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

That's what I was just thinking, well-put. I think it might harm the Republicans, big-picture, to go for someone so conservative in the primaries. I think (no particular reason so no cite, just a nose in the wind sort of thing) that Americans will have far less tolerance for a conservative candidate in 2008 than they did in 2004.

It still comes down to who the opponent is, though, in terms of the holding-nose factor.

Sigh.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Thanks, okie.

It's already showing.

You know he threw his support to Bush, because he knew he'd score very low.

I'm not down on him, but I know he's wounded himself with Republicans. He's one that could possibly win the Presidency, but may not survive the primaries.

I tend to agree if I am a good example. I would strongly favor a Romney, Allen, or maybe Frist over McCain, but in the general, I would vote for virtually any Republican over a Clinton, Gore, or whoever. I am a bit troubled by possibly instability and imbalance of McCain's personality and thought process, and I am not impressed with his overall understanding of the issues. Maybe I should rephrase that and say his temperament may not be suited for the presidency. I think he's a bit naive, as demonstrated by his campaign finance reform. I am a bit surprised at Frist, although he is from the South, so this particular conference poll may have skewed toward a fellow southerner. For Frist to go anywhere, he needs to acquire a much better skill of inspiring people with his speaking ability, just my personal opinion.

I don't know much about Romney, but to get elected as a Republican in a state where Ted Kennedy wins every time certainly seems to show something. And remember that Reagan won Massachusetts twice. I think a good solid, reasonably conservative Republican that can speak in an inspiring manner to explain the conservative philosophy can certainly win again, easily.

0 Replies

Wow! I agree with everything you said, except I don't think I could go with Frist over McCain, and I appreciated the effort with campaign finance.

But, yeah to the rest.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

...It's already showing.

You know he threw his support to Bush, because he knew he'd score very low.

I'm not down on him, but I know he's wounded himself with Republicans. He's one that could possibly win the Presidency, but may not survive the primaries.

mornin' lash,

do you think that the recent talk about mccain's supposed temper, mental imbalance etc., are the beginning, and similar to, the early and preemptive tactic being employed against "angry" hillary?

will "troubling" rear it's hoary head in the republican primaries ?

just asking.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

do you think that the recent talk about mccain's supposed temper, mental imbalance etc., are the beginning, and similar to, the early and preemptive tactic being employed against "angry" hillary?

Were you referring to my post? Just wondering. My post was truly a personal opinion not based on too much I've heard recently, but on my own opinion developed over the past few years. John can get pretty hot over some things sometimes, mainly when it involves something personal. I've heard that opinion expressed in the distant past by others.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Lash wrote:
...It's already showing.

You know he threw his support to Bush, because he knew he'd score very low.

I'm not down on him, but I know he's wounded himself with Republicans. He's one that could possibly win the Presidency, but may not survive the primaries.

mornin' lash,

do you think that the recent talk about mccain's supposed temper, mental imbalance etc., are the beginning, and similar to, the early and preemptive tactic being employed against "angry" hillary?

will "troubling" rear it's hoary head in the republican primaries ?

just asking.

Concerns about McCain's temper have been whispered for a long time, for good reason. [Note his Obama/angry mailings imbroglio recently. But, nobody's perfect. Still, a Prez with a hot head doesn't play too well with anybody.... I hadn't heard that they're saying that about Hillary. Other things yes Very Happy

, but not angry... Have you heard that?

I think the GOP primaries are going to be a melee. Can't wait. :wink:

0 Replies

okie wrote:

To clarify, are you talking about the Southern Republican Leadership Conference held recently, which gives sort of the mood of fellow Republican leaders in regard to the best possible presidential candidates for their party.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49227

McCain does not do well at all in their straw poll between themselves. Frist, George Allen, and Romney came out looking like fair possibilities.
I apologize if this has already been posted but I missed it.

True, good point. But then the Southern Republican Leadership Conference basically represents the conservative wing of the party, right? A specific strand, rather than the party overall.

Still, that was interesting, the outcome. After all, the question I asked in this thread was: will conservatives accept the spectre of McCain and Giuliani duking it out amongst themselves for the presidential nomination, or will they seek to somehow mobilise a counter-juggernaut? Some third alternative that would prevent either of those two from just walking away with the nomination and undoing the hard work the conservatives and Bushites have put in since Newt's revolution? And who would it be?

Judging on how the Southern Leadership etc went, it doesnt look too good for such a conservative alternative, IMHO. Allen is kinda positioning himself as such, I understand, but he fared rather poorly, coming in even below Romney. Meanwhile, Frist literally bused supporters in to secure winning the straw poll - but Frist? Is he really the strong leader that could put up a credible alternative to Giuliani and McCain?

Of course, if the Democratic candidate would not be Hillary, I would actually applaud the Republicans nominating someone as uninspiring like Frist or as far right as Allen. McCain or Giuliani, either of whom would seem to be able to just walk off with the Independent vote, pose a far greater challenge for anyone standing as Democrat. And I do wish the Dem to win, in principle (except, perhaps, if it were Hillary).

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I think the GOP primaries are going to be a melee. Can't wait. :wink:

That sure seems to be a given! It'll be the hottest GOP primaries since ... what? 1980?

0 Replies

YES!

When was the last time there was no heir apparent on either side?

0 Replies

There was no heir apparent in the GOP was in '96 when the GOP in its infinite wisdom put up Bob Dole against a somewhat struggling Bill Clinton going for his second term. Dole would of course have made a decent president but he did not have the necessary television charisma and turned out to be a disastrous choice both for the GOP and Dole personally.

