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

Vanity | 1/15/04 | self

[tuckrdout]

Oh you are right, the dems won't bring up the womanizing! No, KKKatie Couric, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and the other liberal media will do it for them...and keep it before the eyes of the public, who are like me, and don't want anymore disgrace in the oval office.

[woodyinscc]

You are right, "Same principle applies, though."

I was not trying to be condescending, you are always right on in your observations of the political landscape, and I always take heed of your views on the various races.

[MainFrame65]

In the past century, Kennedy. Also, Truman went from senator to VP for a very short time to president; Johnson followed a similar path, and Ford went from the House to VP to president.

[WOSG]

Cornyn would actually make a good supreme court justice candidate.

But not president. he's a bit wimpy on some issues, eg, illegal immigration, like bush is.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Yes, I was impressed with Haley Barbour as chair of the RNC. His leading the GOP to Congressional victory in the 90's is an impressive part of his resume. I have to agree with you about the chairmanships that followed Barbour, namely Racicot and Gillespie. I had high hopes for Racicot, since he was our Governor in Montana and I was impressed with his stewardship at the Governorship. He was impressive in helping the GOP cause in Florida after he stepped down as Montana Governor and become involved in the Florida recount in 2000, but he wasn't at all impressive as GOP chair. Gillespie falls short of his mark in my humble opinion. He's kind of leading the mushy middle Republican charge and not trying to steer the party away from the spend happy GOP they've become, rather than heeding to the GOP's cause of being fiscally responsible and not trying to imitate Democratic tactics by endorsing the proposal crap that is notoriously Democratic (ie open border immigration policies). The way the party is headed these days, only puts a slight sour taste in my mouth, that will only get worse if the GOP continues down the same track they're on.

[Pubbie]

You know, I'm in Connecticut, so I don't get to see him everyday like people in Colorado, but He's good looking and from what I read he has a good amount of charisma.

Colorado is a sort of swing state yet he won with 62% of the vote.

If he runs on a border control platform (As I expect he will) then he can go all the way.

[greenwolf]

George Allen (US Senator Va.) is presidential material and a populist conservative, somewhat to the right of W on most issues I would suspect. An Allen/J.C.Watts ticket would be unstoppable.

[Pubbie]

"Is Owens articulate? Is he presentable?"

proud American in Canada - Do you want to answer Urbane Guerilla's question on Owens' Charisma since you saw Owens in action everyday in Colorado?

[WOSG]

Santorum is awesome. He is a full conservative on many issues.

I dont think he is unelectable. In fact, he wins PA. If he can win PA, the midwest, then he wins in 2008 against the Dem, cause even if the Dem owns the Northeast and Cali, the south and mountain states would go GOP. That's a win for the GOP.

SO TO SUMMARIZE: THE BEST CANDIDATE THE GOP COULD FIELD WOULD BE SOMEONE TO WIN THE MIDWEST.

A Santorum would run strong there.

[Pubbie]

Rice is a total Trojan Horse.

[WOSG]

"He's kind of leading the mushy middle Republican charge and not trying to steer the party away from the spend happy GOP they've become, rather than heeding to the GOP's cause of being fiscally responsible and not trying to imitate Democratic tactics by endorsing the proposal crap that is notoriously Democratic (ie open border immigration policies). The way the party is headed these days, only puts a slight sour taste in my mouth, that will only get worse if the GOP continues down the same track they're on."

Exactly so.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Everyone, dont wait for 2008, and dont waste 2008 on a moderate... 2005-2006 is the CONSERVATIVE MOMENT. We will have to make the most of it!!

I agree. Even if it means holding the nose in the ballot box, we'll just have to take what we can get this time around and hope for better things in 2008. Nothing is worse than a rabid kook Democrat against a mushy middle "compassionate Conservative". Bush will get my vote. I'll wait and see what things are like possibly by 2006 when the political landscape for 2008 becomes more clearer. It's always nice to name drop and dream theoretical match ups, but we need to be realistic and start recruiting true Conservatives while we can so we can be ready to roll by 2008. Get Bush re-elected, then start planning for retention of Congress in 2006 and a Conservative GOP White House in 2008.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Since you seem strongly pro-life, I find it interesting that your tag line is one of Barry Goldwater's most famous quotes."

