I’d say whoever has the deepest pockets (sad to say), probably Mitt Romney. I wish though that the brilliant Dr. Michael Savage would be the next one to hold that office. He says he’s “mulling it over,” but for the sake of this country, and the world, he really ought to take a run at it, or at least participate in the debates! (Gosh, he’s soooo dad gum smart!!)
What an amazing thing if we were to go from Bush to Savage! From the worse to the best!
“IF” Savage does join in the debates, there’ll be no question that Americans are going to love the guy, as he’s not only brilliant but is TOTALLY fearless and is a man with many, many great ideas … and tells it the way it is (most of the time). I really admire the guy, and there’s no one like him on the American landscape. In fact, I quite likely won’t even vote unless he runs for the office (as I’m tired of the same old PC, visionless people that we seem to always get).
Who would YOU like to see as our next president? :dubious:
Get real. The next President of the United States will be either Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or whatever non-descript (currently) Republican manages to establish himself out from under the shadow of the Administration. It damn sure won’t be anyone from within the current administration.
He rather vehemently tries to stir up hatred of a minority group, he seems to be blind to any faults of a rightist administration (except that we’re not carpet bombing places like Fallujah), he uses straw man arguements to support his positions, he is hiding his own past (as a hippy).
The big one is the using of a minority group (Muslims right now) to stir up the populace and create a unifying “enemy”.
Romney has more money than McCain or Giuliani, but his cash is all for the primary; he’s not allowed to spend any of his current funds in the general election, because that’s how he filed his reports. He’s not really the richest candidate, and his polling numbers suck badly.
Romney has 40% in UT, but can only break into the double digits in NH and TX, sometimes in AZ, CA, CT, ME, MI, IA, and NV (in one poll, he ties McCain for second place). Overall, he’s not doing well; he’s not winning in any of the traditional early primary states, and it’ll be hard to recover from that in only a couple of weeks when another dozen or so states have their primaries.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Tancredo was talking about the language used inside government. (And his point is a very practical one: why not everything in two languages? Then, why just two? Etc.) That has nothing to do with providing information in another language. Assuming, of course, that the taxpayers don’t foot the bill. (My opinion, not necessarily his.)
Well, rather than try and take apart your comments ('cause I’m too tired for that at the moment), I’ll just say that I’ll look forward to watching him in the debates, and letting the chips fall where they may. However, I will at least say that Dr. Savage has NEVER tried to “stir up” anyone against Muslims. But he has, rightfully, helped a lot of us to wake up to what RADICAL Muslims are doing all around the world … and that’s a good thing that doesn’t make him a fascist, IMO.
Okay, one other thing … about two weeks ago he talked about his hippy days and basically said that he was young and following the crowd, but, like many of us, he grew out of his young foolishness and saw the light. He was open about it and so I don’t know how you can say that he’s hiding his past.
Money isn’t nearly the big issue it used to be. Find a candidate with big grassroots support and a savvy team that knows how to use the internet, and the money will be there (see: Howard Dean). Also, money isn’t as important as it used to be - in the last election, the Democratic candidate with a huge war chest wiped out (again: see Howard Dean).
This next election could be a big crapshoot, for one reason - the primary season has been compressed and front-loaded to the start of the year. It used to be that the primaries and caucuses acted as a sort of filter - candidates would try out in one place, run their ads, do their campaigning, and then the results would either filter out the weak sisters or catapult a second-tier candidate to the top tier (see: Howard Dean). Then there would be time to vett the candidates again, another campaign would start in the next state, etc. It was a protracted shakedown cruise that would (hopefully) let the cream rise to the top.
But now, the primaries are earlier and compressed. That could give someone a big slingshot out of the first primary that carries them through subsequent ones. Or, it could give the front-runners a chance to close out the second-tier candidates. Either way, it’s going to be a different election season than we’ve seen before.
Tommy Thompson announced his candidacy yesterday (he won’t win), but he’s got a smart strategy: He’s pumping everything he’s got into Iowa, knowing that if he can win there he can ride the win to subsequent primary victories and really gain momentum. And if he doesn’t, he can go away.
A rebuttal to a presidential speech is indeed as political a message as it can be. I don’t think any government policies can come from them. When even his party does not see a problem in spreading the political message in Spanish too, then you bet I see someone that will do more harm to the party in the next election by making many moderates jump ship. IOW, I’m glad Tancredo is running.
