Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GuavaCheesePuff
Pataki or Gingrich would have won in 2000 had he run.

Gingrich is mercurial and so unreliable on many issues, but he would have still been much better than either Bush or McCain. Pataki is a RINO liberal like Rudy Giuliani, and would have been worse than either Bush or McCain. In almost any other state, Pataki would have been a Democrat.

GOP 2000 primaries were pretty bland.

On another thread, someone remarked that it was as though we didn't have a primary in 2000 at all, we just woke up one day to find another person named George Bush handed the nomination for the second time in a decade. That sounds about right. Like Hillary in 2016, it was more of a coronation than a primary. I knew W would be bad news with his talk of "compassionate conservatism" and his soft spot for Mexican illegals, but I wasn't prepared for just how bad he was going to turn out.

170 posted on 10/20/2017 12:15:50 PM PDT by ek_hornbeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies ]


To: ek_hornbeck

From January to 9/11/01, people saw W as weak and too naïve.

After 9/11/2001, is when he had to buckle up and realize that America would be at war.

Pataki would have won in 2000, he would have won NY.


171 posted on 10/20/2017 12:18:47 PM PDT by GuavaCheesePuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies ]

To: ek_hornbeck; GuavaCheesePuff

” someone remarked that it was as though we didn’t have a primary in 2000 at all, we just woke up one day to find another person named George Bush handed the nomination for the second time in a decade.”

That’s exactly how it seemed to me.


191 posted on 10/23/2017 8:32:55 PM PDT by Pelham (Liberate California. Deport Mexico Now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson