A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Foxfyre wrote:

If she should win the nomination, however, the Republicans better have a darn good candidate to run against her.

What a peculiar statement. I think she would perhaps be the easiest to beat of all (though Kerry and Gore come to mind. :wink:) Bush has to be the least popular guy to ever win a second election... and since Cheney isn't running... distancing from Bush should be easy, if required. Neither McCain nor Giuliani would have won a tight one against Kerry, they'd have spanked him. Gore and Hilary are both sorry substitutes for the man the Dems really want to run (Bill), and will look like exactly that (again) at the DNC. Biden makes more sense, actually has a plan for Iraq and can carry himself in front of a camera (a bit too much of a ham, but I don't think anyone watched/will remember the confirmation hearings. He's the man to beat... which is the direction I'd like to see the Dems take, thereby forcing the Republicans to run Rudy or McCain to avoid getting beat. Wildcard remains Obama... even as VP. The more time he spends in front of the camera, the more people will like him.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

What a peculiar statement. I think she would perhaps be the easiest to beat of all

Yep... echo that. If she wins the Dem nomination, we're f*cked.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

since Cheney isn't running... distancing from Bush should be easy, if required.

Yep. Bush's deep impopularity and that of his administration might help the Dems do well this year, but it wont necessarily do much for 'em at all in '08. Unless the Reps run Condi or Jeb Bush or Frist or a staunch follower like Allen, of course. But both McCain and Giuliani will look sufficiently New and Different from the Bush era that projecting any resentment against the Bush era to them just wont work.

I (still) think McCain and Giuliani would wipe the floor with any Dem... they're the ones too fear. On the bright side, even if they do win, things will be better than they are now. (That sense, of course, is what would help them win - no aversion among Indies and less strident countermobilisation among Dems. Gingrich, on the other hand, would yield both).

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Neither McCain nor Giuliani would have won a tight one against Kerry, they'd have spanked him.

Yup.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I (still) think McCain and Giuliani would wipe the floor with any Dem... they're the ones too fear. On the bright side, even if they do win, things will be better than they are now.

The agreement continues. It seems only a couple of years ago I heard folks from across the spectrum laugh off the possibility of the GOP ever endorsing either on account of their party policy deviations. Wasn't long after Kerry's defeat I started hoping the Dems would field a real contender next time, if only to force the GOP to run a moderate like McCain or Rudy. Since then, Bush seems to have all but eliminated the need for that. :wink:

Hillary is still dangerous, however... even Newt would stand a fair shot against her. And he's been pretty loud lately... and he makes Bush sound like a Dove.

0 Replies

I'll tell you--the Clinton machine is what is formidable--not a Hillary candidacy.

Can you imagine the press she would get? I can see Andrea Mitchell giving her the tongue during commercials. They'd have eyewitness accounts of her walking on water.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Still wouldn't make a lick of difference on judgment day.

0 Replies

O'Bill--

You don't think a steady stream of positive press--a press corp that does your PR for you, while hanging your opponent out to dry wouldn't make a difference on election day?

The press can save you or ruin you, don't you think?

0 Replies

Not that candidate, no. They can create a persona but they can't erase one that's already burned into your mind. That's a much taller order. I suspect that's why President's tend not to come from posts with decades of high visibility.

0 Replies

For anybody who wants to know a bit more about Rudy.

I think they press can completely shape public perception. I would much rather prefer you are right, O'Bill.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Not that candidate, no. They can create a persona but they can't erase one that's already burned into your mind. That's a much taller order. I suspect that's why President's tend not to come from posts with decades of high visibility.

I hope with Lash that you are right. But I keep going back to a prophecy Dick Morris made some months ago. Now Morris is a political hack, sleazeball, opportunist, etc. etc. etc. in his past life. (I always allow for anybody's rehabilitation). But he has one of the best political instincts I've ever seen. He predicted that Hillary will be the next President of the United States unless the GOP comes up with a candidate the MSM can't trash. He thought Condi Rice could do it. He doesn't think any of the old retreads can do it.

