KD in CA Posted November 3, 2004 Share 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] But if they were alive, wouldn't they be running for office instead of hanging out in their graves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 But if they were alive, wouldn't they be running for office instead of hanging out in their graves? 99917[/snapback] They'd probably be yelling, GET ME OUT OF HERE!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Frist v Bayh All the NY candidates are pipe dreams of the opposition. Hillary-unelectable to any position outside of the most liberal blue states. Would never get the nomination going through primaries in Iowa & New Hampshire. Guiliani-on his 3rd marriage, had 2 mistresses while married to Donna Hanover, left 2nd wife after she threw him out & moved in with a gay couple-I can really see the bible belters accepting this guy once they hear of his personal life. Pataki-the Republicans have had enough of him in NY because he's not fiscially or socially conservative-nationwide-forgettaboutit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 I don't know who the GOP will pick, but it won't be Hillary from the Dems. You guys have to get over your Hillary obsession. Do you see her in your nightmares? (I won't ask about your dreams). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Jeb already said he's not interested, as did VP. Honestly, I think Rice might give it a go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 I don't know who the GOP will pick, but it won't be Hillary from the Dems. You guys have to get over your Hillary obsession. Do you see her in your nightmares? (I won't ask about your dreams). 100533[/snapback] <looking around for signs of impending nuclear armageddon> I agree with you... <ducking and covering> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightRider Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Republicans in Mass love to put Mitt Romney's name out there. 99768[/snapback] Mit Romney - Condi Rice or Verse Visa Fiscal conservatism and foreign policy... Romney is really impressive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Mit Romney - Condi Rice or Verse Visa Fiscal conservatism and foreign policy... Romney is really impressive... 100780[/snapback] So is Condi. I've met her. She is one sharp cookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 So is Condi. I've met her. She is one sharp cookie. 100784[/snapback] Whatever. You don't know stevestojan. You're just a KzooMike southerner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whynot Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Add two more Dems: Bill Richardson (New Mexico Gov) Mark Warner (Virgina Gov) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightRider Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 So is Condi. I've met her. She is one sharp cookie. 100784[/snapback] Actually I was thinking of her when I wrote foreign policy, but I guess Mit's Olympic credentials give him a presence on the world stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Actually I was thinking of her when I wrote foreign policy, but I guess Mit's Olympic credentials give him a presence on the world stage. 102387[/snapback] Yeah, but he's named after sports equipment. I wouldn't vote for anyone named Jock, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Yeah, but he's named after sports equipment. I wouldn't vote for anyone named Jock, either. Like Jock Chiraq (yes I konw...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATBNG Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Mitt's pro-choice. After Tuesday's result, I don't see why the Repubs would move away from social conservatism since it seems to be the winning issue for them in the election. All of our libertarian Northeast Republicans (Rudy, Mitt, Weld, etc.) can get elected here but are not viable for the primary process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 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. 99551[/snapback] if she runs i'm a REPUBLICAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 if she runs i'm a REPUBLICAN Which is EXACTLY why she wont run. No republican will vote for her, and the reasonable portion of the democratic party wont vote for her. She gets 30% of the vote. Tops. Look at that Red/Blue map. Now consider she won just 55% of all votes in NEW YORK. She has no chance in any of the states bush won, and would even lose many states kerry won (WI, IA, NH). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightRider Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Mitt's pro-choice. After Tuesday's result, I don't see why the Repubs would move away from social conservatism since it seems to be the winning issue for them in the election. All of our libertarian Northeast Republicans (Rudy, Mitt, Weld, etc.) can get elected here but are not viable for the primary process. 102581[/snapback] Romney is not. He sidestepped that question in the gubenatorial debate two years ago. What I believe he said was that while he thinks abortion is wrong, he would not impose his beliefs on a state that overwhelming approves it. (His opponent hung herself on that same question.) Romney has been very careful about his social values. He is really a Utah Morman. You might have noticed Utah went Bush by at 71%... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATBNG Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Romney is not. He sidestepped that question in the gubenatorial debate two years ago. What I believe he said was that while he thinks abortion is wrong, he would not impose his beliefs on a state that overwhelming approves it. (His opponent hung herself on that same question.) Romney has been very careful about his social values. He is really a Utah Morman. You might have noticed Utah went Bush by at 71%... 102685[/snapback] I disagree with that interpretation. Lots of people that are pro-choice are personally against abortion. He is very much on the record as supporting the right to choose. Definitely Pro-Choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts