The Next President?

[GreatCarouser]

Yep, that time is rapidly approaching...Here's a little tidbit to go with your morning coffee...Duncan Hunter

[OperaTenor]

President "Duck & Cover"?!

[Shapley]

I saw CBS analysis yesterday, in which they are declaring John McCain the 'clear front-runner' for the Republican Party. Apparently they are trying to annoint him to the post. According to Polling Report, that position belongs to Rudy Giuliani. Not that either of them are conservative enough for me, but I found CBS' declaration to be devoid of fact (not that that should be surprising, either).

Hillary seems to have a firm hold on the Democratic nomination, but she still loses to either McCain or Giuliani, although she has 'closed the gap' since the recent elections.

It's still a long way to go to 2008, but I think we Republicans should be able to pick our own 'front runner' and not have CBS pick one for us.

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I'm all for ignoring the CBS editorial opinion. However, didn't I see a recent bit about Rudy G. throwing his hat in the ring? Which party would he be in? I like his style.

[jamiebk]

The Reps have a way of eating their young...McCain should have been in, instead of Bush...

[Shapley]

Rudy Giuliani did form an exploratory committee, which is the first step in planning to run.

I believe that Sen. McCain has just announced the formation of an exploratory committtee as well.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

The Reps have a way of eating their young...McCain should have been in, instead of Bush...

Not really, McCain is not well liked within the conservative wing of the party. Not that President Bush has proven himself to be as conservative as we would have hoped. Even now, McCain is reading the last election as a shift to the left, ignoring that fact that the majority of newly elected Democrats ran on conservative issues.

Giuliani isn't too much more conservative than McCain, but he has the advantage of not having gone to war with conservatives as McCain has. Giuliani will probably be more Nixonian than Reaganian. His strength is in the defense issue, and the fact that he is credited with cleaning up New York City. He is 'weak' on conservative social issues - abortion, etc. I say 'weak' in that he loses favour with the conservative wing. He'll have to bring in enough independents and moderates to overcome the potential loss of this core group. I believe he has the personality and credibility to do this, whereas Sen. McCain doesn't.

Just my humble opinion, though.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

For the life of me, I can't figure where Hillary is getting her support, if she really has any, for a presidential bid. Everry liberal/Democrat I've spoken with doesn't like her or think she has a chance.

Barrack Obama, however....

[Haggis@wk]

” McCain should have been in, instead of Bush”

I seriously doubt that McCain will ever get the nod. His willingness to solve large problem by larger legislative means is anathema to most conservatives.

Although he is the only candidate who preaches Conservative Principles (tax cuts, reducing Govt, etc) he is also the one who famously betrayed them four years ago. McCain thought big government worked just fine when he sponsored the BCRA (McCain-Feingold), curtailing political speech and protecting incumbents from attack ads.

Liberals might think that is a good use of legislative power but a conservative would never trade free political speech for a top-down solution to political advertisements. Never. Therefore anyone who does (McCain) cannot be trusted to implement limited-government solutions.

I’ll be wrong on many things in the upcoming elections but I won’t be wrong on this; John McCain won’t be the Republican candidate

[Shapley]

Barrack Obama has no track record. Clinton has name recognition, plus eight years as a 'co-president' under her belt. She's popular with the left, but has successfully garnered the support of moderates by avoiding taking a bold stand on many liberal issues lately. Having a friendly press doesn't hurt, either, and she definitely has a good working relationship with them. They've referred to her as a 'moderate' so much that people actually believe them.

What are Obama's qualifications?

[jamiebk]

The Reps have a way of eating their young...McCain should have been in, instead of Bush...

Not really, McCain is not well liked within the conservative wing of the party.

Precisely my point. BOTH parties need to come off this extreme polarization and put up candidates who recognize that the world is not black and white...left and right etc. etc. We (and Shap...please keep in mind that I am a registered Republican) need to adopt candidates who can cross party gaps and form bonds to get things done...NOT just advance an extreme conservative or liberal agenda.

[Shapley]

Perhaps, but if we're going to sacrifice Republican principles in order to win Democrat votes, why don't we just vote for the Democrat.

The Republican Party votes on a party platform, which defines the party's position on the issues we believe most strongly about. That platform has not changed significantly since the days of Rondalus Maximus. In order to garner the vote of the party base, it is best to select a candidate that either comes very close to reflecting our values on those issues or has the ability to shift support for those issues towards his/her viewpoint. Neither McCain nor Giuliani come really close to the platform on conservative issues, but of the two I think Giuliani has the best chance of winning voters towards his viewpoint. Keep in mind that much of the conservative shift was due to Ronaldus Maximus' ability to do just that.

McCain comes across as brash and unlikable. That's not just my humble opinion, I hear that from many of folks back home, who I use as a barometer because they are the classic 'Reagan Democrats'.

