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

mysteryman wrote:

sozobe,
Thats what makes politics grand.
I support him,and you dont.

FYI,here is Where Evan Bayh stands on the same issues...

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Evan_Bayh.htm

heya mm. thanks for the bayh info. the more i'm finding out about him the more i'm likin' him.

it's promising to me when any candidate fails to receive less than a 100% or so from the various interest groups. sorta says that he's at least close to being moderate. and that's where i think most americans really are, despite the polarization that one issue or another can inspire.

admittedly, my first interest was simply based on memories of my pop constantly griping about bayh's dad when we lived in louisville ("that damned birch bayh!! Laughing

), but i'm actually kinda impressed.

bit to be honest dude, based on what the interviews i've heard with allen, i can't really consider him at all. for me, he's just too much like what we have now. just like the dems, the republicans need to dig deeper.

i really believe that after the total cluster jump of the last decades, where partisanship is the trump card, america not only deserves, but should insist that the next president be a man of all the people. not just for "the base" or the single issue stormcrows.

i used to like mccain quite a bit. and as a senator i still appreciate him. but he's been too ready to take it in the neck for the party.

rudy ? umm. hard to say. he does appear moderate. but like someone else mentioned, he could get dragged behind the woodshed for "a l'il eddicatin'" by those who are "base-centric".

i'd like to see chuck hagel run. and if lindsay graham would lose some of his more annoying religious thing, he'd be interesting. i think he's probably a pretty decent human being.

also, colin powell. i think he's exellent.

hillary might do a great job. but she'd have to get there. and if she did get the nomination, the republicans, christian right and right leaning moderates would stop at nothing.

it would/will be yet another blood bath. and that's what we don't need, right?

the new kid, mark warner, he's worth watching. might have some interesting povs once he gets his message together.

two words i'd love to see erased from the political debate so we can focus on the crap that actually means something to every american;

liberal and conservative.

0 Replies

Frankly, I can't support anybody at this point. Elections are (at-least0 two-person events and speculation is just that, until you find who both candidates are. I'm just as willing (maybe more so) to vote against a particular candidate as vote for one.

Having said that, because of a non-negotiable pro-life stance I can only think of one democrat that I would consider voting for over a Republican...Robert Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania.

Democrats have just begun to understand that they perpetually write off a huge block of voters, like myself, that will always vote pro-life, if given an option. Until they are willing to actively support pro-life Democrats for political office, they are severely handicapped from day one.

0 Replies

ya could be right. the other side of the coin is that the republicans have largely done the same thing with pro-choicers.

0 Replies

DTOM,
Not true (except perhaps in presidential elections wherein Republican successes over past several decades belies your hypothesis). There are several pro-choice Republicans in office...there are zero pro-life democrats. The god of tolerance constantly preached about by democrats is conspicuously absent when abortion is the issue.

0 Replies

I liked McCain because of his torture stand and campaign reform bill. However, I think he has let his ambition to be President corrupt him.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030806/news4.html

As it is right now, for either side, the choices are looking bleak.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

there are zero pro-life democrats. The god of tolerance constantly preached about by democrats is conspicuously absent when abortion is the issue.

Not true.

Democrats for Life of America

Democrats for Life of America recently launched the 95-10 Initiative:

Quote:

The 95-10 Initiative is a comprehensive package of federal legislation and policy proposals that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years. While both Democrats and Republicans talk about reducing the number of abortions, Democrats for Life of America offers real solutions to make this goal a reality. With bold new ideas, sound research and policy arguments, the 95-10 Initiative contains proven policy suggestions to dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America.

It's very interesting actually, I was reading about it before. Would be worth a thread of its own.

Anyway, here are some Democrats in office who support the 95-10 initiative.

0 Replies

I'd be interested in a thread about that.

I think it's a great way to go -- as I said somewhere else recently, nobody is pro-abortion. The question is whether, if it becomes necessary for whatever reason, illegal (and often fatal) back-alley abortions should be the only option.

Reducing the need for abortions is a great, proactive, bipartisan way to go about it.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

DTOM,
Not true (except perhaps in presidential elections wherein Republican successes over past several decades belies your hypothesis). There are several pro-choice Republicans in office...there are zero pro-life democrats. The god of tolerance constantly preached about by democrats is conspicuously absent when abortion is the issue.

You've got to be joking. Harry Reid, the senate majority leader, is pro-life.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

DTOM,
Not true (except perhaps in presidential elections wherein Republican successes over past several decades belies your hypothesis). There are several pro-choice Republicans in office...there are zero pro-life democrats.

wrong. harry reid, the senate minority leader is quite vocally pro-life.

and btw, pro-choice republicans get labeled as "too liberal" or RINOs a lot of the time. rudy giulliani ?

slkshock7 wrote:

The god of tolerance constantly preached about by democrats is conspicuously absent when abortion is the issue.

interesting. just a few days ago, one of my favorite conservative sparring partners remarked that i was "fixated on religion" in regard to the abortion issue. i haven't said anything about it to you, and yet you drag god into it and imply that democrats are less godly than republicans.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:
DTOM,
Not true (except perhaps in presidential elections wherein Republican successes over past several decades belies your hypothesis). There are several pro-choice Republicans in office...there are zero pro-life democrats. The god of tolerance constantly preached about by democrats is conspicuously absent when abortion is the issue.

