My guy is Arlen Specter. He is from a Blue state. He is moderate. He knows Scottish Law.We're looking the wrong way. RINO's and Beltway Boys are NOT what we want in 2008. Here's a better list and we better get on this NOW!
For President-
Mark Sanford- libertarianesque fiscally, socially conservative Governor of SC. Unsure of foreign policy and immigration stance
Running mate-
Tom Tancredo-not electable nationally but might make a good VP candidate to balance the ticket-definitely a good guy to protect the borders
That's my $0.02.
I still doubt he runs, but if he does, he will be the automatic front-runner. I'm just hoping that if he is the nominee, everyone comes together after the primary. Even if you are a voter that pro-life issues are your number one concern, you have to agree that having a Republican president, regardless if he is pro-choice, will do more good for your cause than having a Democrat president.
Anyone but McCain.
The only way to keep the press from choosing our 2008 nominee is for one to be pre-ordained by the Republican elite now.
My guy is Arlen Specter. He is from a Blue state. He is moderate. He knows Scottish Law.The state taxpayers are paying for this "tourism" campaign, but, graciously, George Pataki agreed to appear in every one of the ads for free.
Totally free! That was so utterly selfless of him.
Rudi is pro-choice, that will hurt him bad.
Gen. Tommy Franks for 2008
Jeb Bush in 2008!
Unless Guiliani has a pro-life conversion, I don't think he will make it...
If he weren't a Senator, I'd say George Allen would look pretty good as a candidate. Family man, pro-life, from a southern state, reasonable conservative credentials, definitely did a good job on the Republican political leadership front in the last election. But, it's a conundrum. The main reason I know him is because he's on our side in the Senate. I don't want to lose that, plus the recent record of people running for President from the Senate isn't all that great. Governors seem to have the edge.
I also think all this hand wringing...(the ONLY, TINY chance republicans have of NOT losing EVERYTHING is to nominate candidate "X") is kind of strange considering the republicans have the presidency, senate, house, and a majority of governorships. We obviously are the more popular of the two parties and in a MUCH better position than the democrats. That not to say we are assured to win in 2008, a lot can happen between now and then, but it certainly not the time for doom and gloom over our "impending" defeat in 2008.
Repubs may be wrong assuming the "solid south" is a given. They run a pro-abortionist from New York and they will find the south won't be so solid. Whoever wins must carry the south. I'm for Sanford.
Another reminder why I am not a Hewitt fan.
Once again, Hugh is fact-challenged.
Pat Robertson did not win Iowa in 1988. He was defeated soundly by Bob Dole.
His prognostications about the 2008 race are about as sound, IMO.
Oh, he is also wrong about Buchanan. Dole beat him too, in 92.
Hewitt needs to hire a fact checker.
Tancredo
The only thing that makes sense for the dems is to try and pry some Bush states away. Bayh/Richardson would tip the EV's to the dems. I like Sanford, but I would put Romney on the ticket to steal Mass and NH EV's.