Also, the MSM is the guiding force to shape opinion for most Americans who don't read much past the headlines or who borrow all their opinions from partisan boards and blogs, etc. The MSM has spent the last 14 years building the image of "Saint" Hillary as the smartest woman in the world and they simply are not going to focus on her weaknesses, inconsistencies, lies, improprieties, flip flops, etc. etc. etc. She will get every break with them and her opponent will not. Unless it is somebody like Condi Rice.

Now that's Dick Morris's prediction.

Again, I hope he's wrong and you're right.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

....a candidate the MSM can't trash......Also, the MSM is the guiding force to shape opinion for most Americans who don't read much past the headlines......The MSM has spent the last 14 years building the image of "Saint" Hillary....

For the life of me, I cannot believe anyone would ascribe these powers to the Maastricht School of Management. Geez, it's way over in Europe. I never even heard of anyone who graduated from there. Get a grip.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I think she would perhaps be the easiest to beat of all (though Kerry and Gore come to mind. :wink:)

I think Gore will be a formidable opponent for three reasons.

A) He realized his mistake in trying to coast to the White House the first time-he admitted that he got all caught up with "image builders" when he should have been going after his opponent. People forget that when Gore fell 9 points behind, that is when Bush made his famous misstatement, "So they think that Social Security is some kind of government program....?". Very possibly, Bush meant to say "government giveaway program", a favorite Republican phrase, and he got caught up in the moment. Nevertheless, Bush had made so many misstatements throughout the campaign that this last one would serve to make people wonder. Gore went after Bush after that , and he made up 9 points inthe polls the last 10 days of the election.

The controversy over florida serves to obscure in people's memory that for the last week and a half, Bush was almost in free fall. In fact, if the election were a prizefight, Bush would be the fighter with the big lead in points hanging desperately on the ropes while Gore spends the last two rounds hitting him with lefts, rights and uppercuts. Figuratively speaking, when the election was over, Bush would need help to get back to his corner.

Gore would not play it cute and try to coast if he gets the nomination again. He's come roaring right out from the opening bell.

B) Global warming is getting to be a much bigger topic than anyone realizes. It has taken a long time for the public to take it seriously, but now they do. Especially women, for some reason. The GOP is bulnerable with women, and Gore can draw a lot of them over.

C) If Bush is as unpopular in 2008 as he presently is, there will be a general tendency for voters who were on the fence in 2000 but who went for Bush, to simply decide to go back to where they went wrong. Especially since the guy who lost ended up getting more votes than the guy who won, (the Electoral College is popularly considered something of a technicality). With Gore's increased stature with the global warming issue, he would be a better candidate in 2008 than he was in 2000.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

O'Bill--

You don't think a steady stream of positive press--a press corp that does your PR for you, while hanging your opponent out to dry wouldn't make a difference on election day?

Oh, give me a break (no offense).

Bill - Ok - he would get a rave press. Mainstream media love him. But Hillary is the woman people love to hate - and that includes the press. She hasnt gotten the pervasive image of being a shrill, cold bitch out of nowhere; its something inside her thats then been amplified x-times by the media portrayal megaphone. Lazy journalists love a stereotype to latch on to.

I agree with you, press can completely shape public perception, and this image of the unpleasant or at least aloof and cold Hillary is one the press has done more than its fair share to push into dominance. I mean, thats how it is - we on the left have to deal with it - it's one of the reasons I think Hillary would be a dead loser as presidential nominee. The media would eagerly reinforce Republican attempts to peg her as an egocentric, vain, power-hungry shrew. (Thats what they do with every powerful woman anyway - and Hillary, well, they'll redouble their inclination to do so, and she's the perfect object for it).

In that sense, most any of her potential competitors - Warner, Biden, Bayh, Obama of course - would be much less vulnerable.

0 Replies

nimh--

IMO, most reporters relish catastrophe for the opportunity to report on it.

