Newt’s looking pretty good these days as a viable candidate.
Unfortunately Obama will have a lot of prejudice working against him.
He’s an unreformed, active smoker. Forget that bullshit that some supporters have laid out that it will make him seem like more of a regular guy. The media has spent the better part of the last decade portraying smokers as the lowest form of life. And it will affect him in some of these whitebread suburban communities that he will need to win.
And if he spins it right, he could get a lot of votes for quitting: “I realized that it’s my duty as a United States Senator not just to represent the great state of Illinois and serve America but to set an example for children out there, to tell them that smoking is dangerous. I’ve been smoke free for x days, and while it’s difficult, I have the strength both to defeat the cravings – and lead this nation as its President.” But it might be difficult to counter others saying it’s just political maneuvering.
I tend to agree with you. Judy Baar Topinka is also a smoker, and we know how her campaign ended up.
Not a Pub, but:
-
McCain: Too old even now, and, hello, he’s about as hawkish as they get on the Iraq war. Sure, he admits that things are going badly. Nonetheless, he is still quite hawkish. Have I missed something? I mean, I thought it was just Bush that still loves the war. Have the Pubbies turned back into delusional warmongers? Plus, his cranky temperament just doesn’t say “Presidential material.” And CFR has been a failure…well intentioned, but a failure nonetheless. If he got the nomination, the country would say, “good man, served his country well…but no thanks.”
-
Giuliani: Too liberal. Pro-gun control, pro gay rights, pro-choice, etc. And don’t forget his little indiscretion: he cheated on his wife while still in office and moved his mistress into the mayor’s mansion. He ignored his wife’s complaints, who, fed up, got a court order to force out the mistress. The party hates him, too. Sure, they keep pointing to him as a hero, but that’s only when someone mentions that the Pubbies brook no dissent. They say, “look at Rudy, he’s a moderate.” But they still hate him. Heard enough? Having said that, I have to admit that if somehow he got on the ticket without soft-pedaling his liberal views (unlikely), he would have a good shot at the White House. Possible scenario: strong conservative showing split amoung too many conservative candidates, but liberal Pubs all go for Rudy. Unlikely, but possible.
-
Romney: Too Mormon. Once Mormonism itself gets under the spotlight (which would happen if he ran) most Pubs would run screaming from the room.
-
Pataki: Nope. Might get some early traction because of his amiable style, but his ineffectiveness in office would catch up with him. While I was visiting my parents in New York a while ago, I read in the New York Post (a pretty conservative paper) a column by Frederic Dicker (who covers state politics for the NYP). In it, he said that Pataki was a complete and utter failure as Governor, in ways concerning both competence and honesty. Harsher still, he said that anything good that happened on Pataki’s watch was in spite of Pataki, not because of him. Strong words.
-
Jeb Bush: Feh. Third time’s not gonna be a charm, voters know that.
-
Newt Gingrich: Might get small amount of early traction until voters remember why they hated him the last time around.
-
Donald Rumsfeld: Too Dr. Strangelove-ian. Miserable failure as Defense Secretary. Troops will line up to eagerly tell the American public why they hate him.
-
Colin Powell: His vaunted integrity seriously compromised by his “support the President to the bitter end” attitude while Secretary of State. His heyday as a contender was 10 years ago. Too bad.
-
Condi Rice: spent too much of the last 6 years adoringly sucking off GWB, a vision voters won’t be able to shake.
I don’t think he could get the nomination, but I think he could still be a viable general election candidate. He got out of the Bush Administration before the shit really hit the fan, opinion-wise. And he could spin the hell out of it.
I don’t expect it, mind you. If he were to end up the nominee, I’d be shocked. If he were even to run I’d be shocked.
I see her as a VP candidate.
Mr. “We must curtail free speech to fight terrorism” Gingrich? Oh, hell no.
You know, it really disturbed me when Powell, after the Gulf War, was talked up as a potential presidential candidate, even though nobody seemed to have any idea of what his politics were. Hello? Isn’t that, like, more important than anything else in this business? Much more important than, say, personal integrity and character. It’s better to be well governed by sinners than misgoverned by saints!
I guess it’s a question of what it is people vote for–a person, or a platform.
I think the former. I’d prefer the latter.
And now, thanks to you, neither will I. shudder :mad:
I’m not a Republican, but that doesn’t prevent me from thinking about who will win the nom.
We’re on the second page now and no one has mentioned Sam Brownback of Kansas yet. He will be a factor in this race I will wager.
McCain and Giuliani both have that “RINO” thing going. They will have tons of money, but both of them leave large numbers of Republicans cold. They want a good old fashioned Regan Republican to carry the conservative banner. Brownback is all of that. Gingrich? Please. He’s old news and he’s a proven loser. He had his shot. Romney seems to appeal to hardly anyone. He’ll be out fast. Rice won’t run, nor will Jeb Bush (this time) nor Rumsfeld (ever).
McCain’s huge support for the war in Iraq and an increase in troops there now could hurt him in a general election, but no one is going to lose the Republican nomination for supporting this war.
Brownback will really have a chance to make a mark in Iowa. It’s almost right next to Kansas and it’s a caucus so the hard core conservative types will be more dominant.
Next comes New Hampshire which I predict will be a must-win for Giuliani. He will throw everything he has into winning it.
Things could be still up for grabs going to South Carolina which is a state custom made for a Guy like Brownback. Have people there forgotten about McCain’s “illegitimate” kids yet? Does Brownback have the kind of cutthroat, Rovian political style the Bush had? We’ll see. Giuliani will be a non-factor down there.
