Posted on 11/07/2006 11:31:07 PM PST by NapkinUser
Does (almost certainly) losing the Virginia senate election give George Allen more time to campaign for 2008, like Romney and Frist both stepping down does?
"I see almost no possibility Gingrich ever gets national office either. It's time he lets it go."
It's not him, it is folks like me who feel we *need* Gingrich in the running to give the GOP the jolt of *ideas* ...
Look at it this way. I'm sick and tired of the lame "Condi for Prez" and "Rudy for Prez" who are voting for a personality without asking - "What will they *DO* as President?"
At least Gingrich has laid it all out. It's like a "Jacks or better to open"... If you can prove that you have some credibility on issues to compete with Newt, you are not a credible candidate.
Get me a Newt without the baggage and we'll talk. And no, its not any of the usual names bandied about.
Allen is not a RINO and neither was Rick Santorum.
Get real.
How about Keyes/Allen? We might even get 20% of the vote.
Precisely. I knew Allen wasn't presidential material when I saw him go weak in defending our policy in Iraq way back this past spring.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Suggestions?
"You seriously think Rudy could've won NY this year? I don't think any Republicans were gonna make it in blue states...even Rudy."
I see, so he doesnt even try????
How the h*ll can we compete nationally with them when we dont even try to poach their territory?
Romney?
I see your 20% and lower to 15% with a Keyes/Harris ticket.
ROFL!
With all the talk about Burns and Allen being among the endangered incumbents, that pairing never occurred to me. Your proposed ticket would win heavily in the crucial nostalgic-octogenarian voting bloc.
As for the subject of the thread, I agree with the consensus that Allen is toast for '08. Nixon lost his own state (California governor in 1962) and came back to be President, but he had much more national stature than Allen, and it still took him six years. If John Warner decides not to run for re-election to the Senate in 2008 (when he'll be 81), Allen might replace him, and then conceivably have a shot in 2012 or thereafter.
This disaster will end up being an enduring one if he becomes the GOP standard bearer in 2008. The conservatism will be dead at that point.
If he is running against Hillary, I don't think personal issues will come up for some reason.
OK, I'll play - where is this 'another Reagan' gonna come from? "Nixon. Now." *LOL*
He was everywhere supporting Republican candidates. Not having run himself this year, he can return to making millions in his consulting business, and then perhaps run for Prez. starting late next year.
There is no other "Reagan" out there. Pretty pathetic that the "conservative party" doesn't have any real conservative groomed to become the next national leader.
He's already said he won't run in '08, hasn't he?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Yes, the American people love Rudy. Including me. But he never would've won NY this year. It just wasn't going to happen.
Here's a thought:
macacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacacamacaca
Did you enjoy that? Do you think you'd enjoy two years of it? If so, Allen is the best choice.
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.