The Spectator is right: the Dems are playing for 2008...so who do WE want to run in 2008

Vanity | 1/15/04 | self

[Salgak]

OK, gang.

Barring a catastrophe or another 9/11 attack, it's pretty much a given that President Bush will be re-elected in just under 10 months from today. That's been already listed here on FR today. And Jay Currie has a VERY good point. The Dems KNOW they've already lost this election, and are using it to position for 2008 and, God Help Us, Hillary.

Who do we have / want who is in position to run for the Republican nomination in 2008 ???

Given that President Bush would want to have his successor continue his policies, who you all of you think is a worthy successor to George W. Bush, and our best defense against the Hildebeast ???

[GrandEagle]

Mike Huckabee
Don't know him. Is he as fine of a person as Haley?

[wardaddy]

Tom DeLay as monarch for two terms suits me.

[LiberalSlayer99]

We definitely need another (true) conservative to get the job. Reason? Supreme Court. We need at least one...if not 2 true conservatives on the court...which means we have to take a few more Senate seats by through 2008. We need to stop the madness of the leftist court.

If only George H.W. Bush wouldn't have appointed Souter...

[Republican Red]

Condi would be my first choice.

Other suggestions:

Tom Ridge, Paul Bremmer or Rudy G

[NCPAC]

Barbour can raise $ - no doubt about that. I've met the man on a few occasions at fundraisers in/around DC: A great man with (for the most part) a solid conservative philosophy.

I've met Rudy as well, and he'd trash Hillary in NY - though I do have serious problems with some of his views. What I think it's coming down to in 2008 is: Do you want to win, or do you want to fall on the sword for the cause? Against Hillary,...I believe you've got to want to win.

Do you really think having Condi on the ticket would ignite a serious 3rd Party challenge, ala Perot (or even a Buchanan clone)?

[Congressman Billybob]

Rice's position re: Arafat and the PLO is, I think, a classic example of toeing the company line. She is so intensely thoughtful and thorough that I believe she knows that the PLO is to Israel as Al Qaeda is to the United States.

But that is NOT the position of the Bush Administration. For geopolitical reasons, Bush has refused to take that position. Rice is simply being a good soldier. And given the position she occupies, that is correct behavior.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread).

[Pubbie]

Owens is fairly Charismatic, very intelligent.

Anyway, All Owens has to do is win the same states W did and he will win with 18 EVs.

Owens can energize the religous and cultural Conservative base.

The only person who would excite the base more is Santorum, but I don't think Santorum is interested in 2008 (Maybe he would prefer VP.)

[My2Cents]

There are four to eight million people in this country illegally. What do you propose to do about that, other than bitch and hide behind the statement that this behavior is "illegal"? Do you think we have the manpower to round everyone who's here illegally and throw them across the border? Pan Pres. Bush's proposal if you must, but at least it's a constructive approach to a nearly impossible situation.

[Revolting cat!]

Rice with DeWine?

[LiberalSlayer99]

Rudy, sadly, is a womanizer....too many, clinton-like behaviors would be brought up and slung around.

That should make the Clintonistas like him more! However, the nation will remember him on 9/11, remember what he did for New York before 9/11, and remember him as a prosecutor going after organized crime. I don't see him losing to Hillary (I'm assuming she doesn't run so she can run for Prez in '08).

His womanizing won't be an issue either. Can you really see Hillary or the Dems making an issue of that after Clinton? It's his private life, remember? Though I don't approve, I can't see him losing in '08 if he chooses to run for Prez.

[Skinn_dogg]

Rudy would be good.

I sure hope if Condi runs she decides to get those teeth fixed first. I don't want to have to look at those things for four years.

[JohnnyZ]

Let's have at LEAST one conservative on these tickets to be taken seriously, 'kay? DeWine is . . . borderline.

[GrandEagle]

Do you really think having Condi on the ticket would ignite a serious 3rd Party challenge
Absolutely! She is not conservative in many of her views. She would be moving the Republicans more toward the Democrats than anyone.
I must say though that, as far as I know, her Character in impeccable. She is from my area..

[HapaxLegamenon]

The question was for the Republican nomination, not for a RINO.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Rudy is hard-over pro-immigrant . . .

The truth is that the presidency is an executive function, and neither senator nor VP is an executive position. Of all presidents who have seen their sitting VPs run for election to the presidency, only Reagan's, Andrew Jackson's, and George Washington's sitting VP were elected (granted that beating Clinton's VP was--ugh--a close-run thing).

Look back over the past generation or two--GWB, governor. WJC, governor. GHWB, coattails of Reagan. Reagan, governor. Carter, governor. Nixon, ex-VP (but his competition was a sitting VP; one of them had to win). Johnson, sitting president. Kennedy, Senator (but his competition was a sitting VP; again, one of them had to win). Ike, renowned WWII general. Truman, sitting president. FDR, governor.

Basically it's a fluke when a non-governor gets elected to the presidency. There is the occasional renowned general (tho Wesley who? is hardly that). So, especially with Cheyney's questionable health, you have to look to the Republican Governors' Association.

Who is the sitting Republican governor who has garnered the most votes? Jeb Bush. I think that makes him the early favorite. There is one woman Republican governor, I believe--but not so's you hear her name every day . . .

[HapaxLegamenon]

Not old enough.

[Ditter]

Please don't even bring up Jeb Bush. He could be the best choice but because his name is Bush most of the country would start in about the Bush monarchy. He would go down in flames.

[Pubbie]

"For that reason, the Rats and the presstitutes will kill him for it."

No big deal, the media will do that to anyone who wins the GOP nomination.

The media isn't as powerful as it used to be.

[thoughtomator]

The PLO is no longer just Israel's problem. It is our problem too, and PLO terrorists are attacking our troops in Iraq even presently.

Islamic terror is a single problem encompassing radicals from Pakistan to Syria to Saudi Arabia to Egypt, and more. This is a high-level mistake that I think is simply inexcusable, even given that it may be the "company line".

If it was truly just a matter of following policy, why does the fact that the basic prerequisite for the Road Map was not fulfilled - the PLO ending terror - not lead to an emphasis on that issue? This is a basic honesty and credibility value here, as in "Do I do as I say I will do?"; it is not the mere subtlety of diplomacy. That she is willing to take on that role does not bode well for being able to trust her word in the future.

[NCPAC]

Since you seem strongly pro-life, I find it interesting that your tag line is one of Barry Goldwater's most famous quotes. Goldwater was, in the end, pro-choice (He thought the pro-life stance fostered unnecessary government intervention in people's private lives). Point: Abortion views alone should not dictate who should/should not be nominated within the Republican Party.

I do agree, though, if you consider gun grabbing, tax raising, pro affirmative action and other social engineering/government intervention type views to it - you have a problem. As I asked in another reply: Do we want to win in 2008, or do we want to fall on the sword for the cause?