Posted on 02/14/2006 12:01:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Who is your favorite Republican for President in 2008?
George Allen
Bill Frist
Newt Gingrich
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mike Pence
Condoleezza Rice
Rick Santorum
Tom Tancredo
Undecided/Other
"Can you tell me that you are pleased with this Senate? The House? This GOP? "
Not entirely, but expecting perfection out of human politicians is a futile excercise. Overall, given the serious nature of the GWOT, I'd give the GOP a B+ and the Democrats that are trying to harm our economy to get at Bush and symie the GWOT for similar reasons an F-
The GOP-passed tax reductions have helped the economy, and Alito and Roberts will restore constitutional integrity to the USSC. On so many issues, the problem is rooted in Democrat opposition to good conservative ideas - for example, I'd like to have individual accounts for retirement like Santorum correctly advocates, but Democrat opposition and RINO cowardice makes it a non-starter.
Democrats are trying to do bad things like stop reauthorization of the Patriot Act, but most Republicans are doing the right thing there.
They say 'the good is the enemy of the best'. Santorum isn't perfect, but his is a good conservative Senator who has done a lot for conservative causes.
My perrenial unanswered challenge to Santorum critics: Can you tell me of any current blue-state Senator that is any better than Santorum?
"Brownback has no chance barring a miracle. Not only is he not well known enough but faces the "No Senator" Rule."
Was that rule in effect during the Presidencies of John F Kennedy and Warren G Harding? Just checking.
"Brownback is hardly as popular as you pretend. I like him but most people have never even heard of him."
That's true of almost all Presidential hopefuls 3 years before the election, including the successful ones (like Carter, Clinton, and even then-Gov Bush).
.
BTW, McCain will be running with Hillary or as a 3rd party spoiler.
.
Point of order... point of order...!
This poll is flawed thusly: It narrows the options to the exclusion of the obvious winning ticket, Mitt Romney and Condi Rice.
Here are some reasons why I hold this view.
1.) Condi has said she is not interested in seeking the presidency, and I believe her.
2.) Mitt has announced that he will not seek a third term as Governor of MA, where he would certainly win re-election. I think he is the kind of guy who would not campaign from a public office. He will dedicate all of his efforts to his campaign.
3.) American’s are ready for a very well spoken, demonstrably honest public servant. I'm not insinuating that Bush is dishonest here, but many folks think he is. This phenomenon will make “demonstrably honest” a trait very appealing to everyone.
4.) Mitt is a very, very good campaigner, and has appeal in multiple regions. He will not be perceived as a smart-ass, New England liberal.
Thank You.
I yield the floor.
RINOism can only be an exception. And most of the critics call almost the entire party RINO except for a few on the fringe.
Please Reagan was better able to deliver his message the man was a media expert. W is not anywhere in near that expert but there is no less a conservative in the White HOuse now than in the 80s.
The most valid evaluation of Bush is who hates him. They are the scum of the earth and their hatred EXCEEDS that directed against Reagan and Nixon exponentially.
I don't know what the hell you are talking about and understand the Founders better than you appear to. If you believe I would surrender our liberty then you are a fool.
Reagan was no further right than Bush but was far more capable of using the media to communicate directly with the voters.
Plus his opposition was in complete disarray led by the incompetent Carter and the idiotic Mondale. Bush had to face much more formidible forces far better organized and practiced in control of the electorate.
"...assuming Pence has the stage presence that Reagan had." LoL he could be an Einstein too assuming he was as smart.
Pence is not and will not be a serious candidate.
It is a general rule just as that Condi faces of not electing a president who has never won an elective office. Generals are the exception to that one. Harding was also a lieutenant governor.
Kennedy was the mob/hollywood candidate as well so he had advantages no current candidate has.
Carter and Clinton were both governors and were well known as up and coming stars in the RAT party. Plus Carter campaigned against an idiot when he had to face a competent opponent he was crushed.
re:Mitt Romney:
Do you really thimk A Mormon can be elected POTUS? IMHO it is extremely unlikely.
Not only did we love his wonderful wife who passed on that terrible day of 9-11, but the man is extremely gifted and has the goods and brains to make a great President IMO.
Don't know if he would be willing to go for it, but I'd love to see him running and at least end up if not in the P spot, at least see him going as VP.
What a contrast to Hillary or any Democrat, right?
Not suprising that a Giuliani supporter would consider me to be "extreme". The quote by Benjamin Franklin is fitting.......as he had people like you in mind when he said it.
If these politicians are so weak and flawed that they are malleable to the will of others, why not bend them with light and fire to our way of thinking? You seem to say "Oh well" while I tell them to "go to hell."
If you believe that conservative ideas are extreme then you have bought their BS. Throw out the RINOs. Let the party know that they aren't welcome. If you keep voting them in, if you keep rewarding them, then we have no hope of changing them or replacing them.
You failed to address Santorum's record. It shows that he isn't the straight arrow that you think he is, but you ignore it. WHY?
One blue state senator (wannabe) that would have been better is the man that Rick worked hard to defeat -- Pat Toomey. WHY? Why did Ricky work so hard? Can you answer that or any other question that I posed?
I think Mac Lame will defeat Hitlery ---- in the Democrap Primary!
You are delusional if you think that Bush is a Reagan conservative. Reagan wasn't perfect, but damn near. Bush is a big government, borrow and spend, moderate who fooled people like you by proclaiming himself to be a compassionate conservative.
As for the next post where you don't know what I'm talking about - - - It figures, but here's a clue: You dismissed Franklin's admonition about safety and liberty as rhetoric.
I have no doubt that you are a loyal Republican, but I doubt that you'd know a conservative value if it bit you. If you were, you wouldn't toss out the words that you do in describing conservatives.
This is bald-faced revisionism.
Reagan was an ideological conservative, something Bush never was. Reagan promoted his conservatism in his writings and radio commentaries. There can be no doubt that he was a genuine conservative, regardless of what he was or wasn't able to accomplish as president.
Bush had no similar ideological track record, and seemed to be much more of a non-ideological pragmatist, with perhaps conservative leanings in certain areas, long before he ran for president.
I have no particular view on Pence, who seems mainly to be an unknown, but Reagan was clearly more conservative than Bush. That's not meant primarily as a knock on Bush, but is simply historical reality.
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.