Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shameless Vanity: Who is 'on deck' for 2008?
11-3-04 | myself

Posted on 11/03/2004 12:35:09 PM PST by JOAT

Conservatives need to start looking forward just 4 years and start thinking about who will run against Hillary in 2008.

Allowing that creature to win will undermine this nation worse than the 8 years she had puppeteering through Bubba.

Suggestions for a candidate/team?


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: who2008
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-203 next last
To: JOAT

Rick Santorum for President.


121 posted on 11/03/2004 1:03:52 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

"Only executives can win. By that, I mean Presidents, Governors and Generals. Yes, Kennedy won, but he beat another legislator (Senate President and former elected Senator Richard Nixon)."

Not true if Dems pick a senator TOO!...


122 posted on 11/03/2004 1:03:54 PM PST by HereComesTheGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk

"I love Santorum, but who was the last Republican Senator to win a Presidential election?"

That would be Warren G. Harding. Before that , Wm. McKineley.

Not particularly great presidencies were they? Both died in office, incidentally, both from Ohio....interesting that Ohio is still a player.

Before that, I think it was Garfield (elected to Senate same time as Pres). He got shot, also...I think I am starting to see a pattern here.

I am thinking that Voinovich won't dare run for Prez.


123 posted on 11/03/2004 1:03:54 PM PST by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers

Is Mitt pro-life? I know he is Mormon, but I thought he ran in MA as pro-choice. Or can he pull a "Reagan"?


124 posted on 11/03/2004 1:04:19 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FiatLux

He did nothing to fight the gay marrage thing.


125 posted on 11/03/2004 1:05:34 PM PST by Conservative Infidel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk

Bayh will never be nominated because the Dems have a litmus test against any pro-life candidates at the national level


126 posted on 11/03/2004 1:05:43 PM PST by dixie1202
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

"Fifth, Condi learned the ropes under Reagan, taking on the Soviet Union. She's the last Cold Warrior. She knows the face of evil, and understands that it must be bludgeoned to death, without quarter."

BINGO! That's my feeling.

Plus, with regard to the pro-life issue, J.C. Watts is EXTREMELY pro-life.

It doesn't matter too much anyway since the President really doesn't have much affect on this issue except psychologically and of course the judges they appoint/nominate... As long as a President plays by the rules of the Constitution and appoints/nominates strict constructionists, I'm okay with their personal views...


127 posted on 11/03/2004 1:05:45 PM PST by PowerPro (REMEMBER: Every State's a Swing State Until the Votes are Counted ... Go VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: HereComesTheGOP

I love Santorum, but I'm worried because he's up for re-election in 2008. If he were to get into the Republican primaries, wouldn't he have to skip re-election as a Senator? If he doesn't make it out of the primaries or loses the presidential election, PA will be out one great senator.


128 posted on 11/03/2004 1:05:48 PM PST by samson1097
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Samwise

:) Nice thought. :)


129 posted on 11/03/2004 1:06:45 PM PST by cubreporter (-I trust Rush...he will prevail in spite of the naysayers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

Mitt Romney ran for governor in 2002 as a pro-choice candidate. He's in favor of the ban on partial-birth abortion, and maybe parental notification laws, but he's not a pro-lifer. Besides, he wouldn't be able to carry his home state of Massachusetts (and his other home state, Utah, is already in the bag).

Santorum is the man. He gets us Pennsylvania, keeps WV and OH safe, and helps us with Catholics in other swing states.


130 posted on 11/03/2004 1:06:50 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: samson1097

Wrong, he's up for re-election in 2006...


131 posted on 11/03/2004 1:06:52 PM PST by HereComesTheGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: winodog; Patriot32
Cheney might step down, but if his health is up to it, why couldn't he stay on as VP in the post-Bush administration? Is there a specific VP term limitation that is independent of the Presidency? What's wrong with Frist/Cheney or Rice/Cheney? Health permitting, I think Cheney would be the best possible choice for VP.
132 posted on 11/03/2004 1:07:42 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: dangus
I'm not sure if Romney is pro-life, but there's no way a Mormon will get passed the evangelical wing of the party if he's not.

Evan Bayh and Easley would be the two toughest to beat. But the Dems will only nominate of them if they are desperate because both are too conservative for most Dems.

133 posted on 11/03/2004 1:08:10 PM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: FiatLux

"And Romney's pro-life big time"



No he's not. He's pro-choice on abortion.


134 posted on 11/03/2004 1:08:56 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
Look to the governors

Absolutely. The last person elected directly from Congress was Pres. Kennedy, contrast that with Press. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and W. Bush - all former Governors. Americans like electing Governors to the Presidency, the reason being obvious, the Governors are essentially small-scale Presidents, you know what you're getting; contrast that with the record of a Senator, where it's all about shady dealing and 'grubby politics'.
135 posted on 11/03/2004 1:09:29 PM PST by tjwmason (Coerced and bribed window-dressing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon
No time for this

Sure there is. Politics is all about planning. The things you mention are trivial details that will be forgotten in 3 months.

1hr after GWB's acceptance speech isn't really the time to start fighting

Who's 'fighting?' I'm certain these discussions have long since taken place in circles of power. We pajama-clad peasants are just speculating.

136 posted on 11/03/2004 1:09:38 PM PST by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: samson1097
If he were to get into the Republican primaries, wouldn't he have to skip re-election as a Senator?

Lieberman ran for VP and Senator in 2000.

137 posted on 11/03/2004 1:09:54 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Is Mitt pro-life? I know he is Mormon, but I thought he ran in MA as pro-choice. Or can he pull a "Reagan"?

Mitt is pro-life, but also realistic. He's not gonna try to limit abortion access in the most liberal state in the country. Mitt ran for Mass govenor on a fiscal conservative platform. Mass is somewhat fiscally conservative, but very socially liberal.

As far as Guiliani goes, he could very well deliver NY, but would he depress evangelical turnout elsewhere, turning it into a net negative? Not sure on that one.

And I'm not

138 posted on 11/03/2004 1:10:06 PM PST by crv16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: BlueNgold

The only problem with Tommy Franks is that he's not a republican, he's an Independent


139 posted on 11/03/2004 1:10:55 PM PST by grumpy2409
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Infidel
He did nothing to fight the gay marrage thing

Not true. Mitt did all he could, he was just hamstrung by a liberal mass supreme court and a liberal legislature.

140 posted on 11/03/2004 1:11:33 PM PST by crv16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-203 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson