Who is going to succeed GW?

[ampat]

Right now, there isn't a Republican presidential candidate ready to run in 2008. We don't need anymore "its my turn" Bob Doles. O'Reilly thinks hillary is a shoe in because the Republicans don't have anyone who can beat her. Cheney needs a rest, John McCain was once a contender but he has been wishy washy lately. Anyone have any nominees?

[savagesusie]

Condi Rice--definately! V.P.--C.J.Watts

[CPT Clay]

My .02
Condi will be Gov of Cali.
Hayworth Gov of AZ
Guliani, Powell, and Pataki are not conservative enough.

JC Watts is a great choice.
Bill Owens is a competent Gov.
Tom Ridge is a posibilty that I could get behind.
I heard that Bill Frist has no intentions of being Maj ldr for life and has ambitons for the presidency.

I'm unconfortable about the dynasty thing with Jeb. The mushy middle may not go for it.

[dsutah]

Au contraire! I'd have to disagree about Cheney stepping down! In fact, unless his health drastically turns for the worse; I think HE would be a great candidate! Not that I have anything against Condi, not at all. However, she would make a great vp to him, and would gain governing experience.

But if she ran for governor of Cali., she would get that experience also! She's just as smart, or more so than Hillary(though I must give Hillary her due!); she would learn quickly. She would also be a strong v.p. to take over for him should anything happen suddenly to him.

But back to Cheney. He's even healthier now, than when he ran with Bush last time. He's much the same mind as Bush. I think he'd make a great president! I do remember reading that Pres. Johnson had a heart attack many years before he became pres.; and look how far he got! He went from sen. to v.p. to pres.

If he could do that way back then, Cheney can do it too! There's a lot better technology for heart care than they had back when Johnson had his heart attack.

[Paul Ross]

I would not be surprised if they don't adopt that strategy. And by all accounts, the likely person is Tom Ridge. A more detestable RINO is hard to pick. He is right down there with Snowe, Chaffee, Spectre, McCain...

[Ravenstar]

Can't happen because ALL Republican fund raising plus 76 million of the taxpayers money go to the Backroomers. In three cycles(8 years from 04) I predict that a BILLION dollars will be spent by a single candidate(and his party),to get them elected to the office of the President.
Until only individual money is allowed to go to the candidates AND the political parties you will continue to have the Corporations buying the elections. The voter, unfortuneately doesn't vote issues they vote exposure. Look at Sick Willie there was no one more exposed than him.

Ravenstar

[7thson]

George Allen.

[Paul Ross]

I'm unconfortable about the dynasty thing with Jeb. The mushy middle may not go for it.

Indeed, wait until the media get ahold of the issue...just AFTER the nomination is clinched. They will suddenly 'discover' the issue and hammer it against the people ceaselessly.

[SunStar]

Right now, there isn't a Republican presidential candidate ready to run in 2008. We don't need anymore "its my turn" Bob Doles. O'Reilly thinks hillary is a shoe in because the Republicans don't have anyone who can beat her. Cheney needs a rest, John McCain was once a contender but he has been wishy washy lately. Anyone have any nominees?

Two words... Jeb Bush.

[dsutah]

Hillary, popular? Ha!! Hillary wouldn't be popular anywhere, except for the extreme, liberal areas! I can't understand this Hillary winning all over the nation stuff! The only way she could win anywhere outside of New York, California, or a couple of other places, is if some people cheat for her!

Do you seriously think Hillary is more popular than Jeb could be? Jeb could win hands-down over her, in most places, and wouldn't have to have people cheat to help him win! I don't know about other candidates beating him or not, but certainly he could beat Hillary!

[Paul Ross]

I predict that a BILLION dollars will be spent by a single candidate...

You could be right. Which is why a big media personality is needed. Anyways, with the new increased personal limits, we are going to see less emphasis put on PACs, not more. Individuals WILL have more impact. And, just hypothetically, if ten million true believers were to each put up a hundred dollars behind the right candidate, then, by golly, that DOES ADD UP TO A BILLION dollars, eh?!

[Wallace T.]

I hate to be a pessimist, but we have to face the likelihood that the electorate will shift further leftward with each successive election cycle.

First of all, the definition of "conservative" with respect to policy matters has been shifting. Those who hold to the version of conservatism espoused by the 1950s National Review such as Alan Keyes are considered far right zealots. Those who adhere to Jeffersonian, limited, Constitutional government principles, such as on Paul, are viewed as obstructionists or just plain weird.

The dominant wing today is neo-conservatism, which on foreign and most domestic matters differs little from the principles of Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson. (They are somewhat more pro-free market and more skeptical of Maxrism, however.) The "compassionate conservatism" of the Bush administration is merely the Great Society with a few "Amens" and "Hallelujahs" thrown in to please the Christian Right. The bottom line is: Goldwater and Taft would have recognized Keyes and Paul as allies and co-thinkers, while regarding William Kristol and Bill Bennett as being on the other side.

Secondly, every passing year sees an increase in the Hispanic population via high birthrate and immigration, legal or not. With the singular exception of the Cuban-Americans, the Hispanic population has leaned leftward. Historically, most immigrant populations since the early 1800s have been inclined to the political left, with the most notable exception being British and Dutch Protestants, and, to some extent and in certain areas, Irish and German Catholics and Lutherans. However, with the singular exception of the Eastern European Jews, upward mobility and assimilation tended to move the descendants of the immigrants to the political center or right.

The differences with the Hispanics are that they are united in language. Eastern European immigrants - Poles, Czechs, Croatians, Hungarians, and Lithuanians - came from a common geographic region and shared, for the most part, a common religion and had some cultural similarities. However, their languages were mututally unintelligible and national rivalries were strong. Hispanics of different nations share a common language and do not suffer the degree of national rialry that Eastern Europeans have. Hispanic leaders, unlike Archbishop John Hughes and Carl Schurz, leaders in the Irish and German communities, respectively, in the mid-1800s, do not promote assimilation, but rather fight it. With bilingual education, Hispanic TV and cable networks, radio, and print media, it is far easier for a Mexican to live an All-Spanish life in Los Angeles circa 2003 than it was for a Pole to live an All-Polish life in Gary, Indiana circa 1913.

The bottom line is that the Hispanic vote is growing rapidly and is owned by the Democrats.

Yet another factor is leftward political drift among native-born whites, especially in the upper and upper middle classes. The pattern of conservative parents and liberal offspring is a common one. Think of such names as the Tafts, Kennedys, Fords, Rockefellers, Pews, Buffetts. You even see the pattern of a liberal widow of a conservative husband, such as the wife of the late Ray Kroc of McDonald's fame. Is this just a problem of the very wealthy? Hardly. Look at the voting patterns of middle and upper middle class British descended Protestants in New England and the urban Northeast, the epitome of the WASP. In the 1920s and 1930s, they were known as rock-ribbed Republicans and their political archetype was Calvin Coolidge. Their grandchildren are almost as consistently liberal as they were conservative, albeit with some residual GOP loyalty, the so-called "country club Republicans." Their voting patterns are similar to those of the grandchildren of Eastern European Jewish immigrants, whose grandfathers were heavily immersed in one or another socialist philosophies.

Heroic efforts by private and home schoolers, evnagelical churches and parachurch ministries, and evangelical (and more recently, right-wing Catholic) colleges and seminaries may be insufficient to stem the overwhelming tide of secular humanism and liberalism, deeply entrenched in the public education system, from pre-K to graduate school, and in the mainstream media. One survey cited by Campus Crusade for Christ claims that one-half of those students who describe themselves as born-again Christians no longer use that term by senior year. Surveys also indicate that over 80% of evangelical Christians send their children to public schools. An unacceptably high number of them watch the same trashy movies and TV and listen to the same rotten music as their non-evanglical peers.

In other words, it is not inconceivable that the grandchildren of the Christian Right of the Bush 43 era may become as leftist as have the grandchildren of the rock-ribbed Republicans of the New Deal era.

I really hate to be a pessimist, but I fear that in 10-15 years we will count ourselves lucky if we can get a liberal Republican like Rudy Guiliani or Colin Powell in the White House, or even a less radical Democrat like Joe Lieberman. The train riding away from our nation's Christian and Western heritage and its legacy of limited government and inalienable rights has been on track for well over a century and I don't see, humanly speaking, anything strong enough to resist that train going all the way to serfdom for the masses under a self-perpetuating oligarchy.

[FairOpinion]

"Powell is pro-Freedom...

I wasn't for either war either, but I am also for Freedom... "

----

Please tell us how we achieve freedom by appeasing dictators who want to oblitarate us. I guess after we are all dead, we will be "free". Is that the freedom you are talking about?

[Texas Federalist]

Kasich, hopefully.

If I had to choose, I would choose DeLay.

No wishy washy liberal Republicans. Bush is as far towards the center as I want to go. Forget Powell, Guliani, or McCain. Might as well elect John Edwards.

As far as Jeb goes, I think we've had enough of the Bush / Dole dynasty. The last time a Bush or a Dole hasn't been on the Republican ticket was 1972.If Bush wins the presidency again that will have been 36 years by 2008!!! This Bush/Kennedy dynasty crap reminds me too much of a monarchy.

[dljordan]

Do we really want a dynasty? Jeb's performance isn't all that hot.

[FairOpinion]

I like Condi too, but I don't think she is ready, I don't think she could win. Not because she is not capable, nor because she is black and a woman, but because she lacks solid experience she can point at, that people would accept as sufficient experience for the presidency. In reality she may be ready, but in people's perception she is not, and in politics perception counts for a great deal, such as being elected or not.

She is a national security advisor, which in most people's eyes is not enough. If she did 8 years as a VP under Jeb, say, that would give her ironclad experience she can point at. I rather have her run when she can win, than run and lose, and have us get another Democrat for another 8 years to undo GW's progress.

[Paul Ross]

Two Better Words: Joe Scarborough. And another two: Alan Keyes.

[Maigrey]

I guess that's why I'm wanting some clarification of the issue. I'm staunchly pro-life, and have almost no compassion for abortion.

[grumple]

You misunderstand me...I'm not pro-war...who in their right mind is. However, I am pro Freedom and recognize that war is a necessary evil to obtain it. In other words...I get it...I have no explaining to do.

Semper Fi

[Ben Bolt]

Cant say that I do . Looks to me like the GOP is where we were when we ran Mr. Dole . I'll take another 4 with President Bush in spite of a few things I'd like to see or see done , I'm not a single issue voter .

The goal is to keep as much of the enemy out of office & elect deep seated conservatives . In other words clean up our own house .

[Paul Ross]

I hate to be a pessimist, but we have to face the likelihood that the electorate will shift further leftward with each successive election cycle.

Well if you hate being a pessimist, stop being one! :-)

Your political analysis is sound, but despair is not an appropriate response. I have faith in our Lord, and believe that all else is transitory and ephemeral, so while regrettable human failings increasingly attempt to submerge and bury the truth...truth will out. And we do know who wins in the end. Our job is to stand firm