RuntheDamnBall Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 I know, we still have a ways to go in this election. But with Giuliani, Pataki and McCain in the spotlight at this RNC I wonder if we won't see a big struggle for the soul of the GOP in 2008. Giuliani & Pataki are on the record as pro-choice and pro-gay rights, and McCain's differences with his party on some issues are major and well-documented. If these three are the prime contenders for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, will the social conservatives and religious right feel sold out? Or will they bite their tongues and go along for the (likely victorious) ride? Or will none of these candidates make it out of the southern primaries? I, for one, see Giuliani and Pataki splitting a lot of votes with the edge to Giuliani (he's more dynamic) in that case. I do wonder whether McCain has hurt the image of 'being his own man' with his somewhat reluctant role in the spotlight as a supporter of Bush in this election. Obviously it's what he has to do for his party but he looks very uncomfortable and might have been better off not putting himself into the situation. He may have damaged his rep with a lot of Dems and libertarians who liked him as a maverick and now see him as a sellout, and he has never been loved by the ultra-right. This is all just speculation and conjecture, but, I think, fascinating stuff.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 McCain won't get nominated because good people never do any more. He's not fake enough like the other people you mentioned, and therefore he'll be excluded somehow. I don't think it'll matter though; Hillary Clinton will win in 2008. HAHAHA! I bet some people just went KABOOM inside, and were about ready to launch into orbit! hehe If I was serious, I would have ended it there. She's more divisive than Bush, which is VERY hard to imagine! hehe
erynthered Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 You need to be asking yourself who the Dems will run in 2008. Your Hypo-Q is, well, a waste of time. Next.
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 3, 2004 Author Posted September 3, 2004 You need to be asking yourself who the Dems will run in 2008. Your Hypo-Q is, well, a waste of time. Next. 16638[/snapback] Why is it a waste of time? Bush can't run again in 2008, and the Republicans will be running a new candidate win or lose. It's a valid question and since these guys have the spotlight, I thought it would be an interesting and timely discussion. If you don't like the question, let the thread die. It was about to anyway. I am hoping the Dems are running an incumbent Kerry in '08 but that has nothing to do with who the Republicans run, and it's a boring-ass discussion anyway because everyone knows Hillary has her eye on the prize if Kerry doesn't win this one.
Albany,n.y. Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Why is it a waste of time? Bush can't run again in 2008, and the Republicans will be running a new candidate win or lose. If Kerry is the President Bush can run again. Grover Cleveland lost & won back the Presidency. If one of the two moderates or McCain (who is a conservative but he's able to work well with the opposition & is truly a uniter not a divider) is the Republican nominee, I might be truly undecided in the summer of 08. Scratch Pataki, his speech sucks.
swede316 Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 If Kerry is the President Bush can run again. Grover Cleveland lost & won back the Presidency. If one of the two moderates or McCain (who is a conservative but he's able to work well with the opposition & is truly a uniter not a divider) is the Republican nominee, I might be truly undecided in the summer of 08. Scratch Pataki, his speech sucks. 16668[/snapback] Liked his line though " win one for the gipper....lose one for the flipper"
VABills Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 I don't know why, but George Allen has been mentioned a lot. He is a "pretty boy" who votes the right way. Been gov, now a sen. Has had a lot of tickets punched and has name recognition. My big problem with him is he doesn't seem to be assertive. I can't tell you anything he has sponsered. He really wasn't a super influence at gov either.
RCow Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 I don't know why, but George Allen has been mentioned a lot. He is a "pretty boy" who votes the right way. Been gov, now a sen. Has had a lot of tickets punched and has name recognition. My big problem with him is he doesn't seem to be assertive. I can't tell you anything he has sponsered. He really wasn't a super influence at gov either. 16677[/snapback] Allen is heartened by the fact that W won. Means anyone can get elected President. Well, anyone who's Daddy's been president anyway. I guess a football coach's son is close.
Alaska Darin Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Allen is heartened by the fact that W won. Means anyone can get elected President. Well, anyone who's Daddy's been president anyway. I guess a football coach's son is close. 16703[/snapback] Another poignant post, taking the debate here at PPP out of the gutter. All hail the great debator, RCow.
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 3, 2004 Author Posted September 3, 2004 If Kerry is the President Bush can run again. Grover Cleveland lost & won back the Presidency. 16668[/snapback] oops.
checkmate Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 I hope that the Republican Party moves more to the center on social issues. The candidates you mention could cut it. I suspect the problem with the moderate Republicans though is that the Religious Right likely will stay home rather than vote for Guiliani or Pataki. That might mean a landslide for the Democrats in 2008.
Alaska Darin Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 I hope that the Republican Party moves more to the center on social issues. The candidates you mention could cut it. I suspect the problem with the moderate Republicans though is that the Religious Right likely will stay home rather than vote for Guiliani or Pataki. That might mean a landslide for the Democrats in 2008. 16845[/snapback] A landslide for what candidate? There isn't a current Democrat that could win a landslide now, what's going to change in 4 years?
Mike in Syracuse Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 As a resident of NYS and hostage of Pataki's adminsitration let me offer you this advice. If Pataki were to run and was elected you'd all be better off moving to Brazil. Pataki's economic and financial strategies are on horrific. Basically it's about shifting the burden and calling taxes "surcharges". Cuomo ran the stay for years and fugged up the financials, it appears that Pataki is trying to "out-fug" Cuomo. You don't have to believe me, go do some research.
IDBillzFan Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 I think it's impossible to actually answer this question, not just from a standpoint of whether Bush will or will not win this year, but more specifically from the standpoint of 'if he does win, what state will the country be in by 2008? Will the Republicans want more of the same or some watered down version of what they had for eight years?'
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 As a resident of NYS and hostage of Pataki's adminsitration let me offer you this advice. If Pataki were to run and was elected you'd all be better off moving to Brazil. Pataki's economic and financial strategies are on horrific. Basically it's about shifting the burden and calling taxes "surcharges". Cuomo ran the stay for years and fugged up the financials, it appears that Pataki is trying to "out-fug" Cuomo. You don't have to believe me, go do some research. 17300[/snapback] Pataki lost when I voted for him when I was in grad school, and he responded by immediately doubling my tuition. Bastard.
Recommended Posts