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.
Barak Hussein Osbama, that's who!
post#138
I don't think that would be any good. Condi is to liberal(He needs someone to the right of him to balance the ticket)
Understood. But strange times sometimes bring about strange results. There has never been a woman elected either (and God-willing there won't be one in '08 either)...
Proven highly competent leadership.
Big Jim McLaine is the exception to that rule.
Steele's ok, but I can't imagine a better way for Rudy to quiet the social conservatives and get them on his side than to add Thomas to the ticket. That would end all concern over Judges etc...
2008 will (probably) be only the second Presidential election since 1948 where there will not be a Nixon, Dole, or Bush on the Republican ticket. Sixty years!!!
I changed my tagline last night because anything connected to GWB will get creamed in 2008 nationally, sad to say. Any candidate perceived to be "too religious" or "too radical right" will be painted as another GWB which will be a liability.
Rudy can't be connected to Bush or painted as a right-winger. He has already gone on record regarding SCOTUS picks. He can and will pull votes from blue states as well as red.
The 'Rats followed a strategery of running moderates and hiding their liberals. I think Rush is exactly wrong about what the Republican Party needs to do in 2008 -- running a very conservative candidate plays into Hillary's hands. In any case, who is out there that realistically is up to the job and very conservative?
Place Rudy at the top of the ticket and he'll run a moderate-to-conservative campaign strong on national security. He and Hillary will get all of the national media attention. Then put up our best candidates for winning in each state for Congress (conservative in red states, moderates in blue with some exceptions of course) and we could get back control of both houses at the latest in 2012.
If we lose the White House, we'll likely lose more ground in Congress and we could be out a long time.
Naturally, if we had Ronald Reagan we'd run him. We don't. Rudy is by far the best option.
As for McCain, his voting record is actually fairly conservative and strong on national security; his problem is that he is a political weasel that nobody trusts for a minute. He's about as electable as Jon Carry. He is a grandstander and not tempermentally suited to be President.
If not Rudy, who?
Giuliani 2008.
I completely agree, kruelio. Giuliani is the way to go. He appeals to more people in all parts of the nation than anyone else. Like it or not. And, it's way better to have Rudy than to have any Democrat.
Having sold the First Amendment down the river with McCain-Feingold, McCain is beloved of arrogant journalism. That love affair will last exactly as long as McCain is useful to the journalism establishment - that is, until he is running for president as the Republican standard bearer running against Hillary (or whoever). At the instant he got that nomination, McCain would cease being a cute "maverick" and instantly transform back into a member of the corrupt Keating Five.McCain-Feingold purposes to eliminate independent voices such as your posting on FR in favor of regulated political ads and the hypertendentious "objective" journalists. And McCain admitted at the time it was passed that it would need to be "strengthened." IOW, your rights need to be reduced even further. I admire loyalty in a friend, but I'm sorry to say that your friend does not deserve political support from conservatives. He is a danger to the republic along with the rest of the journalism party (nearly all the rest of whom are Democrats).
Beyond which, McCain is a senator lacking in big time executive experience (very few senators have become president), and (since no one has attained the presidency without attaining national office within 14 years of attaining statewide office) McCain is overage in grade.
No sale.
That's exactly what "compassionate conservatism" was all about -- and it's the only reason Bush won in 2000.
YOU have the power on your state level to do something about these issues, get a referendum on the ballot etc.
No, you don't. Every piece of state legislation I can remember that even attempted to curtail abortion in incremental ways has been challenged successfully in Federal courts and thrown out the window.
These things are SUPPOSED to be decided by the states, and they wind up in COURTS, so you can't have Hillary nominating judges.
Rudy is going to have zero credibility if this is the approach he takes -- twisting himself into a philosophical knot by suggesting that he's very much in favor of pushing for a Federal judiciary to support state actions to curtail something he has adamantly and proudly supported throughout his political career.
I would love a PURE CONSERVATIVE too, but if it's between Rudy and Hillary, I will be even more happy to vote for Rudy than I was for Bush because I know he won't waffle on the CONSERVATIVE issues he can actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT like Bush has.
Let's stop the "pure conservative" bullsh!t right now, because that a red herring in this case. If you were supporting a candidate whose track record is basically 70% conservative and 30% liberal, you'd have a good argument to make that seeking perfection is unrealistic and counterproductive.
Holding up someone whose conservative/liberal streak runs 10%-90% at best -- and then criticizing conservatives for insisting on "ideological purity" when they oppose him -- is a lot of crap.
Drier? Forget it!
Kasich? Old light in the loafers? LOL
Personally, I think Condi would give Hillary a run for her money. I'd pay cash money for those debates.
How do Mormons manage to look inhumanely clean cut? I can usually spot them in the distance because all non-Mormons around them look like slobs in comparison. I see a super clean cut looking teenager and I know right away it is a Mormon. Not meant as a criticism here, just an observation.
Rudy Giuliani's predecessor as Mayor of New York City was David "The Men's Room Attendant" Dinkins, who may well have been the most incompetent public official since Nero. Giuliani was succeeded by Michael Bloomberg -- a modern-day totalitarian Nazi if there ever was one.
Anyone who thinks the mayoralty of New York City is a good proving ground for presidential candidates is being silly.
NEVER!
Not to most of the voters in this country, it isn't.
Steele is perfectly suited to be a great Veep nominee in a campaign. That ticket would scare the crustiness out of the pantsuit.
We need Thomas to stay in the Supreme Court. His role there is too great, IMHO.
Well he was elected in Irish-Catholic Massachusetts and anti-Mormanism displayed by the Dems would be used to his advantage.
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.