You've got to be joking. Harry Reid, the senate majority leader, is pro-life.

Curious that your source says Reid is rated as voting with NARAL position only 26% of time. If true I would agree that he is pro-life. But the NARAL Site says something entirely different. It says that Reid voted the NARAL position 100% of the time in 2005. That clearly takes him out of the pro-life block.

Maybe the 26% was from a previous year....of course that says something entirely different about Reid's convictions.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:
there are zero pro-life democrats. The god of tolerance constantly preached about by democrats is conspicuously absent when abortion is the issue.

Not true.

Democrats for Life of America

Democrats for Life of America recently launched the 95-10 Initiative:

Quote:
The 95-10 Initiative is a comprehensive package of federal legislation and policy proposals that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years. While both Democrats and Republicans talk about reducing the number of abortions, Democrats for Life of America offers real solutions to make this goal a reality. With bold new ideas, sound research and policy arguments, the 95-10 Initiative contains proven policy suggestions to dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America.

It's very interesting actually, I was reading about it before. Would be worth a thread of its own.

Anyway, here are some Democrats in office who support the 95-10 initiative.

Nimh,

I am pleasantly surprised and must stand corrected. I browsed through that site and was pleased to see a lot of the right words and promised actions.

Several folks have suggested opening a new thread on this topic, so I'm going to go ahead and do that.

0 Replies

The number in the site joe posted on Reid is for 2003 (according to the footnote on the site). The link you posted is for 2005.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

The number in the site joe posted on Reid is for 2003 (according to the footnote on the site). The link you posted is for 2005.

And Reid became Senate Minority Leader when?? 2004. Curiouser and curiouser....

0 Replies

I wouldn't normally post something like this however, I am surprised by how common a mistake this is amongst so erudite a bunch as post herein.

shoe in?

0 Replies

First of all, the 2008 campaign CAN AND WILL be influenced by the 2006 elections. Some on the left assume that the poll numbers showing that President Bush has low numbers will affect the local races. That is not at all a sure thing.

l. As anyone watching the political landscape closely knows, MANY Republicans, expecially in the House, but some in the Senate, are furiously distancing themselves from the President AT THIS TIME.
Whether or not they will actually shun the President as a fund raiser depends entirely on the political climate five months away- August and September. Anyone who does not know that five months is a lifetime in Politics knows nothing about politics.

2. Some may not be aware that, after the 2000 census, massive redistricting reoccured. As a result, there are more "safe" House seats than ever. Watch for the reports in September on actual CONTESTED House seats. They will be fewer than imagined at this time.

3. There is, even now, almost no chance that the Democrats will "run the board" in the Senate seats. Roll Call is a good source to view as time goes on.

4. When the candidates begin running in earnest(early 2008), they will of course make known their positions on important questions. The two questions which will control the essence of the debate will be a. The situation in Iraq and b. The Economy.

The Economy is doing fine thank you--4.9% Unemployment--Dow Jones over 11,000. If the Republicans hold their majorities in both the House and the Senate, there will be more legislation passed which will affect the positions of the candidates in 2008.

I think that McCain may well be the Republican nominee although Giuliani, with his lock on New York, as a state with many electoral votes cannot be ignored.

I sincerely hope that Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes the Democratic candidate because she cannot overcome her heavy negatives. She will get more women to vote for her in the north but the conservative women in the South would never vote for her.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

fishin' wrote:
The number in the site joe posted on Reid is for 2003 (according to the footnote on the site). The link you posted is for 2005.

And Reid became Senate Minority Leader when?? 2004. Curiouser and curiouser....

i can't remember where thr heck i got this. if it's been linked before, i apologize;

http://www.govote.com/Social/Harry_Reid_Abortion.htm

it has votes from 1999 to mid 2005.

and something i'm wondering about is reid's 100% with naral.

depending on what the bills were, it could be consistant with mainstream (as opposed to radical) pro-life pov. in other words, a yes vote on a bill that allows for the morning after pill or somesuch would be a plus for naral.

0 Replies

There was a New Yorker from August 2005 or so (I just saw it last night) that had the title of something like "How did a pro-life, pro-gun [something] become the minority leader?"

Here we go:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050808fa_fact

0 Replies

great article soz! got through about half so far.

he's got an interesting diversity in his thinking, it seems.

0 Replies

The reason that Harry Reid became the Minority Leader in the Senate is because they could not give the job to Biden( an admitted Plagiarist) or
Kennedy( The Chappaquidick Kid who killed Mary Jo Kopechne and was summarily booted out of Harvard for cheating on a Spanish test.

Sozobe apparently is not aware that Senator Reid was elected in 1986, giving him twenty years of experience and, more importantly, was the DEMOCRATIC WHIP IN THE SENATE-THE NUMBER TWO MAN IN THE PARTY'S LEADERSHIP.

Is it clear now, Sozobe?

0 Replies

He had seniority, and passing him over, as they had all planned to do--would show how intolerant they are of opposing ideas.

The GOP practically forced them to choose Harry--to their great horror, and the delight of the GOP.

He's an idiot of the highest order. Read that link of soz'.

Reid on why he entered politics:

When I asked what got him interested in politics, he had a one-word reply: "Rudeness."

He's a mean-spirited man, who espouses almost all of the views Democrats say they hate.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know