0
   

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

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 05:56 pm
Muuuch bettah.

He had the "right" answer on all the stuff I snipped, above. ("YESes" to Allen's "NOs", and vice versa.) Not perfect, but pretty darn good.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 06:11 pm
mysteryman wrote:
I will say this.
If Evan Bayh (D) In,runs,I WILL SUPPORT HIM.
I like him,and I trust him.
I dont always agree with him (he is a liberal and I'm a conservative),but I have met him,and he would get my vote.

Having said that,if Sen. John Edwards (R) NC,runs,he will get my vote on the repub side.
He is the closest to a true "Reagan republican" since Ronald Reagan.

I am neither dem or repub,but those are the 2 people that would get my support and vote.


John Edwards? I'm glad that was the wrong name!!!! Also, I would caution you about voting for the "person" instead of the "party." I am really scratching my head about how you vote for Bayh or Allen. Once a Democrat gets to Washington, they pretty much vote the party line. The question is which issues do you support and thus which party votes the way you want for the issues? Democrats and Republicans are pretty much opposites on many things.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 06:11 pm
I would like to hear why you are all so adamant that you would not vote for Hillary. Please something besides she's a politician that would do anything to get elected. That's all of them.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 06:17 pm
Two things.

1.) She, herself, has done little to garner any particular admiration as a politician. I won't vote for her because her husband is one of the most admirable politicians of the 20th century.

2.) She would be a hugely polarizing presence on the ticket, and would be an automatic turn-off to people like MM who might consider voting for Bayh, for example.

If just one of those were true, and not the other, I'd be more likely to support her. (If I thought she was a fantastic and worthy politician who was nonetheless polarizing, or if I thought she was OK if not great but eminently electable.) But with BOTH, I'm fervently, fervently hoping she doesn't get the nomination.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 06:23 pm
My understanding is that she has calmly and quietly done a great job as a NY senator and is a shoe in for reelection.... is that not admirable?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 06:25 pm
Not really. Not enough to negate #2, anyway. (See my parenthetical, above -- she'd have to be SUPER admirable to overcome #2, not just OK, and she's not.)

Note, I like her fine personally, and sometimes I like her a great deal. But in terms of getting the Democratic nomination for president in 2008 -- noooooo...!
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 06:27 pm
sozobe wrote:
Not really. Not enough to negate #2, anyway. (See my parenthetical, above -- she'd have to be SUPER admirable to overcome #2, not just OK, and she's not.)

Note, I like her fine personally, and sometimes I like her a great deal. But in terms of getting the Democratic nomination for president in 2008 -- noooooo...!


If she is a NY senator and doing a fine job and a shoe in for reelection and is well liked in the state she represents.... and this is the only political office she has held... what more would you have her do to gain your admiration? Cure cancer?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 06:28 pm
PS I'm not trying to start a fight or provoke anything... I'm really puzzled about all the anti Hillary sentiment and would like to know why....
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 06:30 pm
Another thing that's not a deciding factor but doesn't help is that I think there is something wrong with the picture of four presidents, 24 years, two last names. (1988 [Bush I] through 2012 [end of Hillary term I].) I really dislike the dynasty crap. I think people should be elected on their own merits (or lack thereof). I also think it lends itself to Hatfield and McCoy idiocy -- well, you beat our guy, but now our guy part two beat YOU! Hah!
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 06:33 pm
Oh, I know, I wasn't taking it as a provocation.

I think that the fact that she's doing so well in New York is quite a bit of coattail-riding. She chose New York as the place where she would be most likely to succeed, and she has. It means far less to me than if she were doing as well in, I dunno, Mississippi or something. Bill is hugely popular in New York, and she'd have to do some serious mis-steps to squander all of that goodwill. That she hasn't still doesn't really mean that much to me.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 06:41 pm
N.Y.'s Favorite Republicans

Quote:


this whole article was interesting subway reading

actually, most of the power grid articles in New York Magazine are hmm-making

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymag/columns/powergrid/archive/
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 06:46 pm
okie,
I have never voted "party".
I always vote for the person."party" doesnt mean much to me.

BVT,
I wont say that I am "anti-Hillary",I just dont think she has done much.
Sure,she is popular in NY,but what about here in "flyover country"?
She seems to change her positions on issues more often then I change my socks,and as far as I know,she hasnt really done anything major.

She might be well qualified to be a Senator,but that by itself does not mean she is qualified to be President.
And,I do agree that she seems to have done some "coattail" riding to get into office,by using her husbands name.

Even if she did want to run,I dont think that '08 is the right time.
I think,and this is just my opinion,that many voters on both sides will remember her ridiculous defense of her husbands affairs,and that might turn them off of her.

Now,Bayh and Allen,while diametrically opposed to each other on most positions,will get my support (Ihope only one runs,or I'm in trouble).

Both of them strike me as the kind of person that should be in the WH.
They are honest,they speak their minds,they understand people,and you always know where they stand on an issue.
Like I said,Bayh and I disagree on most issues,but with him you know that he truly believes what he is saying,no matter what.

Either one of them would be a good President.

Sozobe,
I know you arent impressed with Allen,based on what you wrote,but answer me this...
Would you rather have a person in the WH that you didnt agree with but was honest with you,or do you want someone that you could always agree with but wasnt honest with you?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 06:55 pm
Do you have the mind-reading glasses to go with that question, MM? Because that's the only way to answer it.

While I certainly would prefer that you vote for Bayh over Allen, a good memory for names and excellent eye contact does not an honest man make. I think one of the most important qualities in a politician these days is the ability to SEEM honest -- which is quite a bit different from actually BEING honest. Bush is a prime example of this.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 07:01 pm
[quote="mysteryman"]

Even if she did want to run,I dont think that '08 is the right time.
I think,and this is just my opinion,that many voters on both sides will remember her ridiculous defense of her husbands affairs,and that might turn them off of her.
.

but if this was some texas republicans wife all you good old boys would be giving her the stand by your man high five and talking about a return to family values....
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 07:03 pm
Bayh has the perfect credentials former governor and now senator except from a small state.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 07:05 pm
This is interesting:

Quote:
"There's a growing recognition among conservatives that the era of base politics that we've just been through has run its course


(Emphasis mine.)

I sure hope that's true -- not sure if I believe it.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 07:06 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
[quote="mysteryman"]

Even if she did want to run,I dont think that '08 is the right time.
I think,and this is just my opinion,that many voters on both sides will remember her ridiculous defense of her husbands affairs,and that might turn them off of her.
.

but if this was some texas republicans wife all you good old boys would be giving her the stand by your man high five and talking about a return to family values....


Dont ever assume what I would think.
You will be wrong ALL the time.

I dont care whose wife it is,even if its yours.
Any woman that can try and tell the world that its all a "vast right wing conspiracy",when her husband gets caught cheating on her,is not,in my opinion,a very intelligent woman.

I dont condone cheating by anybody,and for you to assume I do is purely assinine on your part.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 07:39 pm
Hillary is only a shoe-in in NY because, like Kennedy here in MA, she has deep pockets and can bury her opponents before they ever get a chance to gain a foothold. Polls on her have held (fairly consistantly) that some 45% of the country wouldn't vote for her for President under any circumstance. Even amongst registered Democrats she only has a ~60% favorable rating. That's a huge negative that would be pretty much impossible to over come.

I like McCain - voted for him in the MA Primaries. (MA was the only state he won). He may not play well with the religious right but he comes across as a straight shooter. People may not agree with him but you don't hear people saying that he's saying things that he doesn't actually believe in.

The concern with someone like McCain would the presence of another Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson-like figure that might draw the religious right into a miinor party like the Reform Party (or as an Independent) and we'd have a repeat of the '92 election. IMO, this is the most likely scenario if the Dems can find someone to run that can pull voters.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 08:24 pm
McCain may have done too much damage with all his Group of Seven activities.

I think Rudy will get better backing from the rank and file. One (pro-choice/pro Gay Marriage) guy can easily say the President doesn't make those decisions.

New York, New York... when's the last time we got NY.... Smile
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 08:36 pm
Could George Allen become the Republican right's alternative to McCain and Giuliani?

Okie, would George Allen be someone you'd be enthusiastic about? (If not, is there anyone you'd go for, in particular, yourself?)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
mccain begs off - Discussion by dyslexia
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain lies - Discussion by nimh
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/17/2021 at 05:13:19