BuffaloBorn1960 Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Truth be told... Jeb comes acrosss better than GWB and you have to give the guy credit with what he has done in FLA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I would LOVE to see Hillary as the candidate. She would get her ass handed to her so fast it will make your head spin. The reps would have to put up Newt Gingrich in order to balance the polarizing factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 where does Giuliani stand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 where does Giuliani stand? 99553[/snapback] he doesn't. he cannot get the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flomoe Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 where does Giuliani stand? 99553[/snapback] My first thought after hearing about the Kerry concession was who will the Reps run out in 08? You know that Hillary is going to be the choice for the left wingers and the first person I thought of to run against her was Rudy. Maybe have his VP Powell and save Jeb till 12 if something bad happens, which I highly doubt would. I don't know of any other Reps that have had the "face" time to run against Hillary. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 he doesn't. he cannot get the nomination. 99560[/snapback] Do we see him as a VP candidate or perhaps a cabinet position like homeland defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 That would mean that, from 88 onward, we'd have Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and then Bush or Clinton. A quarter-century being ruled by two different clans. If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd be spinning in their graves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Truth be told... Jeb comes acrosss better than GWB and you have to give the guy credit with what he has done in FLA... 99508[/snapback] I expect to see Dick resign as VP after another year or 2 and Jeb moves in to the spot to get the "incumbant" effect in 08. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The republicans have a very good crop of candiates Guliani Pataki Schwarzzeneger (though he shouldnt be) Cheney (likely not to want it) Powell (likely not to want it) JC Watts George Allen etd, etc, etc.. Compared with the democrats Hillary Clinton Howard Dean Al Sharpton et. Al. You have honest competent knowlegeble people on one side and well....nothing of substance on the democrat side. This democratic pary needs a makeover. Barack Obama is a good start, but they have a long way to go and need to rid themselves of the cancer amungst them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The republicans have a very good crop of candiatesGuliani Pataki Schwarzzeneger (though he shouldnt be) Cheney (likely not to want it) Powell (likely not to want it) JC Watts George Allen etd, etc, etc.. 99572[/snapback] errrr.... negative cowboy. Guliani, Powell, and Patiaki could never get the nomination. Arnold is ineligible. Cheney is near death with his heart (not to mention he is now a liability). Allen is your only possibility there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flomoe Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The republicans have a very good crop of candiatesGuliani Pataki Schwarzzeneger (though he shouldnt be) Cheney (likely not to want it) Powell (likely not to want it) JC Watts George Allen etd, etc, etc.. Compared with the democrats Hillary Clinton Howard Dean Al Sharpton et. Al. You have honest competent knowlegeble people on one side and well....nothing of substance on the democrat side. This democratic pary needs a makeover. Barack Obama is a good start, but they have a long way to go and need to rid themselves of the cancer amungst them 99572[/snapback] I have no problem with the "old" Democratic party that used to be on the conservative side but they seem to have been taken over by this far left faction of liberals that feel that they need to punish anyone who works hard and makes money only to give it to the lazy and incompetent. They view this country as a stepping stone for a world government with peace and love. That will NEVER happen as long as there are billions of Muslims who would like to see every Christian dead!! Whatever happened to the decent Democrats that used to have a say? Did they all switch to the Republican Party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Everything I've seen/read about Bill Frist looked pretty good to me. If he wants to run though, he's going to need a better toupee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 It's going to be Rush Limbaugh vs Jerry Springer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Schwarzzeneger (though he shouldnt be) 99572[/snapback] Shouldn't be? He can't be. Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution: No person except a natural-born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Shouldn't be? He can't be. Right, but there has been some talk about amending the constitution to say that you have to be a citizen for 20 years to run. I think that is very wrong, and thus why I said "shouldnt be". I disagree that Pataki or Guliani cannot win a nomination. Though I will agree both would be best served as a VP for 4 years before running on their own, they are both very strong men with a good track record in New York. The fact they could deliver a state like NY for the republican party would be a very strong selling point. BTW, I forgot to add McCain to my list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Right, but there has been some talk about amending the constitution to say that you have to be a citizen for 20 years to run. I think that is very wrong, and thus why I said "shouldnt be". 99632[/snapback] The Constitution already states that a candidate must be a citizen for 14 years at the time it was approved, or natural-born. Tinkering with that is not a good idea. If it were to happen to get Ahnold on a ticket, that would be gerrymandering at its absolute worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Given the baggage that Hillary carries, and her polarizing nature, the Dem's would have to hatch a long-term plan to hurt people's lives so she could be considered as a saviour. Doing that over the 4-year run-up would be the virtual end of any state or local positions - and they won't fall on their swords. Witness the Dem's in Congress not repudiating tax cuts and nary a peep by them on renewing that goofy assault weapon ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeInRoch Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 That ammendment has absolutely ZERO chance of being ratified. It is extremely hard to ammend the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 That would mean that, from 88 onward, we'd have Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and then Bush or Clinton. A quarter-century being ruled by two different clans. If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd be spinning in their graves. 