I think I know who will be the repuke prez nominee, tell me I'm wrong. Please

[NightWatcher]

Willard Romney. You probably know him as Mitt. Did you also know that he founded Bain Capital back in 1984, and has evil business connections that only a Bush could love? He supposedly left the Bain group to head the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, but we know that no one really ever leaves the big business, they only remove their name from the website. Bain and Willard have nasty connections to include everyone's favorite, Carlyle Group.

Willard has more money and more ties than anyone else running for the nom.

Rudy would never be elected by "middle America", McCain is a rude old man who has passed his political prime.

[bryant69]

1. Certainly within the realm of possibility.

Those who fund Bush prefer him to McCain or Guiliani. I don't know, though if he is their best candidate, and I don't think the base is warming up to him.

I think Fred Thompson has a good chance of knocking him off of his current position, if he gets in.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[NightWatcher]

2. Thompson has health issues and a trophy wife

So far the biggest obstacle to Willard is his religion, but I think that the right will spin that away from being a cult to him being a "deeply religious family man". We all know that money is the only thing they really worship.

[bryant69]

9. I think we need to push past seeing Republicans as a monolith

Certainly the immigration issue has made the differences between the base and the corporate wing pretty apparent. The corporate wing clearly loves Romney, just like they want some form of amnesty / guest worker program in the immigration bill. But the base is not embrassing the idea of any form of amnesty / guest worker program, and I'm not sure they will embrace Romney either.

Bryant

[TwilightGardener]

12. Mitt has cleverly condemned the "amnesty" bill--he ain't stupid.

That's why McCain is attacking him.

[woo me with science]

29. I predict Thompson will take it, too.

It will be no problem for them to remake the wife in some nice conservative clothes. I think a very young wife will much easier for the far right to swallow than the Mormon thing. Good Christian families are supposed to be patriarchal anyway, right?

They are salivating for another grandfatherly, cigar-smoking, Reaganesque actor-guy to sweep in and suggest he can clean up this pesky war problem like a Law and Order episode.

[Clark2008]

62. And she's not a baby. The woman is 40 +.

It's not like he's married to a 20-year-old.

[TwilightGardener]

64. Total skank. 25 years his junior. Ick.

[DesertRat]

65. Would you also call Elizabeth Kucinich a "total skank"?

:shrug:

[rasputin1952]

3. The R's in this area, (Nebraska), don't see anyone on the GOP

team that raises any hopes...:) They are feeling like they've been duped for the last time.

FWIW, when NE sees the GOP as a turd in the punchbowl, R's are in deep shit...

[NightWatcher]

5. what would the GOP and Nebraska do with a Mitt v. Hillary ticket?

[TwilightGardener]

11. They'd go Mitt--no doubt.

[rasputin1952]

16. It would be ugly...heads exploding all ove rhe place...

There are so many evangelicals in my area, the thought of a face off like that would keep thousands at home...

Most of the people who voted for bush, (twice!), are feeling some serious buyer remorse. A few hard core R's still say they did the right thing, but although I don't think NE will go blue, it is certainly purple at this point...

[TwilightGardener]

4. Mittens makes the most sense. He's the logical choice. My intuition

tells me that GOPers might wish for someone else, but they're not stupid, and they're not about to throw away an obvious "winner" like Mitt.

[Bucky]

6. The usual Gepettos seem to want him. But they're having trouble making the sale.

Giuliani is a real wild card here. The vestigial Eisenhower-Rockefeller Republicans think they've got an open window this cycle. I don't think they can pull it off. But it's really a wild, wide open season this time.

I continue to be impressed by the number and names of Republicans who didn't run. I think they still have a smoke-filled room dynamic running their nomination process (albeit occuring long before the convention). Democrats, being used to choosing among half a dozen ambitious hotdogs, just aren't culturally inclined to understand how it is that 50 million Republicans can overnight just unify behind no more than three real candidates.

But then, back in high school it probably didn't make too much sense to you why cheerleaders, jocks, and preppies liked to taunt the nerdy kids.
.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. The 2008 Republican field reminds me of the 2004 Democratic field.

No memorable candidates, except for rabble-rousers who can't get elected. For once I think we've actually got a great slate of candidates. I can definitely see the benefits of Hillary, Obama, and (to a lesser extent) Edwards. I'm quite optimistic.

As for the Republicans... who knows? I used to think that Romney would win it easily, but he keeps fucking up. And Giuliani's only appeal is his post-9/11 "America's Mayor" persona, which seems to fade more with each passing day. And McCain is toast.

[pacalo]

17. No memorable Democratic candidates in 2004? Rabble-rousers who can't get elected?

What is your definition of "memorable"? Howard Dean was my definition of "memorable". Al Sharpton's ability to hone in on the disasters of the Bush WH with hilarity was memorable. So were John Kerry, Wes Clark, & John Edwards.

As for "rabble-rousers", they were all speaking the truth. I would apply the term "rabble-rousers" as those who oppose a legitimate authority woven with a high moral ground.

As for the 2004 candidates who "couldn't get elected": John Kerry was elected. Diebold&Co said otherwise.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. Dean was great.

I supported Dean, but it's pretty clear to me now that he never had a snowball's chance in hell. His operation was just a mess. I love the job he's doing now, and think he was a huge benefit for our side in 2006. I was disappointed when Kerry came out on top in the 2004 primaries, because I never thought he had much to offer as a candidate beyond being a veteran, even if I did agree with him on just about everything.

As for Sharpton, he's the very definition of a rabble-rouser who cannot possibly get elected.

Furtermore, I never made any moral judgement on the phrase "rabble-rouser" (seeing as I consider myself to be one) so take your bolded, italicized text elsewhere.

I thought Kerry was a very weak candidate who ran a poor campaign, and I'm not up for blaming voting machines for every failed candidacy of the Democratic party.

[rasputin1952]

26. Dean may be "memorable", but I think he would have been a

fair to lousy president.

Kerry, same thing, no where near "great".

Clark, I think, would have been the best of the lot, but then again, this is all a "what if" scenario.

Regardless of whom might have made it as Prez on th eD side, if it had come about, what they would have inherited a disaster, and it would have been extremely difficult in repairing some of the damage done...:(

[TwilightGardener]

28. Agree with your assessment. I was not fond of Dean OR Kerry, and

wanted Clark. 2004 was just not ours to win. 2008 will be.

[rasputin1952]

34. Yep, '08 is ours, unless there is some incredibly stupid thing

that the D's do between now and the election...which unfortunately, is a real possibility.

I am not thrilled w/what I see as far as candidates on the D side so far. Issues count for me, and until they are discussed, I withhold all support for any of them.

[Mme. Defarge]

36. '08 will be ours

just as '00 and '04 were ours (we won those elections but the party didn't support their winning candidates) unless we can come up with a Republican candidate who is willing to run as a Democrat.

[TwilightGardener]

37. Yikes! That's a grim assessment. Maybe we could draft Bloomberg

to switch back to Democrat and run, LOL!

[Mme. Defarge]

39. A possibility

if Hillary doesn't work out.

[librechik]

8. in this country, the voters don't pick the candidates

that happens in smoke filled rooms with party leadership. And the Republicans of today won't pick a candidate for the people. They have too many secrets to keep. They will pick the crookedest, most compromised one. The one who is surest to go along with their criminal plans without raising a fuss. IMO that's Rudy, but I could be wrong about that. Any one of those guys except Ron Paul is crooked enough to be a Republican president.

[NightWatcher]

10. I'm looking at Mitt's connections

and he has a lot of time spent in the dark smoke filled rooms.

I fear his good hair and Reagan-esque vibe.

[Eurobabe]

18. Mittens is a genuine brylcreem poster boy n/t

everything about him is fake.

[librechik]

20. He's got Rudy beat on hair. But Rudy's got "heroism"

even Rudy's fake heroism might beat hair. (it did in 200 and 2004)

Republicans are so stupid and cowardly. If you kiiled their mothers they would gratefully cower in the corner with a clock wrapped in an alarm clock instead. They'll follow anything that looks like one of their dead heroes, no matter how stinking and evil.


Mitt looks like he's wearing Reagan.

[rasputin1952]

38. Oddly enough, for all of the Reagan worship, I think this is

going to backfire on these candidates, big time.

Since his tenure in the WH, Reagan's legacy has shown to be fraught w/failure and in some cases, setting up situations that had disastrous consequences. The real beginning of the al-Qaeda build-up was when Reagan pulled the Marines out of Beruit after that bombing. It showed that Reagan talked tough, but was a wimp in the eyes of those who feel that US presence in the ME is "unholy".

When one wants to compare themselves to someone else, it shows that they have little confidence in their own abilities, something that is quite obvious in the GOP candidates that are standing there now. They are little more than bush lite, and no matter how much they would like to distance themselves from Little Boots, they are stuck w/him under the GOP mantle.

If the GOP wants a candiate that can win, they better go back to the vegetable bin and find something fresher...

[TwilightGardener]

42. There's a little paranoid part of me that thinks that the GOP will end up with Hagel

in the end--the rest have cheerled the war and are going on and on about Gitmo and torture, etc. Even if BushCo starts drawing down troops, the pro-war "terra terra terra" public statements the candidates have made are out there, and will be thrown back in their faces, Thompson included. They will be shown by Democrats to have bad foreign policy judgment by 2008, but Hagel is the lone exception. BushCo is now adopting or considering pretty much all of the Iraq ideas that Hagel and the Democrats have been calling for for months--UN involvement, Baker Hamilton implementation, talking with Syria/Iran, political solutions. But why let the Dems take the credit, when the Republicans can point to Chuckie and say, "Chuckie was right all along--it was all his idea!" I got to wondering about this when Mitch McConnell came to Nebraska to tell the GOPers here that ol' Chuck has been right about Iraq from the beginning. We might start to hear more of this in the fall, depending on how things shape up post-surge. And word on the street is that Bush the Elder is very fond of Chuck--hmmm.

[rasputin1952]

48. Could be that is the way this will play out...The GOP has

nothing to offer, at least at this point.

In all sncerity though, this is the D's to take home gift-wrapped, if they can avoid a silly pratfall...something we are prone to do...

[TwilightGardener]

52. I'm hanging on Obama--he's played it exactly right so far. He's the

least likely, IMO, to screw it up. Edwards already has, big time, and Hillary is very careful, but there will be mud slung at her that they can't really throw at Obama. He seems to garner grudging respect from the R's from what I've seen, which is very telling. He's just not someone they can really fire at or laugh at. Even if it's Hagel or some other R that manages to escape the taint of the war and GWB, I don't think this country is trending conservative, which is why I still think we will win. The pendulum will swing back.

[rasputin1952]

54. Strangely, in this area, R's are finding Limbaugh's ...

"Barak the Magic Negro" incredibly offensive. In fact, all across the nation people are calling him on it, and although his arrogance is legendary, even God has said he wants the talent he loaned Limbaugh back...

In reality, Barak's lack of political experience may be his best asset...:D

[TwilightGardener]

56. I get that feeling too--Limbaugh has overreached on this one, and it's backfiring.

I don't think inexperience will hurt Obama much. He's had a very impressive, respectable and noble career path so far, having been a state Senator, a law professor and a community activist--unlike the lobbyists, 911 profiteers, and greedy CEO millionaire types (Hagel included here) on the GOPer side. He's just a good guy, dammit!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. No, that's the way it used to work.

The primary process of today is much more open than it was in the past.

[Cleita]

13. You aren't the only one who is saying so.

I don't think we will have another Republican president in the near future unless the Democrats in
Congress blow their mission so badly that people will vote for another "R" again. If that happens, I'm out of here.

[skipos]

14. I'm rooting for Mitt

1. He wouldn't win his homestate
2. He has flip flopped on every position he has had. Youtube is not nice to him.
3. His religion will lose him some votes (some rightwing radio host recently said a vote for Mitt was a vote for satan)
4. The Freeper types don't seem to like him very much.
5. I don't see any evidence that he has independent appeal.
6. If he gets the nom, it will have more to do with hi $$$ than his appeal.

Most recent Ras polls...
Mitt Romney (R)33% John Edwards (D)54% EDWARDS WINS BY 21%
Mitt Romney (R)37% Barack Obama (D)52% OBAMA WINS BY 15%
Mitt Romney (R)34% Bill Richardson (D)42% RICHARDSON WINS BY 8% (good considering his low name rec)
Mitt Romney (R)44% Hillary Clinton (D)47% CLINTON WINS BY 3%

[Lobster Martini]

15. Mitt is too demented--he only has a chance because Giuliani and McCain are weak

Romney, McCain and Giuliani will beat each other up, then Fred Thompson will enter the race and look like Reagan reborn.

Can't post all of Romney's weird ramblings at once, so here's a snippet:

"It is because of America's strength that we don't all speak German and that our kids don't all speak Russian. And it is because of America's strength that our grandchildren will not have to speak Farsi or Arabic or Chinese."

[TwilightGardener]

19. Mitt's not demented--he's ruthless and cunning. That's why

he's such a shape-shifter. Rudy and Walnuts are looking less palatable as time goes by, and the only reason Thompson is waiting this long is probably because he's got a lot of weaknesses that will be exploited once he's in (we already know he's crooked, due to the PAC that funneled money into his family's business instead of to GOPer campaigns). Fred is hoping the hype for him reaches some sort of critical mass that will sweep him to victory without him having to actually, you know, campaign and shake hands and kiss babies in New Hampshire. Lazy won't win the prize. Mitt is not lazy.

[bklyncowgirl]

60. Mittens is smoother more sophisticated George w. Bush.

Ruthless and cunning with no apparent principles that would stand in his way. In short a perfect candidate.

[Horse with no Name]

22. Romney isn't going anywhere.

In fact, not one of the Republican contenders presently will take the nomination.
Their candidate is yet TBA.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. Gingrich?

that could be fun.

[Horse with no Name]

40. Gingrich, Thompson, Hagel, Jeb Bush

Take your pick.
Nothing is done in the Republican Party without aforethought and scheming.
My thoughts on this? This weak crop of Republicans was put out there as sacrificial lambs so that they could figure out what the people want from their candidate. After these guys have been beat up and made irrelevant, a new candidate will be brought forth that will be palatable to the Republicans who will be so grateful NOT to have to vote for one of these folks that whatever the flaws of that candidate are will be easy to spin and dismiss.
I mean seriously? The frontrunners of the Republicans are a warmonger, a Mormon, and a flawed Mayor.
After much thought, they can't be serious. They aren't THAT stupid. They aren't going to waste a serious candidate this early.
Their party loves a fairy tale. Their White Knight hasn't emerged from the shadows yet.

[TwilightGardener]

44. You're as paranoid as I am. But I think Mittens and Rudy still stand a good chance.

[Horse with no Name]

45. I live in a red area

The rural Republicans aren't interested in these guys.

[blondeatlast]

23. I think you are wrong for a very simple reason: RRR Fundies.

And in this case, fundies is almost a pun. The RNC uses these sheep for fundraising and then discards them when they are done.

There is no way in hell Mitt Romney, as a Mormon, will inspire them to pour forth with the dough. The knuckle-dragging fundie sheep sees him as as evil as they see John Kerry.

[TwilightGardener]

27. Dobson won't condemn him, the way he's cast asparagus on the

other GOPer frontrunners. They'll suck it up. Utah is predominantly Republican, so they can't be THAT offensive to the party powers-that-be. Falwell's dead, and the evangelicals are going to start losing their grip anyway, I predict. Head on over to Freeperland, and you'll see open disrespect for Dobson et al.

[blondeatlast]

30. True, but--as one who grew up around many Mormons (including my best friend) and fundies,

there is a grave mistrust of Mormons by the "rank and file" fundies, regardless of what the leaders tell them.

I can almost picture it: "The RNC asked us to send some money for the president campaign. Should I, Bob?"

"Hell no, I ain't sendin' money to no Mormon! Let them Mormons do it themselves (see, they are tithing already--that's how the fundie R&F think, anyway)."

I've lived in the midst of it. You can easily insert the word Catholic anytime you see Mormon and the results will be the same for the most part--only stronger against the Mormons.

[helderheid]

31. Mittens is not scary to me - McCain and Rudy are.

[blondeatlast]

32. Gotta agree there. Romney is just a Republican--McCain and Rudy have their own power-mad agenda

and I think it's clear after the last 6 years that there is a distinction to be made there.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[TwilightGardener]

35. I still don't count out Rudy yet, BTW, in all his cross-dressing glory.

He comes across as the most genuine (when he finally came clean on his abortion stance), and the least flip-floppy. He's still the frontrunner, still beats us in a lot of polls, and GOPer history suggests that he will be the nominee--the GOPers are predictable. That's the essence of conservatism--no surprises.

[Lurking Dem]

41. I think Fred Thompson will enter

and draw off support for Romney. And I would much rather face Romney in a General Election than Thompson.

The Christian Right is going to have a harder time voting for Romney and he has that Massachusetts problem in the south.

Thompson is an old school conservative which is going to appeal to a lot of currently disgruntled Republicans. And the first thing he would do in office is dismantle Roe.

[TwilightGardener]

43. LOL! Thompson's not "old-school"--he's a total neocon. Read some of

the shit he's been spouting. He's more pro-war/pro-Iran-war than McCain. He's buddies with Cheney. Where are you getting your analysis from? I'd rather face him--he's going to get shredded if/when he runs. For many reasons.

[Lurking Dem]

46. Uhhh he's a local political "hero". (sadly)

He's old school in the sense of TRULY believing "smaller government", "no abortion", "lower taxes", "strict federalism."

Those were all tenants of Republicanism and, if anything, New Isolationism rather than strict neocon.

At this point, all those distinctions have been rather blurred by cross breeding. But politics, like life, is not about facts or history but perception. And the religious right will grab onto Fred like fleas on a dog.

You may rather face him but I think Romney would be twiddly winks to beat.

[TwilightGardener]

49. He's got the same Senate record pretty much as McCain. ALL

Republicans spout low taxes, small gov, etc. Fred's no different. But he IS a neocon--he belongs to a neocon think tank. Because of this, he is exactly wrong on the war--same weakness as McCain has. He's a global warming denier--another political weakness in the general--most people believe in it, at least a little. And he's corrupt. And not especially qualified for higher office, especially with a history for laziness in the Senate, which is common knowledge to the pundit class. And spent 18 years as a sleazy lobbyist. And he's old (or looks it), sick, and ugly. That's political reality. Dems will shred him--there will be a lot to pick apart. Appearance is destiny, and Romney is the one who will most appear as the winner when the chips come down, unless this fall brings some changes RE Iraq that influences GOP thinking.

Edit to add: The rest of the country is not Tennessee.

[Lurking Dem]

51. I hear what you're saying.

Frankly, I thought about the "lazy" thing because he is notorious for that.

Then I thought of Bush's, what is it now, 431 days on the "ranch"?

The shit that WE think should matter doesn't seem to matter to THEM. cf Global Warming. And I think the pickin's on a Mormon from Massachusetts will be pretty good.

[TwilightGardener]

53. Mitt the Stormin' Mormon unfortunately doesn't seem to have much in

the way of personal or career skeletons--his big weakness is flip-flopping and religion, but those are about it, from what I've seen--those are surmountable. He is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire, and the Massachusetts reign is already being spun as his ability to take charge of a liberal state. He's really the most qualified of the bunch--even Lee Iacocca apparently thinks so, and when the GOPers get over the Mormon thing, they will probably go with him. But I think he's beatable. I think they all are, really. I agree with you that the stuff that Dems find important don't matter to GOPers, but they have to appeal to both parties to win in the general, which is why they'll end up with a moderate nominee, if they're smart.

[Lurking Dem]

57. On that, I heartily agree.

:toast:

[Poiuyt]

55. I think Fred Thompson is going to enter too

and it doesn't really matter what his views on the issues are. It's how the media is selling him, and they keep mentioning him in the same breath as Ronald Reagan. That's all most Republican voters need to hear. I think he'll be tough to beat if he does get in.

[ToeBot]

47. Of course he'll be the nominee, he's the worst of the bunch!

Did anyone know, outside of a few prescient Texans, just how monumentally bad Bush would be? Romney is George W Bush - without the language impediment.

[TwilightGardener]

50. He's a much smarter GWB. Backed by Jeb. Ick.

[bklyncowgirl]

58. I think so too, McCain and Giuliani are too unpredictable

John McCain may, somewhere deep down have a conscience. He's been trying to hide it for the past few years as he desperately clings to Bush's coattails and embraces every right wing nutjob that will let him get close but frankly, I don't think they trust him. Giuliani is simply uncontrollable, a disagreeable man with an ego the size of New York.

They need and want someone who has no principles, can make a good appearance on television, in short a somewhat more sophisticated version of George Bush. That Romney can speak in complete sentences and utter the occasional three syllable word without tripping over his tongue will supply enough contrast with the current administration. His good looks coupled with a newly found conservative philosophy make him the closest thing to Reagan that they are likely to find.

Watch him--he's dangerous.

[janx]

59. EEeeeek!

He's so creepy!

[CK_John]

61. Its going to be, Romney, Bloomberg, and Clinton.

[frogcycle]

63. what an appalling scenario n/t