Posted on 02/13/2006 11:07:30 AM PST by areafiftyone
George Allen, the not-so-bright, tobacco-dipping, football-quoting Senator from Virginia, is quickly emerging as the right wing's potential answer to John McCain come 2008. Allen solidified his standing as an inside the Beltway rising star by winning the Conservative Political Action Conference's '08 straw poll on Saturday, besting McCain 22 to 20 percent. He also won the title of "America's Best Senator" from Muslims for Bush.
Since we're likely to be hearing Allen's name more and more in the coming months, let's take a look back at what he thinks of the pressing issues of the day, starting with the selection of Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. From the New York Times, January 31, 2006:
Here is what Senator George Allen of Virginia, who is considering a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, said when asked his opinion of the Bernanke nomination.
''For what?''
Told that Mr. Bernanke was up for the Fed chairman's job, Mr. Allen hedged a little, said he had not been focused on it, and wondered aloud when the hearings would be. Told that the Senate Banking Committee hearings had concluded in November, the senator responded: ''You mean I missed them all? I paid no attention to them.''
The heir to Bush, only dumber.
The next President of the United States is John McCain, Rudy Giuliani or a Democrat.
IMHO both Guliani and McCain have problems with anger management. Both crave adulation and over react to any criticism: these are not qualities to govern even though they may be endearing to some.
The next President of the United States is John McCain, Rudy Giuliani or a Democrat.
[I saw Allen on CNN's Late Edition back in September in a head-to-head with Barbara Boxer, a vapid twit herself. Boxer had Allen for lunch. I couldn't believe it. She was out and out lying and Allen didn't even bother to try to rebut her. I was literally screaming at the TV yelling what he needed to say back to her. I would have left her a quivering lump of flesh curled up in the fetal position in the corner of the room. But Allen just let her get away with lie after lie after inaccuracy after inaccuracy. He was totally scripted and totally unable to go off the script to refute Boxer's lies. And the things he could have rebutted her on were nearly no-brainers.]
You must be me...coinciding in the same timeline due to a time warp mishap.
This is exactly what I wanted to say about Senator Allen.
I thought the President was missing cue after cue during his debates with Kerry...but at least he held his own. When I saw Allen on CNN...I couldn't believe that he sat there with a smug look on his face, acting like 1) the liberals didn't need to be rebutted and 2) if they did, he was clearly not one to be able to do the rebutting.
"Apparently, he does not practice the art of personal destruction when debating colleagues in public places."
Personal destruction? Refuting someone with facts is "personal destruction?" That's right out of the liberal lexicon. No one was asking Allen to call Boxer a "crack whore" or Schumer a "hymie," I just expected him to be able to marshall the facts and some coherent, intelligent arguments to refute their lies with truth and logic and Allen was totally unable. How do you think this man is going to sell himself to the American voters if he can't even form a coherent argument or go off script to refute the lies of his opponents?
All you cited to me where resume points. That's very impressive and all but a lot of people with impressive resumes would make lousy presidents. Half of being an effective president is being able to communicate your message and if Allen can't even beat a half-wit like Barbara Boxer in a debate then I despair at his ability to sell the American public on the need to keep the White House in GOP hands or to effectively refute what will be an unprecedented all out frontal assault by the Dems in 2008 to take back the White House. I don't care what the man's resume is, he's not the man to lead us into the battle royale we're about to enter into.
Finally, your silly comments about "let's compare your resume to his" is a bit lame. I'm not presenting myself as a presidential candidate or one who will lead the party into victory in 2008. George Allen is. Therefore my abilities are not what's really important now are they, but so long as we're on the subject of abilities, I may not have Allen's resume, but I sure am better informed than him and better capable of arguing down our opponents.
"Um, this is "The Nation" folks. They are as much a reliable source as the National Enquirer. Check that, The Nation isn't even that reliable."
My reaction exactly. In fact, if the Nation hates George Allen that badly already, it's probably a good thing!
I WAS an Allen supporter. Now I'm not so sure. I agree he hasn't done well head to head with the issues against the Dems. Historically, though the U.S. does NOT vote for congressmen. They see their time in Washington as part of the problem. (What have you done for me lately?)
I was one who believed the press in 2000 about GW's intelligence. Did not make the same mistake in 2004.
Both of them have problems with their stance on the issues!
Nah you are wrong. Plenty of Republicans around the country like Rudy and McCain you can see it in the polls. It would be wrong to call them liberal plant just because they like them. Rudy and McCain are polling high and Allen is in the single digits among Republicans right now. We at Free Republic tend to live in our own little bubble here and we can't control what the rest of the country is thinking.
Kinda says they don't know what they're supporting: the founder of The Constitution Party supported George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Exactly.............LOL.
And pray tell, who would you like to see get the nomination?
Well, whoever it will be won't be someone who gets destroyed in debates with Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, Rep. Jane Harman and as we saw on Fox News yesterday, Dem. Senator Reed of R.I. That's 4 Dems. now that Allen was totally obliterated by.
When are we going to stop making excuses for this joker? Being right on the issues isn't enough to win a presidential race! You need a solid candidate who handles himself well, is fast on his feet and can make effective arguments and rebutals. Just ask the Democrats what going with a guy who was "right on the issues" but all wrong in terms of political ability and personal likeability in 2004 meant for them in the 04 presidential race.
Great point.
Muslims for Bush was at CPAC.
Don't just read it...think about it. Use intellect, not feelings. Feelings and the visceral are for Democrats. Thinking THROUGH the political ramifications of our party's decisions is what makes us the stronger party. But I guess some of you are content to go over the cliff with a dimbulb. Hey, come up with a more solid conservative candidate than McCain and Guiliani and I'll support them, like Condi Rice for instance, but who is ALSO ONE WHO IS HALF-WAY BRIGHT AND CAN WIN and I'll ditch McCain and Rudy gladly. But Allen is not bright and will not win. You gotta do better.
Yup, and from what I understand Allen fell on his face again on Sunday against Democratic Senator Reed on Fox News Sunday. Like you said, Bush may not have been completly effective against Gore or Kerry in their debates, but he wasn't completly INEFFECTIVE like Allen has consistently been now time after time he's been matched head-to-head against a Democratic counterpart.
The next President of the United States is John McCain, Rudy Giuliani or a Democrat.
IMHO both Guliani and McCain have problems with anger management.
Some media types citing some unnamed "insider" have made the same claims against Bush which I really find not-credible. The fact is, Rudy kept his head about him when it counted on 9-11. Many good leaders have also had short-fuses. I don't think this should be a deal killer even if you believe the claim is a true one. I haven't seen any public display of these supposed tempers or decisions or actions carried out in anger, so this just isn't a red flag for me.
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.