Who will be the toughest person to beat in 2008 from republicans?

[FreedomAngel82]

I watched a few minutes of Mitt Romney before Mark Warner on CSPAN earlier this evening. He seems pretty well and has better speaking skills than Bush (which even my younger cousin's could do of course) and he is from the north. I don't know if Pitaki will get far, nor McCain even though he's trying to align himself with the fundies (it was reported on crooksandliars.com back in late October that he met with Falwell) and Guiliani has too much of a past to expose that will make the religious voters stay home. So who do you think will be tough competition for 2008?

[pinto]

1. Hard to say. I think '06 may change the landscape some...n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

2. I think so too

I wouldn't be surprised if more of them step away from Bush. They read polls just like we do. If they say they don't than they're lying in my opinion.

[napi21]

3. I listened to a bit of Romney too.

He did a good speech tonight. I would think his big problem with the Pubs is that he's from the NE.

I'm thinking Alan from Va. could do well.

The thing none of us know is who the Party is going to back this time. They seem to choose the candidate and then just manuver the voters to support him. I haven't heard any rumors yet.

[Skink]

4. Gingrich may not be the hardest but definately the most fun.

[FreedomAngel82]

12. Me either

I flipped it back and forth onto Romney's speech and he did pretty well. He seemed to connect with the people in the room (didn't look like a huge audience though, but maybe we just didn't see the whole room or I didn't). He will have to have Falwell, Dobson etc. go out and support him. Does anyone know where he stands on the "hot button" issues? And *gasps* they called it a HOLIDAY dinner!!

[mitchum]

5. PNAC's best supporting actor of 2000-2005 John McCain

[napi21]

7. You could be right. When he came so close in 2000, I think

the Party told him, "It's not your turn yet". It's possible they will push him through this time.

The problem I see is that I think he could have easily won in 2000, WITHOUT the SCOTUS making a mess of things, and I think he would have had a good shot at uniting the Country too. The Pub Organization decided they wanted Shrub instead.

Too bad McCain has had to give up a lot of what he had in 2000.

I will admit, I supported him then. I wanted someone who wasn't afraid of questions, seemed to speak the truth, and was a very likeable guy.

Unfortunately, many of the things he's done since then has turned me away from him forever.

I guess I'm not as far left as many of you are, and if I feel that way toward McCain, he has no chance of winning this time!

[mitchum]

11. Yes, and it's why the repub blast faxes tag him as a "maverick"...

this will allow him to "distance" himself from the bush debacles. Of course, it is a sham. They both work for the same cabal.

[FreedomAngel82]

13. I don't think so either which

is why he's trying really hard to be Bush's best buddy and align himself with Falwell. He's trying this next time to go the route of Bush with the fundies even though I've personally never heard him speak on religion very much. :shrug: I think the really really hard core republicans might not trust him quite as much now since he has aligned himself a few times with the democrats (filibuster and the anti-torture "bill"). All the republicans care about on issues is gay marriage and abortion and being "tough" on terrorism. I don't think McCain will get the nod even though he is trying to become a neocon.

[MalachiConstant]

6. if i were to judge from the current political landscape

i would have to say john mccain.


postscript:

i apologize in advance if this is against some rule i'm unaware of, but i'm going to plug my thread. i have started a thread suggesting a new DU group for career advice, and job seekers. if you're interested please check out this thread and reply:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4430590

[ret5hd]

8. the CEO of Diebold.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

9. The question should be "Who is going to be the weakest candidate

for the Democrats??"

[ShockediSay]

10. re Giuliani

in a write up about the newly elected 2d term mayor Bloomberg, the NYTimes Oct 18'05 said:

But perhaps more significant, he reshaped the way the mayor's office runs New York, applying a results-based approach to almost every area of city government, and largely appointing his commissioners based on expertise and giving them nearly free rein to determine policy regardless of political consequences. It was a 180-degree turn from the administration of his predecessor, Rudolph W. Giuliani, when even the hiring of secretaries was handled by a circle of mayoral confidants and commissioners were closely watched and controlled.

Three times married Giuliani is a political act, and a hack's act at that. You couldn't get a more divisive candidate. In NYC when he was mayor, race relations sank to an all time low. Plus, for all his photo op posing during 9/11 he didn't save one life that I'm aware of. In fact, a number of police and firemen were lost due to faulty comm equipment supplied by his administration, a fact that hit NYC MSM for about one day and was then buried.

[FreedomAngel82]

14. He has too much of a closet

Don't a lot of them also label him as more liberal?

[incapsulated]

15. McCain

I honestly fear him. He may have been able to actually steal the election in 2000 if he ran as an indie. He's making nice with the people he pissed off the last time and he's a media darling, they fucking eat out of his hand.

My hope is that the rethugs don't have the sense to nominate him.

[Ce qui la baise]

16. McCain, Although I don't see one damn good reason. The

right never has made sense.