I think probably the last time there was no heir apparent on either side was when Johnson announced he would not seek a second term. Since that time there has always been an incumbent to get an automatic nomination or a vice president considered the heir apparent.

0 Replies

Bill was the heir apparent. I said "either side."

BTW, Hi!

0 Replies

Hi. Bill was the heir apparent for the Dems in '96 yes. Which I think I implied. There was no heir apparent for the GOP in that election. Smile

0 Replies

That's freaky. Your second paragraph wasn't there when I posted previously. I actually think your first paragraph was different.

I guess it happens when we rush to try to edit before someone else posts. I do it frequently. This wasn't the post I responded to. Sorry for the confusion.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

mele42846 wrote:
The problem with McCain is that he is not looked on favorably by Republicans. In a recent poll he was selected by only 4% of Republicans as the person they would most like to see running as a Republican candidate in 2008.

I think this is true. He has enjoyed wide appeal among Moderates in both parties, but not so much with the average Republican, and the popularity he had with Repulicans likely plummeted with his Gang of 14 episode.

Lash,
I'm curious on why you're so down on McCain for the Gang of 14. I was really displeased when first announced, but now, looking back at the results, I think its worked out extremely well for conservatives. The Gang succesfully broke a log jam and got Priscilla Owen on the bench, as well as a couple other conservative judges. The real benefit however, has been the obvious ability of conservatives to get non-stealth judges like Alito on the Supreme Court. I'm not sure I would have given Alito much chance prior to the Gang of 14 breakthrough.

There may be other McCain slights that might get leverage with the deeply conservatives of the party, but I don't the Gang of 14 will do it.

0 Replies

See, this is really weird. I didn't say I was down on him; I said I believe the Republican base is.

When your party is calling the shots, and your own member pulls the rug out from under you, you don'y forget it. There are some like you, who approve, but I think there are more, who really resented it. Do you know why his own state legislature censured him? That tells me he is sorely out of touch with his constituents, but he's slowly trading them in for the new centrists, who now like him for the very reason the Republicans don't. But, those centrists won't win Republican primaries.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

do you think that the recent talk about mccain's supposed temper, mental imbalance etc., are the beginning, and similar to, the early and preemptive tactic being employed against "angry" hillary?

Were you referring to my post? Just wondering. My post was truly a personal opinion not based on too much I've heard recently, but on my own opinion developed over the past few years. John can get pretty hot over some things sometimes, mainly when it involves something personal. I've heard that opinion expressed in the distant past by others.

naw, not pointing at you, okie. :wink:

i've been hearing similar things over the last week or so. hadn't really come across that before, so it caught my interest.

i could see jack mack throwin' a rod if ya got him really revved up.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Lash wrote:
...It's already showing.

You know he threw his support to Bush, because he knew he'd score very low.....

mornin' lash,

do you think that the recent talk about mccain's supposed temper, mental imbalance etc., are the beginning, and similar to, the early and preemptive tactic being employed against "angry" hillary?

will "troubling" rear it's hoary head in the republican primaries ?

just asking.

... I hadn't heard that they're saying that about Hillary. Other things yes , but not angry... Have you heard that?

I think the GOP primaries are going to be a melee. Can't wait. :wink:

oooohhhh, yeah. mehlman has been telling anybody that will listen that hillary is "angry". some people have commented that it's a veiled referrence to gender. ya, know..like maybe she's a bit of a female dog...

he's now improvising on that theme, adding that she's stirring up racial divisiveness with the "plantation" comment.

would somebody remind young ken that newt said the same thing about dems back in his heyday?

0 Replies

I did think the comment was shitty and divisive.

Didn't know Newt said it.

I do believe that the Dems know

1) They can't make it without blacks, and

2) Blacks, as a general rule, don't vote in high numbers, so

3) They have to trot out the racially divisive remarks to get them pissed off enough to vote.

You wouldn't disagree with any of that now, would you??? Smile

0 Replies

I haven't located Newt's exact 'plantation' quote, but here's what Shelby Steele says about it in a recent column regarding Hillary:

Quote:

If Newt Gingrich also once used the plantation metaphor in reference to Congress, his goal was only an innocuous one: to be descriptive, not to pander. He was speaking to a reporter, not to a black audience, and he had the good taste to cast himself as a slave who would "lead the slave rebellion." Thus, he identified with the black struggle for freedom, not with the helplessness and humiliation of the plantation slave. If the plantation metaphor will always be inaccurate and hyperbolic where Congress is concerned, at least Mr. Gingrich's use of it carried no offense

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007854

0 Replies

I dont think the Dems need to do 3) ... the current administration has been doing the job of pissing them off enough to go vote quite well enough by itself.

Fox, in that article this struck me:

Quote:

On an emotional level, many blacks will hear Hillary's remark as follows: "I say Republicans run the House like a plantation because I am speaking to Negroes--the wretched of the earth, a slave people--who will surely know all about plantations." Is this a tin ear or a Freudian slip, blacks will wonder? Does she really see us as she projects us--as a people so backward that our support can be won with a simple plantation reference, and the implication that Republicans are racist?

Interesting to see how the editors of the Wall Street Journal project and interpret how "many blacks" surely must hear Hillary's words. Strikes me as highly condescending itself, personally (ah yes - the WSJ editors, who could be more in tune with what blacks wonder about?). But have we actually had many blacks saying anything of what is projected onto them here, in response to Hillary's remarks?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know