Which republican would you vote for in 2008?

Which republican would you vote for in 2008?


  • Total voters
    27
musicman said:
As far as Gulliani: if he could convince conservative America that he understands and respects - UNQUESTIONINGLY - the constitutional separation of powers - to wit: his personal views on social issues are utterly immaterial to faithfully executing the office of the Presidency - I might give him a listen.

Funny, I might have asked the same of Bush.
 
I don't know whether I would vote for a Republican at all. That would depend upon who the Democrats put up and what kind of Independents are running, if any.

But the most appealing Republican is not on the list-Condi.
 
jillian said:
Funny, I might have asked the same of Bush.

Please provide specific, provable examples of George Bush violating the separation of powers.

Then, if it's not too much trouble, please cite instances of his doing so in the furtherance of his personal beliefs on social issues.
 
If Republicans are smart they will push Giuliani through the primaries. It's a win-win in the general election: He'll carry NY over Hillary (and some other blue states as well) and the nuts in the South will have no one else to vote for.

That's funny, a brain surgeon from New Jersey calling people in the South nuts. What makes you think anyone outside of the New York smog zone gives a shit about Giuliani?
 
That's funny, a brain surgeon from New Jersey calling people in the South nuts. What makes you think anyone outside of the New York smog zone gives a shit about Giuliani?

While I like Newt better, I'd vote for Guiliani. I'm outside that zone.
 
While I like Newt better, I'd vote for Guiliani. I'm outside that zone.

Newt is a problem, although anyone that the Republicans put up will be a problem for the power hungry but inept Democrats, Newt is at the very least as polarizing as W. He may be extremely intelligent and know history and government like a professor, but he comes off extremely arrogant and condescending which the voting public will always have a problem with. Then there was the dumping of his wife in the hospital room that Democrats will love to throw in his face. He also isn't good looking for all of the idiots that vote on looks.

You aren't exactly a typical voter Kath., you are one millionth more informed than John Q. Public. I like Guilliani myself, I like what he did with New York City and I think he would have some chance at bridging the gap between liberal and conservative but I don't see the Western or Southern areas of the U.S. voting for him. That could change with a serious campaign but ........

I would like to see him with Condi as V.P. but who knows what will work. I would have never guessed that North Eastern feminist would have ever let a womanizer from Arkansas get elected President, they love Bill still!
 
Newt is a problem, although anyone that the Republicans put up will be a problem for the power hungry but inept Democrats, Newt is at the very least as polarizing as W. He may be extremely intelligent and know history and government like a professor, but he comes off extremely arrogant and condescending which the voting public will always have a problem with. Then there was the dumping of his wife in the hospital room that Democrats will love to throw in his face. He also isn't good looking for all of the idiots that vote on looks.

You aren't exactly a typical voter Kath., you are one millionth more informed than John Q. Public. I like Guilliani myself, I like what he did with New York City and I think he would have some chance at bridging the gap between liberal and conservative but I don't see the Western or Southern areas of the U.S. voting for him. That could change with a serious campaign but ........

I would like to see him with Condi as V.P. but who knows what will work. I would have never guessed that North Eastern feminist would have ever let a womanizer from Arkansas get elected President, they love Bill still!

You may be right, but I think that the 'Republicans' do define issues, and when push comes to shove, will deal with the personalities, foibles and all.
 
I say Newt. I know the typical response is the marital affairs thing. When Newt lies under oath about having an affair, I'll have the same sharp criticism against him that I had against Bill Clinton. Until then, I'd rather have a conservative witha real backbone, even if he has some past marital issues.
 
Tancredo? He's nothing more than a one-issue circus. Sure you might like is position on immigration, but that doesn't make him fit to hold the most powerful office on the planet.

Did you miss the part where I said "...but I need to know more about him"?
It was a very short post. :confused:

However, I know plenty of people who vote on one issue, if that issue means a lot to them. For example, all the Dems who will only vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
 
Abbey Normal said:
Did you miss the part where I said "...but I need to know more about him"?
It was a very short post.

However, I know plenty of people who vote on one issue, if that issue means a lot to them. For example, all the Dems who will only vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
Nope, I'm just saying that there are no other issues when it comes to Rep. Tancredo. The only thing he stands for is anti-immigration.
 
Out of that list I would vote for Newt. He is the only one who has a comprehensive and intelligent plan for implementing conservative values in America on all fronts.

Tancredo is good on immigration but so is Newt:
http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=2977

Newt's personal history pales in comparison to the checkerboard history of his potential adversary, Hillary Clinton, along with her potential First "Gentleman".
 

Forum List

Back
Top