Hillary--a woman President--would be big news, requiring more written pieces about her than any of her competitors. She would generate reams of assignments, and everybody would think they had the best new angle on her, her candidacy, the woman angle, the Bill angle, the historical angle--especially the women who populate the industry.

She's already been given so much slack it's disgusting. "vast right wing conspiracy..."

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're overestimating the veracity of our news corps.

That's not hard to do. Very Happy

0 Replies

I think if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, it would a very bad thing for Democrats.

I don't like her wishy-washy 'triangulating', and patronizing playing to the middle, replete with trying to be soulful in black churches, trying to appear supportive to the billy-bobs, being sort of for, sort of against the Iraq war, etc.
Although there is an element of the press that has buoyed her up and championed her, I think the 'swift-boat' contingent of the Reps level of distaste for her cannot be overstated, and that the press would work just as hard, if not harder, tearing her down as building her up.
She remains one of the most polarizing figures in national politics - even among Democrats.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I think if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, it would a very bad thing for Democrats.

I don't like her wishy-washy 'triangulating', and patronizing playing to the middle, replete with trying to be soulful in black churches, trying to appear supportive to the billy-bobs, being sort of for, sort of against the Iraq war, etc.
Although there is an element of the press that has buoyed her up and championed her, I think the 'swift-boat' contingent of the Reps level of distaste for her cannot be overstated, and that the press would work just as hard, if not harder, tearing her down as building her up.
She remains one of the most polarizing figures in national politics - even among Democrats.

Yes, I quite agree.

0 Replies

Additional pro-Hill stuff--

I feel confident that Bill Clinton laid out some serious favors he'll be calling in. They have a thick network of back patting through China, corporate America, through the millions of Denise Rich and others... They have long partied with reporters. Those shady pardons had a price.

Ultimately, it's about your war chest and your favors. Clinton won't be outgunned in that area. Reporters and everyone are for sale to the highest bidder. My dismal account of politics in America.

0 Replies

Very much agreed with nimh and snood here. I'm quaking in my boots at the prospect of Hillary as Dem nominee, and fervently hoping that the fact that nearly everyone I know is as against it as I am means it won't happen.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're overestimating the veracity of our news corps.

Oh its not their veracity I'm estimating. Its their lazy inclination to typecasting that will do.

And like you say, reporters relish catastrophe for the opportunity to report on it. Hillary is a seriously high-profile target already, and people in general, reporters specifically, love to tear the "high trees" down. A new kid on the block will be less vulnerable to such already entrenched eagernesses to jump on the prey.

Talk about things already entrenched - there's so many people already disliking Hillary now, among Democrats too, there's many who will jump at the chance to take her down - a fair share of journalists among them.

Finally, and wholly understandably, reporters will be even more sick of the prospect of another four or eight years of either a Bush or a Clinton in office than most other Americans - they've already had to report on either of the two for 18 going on 20 years. They'll gladly herald a new name, in a way in which they definitely wont be welcoming a possible Hillary presidency.

All of which would plead for Obama...

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Very much agreed with nimh and snood here. I'm quaking in my boots at the prospect of Hillary as Dem nominee, and fervently hoping that the fact that nearly everyone I know is as against it as I am means it won't happen.

But now think about it. Hillary Clinton winds up as the nominee. Dick Morris and a couple of others operating below the media radar right now think that is inevitable because she's got the money, the campaign structure, the necessary 'below the radar' backing, and a husband people will vote for. The media will be quite happy to show her reinvented softer, stronger, more personable side. I'm guessing she already has James Carville and Paul Begala working on it.

The GOP puts up a Newt Gingrich or a Mitt Romney or a George Allen or a Jeb Bush or a Rudi Guiliani with the media cooperating in bringing up all their past sins and shortcomings.

Right now if you are polled you don't want her as your nominee. But on election day, who are you going to vote for?

The GOP base won't vote for her, no. But everybody else?

I don't think she can be written off all that easily.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know