Which Republican has the best chance of winning in 2008?

[COSPRINGS]

Another Simple Question. Which Republican has the best chance of getting the nomination and then keeping the White House for the GOP in 2008? I didn't include those who said they weren't going to run, such as Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour, VP Cheney, and Rick Santorum.

[lee66219]

Another Simple Question. Which Republican has the best chance of getting the nomination and then keeping the White House for the GOP in 2008? I didn't include those who said they weren't going to run, such as Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour, VP Cheney, and Rick Santorum.

I don't know. Right now I'm not real impressed with anyone. I am not supporting John McCain I know that for sure.

[BradB3030]

Honestly, I think McCain has the best shot.

He doesn't make the right very happy sometimes and he appeases the left a bit too much. However, the name recognition and comparing him to any schmuck that I could think of that would run for the Democrats...heck yes I'd vote for McCain

[ddye]

I was looking for a link to a story in today's Richmond Times-Dispatch, but haven't found it yet. The headline is "Webb calls Allen a coward amid flag-burning debate". He also said Allen sat out the Vietnam war "playing cowboy at a dude ranch". Webb was Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, and a war hero who switched parties when Virginia Democrats turned more centrist.

Allen's gonna have a tough time keeping his Senate seat this year.

Doug

[bsleplatt]

I don't know. Right now I'm not real impressed with anyone. I am not supporting John McCain I know that for sure.

Can I just say. Amen!

The Rep with the best chance of winning....I do not know who it would be specificially...maybe someone out there much more familiar with state level politics can tell me....

Someone who is a governor. Senators do not win Presidental races when they run against a Governor. Governor's lack of record ususally helps them on foriegn policy votes.

Someone who has little to no controversy behind thier election to that office.

someone who is from the church of reagen vs the church of bush....and who even if he believes Bush is the best thing since slice bread.....can say he only met him a few times and does not really know him personally.

Someone who beleives we must stay in Iraq until the job is done...and then get out and not stay one minute more. (you have to appeal to the middle)

Someone who people may not know the most about....but the things they learn are good. Soemone who has appealed to Democrats in their state...without being seen as someone who gives in to the other side.

And Most importantly....someone who is probably from the south or midwest...But is willing to pick a candidate to run with them who is seen as "cosmopolitian"...maybe even from the northeast or California. ...and that person can be a hardline person as long as He is accepted for those beliefs and not torn apart on a regular bases.

[withoutfeathers]

Massachucetts governor Mitt Romney.
http://newyeargala.ntdtv.com/2005/en/greet/i/mitt_romney.jpg

[croupier101]

Massachucetts governor Mitt Romney.
http://newyeargala.ntdtv.com/2005/en/greet/i/mitt_romney.jpg

I could handle Romney. Definitely could be alot worse.

McCain and Rice wouldn't be so bad either.

Just not Allen. Yikes.

[Kentucky Thinker]

I voted for Guiliani. He's media savvy and is from a very populous state that still views him somewhat favorably. He is also pro-gay and pro-abortion, and those views are apparently in compliance with the GOP and it's voters.

[bsleplatt]

Massachucetts governor Mitt Romney.
http://newyeargala.ntdtv.com/2005/en/greet/i/mitt_romney.jpg

He is the type of VP candidate I am takling about...but he will not win the south with Gay Marriage in some states being from Mass. They may turn thier nose and vote for him.... But many would just not show up to vote. That is why the candidate must be seen as "one of thier own" and be from the south or the midwest.

[COSPRINGS]

He is the type of VP candidate I am takling about...but he will not win the south with Gay Marriage in some states being from Mass. They may turn thier nose and vote for him.... But many would just not show up to vote. That is why the candidate must be seen as "one of thier own" and be from the south or the midwest.


The south will vote GOP unless the Dems win in a massive landslide. The GOP would be smart to pick a GOPer from a Blue state, in my view.

[pattyk]

they'll have to find someone we don't know about yet.

[czzzaar]

I don't care who wins as long as it isn't that slimebag John McCain. I'm still waiting for that $50 per hour job picking vegetables John.

[margaretms]

I could handle Romney. Definitely could be alot worse.

McCain and Rice wouldn't be so bad either.

Just not Allen. Yikes.

The real yikes applies to the idea that some on the right here would not vote for a McCain and Rice ticket because *you* support them. I'd take a look at McCain, and I wouldn't be--at least from a pre-campaign standpoint--****ed if he won. Just give me someone whose snorkel seems to lead to "reality," and I will be relatively happy, regardless of his or her policy choices.

[margaretms]

I don't care who wins as long as it isn't that slimebag John McCain. I'm still waiting for that $50 per hour job picking vegetables John.

What makes John McCain more unfit for the Presidency than our current COC?

[bsleplatt]

The south will vote GOP unless the Dems win in a massive landslide. The GOP would be smart to pick a GOPer from a Blue state, in my view.

The problem is if people just do not show up to vote.

If we see state's putting issues on the ballet that will get people in mass out to vote..yes. But you will see extremly low turnouts if the person they are wanting is from Mass...when you saw such "disdain" over gay marraige in the last presidental election.

As I said, they may turn thier heads and vote anyway for him....but you are going to end up with people just not showing up to vote..and the chance at another President who wins by electoral but not by popularity and another 4 years of "stolen election claims".

[withoutfeathers]

He is the type of VP candidate I am takling about...but he will not win the south with Gay Marriage in some states being from Mass. They may turn thier nose and vote for him.... But many would just not show up to vote. That is why the candidate must be seen as "one of thier own" and be from the south or the midwest.Romney strongly opposes both gay marriage, but supports domestic partnership rights. He lobbied the U.S. Senate in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

[bsleplatt]

What makes John McCain more unfit for the Presidency than our current COC?

As someone who lived in Arizona and was faced with whether to vote for him or not...where should I start? I lived in Phoenix for 6 years after my mom died....my oldest 2 children were born in Scottsdale....where should I start with how bad he has been as a representative of that state?

I do not trust the man to start with...with good reason of course...

[croupier101]

The real yikes applies to the idea that some on the right here would not vote for a McCain and Rice ticket because *you* support them. I'd take a look at McCain, and I wouldn't be--at least from a pre-campaign standpoint--****ed if he won. Just give me someone whose snorkel seems to lead to "reality," and I will be relatively happy, regardless of his or her policy choices.

Agreed Margaret. The new Republican strategy is actually not that bad for those of us who usually vote Democrat.

Their #1 concern in today's political climate is to WIN. They nominate the easier candidates to get elected, which usually means more moderate conservatives with a base in reality like McCain.

Hopefully we will see this trend continue.

That is an important reason why the last 6 years haven't seen nearly the amount of conservative legislation we all expected to see. With control of every branch and committee, the far right has been held in check rather well.

[B' en Natuf]

I was looking for a link to a story in today's Richmond Times-Dispatch, but haven't found it yet. The headline is "Webb calls Allen a coward amid flag-burning debate". He also said Allen sat out the Vietnam war "playing cowboy at a dude ranch". Webb was Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, and a war hero who switched parties when Virginia Democrats turned more centrist.

Allen's gonna have a tough time keeping his Senate seat this year.

Doug

Keep smokin'...it'll get better

[withoutfeathers]

The real yikes applies to the idea that some on the right here would not vote for a McCain and Rice ticket because *you* support them. I'd take a look at McCain, and I wouldn't be--at least from a pre-campaign standpoint--****ed if he won. Just give me someone whose snorkel seems to lead to "reality," and I will be relatively happy, regardless of his or her policy choices.I don't think there is much chance that McCain would want ot run as Condi's VP. Just as well, I would rather see Condi choose someone like Jon Huntsman, Utah governor, if she accepts the nomination.

[croupier101]

I don't think there is much chance that McCain would want ot run as Condi's VP. Just as well, I would rather see Condi choose someone like Jon Huntsman, Utah governor, if she accepts the nomination.

I would be over-joyed if Rice won the nomination, and would consider voting for her if the Democratic candidate wasn't to my liking.

She'd get my vote over Hilary.

[withoutfeathers]

Agreed Margaret. The new Republican strategy is actually not that bad for those of us who usually vote Democrat.

Their #1 concern in today's political climate is to WIN. They nominate the easier candidates to get elected, which usually means more moderate conservatives with a base in reality like McCain.McCain has no base in the Republican party. He is a Democrat favorite for the nomination, but there is little chance that Democrats would cross over to vote for him in an actual election.

[COSPRINGS]

The problem is if people just do not show up to vote.

If we see state's putting issues on the ballet that will get people in mass out to vote..yes. But you will see extremly low turnouts if the person they are wanting is from Mass...when you saw such "disdain" over gay marraige in the last presidental election.

As I said, they may turn thier heads and vote anyway for him....but you are going to end up with people just not showing up to vote..and the chance at another President who wins by electoral but not by popularity and another 4 years of "stolen election claims".

The game is winning. The reason that the Dems said the 2000 and 2004 election was "stolen" was because they believed that they were "cheated" in Florida and Ohio, respectively. It wasn’t because they won or lost the popular vote.

[withoutfeathers]

I would be over-joyed if Rice won the nomination, and would consider voting for her if the Democratic candidate wasn't to my liking.

She'd get my vote over Hilary.I knew there was something about you I liked. ;)

[bsleplatt]

Romney strongly opposes both gay marriage, but supports domestic partnership rights. He lobbied the U.S. Senate in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

It is not nessassarily how he feels on the issue that matters though. Voters are a strange bunch. It is how they will percieve him being from Mass. Does that make sense? I feel like I can not find the words to express this.

I am currently living in the "deep south" and the radio station I listen to....everyday they say "Your only country station for those of us here from the 'real deep south' ". What in the world does that mean???? It is a different mentality. How he actually feels on an issue, will not be heard. They will stop listening when they hear "From Mass" and someone says..."hey, isnt that the state that allows homosexuals to marry?" only...they will probably not say it as kind as what I said it. Where he is from will stop people from listening to what he says.

Where presidents are from matter. Look at how many states have NEVER had a POTUS elected from them. It is ususally the first thing potential voters know about a candidate.

[KAOSKTRL]

US Senator John S. McCain III (Arizona)
croupier101, ddye, noose4

see the gleafull hopefulll , they know they got a good thing going with this has been

[bsleplatt]

The game is winning. The reason that the Dems said the 2000 and 2004 election was "stolen" was because they believed that they were "cheated" in Florida and Ohio, respectively. It wasn’t because they won or lost the popular vote.

The last thing this country needs though is more controversy. The only way those who still scream about stolen elections are ever going to get past it...is to get out of the controversy all together.

Bush won. IT really is that simple. However, nothing is ever simple.

[croupier101]

Bush won. IT really is that simple.

Yep, and America lost, IT really is that simple. ;)

[margaretms]

As someone who lived in Arizona and was faced with whether to vote for him or not...where should I start? I lived in Phoenix for 6 years after my mom died....my oldest 2 children were born in Scottsdale....where should I start with how bad he has been as a representative of that state?

I do not trust the man to start with...with good reason of course...

He's that bad? If he was your senator, I give you a voice and a lot of respect on this issue, that's for sure. I don't live in Arizona. He was that bad of a senator? Why does he win? And I am not sure why he's less trustworthy than other politicians.

[bsleplatt]

Yep, and America lost, IT really is that simple. ;)

:)) differance of opinion.

But like I said, I think the country has just had enough controversy on the issue.

I am just stating what I think it really takes to win. Actually Democrats would be smart to take a variation on what I said when they pick thier own candidate.

[withoutfeathers]

It is not nessassarily how he feels on the issue that matters though. Voters are a strange bunch. It is how they will percieve him being from Mass. Does that make sense? I feel like I can not find the words to express this. It makes sense, I just don't agree with you. I think he would have more trouble in the south because he is LDS than because he is the governor of Massachucetts. He can demonstrate that he "fought the good fight" on that issue and probably prevented gay marriage in MA.

Southern conservatives have deeply held convictions, but they aren't insentient.

[B' en Natuf]

I would be over-joyed if Rice won the nomination, and would consider voting for her if the Democratic candidate wasn't to my liking.

She'd get my vote over Hilary.

The first thing we have ever agreed on...aint life great.

Dream Ticket

Condi & Newt or vice versa. Would deffinately be the most intellectually able ticket ever put up by any party

[COSPRINGS]

He's that bad? If he was your senator, I give you a voice and a lot of respect on this issue, that's for sure. I don't live in Arizona. He was that bad of a senator? Why does he win? And I am not sure why he's less trustworthy than other politicians.

He wins by a landslide every time he is up for reelection.

[chef]

I picked George Allen. My second choice, only because I couldn't pick both is Condi. The rest of them won't get the nomination and of those who can get it these two are the only ones capable of winning a national election. Of course McCain could win if he got the nod be just like last time he won't. A ticket with McCain/Leiberman on it would be dynamite and difficult to beat.

[bsleplatt]

He's that bad? If he was your senator, I give you a voice and a lot of respect on this issue, that's for sure. I don't live in Arizona. He was that bad of a senator? Why does he win? And I am not sure why he's less trustworthy than other politicians.

I have no idea why he wins...maybe noone better runs against him and they would rather just vote for a republican. But I heard nothing but complaints about the man the whole time I lived there...and I lived in Paridise Valley/scottsdale most of that time. People are not voting for him because they think he is just this great guy. That much I am sure of. My opinion is he is one of those people who gets in office and people dont know/dont care...and his name is familiar..look how often the news talks about him..so people vote for him not knowing much about him at all. its a theory at least.

[Guvnah]

Massachucetts governor Mitt Romney.
http://newyeargala.ntdtv.com/2005/en/greet/i/mitt_romney.jpg

Ditto.

[Guvnah]

The problem is if people just do not show up to vote.



Pople keep saying this.

I just can't understand the concept. Voters vote. Especially in major elections like presidential elections.

Frankly, I see a record turnout in the upcoming election because Hillary will be the Dem candidate. People will show up to vote -- either passionately for her or passionately against her (regardless of how great or lousy the GOP candidate was!) It will be a referrendum on Hillary, and I predict her political career will be effectively buried afterwards. For good.

[SonsofLiberty]

Another Simple Question. Which Republican has the best chance of getting the nomination and then keeping the White House for the GOP in 2008? I didn't include those who said they weren't going to run, such as Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour, VP Cheney, and Rick Santorum.

Should we support someone simply because they may have a chance at winning or should we support someone that agrees with our philosophy?

[bsleplatt]

Pople keep saying this.

I just can't understand the concept. Voters vote. Especially in major elections like presidential elections.

Frankly, I see a record turnout in the upcoming election because Hillary will be the Dem candidate. People will show up to vote -- either passionately for her or passionately against her (regardless of how great or lousy the GOP candidate was!) It will be a referrendum on Hillary, and I predict her political career will be effectively buried afterwards. For good.

I do not believe hillary will get the nomination. that would require that she beats everyone else in her primarys. If it came to a point where it looked like she would win...the rest of the Dem party would get behind one person to run off against her...and the other person will win. She does not have enough support within the Dem party. I do not think McCain has enough within the Rep party either.

[SonsofLiberty]

Massachucetts governor Mitt Romney.
http://newyeargala.ntdtv.com/2005/en/greet/i/mitt_romney.jpg


huh?? He doesn't even stand a chance at getting out of the primaries. This guy's a closet liberal, and coming from Massachusetts that's saying a lot ;)

[bsleplatt]

Should we support someone simply because they may have a chance at winning or should we support someone that agrees with our philosophy?

depends on what your own personal goals are I would say.

if your interest is in retaining or reclaiming power....your going to vote for the person who is going to win...or has the best chance at winning.

I am an Indepedent. I have voted 3rd party..although I rarely do so because it is more of a voting against someone. Like voting against Kerry by voting for Bush. However, Michael Peroutka was on the ticket in NM....and had Bush had a more slam dunk there I would of given my vote to a 3rd party. I think many 3rd parties mess up because they are trying too hard to capture the "big prize" without going through the lower level of govt's first.

[SonsofLiberty]

depends on what your own personal goals are I would say.

if your interest is in retaining or reclaiming power....your going to vote for the person who is going to win...or has the best chance at winning.

I am an Indepedent. I have voted 3rd party..although I rarely do so because it is more of a voting against someone. Like voting against Kerry by voting for Bush. However, Michael Peroutka was on the ticket in NM....and had Bush had a more slam dunk there I would of given my vote to a 3rd party. I think many 3rd parties mess up because they are trying too hard to capture the "big prize" without going through the lower level of govt's first.

I liked Perouka as well and had voted for him. If all we are concerned with is retaining or gaining power then our country is in serious trouble. When party trumps philosophy that can only mean that we are willing to sell our souls in order to be triumphant.

[Trip]

Honestly, I think McCain has the best shot.

He doesn't make the right very happy sometimes and he appeases the left a bit too much. However, the name recognition and comparing him to any schmuck that I could think of that would run for the Democrats...heck yes I'd vote for McCain



McCain is a Republican in name only.

Honestly if McCain were the only offering from the Republican party I would seriously entertain thoughts of voting 3rd party... that's how much I detest McCain.

[bsleplatt]

I liked Perouka as well and had voted for him. If all we are concerned with is retaining or gaining power then our country is in serious trouble. When party trumps philosophy that can only mean that we are willing to sell our souls in order to be triumphant.

or selling our souls in order to keep at bay something we are opposed. Hence, voting against kerry. I think and have proven right that Kerry represents the mentality that would send us off a cliff. NM was won in 2000 by like around 100 votes. In 2004, it could not be chanced giving those 5 electoral credits to a Democrat...expecially one like Kerry.

[wolfbubba]

I picked other, but not saying who. Heck, haven't even seriously looked out that far.

Not Condi, although I could see her running as a Veep.

Not Pataki nor Guiliani, although Guiliani has the best chance out of the list.

And not any Senator, this goes for Dems as well.

[SonsofLiberty]

or selling our souls in order to keep at bay something we are opposed. Hence, voting against kerry. I think and have proven right that Kerry represents the mentality that would send us off a cliff. NM was won in 2000 by like around 100 votes. In 2004, it could not be chanced giving those 5 electoral credits to a Democrat...expecially one like Kerry.

And if there is truth to this allegation about Bush and the creation of a North American Union I would say that we are being sent off that cliff right now.

[withoutfeathers]

huh?? He doesn't even stand a chance at getting out of the primaries. This guy's a closet liberal, and coming from Massachusetts that's saying a lot ;)Don't know where you got the idea that he is a liberal, closeted or otherwise. He's a pretty solid guy.

[withoutfeathers]

or selling our souls in order to keep at bay something we are opposed. Hence, voting against kerry. I think and have proven right that Kerry represents the mentality that would send us off a cliff. NM was won in 2000 by like around 100 votes. In 2004, it could not be chanced giving those 5 electoral credits to a Democrat...expecially one like Kerry.Politics is the art of the possible. I don't remember ever going into a voting booth without a clothes pin on my nose.

[Guvnah]

McCain is a Republican in name only.

Honestly if McCain were the only offering from the Republican party I would seriously entertain thoughts of voting 3rd party... that's how much I detest McCain.

I have stated plenty of times in various threads on this board, that I simply do not see merit in voting 3rd party. A vote for a 3rd party is a defacto vote for the Dem party.

However ... A McCain (or a Guiliani or a Pataki) nomination would give me serious pause to reconsider my position on that point. I could stomach them as the VP nomination, but as the presidential nominee, they are worth throwing my vote away.

(Ugh... And even at that, I can't get past the possibility of "President Hillary Clinton" or "President John Kerry"...) Dear God -- Please don't do that to me!

[bsleplatt]

And if there is truth to this allegation about Bush and the creation of a North American Union I would say that we are being sent off that cliff right now.

I still believe had Kerry won we already would be at the bottem of the cliff.

Somebody on this board (I believe it was Camn) said that both parties were going off a cliff...The Republicans were at least going the speed limit while Democrats had thier foot on the gas. i think that is a pretty good description...and was even more so in the 2004 election.

Now we are seeing a lot of Republicans who want to return to closer to Reagan's version of Conservativism. I think they are at least going in the right direction there. And Bush, for all his faults....I do not believe all the things I hear. Overall, I think he is a normal human being. no super powers or super villian there.

And as I have said before, even when I disagree with him.....i still respect the job he has done as President. Our nation has faced a lot of great changes in the last 6 years. He may not of done everything the exact way I would want...But i respect the job the man has done. AGain, I think he is just a normal human being....with a great task to do.

[Trip]

A vote for a 3rd party is a defacto vote for the Dem party.

However ... A McCain (or a Guiliani or a Pataki) nomination would give me serious pause to reconsider my position on that point. I could stomach them as the VP nomination, but as the presidential nominee, they are worth throwing my vote away.

Regarding "defacto vote for the Dem party" I would say yes.... and no. I myself have taken this same stance before. However I am so profoundly disgusted by the performance of the Senate as a whole and McCain and Spectre particularly that it is time to *yank* their chains and get their attention, and the cause so severe it might merit the sacrificial loss of the White House for four years. I would not be surprised that there is a growing contingent of those that feel similarly.

[Lady_Madonna]

McCain is the frontrunner on this poll, and is probably the best choice, but by '08 he'll be 71 (Reagan was 69 when elected). No, McCain missed his time. Gingrich? No way. Allen? Maybe.

[avergbear]

Guiliani would make New York a Red State and also carry Florida; Election over.

McCain is a possible candidate….on the democrat ticket as a running mate for Hillary. Conservatives will NEVER nominate him. Not now, not ever!

Guiliani isn’t my first choice, but he stands the best chance of running away with it. Hillary could not come close.

[Guvnah]

Regarding "defacto vote for the Dem party" I would say yes.... and no. I myself have taken this same stance before. However I am so profoundly disgusted by the performance of the Senate as a whole and McCain and Spectre particularly that it is time to *yank* their chains and get their attention, and the cause so severe it might merit the sacrificial loss of the White House for four years. I would not be surprised that there is a growing contingent of those that feel similarly.

I guess they didn't hear the Perot yank...

Look what that one got us.

[avergbear]

McCain is the frontrunner on this poll, and is probably the best choice, but by '08 he'll be 71 (Reagan was 69 when elected). No, McCain missed his time. Gingrich? No way. Allen? Maybe.


He is the best choice on this poll because all the liberals voted for him.

Live by the poll, die by the poll.

[COSPRINGS]

McCain is the frontrunner on this poll, and is probably the best choice, but by '08 he'll be 71 (Reagan was 69 when elected). No, McCain missed his time. Gingrich? No way. Allen? Maybe.


71 is the new 51

[Skyline Time]

I voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries. He was my guy! But 71 in 2008? That is getting a little long in the tooth.

[COSPRINGS]

I voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries. He was my guy! But 71 in 2008? That is getting a little long in the tooth.

79 at the end of two terms. But Senator Thurman went to 100. I think age really does depend on health.

[biggestal]

1. MCCain
2. Gualani
3. Powell

all the rest will lose to the Democratic Candidate esp any neocon ie Gingrich, Rice etc.

[Flakey Foont]

You republican puppets need to pay attention; the only one with any chance is the 08 nominee Frist, he has been anointed by Rove

[biggestal]

McCain has no base in the Republican party. He is a Democrat favorite for the nomination, but there is little chance that Democrats would cross over to vote for him in an actual election.

sorry to disappoint you. This donkey will be voting elephant if MCCain, Gualani, or Powell wins the nomination.

[RickRhetoric]

Sadly, the little pinko McCain I suppose.

[puddinstirrer]

I want to throw another name into the mix. I am certain this won't happen, but just for fun. If Hillary gets the Dem nod, maybe a Rice/Coulter ticket?
I would pay $$$ to go see the debates. Maybe a more realistic scenario if the Right wants to try and get a female ticket to go against the Hildabeast, maybe RIce/Dole (Libby)? In all seriousness, I don't know if Condi would be able to carry the south, that's why I attached Libby Dole to Condi. As far as Male candidates, I may go with Romney. Again, do not know if he could carry the south.

[COSPRINGS]

I want to throw another name into the mix. I am certain this won't happen, but just for fun. If Hillary gets the Dem nod, maybe a Rice/Coulter ticket?
I would pay $$$ to go see the debates. Maybe a more realistic scenario if the Right wants to try and get a female ticket to go against the Hildabeast, maybe RIce/Dole (Libby)? In all seriousness, I don't know if Condi would be able to carry the south, that's why I attached Libby Dole to Condi. As far as Male candidates, I may go with Romney. Again, do not know if he could carry the south.


I think Condi would carry the south. The south has changed alot more then it is given credit for.

[wolfbubba]

I think Condi would carry the south. The south has changed alot more then it is given credit for.

Well, she would carry the Republican vote in the south....

[withoutfeathers]

You republican puppets need to pay attention; the only one with any chance is the 08 nominee Frist, he has been anointed by RoveNot according to my copies of the daily talking points memos.

[withoutfeathers]

sorry to disappoint you. This donkey will be voting elephant if MCCain, Gualani, or Powell wins the nomination.Did this little factoid come to you in a dream one night?

[BradB3030]

You know what would be entertaining?

Prez Condaleeza Rice
VP George W. Bush

vs.

Prez Any schmuck
VP Bill Clinton

[jvn]

Just a quick reality check for y'all.

If you think that the "solid South" that has been voting for the GOP pretty consistently for a while now will support Condi Rice, you're dreaming.

Sure, some African Americans would vote for her because she's one of them, as would some women, but by and large you would see the South slip from Red to Blue, especially if the Democrats put Warner of Virginia or Edwards of North Carolina on the ticket.

Good luck with that...

[Guvnah]

You know what would be entertaining?

Prez Condaleeza Rice
VP George W. Bush

vs.

Prez Any schmuck
VP Bill Clinton

Unless you're talking about George H. W. Bush (GWB's father) and some Bill Clinton other than our beloved Bubba, the scenario you proposed can't happen. A guy who has already served two terms as president can't be president again. As VP, there is a good chance it could happen. Unless I'm very wrong here, neither guy can run for Pres OR Veep.

[COSPRINGS]

Unless you're talking about George H. W. Bush (GWB's father) and some Bill Clinton other than our beloved Bubba, the scenario you proposed can't happen. A guy who has already served two terms as president can't be president again. As VP, there is a good chance it could happen. Unless I'm very wrong here, neither guy can run for Pres OR Veep.

Actually, you can.

Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Neither one of them can be elected to the office. However, they could become President again if they did so by Presidential succession.

[Guvnah]

I'd be curious to hear an explanation from a constitutional scholar, Cos, with all due respect.

I could argue that beling ELECTED to the VP slot and then gaining the presidency by the death of the president is effectively being elected to the presidency. But I'm very willing to be corrected on that by some authoritative source and not just a layman's interpretation of a single word.

[Guvnah]

Well, here's what wikipedia says. (Essentially, it's not clear, and the jury's out.)

"Some have questioned the interpretation of the Twenty-second Amendment as it relates to the Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, which provides that anyone constitutionally ineligible to the office of President is ineligible to that of Vice President: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

While it is clear that under the Twelfth Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the President and Vice President, it is unclear if a two-term President could later be elected—or appointed—Vice President. Some argue that the Twenty-second Amendment and Twelfth Amendment bar any two-term President from later serving as Vice President as well as from succeeding to the Presidency from any point in the United States Presidential line of succession. Others contend that the Twelfth Amendment concerns qualification for service, while the Twenty-second Amendment concerns qualifications for election. Considered opinion though, appears to favour the former view of ineligibility.

Since the ratification of the Twenty-Second Amendment, no two-term President has later sought to become Vice President, and thus, the courts have never had an opportunity to decide the question."

[COSPRINGS]

I'd be curious to hear an explanation from a constitutional scholar, Cos, with all due respect.

I could argue that beling ELECTED to the VP slot and then gaining the presidency by the death of the president is effectively being elected to the presidency. But I'm very willing to be corrected on that by some authoritative source and not just a layman's interpretation of a single word.

Well, it has not ever been decided, that is true. However, two points. There IS a difference between being elected to the Office of President and serving in that office. The 25th amendment makes that clear in its text.

no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

The next point is, with your logic, shouldn’t a former two term President be excluded from any job that might involve Presidential succession? It might one day be smart to have a former President in charge of the Defense or State Department. Do we really want to set a precedent that my preclude that?

[Guvnah]

The next point is, with your logic, shouldn’t a former two term President be excluded from any job that might involve Presidential succession? It might one day be smart to have a former President in charge of the Defense or State Department. Do we really want to set a precedent that my preclude that?

Well, that's how I read the issue.

Of course, it may never arise as an issue. How many guys who have tasted the power of the presidency would be willing to demote themselves to Veep or Congresscritter (Speaker of the House), etc.? Which is probably why it has never come up in the past.

[COSPRINGS]

Well, that's how I read the issue.

Of course, it may never arise as an issue. How many guys who have tasted the power of the presidency would be willing to demote themselves to Veep or Congresscritter (Speaker of the House), etc.? Which is probably why it has never come up in the past.

Well, it does seem like a former President would get bored. I mean, your whole life is politics, you get to the top in your late forties or early fifties, and then once you are done you are just supposed to retire? I wonder why no Presidents haven’t decided to at least run and then serve a few terms in the Senate. I wouldn’t put it past Bill to try to replace Hillary in NY if she could win the Office of President. That would at least be some interesting news.

[Guvnah]

Well, it does seem like a former President would get bored. I mean, your whole life is politics, you get to the top in your late forties or early fifties, and then once you are done you are just supposed to retire? I wonder why no Presidents haven’t decided to at least run and then serve a few terms in the Senate. I wouldn’t put it past Bill to try to replace Hillary in NY if she could win the Office of President. That would at least be some interesting news.

He makes more money on the talk circuit.

Besides, he gets to be the default "father" of the Dem party without having to bear the responsibility of any office at all. The media still hang on his every word. He still has as much influence in the Dem party as ever.

[withoutfeathers]

Just a quick reality check for y'all.

If you think that the "solid South" that has been voting for the GOP pretty consistently for a while now will support Condi Rice, you're dreaming.No wonder you guys are so easy to beat: You actually believe your own propoganda! Republicans in the south have demonstrated a willingness to vote blacks into office, J. C. Watts, for example.

Sure, some African Americans would vote for her because she's one of them,Quite the contrary. African Americans have demonstrated that they will consistently vote against Republicans, regardless of skin color.

as would some women, but by and large you would see the South slip from Red to Blue, especially if the Democrats put Warner of Virginia or Edwards of North Carolina on the ticket.

Good luck with that...You might want to look up the history of the expression "solid south." It refers to a time when southerners voted solid Democrat for almost 100 years. The solid south cracked in 1972, then broke open in 1980. Since then Republicans have had to work every election to maintain dominance in the South.

[oldtimer]

Romney and Rice is the ticket. This country needs a little R&R.

From Columbia, SC paper: http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/columnists/lee_bandy/14998114.htm

[2nd Amendment]

tom tecredo, the only sane choice for America.

[wolfbubba]

Actually, you can.



Neither one of them can be elected to the office. However, they could become President again if they did so by Presidential succession.

Disagree with this.

The last line of the 12th Amendment, disqualifies both for running as VP.

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.


They're constitutionally ineligible to the office of the President, because of the 22th Amendment, which also makes them ineligible as VP.

[COSPRINGS]

Disagree with this.

The last line of the 12th Amendment, disqualifies both for running as VP.



They're constitutionally ineligible to the office of the President, because of the 22th Amendment, which also makes them ineligible as VP.

No. The 22nd amendment says they cannot be ELECTED to a third term. They wouldn't be ELECTED to that third term, would they? Where is the constitutional requirement to prevent someone from serving a third term by succession in office?

Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

[B' en Natuf]

No. The 22nd amendment says they cannot be ELECTED to a third term. They wouldn't be ELECTED to that third term, would they? Where is the constitutional requirement to prevent someone from serving a third term by succession in office?
they are constitutionally innelligeable to be elected to the office of VP too.

[CrusaderFrank]

Tancredo or former GE CEO Jack Welsh, otherwise I'm not voting.

[biggestal]

George Allen. :))

[carbinier]

Bumping only to remind everyone how predicitions and guesstimates several years out don't mean much.

Although in this thread it looked like the liberals foresaw who the R's best candidate was...

[Kermit McDermitt]

edit - thought this was for today lol.

[Claymore]

Political America has become a decadent drunk, intoxicated with hollow promises, guiltless sin, writing checks it can't afford, shamefully forgetting it's origins and upbringing, enabled by the promoters of modern-progressive-socialist-liberalism.
Like a drunk that needs to turn himself around, America will painfully hit rock bottom before deciding to take one of two paths. Either forsake the evils that brought it to this state of affairs, fractured, disoriented, impoverished, despised, and get it your act together, sober up, get ride of those evil influences, and regain your self respect and the respect of the world, or die and be shredded by the vultures, scavengers, and carrion eaters.
__________________

[PaleoPaul]

good times

[Patriarch]

I would say Romney, or Jindal. Romney has the Financle history to be a strong opposing candidate especially to offset and give a useful alternative to Obama's spending tirade.

I can't believe so many ppl voted for McCain? He is a one timer. Ran a terrible campaign. Put him up against Berry Hussain again? Watch him flounder.

Oh and please don't nominate Palin. I don't care if she wins over social cons. She is a lose lose candidate, that is actually less articulate than GWB.

[PaleoPaul]

I can't believe it...we actually thought ALLEN, NEWT, and FRIST would be VIABLE candidates...haha

[pattyk]

wow! blast from the past! I think I said Romney.

we may have to suffer another 4 years of a dem (maybe not Obama) before a rep gets back in. we need congress.

Mccain won't run I'm sure. Palin, I think she'd be great, but it's hopeless.

it's so far away and so much can happen.

[Penrod]

I know I would have picked Romney . I did on other boards. But the press picked good old Johnny.

One thing we have to thank him for. If not for him we still probably would have never heard of Sarah Palin.

[homiebrah]

Back in 2006, any Republican that ran as a Democrat would have won.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

My prediction for 2008 would be McCain/Palin v/s Obama/Binden. With Obama winning.

[gb2004]

US Senator John S. McCain III (Arizona)

bioya1, Brack, byzantine catholic, Centerist, cjmnews, Claymore, croupier101, CTAF, dad49er, ddye, jvn, noose4, philly5, RickRhetoric, VMA131Marine

:)):)):))And they laugh when we tell them McCain was hand picked by the left.

[gb2004]

edit - thought this was for today lol.

I did too at first.

[PaleoPaul]

Still, as a veteran member of the board, I just wanted to see how our viewpoints were at that time.

[conphu1]

I would go with Hagel. He's more of a moderate and I think more likely to be able to work with democrats if he were to be elected.

[conphu1]

My prediction for 2008 would be McCain/Palin v/s Obama/Binden. With Obama winning.

I don't really think McCain has the stamina to do this again especially with Palin. No way!

[nebcon]

I would go with Hagel. He's more of a moderate and I think more likely to be able to work with democrats if he were to be elected.

Working with Democrats is what got the GOP in trouble in the first place. No thanks.

[conphu1]

Working with Democrats is what got the GOP in trouble in the first place. No thanks.

So you would want all Republican/Conservative or nothing? Trounce on the democrats? Swing the pendulum back to the right dominance, dissregarding the rest of the country and their concerns?

[nebcon]

So you would want all Republican/Conservative or nothing? Trounce on the democrats? Swing the pendulum back to the right dominance, dissregarding the rest of the country and their concerns?

The rest of the country and their concerns are best served by GENUINE limited government principles. Principles that the GOP has dropped in favor of a mix of left and right policy that is incompatible and contrary. There are no polls or studies that are going to tell you that the general population has shifted left in it's core values. What you see is voting trends. Considering that no Republican elected official or candidate has even attempted to enthusiastically sell limited government ideas in more than 20 years, it's not surprising that so many are under the illusion that any big government solutions are in their best interest.