Al Gore! Al Gore!

[jacktruth]

I seriously doubt Rumsfeld would run or be elected.

I seriously doubt if Jeb Bush will run. Too close to his predecesor with the same name, whose approval rating is quite low. Too easy of a campaign add target.

Condi is great but would be destroyed by the slick and slimy politics of Hillary.

Guilliani would be a good pick, mainly because he could challenge Hillary in NY. If he could win NY and Texas, there's no way she could win. The only problem with Guilliani is that he isn't all that conservative and may not appeal to southern voters who already are a risk to change parties because of hurricane issues. But, he could get the nod just because of his electability.

Mitt Romney is an enigma to conservatives.

JC Watts is a great candidate, but I'm not sure how up-front of a leader he is. A perfect VP candidate that could carry the party in later years.

George Allen is probably the best conservative named.

[MavKikiNYC]

Giuliani tells audience: 'I think I'll return to politics'
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON - Rudolph Giuliani said Wednesday that he plans to return to politics but that it is too early to say if that will be for the 2008 presidential campaign.

"I think I'll return to politics," Giuliani said in a speech to business leaders.

Called "America's Mayor," after his performance in leading New York City after the Sept. 11 attacks, Giuliani has spent the years since working as a corporate executive and public speaker.

The business event, hosted by Visa USA, brought together corporate leaders, anti-fraud experts, and government officials to discuss credit card security. But the first question from audience members was about Giuliani's possible return to public office.

Asked if he had any "political visions," Giuliani laughed and rubbed his forehead.

"I have some political visions. I don't know what they are yet, they're a little foggy," he said.

Though he was not asked specifically about the next presidential campaign, Giuliani mentioned the 2008 race and said "it's too far away" to make a decision.

National polls regularly place Giuliani among the most popular Republican vote-getters, and he is asked about his plans at almost every public appearance. He usually deflects the question by suggesting he would not decide on 2008 until after the 2006 congressional elections.

During a visit to Denmark on Sunday, Giuliani said he would consider the presidential race "next year."

In the 2004 presidential campaign, the former mayor campaigned for President Bush's re-election.

Giuliani remains at the top of Republicans' preference for president in 2008, along with Arizona Sen. John McCain, according to a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll released Wednesday. Giuliani was backed by 26 percent, while McCain was supported by 23 percent. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., remains ahead among Democrats in the 2008 White House race, backed by 42 percent of Democrats. That is about 30 percentage points ahead of Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and former Vice President Al Gore.

[dude1394]

Hoo Rah.... Go Rudi....

I guess there will be another set of elitist conservatives who can't back someone unless they pass the "litmus test" of abortion. The left and right radicals really give me heartburn.

[kg_veteran]

I don't appreciate the insinuation that someone who is pro-life is a "radical" or an "elitist" conservative.

[dude1394]

I am not saying someone who is "pro-life" necessarily is a radical or elitist. However Rudi/Arnold are good examples. They are pro-choice. If that eliminates them in someones' mind from the republican party, I think that is a far-right position. A far-right position by definition would be radical. You could make the same case with respect to the second amendment where no gun laws can ever be passed for any reason, that is also far-right imo and radical.

With respect to the elitist comment that really was in respect to the recent bro-ha-ha about how Meiers isn't conservative enough. That strikes me as elitist ( a conservative elitist as it were). You are not a conservative because you are not conservative enough. You are not black because you are not black enough, etc. It really doesn't apply to this topic but I think it does with respect to Rudi.

[kg_veteran]

It doesn't eliminate them from the Republican party. There have always been pro-choice Republicans, but I don't think that's representative of the majority of the party. If the majority is some how a far-right minority, I must be missing something.

As for the discussion about how conservative Miers is, I think it's a big issue to people simply because the opportunity to appoint justices just doesn't come along all that often. It's not elitist to evaluate her conservative credentials. It's not like anyone is snubbing their nose at her because she's not conservative enough. They're concerned about it because of the influence she will have over American federal jurisprudence for the next 15-25 years. I think that's a legitimate concern. It's certainly one that I have.

I guess I've just always hated the blind "party line" mentality. (I'm not saying you have it.) I don't think we should settle for a Presidential candidate simply because we don't want a Democrat in office. A Republican is equally capable of inflicting damage.

[dude1394]

I also don't think it's representative of the whole party either, that's why I termed that reasoning radical and elitist.

I think I've read comments all over the board on meiers. From she's second rate, to not conservative enough, to not a "movement" conservative (I haven't quite figured out what that is to be honest yet) to not conservative enough ( this may be what is meant by movement conservative).

I also agree that a republican is equally capable of inflicting damage but what I think I'm seeing is the right-side of the commetariat taking this opportunity of arguing against meier to also accuse dubya of not being a true conservative, not capable of nominating a scotus candidate (ala george will), not nominating great conservatives prior or somehow too chicken to nominate who he really wants. Somehow dubya's sterling conservative credentials are all forgotten now. Somehow he now practices nothing buy cronyism, that's bunk. I think like spoiled chillin's the right is itching for the nuclear option (to be honest me to in some respects) and they didn't get it so they got their little feelings hurt. Now they don't know much about Meiers', but she wasn't who they wanted, so she sucks.

Here is what I really want from a scotus....A judge that won't legislate from the bench. I would imagine that Thomas wasn't thought a super-duper legal mind either when nominated but I surely like the way he votes. I think the Meier's has plenty of qualifications.

[dude1394]

Thought I would go and look at one of my favorite justices resume. Clarence Thomas. His career was less storied than Meiers EXCEPT he was a sitting judge for 1 year. I don't remember the right saying he wasn't qualified. I think they just thought he was "conservative" enough. Also it was nice that he was a black conservative.

I also don't even remember this type of wailing about qualifications when Gonzales was being floated, again, just that he wasn't conservative enough.

[chumdawg]

I fully understand why folks would be upset with Bush these days. Because I think it's probably fair to boil the '04 election down to a few elements and conclude today that the people who, in effect, hired Bush aren't getting what they paid for.

I don't think people hired Bush because they trusted his good judgment in potential situations that may arise and they thought he would good for the country in any case for the next four years, no matter what happened in '08. No, I think they hired Bush because they took him at (what they thought was) his word on a very important issue like what the next Supreme Court nominee(s) might mean for Roe v. Wade. I think they hired him because they sure as the hell didn't want a Democrat in office--not in '04, not in '08, not ever if they could help it.

If the social and religious conservatives aren't happy with Bush's choice of Meiers because what they wanted was someone who would *definitely* vote against abortion given the opportunity, then I understand their frustration. If Bush's second term results in congressionals losses in '06 or losing the White House in '08, I can very much understand their frustration. I don't think that when they voted for George W in '04 they were hitching their wagon to a brilliant man, damned the consequences.

Social and religious conservatives don't seem to be happy, possibly for good reason. And I don't what in the world fiscal conservatives would be happy about. So who's happy, and why?

As best I can tell, the only really happy people of late are the ones who relish the situation where no matter what Bush does, right or wrong, at least it was a Republican doing it.

[jacktruth]

Excellent news for Democrats!

----------------------------------------

Gore: I Won't Run Again
Wednesday, October 12, 2005


"I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again," said Gore, who lost the 2000 election to President Bush (search).

However, Gore did not completely shut the door to political endeavors.

"I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to have that," he said during a visit to Sweden.

[madape]

Darnit. I was looking forward to some good comedy.

[MavKikiNYC]

Maybe he's angling for a Supreme Court nomination.

If only he were qualified.

[Usually Lurkin]

Isn't Al Gore busy inventing television or something?

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: chumdawg


Giuliani would be a bulletproof candidate. He might win by Reagan-esque proportions. But I don't know if the party is ready to sacrifice some of their sacredly held tenets in order to hold the White House for another four or eight years. Sad, really.

Interesting early polling results among NY voters, where voters are heavily Democratic, but where both Rudy-lovers AND Rudy-haters are also probably at their highest concentrations. Not sure how much this tells about how a Rudy/Hillary matchup plays nationally, but of interest nonetheless.

It does lend some support to my thought that the Republicans better not matchup against Hillary with a lightweight like Pataki.

Among New York voters, the Siena poll found that Giuliani beats Clinton in a hypothetical presidential race, 48 percent to 43 percent, while the former first lady bests Pataki, 53 percent to 35 percent.

"While Hillary continues to be exceedingly popular in the state and has 2-1 leads over both Jeanine Pirro and Ed Cox, she is far from a sure bet to carry New York in the presidential election of 2008," said Joseph Caruso, Siena's director of polling.

Siena's telephone poll of 613 registered voters was conducted Oct. 4-10 and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

[chumdawg]

Interesting. I may have been getting carried away when I said that earlier. Mostly, I was just frustrated that it doesn't appear that the Republicans are willing to nominate a Giuliani or a McCain.

I'm starting to get pretty bad vibes about the Repub's chances in '08, and even beyond. The Dems appear to have a nice slate of candidates to choose from, each of whom offers something a little bit different. Governors Richardson and Warner. Obama, Bayh. Edwards even. Before too long Ford will have his hat in the ring. If the Dems can stay away from Hillary, they probably will put forth a stronger candidate this year than the Repubs will.

Not that that will be enough to win. Should be interesting. I sure wish the Republicans had a few more people with upside, though...

[MavKikiNYC]

I didn't necessarily think that those polling results contradicted what you said about Giuliani. For one thing, it's way early. On the contrary, I do think it's interesting that he comes out ahead, because HC is pretty popular in NY.

I also recall that back 2000-01 when they were matched up early on for the Senate seat, Giuliani was so unpopular in NYC for a lot of the the antagonistic politics that he'd engaged in, that he was far from a favored candidate. In fact, I think that election would have been a toss-up at best. I think that he and his campaign advisers understood that as well, and with his cancer diagnosis as a good reason, they decided to retreat to fight again another day. Then came 9/11.

Tangentially, Michael Bloomberg appears to be kicking a$$ in the mayoral race--he'd win as a Democratic candidate, he'll win as a Republican candidate. Bloomberg is doing well among Democratic voters and among minority voters. Again, not sure how that translates to state-wide or national elections, but it probably doesn't HURT the Republican party to have a successful, high-profile office holder like Bloomberg as Mayor of NYC to put a good face on for the party to appeal to voters who might be willing to consider an alternative.

[jacktruth]

Gullianni would not have to win NY. The Republicans don't need NY. Democrats do.

Republicans will have more money. Forcing Hillary to spend in NY would prevent her from swining other states.

Not to say that I support Guilliani; but I would vote for him over Hillary.

[FishForLunch]

Mc Cain would be best - He seems to be a Hawk, worried about pork barrel spending, May not raise our Taxes and does not care about a Social agenda.

[dalmations202]

Mc Cain would be best - He seems to be a Hawk, worried about pork barrel spending, May not raise our Taxes and does not care about a Social agenda.

Good choice, but he wouldn't win..........no charisma.

[EricaLubarsky]

McCain has plenty of charisma-- more than either candidate in 2004. He would also get a LOT of swing votes from the middle and even a few democrats. In the last election if he had run against Kerry, I would have voted McCain and I'm a devoted liberal.

[Mavdog]

McCain is the one candidate who transcends party loyalties.

It seems that the only constituency who doesn't like him is the religious right.

[kg_veteran]

McCain is a political whore and an opponent of the First Amendment, among other things.

[Mavdog]

whore is rather an extreme characterzation for a free thinker.

as far`as an opponent to free speech, his campaign finance bill (which I assume you reference) doesn't stop anyone from speaking as they want to, just limiting how much money one can give to the real whores who sell the candidates.

[Epitome22]

Political whore? on what basis?

[Epitome22]

Political whore? on what basis?