For 2008, do we want a moderate or conservative Republican leader?

[acludem]

I predict the Democratic candidate will be from the midwest, probably Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, or perhaps even Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. My darkhorse for the Democratic nomination is Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. The Republicans will run a hard-line right wing conservative that won't have Bush's ability to appeal to the center. The candidate will most likely be Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee. It will be a close contest, but the Democrat will win Ohio and Florida this time and thus the Presidency. I will make another bold prediction - Democrats will pick up seats both in the House and Senate in 2006 - they will run on Social Security in the Senate, and in the House on Tom DeLay. A lot will depend on how the SCOTUS battle unfolds.

Rudy Giuliani is not a viable Republican candidate because he's pro-choice and pro-gay rights, whether you like it or not, the religious right has a lot of clout in the GOP and they will veto his butt. John McCain is also not acceptable to the religious right.

acludem

 

[Big Blue Machin]

I think that Rudy-Newt would be not a bad ticket at all for the Republicans. Moderates can attract youth, because conservative youth (like myself) are more progressive earlier in life.

 

[5stringJeff]

I would vote for Hillary before I voted for McCain. No way in hell he gets the GOP nomination.

Frankly, I hope that Condi Rice runs. She has more foriegn policy experience than anyone else running, and foreign policy is the important issue.

 

[Big Blue Machin]

Do you seriously think that the Republicans will nominate a black woman? I'm not sexist but it seems contradicting that the Republicans would nominate a black woman because they have not a fan of minority rights or women's rights.

 

[Big Blue Machin]

Make you a deal - you stay out of American Politics, and I'll not make fun of Canadians...

I'll tell you where you can shove your deal in... :spank3:

 

[5stringJeff]

Do you seriously think that the Republicans will nominate a black woman? I'm not sexist but it seems contradicting that the Republicans would nominate a black woman because they have not a fan of minority rights or women's rights.

Frankly, that statement shows how little you know of American politics. The GOP, regardless of what Howard Dean says, is not just a WASP party. Condi already has a significant following in the GOP grassroots.

 

[-Cp]

Do you seriously think that the Republicans will nominate a black woman? I'm not sexist but it seems contradicting that the Republicans would nominate a black woman because they have not a fan of minority rights or women's rights.

The ignorance stated above shows just how misinformed you really are....

Can an admin close this thread? No reason going on anymore as the Ontario-based person who started this thread has just killed it by one of the most ignorant statements I've heard in a long time..

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Do you seriously think that the Republicans will nominate a black woman? I'm not sexist but it seems contradicting that the Republicans would nominate a black woman because they have not a fan of minority rights or women's rights.

This is not your father's Republican Party, so to speak.

Your statement might have some merit circa 1964, when guys like Strom Thurmond were leaving the Democratic Party and becoming Republicans, but not today. Sure, you might dig up an extremist here and there, but the Republicans are far more inclusive than they were just a few years ago. Of course, I also don't include abortion as a "woman's right".

 

[Big Blue Machin]

How many Republican woman senators and congresswomen are there?
How many Republican black senators and congressmen are there?

My point exactly

 

[-Cp]

How many Republican woman senators and congresswomen are there?
How many Republican black senators and congressmen are there?

My point exactly

Better question, how many blacks and/or women served in Clinton's administration compared to GWB's?

 

[Big Blue Machin]

I'm sure more than one.

 

[Big Blue Machin]

Anyway, why are we arguing? We are deciding who would make a good Republican candidate.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

How many Republican woman senators and congresswomen are there?
How many Republican black senators and congressmen are there?

My point exactly

I don't have the stats right in front of me, and don't have time to look for them. But you might also ask: When was the last time a black Secretary of State (and a woman) replaced a black Secretary of State? Who appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court? Your answer won't have anything to do with a Democrat in the White House.

 

[Big Blue Machin]

I'm sorry, but I just think that Republicans or America aren't ready for a black or woman or both leader.

 

[-Cp]

I'm sorry, but I just think that Republicans or America aren't ready for a black or woman or both leader.

Better question is why do you even give a Rat's ass? What we do in OUR country is our own business...

You don't see me go around meddling in your polical affairs up there...

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm sorry, but I just think that Republicans or America aren't ready for a black or woman or both leader.

Don't take this the wrong way, because I appreciate your interest, but that statement is both arrogant and ignorant. What you think America is ready for is much different than what America actually is ready for. Not everyone looks at Condi Rice and says "There's a black woman who is also Secretary of State." Many of us say, "There's our Secretary of State, who is also a black woman."

 

[Bonnie]

Hillary and The Democrats Telegraph Their Vulnerabilities
By Christopher Adamo (07/06/05)

Within Republican circles, moods run from panic to despondency whenever
Hillary and the 2008 presidential election is discussed. Among consummate
party pragmatists, so historically prone to abandon principle in pursuit of
political gain, the consensus is that the only means of defeating Hillary is
to run a socially liberal Republican “look alike.”

Time and again, party “moderates” justify such abominable judgments with
their standard contention that, “losers don’t govern.” What they are loath
to admit is that adopting the philosophies of the opposition guarantees that
a party will lose its agenda, regardless of who wins the elections. Worse
yet, running as an imitation of the opposition frequently spells doom for an
otherwise viable campaign.

This reaction among Republicans is particularly deplorable given that
Hillary and the rest of the Democrat Party are, by their behavior, blatantly
showcasing their inherent weaknesses. If Republicans will simply take note
of the signs, and muster the courage to exploit them, victory is all but
assured, not only in 2008, but in next year’s Congressional and Senate races
as well.

Consider how, in the wake of the President’s recent policy speech on Iraq,
Democrats in the media and on Capitol Hill caterwauled about his references
to 9-11, furious that he would dare tie Iraq to the terrorist attacks. The
real significance of their outcry is that they remain extremely vulnerable
whenever the subject of 9-11 is mentioned. Thus they are determined to
sidetrack all discussion of it.

In the wake of the 2004 presidential race, Democrats relentlessly seethed at
the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, along with the many “bloggers” who
regularly took them to task, as if those courageous citizens had lowered
American politics to some new depths never plumbed by the deceitful
propaganda machines of Michael Moore and George Soros.

Though the left enjoyed a virtual media “monopoly” in recent decades, only
within the framework of such a monopoly could the lies of liberalism fester
and proliferate unchecked as they did. Now that monopoly longer exists.
Thus, the hysterical and monolithic Democrat response to the truth, as
exposed and disseminated by the Swiftvets and bloggers, highlights it as
their chief area of weakness.

Such has been the case within leftist movements throughout history. And
whether it be printing presses in the old Soviet Union, or forbidden
Internet activities now occurring in Communist China, the free flow of
information among the masses represents a mortal threat to those who would
govern through deceit and brute force.

Consider the track record of Hillary Clinton. From the time that her husband
’s transgressions first became a liability to his 1992 campaign, propaganda
ploys of one form or another were the surest means of keeping their agenda
on track. Conversely, the advent of alternative media sources became the
biggest impediment they faced.

Thus, after the demise of the Clinton Health Care plan, a political
catastrophe that directly resulted from its loud denunciation by the likes
of Rush Limbaugh, Hillary spearheaded an effort to re-establish the doctrine
of “fairness in broadcasting.”

Under its auspices, the FCC could invoke the “Fairness Doctrine” against
radio stations in which any plaintiff protested the station’s broadcasting
content as being unbalanced.

Hence, the same cadre of liberal puppets, who predictably materialize to
file their complaints about the presence of a Ten Commandments display,
would subsequently be empowered to shut down conservative talk-radio, and
thus re-establish that vaunted liberal media monopoly.

“Air America” the liberal talk radio network was itself an attempt to
neutralize the effects of conservative talk radio. Unfortunately for
leftists, further proliferation of liberal propaganda, already so prevalent
on the major networks, did nothing to negate the realities of conservatism.

Liberal reaction to Ed Klein’s best selling new book “The Truth About
Hillary,” stands as proof that this vulnerability to the truth still exists.
The ominous extent of attempts by Hillary and the major media to suppress
the book proves she has reason to fear it.

Hillary’s venomously ultra-liberal track record still stands, and
occasionally surfaces in her speeches and voting patterns. Thus, her
occasional efforts to present herself as socially conservative, hawkish on
the terror war and, at times, deeply religious, can only succeed if she
retains absolute control of the information circulated among the public.

The underhanded and desperate need of Hillary and the Democrats to reckon
with their past deeds highlights the situation in stark and undeniable
terms. Truth itself is the one enemy against which liberalism cannot
prevail.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/8103

 

[musicman]

That's a whale of a post, Bonnie! Those are my clumsy, poorly-worded thoughts, set down perfectly by someone who actually knows how to write!

Gonna print this sucker, and save it!

 

[Avatar4321]

2008 is going to be the year of the blowback.
You are going to end up with a moderate Democrat as president and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate.
I know you are looking forward to it. :teeth:

Wow you must really be in a fantasy world. We already know the Democrat candidate will be Hillary and she is about as moderate as Rush Limbaugh.

Besides, what exactly would the country vote Democrats into the house and senate for? They arent offering any suggestions for the future. name one reason to vote for you. Not to vote against the other guy, but you actually vote for you.

 

[Avatar4321]

You better not make fun of Canadians. Remember we're bigger and we're on top.

So was Monica but we make fun of her all the time.