The GOP turning to McCain would be identical to choosing Bob Dole in 1996. It would ensure defeat but would offer some comfort in choosing a known quantity as nominee. They would basically admit having no chance of winning in 2008.
Don't be so sure - McCain is getting back to being the old McCain, and he's often the only person on a political stage that actually sounds mature and reasonable. Clinton doesn't appeal to moderates at all; McCain will in a general election (he struggles in primaries due to the far right). If it's Clinton vs. McCain, I think you'd have a pretty interesting race.
McCain is looking very old indeed ... he's the candidate most likely to pull a William Henry Harrison.
The fact he's clearly a one term president will doom his candidacy. So will his unwavering support of the Iraq war. So will the fact that the credibility built up with his "Straight Talk Express" in 2000 was totally burnt to a crisp in 2006/07. America is not ready to elect a first term president who will be 72 years old when he's sworn in. As in 1996 with Bob Dole, the one and only way McCain could win the general election would be for a major scandal of some sort to take down his opponent for him. The Republicans couldn't choose a candidate who would arouse less passion for the partisans. That would be deadly for them. Again like 1996 with Dole, nominating McCain would be the GOP's way of conceding the election. With the Dems looking to pile-drive the GOP in Congress, that's a troubling thought for some of us who don't trust either party.
I like the fact Ron Paul is for gun rights as other rights in the Constitution...but, he has no command prescence the way Romney, or Thompson does,...and I think that is important. Romney seems like a good choice, but something does not feel right with him and it's not just the religion... I stated Thompson is my choice, but I am starting to like the mannerism and confidence of Huckabee, and the fact he is getting market share from the others... If I had to say now, it looks to be a 2 way race forming between Rudy and Huckabee... I absolutely don't feel Rudy is the right person for the Republican party though... It will be interesting to see things potentially change in the coming months...
via TPM -- None of the above? Rudy Giuliani, the thrice-married serial adulterer who supported abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, and a liberal immigration policy, can't possibly win the GOP nomination. Neither can Mitt Romney, who's flip-flopped on practically every issue under the sun, whose religious faith is a regrettable deal-breaker for many Republican voters, and whose support in the polls is fading fast. John McCain certainly can't be the nominee, given that the party's base doesn't trust him (he was, after all, open to joining John Kerry's Democratic ticket just three years ago). Mike Huckabee has no money, knows nothing about foreign policy, and is far to the right of the country on almost everything. Fred Thompson apparently isn't willing to work very hard for the nomination, and his own supporters fear his heart just isn't in the race. Ron Paul is far from the GOP mainstream, and is probably better suited for another independent run. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are just spinning their wheels. Given this, Ross Douthat makes a compelling case that no one can win the Republican nomination. Now, some of Ross' points are more persuasive than others, but his broader point -- none of these guys can win -- sounds about right. Of course, logically, that means one of two things is going to happen -- 1) one of the current far-from-ideal candidates will eventually emerge, battered and bruised; or 2) some other candidate who isn't running will somehow swoop in and get the nomination, which would be more likely in the event of a highly-improbable-but-incredibly-entertaining brokered convention. Jeb? Cheney? Newt? A party turns its lonely eyes to you. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
He is quite dominating in the rep debates, given that he speaks out against the norm but has yet to be drown by rhetoric, such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BB3NrSpRGE Anytime he gets any airtime, you will notice quite a number cheer for him in the audience. Honesty is one of Paul's greatest selling point, which is why he does not commandeer any love from mainstream media. They try their best to keep Paul off air and only broadcast messages from weasels who speak half-truths that people might want to hear.
not going to happen, but i'd love to see newt or pat buchanan step up. that is of course if ron paul can't make it happen.
i dont remember hearing the boos the first time... WTF are people booing when he says "we should take our orders from the constitution"? sure there may be things that i don't like that are in the constitution but that doesn't mean i can ignore it, or shouldn't follow it. if i didn't like it that much, i would push for an amendment, not just blatantly go against it. those people seriously piss me off. there was a republican debate on spanish tv tonight. not surprisingly, tancredo boycotted it. and RP continues to draw boos, but stays the course with his message. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/us/politics/10repubs.html?ref=politics univision has clips posted, though you may need a translator - http://www.univision.com/content/videoplayer.jhtml?cid=1374421&clipid=0
Looks like Huck is part of the "stay the course" crowd. http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=2 National Security/Foreign Policy: IraqSend to a friend Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror. The Democrats deny that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror even as we fight Al Qaeda there. Al Qaeda seeks permanent bases in Anbar province to plot and train against us. General Petraeus and our troops are giving their all to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraq government to succeed, while the Democrats are running for the exit doors. The surge is a military means to achieve the political end of sectarian reconciliation among the Iraqis. Setting a timetable for withdrawal is a mistake. This country has never declared war until "a week from Wednesday," we have always declared war until victory. I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis. I support a regional summit so that Iraq's neighbors become militarily and financially committed to stabilizing Iraq.
Wrong thread, hippie. I'll make a bet with you right here, right now, that says a republican gets voted in. And I honestly don't really have a problem with Obama. You pick the stakes.
Dam Fatty! That must have been one hell of a binge you went on this weekend! You might want to think about sobering up before making pronouncements like that.
Sorry fatty, the new job keeps me away from the board these days. (I know, in the words of NewYorker, "and the world breathed a sigh of relief"). And I know its impolite to answer a question with a question, but I'd love for you to enlighten us plebeians which republican you believe "gets in" as you will. Once you do that, we'll discuss the terms of your wager.
I'm hoping that either Fred Thompson (longshot) or Ron Paul (even longer shot) get nominated. They're the only nominees the GOP could put forward that I can see myself getting behind in the general election. I don't agree with them on everything but they seem to be the best options.
Give me odds on Huck. I want him to win, period. Wager-wise? I won't do anything above $100, but I'm sure we can come to a fun wager. No sig bet, though. Something more hurtful to either of us, should we lose. And what the Hell is up with Hope, Arkansas and charisma?!? If I lived there I would bottle the tap water and sell it.
Don't F*** with Huck. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MDUQW8LUMs8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MDUQW8LUMs8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