---

I believe that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue, even if Goldwater went wobbly with his old age. I'm named after the 1964 Barry Goldwater, not the 1982 model. To be more precise, I'm named after the strand of Republicanism that believes in the Constitution, individual rights and limited government, as opposed to the "Rockefeller Republican" branch that is pretty much "Democrat lite."

And for those of us who recognize that life begins at conception, to nominate a pro-abortion candidate for President---the man who is entrusted to make sure the laws are faithfully executed and who singlehandedly nominates replacements for every judicial vacancy from the District Court level all the way to the Supreme Court---would be tantamount to declaring that the words "thou shalt not kill" are a relic of a bygone era. I don't think the murder of innocent persons should be condoned, even if every RINO holds hands and yells in unison "but Rudy can wiiiiiiiiiiiin!"

[thoughtomator]

That's an excellent idea!

[tuckrdout]

Sorry, JC is not all we thought he was. He quit for good reasons, reasons the RNC knows about, and which will keep him from this job.

I loved JC and really thought he was a great guy. Still do. But, he has problems that the public doesn't know. Some on this board know, but I can not say how I do.

JC is out.

[Pubbie]

What are Allen's positions on Illegal Immigration?

[LincolnLover]

Still incredulous over the number of people here listing Rudi Giuliani.

Bright guy, courageous, emphatic, but have no doubt that should he win the nomination he would be the most left-leaning, economically-speaking, GOP nominee since either Gerry Ford or Richard Nixon (take your pick).

Jeb Bush sure looks well-positioned, and I always thought more of him than I did his brother as far as being Presidential material, but electing yet another Bush seems so...unoriginal, unprincipled, even.

I always root for the underdog, the fairly fresh face in such affairs, so here's to hoping this guy tests the waters come 2008:

Rep. Christopher Cox

I've been a Chris Cox fan for years now, and he'd be the most serious and most viable California-based GOPer to run for the office since *you know who*.

A lifetime ACU rating of 98 looks pretty spiffy, and he has those "John Edwards-like" candidate good looks (but a helluva lot more intellectual heft to him).

Not a proven fundraiser, though friendly with the VP from what I understand.

Book it: the nomination is Gov. Bush's should he want it, if for no other reason than he can run circles around all others when it comes to raising campaign cash.

[ILuvW]

"You are in dreamland about Rudy! What a nice fairytale....Geez, he had at least 2 affairs while still married....with children. This will hurt his chances, and frankly, I don't want another guy like this in the White House"

I'm pretty torn up about this too, as I love Rudy the politician, but Rudy the husband doesn't look as promising as president (though he did recently marry his lover). But don't you think that post-Slick, the bar has been lowered about as low as you can possibly go on morality issues? I guess the reason I'm finding myself splitting hairs like this is that I'm convinced that Rudy is the best candidate to easily beat Hillary in '08 even with his sometimes moderate social views. His fiscal views and tough-on-crime stands should make him pretty popular with indepedents and conservatives alike. He put away a lot of mobsters in NY in the 70s when he was a prosecutor and remember his brave leadership during 9/11? The other prospective GOP candidates mentioned just don't seem to have the "gravitas" to me (although a lot can happen in 4 years!).

[WOSG]

Thanks for the support of my candidacy!

Rice is wonderful human being, and a great asset to the GWB administration.

But there are 2 fundamental issues making it a clear mistake to consider her Presidential candidate:
1. Lack of experience in campaigns. This is a big deal.
IMHO she will never get the nomination for that reason and if it was handed to her by the 'powers that be' she would promptly lose the election.
2. On some issues, though, she is imho clearly not a conservative, and I want a conservative not a moderate as President. She is pro-AA pro-abortion and way too
accomodating to the palestinians.

Even with a conservative Pres there is so much cr*p the media pulls that it is hard to advance a conservative agenda. With a moderate, we are shut out.

Look, even with GWB we have things that dismay us.
I dont want to have to have "my" party putting someone
in there that starts making decisions totally at odds
with my beliefs. So I am totally against nominating anyone who is *not* a proven conservative.