Who shall be the candidate of the Republican Party?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
People are talking about Guiliani who was just a Mayor.

JM

Uh... Guiliani is far from being JUST a Mayor. That's like saying Eisenhower was just a General.

Sans 9/11, Guiliani wouldn't even have been spoken about for the Presidency (even though he had a good track record among most for his work in NYC). His very liberal positions on certain issues though will undermine him, IMO.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Admiral
I still think that McCain, Romney, and Guliani will end up going down in flames, leaving someone with bona fide conservative credentials like Huckabee to be the nominee.

Newt

[Imran Siddiqui]

Think the GOP voters arent able to see that Giuliani had to win in you know, NYC? Babylon on the Hudson?

I don't think so. Because his pro-choice stance isn't merely something he had to do to win in NYC; he does believe in it. I mean, what that Kos quote means is that Nelson is given more slack in BEING a Democrat Senator from Colorado. Though that slack wouldn't be there if he was running for President.

[Ramo]

Uh... Guiliani is far from being JUST a Mayor. That's like saying Eisenhower was just a General.

Sans 9/11, Guiliani wouldn't even have been spoken about for the Presidency (even though he had a good track record among most for his work in NYC). His very liberal positions on certain issues though will undermine him, IMO.

He's also got a problem with unamiable divorces and corruption (remember Bernie Kerik?) ready to be dug up. IMO, he's a paper tiger.

Hes more flipped on rhetoric - in 2000 he dug into the fundies, and now he makes nice. But on policy, he was anti-abortion in 2000, and hes a moderate on judgeships now. I dont see him as a real flipper.

He opposed overturning Roe last time around...

McCains real problem with the GOP is still McCain Feingold, again something on which hes been consistent - this bugs the hell out of the deeply partisan GOP right, and they wont forgive him. Not sure how that partisant issue will play among ideological GOP constituencies (There arent that many high Tory George Will type voters)

Until June, he supported a more robust public financing system for the Presidential election (the bill even bore his name), and has now abandoned it. He claims that it was due to conflict of interest...

He also flip-flopped on the 2001 Bush tax cuts (used to oppose them, now support them).

[Winston]

Originally posted by LordShiva

The one on the right reminds me of someone I knew at uni. On the right again

Is that you in the middle?

No, he's the one moving past them in the background. That's how well he knew her.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


He's also got a problem with unamiable divorces and corruption (remember Bernie Kerik?) ready to be dug up. IMO, he's a paper tiger.



He opposed overturning Roe last time around...

McCains real problem with the GOP is still McCain Feingold, again something on which hes been consistent - this bugs the hell out of the deeply partisan GOP right, and they wont forgive him. Not sure how that partisant issue will play among ideological GOP constituencies (There arent that many high Tory George Will type voters)

Until June, he supported a more robust public financing system for the Presidential election (the bill even bore his name), and has now abandoned it. He claims that it was due to conflict of interest...

He also flip-flopped on the 2001 Bush tax cuts (used to oppose them, now support them).

even last time, McCain said hed like to see the point where McCain wasnt necessary. More importantly he said that stance on abortion wouldnt be a litimus test for judgeships, and Im quite sure he hasnt changed on that.

Taxes? well there could be a stare decisis thing - its one thing to oppose a tax cut, another to repeal one thats in place and that folks are relying on. Or he could have a different view of the macro economy now. As for conflict of interest, since he is now a pres candidate, that seems reasonable.


I suppose there IS an advantage to running when youve only been in the Senate for two years, and not had enough time to build up a complex and apparently contradictory record on issues. Two years, for example, isnt enough time to have been in office throughout a complete macroeconomic cycle, which would sure simplify ones views of tax cuts.

I have a lot more sympathy for those who have been in DC for a long time, long enough that changing positions in response to changing circumstances was necessary, in BOTH political parties, than for neophytes who loudly proclaim their consistency, while avoiding taking stands on controversial issues.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Duncan Hunter, he's a pro-war Hagel, both served in Vietnam

He's DOA even with the big papers in California all cheering him. Besides the man really is a clod and he has no money.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
First off, do people really care THAT much about the Mormon thing?

The wingnut evangelicals do and they control the Republican nomination process so any Mormon candidate is DOA.

[lord of the mark]

I dunno. People make like Mitt is the first Mormon to run. Its like theyve forgotten completely about his father.

[Ramo]

even last time, McCain said hed like to see the point where McCain wasnt necessary.

He did say that; he said this as well:

But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/mccain082499.htm

I suppose there IS an advantage to running when youve only been in the Senate for two years, and not had enough time to build up a complex and apparently contradictory record on issues. Two years, for example, isnt enough time to have been in office throughout a complete macroeconomic cycle, which would sure simplify ones views of tax cuts.

It's the same tax cut. He opposed it five years ago before the ballooning budget deficit, and supports it now. And remember, this is the guy who's the chief advocate of escalation in Iraq; that doesn't come cheap.

[Berzerker]

Who the **** is Duncan Hunter?

I just wiki'ed him and... a Congressman? Not even a Senator? No way he gets through.

Dont count him out, he's best suited for the activist base of the GOP. If he had more charisma he could be paraded out as the next Reagan.


And McCain aint really pro-life, he was caught by a reporter asking what he'd do if his daughter got pregnant and he admitted it would be her decision. Pro-lifers know he isn't sincere or enthusiastic about banning abortion.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The wingnut evangelicals do and they control the Republican nomination process

No... evangelicals do not control the Republican nomination process. They are a minority within the Republican party. A minority with tremendous influence, but a minority nevertheless.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Dont count him out, he's best suited for the activist base of the GOP. If he had more charisma he could be paraded out as the next Reagan.

I've counted him out. No way in Hell he gets the nom. Maybe VP, but he's just a Congressman for God's sake. This ain't "The West Wing".

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Sava


No... evangelicals do not control the Republican nomination process. They are a minority within the Republican party. A minority with tremendous influence, but a minority nevertheless.

True, but they have a disproportionate impact on the primary process, in the same way that the loony left wing of the Dems does on their primary process. The primary process overall favors motivated, organized, activist types over less-energized voters.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

It's the same tax cut. He opposed it five years ago before the ballooning budget deficit, and supports it now. And remember, this is the guy who's the chief advocate of escalation in Iraq; that doesn't come cheap.

Its the same tax cut, but now its a question of repealing it, not passing it. Or did he say hed no longer have opposed it in the beginning? Or perhaps he atttributes the growth of the last few years to its effects, and so changed his mind.

As for the surge, I suspect he believes that failing to do it, would cause an extended and costlier commitment. Certainly in retrospect wed have saved money if we fully manned the occupation to begin with. Anyway, thats only one part of the budget, I think McCain will be quite able to defend his position as a deficit hawk.

Im not sure of the point. You think McCain would take any position to get elected? I dont think so. Being out front on the surge has little upside for him, and plenty of downside. Ditto his positions on torture, which hurt him on the right, and didnt help much with the center. As far as I can tell he often takes stands on principle on the issues he cares about. Some issues he doesnt care as much about, and he will of course try to play those. Im not sure who the saint is whom he is running against, and even if there was one, im not sure we could afford a saint as President (Jimmy Carter ran essentially as a saint, and that admin was mixed at best policy wise, and disastrous politically for the Dems)