- #31
GENIERE
I like Condi! - Like my Mom, she was out of high school at 15 yrs old.
Who will the Republicans choose in '08?
- Context: News
- Thread starter wasteofo2
- Start date
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around predictions for the Republican presidential nominee in the 2008 election. Participants explore various candidates, their perceived strengths and weaknesses, and the implications of their potential nominations, touching on themes of party loyalty, political legacy, and voter preferences.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Exploratory
Main Points Raised
- Some participants express hope for Chuck Hagel as a candidate, suggesting he may have a chance despite differing opinions on his dissenting views regarding Iraq.
- John McCain is mentioned frequently, with mixed feelings about his age and perceived loyalty to the party, leading to questions about his viability as a candidate.
- Rudy Giuliani is noted for his popularity due to his leadership during 9/11, though some believe he lacks the support of the party base.
- Jeb Bush is discussed as a potential candidate, with concerns about the implications of a third family member running for president in a short time frame.
- Some participants argue that Condoleezza Rice's past role during 9/11 may hinder her chances of running for office again, while others believe her political experience could still make her a viable candidate.
- George Pataki is mentioned as a possible contender, with varying opinions on his appeal and past performance as governor.
- There is a discussion about the Bush family's political legacy, with some participants drawing parallels to the Kennedy family and questioning the implications of political dynasties.
- Several participants express skepticism about the likelihood of certain candidates winning the nomination, citing party dynamics and voter preferences.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants do not reach a consensus on who the best candidate would be, with multiple competing views on the viability of various candidates and the factors influencing their potential nominations.
Contextual Notes
Some claims about candidates' chances are based on personal opinions and anecdotal evidence, and there are unresolved questions regarding the impact of political legacies and party loyalty on voter behavior.
- #32
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,207
- 25
GENIERE said:
From the same link: "Kerry wants to tax the income levels I want to reach someday. Screw that!"
- #33
SOS2008
Gold Member
- 42
- 1
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…
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…
- #34
wasteofo2
- 477
- 2
Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, maybe a few others...SOS2008 said:
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.
- #35
mattmns
- 1,121
- 5
wasteofo2 said:
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.
- #36
franznietzsche
- 1,503
- 6
wasteofo2 said:
I would love to nominate guliani, with mccain a moderately close second.
But i don't think it will happen.
- #37
franznietzsche
- 1,503
- 6
mattmns said:
And liberals say bush supporters had bad reasons for deciding their votes...
- #38
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 1,829
- 5
franznietzsche said:
I wouldn't mind seeing them break off and run as a ticket. Bull-Moose all over again.
- #39
SOS2008
Gold Member
- 42
- 1
loseyourname said:
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...
- #40
SOS2008
Gold Member
- 42
- 1
Oh sorry, that was "Jed" right?
- #41
franznietzsche
- 1,503
- 6
SOS2008 said:
You don't know what you're talking about.
Guliani repeatedly said he would not take a cabinet position.
- #42
wasteofo2
- 477
- 2
Kerry is a potential candidate regardless, not necessarily the best, but a potential one. How many times did William Jennings Brian run, like 4?mattmns said:
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...
- #43
franznietzsche
- 1,503
- 6
wasteofo2 said:
WJB ran 3 times. Lost all of them, and was the only person to ever lose 3 times.
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.
Last edited:
- #44
wasteofo2
- 477
- 2
franznietzsche said:
That's a bold-faced lie; there's Nader
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.franznietzsche said:
- #45
chound
- 163
- 0
Can't G.W.Shrub Become the president again in '08?
- #46
franznietzsche
- 1,503
- 6
wasteofo2 said:That's a bold-faced lie; there's Nader
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 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.
- #47
Polly
- 94
- 0
chound said:
Please, make no joke of this kind, I can have a heart attack .
Last edited:
- #48
chound
- 163
- 0
No really! I'm dead serious! Why isn't it possible?Polly said:
- #49
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,207
- 25
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.
- #50
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,839
- 11
Gokul43201 said:
Struck Republicans, that is. That was back when there were Repubicans.
- #51
franznietzsche
- 1,503
- 6
selfAdjoint said:
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.
- #52
BobG
Science Advisor
- 352
- 87
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.SOS2008 said:
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 religious 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.
- #53
wasteofo2
- 477
- 2
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...franznietzsche said:
- #54
wasteofo2
- 477
- 2
Nader ran as the Green Part candidate in '96 as well, and was a write-in candidate in the '92 Democratic primaries in NH.franznietzsche said:
Already saw the movie actually, and I can't stand to read plays...franznietzsche said:
- #55
franznietzsche
- 1,503
- 6
wasteofo2 said:
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.
Illiterate Schmoe.
- #56
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,829
- 11,305
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.wasteofo2 said:
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.
Last edited:
- #57
wasteofo2
- 477
- 2
That's true, FDR was indeed a scumbag in many ways, just like most of our good Presidents who got anything done.franznietzsche said:
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."
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 said:
Last edited:
- #58
franznietzsche
- 1,503
- 6
wasteofo2 said:
scripts are literature.
And i'd rather read a play than watch a bad performance.
- #59
SOS2008
Gold Member
- 42
- 1
franznietzsche said:
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...
- #60
franznietzsche
- 1,503
- 6
SOS2008 said:
Nope, FDR
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.