Republican Presidential Candidates 2008

Hey, call this your pre-Thanksgiving open thread, but I’m setting the tone! Who’s your horse going into the Presidential races of 2008? I am only focusing on Republicans in this one, because, well, I’m a Republican. One of our Democratic friends can start one on their side…

We’ve got John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich leading the in the race as of now with Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and maybe a couple of others trailing in the rear.

In 2000 McCain was the real American Hero going up against the Bush Dynasty. Now he’s back! We have Mayor Giuliani living off of post-9/11 glory and Mitt Romney trying to take the right. Newt Gingrich is taking a new approach (refreshing) and putting forth ideas first and foremost in exploring the Presidential terrain.

I really like McCain, Giuliani, and Newt. I don’t trust Romney. He’s too slick. As long as McCain doesn’t abandon the reformer with results slogan and sell his sole to the far right, he might have a chance. Newt may put some ideas out there that are so compelling, they trump his own personal shortcomings. And Rudy, well, many accolades for post-9/11, but prior to that, Rudy was pretty much exiting stage left from the national scene.

Anyway, chime in with your own comments.


  1. debbie0040 says:

    I like anyone but John McCain; Newt, Rudy, Romney.

    I agree that Newt is the one with the best ideas out there.

  2. Adam Fogle says:

    Pros and Cons:

    John McCain
    Pro: War hero/POW-MIA, major name recognition, huge independent base, Senate experience
    Con: Age, disliked by many neo-cons, could have trouble in the South, lack of executive experience

    Rudy Giuliani
    Pro: Major name recognition, high positive name ID, leadership during 9/11
    Con: Pro-choice + pro-gun control = MAJOR trouble in the South, Northeasterner, lack of equivalent experience

    Mitt Romney
    Pro: Conservative enough to rope in party faithful
    Con: Mormon, Northeasterner, lack of name recognition, potentially too conservative

    Newt Gingerich
    Pro: Some national name recognition, former Speaker of the House, can be convincing
    Con: High negative name ID outside of GA, lack of executive experience, been out of office for a while

    Tommy Thompson
    Pro: Solid executive experience, early candidacy
    Con: Serious lack of name recognition, likely lack of capital

    Pro: none
    Con: Serious lack of name recognition

    I think that inevitably you must break it down and distinguish between a candidates primary chances and general chances. Someone like McCain or Giuliani will have a great deal of trouble during primary elections because the GOP party faithful view them as “too liberal” or “not loyal.” (e.g. see: debbie0040)

    But if they somehow make it through the primaries, then they are phenomenal nationwide candidates. They both have HUGE independent bases and, Giuliani especially, can pull in quite a few Democratic votes. The same Republicans that will vote AGAINST McCain or Giuliani during the primaries are much more likely to vote FOR them during the general election.

    Not to mention, none of this even takes money into account. If any of these guys comes up short or doesn’t have a large enough war chest, then they cannot overcome the aforementioned “cons.”

  3. debbie0040 says:

    I have had Democrat friends tell me that if Rudy gets the nomination they will vote GOP in 2008.

    That will be the first time they have ever done that so Adam, you are right on target about Rudy and the general election.

  4. bird says:

    wow! Debbie is supporting a pro-choice candidate.

    Interesting point I heard today, most GOP candidates have not articulated a position on the Iraq War, especially Guiliani and Romney. That is essential at this point. And though McCain has expressed a position, increase troop levels, only about 19% of Americans agrees with that.

  5. drjay says:

    none of these folks get me real pumped up at this point–huckabee is probably my fave but its still pretty early…

  6. atlantaman says:

    Can someone please explain what a ne0-con is, I’ve been given definitions that range from former Jewish Democrats to Republicans who favor an aggresive foreign policy.

  7. drjay says:

    i got an email last week from a “draft gilmore” group–i guess now that george allen’s star has fallen–its imperative to get another former va guv into the race??? they have a website up but i don’t know how serious the “movement” is…

  8. John Konop says:


    BTW, I am Jewish and I am not a big fan of NEOCONS. I hope this helps you.

    Neoconservatism is a political movement, mainly in the United States, which is generally held to have emerged in the 1960s, coalesced in the 1970s, and has had a significant presence in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

    The prefix neo- refers to two ways in which neoconservatism was new. First, many of the movement’s founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism. Also, neoconservatism was a comparatively recent strain of conservative socio-political thought. It derived from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II, including literary criticism and the social sciences.

    Irving Kristol,[1] Norman Podhoretz[2] and others described themselves as neoconservatives during the Cold War. Today, however, the movement’s critics use the term more often than supporters [citation needed]. In fact, some people described as “neocons” today say that neoconservatism no longer exists as an identifiable movement.

  9. drjay says:

    atlantaman–that is a very complicated question–in general in todays usage the aggressive foriegn policy views are probably what neocons are best known for–the neocon movement was basically founded by formerly liberal jews (mostly) who converted to goldwater/reagan type anti communism–people like irving crystal and paul wolfowitz for instance–of course cheney and rumsfeld are basically neocons too–minus the judiasm part–the “neocon reader” is a great book of essays by and about several prominent neocons and their philosophies as it relates not only to foriegn policy–but also econimics and social issues–unfortunately their are some –well–pat buchanan types–who do use neocon as a buzzword for zelaots who pushed reagan and the bushes into a pro israeli stand to the exclusion of other goals–and mean it to be an insult (sort of a euphemism for zionists–in a bad way)

    a hope that helps

  10. drjay says:

    we were typing at the same time john…”the rise of the vulcans” (not spock vulcans) also gives a good history of necons–more specifically as a foriegn policy movement…

  11. Adam Fogle says:


    To the best of my knowledge, neoconservatism refers to the “new” (circa 1960’s) influence of socially conservative Democrats on traditional Republican fiscal conservatism.

    The original Republican conservative school of thought pertained largely to responsible, lassiez-faire economic policy/legislation (e.g. staunch free traders, no unnecessary spending, etc.).

    The wave of former Democrats into the conservative brought with them a dominant “hands-on” social approach as well as a strong taste for hawkish foreign policy and meant a new twist on conservatism. Thus, neo (new) conservatism was born.

  12. Adam Fogle says:

    Well, instead of picking our favorites for 2008, we can now use this thread to pick the best definition of neoconservatism.

    I vote for Adam Fogle’s. But, then again, I’m kind of biased.

  13. John Konop says:


    This is a very good link to read about the topic.

    Are You a Neocon?

    by Daniel McCarthy

    Centrist – Just what it sounds like. Someone who doesn’t have any particularly strong ideological leanings in any direction.

    Conservative – Specifically a “fusionist” conservative of the National Review – Heritage Foundation mold. Someone who believes in traditional morality and capitalism, and the need for a limited government to allow both to flourish.

    Left-libertarian – The quiz uses a mild definition of a left-libertarian, an anti-statist who is somewhat fearful of corporate and religious influence on public life.

    Liberal – Supports economic regulation to promote social justice and takes a progressive stance toward moral or cultural issues.

    Libertarian – A libertarian opposes most or all government activites. Does not favor much or any government support for either moral or economic systems.

    Neoconservative – A “neocon” is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.

    Paleoconservative – “Paleocons” want less US involvement in foeign affairs than other conservatives and oppose mass immigration. They are also more favorably disposed toward the South and the idea of secession, or at least decentralization, than neoconservatives.

    Paleo-libertarian – Similar to other libertarians except for oppostion to mass immigration, and shares the paleocon appreciation of the South.

    Radical – Critical of bouregois morality and strongly opposed to capitalism and willing to use state power to achieve desired ends.

    Third-way – More supportive of foreign intervention than liberals and less supportive of economic regulation, coupled with more-or-less progressive social views. “Third-way” is to liberal what neoconservative is to conservative.

  14. rugby_fan says:

    Giuliani has a lack of equivalent experience? What is wrong with you seriously? He was in charge of a city larger population wise than most STATES. He oversaw a budget that was larger than an 95% of the world’s NATIONS. He has faced more complex issues than 46 GOVERNORS have.

    What could be more “equivalent” than that? Previously POTUS maybe?

  15. rugby_fan says:

    “I have had Democrat friends tell me that if Rudy gets the nomination they will vote GOP in 2008.”

    Just like you and your RR acolytes who were going to vote JM of WA and cost CC the election? My word you lot were a powerful bloc this year. It came down to the wire.

    I think it would be more accurate to say “My one Democrat friend said he would vote for Rudy”.

