Reply With Quote
well he stole the election of 2000 for his brother, so i'm sure he has some favors to ask from many people higher up the pyramid..
Me? I'm moving to canada once i graduate.
What would you say to that ticket?
Jeb Bush and Cheney in '08?
I was reading an article about the possible Republican candidates for president in '08. Of course it started off with McCain. I don't know that McCain can get the Republican nomination. Others on the list were:
George Pataki: not conservative enough for the red meat types in the party
Rudy Gulliani: America's mayor but just wait until James Dobson gets ahold of his marital issues, his stand on abortion, etc.... He was just a useful tool in the '04 election. He doesn't have a prayer.
Rick Santorum: Might have a shot but has a tough enough fight winning re-election in Pennsylvania. Don't think so.
Sam Brownback: Santorum lite with less name recognition but a safe senate seat.
George Allen: He's not even the most popular politician in his home (red) state (Virginia). That goes to Democrat Mark Warner.
Condi Rice: Do you really think she can get it? If '08 is going to be a close race (see 2000 and 2004), can the Republicans afford to have any of their base sit on their hands in '08 because they won't support a black female? Not painting a broad brush here that Republicans are racist but I would venture to say the racists of the past that supported the old Dixiecrat are now regular Republicans and there might be enough of them to swing a state like Florida if they stay home. It's all a moot point though because Iraq will be an albatross around her neck by then.
Mitt Romney: Similar to Condi Rice. Can the southern good ole boys support a guy from Taxachusetts? Isn't he govenor of that state that allows them sweet boys to marry one another?
Bill Frist:
Darth Cheney: Does not want to run for President. Why should he, he has almost as much power now without the hassles. If he could just find another willing dupe to be the figure head.
Did someone say Jeb Bush?
well he stole the election of 2000 for his brother, so i'm sure he has some favors to ask from many people higher up the pyramid..
Me? I'm moving to canada once i graduate.
It should be McCain, since he's the most intelligent and qualified. But since he's considered liberal by the big money Republicans, he won't get the nomination.
It's a shame, too. He has good stances on a lot of issues, especially the environment. It would be nice if the election was McCain vs. Edwards, so for once it could be two good candidates instead of voting for the least crappy of two dolts.
Rudy Gulliani will beat anyone he runs against and if the Republicans are smart they'll give him the nomination because he'll be able to pull in the most voters. Most voters are not strictly Democrats or Republicans...they are right down the middle. America doesn't want a strictly conservative or liberal candidate...they want balance. The party that is best able to offer up that sort of candidate will win the next presidency.
Bush won this election because he was more moderate than Comarade Kerry...as crazy as it sounds. He was the more moderate candidate and he was a hardass on foreign policy which is what most Americans want right now in this environment.
I like Guilianni quite a bit, and I think of most of America does, and I hope he has the balls to run. I hope the right realizes that he's their best shot at winning a 3 term of controlling the country.
I am not going to vote for another Bush again unless the opposing Democrat is another anti-American...it's too much like a monarchy. The Bush crede is too backwards thinking when it comes to environmental and scientiffic concerns. They are great with money and kicking the out of people...but we have to keep up the American ideal of technological advancement...and Bush is backwards on that issue. I was willing to ignore that given our current world environment...but I am not going to do it again. IOW...their stance on stem cell research is too ing stupid to keep ignoring as Europe and Asia pass us in technological and scientiffic achievement.
We have protected term limits for our leader and they have served this country well. Another term for a Bush is the same as cir venting that rule and it is too long for one POV to be in power of this country...the world environment changes and there is no philosophy that is always the correct one.
So I either hope Gulianni does get the nomination...or else I hope the Democrats are able to put up a decent candidate and not another anti-American...I still like Wesley Clark...he Guilianni are basically different sides of the same coin. McCain is a good choice too but I think Gulianni is a more powerful leader....aint no one going to with us with Guilianni in the White House...or Clark either.
I like your suggestion of Wes Clark, but this loose use of the term "anti-American" really gets under my skin. Benedict Arnold was anti-American. Emperor Hirohito was anti-American. Just because someone has a populist view for the country doesn't make him "anti-American."
Right?? Talk about brainwashed! I am sure you have excellent proof of this stolen election.
I really liked Wesley Clark and wished the democrats would have put him up, but didn't he say something about believing in aliens?? That's something he should keep to himself.
I also like John McCain alot. If the Republicans are smart, they'll nominate him, but he's pissed off too many people in the party. I don't think Guliani has much of a chance and he definitely won't get the Republican nomination with his adultery baggage..that's a big deal to Republicans. The day Hilary gets elected, I'm moving to Canada. One thing I think is weird is how many people really like John Edwards. That guy just gives me the creeps. I couldn't handle looking at that fake smile for 4 years. I'd take Al Sharpton over him.
run pussy run!
I don't like the Idea of having Guiliani run for the house in 08' I just don't see it as plausable, and I think that America needs a straight line republican who can lead the country in the right direction, face it its gonna be another nail biter for the Reps if they have a moderate republican run again.
Right?? Talk about brainwashed! I am sure you have excellent proof of this stolen election.
name one other presidential election in the history of our Country where the winner actually lost the popular vote, the determining state's electoral votes were turned in su iously late, they waited even longer to count more votes than ever allowed in history of the country, and the governor of this state was the eventual winner's brother
Personally, I'd like to see J.C. Watts run.
Rice / Frist 08 or Frist Rice...
I don't think Jeb wants to run. But I am sure the RNC will ask him.
Basically if Jeb pushed hard he could get the nomination with ease. Condi I think is being more groomed for VP or Potus. She would rock with those black boots...
I think he's just to close to the Ted Kennedy Chivas Regal Club...
McCain almost had it when he talked about Michael Moore at the 04 RNC convention.. which was MUCH more entertaining than the BOOORING kerry Commander & Chief looking stage the DNC made.. except for the "Need more ing ballons, meltdown"..
Thats your proof???
First count went to Bush.
First recount went to Bush
Second recount went to Bush
Supreme Court decision went to Bush.
Now if the first count had went to Gore, then it would be su ious.
Dude, if you are gonna make a claim as bold as "well he stole the election of 2000" you need to have proof. Proof as in a smoking gun. Proof as in proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that he stole the election. Other then that, its just another political conspiricy theory among MANY.
Never mind, don't have the energy today.
Post pulled.
Last edited by Ocotillo; 08-04-2005 at 07:34 AM.
Aren't other people running besides the provided list? Hagel, Huckabee, whatshisname cracker from Mississippi? Oh yeah, Barbour.
I'm sure that you had an American History class and you know that the election of 1796 (Adams vs. Jefferson) went to Adams even though Jefferson won more of the popular vote. The election was eventually decided in the House of Representatives when the electoral college could not reach a decision.
But Jefferson won in 1800. Bush won again in 2004.
If you give enough details, you can exclude any election. Name another election (other than 1992) where a governor from Arkansas won in the electoral college with less than 45 % of the popular vote?
Dre 7- So in order to make a claim, you need to have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yeah I remember that when the WMD claims were being made. That was one big ing shadow. If you want evidence supporting the claim of a stolen election read The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast. Or you can probably find his website. It involved excluding black voters because of felonies, felonies that were commited by someone with the same name in another state. I think he said that 90% of those unfairly excluded were African American. I think those deep south rednecks know who they are gonna vote for, now if only poor white people would get their heads out of their asses.
If he is gonna make the claim that there was a stolen election, then he needs proof. Not just "oh his brother is the Gov. of Fla." That is not proof of anything.
I am sure you have actual proof that certain voters were not allowed to vote, right?
www.unprecedented.org
This movie has testimonials from people who weren't allowed to vote. Not saying I buy it, not saying I don't. But there it is.
Thats your proof???
First count went to Bush.
First recount went to Bush
Second recount went to Bush
Supreme Court decision went to Bush.
Now if the first count had went to Gore, then it would be su ious.
Dude, if you are gonna make a claim as bold as "well he stole the election of 2000" you need to have proof. Proof as in a smoking gun. Proof as in proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that he stole the election. Other then that, its just another political conspiricy theory among MANY.
he lost the popular vote, dude, and i never offered an official 'proof'
he lost the popular vote, more voting americans wanted GORE
and the claim that he stole the election is really not all that "bold" if you've ever decided to check out your news from other sources besides the television
If he had a populist view he'd be in the whitehouse now.
You are joking right?
Bush isn't a moderate. He's just more moderate than Kerry. Karl Marks was more moderate than Kerry.
If the majority of the population was either Democratic or Republican than we wouldn't have had both a Democrat and a Republican elected to two terms for the last two administrations. The Presidency is the most down the middle election there is.
The Republicans aren't near as popular as you think and if the Democrats had put up a strong foreign policy candidate instead of someone that wanted to kiss Europe's ass they'd have won this last election.
You mean Karl Marx?Karl Marks was more moderate than Kerry.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
