Jump to content

Who thinks it will be Jeb v Hillary in '08?


Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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..

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

×
×
  • Create New...