sheer stupidity, like "If you don't support Bush, you are unpatriotic" or "If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops" etc.? Okay, Guliani is in favor of invading Iraq, but not going to war. :smile: The bigger concern to me is the use of "rally around the flag" emotions in relation to 9-11 and/or "wedge" religious issues again to distract from real political issues to become elected.

UNfortunately, the one person i would love to see nominated most won't be (our esteemed governator).

So far so good...time will tell...if he is as he seems, I must say he has appeal (kinda poetic, eh?). He has more Reagan-like traits than Bush fantasizes about, and is more moderate as far as Democrats are concerned. If he proves himself and gains enough popularity, who knows what may happen by 2012?

[SOS2008]

But he did many of the same things bush has done.

Bush's conservative, authoritarian style, with public appearances in military uniform (which no previous American president has ever done while in office). Government by secrecy, propaganda and deception. Open assaults on labor unions and workers' rights. Preemptive war and militant nationalism. Contempt for international law and treaties. Suspiciously convenient "terrorist" attacks, to justify a police state and the suspension of liberties. A carefully manufactured image of "The Leader," who's still just a "regular guy" and a "moderate." "Freedom" as the rationale for every action. Fantasy economic growth, based on unprecedented budget deficits and massive military spending. And a cold, pragmatic ideology of fascism—including the violent suppression of dissent and other human rights; the use of torture, assassination and concentration camps; and most important, Benito Mussolini's preferred definition of "fascism" as "corporatism, because it binds together the interests of corporations and the state." -- this is what I was referring to...

[BobG]

Latest poll of the Conservative Political Action Conference:

1. Rudy Giuliani
2. Condi Rice
3. Bill Frist, George Allen, and John McCain

Considering this is one of the more conservative groups within the Republican Party, Giuliani might be a more realistic choice than I would have expected.

Of course, John McCain ranked a little higher than I would have expected, as well - biting his tongue over the course of the 2004 campaign may have served him well (the general impression is that he's despised Bush ever since the 2000 South Carolina primary).

I would have expected Frist to be high on this list.

Rice is too close to the current administration and low enough to take the heat for the things the conservative faithful won't blame Bush for, no matter how his next 4 years go. I would give her about as much chance as Rumsfield of winning the Republican nomination - unless, of course, Iraq progresses much smoother and quicker than expected. It would be just like them to counter a Hillary nomination with a Condi nomination (hey, nominating a respected Republican's idiot son worked to counter the respected Democrat's idiot son in 2000, didn't it?)

[wasteofo2]

Latest poll of the Conservative Political Action Conference:

1. Rudy Giuliani
2. Condi Rice
3. Bill Frist, George Allen, and John McCain

Considering this is one of the more conservative groups within the Republican Party, Giuliani might be a more realistic choice than I would have expected.

Of course, John McCain ranked a little higher than I would have expected, as well - biting his tongue over the course of the 2004 campaign may have served him well (the general impression is that he's despised Bush ever since the 2000 South Carolina primary).

I would have expected Frist to be high on this list.

Rice is too close to the current administration and low enough to take the heat for the things the conservative faithful won't blame Bush for, no matter how his next 4 years go. I would give her about as much chance as Rumsfield of winning the Republican nomination - unless, of course, Iraq progresses much smoother and quicker than expected. It would be just like them to counter a Hillary nomination with a Condi nomination (hey, nominating a respected Republican's idiot son worked to counter the respected Democrat's idiot son in 2000, didn't it?)

I'd be willing to bet that if Bill Frist actually gets nominated, he'll lose definitively by driving away moderate voters who were drawn to the GOP this time around. And if Condoleezza Rice is the nominee, hell, you'll see the biggest Democratic victory in the south since Jimmy Carter got elected. Could you imagine something like Rice vs. Evan Bayh or Mark Warner?

But Guliani's a totally different story. Does anyone think it's possible for Guliani to lose? If the Democrats were to choose a moderate like Evan Bayh of Mark Warner, does anyone think there's enough anti-Catholic or anti-Italian sentiment to drive away a good deal of the Republican base? He is pretty liberal on many issues afterall, but that might just draw in Democrats to replace the racist Republicans who were scared off by his ethnicity...

It'll be fun regardless, 2 genuine primaries to watch, just gotta wait about 3 years...

[SOS2008]

Of course, John McCain ranked a little higher than I would have expected, as well - biting his tongue over the course of the 2004 campaign may have served him well (the general impression is that he's despised Bush ever since the 2000 South Carolina primary).

After hearing what Bush had to say about McCain on the recent "tapes" I now admire McCain for pulling the R-line the way he has for Bush.