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

How about skipping the 2008 election and doing without a president for the next term?

0 Replies

Hardly a new strategy -- we've been doing it for years.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I'll concede that the principal Republican contenders appear to be a bit shopworn. However, when I consider the Democrat alternatives, I would quickly settle for any of them.

Better a crappy president then a good one who disagrees with you, hmm?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
I'll concede that the principal Republican contenders appear to be a bit shopworn. However, when I consider the Democrat alternatives, I would quickly settle for any of them.

Better a crappy president then a good one who disagrees with you, hmm?

Cycloptichorn

Republicans have gotten used to crappy presidents, so this comes as no surprise. They've lowered the bar so low at this point, accepting the political discourse and polarization that the Bush regime has shoved down America's throat, and believing the bullchit line that if we leave Iraq then Al Qaeda will come knocking on our door, because the hate us for our freedoms.

But I'm truly amazed by the hatred aimed at Democrats from many conservatives, as has been reflected in their language lately. And it continues to get worse.

0 Replies

Dookie, It's only about "power." They would sacrifice everything sacred about American Democracy to keep their control of our government.

0 Replies

In the last 55 years we have had ten presidents - 4 Democrats and 6 Republicans.

At the end of his term of office, Nixon had 24% approval ratings and Carter had 34%. At mid term Johnson's approval ratings were in the mid 30's though he did pull them up to the high 40's by announcing he wouldn't run for a second term. Each one passed the torch to a member of the opposition party in the next election. Unless he can turn it around, GWB will join this elite group of unpopular presidents.

Ford and Bush 41 both had approval ratings above 50% - neither were re-elected so the opposing party took over.

However, Eisenhower (59%), Kennedy (63%), and Clinton (65%) all had approval ratings 60% or higher and all won (or would have won) reelection, but as each one retired, the election went to the opposing party.

Reagan, at 64% approval rating at the end of his second term, is the only one to pass the torch to somebody from his own party.

It seems that approval ratings don't affect the next election all that much.

0 Replies

Fox, Astute reasoning.

0 Replies

OK so this Thompson person, what does he THINK? Anyone know? He's thinking about running for office, yes, but has he stated his opinions about major issues? Is he a hardline conservative?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

OK so this Thompson person, what does he THINK? Anyone know? He's thinking about running for office, yes, but has he stated his opinions about major issues? Is he a hardline conservative?

He is a magic man who can do no wrong. Can't you see this Smile

?

He's an archetype, more than a man. The Great White Hope for the Republicans to latch onto in this cycle.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ought to be interesting, no doubt. I bet Nimh is running around with a half-woody almost every day now.

Only when I imagine Lash's passionate rebuttals.

Oh, this was funny!

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

He is a magic man who can do no wrong. Can't you see this ?

He's an archetype, more than a man. The Great White Hope for the Republicans to latch onto in this cycle.

Cycloptichorn

And just how do you describe the stable of Democrat contenders?

0 Replies

In my estimation, only two dems look pretty good right now, with zero for the republicans.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
I'll concede that the principal Republican contenders appear to be a bit shopworn. However, when I consider the Democrat alternatives, I would quickly settle for any of them.

Better a crappy president then a good one who disagrees with you, hmm?

Cycloptichorn

Republicans have gotten used to crappy presidents, so this comes as no surprise. They've lowered the bar so low at this point, accepting the political discourse and polarization that the Bush regime has shoved down America's throat, and believing the bullchit line that if we leave Iraq then Al Qaeda will come knocking on our door, because the hate us for our freedoms.

But I'm truly amazed by the hatred aimed at Democrats from many conservatives, as has been reflected in their language lately. And it continues to get worse.

You're truly amazed?

One need only look to your A2K signature to understand the hollow nature of your lamentations about those big bad partisan Republicans.

As for Cyclo's interpretation of george's comment: Another example of someone on A2K feeling themselves clever about an irrelevant crack that fits in their partisan wheelhouse.

Personally I would be delighted if McCain were to win. I would be A-OK with Rudy winning and content with Mitt (a idealogical chameleon but a more than competent executive). None of these guys are, to me, the lesser of two evils. Thompson is appealing but I am wary of his gravitas (or lack thereof). None of the other GOP candidates interest me but none of them have a chance so why waste time commenting on them?

Incredibly, I find myself in the position of hoping that if a Dem candidate must win, that it be Hilary.

An utter partisan would hope for one term Presidents like Obama and Edwards, but I'm thinking of the nation.

Obama and Edwards would be disasters. Hilary is the most likely to surprise us with her abilities.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

And just how do you describe the stable of Democrat contenders?

I was dismayed by the set of 2004 contenders, but the set thats up now is incomparably better. The perfect candidate is not among them. But altogether they strike a refreshingly competent impression compared to the 2004 line-up - or compared to the current Republican line-up.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

He is a magic man who can do no wrong. Can't you see this ?

He's an archetype, more than a man. The Great White Hope for the Republicans to latch onto in this cycle.

Cycloptichorn

And just how do you describe the stable of Democrat contenders?

Well, none of them is perfect, as Nimh said.

Clinton is too... Clintonesque

Obama doesn't have much experience

Edwards is only 11 or 12 years old, by the looks of him.

...

If it wasn't for the fact that those who do have great amounts of experience were making such a mess of things, I wouldn't be such an Obama supporter. But they are, and so I am.

Guiliani is fake, with his 'I was there on 9/11' Bullsh*t. Every time he trots that out, I like him less.

Mitt Romney wants to know (per Jonah Goldberg), 'what's it going to take to get you in this BMW today?'

McCain is the most preferable of all the candidates on the Republican side to me, and why not? I worked on his campaign for a while in 2000 before Rove and Bush stabbed him in the back with their lies.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Incredibly, I find myself in the position of hoping that if a Dem candidate must win, that it be Hilary.

Do you really want to put up with years of scandals, harassment of political enemies with IRS audits, perhaps another bar bouncer for White House security, and Bill cavorting around the country and the world doing who knows what, etc. etc. etc.?

The woman is a crook to begin with. Do we have to endure that again? I would wake up in a cold sweat, thinking it has to be a nightmare.

I would prefer Obama, Edwards, Kerry, or Gore, and they would be total disasters. I would not vote for Hillary as dogcatcher, although she might be good at that.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Bill cavorting around the country and the world doing who knows what, etc. etc. etc.?

I thought the talking point was that the problem with Bill wasnt really the blowjob, but that he lied about it under oath? As in, whenever a liberal jokes about how the Republicans tried to bring a President down about a BJ, conservatives rush in to say thats not what it was about at all, it was that he lied about it?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

okie wrote:
Bill cavorting around the country and the world doing who knows what, etc. etc. etc.?

I thought the talking point was that the problem with Bill wasnt really the blowjob, but that he lied about it under oath? As in, whenever a liberal jokes about how the Republicans tried to bring a President down about a BJ, conservatives rush in to say thats not what it was about at all, it was that he lied about it?

Do you now think differently because Okie does?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

nimh wrote:
okie wrote:
Bill cavorting around the country and the world doing who knows what, etc. etc. etc.?

I thought the talking point was that the problem with Bill wasnt really the blowjob, but that he lied about it under oath? As in, whenever a liberal jokes about how the Republicans tried to bring a President down about a BJ, conservatives rush in to say thats not what it was about at all, it was that he lied about it?
Do you now think differently because Okie does?

Huh?

0 Replies

Most do at least mostly object to the Lying to a Grand Jury (not to mention selling pardons, and renting rooms at the Whitehouse Razz

), not the BJ. Okie is apparently an exception, not the rule.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know