A footnote to the Senate vote yesterday tightening ethics rules: an amendment to create an independent Office of Public Integrity to investigate ethical lapses by Senate members failed 71-27. Here’s how the two Senators in the OP voted on establishing the independent watchdog office:
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
So a Hagel candidacy will save the GOP?
I vote Nay.
Oh, is that all? Not worth it. Not even close. It probably wouldn’t be worth it even if the religious right was controlling the republican party which it’s not. For example: See “Abortion”.
Nice post, though. Really. You did get me thinking about it for a few minutes there.
Meh. If 71 Senators voted against it, my guess it’s just not needed or there are other problems with it.
I’d probably die laughing if the Republicans ran a Massachusetts-born New York City mayor as their candidate. He makes more sense for Democrats or as an independent.
Well, I’m seeing a collapse coming in the Republican Party. Bloomberg is a possibility if it goes one way.
I was comparing and contrasting him with Giuliani, though. Both have no chance, but for opposite reasons.
I’d say Hagel could beat McCain, but “saving the party” is a tall order. McCain’s support within the party has never been as strong as the public image suggests - his 2000 primary wins were mostly in states that permitted crossover voting, and a large part of his support came from non-Republicans entranced by his then-image of integrity and competence and determination.
But he’s pissed most of that away by now, by excessive suckupitude and loss of connection with reality based in an outmoded view of Bush’s public support. Now he looks too much like an old fool. Neither of those is curable.
Hagel doesn’t have any of those problems, but he does have war-skeptic-turned-anti-war and general-integriy credentials in order.
Bloomberg *was * a Democrat until he used the common tactic of officially changing registrations just to get a bye into the finals.
That’s an interesting subject in general, though - in recent elections, the Democrats have had to run Southerners to neutralize some of the GOP strength in the South. Are we at a point now where the Reps need to run Northerners?
Could be. The Dems have beaten the Pubbies every time they ran a southerner (at least since Johnson), so maybe the Pubbies do need to look north.
…except the second time Carter ran.
A Jew?
A New York Jew?
At the top of the Pub ticket?
NFW.
That’s interesting. Many have talked about how Democrats need Southerners, but nobody ever thinks about Republicans needing Yankees. Then again, I think the GOP has had a pretty good Presidential election record, up until now, so…
Also, though the South was traditionally Democratic before the Civil Rights Act of 1960-something, and has been fairly reliably Republican since, do remember, that Gore came within a hair of winning Florida, which is most definitely a Southern state. All the map shows is which states are red, and which blue; it doesn’t tell you how close individual states were.
(With any luck, the Electoral College will be mostly irrelevant soon; if not by 2008, hopefully 2012. Please don’t continue this hijack. If people are interested, somebody (maybe me) can start a thread.)
Only *northern * Florida is “Southern”. The south is essentially Northern. The state overall is perennially in play.
A really rich Jew who made his money as both a trader and a systems developer.
He is both a brilliant business man and tech savy.
He is well known for his Philanthropy, is a self made Billionaire and not crazy like Perot.
He was an Eagle Scout, that might help with the Jewish thing. 
He won relection by the largest margin ever by a Republican in NYC. He enjoys a very high approval rating.
He has said that he will not seek another office after his term as Mayor is up.
There is already some movement to encourage him to run as a Dem or Independant Presidential Candidate.
His political donations seem to support old fashion Fiscal Conservatives:
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION SEARCH
So all that said, I agree, it is extremely unlikely to see him head the republican ticket, but it would be great.
Jim
The fact that Bloomberg has handled NYC for so long, through so much pain in the assery…
Dude could run this country. He hasn’t had a scandal, he hasn’t screwed up once. Hell, he’s even handled Sharpton and the rest through police scandals.
He’s got the business creds. He’s got the Fiscal Conservative creds. He may be jewish, but given the choice between him and Rudy? Mike’d do a way better job.
I don’t think he wants it, and if so, that’s another reason to try to get him to run. 
Seriously, can anyone think of a single negative thing to say about Bloomberg? Besides the Jewish thing.
Now, the only way this would happen would be to run Democrat, with the understanding that he’s running under his steam, not theirs. Or… if the Pubs have a massive meltdown, then the Dems seem weak in '12.
Either way, I don’t think he will… but he could be a really interesting candidate, and a really good president. Don’t think he could win, but he wouldn’t be knocked out by scandal… he wouldn’t be knocked out by issues.
Huh. You know, if he could shred the New York Jew bigotry, he could do it. I dunno.
And this dispels the relevant NYJ stereotypes how? 
He has no chance, because Guliani will win in a walk.
I really need to get ahead of Bricker on the 2008 election. Anybody want to bet against Rudy?
BrainGlutton: Because he ain’t pushy. He’s a master of dealing with people.
He’s had positive discussion with Al Sharpton, man.
I would so bet against Rudy in '08. Hundred bucks, right now, on the table.
Furt, I will bet you $50 that Giuliani will not win in a walk. As this is difficult to quantify, especially in advance, I propose that we select a moderator or administrator who will judge when the time comes if Giuliani has won the nomination easily or not.
I like Rudy I like him a lot. I am a Republican. However, I cannot see him winning the nomination.
I could see him added to a McCain ticket it to give the Republicans a big boost in the North East. Rudy is more popular in the large Metro area outside of NYC than he is in NYC. His liberal leanings will help win a moderate and independent vote and being only VP is something the far right of the party will probably tolerate to beat out the Dem that will be more liberal than Rudy. The “Mayor of America” thing will pull in votes from those who do not look into issues.
I would vote for Rudy or Bloomberg in a heartbeat if I were given a chance. But neither would appear to have any chance of winning a nomination. Someone would have to convince me otherwise.
Furt, I am not a betting man, but I would take your bet if we could cement down the rules. What does win in a walk mean? By what margin would that be?
Jim
Well, I didn’t necessarily want to bet on the “in a walk” part. I just meant I’d put money on him to win. Given that we’re 18 months out and I’m betting against the field, I think that’s a damn big risk I’m taking.
E-Sabbath was first in line. $100 on Guiliani to win the nomination. Deal?