Who will the Republicans choose in '08?

[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

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

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?

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

 

[chound]

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

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. 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 got to 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.