Posted on 03/07/2005 6:12:22 PM PST by wagglebee
You sound exactly like those who were sure that Ronald Reagan could not only ever be elected, but if he did it'd be a catastrophe of epic proportions. And these were Republicans saying this.
America is not interested in any Elvis qualities. America wants, and positively responds to, the truth.
Ronald Reagan had more 'Elvis', more 'Star Quality' than any Republican since Teddy Roosevelt. I supported him strongly.
No president has been elected since the invention of TV who didn't have Charisma, Star Quality, Elvis, call it what you will. Most Americans, not party activists, but average voters, never encounter the truth and wouldn't know it if it bit them. What you say sounds good, but it's Civics Book Fantasy, not reality.
SO9
You could put me on the ballot, and the fact that I'm not Hillary would likely be enough "Elvis" to win me the White House.
You should look at her popularity ratings among moderates and independants. You sound like the Manhatten Liberals who don't understand how W could have won since they don't know anyone who voted for him. Hillary is gonna be very hard to beat.
SO9
No, and that is the point. He seems to be someone who is very impressive when met, but that won't get it in a national election. A United States Senator who isn't a household name is by definition not up to the job.
So9
You can't possibly believe that, can you?
I've never met the gentleman, but had heard of Senator Allen long before I ever moved to Virginia.
I cannot in good consious support him. He was first for the AW ban then he changed his mind on the subject. I challenged him on his support for the ban renewal before his election when he visited Sterlingfest. He lost my vote then and unless he does something very powerful for the gun owners, I will not lift a finger to help him get elected in any office in the future.
Be warned, he's shown that he'll swing with the wind on the issue of firearm owners rights.
Mike
Well then you didn't express it very well. Because it came across as your saying the doesn't have what it takes to run for the office. I would suggest you do some more research.
Allen walked into the 1993 Governor's race in Virginia some 40 points down. He won in a landslide.
Yes, he's got some more work to do with national name recognition. Other than Jeb (and the country won't vote for another Bush) and Condi, there's not an acceptable Republican contender out there who is a household name. Okay, so there's Arnold, but he's not eligible.
I know George Allen personally. My wife and I have both worked for him in previous incarnations.
Trust me. IF he decides to run, either get on the bandwagon, or get out of his way.
I'm quite aware of her numbers, thanks. All her numbers. And I'm also aware of the electoral college.
You sound like a shill for Clinton's campaign.
[insert the "aw geez not this @#$@ again" graphic here]
Check his ratings with the NRA. Then go back and re-read what he said about the ban, and WHY he said what he did.
I'm not going to argue with you. But do some homework.
I'm sorry you're not familiar with him. But most in political circles are well aware of who he is. And apolitical sports fans will also recognize him. He's a former VA governor. And why do you think a freshman senator was appointed for two years as the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee? It wasn't because his daddy coached football. Allen's got what it takes. He was the #1 name mentioned as a POTUS contender by G. Will last week.
Count me as a bandwagon rider...MUD
I agree. Allen will build name recognition should he win the nomination. And besides, who knew who John Kerry was when he was running for president, and he still got 48% of the vote!
I don't go by the NRA rating... they are far too lenient. Sorry if I upset you but I call them like I see them.
Mike
I'm not upset. But you're not seeing clearly.
Please explain... I see it as someone who will flip flop due to public opinion. Why should we tolorate that kind of person in such a powerful position? I'd much prefer VP Cheney and Condi Rice as a ticket. I know where they both stand and neither one will waver with the wind.
Mike
As for your issue of concern, I know you don't like the NRA, but here is their summary of Allen's possition on the Assault Weapons Ban.
Campaigning for the Senate four years ago, former Virginia Gov. George Allen stated he favored keeping in place the federal semi-auto ban, saying his goal in "fighting criminals was to enforce, not repeal, existing laws."After studying the issue, Sen. Allen came to the conclusion that: "The simple fact is the Assault Weapons Ban only attacks the cosmetic features of a gun, banning some guns even though they function exactly the same as hundreds of other semi-automatic firearms."
He noted that, "In Virginia we have seen that incarcerating violent felons is the best crime reduction policy. I still believe our focus should be on criminals, not guns, and it should be on programs that work, like Project Exile and the Abolition of Parole."
Sen. Allen also expressed his concern "that reauthorizing this gun ban legislation will serve as a platform, inviting added restrictions on Second Amendment rights. The current law, then, only makes sense if the ultimate goal it is to ban more and more guns in the future, something I cannot support. This can be seen in several proposals that permanently ban a large number of guns that citizens lawfully use for competition, hunting or self defense."
If you study George Allen, you will realize that he has been completely consistent on this. He has always believed in enforcing the laws on the books. Lock away the criminals. He, along with our next Governor Jerry Kilgore, abolished parole in Virginia. He's not about taking away guns. He's about locking away those that use them illegally...and throwing away the key.
And here's the distintion with George Allen - Don't miss this - he studied the law and took a look at whether or not it was effective. And he determined it was not.
And that's the difference. When George Allen votes one way or the other, it's because he's read and he understands the issue. He does not depend on his staff to make his decisions.
FINALLY, the question in 2000 was hypothetical, what would you do? He was not yet in the Senate.
When it came up for a vote what did he DO?
And, if nothing else convinces you, take a look at how he pissed off the gun grabbers.
Anyone that does something to piss off gun-grabbers is A-OK in my book...........not that I had anything against Sen. Allen to begin with.
I appreciate a legislator (on any level) that will actually study an issue to make an informed decision on said issue........And how can one not have respect for someone that will state, with knowlege, why they have made a particular decision, even if it means having changed a previous position. I don't call that flip-flopping, I call it guts.
Didn't George Allen defeat Chuck Robb to win his Senate seat?
Yes, you have, I have, but the rank and file voter hasn't.
SO9
I sound like a hard core Republican terrified we are gonna lose to her by putting up a candidate all the conservatives know, but that the middle of the road voters it takes to win have never heard of.
So9
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.