I think the nomination fight will eventually come down to the aging, cash rich favorite McCain trying to hold off the conservative upstart Brownback. McCain could have to do a lot more pandering to the right wing of the party to finally get his nomination. If he can get it.
As for veep. I dunno. Who the hell saw Cheney coming? Elizabeth Dole comes to mind as a possible pick, especially if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination. There’s been a Bush or Dole on every ticket since '72. I don’t think McCain-Giuliani is an unbeatable combo as claimed above.
Point well taken…the last time voters went for integrity, they got stuck with Jimmy Carter. Smart, well-meaning, trustworthy, all that Boy Scout stuff…but a shitty President. As far as Powell goes, while his views on specific issues aren’t fully fleshed out, he is known to be largely a centrist Republican.
Yer not a Pubbie, yet you’re touting the most conservative Pub on the Planet? Uh huh. :rolleyes: Brownback might be popular with the speaking-in-tongues set, but his extreme conservatism will leave everyone else cold. Besides, ineffective blowhard social conservatives have done nothing in the last decade except exhort misery infliction on non-Christians and heretics while dodging sex crime allegations of their own. Besides, voters are fed up with the extreme tendency of social conservatives to politicize science (stem cell research, etc.) and have had enough. He’d have no shot at all in the general election, and the Pubs know that; with the House and the Senate in Democratic control, the Pubs will only back a winner. Idealogues will be overwhelmed by pragmatists.
Although I think you understate Rudy’s ability to do well in Iowa (last I heard he was still doing okay in the heartland, although I admit that would sour somewhat), you’re right about Giuliani needing a win badly in New Hampshire. If he can’t win in a Northeastern state, he has no shot anywhere else.
Yep, CFR = Campaign Finance Reform.
I wouldn’t be so quick to write off anybody just yet. Many conservatives will vote for anybody they think can win. McCain and Rudy have baggage, as others have pointed out. But Romney was able to win a gov race in the most liberal state of MA. He’s electable. If he wins the primary the religious crowd will hold thier noses and vote for him over any democrat. Some might stay home, but his appeal to the housewife center which decides elections will offset that.
It’s unlikely he’ll win the primary, though.
There’s another huge issue we should be focusing on. It’s not an opinion shared by most on the SDMB, but typical Americans are fed up and outraged over the lack of control on the border. Anybody who can credibly become a hawk on this issue could ride that all the way to the nomination and then the presidency. Buchanon is probably too hated by the press and others to do it, but somebody like him might emerge.
He’s not touting anybody. He’s not supporting Brownback, he’s just suggesting him as a possible winner.
If I say that a hurricane might strike New England this year, that doesn’t mean I’m wishing for it to happen.
Sheesh. It’s bad enough you guys have chased off most of the conservatives from the boards. We don’t need to start going after people willing to at least face up to the reality that there are conservatives out there in the real world and that they might nominate somebody like Brownback.
Interesting sidenote -
Of the four main contenders right now - McCain, Guliani, Gingrich, and Romney, the only one who has only had one wife is the Mormon.
A bit more about McCain’s age, as I was talking to my Government teacher yesterday: Sure, Reagan was elected at 73 – but that was his re-election, and I think people are going to be more reluctant to vote for someone who will be 72 before his first term, instead at at the end of it. Also, Reagan was following Carter, and McCain would be following Bush; I think that it’s easier for an older candidate to be elected if his election changes the party controlling the presidency.
There’s news that Jim Gilmore, the former governor of Virginia, is throwing his hat in the ring.
He probably can’t win, but can he shake things up at all?
I was wondering if anyone would mention Brownback. I meant to earlier, but only to say he’s one of the least likely to win the nomination.
Believe it or not, and you can quote me, even I think the GOP has gone too far to the right in many, many ways. We used to be about fiscal responsibility, personal freedoms and less government intervention on our “behalf.” Much of the Homeland Security measures I support, the rest I abhor.
Hopefully the GOP leadership will realize the only way to gain a majority again, or win any significant elections, will be to draw back toward the center.
An interesting thing I read in the January 1, 2007 issue of Newsweek’s Who’s Next feature for 2007 regarding Romney and his membership in LDS. Hopefully this won’t be too large a quote:
That leads me to believe the Mormonism may not be as big a factor as many may want to think. It’s not a signal that evangelicals will warm to him any time soon, but it may show even those groups that someone that can win in MA is more electable than a fire and brimstone type.
Pat Buchanan may have a purpose in a consultant role regarding immigration, but he’s way too hardcore to do anything but give the media a reliable shooting target in any Cabinet position. He makes Rumsfeld look like a left of center hippie.
Ask and ye shall recieve.
How can you think this? Isn’t it the opposite that’s in fact true? Bush certainly isn’t a conservative. The up until recently Republican controlled congress certainly wasn’t conservative. They were passing out medicare drugs and spending, spending, spending. They were acting like liberals (lite).
Yes, we used to talk about that. But the current crop of Republicans isn’t talking about this stuff anymore. That’s why I consider them to not be very conservative.
Whether you’re looking at fiscal issues or social issues, I just don’t see a “conservative” Republican party these days.
I expect the liberal crowd to accuse Bush’s administration of being hyper-conservative. They are going to do that no matter what because they see anything not liberal as too far to the right. But I’m surprised at a conservative such as yourself falling for such rhetoric. Can you give me some examples of how the GOP has moved to the right?