V/R
Shapley

[BigJon]

Obama = charisma
He's probably got as much of a track record as Carter did before he ascended to the Whitehorse.

[Haggis@wk]

” What are Obama's qualifications?”

As far as I can tell a privileged black kid raised in Hawaii. The guy was a lawyer for a couple of years, a law professor for a couple of years, then spent eight years in the Illinois State Senate before being elected to the US Senate in 2004. He's never run anything larger than his Senate office staff in his life.

But, he does look good on television . . .


It almost makes sense, since he doesn't have a track record of a loony liberal- and he well might be one, he just hasn't been on the national stage long enough - to scare the "swing" voters.

I agree with OT on Hillary but she has a lot of money and enough political cover from her party to hide how liberal she really is. I suspect that she could take all the states the Kerry did and probably New Mexico and Ohio.

I will predict however that if she uses health care as a campaign issue it will hurt more than help.

[OperaTenor]

Barrack Obama has no track record. Clinton has name recognition, plus eight years as a 'co-president' under her belt. She's popular with the left, but has successfully garnered the support of moderates by avoiding taking a bold stand on many liberal issues lately. Having a friendly press doesn't hurt, either, and she definitely has a good working relationship with them. They've referred to her as a 'moderate' so much that people actually believe them.

What are Obama's qualifications?

See, I don't get where this "she's popular with the left" gig is coming from. I've spoken with a lot of lefties(including a good number from NY), and I've yet to hear one voice any support for her.

Obama's qualifications? Let's see;

1. He's at least 35 years old.
2. He's a U.S. citizen.
3. He's resided in the U.S. for at least the past 14 years.

That's all he really needs to run for President - the rest is arbitrary.

[jamiebk]

Perhaps, but if we're going to sacrifice Republican principles in order to win Democrat votes, why don't we just vote for the Democrat.

The Republican Party votes on a party platform, which defines the party's position on the issues we believe most strongly about. That platform has not changed significantly since the days of Rondalus Maximus. In order to garner the vote of the party base, it is best to select a candidate that either comes very close to reflecting our values on those issues or has the ability to shift support for those issues towards his/her viewpoint. Neither McCain nor Giuliani come really close to the platform on conservative issues, but of the two I think Giuliani has the best chance of winning voters towards his viewpoint. Keep in mind that much of the conservative shift was due to Ronaldus Maximus' ability to do just that.

McCain comes across as brash and unlikable. That's not just my humble opinion, I hear that from many of folks back home, who I use as a barometer because they are the classic 'Reagan Democrats'.

V/R
Shapley

All fine if you would rather stand on principal than win the Presidency. Have we learned nothing from the mid-terms?

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

And there are some of us who registered Republican and support things like stem-cell research, health system reform, and oppose the right-to-life absolutists and the folks who want to sneak their religion into science and law by calling it other things.

[Shapley]

All fine if you would rather stand on principal than win the Presidency.

My principles are more important than my party. I'd be a Democrat if they were the conservative party. I'll be a member of a third party if neither of the major ones wants to support conservatism. The issues are what earn my vote, not the label.

McCain doesn't stand for the things I believe in, why should I vote for him? Giuliani doesn't either, but he appears to stand for a couple more of them than does McCain. If it gets that far, I'll look further into his positions. I've already done so for McCain, in 2000, and I didn't like what I saw.

I'll keep holding out the hope that the next Ronaldus Maximus will declare his intention to run, although where he'll come from I haven't a clue. I'll even settle for 'Reagan Lite' if I have to, such as the current President (Reaganish on taxes, the economy, and defense, somewhat misguided on the handling of social issues, lacks the charisma), but I don' t even see someone of that stature rising right now. But there's still lots of time between now and 2008, plenty of time for someone to come forward.

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

stem-cell research

For something that is supposed to be the next coming in medical research don't you find it curious that not one major drug company is doing any research on stem cells? I'll get serious about stem cells when they do.

the No. 2 Republican will be a former No. 1 Republican, Trent Lott. Lott, of course, was supposed to have become majority leader four years ago, but colleagues ousted him after he made a nostalgic comment about the Jim Crow South.

Lest anyone think the Democrats are any better, though, consider who their three top leaders are:

Majority Leader Harry Reid, best known for gratuitously insulting the intellect of the U.S. Supreme Court's only black justice.


Majority Whip Dick Durbin, who has likened U.S. military servicemen to Nazis.


Party Conference Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer, who seems to believe there should be a religious test for certain cabinet positions, notwithstanding the Constitution's prohibition against such tests.


The Lott choice prompts this observation from blogger Dean Barnett:

"Is it just me, or is it becoming increasingly apparent that the Republicans and Democrats are determined to engage in a two year dumb-off?"

Sometimes I wish both parties could lose.

[Shapley]

Sometimes I wish both parties could lose.

I mad a similar comment a while back. Why is it if we decide to throw one out, we have to put the other in?