OK, OK. I don't really know for sure if U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is going to seek the GOP presidential nomination in 2008. But since he was in Port Townsend last week vacationing with his son, now is as good a time as any to ask who you'd like to see as the GOP and Democratic nominees. I think a strong D nominee is to be preferred, even for Rs. As opposed to Hillary, Kerry or Gore. Myself, I kinda lean toward Rudy Giuliani or Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for the GOP, versus Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, my sleeper D pick.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at December 01, 2005 04:18 PM | Email Thisif the d's nominate hillary, we will officially live in a one party country (for federal electoral purposes). come to think of it, isn't the political duopoly really akin to a one party state?
Posted by: dinesh on December 1, 2005 04:42 PMI will NOT support John McCain. I'm tired of everyone kow-towing before him because of his residency at the Hanoi Hilton. Yes, that was severe. However, he's definitely gotten the requisite mileage out of it. Let's move on and recognize he's a Democrat that has no problem heaping on the populist garbage way beyond even what Hillary's capable of, e.g., steroids in baseball, gun control, "torture" (if you can call sleep deprivation and listening to Quiet Riot "torture").
Don't know enough about Romney. Anyone who can survive while being surrounded by Ma**holes deserves some credit.
Personally, I'm most in sync with Gingrich. Articulate, smart, right on the issues but a really bad public persona. He has moderated his tone (e.g., Fox News analyst, etc.), but I think he's a real longshot as far as electability is concerned.
For the Dems, their best chance is (was?....after the lying-about-his-baseball-career story came out) Bill Richardson. Kerry also stands a good chance since he'd win in a landslide today against Bush. Many Dems are thinking, "Why bet on Hil? Kerry can win this thing." Watch Kerry to be a real contender. Hillary is a non-threat IMO. No matter how many hawkish things she says about Iraq or how many "sanctity of life" comments she makes, people know her for what she is. A pathological liar.
Posted by: Ingraham on December 1, 2005 05:16 PMMcCain's too old, and sides with the democrats too much. Rudy's opposition to guns kills his chances. Romney's "personally against abortion but pro abortion as a governor". Sounds like something Kerry tried to get away with.
Posted by: Brent from Clark County on December 1, 2005 05:36 PMMy big problem with Gingrich, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he attacking Clinton over the Lewinsky affair, not because he lied under oath, but because he was having an affair at all... all the while cheating on his own wife? And didn't he leave his wife for his mistress?
Sorry, I don't care how brilliant he is (and to be fair, he is), I have serious doubts about his character and could never vote for him.
Posted by: Mike H on December 1, 2005 05:46 PMI don't think Rudy can get through Republican primaries intact. If he can though, look out. And if he does, he needs a non-northeasterner on the ticket. McCain has even less chance than Rudy with the primaries.
Jeb Bush would be a great VP pick if he'll take it. And if the ticket has to be two white guys, he's the best bet. Especially since Obama is an easy VP pick for the D's, with a woman as a good 2nd bet for VP if Hillary isn't the Presidential nominee.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 1, 2005 06:17 PMAlso, I would think that McCain is a shoo-in if he gets past the primaries. Kind of like all the D's that voted for Rossi, I think McCain would garner massive D support as well, especially if any of the aforementioned D parties are on the ticket.
And here's my question to all you McCain haters - why, and when did you start?
Posted by: Aaron on December 1, 2005 06:42 PMHillary Clinton (D)
versus
Condi Rice (R)
If the Democrats nominate Hillary, why not nominate Condi on the Republican side to offset the fact that Hillary's a woman (and omg...letz vote N teh furst w0m4n pr3zident!!!!1one).
But, even though I myself am a woman, I think a male president (Republican, preferably) is a safer option than a female one. Why? Women tend to be somewhat unstable ("Today is officially 'National Chocolate Day!!'"), whereas most men are more stable than your average woman.
Just my $0.02.
Posted by: Cydney on December 1, 2005 06:56 PMAs a strong gun rights activist, Guiliani's record on guns bothers me. But I would hope that he has the common sense to realize that what's right for NY isn't necessarily right for the USA. So the relevance of this issue may be being blown out of proportion.
I'm excited about Condi Rice, and would be very interested to see how she develops as a potential candidate.
I can't picture Hillary making it as the Democratic nominee, they're not really that stupid are they? Then again, maybe they are...
R
Guilliani is a better leader, as is McCain, but McCain has impaired judgment - when he sponsors such a piece of crap legislation as the McCain-Feingold Bill for campaign reform - now it really sucks!
Guilliani probably has the inside track and if Hillary is the Demo nominee - she will get kicked to the curb - if Rudy runs a smart campaign. She cleverly refuses to do interviews unless she only gets asked her specific questions, like the control freak that she is. Hillary will bring about a one world order as quick as anyone, and will go for income redistribution and will work with the ACLU to eliminate Christianity from the face of America and replace it with secular socialism from the get-go. She'll also dentegrate the US Constitution more than has ever been done before. Anyone who desires this lifestyle is sadly deranged and might as well move to France or Cuba and embrace communism. I hope that the electorate of this country will heed this warning and vote accordingly.
Not many people think Hillary will be the nominee - she may have peaked too soon. Obama, now there's a new clown face on the horizon - moonbats would embrace him. He is like a vast majority of the Dems all smoke and mirrors and has make a number of ridiculous statements - almost as many as Howard Dean. Kerry - fuggetaboutit !
Posted by: KS on December 1, 2005 07:24 PMThe debates would sure be fun. Could you imagine one between Anne and Hillary?
Posted by: Mike H on December 1, 2005 08:37 PMSeriously- Rice is my favorite.
Posted by: Andy on December 1, 2005 11:13 PMThanks for your continued anti-McCain fanaticism. Your fanaticism in 2000 led to almost handing the presidency to Albert Gore Jr. And, I hasten to say, Gore actually was so close to winning, that he actually got more votes than Bush.
Sometimes "being conservative" means buying a little insurance... you go with the 90% solution that wins, rather than the 99% solution that loses (and losing = Hilary Rodham as your president).
Please come to your senses and make 2008 a simple choice for voters, rather than a 50/50 choice. I suspect, in a 50/50 situation, the counties around the nation that have other Dean Logans, will push Rodham over the top.
All the best...
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on December 1, 2005 11:30 PMHow about a closer look at former Senator John Breaux (D - Louisiana), or maybe Evan Bayh (D - Indiana)?
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on December 1, 2005 11:33 PMMy prediction: Coulter wins the popular vote 52-48.
No, that's not percentages. That's total votes.
Posted by: ScottM on December 1, 2005 11:38 PMWhen it comes down to it we need divided government in DC and I rather have Schweitzer in there over Hillary, Kerry, or Gore.
Posted by: wqbang on December 2, 2005 08:04 AMAs far as Democrats, the pickings are even slimmer. I could support a Liberman candidacy, but he can't win. You gotta respect him though.
Posted by: Robert Dean on December 2, 2005 08:47 AMAs for the dems, I could stand Lieberman, but i fear Hillbillery will be the choice.
Posted by: Cowboy on December 2, 2005 10:34 AMFor the GOP: Rice is my #1 choice. I think she'd mop the floor with Hillary in any potential debates, and the Dems would have fits trying to trash a black woman with their usual race and gender baiting.
Alternate choices: Fred Thompson of Tennessee or Mark Sanford of South Carolina.
Why not McCain? He's anti-First Amendment (see McCain-Feingold), squishy at best on the Second, and pandering to the illegal alien lobby. The GOP base flat out doesn't like the guy-they like him less now than in 2000.
Guliani likewise would have a hard time surviving the primaries in the Old South. He's way too far to the left on social issues to win with the base there. Me, I don't like him because he's anti-gun (this is also another issue that doesn't help him in Biloxi).
Of the nor-easters, the only one who might have a chance in the South is Romney, although his history of trying to have it both ways on abortion would hurt him.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on December 2, 2005 10:48 AMBaseball-what business is it of congress is it to regulate a private industry that is not essential to peoples lives?
Torture--I'll personally torture any terrorist to get information to save one American life, if McCain is too much of a pansy to let others get their hands dirty protecting America, he can stay in Arizona.
Main Stream Medial Loves Him--that's a bad sign in my book. I just look at the recomondations in the times/pi and vote the opposite way.
In short, McCain is not conservative enough on issues I care about, and he's too much of a pansy to win the war on terror.
He has become a media darling. The cameras like him, and he likes them back. They don't like him because they necessarily... like him, but because he is a loose cannon on the gun deck of the USS Republican, sliding around and randomly blasting away at the ship from the inside. And that, they love. So they put him on magazine covers. The editors pick out smiling photos of him with good lighting. And they don't bring up anything from the past that wouldn't go over well. He stays as popular as he does because of this kid-glove treatment.
Were he to get the GOP nomination, all of this would change faster than you can say, "President Hillary." There is much fodder for the Dems on McCain, and they would use all of it. They would shred him, and the election would effectively be decided by late August.
Posted by: TB on December 2, 2005 11:51 AMJeb Bush & Rice or Steele would send them into an absolute froth.
A ticket designed to drive the D's into the arms of the lunatic fringe would be a fun strategy.
Seriously, optimistic conservatism (Reagan Conservatism) wins.
Condi is strong in foreign policy we really don't know what a domestic agenda would be. She has never run for office always an appointee. No dis on Condi, but campaigning experience helps. Indications are she would be more in the mold of Reagan.
McCain a genuine American Hero, we will always own him an enormous debt. But that is not enough to put a man in the White House. Campaign Finance reform was a serious trampling of the 1st Amendment. I don't want anyone who thinks like that at 1600.
Rudy, a good man in storm, to liberal on domestic policy for my taste.
Despite all the media polls the US has been steadily moving right since Carter. Reagan, Contract with American etc... solid conservative principles of optimism, limited government, fiscal responsibility, strong defense, foreign policy of freedom, liberty and economic opportunity wins every time it is tried.
Who is the best one to carry that message?
Don't worry about who the D's put up in '08. Get our message out with the right candidate, and we win. Trying to defeat their candidate; that is strategy for failure. Run on the strength of the conservative message, articulate victory, plan for winning.
Posted by: JCM on December 2, 2005 12:14 PMMore specifically, how is a campaign contribution "speech"? And also, if McCain/Finegold is a violation of your First Amendment rights (which I believe it is not), isn't the previous election law (capping hard money contributions to presidential candidates at $2000/year) also a violation? Where was your outcry pre-McCain/Finegold?
Lastly, do you think that there should be no caps whatsoever on campaign contributions? Should non-living entities (e.g. corporations, unions, be allowed to donate)? Do non-living entities have First Amendment rights?
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on December 2, 2005 12:57 PMHillary will have unlimited money, and damn the campaign finance laws. Bill's Library and Massage Parlor is it's own little mini -527, all ready and geared up to spend money trashing the [R] ticket.
Fortunately, Hillary is a lib tool and 99% of the electorate knows it. To get any traction at all, she'll need to run to the right (!) of the [R] candidate on a couple of token issues. If you guys notice, she's put a stake in the ground on immigration already.
Posted by: Steve_dog on December 2, 2005 01:12 PMYour eloquence is only surpassed by your failure to respond to questions or make any point whatsoever (other than to provide a link to a website).
There's another blog in the local area for cursing, ranting, raving, etc. I suggest you go there. They'll like you, because what you're advocating is likely to help their candidate (Clinton) get elected.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on December 2, 2005 02:38 PMHere's how we find out the best cantidate: Throw some names out to the liberal democrats and whoever they scream, yell, hate, and curse about the most, that's the cantidate to pick. :-)
Posted by: Brent from Clark County on December 2, 2005 08:17 PMAnyway, here are my faves, in order:
Condi Rice
Sen. Sam Brownback
Sen. Kyl
Allen
Fred Thompson
Giuliani
Jeb Bush
No way in hell would I vote for McCain, Frist, Pataki, et al.
Posted by: Archer79 on December 2, 2005 08:24 PMYou guys are brilliant. Let's badmouth some of our candidates and keep in-fighting.. that way we will end up spending more money in the primaries that we could be spending in the general election against a Democrat. You guys are geniuses. Take a look at the 2000 election again. If any lesson is to be learned there, it's actually on the Dem side - Bill Bradley cost Gore the election.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on December 2, 2005 10:49 PMThe problem with people like you is that in your attempt at "going for broke" with the subjectively perfect candidate, you end up getting someone far worse than middle-of-the-road (e.g. a Democrat).
You're probably someone who voted for Ruth Bennet for Governor (L) in 2004, or Barry Goldwater in '64 (just as examples). About 60,000 other morons voted for Benet (thus giving us Gregoire - keeping the status quo in Olympia). This status quo is arguably worse than Locke, because Gregoire has already cost us million$ as Attorney General.
Since you don't see much difference between McCain, Spector, and Hillary Rodham, you're clearly in the vast minority of voters. If we ran a poll, I'd say most people would be able to see the difference between at least two (Rodham and McCain), and most Republicans would be able to see the difference between all three.
And you probably supported the Grange in their unconstitutional invasion of a political party's free association right to restrict primary ballots only to themselves. If you're not a Republican, please refrain from voting in our (yes, I said "our" - but not including "you") primary.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on December 3, 2005 02:22 PMIt's not just that we have political differences, I don't trust him. In other words it's a personal dislike.
Another thing is that to me he would be, as he has shown himself to me, at best a one step forward two steps back politician. I am guessing that you see him as a two steps forward, one step back politician. In other words he would be slowly helping to take the country in the direction you would like. To me he would be slowly helping to take the country away from the direction I would like.
But the bottom line is that he impresses me as someone who cannot be trusted. I just don't like the guy period.
Posted by: JDH on December 3, 2005 06:08 PMI appreciate your last note that actually was part of a civil discussion (as opposed to a foaming-mouthed reactionary response). We are all entitled to our opinions, and you have shown yours.
Whether or not I feel McCain would take us two steps forward as our president, I certainly would prefer him over HRC. In an earlier post, you mentioned that you see them as equally problematic (though possibly for different reasons).
I think Sen. McCain has done more positive things for this country, and cares as much (or more) about this country, than most people I know. A dedication to service (possibly at the cost of one's life) trumps foul-mouthed reactionism any day of the week.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on December 3, 2005 06:23 PMBut McCain is way too self-righteous about everything. He's like that dorky guy in class who's upset he got shot down be the cheerleaders and that the frat boy beat him out for class president and tries to take it out by blowing the class curve. I'm so over that guy. He's so a Vietnam era relic... (and when will the boomers shut up about Vietnam anyways - nobody born after 1965 cares...)
Posted by: Julie on December 3, 2005 11:23 PM
Forgetabout Romney. The last thing we need is a candidate who can't carry his own state.
And when it comes to Federal Elections the dem's always win Massachussetts.
Posted by: Brent in Whatcom County on December 4, 2005 06:45 AM
Forgetabout Romney. The last thing we need is a candidate who can't carry his own state.
And when it comes to Federal Elections the dem's always win Massachussetts.
Posted by: Brent in Whatcom County on December 4, 2005 06:46 AM