0
   

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

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 08:47 pm
ehBeth wrote:
N.Y.'s Favorite Republicans
Quote:
[..] "Honestly," says McCain, as he pops a piece of hard candy in his mouth and chomps it to pieces, "I doubt that one out of 20,000 Americans is thinking about the 2008 election today."

Ha! Then this thread alone balances off against about 240,000 other Americans ;-)

ehBeth wrote:
Quote:

Interesting! It suggests (to me) a despair or panic much deeper than I'd have suspected (perhaps because I've grown accostumed to the unwavering confidence and bluster of conservatives here).

I would have thought, after having indeed long laboured for the current hold on the Republican Party and, by extension, the US, the coalition of foreign-policy neocons and the domestic religious right would be loath to suddenly give it all up to a dissident or liberal type of Republican - undoing the work of over a decade. But here the take is that they're already frightened enough of a bigger loss still, with the Dems taking over altogether, that they're actually willing to swallow such a backtrack.

Not entirely convinced this is the case quite yet. But it would be a hopeful sign of course ;-)
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 08:47 pm
mysteryman wrote:
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.


touch a little nerve there MM ?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 09:08 pm
fishin' wrote:
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.

I actually think McCain might well win against Hillary even with such a third candidate in the race. (I so want to believe it's not going to be her, but there doesnt seem to be any apparent alternative on the horizon, and any name that might still turn up would have one hell of an uphill battle against her name recognition).

I mean, how much would a Robertson/Buchanan type candidate on the far right get? Perot got 17% but he was working from the center, hauling in independents. A Robertson/Buchanan type wouldnt go anywhere among those, they'd totally have to rely on the rightwing of the Republican Party itself (at most a Buchanan could get a fringe of anti-immigration independents).

Now both Buchanan and Robertson got how much, at their highpoint, in the Republican primaries? 10%, 20%? Part of whom are loyal Republicans who'd never veer from the party - just see how badly Buchanan did in '04. But imagine, nevertheless, that 10% of Republicans would vote for such a guy - then thats still only 3,5% of the overall votes. McCain would IMO easily get more than a 3,5% lead over Hillary, so he'd still be safe (not sure about Giuliani).

Moreover, if this would indeed happen, with the Republican far-right splitting apart into a third party (and by definition being riven itself in the process), and the Republican candidate would still win the presidentship, then that of course would pretty much be the dream scenario for the future of the Republican Party. The twelve-year hold on the presidency would firmly confirm its political primacy, while the party could at the same time liberate itself from its radical fringes and move to a more centre-right position - that would make it even harder to beat the next time.

I'll go even further: it'd be in the best interest of the country too. A reasoned Republican government with a strong Democratic opposition and the far-right torn into the margins would be better for the country as a whole too, than a resurgent Clinton-presidency that has a more embittered and mobilised than ever Republican party still under the influence of the far right readying itself for revenge in '12.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 09:28 pm
Looks like an early concession by the Dems.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 09:29 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
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.


touch a little nerve there MM ?


I'm not married,so no it didnt.
I just have no respect for anyone,male or female,that cant or wont keep the most important promise a person can make.
I also have no respect for the defenders of those people.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 09:32 pm
Lash wrote:
Looks like an early concession by the Dems.

Well, I cant speak for the Dems ... being both Dutch and a Green an' all that ...
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 09:40 pm
I was taking liberal Americans' posts into consideration.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 09:41 pm
nimh wrote:
fishin' wrote:
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.

I actually think McCain might well win against Hillary even with such a third candidate in the race. (I so want to believe it's not going to be her, but there doesnt seem to be any apparent alternative on the horizon, and any name that might still turn up would have one hell of an uphill battle against her name recognition).


I think you are right if it's Hillary running for the Dems. I don't think she'll be their candidate in the end though.

I'm not so sure that a 3rd party candidate couldn't upset the apple cart if the Dem is someone else. The 3rd party candidates have held enough votes to cover the difference between the major party candidates in the last 4 elections and there is plenty of disgust all around with the 2 party status quo.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 10:02 pm
Well, I hope you're right ... (about it not ending up Hillary, and the Dems then standing a chance). Warner vs McCain or Giuliani, that would be interesting ... the end of bitterly polarised left vs right, the dogmatists thrown out of power ...

(I dont trust Giuliani like I trust McCain tho. On the issues, he's arguably more liberal than McCain, who's a real hawk on some stuff. But Giuliani I somehow see selling out essential stuff to the far right in the Repub party, all the more easier actually because he knows he's vulnerable over his liberal image...)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 10:38 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
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.


I do not trust her. She's a crook. Remember the $100,000 dollar political favor or kickback, whatever you wish to call it, for a $1,000 investment in cattle futures? Most of us would be sitting in jail. That scandal is only the tip of the iceberg. Plus I don't agree with her on much of anything. Plus she is one shrill, angry woman. It escapes me as to why anyone would vote for her.

mysterman wrote:

okie,
I have never voted "party".
I always vote for the person."party" doesnt mean much to me.