  16. debbie0040 says:

    Rugby _fan, please show me where I said I was not voting for Cagle after he won the nomination. I plainly stated that I was. Learn to read.

  17. Adam Fogle says:


    I’ve heard that argument hundreds of times, and I knew that someone would call me out via its silver linings. But it comes down to this:

    While Giuliani oversaw a POPULATION that is equivalent to or larger than that of many states, and a budget larger than most, he was still ONLY A MAYOR.

    In the eyes of most voters, he is MAYOR Rudy Giuliani. Never in the history of the United States has a mayor, even of New York City, been remotely qualified for the White House directly from that post.

    The path to the presidency ultimately goes through the Senate, or more likely, a gubernatorial position.

    Further, while he may have controlled the budgetary and population equivalent of most governors, there were a number of things which Giuliani did not do/face that most governors must. Certain aspects of being governor prepare someone to handle the highest executive post and can only be found as a governor and not a mayor. This is why senators have a harder time winning the White House than do governors.

    Most notably, a mayor has no influence in commanding military forces. Governors do – albeit marginally – command National Guard troops. While Giuliani oversaw the NYPD, it is nowhere near the equivalent. It is obviously a major advantage when assuming the White House to have experience commanding troops.

    Further, Giuliani had little equivalent experience in relating to a legislative body similar to that of a governor. The NYC city council is nothing like a state legislature and his role was far different from that of a governor overseeing the legislative body. POTUS must be able to work hand-and-hand with a bicameral legislative equivalent of most state governments.

    There are more, but that is all I have time for right now.

    None of this “disqualifies” Giuliani, but it makes him less qualified than some candidates IN THAT AREA.

  18. debbie0040 says:

    Giuliani showed true leaderhsip after 9-11 and dealing with it’s aftermath. Voters are looking for true leadership and someone that can beat Hillary and might be willing to overlook Giulani’s social views.

  19. rugby_fan says:

    no you were not, but you claimed that you knew of a substantial number of Reed supporters who were not voting for Cagle for airing truthful ads.

  20. debbie0040 says:

    I did say that and the ones I was referring to voted Libertarian for Buckley. Some sat this election out as well.

    I have never encouraged anyone to vote anything other than GOP.

  21. drjay says:

    while i am not enamored w/ rudy as a choice for president i think its unfair to summarily disregard their qualifications for the presidency–for one thing most have some other high level experience in addition to their mayoral terms–rudy for instance was the number 3 person at the justice dept. at one time–(ed koch and john lindsay had both been in congress)–for instance–also a qualification that is somewhat unique to the city of new york is that it is an international city in every sense of the word–rudy had dealings w/ the u.n. and hosted heads of state as mayor and was a guest in various embassies as well as mayor–to even try to compare the authority a guv has over the nat’l guard w/ “military experience” is quite a stretch indeed–the depth and breadth of the mayoralty of a city like new york or l.a. or even houston is every bit of a tempest as been guv of say–montana or maine…

  22. rugby_fan says:

    Everything you mentioned is still mox nix because the NYC-everything is more complex than just about ANYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD.

    I would say that the mayorship of NYC has never, in American history, this difficult a body to handle. It is faced with a greater chance of armed attacks than any other part of the nation–save DC.

    The fact that he has no control over an army is not too compelling. The NYPD has branches and facets that are just as sophisticated as the CIA, FBI, DofHS &c.. That he does not over see a National Guard, fine. I would still say that he is exponentially more qualified–militarily than Freudenthal, Schwitzer, Huckabee, et al, after having been in charge of the NYPD because you are correct, that the National Guard is not comparable to the NYPD. The NYPD is a far different body that does things the NG never could. (BTW, I would say it is more critical for our Commander in Chief to have experience managing CIA, FBI esque bodies as our current challenges are un-orthodox and will be won not in traditional militaristic ways. But thats a different topic).

    The NYC Council is bunch of obstinate my way or no one else’s way, pompous blow hards. It is much harder to work with the NYCC than most state legislatures, or even other NATIONS legislative bodies. It would be easier to corral the Australian Parliament (fine legislative body that it is), than the NYCC. So, once again, not working with a bicameral legislature is, moot.

    Oh, and this should not be read as an endorsement of Giuliani.

  23. rugby_fan says:

    The good Doctor posted that as I was typing mine. How interesting that we mention the same Governor independently of each other.

  24. rugby_fan says:

    Mr. Konop, That is interesting. Never knew that. Doesn’t sway my opinion of either though.

    ps: that should be the good DrJay meaning honorable.

  25. drjay says:

    i really think once you reach a nominal threshhold of experience–its more things like vision and leadership that people are looking for in their prez—some folks who history considers above avg. prez’ had fairly flimsy resumes–like lincoln and wilson and some “bad presidents” like nixon had fairly extensive ones…

  26. rugby_fan says:

    I would like to add one more thing and then I will more than likely be done. Maybe…

    Being President is a job where no previous record will adequately prepare you for the job. I’m sorry but its true. As pointed out above, past experience really does not matter as POTUS.

  27. Bull Moose says:

    Hands down Rudy is qualified, that’s not even really debatable in my view…

    Adam, most roads to the White House do not go through the Senate, they go through the Governor’s office…

    2008 is the most wide open race in our generation.

    We must do more than just BEAT Hillary. If beating Hillary is the only goal we have, then we will lose.

  28. David says:

    Rudy has a deep resume. Very Qualified. Crime busting US Attorney before the mayor’s office, too. His handling of and the appearance of strength after 9/11 would be enough on it’s own merits.

  29. Decaturguy says:

    Mitt Romney will play well in the South, despite that he is a Morman and hails from Massachusetts. He will play well to most Southern Republicans who want to use the power of the government to enforce a fundamentalist Christian social code on the rest of the population. That is all they are really concerned about. There are not interested in a smaller, less intrusive government as traditional conservatives are.

  30. debbie0040 says:

    Because he is unpredictable and erratic. He has a short fuse and might explode on the campaign trail.

    I also don’t like his gang idea in the Senate for W’s Judicial nominations. Do you think the Dems will give us that same courtesy?

    I believe in trying to work together with Democrats where possible, but McCain carries that to the extreme.

    I will not hesitate to support him and work my tail off for him if he wins the nomination. As I have said before, our worst Republican is better than the best Democrat.

    To be truthful, I am not excited about any out there now. I yearn for someone like Reagan.

    I agree that beating Hillary is not enough, but many conservatives would support Rudy or McCain over Hillary or the Dem nominee.

  31. JP says:

    Debbie, when you make comments like “our worst Republican is better than the best Democrat,” it shows how mindlessly partisan you are. You have no credibility with those of us who THINK before we vote.

    I’m for Wes Clark, myself, just wanted to see what the other party was talking about. Self-congratulating nonsense isn’t worth my time.

  32. pvsys says:


    Most Christian “social” conservatives I know have a bit of a libertarian streak in them. Very few fit **your** description.


    Regarding the topic at hand… I think that both McCain and Guiliani would be a disaster if nominated.

    Regarding McCain, I consider his vote against the Bush tax cut to be an unpardonable sin. At the time of that tax cut, the level of all taxation (Federal, State, Local) as a percentage of total income was higher than it has ever been in U.S. history… and there is tremendous evidence that Bush’s tax cut pulled us out of a recession… other than a recent minor slump which can be directly tied to recent high energy prices, we’ve actually done quite well… that is, AFTER those tax cuts went into effect. So, I’d like to ask McCain, “if not then, when” and “if not a newly elected Republican president and congress, WHO”… if those can’t be depended on to enact a tax cut under those conditions, WHO would and WHEN? Even Bill Clinton admitted that his 1993 tax increase “probably went too far”… no kidding… so if McCain is “to the left” of Bill Clinton on tax policy, his is no Conservative. (And I feel certain Ronald Reagan would agree if alive today!)

    Guliani to way too socially liberal for me and he has a personal life that will be a Democrat consultant’s dream come true. By the time the Democrat attach machine gets through with him, he’ll be every American women’s asshole ex-husband (or relative’s ex-husband). While his demeaner works well as a hard-ass prosecuter, it also fits the jerk ex-husband as well and his personal history will give the Democrats plenty of ammo to work with on this. And don’t think for a moment that Bill Clinton changed the rules.

    So… who do I like for pres in ’08?

    Not anyone who is seriously running or considering running at this point!

    But I’d love it if Chris Cox and/or Tom Coburn would run!

    Someone mentioned Tommy Thompson earlier… and I’m included to like that idea… but I’d have to read up more on him to be sure.

    Rob McEwen

  33. John Konop says:


    I am no McCain fan, but I think he was trying to get President Bush and Congress to stop spending all our money!

    Between Earmaks in Congress and president Bush not understanding how to veto spending bills, we got a problem.

    How about a real conservative call for NO MORE EARMARKS!!!!!

  34. pvsys says:

    I do appreciate that McCain is one of the only few that are serious ones about controlling spending… but I also think that McCain’s version of economic is equivalent (for all practical purposes) to believing that either (1) we place our extra money from tax cuts under our mattresses or (2) the Gov’t spending of this money spurs the economy more and results in more productivity than does private sector spending.

    Rob McEwen

  35. John Konop says:


    That is true if debt is under control. But since we ran up the debt Prime is up 4%. Any tax savings where eaten up by the rise in cost of money. That is why over a year ago I said GDP would slow down. Interest rate going up is not good for consumer spending.

  36. pvsys says:


    But (1) interest rates are still historically low (2) unemployment is about as low as it has ever been (3) inflation is in check.

    I understand that higher interest rates effect costs for people taking out new loans for things like cars or homes… but, otherwise, they don’t effect other people except to the extent that higher interest rates drag the whole economy down. (Which I don’t see happening at this point… though what you point out is cause for concern.)

    But higher taxes DO drag everything down.

    Put it another way, I benefitted tremendously from the Bush tax cut because (1) I have four children and (2) because I’m fairly middle-middle class. (Of course, doesn’t everyone describe themselves that way!… OK, to be more specific, I’m not near 6 figures annual household income.)

    Therefore, Bush’s lowering of tax rates on poor to lower-middle class is still a big chunk of my pie …AND… those extra child tax credits are also a big help.

    (Of course, I’d have preferred higher per-child deductions, but that would have been politically impossible. But, for all practical purposes, these tax cuts put the overal per-child combined credits/deduction at about what the per-child deduction was in the 50s after adjusting for inflation.)

    Therefore, per year, my “real” take home pay is more than a few thousand dollars INCREASED with the Bush tax cut.

    I don’t think I’d trade that for little bit better interest rates… and I DO think the economy would suffer if those extra dollars were spent by Uncle Sam instead of me… I tend to demand more value and productivity per dollar that I spend in comparison to the Gov’t.

    Rob McEwen

  37. Bull Moose says:

    John McCain is not erratic and unpredictable. This is a vicious rumor that was spread during the 2000 primaries by those who were against John McCain.

    The 14 Senators who got together to get the judicial nominees through the Senate were successful in getting judges confirmed. A show down in the Senate would not have accomplished that and would have thrown our country into a constitutional crisis.

    I tend to be on the side of the real reformer with results, a real American hero, John McCain. I think he has the moxy to lead our country, both red and blue, to economic prosperity.

    As for the neo-con talk earlier, I will never ever vote for another neo-con.

  38. John Konop says:

    Bull Moose

    That means you support open borders and unfair trade, which is hurting wages. That is the formula as to why the GOP got killed. look at Webb, Tester, Barrow Marshal …… ie Blue Dogs,They all ran against that policy.

  39. debbie0040 says:

    A show down in the Senate? We were in control and could have invoked the “nuclear option” to stop filibusters. McCain does not stand firm against the Democrats. Do you think that gang of 14 will still stand with the Dems in charge?

    McCain is pro amnesty for illegals and thinks they should have citzenship.

    I don’t like his position on Gitmo and torture. He should know what real torture is and the way we have treated the terrorists is much better than they deserve to be treated.

  40. RuralDem says:

    By the way, if I was going to back a Republican I’d probably go with Romney. McCain is more conservative than he puts on, however I do like his “maverick” style. Rudy is too socially liberal for my liking and I doubt he will do well with socially conservative Republicans. Newt is way too partisan, in his mind if the Republican Party did something wrong then the Democratic Party caused it therefore the Democratic Party is at fault no matter what. It’s really sad that he cannot put the people before his party. Staunch partisanship is something we do NOT need. Whoever wins, whether it is a Democrat or Republican, needs to realize their party is not right all the time.

  41. debbie0040 says:

    Newt has been blaming the GOP for their loss, not the Democrats.

    I believe in order to win in 2008, the GOP needs to stress, first and foremost, the Reagan principle that the Government is the problem not the solution to problems. They need to stress fiscal conservatism then stress the social conservative issues. They need to stress that the best government is the one closest to the people.

  42. Decaturguy says:


    The reason Republicans did not use the “nuclear option” is because as we saw this year, the majority party changes hands and sanity held the day. If Republicans had gone “nuclear” on Democrats, Democrats would have to go “nuclear” on Republicans now that they are in power.

    Tit for tat.

  43. debbie0040 says:

    You give the Democrats far too much credit. Harry Reid has gone on record saying they would block Bush’s SC appointment if he appointed one like Alito. The Dems will not give the GOP the same courtesy. Remember Daschle and how he tried to block the judicial appoitnments?

  44. Bill Simon says:

    Rudy “very qualified?”

    Perhaps as the inner-city mayor that he has been. But, not as a national leader.

    I like my right to bear arms, thank you very much. Couple a President Rudy with a Democrat Congress, and we can kiss our gun rights goodbye.

  45. Bull Moose says:

    Debbie, there was no “nuclear option” in the Senate. You must not know a lot about the Senate and how it works. It’s a body of compromise by design.

    The American voters rejected the partisan games that were being played and want a Congress that will get down to business and get things done.

    Do you realize that this past year, of the possible 260 working days, Congress was in session for 99. That’s not even half.

    Finally, John McCain does NOT support open borders. Are you kidding me? Where do you get this stuff from? He also does not support amnesty.

    We need policy based in reality, not fantasy camp.

  46. debbie0040 says:

    I do know the Senate and know that the majority GOP could have changed the rules about stopping a filibuster.

    Where do I get this stuff about McCain?
    Try McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill that passed the Senate but failed to pass the House. They said it was not amnesty, but it was. If you don’t require the illegals to leave the country then re-apply for entry, it is amnesty.

    McCain-Kennedy bill opens citizenship path

  47. rugby_fan says:

    Debbie, you crticise Newt because he blamed (rightfully) the GOP loss on the GOP not the Dems.

    Yet you go on to chastise the GOP for straying from its Reagan-like characteristics (the reason it lost).

    I would say Newt would be wrong if the Democrats had some sort of “Contract with America” type proposal. Alas, they did not. They won because people were tired of the GOP.

  48. debbie0040 says:

    Rugby, I was not criticizing Newt. I agree with him in blaming the GOP. The GOP lost the election because they strayed from GOP principles. The Democrats did not cost the GOP the election, the GOP did.

    I was responding to Rural Dem that said, ” Newt is way too partisan, in his mind if the Republican Party did something wrong then the Democratic Party caused it therefore the Democratic Party is at fault no matter what.”

  49. RuralDem says:


    Lately Newt has been spouting about how the Republicans lost it, but then he always has to add something about the Democrats being no better.

    He’s a staunch partisan who has nothing positive to offer the people, just his party. Polarizing figures like him are not what we need in the White House.

  50. MountainThinker says:

    I have a dream…it goes something like this…

    Huckabee/Romney ’08

    Rudy Guiliani – Attorney General
    Tommy Franks – Secretary of Defense
    Steve Forbes – Secretary of Commerce

    In reality, Conservatives and clear-headed Republicans (I can only speak for what I am personally) should see that when we try to gain Democrat votes at the expense of principle, we lose both. Ronald Reagan sacrificed nothing in principle and devastated his opponents. America wants leadership even more than it wants someone who says what they want to hear. The “undecideds” would rather hear something other than what they want to hear, spoken with belief and conviction, than hear what they think sounds good spoken by a half-hearted individual.

    I respect and admire John McCain, but that doesn’t make him my first choice, or even perhaps my second. I believe in my core that John McCain is honorable, decent, and a man of great conviction who is passionate about ethics, fiscal restraint, the 2nd Amendment, National Defense, and more. However, I believe Gov. Mike Huckabee shares the views that make John McCain great, and goes even further in the Reagan mold with his politics on abortion and tax-cuts, plus he brings in the Newt Gingrich-like focus on Immigration and Health Care, which frankly is a far more pressing need to most Americans than world trade agreements.

    My greatest fear for ’08 is an Evan Bayh & either Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark ticket. If the Republicans are fools enough to focus on Hillary and neglect principle for electability/victory, we will find our party without either the day after the election…

  51. Old School Politics says:

    Lets not forget about the potential 08 candidacy of Senator Bill Frist. Georgias own Tom Perdue would benefit from this move. Lets not forget that it was Tom Perdue that managed Frists first campaign for Senate. Perdue is also the reason that Joe Frank Harris was successful.

  52. pvsys says:

    Here is a great idea for a Republican nominee that no one has thought about…

    Former Pennsylvania Governor, Former Congressman, and former Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge.

    When he ran for Governor in PA in 1998, his winning percentages was quite high in this State where Democrats outnumber Republicans. Pennsylvania would just about be a “lock”, allowing Republicans to focus on other battleground states and giving Democrats much less margin of error. His tenure at Homeland Security Director gave him plenty of Federal Government experience.

    But the only problem is that Ridge is pro-abortion… this would cause major problems with social conservatives. If it were not for that, he’d be way better than ALL other current choices.

    Darn-it! Ridge would have been such a great choice!

    I also agree that Huckabee would be a strong candidate.

    Rob McEwen

  53. Bull Moose says:

    You know, I have to remember that Debbie is the same person that espoused the good qualities of Ralph Reed and how he would be good for Georgia.

    It is now most commonly known that had Ralph been on the ticket, we would have had the Democrat wave hit Georgia as well.

    So take Debbie’s comments on John McCain and everything else with that into consideration.

    There was no nuclear option, it was just smoke and mirrors. And had Frist tried some sort of stunt like that, this Democratic wave we just saw would have been a tsunami.

  54. Bull Moose says:

    Um, Ridge completely mismanaged the Department of Homeland Security…

    I think Tommy Thompson is angling for VP. Other sharp ones to look out for for VP include Gov. Mark Sanford, Senator John Thune, Governor Jodi Rell…

    Republicans are going to have a hard time in 2008 if they don’t nominate the right person…

  55. debbie0040 says:

    Bull Moose, I also supported Karen Handel and Gary Black.

    McCain has real issues with his sponsorship of the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill. He will not be able to run from that.

  56. RuralDem says:

    “Newt has a right to criticize the Dems”

    Instead of constantly criticizing the Democrats, why not offer new and innovative ideas? Newt simply panders, that’s all.

    This “my party is better than your party though neither party is truly diffrent” mess is ruining our nation.

  57. RuralDem says:

    Notice how he cannot present a plan without bashing Democrats throughout it.

    He has no substance. Anyone can write about a plan and make 90% of it about how the other party is wrong.

  58. pvsys says:

    Ridge completely mismanaged the Department of Homeland Security

    I’ve heard quite the opposite. And I’m not partison here… for example, I fully admit that billions of dollars earmarked for Iraq were mismanaged went into the hands of greedy contractors… and blame for that definately falls on the Bush Administration.

    But I’ve only read good things about Ridge’s management of Homeland Security… even in the liberal mainstream media.

    Rob McEwen

  59. Demonbeck says:


    You said:

    “He’s a staunch partisan who has nothing positive to offer the people, just his party. Polarizing figures like him are not what we need in the White House. ”

    Naturally I assumed you held these values for Democrats as well.

  60. debbie0040 says:

    Demonbeck has a point,
    What about Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etal.

    Do you give them a pass because they are Democrats? I don’t hear you criticizing them. Why is that?

  61. RuralDem says:

    Demonbeck, I am not supporting anyone you listed. I was just unsure how you came to your conclusion. It was if you read my mind 🙂

    Debbie, this post is about PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.

    Demonbeck has a point,
    What about Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etal.

    Do you give them a pass because they are Democrats? I don’t hear you criticizing them. Why is that?

    I am not a fan of any of the Democrats you listed above, in fact, if you actually read my postings, I’ve criticized partisans on both sides repeatedly.

    I am a straight-shooter. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong, no matter what party. It’s people like YOU that cannot accept that.

  62. GOPeach says:

    I think it is time to
    really PRAY about the
    2008 elections.

    I don’t like anyone
    except NEWT!

    I think we could see
    something turn around
    if we get enough of
    Peloci and her eunuchs.
    They will not be able
    to produce very much
    with all the —
    ” Give Peace a Chance..
    flower child rhetoric”…

    They don’t sing that song
    in Arabic!

Comments are closed.