Posted on 02/02/2007 10:39:18 AM PST by Antoninus
"kind of off the point, What if hillary wins the nomination and out of the blue Obama runs independent, what do you think?"
Works for me.
The attacks on Christians of all denominations here is sickening, I feel as if I walked into DU sometimes...
I'm not sure why pro-federalists toss Reagan's name around so much. I guess he did watch over the largest % spending increase since WW2. Bush will be compared (fiscally) to LBJ.
This is our grand ole' party! This is the legacy of government restraint! The RINO socialist wing has gotten so puffed up here in the last eight years it seems to be the only thing keeping votes in the party.
What a shame.
It may seem spurious to you, but the fact that it hasn't happened in 126 years indicates that something is going on.
It has nothing to do with the merits of Mr. Hunter relative to any other candidate. I like him and he is a man that I could vote for.
History shows that a governor or general have a better shot. I guess it's an "executive experience" thing.
We need CONTEXT, wireman.
We know about the Congressman thing.
We also know that the others who are running, excepting Romney, Huckabee and Richardson, who were all governors, are in just about the same boat when it comes to historical precedent. McCain, Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd are all Senators. Also a near kiss of death in terms of going directly to the Presidency. Rudy was a mayor. When did one of those ascend directly to the Presidency?
That's why when you bring up the Congressman thing (which is all Newt was, too), we bring up the Senate and the Mayor thing.
I will concede that DH has a hurdle several of these others do
not have...lack of name recognition. On that, it could turn out to be fatal, OR it could be a plus if enough people are jaded with the names being forced on them from which they must choose.
Dear wireman,
"It may seem spurious to you, but the fact that it hasn't happened in 126 years indicates that something is going on."
Yeah, but there are LOTS of different sorts of folks that rarely or never get elected to the presidency.
No Italian-American has ever been elected president.
No one who was ever a prisoner of war was ever elected president.
Arizona has a rather bad track record with folks who run for president.
Massachusetts Republicans haven't done well in their quest for the presidency.
Folks whose only elected office was mayor have never won the presidency.
No Mormon has ever made it.
The last US Senator to be elected was nearly a half-century ago.
No one has ever been elected who has been divorced more than once, and only one divorced person was ever elected, and that was over a quarter century ago!
No one has ever been elected president whose sole experience in elective office was one term as governor.
There! There are at least three reasons a piece why it's just SO unlikely that any of Messrs. Giuliani, Romney, or McCain will be elected.
And, if it makes anyone feel better, no woman has ever been elected president, nor any former First Lady, and no sitting US Senator from New York. So, let's hope the Dems nominate Mrs. Clinton, because according to historical patterns, SHE JUST CAN'T WIN!
It may seem spurious to you, but the fact is that we've NEVER elected a twice-divorced Italian-American mayor to the presidency. SOMETHING must be going on there.
It may seem spurious to you, but the fact is that we've NEVER elected a former prisoner of war, sitting US Senator, candidate from Arizona to the presidency. SOMETHING must be going on there.
It may seem spurious to you, but the fact is that we've NEVER elected a one-term governor with no other elective experience who is a Mormon and who is a Republican from Massachusetts. SOMETHING must be going on there.
Or not.
The difficulty is that we just haven't elected many presidents in a bit over 200 years. Thus, there are all sorts of data patterns that we seem to be able to discern. Whether those patterns are meaningful or are just artifacts is kind of difficult to determine with the relative paucity of data that we have.
I'll grant that the theory that governors are more readily electable seems plausible. But that's a far way from saying that US Representatives are unelectable, or even to say that they are nearly so.
sitetest
"We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people."
For those crying that Hunter is a "protectionist," Wouldn't the above portion of the FR platform apply to the WTO?
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/10/duncan_hunters_voting_record.php
I'm leaning Romney right now. But I'm 100% sure it won't be a lifetime pol who clearly can't win.
No such thing as fair trade. That's just code for protectionism.
Saying you are for fair trade not free trade is the same thing as saying you aren't pro-abortion, but pro-choice, and it's equally meaningless.
Excuse me, I mean to say, that saying you are for fair trade not protectionism is the same thing as saying you are pro-choice not pro-abortion.
So, what you are saying is that because Hunter is a protectionist, unions will give up supporting D's and support R's. And that'll somehow make up for all of the business people, both small and large, that'll abandon him because he'll destroy their businesses through his protectionist policies.
Riggghhhhtttt.
I am in NH watch the Bos, MA news...Mitt is a Liberal..not a leader, weak on the illegals, until his last month in office..He would be great if he ran against Teddy...
You are aware that NYC is roughly 20 times the size of Hunter's district population wise, and that it's bigger then all but a handful of states?
Even I can see the flaw in your silly logic, and I'm not even a Giuliani supporter.
Dear zbigreddogz,
"You are aware that NYC is roughly 20 times the size of Hunter's district population wise, and that it's bigger then all but a handful of states?"
Actually closer to about 12 times, but who's counting?
"Even I can see the flaw in your silly logic, and I'm not even a Giuliani supporter."
There is no flaw in the logic. Whether being mayor of New York City qualifies one to be president or not (I don't really believe that it does - but that's another thread), that isn't what is under discussion.
Folks are talking about who is electable, and using past performance of those who have and have not been elected president as an indicator of future performance. Past performance shows that folks whose sole elective experience is as a US Representative seldom get elected president.
Using this past performance indicator, I see that folks whose only experience is as a big city mayor also don't seem to get elected president.
Thus, based on how many big city mayors get elected president, one could say that Mr. Giuliani is darn near to unelectable.
Now, I think that the whole effort of predicting who is electable in the future based on what offices those elected previously held in the past is a little foolish, and thus, don't really think that Mr. Giuliani is unelectable because all he's ever done, electorally, has been Mayor of New York City, but that is, after all, my point.
No one has been elected from the House to the Presidency of the United States since 1880? Okay. No one has been elected to the presidency who had previously only been elected as a big city mayor.
sitetest
"Excuse me, I mean to say, that saying you are for fair trade not protectionism is the same thing as saying you are pro-choice not pro-abortion."
That is an absurd comparison. Pro-choice is normally a woman's choice to destroy an unborn child. Fair trade is simply the people's right to not have national security manufacture outsourced to potentially hostile countries, or to have extra-constitutional bodies like the WTO superimposing their will upon commerce. The two issues have nothing to do with each other, and commerce is much more complicated. I know that an opponent of DH must be capable of much better discrimination. It's not as simple as a "Free trade vs Protectionism debate."
You're spinning. Like the abortion thing, it's a meaningless semantics game that means nothing. There isn't any difference between being for 'fair trade' and being a 'protectionist', just like there isn't any difference between being 'pro-choice' and being 'pro-abortion'.
Everything you say boils down to standard protectionist boilerplate. It's funny that you don't even seem to realize it.
I'll take care of saying what I am saying. I don't need you putting words in my mouth.
You don't have the slightes idea of what a protectionist policy really is.
Obviously what you are saying is that we should vote for Giuliani so that we can get the HUGE gay vote that would come in... Not likely...
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.