2004 Republican candidates

[vniow]

There seems to be a lot of talk about the many Democratic candidates who are running for next year's election but I haven't heard of any Republican ones, is Bush the only one or are there others who are running also?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by vniow
There seems to be a lot of talk about the many Democratic candidates who are running for next year's election but I haven't heard of any Republican ones, is Bush the only one or are there others who are running also?

There are no serious candidates taking on Bush in the Republican primaries. At this stage of the game it is almost impossible for there to be any. There are also so few Republicans of national stature (other than McCain) that are willing to break with Bush on any major issue, that it is unlikely that there will be much of discussion on anything at their convention.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Sayhey
There are no serious candidates taking on Bush in the Republican primaries. At this stage of the game it is almost impossible for there to be any. There are also so few Republicans of national stature (other than McCain) that are willing to break with Bush on any major issue, that it is unlikely that there will be much of discussion on anything at their convention.

rumsfeld does not seem to see eye to eye with most of the generals in the military and bush on the topic of the occupation of iraq...but he will probably be asked to resign if bush wins in 2004

i don't see any gop person taking on bush but it is completely possible

also a gop person can come in as a rogue independent and not go in as a republican

of the hundreds of california governor candidates in the recall election just held, one of the front runners in the top five was a woman who was previously a registered republican but changed at the last moment to run as the leading independent...but the two top people were republican arnold and democrat bustamante...two party politics as usual

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
rumsfeld does not seem to see eye to eye with most of the generals in the military and bush on the topic of the occupation of iraq...but he will probably be asked to resign if bush wins in 2004

i don't see any gop person taking on bush but it is completely possible

also a gop person can come in as a rogue independent and not go in as a republican

of the hundreds of california governor candidates in the recall election just held, one of the front runners in the top five was a woman who was previously a registered republican but changed at the last moment to run as the leading independent...but the two top people were republican arnold and democrat bustamante...two party politics as usual

Jeff

it isn't possible to run a serious campaign because of the need to raise money, build an organization and meet state deadlines for ballots (passed or passing shortly.)

Anyone can file if they meet the deadline and the prerequisites in each state (in Virginia you have to have a certain amount of signatures from people in a number of counties.) However, there are no Pete McCloskeys in the GOP anymore and the closest person to it, McCain, is not going to challenge anyone.

I'm not sure what Rumsfeld has to do with it, but my estimate is very different than yours. I think he has been given carte blanche to run this war and Bush has bought into every piece of nonsense Rummy has fed him. I don't think Rumsfeld is going anywhere in a second Bush administration (perish the thought); in fact I think he is positioning himself for higher office in 2008.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Jeff

it isn't possible to run a serious campaign because of the need to raise money, build an organization and meet state deadlines for ballots (passed or passing shortly.)

Anyone can file if they meet the deadline and the prerequisites in each state (in Virginia you have to have a certain amount of signatures from people in a number of counties.) However, there are no Pete McCloskeys in the GOP anymore and the closest person to it, McCain, is not going to challenge anyone.

I'm not sure what Rumsfeld has to do with it, but my estimate is very different than yours. I think he has been given carte blanche to run this war and Bush has bought into every piece of nonsense Rummy has fed him. I don't think Rumsfeld is going anywhere in a second Bush administration (perish the thought); in fact I think he is positioning himself for higher office in 2008.

there are some republicans i have liked, ford and nixon, but no one since then except for mccain, but rumsfeld is the worst gop person i have seen since james watt, secretary of the interior under ronald reagan or david duke of louisiana

i would vote for trent lott or newt gingrich in a gop primary over donald duck rumsfeld ;)

now condi rice or colin powell...now they are a different story and pretty popular with people from both parties even though they are republicans and 2008 is probably theirs for the taking...i can't imagine anyone else who has a chance except maybe for vp cheney, but i doubt his health will be good enough to run in 2008...but if he stays healthy, he will be the gop default man since both W and george hw bush really like him and trust him...and cheney has a pretty faultless scandaless record unless one wants to bring haliburton into it

i am disturbed enough about haliburton to throw cheney out any consideration, but i have a feeling most americans will not care and this will at most be a minor issue if cheney runs in 2008...i don't agree with cheney's stands on political issues, but i feel he has more character than that spineless excuse we have for a president right now:rolleyes:

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
there are some republicans i have liked, ford and nixon, but no one since then except for mccain, but rumsfeld is the worst gop person i have seen since james watt, secretary of the interior under ronald reagan or david duke of louisiana

i would vote for trent lott or newt gingrich in a gop primary over donald duck rumsfeld ;)

now condi rice or colin powell...now they are a different story and pretty popular with people from both parties even though they are republicans and 2008 is probably theirs for the taking...i can't imagine anyone else who has a chance except maybe for vp cheney, but i doubt his health will be good enough to run in 2008...but if he stays healthy, he will be the gop default man since both W and george hw bush really like him and trust him...and cheney has a pretty faultless scandaless record unless one wants to bring haliburton into it

i am disturbed enough about haliburton to throw cheney out any consideration, but i have a feeling most americans will not care and this will at most be a minor issue if cheney runs in 2008...i don't agree with cheney's stands on political issues, but i feel he has more character than that spineless excuse we have for a president right now:rolleyes:

Jeff,

for those of us who remember James Watt, I would like to second that evaluation.

I would love to see Condi Rice or Colin Powell run in 2008. It would represent a major step toward moderation by the GOP. It would, of course, represent a major step forward for the country if one of the two major parties nominated a african american to the highest office. I don't think it will happen because the party has moved so far to the right that the chance of a moderate winning the nomination is almost nil. That doesn't say anything about Rice or Powell's chance in a general election, which would probably be good. I just see the religious right and neocons pulling out all the stops to prevent either one from gaining the nomination. I hope that I'm wrong.

[3rdpath]

hmmmm...a good republican candidate.

isn't that an oxymoron?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
hmmmm...a good republican candidate.

isn't that an oxymoron?

No. But if the nominee is (as expected) GWB I will stand corrected. ;)

I would have voted for John McCain over Al Gore anyday. Even if I don't like all his politics, he's got an actual backbone.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
hmmmm...a good republican candidate.

isn't that an oxymoron?

I didn't say I'd vote for either Rice or Powell, only that it would be progress for the GOP to move somewhere to the left of the politics of Atilla the Hun.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
hmmmm...a good republican candidate.

isn't that an oxymoron?

which part? "good republican" or "republican candidate?"

'cuz if the fix is in...

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Jeff,

for those of us who remember James Watt, I would like to second that evaluation.

I would love to see Condi Rice or Colin Powell run in 2008. It would represent a major step toward moderation by the GOP. It would, of course, represent a major step forward for the country if one of the two major parties nominated a african american to the highest office. I don't think it will happen because the party has moved so far to the right that the chance of a moderate winning the nomination is almost nil. That doesn't say anything about Rice or Powell's chance in a general election, which would probably be good. I just see the religious right and neocons pulling out all the stops to prevent either one from gaining the nomination. I hope that I'm wrong.

the neo conservatives in the gop are not unlike any other wing in the gop...they want to win and would back any candidate they thought would win...they rallied behind moderate to liberal republican arnold when they realized he would win and mcclintock only stayed in the race when he realized that he would not be a spoiler and help bustamante...he told daryl issa that he would gladly step out if it looked as if he would hand the governorship to bustamante by splitting the gop vote

if a person is a true believer in a platform over winning a race, then they are more likely to be a libertarian,, american independent, or green party member

the gop, like the democrats, are in this business to win and they will back anyone who they think has a good chance of winning...the christian coalition has found that now they are seriously in a position of power, they learn to play politics and at this time in california, with all the electoral votes at stake, it is unwise for them to say anything bad about arnold

in the end, the gop learns to put their differences aside because they realize that W is not very smart or competant and they will say anything they can to try and put a good spin on things to make the president look good...the parites not in the two party system are much more likely to stick to their principles and say what they really feel

it is no wonder why the third parties think that there is no real difference between the democrats and republicans becuase both parties have sold out a long time ago and do things very differently from what they say

the neo conservatives are not truly conservative if they are in the gop...they would be libertarians or american independents if they really believed in a small government and conservative values

[jefhatfield]

now let's truly breakdown the beliefs of so called neo conservatives within the gop

if they are conservative, then why would they want to "pry" into someone's sex life and oppose abortion?...a conservative is not into interfering in such a way on a person, organization, or business

why would they want to keep drugs illegal and spend tons of taxpayer money on an expensive and ineffective drug war?

why would they spend tons of taxpayer money in overseas military campaigns?

a true conservative, like the founder of neoconservatism, william f buckley, will leave the gop and that's exactly what he did...buckley believes in the decriminalization of drugs and is not a believer in spending taxpayer money on foreign campaigns...he is an america first type of guy

pat buchannan is a true conservative and is against the huge amount money spent in foreign campaigns...he left the republican party and also a true conservative would favor buying american and not really being so nafta oriented...again, a conservative is truly into america first...it's fair to say that buchannan is also an america first type of guy

george schulz, former reagan staffer, is a true conservative...he also thinks that decriminalization of drugs would save a lot of money and saving money is at the core of what a conservative does

today's gop, even much more than the democrats, are so into making themselves look one way and they say so much to get votes, but the republicans are at the height of their hypocrisy these days...they are not conservative at all and love to spend our taxpayer money and even though they say they don't want to run up a defecit, they are spending billions in iraq instead of helping the american economy

and now that the fragile economy may show some recovery, the gop is still more likely to put their emphasis on khaddafi instead of boosting the us economy and make things stable for us...just watch and see where W puts his emphasis...if he gets his way, he will keep america's troops deployed everywhere and try and keep up his numbers by winning wars by taking on countries he knows he can beat and then make it sound like the usa is on some humanitarian mission