PDA

View Full Version : Cheney in 08?


akhhorus
05-15-2005, 10:35 PM
If he does run, its handing a gift to the Dems. Cheney doesn't have the charm that Bush does.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000920885

Woodward Calls Cheney a 'Serious' Dark Horse for 2008 Run for White House

By E&P Staff

Published: May 15, 2005 11:50 PM ET
NEW YORK A trial balloon for a Cheney for President run in 2008 is being launched by a surprising source, Washington Post star reporter (and White House insider) Bob Woodward.

Appearing on Chris Matthews' NBC talk show on Sunday, Woodward labeled Vice President Cheney “a serious dark horse candidate.” He said that with "a number of people" going for the GOP nomination, “a guy named George Bush might come out and say ‘What about Dick?’"

Woodward observed that "there's a serious vacuum right now," with Senators Frist, Brownback, and Allen leading the field, some say.

There may be a precedent for this. Cheney, who was put in charge of finding a suitable VP candidate in 2000, ended up getting the nod himself.

RedskinsDave
05-15-2005, 10:39 PM
Woodward is smoking crack.

redskin_rich
05-15-2005, 10:42 PM
If he does run, its handing a gift to the Dems. Cheney doesn't have the charm that Bush does.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000920885

Woodward Calls Cheney a 'Serious' Dark Horse for 2008 Run for White House

By E&P Staff

Published: May 15, 2005 11:50 PM ET
NEW YORK A trial balloon for a Cheney for President run in 2008 is being launched by a surprising source, Washington Post star reporter (and White House insider) Bob Woodward.

Appearing on Chris Matthews' NBC talk show on Sunday, Woodward labeled Vice President Cheney “a serious dark horse candidate.” He said that with "a number of people" going for the GOP nomination, “a guy named George Bush might come out and say ‘What about Dick?’"

Woodward observed that "there's a serious vacuum right now," with Senators Frist, Brownback, and Allen leading the field, some say.

There may be a precedent for this. Cheney, who was put in charge of finding a suitable VP candidate in 2000, ended up getting the nod himself.
haha, sorry but I found that funny.

I think it is a possibility, Cheney would be a year younger than Reagan was for his first term. I'm not sure it would cost the Rep's the election. What Bush supporter wouldn't vote for Cheney?

C-7
05-15-2005, 11:17 PM
Woodward is smoking crack.



Don't you mean Bush?

KMDeMuth
05-16-2005, 04:19 AM
wont happen, contrary to popular belief...cheney isnt a liar. He said he "has no aspirations to run for a higher office and would rather not gain the office in general."

my prediction....

08 = mccain and giuliani ticket

and in the next senate race (half a year) in NY state, powell will run and defeat incumbant hillary clinton. (this is the big picture as to why he only stayed for 1 term, higher ambition) Thus dashing her illusion of runing for president by default. No present or "popular" challenger has a chance of beating a mccain/giuliani ticket. :)


we'll see....we'll see. this would make a good poll, put 5 popular republicans and 5 democrats (if you can think of that many) in a poll and lets see who the frequent visitors would vote for.

:beer:

akhhorus
05-16-2005, 07:25 AM
wont happen, contrary to popular belief...cheney isnt a liar. He said he "has no aspirations to run for a higher office and would rather not gain the office in general."

my prediction....

08 = mccain and giuliani ticket

They would win easily, but there is no way that these two, together or seperate are the national ticket for the Reps. Far too liberal for the religious right.

and in the next senate race (half a year) in NY state, powell will run and defeat incumbant hillary clinton. (this is the big picture as to why he only stayed for 1 term, higher ambition) Thus dashing her illusion of runing for president by default. No present or "popular" challenger has a chance of beating a mccain/giuliani ticket. :)

I seriously doubt Powell would run for anything, his wife has prevented him from running for seats in the past, and there are no indications that will change. Would he win? Probably, but the Iraq war runup would be a big attack on him. And Hillary is the loudest candidate for the Dems, but I don't think she's the real front runner. Warner and Easley are probably much more likely to win the nomination.

CNYSkinFan
05-16-2005, 08:36 AM
wont happen, contrary to popular belief...cheney isnt a liar. He said he "has no aspirations to run for a higher office and would rather not gain the office in general."

my prediction....

08 = mccain and giuliani ticket

and in the next senate race (half a year) in NY state, powell will run and defeat incumbant hillary clinton. (this is the big picture as to why he only stayed for 1 term, higher ambition) Thus dashing her illusion of runing for president by default. No present or "popular" challenger has a chance of beating a mccain/giuliani ticket. :)


we'll see....we'll see. this would make a good poll, put 5 popular republicans and 5 democrats (if you can think of that many) in a poll and lets see who the frequent visitors would vote for.

:beer:

I live in NY and Hillary is unbeatable. As much as the right hates her outside of NY she is a good Senator. Her approval ratings are great and no big name Republicans are stepping to the plate to take her on. The state is 5:3 democrat and swinging more that way. Gov. Pataki is a republican in his third term however the magic is wearing off and his approvals are in the low 30's.

As far as the GOP, notice how in the pocket Frist has become of the Christian right. He may be the partie's nominee in '08 because of it. McCain and Guiliani did alot of sucking up to W this last time but not enough. The right hates them almost as much as any Democrat. Unless the GOP turns away from the Christina right they will never nominate McCain, Guiliani or any other pro-choice Republican.

The best hope for a Pro-choice Republican president is on the West Wing this fall with Alan Alda.

BurgundyNGold
05-16-2005, 11:27 AM
They would win easily, but there is no way that these two, together or seperate are the national ticket for the Reps. Far too liberal for the religious right.
Exactly. Traditionally, the Dems or Reps put forward a more centrist ticket when they've gone too far to the extreme and have not shot of winning by simply appeasing their base. There is NO justification for this in 2008 for the Reps unless they totally get shellacked in the midterm elections next year. Even then, I don't see that happening.

I seriously doubt Powell would run for anything, his wife has prevented him from running for seats in the past, and there are no indications that will change. Would he win? Probably, but the Iraq war runup would be a big attack on him. And Hillary is the loudest candidate for the Dems, but I don't think she's the real front runner. Warner and Easley are probably much more likely to win the nomination.
Powell would get 70% of the vote, with only the extremes voting for someone else. I think he would be great. Imagine that: character in the White House.

Hillary is like Dean, a rice cake candidate. She's great in theory and the Dems darling while she's on the shelf. But when it comes down to it, the left can't will her to win and her chances of winning are mostly air.

As for Cheney? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! What not just put "Antichrist" on the ballot?

Spence
05-16-2005, 11:29 AM
my prediction....

08 = mccain and giuliani ticket

and in the next senate race (half a year) in NY state, powell will run and defeat incumbant hillary clinton. (this is the big picture as to why he only stayed for 1 term, higher ambition) Thus dashing her illusion of runing for president by default. No present or "popular" challenger has a chance of beating a mccain/giuliani ticket.I was getting a big laugh out of this post until it dawned on me that you might be serious. In case you are, I have a proposition. I'll make a deal with you. If either of those things happen, I'll donate $1000 to the charity of your choice. If neither happens, you donate $1000 to the charity of my choice.

KMDeMuth
05-16-2005, 06:59 PM
I was getting a big laugh out of this post until it dawned on me that you might be serious. In case you are, I have a proposition. I'll make a deal with you. If either of those things happen, I'll donate $1000 to the charity of your choice. If neither happens, you donate $1000 to the charity of my choice.

:) i dont bet unless its poker. and i figured most ppl on here would find amusement out of it, my prediction on it. wishfull thinking maybe, but i think there is a good chance mccain runs and a good chance he gets the nod to run on a republican ticket (yes even with the conservative *christian* right).

with powell i get mixed reviews about, more people i have talked to from ny have said he would beat hillary "if" he ran, then not. From what rumors ive heard (can allways be wrong, its the nature of it) there is a good chance of it.

so... :whoknows:

akhhorus
05-16-2005, 07:03 PM
:) i dont bet unless its poker. and i figured most ppl on here would find amusement out of it, my prediction on it. wishfull thinking maybe, but i think there is a good chance mccain runs and a good chance he gets the nod to run on a republican ticket (yes even with the conservative *christian* right).

McCain might run, but no way he gets the nomination. I'll get the GOP nomination before McCain does.

with powell i get mixed reviews about, more people i have talked to from ny have said he would beat hillary "if" he ran, then not. From what rumors ive heard (can allways be wrong, its the nature of it) there is a good chance of it.

so... :whoknows:

Powell's been mentioned for every high profile GOP spot, but he never makes even the slightest move towards running for any office. If he was going to run, he would have run in 2000 as President. I dont see him going for a Junior Senate Seat. I haven't heard even the slightest whisper of him running for anything.

KMDeMuth
05-16-2005, 07:12 PM
McCain might run, but no way he gets the nomination. I'll get the GOP nomination before McCain does.

*shrugs* right now its just opinion on either side on who is or is not runing. and who would or would not be a front runner. i'd consider him a front runner and am sure he will attempt it. So i dont put it past him

Powell's been mentioned for every high profile GOP spot, but he never makes even the slightest move towards running for any office. If he was going to run, he would have run in 2000 as President. I dont see him going for a Junior Senate Seat. I haven't heard even the slightest whisper of him running for anything.

true powell has been mentioned for "every high profile GOP spot", but in this case he has mentioned it. I'll have to find the quotes given by a ny rep. and a friend of powell and quotes from powell hinting towards it. Better odds it happens then doesnt. Other people thought possible to run for hillarys spot = present ny gov. pataki and giuliani. all have expressed some level of interest in the position. powell has also jokingly expressed interest in some rule in the UN, didnt elaborate on it.

Ibleedburgundy
05-16-2005, 07:25 PM
If he does run, its handing a gift to the Dems. Cheney doesn't have the charm that Bush does.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000920885

Woodward Calls Cheney a 'Serious' Dark Horse for 2008 Run for White House

By E&P Staff

Published: May 15, 2005 11:50 PM ET
NEW YORK A trial balloon for a Cheney for President run in 2008 is being launched by a surprising source, Washington Post star reporter (and White House insider) Bob Woodward.

Appearing on Chris Matthews' NBC talk show on Sunday, Woodward labeled Vice President Cheney “a serious dark horse candidate.” He said that with "a number of people" going for the GOP nomination, “a guy named George Bush might come out and say ‘What about Dick?’"

Woodward observed that "there's a serious vacuum right now," with Senators Frist, Brownback, and Allen leading the field, some say.

There may be a precedent for this. Cheney, who was put in charge of finding a suitable VP candidate in 2000, ended up getting the nod himself.


Sorry if it seems like I always disagree with you (I was telling you that Ramsey HAS shown flashes) but you might be misunderestimating the Vice President here. You see, he's already got 8 years experience controlling the Presidency, why not make it 16? Seriously though, John Edwards was my choice for the Democratic nomination but I can admit, Dick Cheney absolutely destroyed him in the VP debates. Cheney established dominance in the first two minutes by shredding Edward's credentials in Military matters, and thus he won the most critical issue of the debate: the war in Iraq. Edwards did redeem himself in the second half with his vast knowledge of the healthcare system, but it was too little, too late for your average attention-spanned American.

Cheney is a bulldog, a mastermind, and above all, he is an entrenched and respected Republican. Perhaps you can make th argument that there is a section that voted for Bush Jr. but would not support Cheney. Personally, I don't know who those people would be. Republicans are marching lock-step. Only a centrist Dem could funnel those votes away (explains why Hillary has taken a half-step to the right lately, but Mark Warner is the real deal). Cheney is formidable.

akhhorus
05-16-2005, 07:54 PM
Sorry if it seems like I always disagree with you (I was telling you that Ramsey HAS shown flashes) but you might be misunderestimating the Vice President here. You see, he's already got 8 years experience controlling the Presidency, why not make it 16? Seriously though, John Edwards was my choice for the Democratic nomination but I can admit, Dick Cheney absolutely destroyed him in the VP debates. Cheney established dominance in the first two minutes by shredding Edward's credentials in Military matters, and thus he won the most critical issue of the debate: the war in Iraq. Edwards did redeem himself in the second half with his vast knowledge of the healthcare system, but it was too little, too late for your average attention-spanned American.

Cheney is a bulldog, a mastermind, and above all, he is an entrenched and respected Republican. Perhaps you can make th argument that there is a section that voted for Bush Jr. but would not support Cheney. Personally, I don't know who those people would be. Republicans are marching lock-step. Only a centrist Dem could funnel those votes away (explains why Hillary has taken a half-step to the right lately, but Mark Warner is the real deal). Cheney is formidable.

Cheney is a Republican war horse. But he doesn't have the natural charm and humanity you need to run for President successfully. Bush and Clinton had it. Cheney looks like he's sizing you up in case you pull a machete on him. And running him would lose the moderate vote for the GOP--he had, and still has fairly bad ratings--worse than Bush's lowest point. No party marches in lock step, and running a Cheney/Romney or Cheney/Frist ticket basically guarantees that the Dems will win, unless they run Gore or an ultra liberal. Now, I can see the GOp running Cheney if they keep control of the House and Senate after 06, figuring that there isn't a great or obvious candidate out there for 08, worse case is that the Dems win the White House, but the GOp keeps control of Congress and you groom someone for 2012. I think if Hillary teamed with someone like Bill Nelson or a moderate heartland Dem, she would beat Cheney. Warner would destroy Cheney in an election. Easley would also probably beat Cheney easily.

I believe if Cheney actually runs, its because none of the usual suspects mentioned for the GOp to run in 08 are ready for prime time. And none of them are. If Bill Frist and Mitt Romney are still the presumptive front runners by 07, you might as well run Cheney, concentrate on keeping Congress and work for 2012.

akhhorus
05-16-2005, 07:56 PM
*shrugs* right now its just opinion on either side on who is or is not runing. and who would or would not be a front runner. i'd consider him a front runner and am sure he will attempt it. So i dont put it past him.

Oh, he'll run, but he's far too liberal for the Religious Right and too much of a maverick for the old line GOPers to accept. Running him would guarantee a victory, but he's as likely to appoint Dems to his cabinet as Reps. And he would alienate the Religious right with his policies.

suppitty
05-16-2005, 08:06 PM
wont happen, contrary to popular belief...cheney isnt a liar. He said he "has no aspirations to run for a higher office and would rather not gain the office in general."

my prediction....

08 = mccain and giuliani ticket

and in the next senate race (half a year) in NY state, powell will run and defeat incumbant hillary clinton. (this is the big picture as to why he only stayed for 1 term, higher ambition) Thus dashing her illusion of runing for president by default. No present or "popular" challenger has a chance of beating a mccain/giuliani ticket. :)


we'll see....we'll see. this would make a good poll, put 5 popular republicans and 5 democrats (if you can think of that many) in a poll and lets see who the frequent visitors would vote for.

:beer:
McCain has no chance. He was runied in the south in 2000. As for Guliani, he's a possibility as a vp, but I don't think he could win the nomination either.

Democrats: I really like VA gov. Mark Warner. A moderate with no senate voting record, from a southern red state. Sounds exactly like what the Democrats should want in a candidate.

RedskinsDave
05-16-2005, 10:07 PM
Warner won't make it out of the primaries because he's a political novice.

akhhorus
05-16-2005, 10:18 PM
Warner won't make it out of the primaries because he's a political novice.


Perhaps, but I wouldnt go underestimating him. If he doesn't get the nom, he definitely will be on the short list of VP candidates.

RedskinsDave
05-16-2005, 10:23 PM
Perhaps, but I wouldnt go underestimating him. If he doesn't get the nom, he definitely will be on the short list of VP candidates.

Great, they did a stellar job with an underexperienced "southerner" last time as the VP candidate. It would be just like the dems to stick with something that doesn't work in a campaign.

akhhorus
05-16-2005, 10:24 PM
Great, they did a stellar job with an underexperienced "southerner" last time as the VP candidate. It would be just like the dems to stick with something that doesn't work in a campaign.

Underexperienced Southern Senator who wasn't particularly popular in his home state. Warner has gotten great reviews as Governor of Virginia, no?

RedskinsDave
05-16-2005, 10:28 PM
That won;t make a difference. His inexperiences will scare people the same way Edwards' did. Maybe worse since at least Edwards was a pretty boy.

BurgundyNGold
05-16-2005, 10:33 PM
That won;t make a difference. His inexperiences will scare people the same way Edwards' did. Maybe worse since at least Edwards was a pretty boy.
What scared folks away from Edwards was that he was so, visibly in the pockets of the trial lawyers. He was a whore, and couldn't hide it. If there's anything Americans hate more than a lawyer, it's a crooked laywer.

KMDeMuth
05-17-2005, 11:32 AM
Underexperienced Southern Senator who wasn't particularly popular in his home state. Warner has gotten great reviews as Governor of Virginia, no?

thats bull, sorry i live here and i hate the guy. half of his promises have gone to hell. many of his supposed "successes" werent his at all, he even apposed them. We have a good legislative system runing in virginia, and he takes credit for it. while he largely just proposes stupid moves such as bringing property taxes back fully, raising the sales tax and things such as that. to find out, we have a budget surplus. he has promised money to widen 66, extend HOV past quantico on 95 and multiple other NEEDED road improvements in northern virginia. Most of the money has been spent down south where he lives and to the south east around norfolk and va beach.

ontop of other short comings i'd fully blame him for baseball not going to northern virginia (i am happy with it in DC, but no pro teams in virginia). for "wanting" a team here, he was sure doing his best to make it not work.

he bought the election, its as simple as that. smart business maneuvering, not political, on his part (honestly mostly done by his campaign). i wrote a thesis paper on him and this subject, i started writing it with an open mind on the guy and ended hating him.

akhhorus
05-17-2005, 11:35 AM
thats bull, sorry i live here and i hate the guy. half of his promises have gone to hell. many of his supposed "successes" werent his at all, he even apposed them. We have a good legislative system runing in virginia, and he takes credit for it. while he largely just proposes stupid moves such as bringing property taxes back fully, raising the sales tax and things such as that. to find out, we have a budget surplus. he has promised money to widen 66, extend HOV past quantico on 95 and multiple other NEEDED road improvements in northern virginia. Most of the money has been spent down south where he lives and to the south east around norfolk and va beach.

ontop of other short comings i'd fully blame him for baseball not going to northern virginia (i am happy with it in DC, but no pro teams in virginia). for "wanting" a team here, he was sure doing his best to make it not work.

he bought the election, its as simple as that. smart business maneuvering, not political, on his part (honestly mostly done by his campaign). i wrote a thesis paper on him and this subject, i started writing it with an open mind on the guy and ended hating him.

Thats interesting, but the reputation he has, even among the reddest GOPers here is that he's a popular and very effective governor.

KMDeMuth
05-17-2005, 11:38 AM
McCain has no chance. He was runied in the south in 2000. As for Guliani, he's a possibility as a vp, but I don't think he could win the nomination either.

Democrats: I really like VA gov. Mark Warner. A moderate with no senate voting record, from a southern red state. Sounds exactly like what the Democrats should want in a candidate.

mccain has more of a chance then people think....

as for warner...read above post...he would do well in a democratic primary, wouldnt get the nomination. if he did would get crushed easily by just about any republican "front runner". as a VP cantidate he would hurt the dem. ticket. i dont see it happening, i wouldnt mind seeing it happen though. For reasons just stated. would be a horrible move on the dems. part, i'd love it. ;)

akhhorus
05-17-2005, 11:42 AM
mccain has more of a chance then people think....

as for warner...read above post...he would do well in a democratic primary, wouldnt get the nomination. if he did would get crushed easily by just about any republican "front runner". as a VP cantidate he would hurt the dem. ticket. i dont see it happen, i wouldnt mind seeing it happen though. For reasons just stated. would be a horrible move on the dems. part, i'd love it. ;)


McCain might not even win if he got the nom, I believe the RR would abandon the GOp for their own Candidate. He's far too liberal for the right social wing of the GOP. Same goes for Giuliani.

And if you're right about everything about Warner, then he wouldn't be considered at all, but his name always comes up. I think the Blue Nom will be him or Mike Easley of NC.

