Posted on 12/01/2006 12:05:51 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Most of the time, I don't believe in conspiracies, but when I see events whittling down our choices to the likes of McCain and Guliani, that worries me. It almost seems as if someone is deciding what our selection will be in advance. I always remember the days when the media led us slowly down the road to the fine, wonderful little peanut-farmer submarine hero Southern Christian governor Jimmy Carter. Those days of wine and roses led us into almost all of the MidEast problems of today. Will media history repeat?
It's all about timing. If Bill Clinton had to run for reelection in 1994 he'd have been toast.
Regards, Ivan
Good observations. Kyl is a possibility I could get behind. But the party is going to have to be pragmatic this time in who they'll support for pres. We just can't run a nobody with little political experience just because he's a conservative. We have to consider marketability and the ability to stand up against the Clinton/Obama P.R. juggernaut.
I'd put Mitch McConnell forward, with the caveat that he's probably too soft spoken to make a forceful debater.
Just not another senator. That's the kiss of death for a Presidential candidate.
The band rocked pretty good. That's gotta count for something. Or not.
Totally different situation, though. In 1992, most of the top tier Democrats didn't run. That's because at the time they had to make the decision (mid-to-late 1991), Bush 41 was still sporting approval ratings in the 65-70% range, and was generally considered unbeatable. That opened the door for an unknown (thought to be a sacrificial lamb to a popular incumbent) to steal the nomination.
For the 2008 open seat race, anyone who seriously wants to compete will need the ability to raise at least $40-$50 million over the next year.
I hear ya, Barbour is another that may bear a further look at as well.
I just don't know that party unity is entirely possible unless one faction gives , which is unlikely, we have so many prima donnas around these days in both parties, unfortunately.
You've got that straight.
Your list sounds like mine...great post
Dr. Rice will not run.
There's a lot of truth to what you say, but supporting a candidate who is a liberal on 80%-90% of the issues ain't a "compromise" in any sense of the word.
Fred Thompson
Rudy is a Rhino
As is usually the case with your posts, I agree with every word. Kudos.
However, it absolutely scares the Be-jesus out of me to agree with Tricky Dickie on anything. :-)
Of the four lead ones, none thrill me. McCain and Giuliani are obvious non-starters. Romney would have to convince me he was serious about his evolution from a pro-choice RINO to a true blue conservative, which I seriously doubt he can pull off. I'm not sure Newt can win due to his MSM baggage, but I definitely want to see him in the primary process just to watch him intellectually abuse McCrazy in the debates.
Curious who you see as the possible "knight in shining armor" for the Republican wing of the Republican party: Barbour? Mark Sanford? Tim Pawlentey? Bronwback? Someone else I am not thinking of?
Regards -
OO
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.