Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Not Sununu? (Article written by Freeper)
Tech Central Station ^ | 2/28/05 | Patrick Hynes (freeper)

Posted on 02/28/2005 1:14:01 PM PST by crushkerry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last
To: Sonny M

I agree on Pawlenty, but hesitate to say much being a Minnesotan. I have had the opportunity to have contact with him on several occasions, and he is a genuine person, much like President Bush.


41 posted on 02/28/2005 2:59:33 PM PST by Aeronaut (You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky. -- Amelia Earhart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry

Because he's just as big a RINO as his dad is. Wrap that up and put in the bank.


42 posted on 02/28/2005 3:08:23 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (The South will rise again? Hell, we ever get states' rights firmly back in place, the CSA has risen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I'm trying to think of which Blue State won't vote for Hillary?

Off the bat, she could lose Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire and possibly Oregon

Cubans don't run Florida, and I'll grant there are alot of New York transplants there, but, as close as Gore got, there was a grudge there against him, it got even thicker with Janet Reno getting her rear handed to her in a primary against a guy no one had ever heard of.

Florida is also turning redder and redder, only one state elected official is a dem.

I honestly think that she could lose kerry voters in Florida, and she ranks with Janet Reno popularity. The fact that Kerry lost by a wider margin the Gore did suggests a trend.

I can't even see her peeling a single red state over to the her side.

43 posted on 02/28/2005 3:08:42 PM PST by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M; Brilliant
Florida is also turning redder and redder, only one state elected official is a dem

The part of Florida that is growing the fastest is the area stretching from Naples to Fort Myers, along with the area north of Orlando (Orlando itself is a Pit). Most of these are folks from the Midwest. Of course, my parents live in Palm Beach County, aka Scarsdale South, AKA The Bagel Belt (where they live, Boca Raton, is the "buckle of the Bagel Belt") and there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that that area of the state will go GOP.

My take on Florida: The influx of midwesterners and conservative-minded transplants is counterbalanced by a continued influx of liberal New Yorkers, Puerto Ricans, and non-Cuban Hispanics (although the wealthy Colombians and Venezuelans are quite conservative). I think that it will remain slightly more red than blue, although it will never be as solidly Republican as Utah.

44 posted on 02/28/2005 3:16:18 PM PST by Clemenza (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms: The Other Holy Trinity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch

oops..my bad...


45 posted on 02/28/2005 3:34:39 PM PST by ken5050 (The Dem party is as dead as the NHL..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M

Firstg, I'm not knocking Sununu..I think be'd be a first rate President....I'd rather see him that Frist in a heartbeat.I don't think he's viable, becuase the GOP doesn't give the credence tp IOwa and NH like the Dems do..it's the S Carolina primary that is the first real test for the GOP candidates


46 posted on 02/28/2005 3:37:26 PM PST by ken5050 (The Dem party is as dead as the NHL..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

I live in the area that you call the fastest growing area. Unfortunately, it is not growing redder. Bush was a strong candidate in Fla. He had his brother in the governor's mansion, and his brother is quite popular here. They made it look redder, but the voters were not voting Republican. They were voting for Bush. The fact is that the majority of voters in my area are now registered as Dems.

In 2008, both of the Bushes will be gone, and there is really no other strong Republican candidate in the state, except possibly Crist, who might win the governorship in 06. Unfortunately, the Dems have equally strong prospects, including former (deceased) governor Lawson Chiles' son.

South Florida will go heavily Dem, no matter how you cut it. In the last election, a strong moderate GOP candidate, Mel Martinez, won the Senate by the skin of his teeth. But he was running against a very liberal female Dem candidate who had hired a terrorist to be on her payroll while she was the President of Florida So. University. Martinez should have won by much more, and did win primarily because of the overwhelming Cuban support in So. Fla., and the heavy investment by G.W. Bush.

Since there is not going to be a Cuban or a Bush on the GOP ticket in 08, I think it will be an uphill battle.


47 posted on 02/28/2005 4:07:12 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kerry Crusher

I have to admit that David Souter was such a HUGE mistake that even three degrees of separation bothers me. I would need to take a much closer look at Sununu the younger before going along with it. At the time of Souter's appointment, we were told that all of the players were impeccable conservatives. I think not.


48 posted on 02/28/2005 4:14:30 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M

She COULD lose any of those states, but I don't see it happening. The whole state of MI is run by the Dems. Remember that this is the state that handily elected a liberal female from Canada as their governor.

I think the mistake you are making is to not understand that Kerry was a basket case as a candidate. The most liberal candidate in history, indeed the most liberal US Senator in history. He selected a liberal Dem as his running mate. He made one goof up after another throughout the whole campaign. Despite that, he won PA. And he beat a strong moderate candidate in the process, ie. GW.

Hillary is not going to be a weaker candidate than Kerry. She is going to be stronger. Any state that is so far to the left that it would vote for Kerry is far enough to the left that it would vote for Hillary.

And that means we've got to field a stronger candidate than Bush, but we don't have one.


49 posted on 02/28/2005 4:15:06 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
We've got no candidate who can take on Hillary at this point.

You give Hillary too much credit. She's appealing in the abstract, and obnoxious up close.

50 posted on 02/28/2005 4:17:31 PM PST by Petronski (Zebras: Free Range Bar Codes of the Serengeti)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
She is going to be stronger. Any state that is so far to the left that it would vote for Kerry is far enough to the left that it would vote for Hillary.

I think 2004 had some instances that skewed the race.

Bush's 51%, I don't think was his ceiling, I think it was his floor.

Hillary, has more against her, then Kerry did.

Keep in mind, her husband, who is more popular then her, never ever got 50% of the vote.

She is also a fund raising machine for the GOP, and motivates conservatives more then she motivates liberals.

Several of the states I mentioned, had improvements for Bush, and one of them, may have been lost due to fraud.

To be honest with you, I think the best chance the GOP has of getting keeping the white house in 2008, is to hope Hillary gets the nomination for the dems, I for one, am rooting for her to win a bloody primary over the dems, before getting blown out in a general election.

51 posted on 02/28/2005 4:28:42 PM PST by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Not to 49% of the people, apparently. And a recent poll said that the majority of Republican women think Hillary would be a good candidate. I think there is a danger in assuming that Hillary will self-destruct. She's already running, and will soon have a well-oiled machine.
52 posted on 02/28/2005 4:28:56 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M

You may be right. However, if you're not, then heaven help us.


53 posted on 02/28/2005 4:30:42 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

That poll isn't credible three years out. I don't assume she'll self-destruct. I just won't assume she'll win. She's just not as formidable as everyone else thinks.


54 posted on 02/28/2005 4:31:11 PM PST by Petronski (Zebras: Free Range Bar Codes of the Serengeti)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Oh, and "would be a good candidate" is something I agree with too. That statement does not equate to "would vote for her" or even "would consider voting for her."


55 posted on 02/28/2005 4:32:57 PM PST by Petronski (Zebras: Free Range Bar Codes of the Serengeti)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Aeronaut

What Republican Governors are on the horizion?



Good question.... Here are the 28 current Republican governors as shown at http://www.rga.org/. Who among them do you think are the top choices?

Here is a thread from earlier today listing eight governors that have been mentioned... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1352630/posts?



56 posted on 02/28/2005 4:40:25 PM PST by deport (Other states try to abolish the death penalty, my state`s putting in an express lane."..TaterSalad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
You may be right. However, if you're not, then heaven help us.

If it will make you feel any better, in 2004, I only got 2 states wrong.

I had New Mexico going to Kerry (I figured with Bill Richardson's corruption and factoring in vote fraud) and Wisconson going to Bush (which may have actually been lost to vote fraud).

57 posted on 02/28/2005 4:46:01 PM PST by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry

Sununnu supported the Law Of the Sea Treaty (LOST) in the Senate Foreign Relations committee. He is not worthy of Smith Senate seat, much less the Presidency.


58 posted on 02/28/2005 5:57:48 PM PST by rmlew (Copperheads and Peaceniks beware! Sedition is a crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry
He seems to be a decent guy, but I don't see anything that suggests that he can win votes outside New Hampshire. Does he have any kind of executive experience? There's a difference between being an effective legislator and being an effective executive. There are many voters who are too ignorant to understand that point, but a surprising number do understand it. The last president to win election with a purely legislative background was Richard Nixon, and even he had served as vice-president. John F. Kennedy was elected without executive experience, but he won only by vote fraud in Chicago and by understanding the power of TV at the beginning of the TV age.

Does he have any experience outside of politics and public service? Republicans will elect people whose business experience has been strongly driven by family ties, but they haven't elected someone without other experience since 1972. George W. Bush worked in oil and in baseball before becoming governor of Texas. George H.W. Bush worked in oil before running for Congress (and losing) and serving in the CIA and as ambassador. Ronald Reagan was an actor who came from a completely blue-collar background.

Does he have any signature issue besides Social Security reform? The best that can happen politically with Social Security reform is that no one really notices a difference for the next twenty years. The worst that can happen is that people will have reduced benefits or believe that their benefits are reduced and end up angry. No one is going to ride this issue to the White House. If all he has to show for twelve years in Congress is that he helped with Social Security reform, he's not going to have much support.

His running makes the New Hampshire primary less important, and he will lose some popularity in New Hampshire for that reason alone. I don't like the fact that we tend to nominate our candidate in a few primaries at the beginning of the primary season. I think a healthy fight is good for the party. The last truly competitive primary we had was in 1980, and that primary produced the Ronald Reagan presidency without which there would not likely have been a George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush presidency.

Bill

59 posted on 02/28/2005 6:59:01 PM PST by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kerry Crusher
He simply doesn't share the same level of enthusiasm for all of Israel's foreign policy demands as the so-called "Neo-cons."

Are you channeling Pat Buchanan?

60 posted on 02/28/2005 7:17:46 PM PST by NYC GOP Chick (www.Hillary-Watch.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson