Posted on 09/26/2004 1:54:16 PM PDT by JLS
Bill First 5/2 John McCain 7/2 Rudolph Guiliani 7/2 George Pataki 9/2 Chuck Hagel 6 Mitt Romney 6 Bill Owens 8 Tom Ridge 8 George Allen 12 Norm Coleman 12 Lindsey Graham 14 Sam Brownback 14 Arnold Schwarzenegger 66 Dick Cheney 66 Jeb Bush 66 Laura Bush 100
A pro choice Republican is just a Democrat that likes tax cuts.
Hehehhahahahahaha
I'vee been dying to use that line. Thanks!
You're not going to change the GOP so why don't you stop fighting us?
Didn't Owens have some messy marital problems that were made public lately?
I'm a little confused as to why you think McCain is more conservative than Mitt Romney. Perhaps I've missed something along the way, but everytime I've seen Governor Romney in the news, you couldn't ask for anyone to be a better spokesman for mainstream conservatism . . . culminating with his criticism of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
Bill Owens is the best of the lot.
On a different topic... Is there any serious talk of Giuliani taking on Hitlery in the '06 NY Senate race? I love to see him drive a stake through her heart. It would be his greatest service to this country.
Lincoln at least won at least one elective office before the presidency. Keyes will be oh for five.
Sounds like a plan.
Frist and McCain are pro-life, thus their relative positions at or near the top.
No pro-abortion candidate can win the GOP nomination. Rudy will not change that.
Tim Pawlenty !
Good point. Much better than just losing the IL Senate race. I'd also bring up the fact that when Lincoln ran for President, there were 4 legitimate candidates (Lincoln, Douglas, Breckinridge, and Bell). Whole different dynamic when there are that many legitimate candidates out there. Lincoln only received 40% of the vote! Had the Democrats remained unified, Lincoln would have never stood a chance.
As I said, I was only playing devil's advocate. I like Alan Keyes (although my respect for his political abilities is waining everyday) but he has no hope of ever being President.
I suspect the 100:1 shot on Schwarzenegger reflects the perceived likelihood of a Constitutional amendment before 2008. If it weren't for his Constitutional disability, Schwarzenegger would almost certainly be at the top of the pack, along with Giuliani etc.
I'm not a Clintoon mole, but I would vote for Giuliani in a heartbeat. Not all conservatives are social conservatives.
Tim Pawlenty !
I agree with you and Hugh Hewitt. Pawlenty is solid. The question I have, is 2008 too soon for Pawlenty?
I'm a little confused as to why you think McCain is more conservative than Mitt Romney. Perhaps I've missed something along the way, but everytime I've seen Governor Romney in the news, you couldn't ask for anyone to be a better spokesman for mainstream conservatism . . . culminating with his criticism of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
Being critical of, and doing something about, are completely different things. Romney talks the talk, he does not walk the walk.
While I don't think Rudy is the right presidential candidate for '08, I do echo what you say about not all conservatives being social conservatives. I would even expand that to say not all conservatives are militant social conservatives. I am pro-life (exceptions being made for rape, incest, and danger to the life of the baby or the mother) and I do agree with MOST points made by social conservatives. However, those are not my main issues. While important, I don't think they come close to the issues of foreign policy, taxation, and the economy.
The battles fought by social conservatives, while very important, should mostly be fought in society by churches and their membership, not in political debate.
I am very active in the Republican Party and have noticed a recent resurgence of the social conservative movement, very closely akin to the '88 surge on the behalf of Pat Robertson's candidacy. We have to be careful to make sure there is a good mix of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and moderates leading the party. When one faction controls everything, our chances of winning become zilch!
In case you haven't noticed, Mitt Romney is Governor of MASSACHUSETTS . . . not Kansas! He has to be in a precarious political situation to even voice ANY conservative belief.
People assume Governors have more power than they really do many times. Most of the power rests with the legislature. I couldn't imagine Massachusetts' legislature being friendly towards many of Romney's attempts at setting policy, especially any of the conservative ones.
I'd take the field rather than those options. I think a Sanford, Pawlenty, or Benson (assuming they're all re-elected) would stand a decent shot.
Pataki has no chance.
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.