Posted on 09/26/2004 1:54:16 PM PDT by JLS
Bill First 5/2 John McCain 7/2 Rudolph Guiliani 7/2 George Pataki 9/2 Chuck Hagel 6 Mitt Romney 6 Bill Owens 8 Tom Ridge 8 George Allen 12 Norm Coleman 12 Lindsey Graham 14 Sam Brownback 14 Arnold Schwarzenegger 66 Dick Cheney 66 Jeb Bush 66 Laura Bush 100
What about Rice/Bush? In that order...foreign affairs first and economy next.
Rice is pro-abortion, and I've already gotten a few choice comments for thinking that the also-pro-abortion Giuliani will get the nod. Besides that, does Rice even want the job?
That's what I was thinking...and I've heard some social conservatives say how they will stay away from the voting booths because of that. This is what bothers me about these activists-their own agenda is more important to them than supporting the President during wartime.
I would nominate Rice as head of Homeland Security (As mentioned earlier) if she doesn't.
And like I said, Giuliani may be a RINO-but he is not a backstabber like McCain (At least that's the impression I get.)
Agreed with Giuliani. I actually want him as SecHomeSec. Rice should stay NSA--I think she's perfect there.
What about some current cabinet-level folks from the Adminstration? Colin Powell? Condi Rice?
Any FReeper pulling for Giuliani will have to wear asbestos over his tinfoil. Gimme a break. We're not here to back pro-death socialists for "free government," as he repeatedly said in his speech at the RNC.
.
2. Support for the FMA.
You only asked for one, but that's two, right off the top of my head.
LOL!
Hillary won in New York not due to her political savvy, but as a result of the political savvy of the people running her campaign.
Yeah, from the way the Mass. press is hyperventilating over him, he sounds like another Tom Delay (that's what they said...). He could wreak some havoc in those traditionally Dem NE states, too, since he is a Yankee. :)
got a little acid reflux, there? :D
"Bush IS a mod."
I know, but hardly anyone realized it in 2000.
I agree wholeheartedly that the next nominee must be acceptable to every type of Republican. President Bush has done well with that. Fiscal conservatives like him. Social conservatives like him. Moderates like him. Country Club Republicans like him. And the list goes on and on.
I personally don't think Rudy can be our nominee due to his history and views that would not appeal to social conservatives. I really think Mitt Romney would be a much better candidate. Romney has the right stance for the social conservatives, but isn't as "in your face" about it as many are. He also is solid on fiscal policy and has proven that he can win in a liberal state. I realize that doesn't translate to a win in Massachusetts in '08, necessarily. But it might mean he could carry some swing states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc.
The only reasonable knock I've heard about a Romney candidacy is that he is Mormon. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. We're not electing a spiritual leader. But, I will admit, I know many people that would find it hard to vote for a Mormon for President. Romney needs to find a way to demonstrate that most Mormon beliefs are the same as other Christian denominations. If he can show the rabid evangelicals (Pentecostal, Assembly of God, etc) that he holds their Christian beliefs in high regard personally too, he may have a great chance.
Oh please!
Anyone who didn't know that in 2000, won't notice that Giuliani is even more of a mod than Bush!
What the hell did they think "compassionate conservatism" meant anyway?
"McClintock"
Is he the guy from California who ran for Gov.? If so, I like him too.
I'm not even positive what all took place. I remembered seeing this article in the Denver Post. Alludes to some serious marital problems:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E29805%257E2381443,00.html
I hear all this "Bush is a big spender" crap from people claiming to be politically astute, and it makes my blood boil.
The Bush presidency does not exist in a vacuum, and their actions come about as a result of other actions.
First and foremost, some people's model of fiscal conservatism must be Bill Clinton, look at his numbers, the man cut spending to nothing after the Reagan/Bush1 years.
Does that mean that Clinton was a fiscal conservative?
Let me draw a picture for you:
Let's say that we work for a company that owns one vehicle, and that vehicle is there to be used by the lead sales rep.
Bill Clinton is our company's lead sales rep for eight years, and throughout those eight years, all that Bill does is put gas in the tank, and oil in the engine when needed. Bill doesn't give the car a tune up, does not rotate or replace the tires, doesn't change the oil or replace the filters, does no maintenance whatsoever.
Bill retires, and you get the car. You realize that you need to tune this car up, change the oil, replace the filters, buy new tires, get new brakes. The boss hauls your sorry butt in the office to explain yourself; how could you possibly be spending ten times what Bill spent on this car?
Bill Clinton decimated our ordnance, and bankrupted our military personnel. If he had maintained our Armed Forces properly, and 9/11 never happened, Bush's spending would not have been an issue in this campaign.
WELL put!
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.