Yeah, at the moment. He’s changed his positions on several key conservative issues quite a bit, and this isn’t Senate votes that don’t necessarily indicate how you, personally, feel. He was Governor of Massachusetts until this year, and Governors aren’t exactly known for diametrically switching on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and tax cuts. I was already somewhat disinclined to vote for a Mormon Republican, but this clinches it.
(I’m a Democrat, but I like to think that I’m capable of voting for a Republican.)
There’s been many threads on the subject, and I don’t want to hijack this one too badly, but here goes:
It cuts the heart right out of what the first ammendment speech protections are all about.
Sure, other law have limited speech, but never in such a direct and profane way. You can’t yell “fire” in a theater, but that’s more about making inciting a riot illegal than making speech illegal. You can still make an argument on the SDMB that yelling “fire” in a theater should be legal. You could even buy a TV add if you cared enough to.
You can’t argue that free speech gives you the right to discuss murder or other illegal dealings. That’s because such things are illegal, and the speech is only a byproduct of the action in question.
What CFR does is target the actual speech itself in a way that these other limitations do not. To prevent an organization of voters such as the ACLU or NRA from saying “Vote for Joe” within a certain period of time around an election is an alarming violation of everything that the first ammendment stands for.
When Bush didn’t veto this I was shocked. When the SCOTUS didn’t overturn it I was outraged. Anybody who supported it is questionable to say the least, IMO. But, the guy who wrote it as POTUS? No thanks.
However, I don’t think it’s fair to characterize Romney as simply flipping his positions randomly and without cause. He’s considering running for president. So he’s shoring up his conservative credentials a bit.
Just about all politicians do this. I’m not under the illusion that anybody presidential contenders out there have all their positions because of belief and not because of political calculation.
I would not place Romney any worse in this regard than some others. Both McCain and HRC are much more opportunistic with their political positions IMO.
I don’t think Giuliani would have a chance in hell in the primaries. Socially, he’s at least liberal as HRC, maybe even more so (though he does seem to be trying to pander more to the religious right lately). He’s pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun and he cheated on his wife.
I believe that some of the largest pro-life groups have already said they would oppose putting Rudy on the Presidential ticket. I don’t see him landing on the ticket even as a veep, especially when a potential Obama ticket already has crossover appeal to some conservatives.
Right now it looks like McCain will be at the top of the ticket by default and it’s going to be Bob Dole all over again. At one time I might have voted for McCain but his continued toadyism for Bush has made me lose respect for him.
What do you mean by “Bob Dole all over again”? I was only eight when Clinton was reelected, so I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. Was Dole a big Republican before he started running for the nomination?
I’m neither Republican nor Democrat; I’ve always remained Independent. Actually, I dislike discussing politics, because my personal experience – reinforced by much of what I read on this board, too, I’m afraid – is that political discussions generally degenerate into – if they did not already start from – desperate attempts to browbeat one another into adopting or losing a certain opinion, with each “debater” insisting his or her opinion is the only possible one that any non-cretin COULD adopt. But I do like to read about politics, although rational discussions and not over-the-type alarmist hype.
But a friend of mine stateside tells me McCain is looking pretty old and sickly. I see him occasionally on BBC and CNN and in news photos, and he doesn’t look that bad to me. My friend sees him on television a lot more than I do. DOES he look like he has one foot in the grave? That and his age could dissuade many not to vote for him.
I’ve always thought Giuliani a good man, politics aside. Even the staunch American liberals I know here say they could live with him as president.
Dole was the Senate Majority Leader before he ran for President. He kind of got the nomination out of seniority, a lack of other good contenders and a scare from Pat Buchanan getting a lot of support from the conservative base in the early going. Dole ended up running a lackluster campaign, looking “old” and relying far too much on his status as a (severely wounded) WWII veteran. He was absolutely no political match for Clinton (this was before Blowjob-gate) and there was a lot of talk among Republicans about “buyers’ remorse” when Clinton was running circles around him in September and October. They gave the nom to a guy because it was “his turn” and ended up regretting it.
I can see the same thing happening again with McCain. He’s “old,” his POW status has already been milked dry and he might be running against a candidate (in Obama) who has youth, vibrance, charisma and intelligence with (so far) no real negatives.
McCain might have a better chance against HRC but I still think he would lose a close race. Against Obama, i think he’d get trounced.
I’m assuming you don’t want Republicans to win? A Defense Secretary who resigned after the midterms only two years before '08 and a SoS who retired a year before that? Even if they were considering running, they wouldn’t get any votes at any point in the process.
Your premise is not flawed, but your choice of venue most certainly is. Asking a group of people on the SDMB which candidate they like as a Republican nominee is like asking the fox to watch the hen-house. Seriously:
“…they would be more central…”
“…they would appeal to even liberals like me…”
Sheez…
That is NOT what Republicans should be – real conservatives do not want Democrats-Lite. What the Republican party needs is a strong, return-to-ideals conservative. The reason the Republican party has been so weak at presidential elections for the last 2 decades is a lack of strong, conservative leadership. The takeover in '94 happened because a strong return to conservative ideals was proposed. When they moved away from them, likely Republican voters quit voting. Give me a strong, Reagan-style conservative Republican, and I’ll vote for him…and nearly every time a Republican runs on strong conservative principles, he/she wins handily (there are exceptions in staunchly blue-state areas, which is to be expected). The Republican party doesn’t need more centrism – it needs a return to '80, '84, and '94.
My premise isn’t that great, either; this far out, speculation about potential nominees means virtually nothing. I’m just curious about what people think.
Also, running to appeal to the base is not a good plan. The voters whom you need to win are the independents, and they aren’t going to like extremes on either side. In the primaries, sure, but not afterwards.
There hasn’t been a landslide Republican presidential win since '88, when the population thought they were getting another Reagan when they elected then-VP Bush. Since then, there has been either a Democrat victory, or narrowly-margined wins.
I disagree. In this case, I think they need to appeal to the base to get them back. The reason elections have been so close is because the base of the party has been marginalized to the point that they don’t go out and vote. They stay home and let the middle-of-the-road undecideds make the election.
Not a Pub, but I’m sure the nomination is going to go to someone not mentioned in the OP.
McCain: Too old. Even now.
Giuliani: Too liberal (pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, etc.).
Romney: Too Mormon. (Don’t forget the religious-right element of the Pub base, many of whom would sooner vote for a non-Christian, such as a Jew, than what they see as a False Christian. Heretics are always scarier than infidels.)
