Terry Reed and John Cummings
Posted on 01/17/2007 7:55:38 AM PST by seanmerc
Political analyst Dick Morris used a baseball analogy out of season to summarize what he considers the bleak prospects for Republican victory in the 2008 presidential election.
"I think you’ll see one of the minor leaguers win it [the GOP nomination],” Morris told Fox News Channel.
Morris thinks the leading Republican candidates – Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich – are "too flawed” to win the hearts and votes of conservatives in the early primaries.
"The top four candidates for the Republican nomination can’t win,” Morris said. "Rudy Giuliani, John McCain . . . Romney with all of the flip-flops on abortion and Newt Gingrich, who I don’t think gets into it.”
That leaves a cast of lesser-known Republicans in line for a surprise run toward the nomination.
"I think that the Republican nominee is going to be one of these minor leaguers: [Tom] Tancredo, [Mike] Huckabee, [Sam] Brownback, [Jim] Gilmore from Virginia, Duncan Hunter from California,” Morris said. "It’s like the pitching rotation is all going to be injured at the World Series and the Triple –A pitching staff, one of them is going to pitch the opening game.”
Morris suggests the GOP will face Hillary Clinton in "the big game,” despite all of the buzz surrounding Sen. Barack Obama.
"Obama serves the function of keeping Al Gore out of the race,” Morris said. "He just sucks up too much of the anti-Hillary vote, but he won’t win.”
Morris said Obama’s showing in the primaries may boost Hillary to victory in the general election.
"Hillary will run a vigorous race against Obama, probably a nasty race,” he said. "She defeats him, then reaches out to African-American voters and puts Obama on as vice president.
"I have said from the very beginning, Hillary is the Democratic nominee and she is the next president of the United States.”
I took the pledge long ago.
The wars K Street allows him or her to conduct. If it somehow became critical to the survival of Goldman Sachs for Ecuador to be utterly annihilated, we would have three aircraft carriers offshore tomorrow afternoon. ;)
And yet, somehow, actual armed physical incursions across a United States border go unsanctioned...
Nobody in DC works for We The People, and they haven't for some time. Oh, they'll throw us a bone or a tax cut now and again to keep us quiet, as long as it doesn't get in the way of The Agenda.
But I'm not a revolutionary and most Americans aren't either. We'll just watch the show unfold, and see how it goes.
For how long? Does he have to lose 5 primaries, or will you wait until he drops out formally? Actually, I've believed that Hunter, if he's smart, will run a low-key, positive campaign in hopes of being picked as the credible conservative VP. We'll see which ones he attacks when he gets desperate.
As far as pro-life, I only concern myself with judges when considering the president. I think all 3 would prefer conservative and originalist judges but I think only Romney would put his political capital on the line like Bush has.
I think gun issues are mostly fought in the states and only Guiliani would be eager to pursue any aggressive national gun control measures and I'm not at all sure that he would.
I'm quite realistic. I also vote for Senate and House and I want them to do some work as well.
Keep in mind that Ronald Reagan's record as governor in CA would immediately disqualify him in the minds of you purists. I think the comparison to Romney is particularly accurate there, McCain's record is more recent and Guiliani has not turned from earlier liberal views.
He's wrong.
And if he's not, God help us all, because we have 0 chance of winning with any of the folks he mentions.
All I know is, if Hillary AKA "Hitlery" is the next president of this country, I am moving out of this country!
Are you F*%KING KIDDING ME?!?!?!
How exactly have they done that? If anything, they've bent over backwards to the social conservatives at the expense of economic conservatives and libertarians.
Cite one way in which they have 'dissed' social conservatives.
That's why I think McCain won't get the GOP nomination, but Hillary will offer him the VP spot in hopes of garnering independents.
Gag!
I'm really not a purist. The 2nd Amendment is really my only "litmus test" issue. It is an accurate gauge of a candidate's mindset when it comes to the relationship between the government and their citizens. If a candidate does not trust me with guns, I don't trust them to govern me.
The liberal GOP has attached itself to the conservatives who win elections and come along for the ride since Reagan. Now they believe they have enough votes to toss not only the social conservatives, but also the 2nd Amendment voters, and win elections without them. (?) Either they are deluded OR they are working end the Republican party and to elect a Democrat who is much more attuned to their agenda than the conservatives ever will be.
Then the GOP is doing the right thing in moving to the left even further. Arnold and Guliani become the future of the Republicans.
Terry Reed and John Cummings
"If conservatives having anything to say about it, she will."
Maybe the voters don't like to vote Dum-o-crat Lite?
Isn't this a conservative web site?
Maybe you wandered off your ward or something...
-- well, we're in for unmitigated hubris if Her Thighness makes it to the White House.
---
God save what is left of our Republic if she does. There will be an all-out attack on the Constitution and our liberties, and wealth like this country has never seen. With all the money the Repubs have, you would think they could muster a good conservative candidate who WOULD FIGHT AND EXPOSE HITLERY for the unqualified socialist reprobate that she is well known as....why won't one of them stand up and be counted for the future of America ???
Based on an interview he had during the elections, any gun control agenda is way down the priorty list, if not eliminated since 9/11. We'll see what he says in the primaries, but he's smart enough to realize pushing gun control is a liability outside N.Y.C. and the like.
I agree. Guiliani is many things, but he is practical, both in politics and in policy.
Really?... I checked the news but I don't see anything, anywhere... Are you pulling my leg? :)
Dear AmishDude,
"A Ronald Reagan (who, BTW approved a very liberal abortion bill while governor of CA, which would IMMEDIATELY disqualify him among the purists today)..."
Although it was liberal for its time, Mr. Reagan signed into law a bill that merely liberalized the general law against abortion in California.
The legislation permitted a woman to obtain an abortion if:
1. The pregnancy was a result of rape or incest;
2. Continued pregnancy represented a grave health threat, either physical or mental;
3. A panel of doctors at the hospital where she would procure the abortion (abortion being limited by the California law to hospitals only) certified one of the two above-mentioned criteria.
Meant to permit limited abortions for women in extremis, the law also codified all other abortions as felonies under California law.
Unfortunately, the "grave health" exception was used as a loophole to permit nearly abortion on demand.
When, a year after signing it, Mr. Reagan saw how the loophole was exploited, he repudiated the legislation.
The bill, as written, actually codified about where most PRO-LIFERS stand on the issue - no abortion except in rape, incest, and real danger to the mother (although to avoid the exploitation of a health exception, pro-lifers now insist on language like "to save the life of the mother").
Thus, characterizing Mr. Reagan and the 1967 law as you did is very misleading, even false.
sitetest
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.