99569[/snapback] Might be some obscure congressional candidate !st as VP... John Sweeney? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZC-Boston Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Republicans in Mass love to put Mitt Romney's name out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 That would mean that, from 88 onward, we'd have Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and then Bush or Clinton. A quarter-century being ruled by two different clans. If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd be spinning in their graves. 99569[/snapback] But if they were alive, wouldn't they be running for office instead of hanging out in their graves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 But if they were alive, wouldn't they be running for office instead of hanging out in their graves? 99917[/snapback] They'd probably be yelling, GET ME OUT OF HERE!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Frist v Bayh All the NY candidates are pipe dreams of the opposition. Hillary-unelectable to any position outside of the most liberal blue states. Would never get the nomination going through primaries in Iowa & New Hampshire. Guiliani-on his 3rd marriage, had 2 mistresses while married to Donna Hanover, left 2nd wife after she threw him out & moved in with a gay couple-I can really see the bible belters accepting this guy once they hear of his personal life. Pataki-the Republicans have had enough of him in NY because he's not fiscially or socially conservative-nationwide-forgettaboutit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 I don't know who the GOP will pick, but it won't be Hillary from the Dems. You guys have to get over your Hillary obsession. Do you see her in your nightmares? (I won't ask about your dreams). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Jeb already said he's not interested, as did VP. Honestly, I think Rice might give it a go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 I don't know who the GOP will pick, but it won't be Hillary from the Dems. You guys have to get over your Hillary obsession. Do you see her in your nightmares? (I won't ask about your dreams). 100533[/snapback] <looking around for signs of impending nuclear armageddon> I agree with you... <ducking and covering> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightRider Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Republicans in Mass love to put Mitt Romney's name out there. 99768[/snapback] Mit Romney - Condi Rice or Verse Visa Fiscal conservatism and foreign policy... Romney is really impressive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Mit Romney - Condi Rice or Verse Visa Fiscal conservatism and foreign policy... Romney is really impressive... 100780[/snapback] So is Condi. I've met her. She is one sharp cookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 So is Condi. I've met her. She is one sharp cookie. 100784[/snapback] Whatever. You don't know stevestojan. You're just a KzooMike southerner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whynot Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Add two more Dems: Bill Richardson (New Mexico Gov) Mark Warner (Virgina Gov) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightRider Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 So is Condi. I've met her. She is one sharp cookie. 100784[/snapback] Actually I was thinking of her when I wrote foreign policy, but I guess Mit's Olympic credentials give him a presence on the world stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Actually I was thinking of her when I wrote foreign policy, but I guess Mit's Olympic credentials give him a presence on the world stage. 102387[/snapback] Yeah, but he's named after sports equipment. I wouldn't vote for anyone named Jock, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Yeah, but he's named after sports equipment. I wouldn't vote for anyone named Jock, either. Like Jock Chiraq (yes I konw...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATBNG Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Mitt's pro-choice. After Tuesday's result, I don't see why the Repubs would move away from social conservatism since it seems to be the winning issue for them in the election. All of our libertarian Northeast Republicans (Rudy, Mitt, Weld, etc.) can get elected here but are not viable for the primary process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 I would LOVE to see Hillary as the candidate. She would get her ass handed to her so fast it will make your head spin. The reps would have to put up Newt Gingrich in order to balance the polarizing factor. 99551[/snapback] if she runs i'm a REPUBLICAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 if she runs i'm a REPUBLICAN Which is EXACTLY why she wont run. No republican will vote for her, and the reasonable portion of the democratic party wont vote for her. She gets 30% of the vote. Tops. Look at that Red/Blue map. Now consider she won just 55% of all votes in NEW YORK. She has no chance in any of the states bush won, and would even lose many states kerry won (WI, IA, NH). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightRider Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Mitt's pro-choice. After Tuesday's result, I don't see why the Repubs would move away from social conservatism since it seems to be the winning issue for them in the election. All of our libertarian Northeast Republicans (Rudy, Mitt, Weld, etc.) can get elected here but are not viable for the primary process. 102581[/snapback] Romney is not. He sidestepped that question in the gubenatorial debate two years ago. What I believe he said was that while he thinks abortion is wrong, he would not impose his beliefs on a state that overwhelming approves it. (His opponent hung herself on that same question.) Romney has been very careful about his social values. He is really a Utah Morman. You might have noticed Utah went Bush by at 71%... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATBNG Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Romney is not. He sidestepped that question in the gubenatorial debate two years ago. What I believe he said was that while he thinks abortion is wrong, he would not impose his beliefs on a state that overwhelming approves it. (His opponent hung herself on that same question.) Romney has been very careful about his social values. He is really a Utah Morman. You might have noticed Utah went Bush by at 71%... 102685[/snapback] I disagree with that interpretation. Lots of people that are pro-choice are personally against abortion. He is very much on the record as supporting the right to choose. Definitely Pro-Choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts