Posted on 11/08/2006 4:58:08 PM PST by rodomila
George Allen is completely dead politically. He proved what I suspected - that he wasn't smart enough for the national spotlight.
Santorum would have been my first choice but his crushing defeat yesterday rules him out.
McCain is insane and a turncoat on taxes, judges and immigration. Many hard core Republicans, such as myself, would NEVER vote for him.
George W's phony, big government "conservatism" has poisoned the well for Jeb as Bush fatigue is now almost universal.
Hillary MUST BE STOPPED, but if I were a bookmaker I'd have to make her the odds on favorite.
So that leaves four possibilities for the good guys:
Condi Rice is a no go because she isn't sufficiently experienced. Frankly, I don't think she is up to the job and I think she would make Hillary competitive in the South which would be disastrous.
That leaves three sane guys right now with the name ID, credible experience and the brainpower to be Prez:
Newt Gingrich has the conservative bonafides but the media trashed him so badly in 1995 that, like Quayle, he probably can't win. He's also kind of fat and has an annoying, high pitched voice - two things that would hurt him in our superficial media dominated age. Also, the press would have a field day with his personal life.
Rudy has the brains and could be trusted to fight the war on terror. His pro-choice and pro-gay positions are definite downers for me, but would make the northeast competitive for Republicans and really throw a monkey wrench into the Hillary machine. He might be able to finesse these issues with the Republican right if he said social politics should be resolved at the state level and promised to name constructionist judges. He would also have to be solid on taxes, spending, immigration enforcement and economic growth. A little pow wow with Stephen Moore and Pat Toomey at Club for Growth should straighten him out.
The final, and I believe the best choice at the moment is Mitt Romney. I wish he wasn't a Mormon but he has the following going for him. He is running on the right - pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-marriage etc. He will make us competitive everywhere. He is telegenic and articulate and so smooth on TV. He has been a phenomenally successful businessman. He has impeccable academic credentials. He is also the only Republican option who is still happily married to his first wife. There are those who will claim his record in Massachusetts is too liberal to be the Republican nominee. I would submit to you that politics is the art of the possible, and he did as much as he could do in that bluest of blue states. I for one will be delighted to have a candidate who can explain the issues who doesn't make me cringe during Presidential debates. We haven't had that since Reagan in 1984.
If not Mitt, who? And why? I would love to hear Freeper views if there is any other viable option I haven't considered.
Through the reading of books such as "The 5,000-Year Leap" and "The Making of America," by Dr. W. Cleon Skousen, one can see that leaders of the LDS (Mormon) Church have extraordinary understanding of America's Founders and the ideas upon which our liberty is based, as well as the need to preserve those ideas for future generations.
In order to understand any person's religious beliefs, one should, perhaps, go to the source, study those beliefs, and come to one's own conclusions about whether or not those beliefs are consistent with Christianity, or with some other sect.
A visit to this site, and following the links, will describe the beliefs of Mormons as it pertains to God and Jesus Christ.
Perhaps Romney's faith may not be such a mystery after such a study. It's worth a try.
Mark Sanford looked like a fool yesturday. He does not even know how to vote. Forget him. I would never vote for him. I think McCain might be the guy for us. He is conservative and pro-life. Now that we could possibly not have the senate and house for awhile, I definitely want a pro-life President. I was not for McCain until this last election now I was a pro-life President for 2008 and I won't settle for less.
Obviously you aren't an Evangelical Protestant or you wouldn't make a statement like that
He can't and he won't
I know people with close personal contact and actually work with Rudy.
He is no dummy, remember he had to win in NEW YORK, he has common sense, he wouldn't be pushing socially liberal issues at all.
He would be the common sense/no nonsense guy we wish Bush was on immigration.
He would be aggressive on terrorism, remember him throwing Arafat out in the street, you wouldn't be hearing about the religion of peace everyday, believe me.
When I think of Guiliani I think of the raw deal towards Bernard Goetz. I question his commitment to the 2nd Amendment.
When I think of Gingrich I think of lack of faithfulness to his wife. Would he easily turn his back on those to whom he does not take a vow.
When I think of Romney I think of the successful SLC Olympics, but no significant political experience.
I think the CONSERVATIVE candidate has yet to reveal her/him self. History tells us it will not be a US Senator (sorry John Mc [sarc]).
Somtimes I think we discard too easily candidates that have lost a race. I seem to recall that our 16th President lost a few races for Postmaster.
Gwjack
RNC Chairman will resign this week to join Rudy Giulliani's team according to Hugh Hewitt.
Although I like Mitt Romney a lot as he's closer to my views, I'm supporting Giulliani because too much is at stake in 2008 to let the Democrats win the Presidency.
Rudy would beat ANY Democrat, and he's said he would govern from the right, and Rudy doesn't lie.
He's also been a loyal suporter of George W. and of the Republican Party, way more than John McCain.
There aren't any Reagan's out there this time, so I'll settle for a Nixon based on electability.
(let the pro-life and pro-gun people start their rants.)
And people probably didn't think a cornpone Southern governor from Arkansas, who humiliated himself with a ridiculously long speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, could be elected President either. But he was. Twice.
Sanford could do that, I really think he could. But he'd have to carry a conservative wave into the House with him, else the gridlock on spending would be legendary. He has engaged in massive battles with the SC state legislature on spending, and they've overridden almost every one of his spending vetoes, but he's kept at it, and he's very good at using public opinion to bring leverage to bear on them.
I would be more comfortable with Guiliani if the executive branch didn't have so incredibly much power by executive order these days. If Rudy had to go through the Congress to enact liberal social policies, we'd have at least a chance of putting a brake on some of them. But in some cases, Congress can be dodged by executive order.
The one Republican I would have VERY serious trouble supporting against almost any other Democrat, would be McCain. A McCain/Clinton 2008 race would get me looking at seeing if I could get a visa to Australia for four years.
}:-)4
Rudy might be able to finesse these issues with the Republican right if he said social politics should be resolved at the state level and promised to name constructionist judges.
I am concerned that the Democrats will have learned a lot from the Republican stupidity of the last 12 years. I just heard Chuck Schumer say he was not in favor of raising the top marginal tax rate. If the Dems were smart enough to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, we would likely see them hold both chambers for a long time.
Mormon's are the largest supporter of Boyscouts.
You know, some of you folks ain't fit to live with. I bet the DUmmies are laughing themselves silly watching the self-immolation that is going on here. The quicker we snap out of it, the better.
Sorry, but that has to be one of the stupidest, uninformed post to FR, about political candidates, in the history of FR and I've seen some real pips, in the past 9 years. LOL
Why???
I thought of him, too - but what has he been doing since he retired from Congress.
I know.. They had both said that they will not run....
Why no hispanics?
Allen was never presidential timber. If he cannot comport himself as a senator without taking cheap shots at an opponents vidiographer, how would he ever deal with a well oiled Hillary machine. Hillary is coming. She has guaranteed literally hundreds of millions of dollars of free media coverage with built in hit-pieces on any republican who opposes her. She is coming. She will be the next president. We will enter an 8 year black hole, and where she will take this country will be abject socialism/atheism/homosexualism/redistribution of the wealth/rabid feminazi empowerment and heaven knows where else. This country is on the road to being undone. I hope we adjust. Get ready for a considered, patient enemy who will attack in our cities, in our schools, in our capitals. It is on the way, and we frittered away power to a islamofacist sympathizing democrat party. It is what Spain did and they will reap the whirlwind for years to come. Europe is very rapidly being forced to adjust to the fact that islamofascist taking over. We just, by this election, all said we have a cancer, but we are putting a bandaide on it, allow the enemy to grow stronger, and say, "Children, we didn't have the guts to protect this country and you. You will have to deal with it in our streets." God have mercy on this country.
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.