CNYSkinFan
05-17-2005, 11:46 AM
I think Governors in general make better candidates then Senator for both VP and the Presidency. If Warner delivers VA it is a big blow in Republican Electoral math. Waner is a great VP candidate but will need to run for President to get it. He needs to show that he can raise money and effectively run a national candidacy to be trusted with the VP.

A Hillary/Warner candidacy could be VERY effective. Espescially if it is Frist/anyone. I just doubt McCain and or Guiliani pass muster for the religious right to allow it to happen. Unless the GOP gets crushed in the mid terms (a long shot at best) and they decide to ignore the radical faction of their party to win (an even longer shot) then neither will be on a national ticket ahead of Frist.

KMDeMuth
05-17-2005, 11:58 AM
I think Governors in general make better candidates then Senator for both VP and the Presidency. If Warner delivers VA it is a big blow in Republican Electoral math. Waner is a great VP candidate but will need to run for President to get it. He needs to show that he can raise money and effectively run a national candidacy to be trusted with the VP.

A Hillary/Warner candidacy could be VERY effective. Espescially if it is Frist/anyone. I just doubt McCain and or Guiliani pass muster for the religious right to allow it to happen. Unless the GOP gets crushed in the mid terms (a long shot at best) and they decide to ignore the radical faction of their party to win (an even longer shot) then neither will be on a national ticket ahead of Frist.

he wouldnt win in virginia for reasons i stated above, a large portion of states democrats live in the most northern of virginia's countys. Which is the area most effected by warners "plans" or lack there of. Also the area where he has not kept the majority of his major compaign promises. i used to be able to say entering maryland "now entering potholes" now its the other way around really, leaving MD into VA. funny how the change in that happened with each state changing Gov.s to the other party.

What do you guys in MD think of your newest Gov.?

I for one am happy Warner cant be elected again in VA, even though i am confident he wouldnt be. He made parts of the south happier with him, but largely disenfranchised the northern voters who had voted for him. He has a good business sense, not a very good politican though. I'll give you the fact that he comes off like he is, but his record shows differently.

I highly doubt hillary would get the Dem. nomination. If she did, she would do horrible in the south, warner would not help her with this, edwards again maybe? (who i think was over-rated) didnt even win his home state, warner wouldnt either.

CNYSkinFan
05-17-2005, 12:01 PM
I highly doubt hillary would get the Dem. nomination. If she did, she would do horrible in the south, warner would not help her with this, edwards again maybe? (who i think was over-rated) didnt even win his home state, warner wouldnt either.

It is possible electorally to win without the South. She would have to pick up Ohio, which has been swinigng Democratic and will continue to swing and hold Pennselvania. New England and the Pacific NW and California is still do able. And Hillary may open up Arkansas again and perhaps Florida.

KMDeMuth
05-17-2005, 12:09 PM
It is possible electorally to win without the South. She would have to pick up Ohio, which has been swinigng Democratic and will continue to swing and hold Pennselvania. New England and the Pacific NW and California is still do able. And Hillary may open up Arkansas again and perhaps Florida.

it might sound sexist, but she has more of a hurdle then others to overcome. I dont see a woman geting the majority vote in any part of the south. even less so in florida, with its hispanic population being the swing vote, which is largely catholic. She would have this same issue in the north, to a much smaller extent i am sure.

I for one dont like this consensus, but feel it will be the outlook.

Then you have to take into account her policies, her voting record and then even her husbands positive/negative impact on her campaign. positive for Dem.s, i'd say negative from republicans, more so on her marital "issues" in the past....lets not start an arguement on this subject.

Then her support largely hinges on the Republicans runing and the interference of the independant parties on her vote if she got the nomination.

A LOT of ifs, ands or but's with her, thats not good for a politician. Even worse when many of them that she has no control over.

CNYSkinFan
05-17-2005, 12:14 PM
it might sound sexist, but she has more of a hurdle then others to overcome. I dont see a woman geting the majority vote in any part of the south. even less so in florida, with its hispanic population being the swing vote, which is largely catholic. She would have this same issue in the north, to a much smaller extent i am sure.

I for one dont like this consensus, but feel it will be the outlook.

Then you have to take into account her policies, her voting record and then even her husbands positive/negative impact on her campaign. positive for Dem.s, i'd say negative from republicans, more so on her marital "issues" in the past....lets not start an arguement on this subject.

Then her support largely hinges on the Republicans runing and the interference of the independant parties on her vote if she got the nomination.

A LOT of ifs, ands or but's with her, thats not good for a politician. Even worse when many of them that she has no control over.

Oh she has got baggage no doubt and I am not sure she is even my first choice.

But I think of any woman candidate she has the best shot. I would of said Christie Todd Whitman but she has alot of problems again with the religious right of the Republican party.

I do think Hillary energizes both sides much like Bush. And Bush was victorious but needed the Gay issue to do it.

We will see how things go during the mid terms this year and then the front runners will emerge.

BurgundyNGold
05-17-2005, 12:17 PM
Oh she has got baggage no doubt and I am not sure she is even my first choice.

But I think of any woman candidate she has the best shot. I would of said Christie Todd Whitman but she has alot of problems again with the religious right of the Republican party.

I do think Hillary energizes both sides much like Bush. And Bush was victorious but needed the Gay issue to do it.

We will see how things go during the mid terms this year and then the front runners will emerge.
Who doesn't? I think Karl Rove's "mob'lize the religious vote" strategy was a one trick pony. No way it happens again.

akhhorus
05-17-2005, 12:19 PM
Who doesn't? I think Karl Rove's "mob'lize the religious vote" strategy was a one trick pony. No way it happens again.

You can do it, but you need a candidate who appeals to moderates without offending the base to pull it off. Bush did that. Cheney, Frist, Romney--probably can't.

CNYSkinFan
05-17-2005, 12:24 PM
Who doesn't? I think Karl Rove's "mob'lize the religious vote" strategy was a one trick pony. No way it happens again.

Well Frist is certainly throwing his glove down with the Religious Right with the whole Schiavo and Justice Sunday thing.

I think Frist knows the road to his nomination runs through the radical religious right.

BurgundyNGold
05-17-2005, 12:26 PM
Well Frist is certainly throwing his glove down with the Religious Right with the whole Schiavo and Justice Sunday thing.

I think Frist knows the road to his nomination runs through the radical religious right.
Perhaps, but the moderates probably won't go for him. Too boring. He's the Al Gore of the Republican Party (except he didn't invent the Internet).

KMDeMuth
05-17-2005, 12:28 PM
Perhaps, but the moderates probably won't go for him. Too boring. He's the Al Gore of the Republican Party (except he didn't invent the Internet).

:lol1: he'd have to get a lock box too....

akhhorus
05-17-2005, 12:28 PM
Perhaps, but the moderates probably won't go for him. Too boring. He's the Al Gore of the Republican Party (except he didn't invent the Internet).

First makes Kerry look like a slap and a tickle.

CNYSkinFan
05-17-2005, 01:25 PM
First makes Kerry look like a slap and a tickle.

:bangdesk:

I am a little worried about the words slap and tickle conjoined with either Kerry or Frist.

Chief Redskin
05-17-2005, 03:18 PM
What about George Allen in 2008?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-outthere8may08,0,7308245.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

He would match up well against Hillary.

Spence
05-17-2005, 04:04 PM
Allen can't wait to run for prez. He was just recently kissing Pat Robertson's ring and put two trips to New Hampshire on his calendar. Making nice with New Hampshire and bending over to be buggered by Pat Robertson are two must-dos for every Republican with national aspirations.

I'm told Karl Rove and Bill Frist already have a very nasty [and they think effective] strategy for dealing with Senator Allen. We'll see.

akhhorus
05-17-2005, 05:09 PM
Allen can't wait to run for prez. He was just recently kissing Pat Robertson's ring and put two trips to New Hampshire on his calendar. Making nice with New Hampshire and bending over to be buggered by Pat Robertson are two must-dos for every Republican with national aspirations.

I'm told Karl Rove and Bill Frist already have a very nasty [and they think effective] strategy for dealing with Senator Allen. We'll see.

What, pass a law that a elected official can't use football analogies on pain of death?

Spence
05-18-2005, 08:00 AM
I'm not sure exactly what Rove has on Allen, but a person in Rove's office thinks it is pretty good. Could be bluffing. Of course, Allen's fondness for the Confederacy and opposition to civil rights are pretty well known. That would hurt him in a general election, but probably not do him much damage in GOP primaries, where many voters call it The War of Northern Aggression. Therefore, I think if Rove's got something it is more relevant to the GOP primaries than Allen's flirtations with white supremacy.

Ibleedburgundy
05-18-2005, 11:47 AM
Cheney is a Republican war horse. But he doesn't have the natural charm and humanity you need to run for President successfully. Bush and Clinton had it. Cheney looks like he's sizing you up in case you pull a machete on him. And running him would lose the moderate vote for the GOP--he had, and still has fairly bad ratings--worse than Bush's lowest point. No party marches in lock step, and running a Cheney/Romney or Cheney/Frist ticket basically guarantees that the Dems will win, unless they run Gore or an ultra liberal. Now, I can see the GOp running Cheney if they keep control of the House and Senate after 06, figuring that there isn't a great or obvious candidate out there for 08, worse case is that the Dems win the White House, but the GOp keeps control of Congress and you groom someone for 2012. I think if Hillary teamed with someone like Bill Nelson or a moderate heartland Dem, she would beat Cheney. Warner would destroy Cheney in an election. Easley would also probably beat Cheney easily.

I believe if Cheney actually runs, its because none of the usual suspects mentioned for the GOp to run in 08 are ready for prime time. And none of them are. If Bill Frist and Mitt Romney are still the presumptive front runners by 07, you might as well run Cheney, concentrate on keeping Congress and work for 2012.

I hope you're right but you probably were like me in 2000: I thought there was no way the American people would elect a guy who can barely speak English over a VP who presided over the most lucrative 8 years this country has ever seen.

akhhorus
05-18-2005, 11:55 AM
I hope you're right but you probably were like me in 2000: I thought there was no way the American people would elect a guy who can barely speak English over a VP who presided over the most lucrative 8 years this country has ever seen.

But Gore lost because he didn't want to be seen with Clinton, and therefore, it was hard to link him with the previous 8 years. If Gore had done appearances with Clinton in 2000, he would be President. But Gore's advisors believed that the Monica baggage would drag him down so they told Billy to stay away. One of the biggest political blunders of the past decade.

CNYSkinFan
05-18-2005, 11:58 AM
But Gore lost because he didn't want to be seen with Clinton, and therefore, it was hard to link him with the previous 8 years. If Gore had done appearances with Clinton in 2000, he would be President. But Gore's advisors believed that the Monica baggage would drag him down so they told Billy to stay away. One of the biggest political blunders of the past decade.

You had to know that Bill was sitting in the Oval Office watching the debates wishing against all hope that he could run for a third term.

RedskinsDave
05-18-2005, 12:08 PM
Gore lost as much due to his affiliation as he did to his attempt to break from it.

CNYSkinFan
05-18-2005, 01:12 PM
Gore lost as much due to his affiliation as he did to his attempt to break from it.

That is right, after a fashion. Gore tried to distance himself from Clinton and the negatives stuck to him anyways and by distancing himself he could not gleam the positives of Clinton.

It was the political blunder of the ast ten years. Lieberman was the VP choice because of that decision who brougt no electoral votes and no money and no excitement. Only after Gore let Clinton back in the last week of the campaign did the gap start to close.

RedHokieSkin
05-18-2005, 03:20 PM
wont happen, contrary to popular belief...cheney isnt a liar. He said he "has no aspirations to run for a higher office and would rather not gain the office in general."

You seem to have forgotten that Cheney is a politician. There are no exceptions to the rule in high-level politics.

KMDeMuth
05-18-2005, 10:26 PM
You seem to have forgotten that Cheney is a politician. There are no exceptions to the rule in high-level politics.

well in this case it would be safe to say with his controversial daughter (with this administrations policies, that he supports), his health and the bashing he would take for going back on something he said. it wont happen. Glad to see there is such great trust left in our government officials :rolleyes: