»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
GOP Viable
| The Alley |
|
GOP Viable |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. Who is a viable Republican candidate for President. The flavor of the moment seems Rudy Giuliani but I don’t see it. And John McCain I don’t see as the strong leader of a nation of three hundred million in a time of war declared or not. My personal favorite Colin Powell won’t run. It makes me think the Democrats will almost win by default. . |
||
| © Copyright 2007 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Generally, you're right here; traditionally it has been the Democratic Party throughout recent memory that has been much more disorganized in terms of their presidential hopeful field, where traditionally they've been more about lining up all the candidates representing different facets of the party from the Blue Dogs to the billionaire Massachusetts liberals, while the Republicans are more about looking for a leader in their party and suiting one up to command the party the next four years at least forward. This time around, it seems to be very much vice-versa. Although she can very much become the next Edward Muskie, getting stampeded by the rising anti-war tide by early next year, Hillary Clinton is still being inflated as a major face of the Democratic Party, with Barack Obama also becoming a political rock star in just three years. There's just no Ronald Reagans in this current crop of GOP hopefuls, and so I think to many Republicans right now, they feel their line-up of presidential hopefuls has rarely been this disorganized, with conservatives especially frustrated with the lack of a model conservative in the field, where the top four candidates have eight wives between them, each candidate has reversed their positions considerably in recent memory, while the candidates that are deemed more acceptable to conservatives like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are stuck behind that barrier that separates the primary candidates from the secondary candidates, making their messages all the more difficult to get out there beyond their home states. It really is a deep shame, because I desire ever so strongly and am rooting for the GOP to return to their roots of small government, state rights, fiscal responsibility, non-interventionist foreign-policy and environmental consciousness, and when the establishment favorites are the only ones getting the wider press and attention, others are stuck needing much more than a pogo stick to even peak their heads above that establishment barrier. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
Ratleader
since 2003-01-23
Posts 7026Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass |
If Condoleezza Rice were to toss her hat in the ring, Republicans would crawl over broken glass to vote for her, she'd pull a huge chunk of the black and "unmarried woman" vote that Democrats count so heavily on, and being both black and a woman, she'd knock the wind out of the "uniqueness" sails of both Obama and Mrs. Clinton. She's not a "pure conservative," but off the fringe that doesn't count nearly as much with Republicans (and particularly not with party power-brokers) as being a "pure liberal" does with those Democrats who wield the real power within that party. But she won't, so there'll be no Rice/Powell ticket to save the GOP's fruit this time around..... ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº> ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº> ______________Ratleader______________ |
||
|
Ratleader
since 2003-01-23
Posts 7026Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass |
And BTW, I've thought all along that Obama's actually running for Vice President -- trying to place himself as the obvious choice for Hilliary's running-mate, rather than making a full-on bid for the Presidential nomination. He's making a point of running on personality, her weakest point, and his appeal to black voters -- her second-weakest. They've had a couple of dust-ups, but only enough to keep the press interested, not to preclude their teaming up later on. ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº> ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº> |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Newt Gingrich will end up being the conservative's favorite just as soon as he tosses his hat into the ring....plan on September for that. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I think there's a great likelihood Newt Gingrich will run, and there's no denying he has a cult popularity among some conservatives, but he's never going to win either the GOP primary or a national election. His latest admittance of an extramarital affair in an interview with James Dobson of "Focus on the Family" has only sinewed dissatisfaction and skepticism with him in many voters minds. Virtually no Democrat will ever vote for him as they'll keep hammering away that he's a hypocrite because of the extramarital affair and is a divisive political figure, while even moderate Republicans won't vote for him because though they may admire and respect his visionary nature and intellect, they'll also conclude his ideas are wrong for the party, depicted as too close to the likes of the Falwells and the Dobsons, and will be more compelled to back Giuliani in particular. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
My thoughts, Noah, when I learned of that yesterday. Seems Newt had an affair while hollering about Clinton having an affair while President, and Newt was none too shy about crucifying Bill while hiding his own peccadillos. Historically, there haven't been many Presidents who were elected with pre-election marital indiscretions out in the media. I liked Newt when he was in Congress. I don't like the thought of him as President though. Just don't. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
In my view, I really couldn't care less about whether some politician had an extramarital affair or not in his/her life, or if that politician was twice or thrice divorced. Although I can understand that others may be more concerned about those things in that it may reflect a candidate's overall questionable nature, I'm far more interested in where a candidate stands on the issues overall, and ones vision in leading this nation. Infidelity and other such personal problems are the candidate and his/her family's problem to deal with, and if anyone should scorn or humiliate the guilty conscience over all else, it ought to be one's partner or family. Where I do mind, however, is when one is disingenuous about attacking someone else on any particular personal issue when that individual him/herself has resorted to the same sort of behavior. Unfortunately, both parties are stocked with these sorts of individuals, and while I do believe Gingrich is a rather intelligent, thoughtful and visionary individual, his whole credibility just gets called into immense question when such hypocrisy gets in the way. It's also precisely why I've been outspokenly opposed to Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee for president. Among other things, she has been adamantly vocal in denouncing the ethics violations of Republicans, from the likes of Jack Abramoff to the likes of Duke Cunningham, yet she herself has a whole lot of explaining to do regarding her connection to the Rose Law Firm billing scandal, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Senate 2000 campaign fundraising violations, Craig Livingstone, travel office firings, the Lippo Group and John Huang among other things. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Not to mention that many Democrats also benifitted from Abramnoff, and I'm sure you haven't forgotten the slew of Congresswo/men on both sides who filed amended finance/travel reports during the 'Delay Scandal', which I personally think was a disgrace. Not Delay, but the prosecutor shopping for Grand Juries to indict. Took 5 or 6, and that's 4 or 5 too many. But I digress. Personally, there's just something about Newt that is perfect for Congress, and not all that good for the White House. Perhaps it's that he was born looking for a fight, or at leat looks it. I'm just glad he doesn't look like Carville. Good Gawd. Newt has his own issues, but he seems to me to always be looking for a fight, and that's not a good thing in a President. Attorney General, yes. Congress, yes, President, not so much, though Heaven forbid we have another Carter. I like Carter on a personal level (Habitat for Humanity roxxors), just not on a Presidential, or Political level. That whole self-appointed Decider-of-Democratic-Elections was a bit over the top....I mean, he validated Chavez, who got votes through intimidation where nationalization of industry failed (also from Chavez..gotta love Socialism) and Saddam's 100% election (no get-out-the-vote act works quite so well as the very real consequence of rape, death, and mass burial campaign promise if you vote otherwise), yet decried Bush who won the first one on the Electoral College vote. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. It’s unfortunate that in the absence of a leader we going to settle for a character as President. . |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
It's too early to say that. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
"Isn't it interesting that the only monogomous Republican candidate is the Mormon?" -- Bill Maher |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