I've heard that saying all my life, and I used to say it myself, until I realized the powers that be in Congress will have a talk with you out behind the woodshed, and if you don't vote the party line, forget your future with the party. This is particularly true with Democrats. Republicans think more as individuals. Now, a truly conservative and honest Democrat as president along with a conservative congress might work okay. I still give you credit for placing a high premium on honesty. I think this is totally crucial in a president, I agree with you there.

nimh wrote:

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?)


I honestly do not know enough about Allen yet to conclusively make a judgement, but one interview I heard sounded very good. He sounded honest, open, and correct on the issues he addressed. Senator Brownback from Kansas is another guy that seems halfway reasonable, but there again I don't know enough about him to think he has enough popularity to go anywhere. What we need is a person with impeccable honesty, solid conservative principles, sound judgement, and somebody with energy that can make a good speech and inspire the people around them. There are many people I would support if they end up being the Republican candidate. I am not high on the Gulianis, McCains, or Arnold types.

To be honest, I am not optimistic, as society will vote for people that promises them the world, and you always have the media to overcome as they are going to support the liberal agenda and the liberal candidate.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 01:16 am
fishin' wrote:
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.

I just checked his page on issues2000.org (Thanks for the pointer, mysteryman!). He's pro-life, for allowing school prayer, against gay marriage, supports an anti-flag-burning amendment, doesn't mind flying the confederate flag. True, he "wouldn't mind a gay or lesbian president" -- but no interest group can have it all in an election, and the religious right knows that. So why wouldn't cultural conservatives like him?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 09:09 am
Thomas wrote:
fishin' wrote:
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.

I just checked his page on issues2000.org (Thanks for the pointer, mysteryman!). He's pro-life, for allowing school prayer, against gay marriage, supports an anti-flag-burning amendment, doesn't mind flying the confederate flag. True, he "wouldn't mind a gay or lesbian president" -- but no interest group can have it all in an election, and the religious right knows that. So why wouldn't cultural conservatives like him?

Some background to why/how at least a significant chunk of the religious right (I dont know if "cultural conservatives" is an appropriate synonym here) has come to have problems with McCain can be found in this Google search. Part of it stems from having called Falwell and Robertson "forces of evil", in particular, apparently.

This probably also still sticks in the crow (that the expression?) of many on the religious right: "My friends, I am a Reagan Republican who will defeat Al Gore. Unfortunately, Governor Bush is a Pat Robertson Republican who will lose to Al Gore. [..] We are the party of Ronald Reagan not Pat Robertson. [..] We are the party of Abraham Lincoln not Bob Jones."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 10:02 am
I think the mistake many people make about the so-called "religious right" is that not that many people love Pat Robertson or Fallwell. I guess I am speaking for myself, but they are simply TV religious hustlers. Many religious people know this, and do not follow people like that. They may take note of what they say, but to propagate the idea that the "religious right" all follow people like that is really very inaccurate. Most religious people practice their religion personally, or belong to a local congregation, and are not involved with the Falwells or Robertsons at all.
0 Replies
 
2PacksAday
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 11:13 am
Quote, Nimh

"This probably also still sticks in the crow (that the expression?)"



It's craw, but some also use crawl on accident.

In my dialect there is no discernable difference between the two words...as most words that end in W tend to have an L sound afterward...ie...Draw/Drawl.

-----------

There are many conseratives that are simply embarrassed by the "Robertson and Falwell" types being in the party. I wouldn't mind so much, if they didn't seem to have such a commanding presence in our affairs. They are nice to have as an ally, for the moral ideals, and of course the vote count, but I wish they would take a backseat approach in the political arena.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 12:02 pm
True, Two Packs.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 12:11 pm
There was a man named John Meeker who had a vision (and proper federal funding) to take some Ute indians out off their homelands where they lived by hunting and take them to the moutains of northern colorado and teach them christian ways of farming. He did this by force and in doing so doing managed to make a good profit by selling the food stuffs that were intended for his "convertees" A young Ute man and some warriors killed John Meeker and stuck a stick in his craw(throat) exclaiming "you will never again lie to your gods. This is where the expression "stick in your(my) craw comes from.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 12:20 pm
Thanks. I thought it was your privates. Great story.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 12:23 pm
The Ute indian's name was Colorow.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 12:22 am
The Christian Coalition is a reality and Pat Robertson runs it.
0 Replies
 
mele42846
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 11:17 am
I think Giuliani wou ld be preferable to McCain. Giuliani does not appear to be as stiffly conservative as McCain. As pastmayor of New York,he is used to dealing with all kinds of people.

Who has McCain dealt with in the West?
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 0.03 seconds on 10/17/2021 at 04:00:29