Posted on 08/21/2006 1:58:57 AM PDT by indemnify
"maybe he is the "Reagan conservative" we need."
He's very much the Reagan conservative.
*ping*
Gilmore would make a far better candidate than the Republicans currently running. I'm still hopeful that Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota and Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania win reelection and are part of out 2008 ticket (either one would do great as the presidential candidate, and the other would add geographic balance).
Friends, no way no how. I haven't a clue who is behind this website, but this is ridiculous.
Gilmore has way too much "baggage," of the personal sort.
I thought that Gilmore wasn't popular when he retired. In any event, wouldn't he run only if George Allen decided not to?
Gilmore did lose popularity, mostly because of the tough fiscal environment. I can't see him making much headway against George Allen, not this late in the game. But who knows? Dubya didn't get rolling until after the '98 mid-terms.
I'm rather mild about Jim, if not a tad disappointed with him. I'd be hard-pressed to cite any major accomplishments during his administration (as Coop cited, he ran into some fiscal problems towards the end), and unfortunately, one of the best indicators of a successful Governor is passing off the office to a member of the same party. In that regard, Gilmore failed (if he had utilized his position as the de facto head of the state party, he could've brokered the ugly internecine battle between the Atty Gen and Lt Gov that resulted in the election of Mark Warner and his buffoonish successor).
Left out, more embarrassingly, that he was Chairman of the RNC during the Gubernatorial election to succeed him, so the loss of the office was a decided black mark.
Former cold war counter-intel officer. The Gilmore Commission was well respected.
Not exactly a "fire-brand" though.
Abortion was not a key issue in the '97 Virginia Governor's race. George Allen signed Virginia's Parental Notification Law the last year he was Governor.
Gilmore ran and won on his "No Car Tax" Pledge. Brilliant campaign strategy that turned into lousy policy. But that's another story.
Even if George Allen were out of the picture (and he's not), I wouldn't support Gilmore for the nomination.
No to Gilmore for President. Although, I prefer him to run to replace John Warner in 2008.
Depending on who he's running against, I have a hard time envisioning Gilmore even being re-elected governor.
This is an animated ultrasound of child at 10 weeks of development. Gilmore supports keeping the murder of this and similarly aged children legal. That's not a good thing for a Republican to support.
This child has not reached 3 months of development and Jim Gilmore believes that killing him should be legal.
While not as pro-abortion as someone like Rudy Giuliani, Gilmore is still too pro-abortion to be an acceptable Republican candidate.
In 2001, Jim Gilmore also expressed support for the principles embodied in the terrible Equal Rights Amendment. ERA was, thankfully, defeated through the efforts of the Grand Dame of conservative women, Phyllis Schlafly. That is not an acceptable position for a Republican candidate to have.
He supports socialized, government paid full college tuition funding for "needy" students. This is a very liberal position for a Republican candidate to have.
This is what I've pulled up in just a few minutes of Googling his postions on conservative Republican issues. Giuliani is MUCH worse, but Gilmore doesn't strike me as a candidate that I can get behind.
You're, "not exactly a firebrand", comment is relevant.
I remember Gilmore well from some of his past gigs, though others from his area undoubtedly know him better. Just my observation that - issues and job performance aside - he lacks the personal appeal to be elected nationally.
Gilmore = Gilbore.
And I have nothing personally against the guy.
"I prefer him to run to replace John Warner in 2008."
"Gilmore supports legal abortion through the first three months of pregnancy."
That's what the free market is offering, if you look at private colleges and universities. Is it "very liberal" to suggest government to follow the lead of free market business practices?
Gilmore didn't support abortion in the first three months of pregnancy, he was just conceding that as Governor he couldn't single-handedly overturn Roe v. Wade. He supported the strongest possible laws he could enact.
Pat Robertson was one of the guy's biggest contributors for crying out loud.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.8275/pub_detail.asp
"Gilmore acknowledged that the Supreme Court has held abortion to be legal under the Constitution, and, as governor, he could not change that. By accepting the status quo, he defused concerns that he might threaten abortion rights. Almost half of those who voted for Gilmore said they wanted abortion kept legal. They voted for him for other reasons, like his opposition to Virginia's highly unpopular personal property tax on automobiles, which Gilmore made the core issue in his campaign."
go visit www.draftgilmore.org - Gilmore is a staunch pro-lifer.
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.