BuffaloBorn1960 Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 Truth be told... Jeb comes acrosss better than GWB and you have to give the guy credit with what he has done in FLA...
SDS Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 I would LOVE to see Hillary as the candidate. She would get her ass handed to her so fast it will make your head spin. The reps would have to put up Newt Gingrich in order to balance the polarizing factor.
SDS Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 where does Giuliani stand? 99553[/snapback] he doesn't. he cannot get the nomination.
flomoe Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 where does Giuliani stand? 99553[/snapback] My first thought after hearing about the Kerry concession was who will the Reps run out in 08? You know that Hillary is going to be the choice for the left wingers and the first person I thought of to run against her was Rudy. Maybe have his VP Powell and save Jeb till 12 if something bad happens, which I highly doubt would. I don't know of any other Reps that have had the "face" time to run against Hillary. Thoughts?
nobody Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 he doesn't. he cannot get the nomination. 99560[/snapback] Do we see him as a VP candidate or perhaps a cabinet position like homeland defense?
DC Tom Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 That would mean that, from 88 onward, we'd have Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and then Bush or Clinton. A quarter-century being ruled by two different clans. If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd be spinning in their graves.
nobody Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 Truth be told... Jeb comes acrosss better than GWB and you have to give the guy credit with what he has done in FLA... 99508[/snapback] I expect to see Dick resign as VP after another year or 2 and Jeb moves in to the spot to get the "incumbant" effect in 08.
JimBob2232 Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 The republicans have a very good crop of candiates Guliani Pataki Schwarzzeneger (though he shouldnt be) Cheney (likely not to want it) Powell (likely not to want it) JC Watts George Allen etd, etc, etc.. Compared with the democrats Hillary Clinton Howard Dean Al Sharpton et. Al. You have honest competent knowlegeble people on one side and well....nothing of substance on the democrat side. This democratic pary needs a makeover. Barack Obama is a good start, but they have a long way to go and need to rid themselves of the cancer amungst them
SDS Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 The republicans have a very good crop of candiatesGuliani Pataki Schwarzzeneger (though he shouldnt be) Cheney (likely not to want it) Powell (likely not to want it) JC Watts George Allen etd, etc, etc.. 99572[/snapback] errrr.... negative cowboy. Guliani, Powell, and Patiaki could never get the nomination. Arnold is ineligible. Cheney is near death with his heart (not to mention he is now a liability). Allen is your only possibility there.
flomoe Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 The republicans have a very good crop of candiatesGuliani Pataki Schwarzzeneger (though he shouldnt be) Cheney (likely not to want it) Powell (likely not to want it) JC Watts George Allen etd, etc, etc.. Compared with the democrats Hillary Clinton Howard Dean Al Sharpton et. Al. You have honest competent knowlegeble people on one side and well....nothing of substance on the democrat side. This democratic pary needs a makeover. Barack Obama is a good start, but they have a long way to go and need to rid themselves of the cancer amungst them 99572[/snapback] I have no problem with the "old" Democratic party that used to be on the conservative side but they seem to have been taken over by this far left faction of liberals that feel that they need to punish anyone who works hard and makes money only to give it to the lazy and incompetent. They view this country as a stepping stone for a world government with peace and love. That will NEVER happen as long as there are billions of Muslims who would like to see every Christian dead!! Whatever happened to the decent Democrats that used to have a say? Did they all switch to the Republican Party?
OGTEleven Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 Everything I've seen/read about Bill Frist looked pretty good to me. If he wants to run though, he's going to need a better toupee.
PastaJoe Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 It's going to be Rush Limbaugh vs Jerry Springer.
Campy Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 Schwarzzeneger (though he shouldnt be) 99572[/snapback] Shouldn't be? He can't be. Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution: No person except a natural-born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President
JimBob2232 Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 Shouldn't be? He can't be. Right, but there has been some talk about amending the constitution to say that you have to be a citizen for 20 years to run. I think that is very wrong, and thus why I said "shouldnt be". I disagree that Pataki or Guliani cannot win a nomination. Though I will agree both would be best served as a VP for 4 years before running on their own, they are both very strong men with a good track record in New York. The fact they could deliver a state like NY for the republican party would be a very strong selling point. BTW, I forgot to add McCain to my list
Campy Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 Right, but there has been some talk about amending the constitution to say that you have to be a citizen for 20 years to run. I think that is very wrong, and thus why I said "shouldnt be". 99632[/snapback] The Constitution already states that a candidate must be a citizen for 14 years at the time it was approved, or natural-born. Tinkering with that is not a good idea. If it were to happen to get Ahnold on a ticket, that would be gerrymandering at its absolute worst.
stuckincincy Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 Given the baggage that Hillary carries, and her polarizing nature, the Dem's would have to hatch a long-term plan to hurt people's lives so she could be considered as a saviour. Doing that over the 4-year run-up would be the virtual end of any state or local positions - and they won't fall on their swords. Witness the Dem's in Congress not repudiating tax cuts and nary a peep by them on renewing that goofy assault weapon ban.
MikeInRoch Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 That ammendment has absolutely ZERO chance of being ratified. It is extremely hard to ammend the Constitution.
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted November 3, 2004 Author Posted November 3, 2004 That would mean that, from 88 onward, we'd have Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and then Bush or Clinton. A quarter-century being ruled by two different clans. If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd be spinning in their graves. 99569[/snapback] Might be some obscure congressional candidate !st as VP... John Sweeney?
EZC-Boston Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 Republicans in Mass love to put Mitt Romney's name out there.
Recommended Posts