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

If you mean intelligent design, my response is:

Oh. I didn't know that! I'm surprised too.

i just heard that yesterday in passing. if i get a confo, i'll let ya know.

how ya doin' m'sweet ?

Tolerable' well. Thank you. You and the missus?

Ack.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002859987_mccain12.html

just dandy, thanx. it's been colder than a witch's heart here the last week though. high of 50 degrees is freezin' by so. cal. standards.

just saw on hardball that giuliani is doin' a fund raiser for santorum. now that's an odd couple.

There you go: McCain the progressive, ha!

Turned my stomach---Guiliani and Santorum in the same sentence--especially THAT sentence.

ugh, ugh, ugh... BBBAAARRRRFFFFFFFFFFFFFF !!!!!!

You don't think he'd run with someone to appeal to the Religious Right, do you?

Well, again, what the hell is a VP for?

jeez, i don't know. i doubt it would fly with them though. in that event, it would still be rudy(in this case) that would or would not be signing whatever the ban of the week was.

lash, do you think that the extremists in the religious right have overplayed their hand? at what point do they stop being a voting block to a pain in the behind ?

i mean, from the numbers i've seen, the hardcore are only like 12-14% of the country. that would be the falwell/jones/robertson/dobson type of folk, not mainstream christians.

Here's where I continue to be confused. The URL linked above says Reid voted only 29% for the NARAL position in 2003. Other articles cited in this thread state he is pro-life....but NARAL says he voted 100% with NARAL position in 2005 indicating a radical pro-choice position.

It would be interesting to see Reid's abortion votes throughout his Senate career. It may very well show a pro-life record, but his 2005 record seems to imply a man who places ambition or senate leadership responsibilities over his moral convictions.

I think we may being seeing a shift, but I also may be seeing what I want to see.

Rationale:

1) They really screwed the party over Shiavo. I believe there were many people (I was one of them) who didn't see that issue as primarily religious, but humane. But, when the assholes got their hands on it, they attempted to manipulate it as a battering ram against the "godless Democrats" and that showed through.

2) Tom DeLay.

3) Pat Robertson being a complete ass re several things.

I think we can do without them, and I'd really like to try. There's nothing wrong with spirituality--but using it and hiding behind it are disgusting.

I think the wacko RR is even less than you estimated.

Abortion is off the front burner, with the new SCOTUS appointments (at least with the GOP), the economy is doing quite well... and issues (I think) will be Iraq, America's place in the world/foreign policy, gay marriage, and taxes. Possibly a remedy for oil dependency.

I guess you can see that even though it appears Iraq is a mess, the public still doesn't want to see what the Dems will do with it.

If we can find a Republican, with balls, who will stand up and declare why he is for gay marriage, and other tolerant ideas, he may sway decent Christians. And, I'd love to lose the others. But, will they vote for a Democrat? No. They'll stay home. I really think if someone like a Guiliani with a proven "tough on crime, great in the trenches" resume, comes out fighting...

It's ours to lose.

The Dems don't have one competant leader.

What do you think???--I know it's early. :wink:

It's impossible to know without knowing what exactly he voted on. (Probably possible to find -- any volunteers?)

Nice to see that analysis, Lash.

I have high hopes for Mark Warner, though the pic on the cover of the NYT Magazine was horrible, horrible, horrible. I had to turn it over at the breakfast table (I kept saying plaintively to E.G. "But he's cool! Why did they do that?!") but the actual article was at least somewhat encouraging. What was DEPRESSING as hell is that the article said more strongly than anywhere else that I've seen that Hillary is the presumed nominee. I didn't think things were that bad already. Still don't know if it is that the article inaccurately portrays the state of things or if things really are that bad.

According to the Almanac of American Politics-2002-- P. 950-951, Senator Reid voted yes in the 106th Congress to BAN PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, AND HE RECEIVED A 90 rating( a very good one) in 2000 from the Americans for Democratic Action.

I think any judgement on Senator Reid must be based on the realization that in every election before 2004, he never won with more than 51%--The races were always very close.

I believe she thinks she's getting in as a legacy.



John Edwards wants it, eh?

He'd be the one I would worry about.

Don't Tread indicates that only 12% to 14% can be considered the Religious Right. I don't know what his definition of the Religious Right is, but he may be correct according to his definition.

However, anyone accessing the web site-Rasmussen Reports will find that a full 55% of people polled consider abortion immoral.

That would coincide with the feelings of the far right, I am sure.

i wish i could tell ya. mysteryman turned me on to evan bayh. since i remembered that my dad complained about his dad when we lived in the area, i looked into his positions ( sorry pop !!).

and he looks kinda okay to me. warner? still don't know enough to say.

at this point, i don't know if i care any more if the president is red or blue. although purple is about the right mix for me these days.

do you remember that i told you once that i voted for republican presidents before they started running around shouting all of that "values" stuff ? that's what lost me.

and i'm starting to feel the same way about dems.

it's no secret around here where i stand on rights issues like marriage and abortion, but jeez, there's a hell of a lot more to be concerned with in the world than just those two things.

i started laffing yesterday. i was watching a townhall with james carvelle and paul begala. you may or may not like them, but when it comes to the actual mechanics of politics, they totally rock...

but anyway, begala said(paraphrasing) "i started voting in 1980. and every election since then has had a bush or a clinton in the race somewhere.

ya know, he's right....

maybe i should run ? "pot in every chicken!" wait. that's not how it goes...

but i kinda like the idea. naw... never mind. brownies aren't greasy..
--

what about chuck hagel ? any interest ?

Competent Leaders for the Democrats?

Lash- You must consider Hillary Rodham Clinton. She has an ego bigger than Manhattan Island. Rasmussen Reports says that 45% of the people polled consider her to be a liberal, which, of course, is the kiss of death, but, she will be in the running in 2007.

Al Gore( proposed by Blueflame on another thread) is also a possibility but given that he had an opportunity to knock out the "inarticulate" George W. Bush in the pre-2000 debates and did not do so, he is operating at a disadvantage.

Why not consider, Ted Kennedy? He is, after all, the conscience of the Senate and has name recognition far beyond most people. If they can get him to dry out, he may well be a candidate.