Skip to comments.
The Spectator is right: the Dems are playing for 2008...so who do WE want to run in 2008
Vanity
| 1/15/04
| self
Posted on 01/15/2004 12:34:52 PM PST by 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 ???
TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 2008; challenger; clinton; election; hillary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 441-454 next last
To: Salgak
I suppose nominating myself is out of the question...
= )
61
posted on
01/15/2004 12:53:36 PM PST
by
Mr. Thorne
("But iron, cold iron, shall be master of them all..." Kipling)
To: ChuckShick
Owens IS already running in 2008.
62
posted on
01/15/2004 12:53:39 PM PST
by
Pubbie
(* Bill Owens 2008 *)
To: Salgak
And to all the Condi lovers... is there any indication that she is interested in the job? She may be brilliant, but is she really a political animal?
MDP
63
posted on
01/15/2004 12:54:03 PM PST
by
Check_Your_Premises
(To crush your enemies, and see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the left)
To: GunnyB
Rudy in my opinion would be best suited for a run at the Senate. Get him groomed for a run at the Presidency.
To: BigSkyFreeper
"WOT and do something about the illegal immigration problem."
What are Senator Allen's policies on Illegal Immigration?
65
posted on
01/15/2004 12:55:01 PM PST
by
Pubbie
(* Bill Owens 2008 *)
To: tuckrdout
Rudy wasn't a serial womanizer. His wife went hardcore hard-left and was bashing his administration while he was in office. I don't think there's anyone who would hold it against him that he sought a committed relationship elsewhere. He's not Clintonlike in the sense of treating women like property - and he's very anticlintonlike in his straightforward, pugilant manner.
66
posted on
01/15/2004 12:55:19 PM PST
by
thoughtomator
("I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid"-Qadafi)
To: Salgak
We need to clean that lot out of the White House.
I say J.C. Watts, and Tom Kean.
Comment #68 Removed by Moderator
To: Salgak
Find Bill Owens a wife stat. Then, he'll be all set for 2008.
69
posted on
01/15/2004 12:55:54 PM PST
by
GraniteStateConservative
("Howard Dean is incontrovertible proof that God is on Bush's side in the 2004 election"- Dick Morris)
To: mad puppy
(apparently recently separated from his wife btw). Sorry, but that kills his budding candidacy right there. I mean, Ronald Reagan was married before, but that was in the 1940s. A guy with marital problems in the recent past isn't going to win the Presidency, no matter how good he looks on paper. (He also needs to stop eating at Chili's, and lose that chipmonk look.)
70
posted on
01/15/2004 12:55:59 PM PST
by
My2Cents
("Well....there you go again.")
To: Pubbie
And isn't Colorado kicking around the idea of requiring an equal number of conservative professors to be hired in Universities? I could really get fired up about Bill Owens running for Prez.
71
posted on
01/15/2004 12:56:04 PM PST
by
Tailback
To: Pubbie
I have no idea on his illegal immigration stance, but he's pretty firm on the WOT.
To: My2Cents
"George P. Bush"
Amen, Amen, and AMEN.
A bright boy, that one. And one to watch.
73
posted on
01/15/2004 12:56:11 PM PST
by
Gerasimov
(Oh calm down ... it was a joke. **mostly**)
To: Check_Your_Premises
he is not grooming a successor by selecting a viable candidate as VP. That's a good thing, IMO. In the last half-century, sitting vice-presidents have lost 3 out of the 4 elections they've run. I also think it will be a good thing if the GOP nominee can be seen as somewhat new & independent of the current administration, so as to somewhat counter the "it's time for a change" mantra the Dems will be using in 2008.
To: thoughtomator
"I think we have sort of a Donovan McNabb phenomenon going on here - people very desirous that she succeed in politics because she is a black woman."
Isn't this frightening?
Rice is more liberal than Bush is, and people on this board are always crying about how "Bush isn't a real Conservative" - and these are the same people infatuated with Rice.
75
posted on
01/15/2004 12:56:24 PM PST
by
Pubbie
(* Bill Owens 2008 *)
To: maeng
Rudy G. would be a real threat to Hillary.You would loose the conservative voter in the Republican party that sits home when a "moderate" pro-choice Republican is run. Might work in California, but you can forget the South showing up to the polls. And the party keeps drifting more and more to the left. With enough of a shift the Republican party becomes the old Democrat party. Count me out.
To: Pubbie
You need to tell someone to get Bill hitched. He'll be perfect, then. He does support Bush's guest worker plan, so some here will bitch about that.
77
posted on
01/15/2004 12:57:07 PM PST
by
GraniteStateConservative
("Howard Dean is incontrovertible proof that God is on Bush's side in the 2004 election"- Dick Morris)
To: Gerasimov
I'm leaning in the direction of Condy Rice. Takes all the wind out of the Dem's sails for running the first serious female candidate. "Oh, yeah, well ours is black, too.." -----------------------------------------------------------
Not to mention that she is truly brilliant.
I agree. I think she'd be a great anti-Hildebeast. Perhaps Rudy and Condi on the same ticket?
78
posted on
01/15/2004 12:57:39 PM PST
by
al_c
Comment #79 Removed by Moderator
To: Check_Your_Premises
I tend to agree with you about the dynasty issue, but, then, if Hillary is the Dems' nominee, which dynasty would the American people accept -- a Bush Dyansty, or a Clinton Dynasty?
80
posted on
01/15/2004 12:58:26 PM PST
by
My2Cents
("Well....there you go again.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 441-454 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson