Posted on 09/06/2005 6:58:18 AM PDT by areafiftyone
What is your objection to Allen, Pawlenty, and Brownback?
Now? Only name recognition.
What is your objection to Allen, Pawlenty, and Brownback?
-----
We have a voting public that votes on many factors OTHER THAN substance and what is needed for the country as a whole. In this twisted environmnet, would these names fare well? Name recognitions? The same perverted stupidity and ignorance that "qualifies" Hitlery to be our C-in-C and President, are the same factors that disqualify potentially good and qualified Presidential candidates. Would these guys fight HARD from a conservative viewpoint and SLAM THE LIBS HARD???
I am afraid that is what it is going to take in 2008 and I don't see that level of fortitude here...have I overlooked a STRONG, CONSERVATIVE FIGHTER (oxymoron?) here???
More like '96. There are several reasons this doesn't resemble '92.
In 92 you had an incumbant GOP president who would have coasted to re-election but for several convergences that severely damaged his campaign:
1. His foolish and short-sighted compromise with the democrats in 1990 where he signed their tax increase and then took the full blame for going back on his "no new taxes" pledge.
2. The GOP primary assault by Pat Buchanan that drained resources into a defensive primary campaign.
3. The "Reform Party" campaign of Ross Perot with its singleminded goal of defeating Bush. (Every move during the campaign, the withdrawal, the re-entry, etc. was calculated to defeat Bush's re-election.)
4. The "Recession" and the media's complicity in clinton's "It's the economy, Stupid" campaign. Every economist in the world was aware of the FACT that the recession ended in March 1991 (over 18 full months before the election) and that we were in an economic recovery for over a year at the time of the election. The economy was growing, but the media continued to report as if we were in a recession.
These conditions converged on the Bush campaign from all directions and he lost a re-election bid that should have been his for the taking, making clinton the accidental president.
1996, however, was similar in that the GOP had a lack of clear leadership at the top of the party and chose to go with the lifetime achievement candidate. Dole was considered "most electable" out of the field of candidates even though he was clearly not a standard bearer for the party's agenda. If we run Guiliani or McCain because somebody thinks they poll well or are "electable", we will see a repeat of 1996.
With choices like that, I'll stay home in droves.
Haley Barbour. Interesting. Hadn't thought about him before for Pres. Good management style under stress (unlike Blanco). Personable. Good TV presence (like it or not, a needed quality in the video age).
I can forsee a possible third party candidate rallying the base over immigration. Especially if the Republicans go "centrist" and anger their base. Welcome back to the white house - Accidental President II.
Essential.
At the beginning of the campaign, no one outside of Massachusetts had heard of John Kerry or John Edwards -- even if they'd heard the name, it meant nothing to them. Absolutely no one had heard of Howard Dean.
All three became household names over the course of the campaign. You don't need name rec to begin a campaign. You need a message, some seed money, and a public record.
Coleman of MN. Bright, young (relatively speaking), telegenic, VERY conservative and pro-life without being considered sanctimonious about it. He dissected Mondale in the debates for the Senate election. He would also pull a Midwest that has been sliding blue-ish firmly back into the red category. That may not mean anything for the blue coasts, but it may help in the SW states as well. He has been all over the UN Oil for Fraud scandal, and not afraid to take on the big issues in a big way.
Generally a very good poll source BUMP!
Anything to STOP Der Fuerher Hitlery.
Everyone should say NO to the hildabeast, Bubba has for decades.
The very question is ultra-left wing propaganda. Rudi is barely a Republican and McCain is only for McCain. Neither one is likely to be the nominee in 2008. But, the left wing is simply lowering expectations here. They can say, "Well, neither of the guys that could beat Hillie have been nominated and they were her only worry."
I think he would adapt from governing a liberal city to governing a conservative country. I cannot see him treating the USA as NYC.
Don't think it will be George Allen. He has NO appeal. He's as dull as dishwater. I am hoping someone else will do it.
You mean there is more than one of you? Are you cloned? ;-)
Rasmussen should drop McCain from the test heats vs Hillary and replace him with Secretary Rice.
Wait until the conservatives are forced to run a 3rd party candidate in order to have anyone to vote for. Then she won't be trailing anybody.
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.