[redDoodia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_of_India

[fetesiceWaist]

damn, I hoped I could fill the void.

[Duaceanceksm]

[12Dvop4I]

Jeb

[DoctorQuquriramba]

Bush daughter on the right is pretty hot. The one on the left isn't.

In response to the OP" know one knows. It's too wide open, and too many of the candidates have big weaknesses as far as primaries.

McCain has the biggest name recognition, but he has managed to anger everyone, and he has flip-flopped enough to have lost most of his "straight talk" credibility.

Guliani has name recognition and appeal to the moderates, but his pro-Abortion social positions will alienate the Christian right.

Mike Huckabee is an affable fellow with executive experience. He's right wing socially, but his populist politics and his history of raising taxes will alienate the free market and libertarian Republicans.

Tom Tancredo will strongly appeal to the populist right and the Lou Dobbs crowd, but he'll be seen as too far right to be electable.

Jeb Bush would be the candidate most Republicans would prefer, but the Bush name makes him totally unelectable.

I don't know about other candidates / potential candidates.

Edit:

I forgot Mitt Romney. He has executive experience, but he is socially moderate, seen as a tax raiser, and is a Mormon to boot. He'll likely scare off both the Christian conservatives (who don't see Mormonism as Christian) and the economic right wingers.

[TimoDassss]

McCain/ Giuliani 2008
Giuliani / TBD 2016

[Gozmand]

Hillaryous!

[mr.supervideogoodfd]

Originally posted by LordShiva
The one on the right looks ****able. The other one though...

[psbiuigw]

No way Rudy goes far, even with Fox News behind him. Rudy is pro-choice after all, and has dressed in drag on stage, doing some self-depreciating humor. Also, IIRC, he happens to be fairly progressive for Republicans on homosexual rights.

Hagel finds himself in an interesting position. Aside from the War on Iraq and Immigration he is a very conservative Senator. However, on those two issues he is very left-leaning (wants to end the War on Iraq and seems to favor a path for illegals to become legal). Its a similar position McCain was in in 2000, being more conservative than Bush but being portrayed as a left-winger.

McCain has become the ultimate flip flopper, and after being the straight talk guy, that'll kill him in the end.

[Hinigyday]

Duncan Hunter, he's a pro-war Hagel, both served in Vietnam

[Impariclainna]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Duncan Hunter, he's a pro-war Hagel, both served in Vietnam Who the **** is Duncan Hunter?

I just wiki'ed him and... a Congressman? Not even a Senator? No way he gets through.

[Michmant]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Who the **** is Duncan Hunter?

I just wiki'ed him and... a Congressman? Not even a Senator? No way he gets through. People are talking about Guiliani who was just a Mayor.

JM

[NudiJuicervich]

Giuliani might get it, if only because it looks like McCain is starting to tank in the early polls. From a beltway perspective, only McCain, Romeny and Giuliani have built some sort of infrastructure. Nothing seems to have surfaced in terms of a Hagel organization. Brownback, Hunter and the rest are non-starters. Huckabee looks interesting, but at this point all he's been putting out there is "blah blah blah, lost 100 pounds, classic conservative" which makes his Jared the Subway guy with a bible.

My money is on Giuliani, but only if he starts getting serious about it soon.

[enentique]

Boy the Republicans look really screwed from this point. How old is McCain? Would he wait 4 more years?

[cauddyVab]

First off, do people really care THAT much about the Mormon thing? When Romneys dad ran for prez in '68, it didnt come up at all, AFAIK (George Romney was sunk by a gaffe)

Second - look at how, say, Kos, treats a Ben Nelson "we give him more slack than Lieberman, cause he had to win in Nebraska" Think the GOP voters arent able to see that Giuliani had to win in you know, NYC? Babylon on the Hudson?

Third - I dont see McCain as flipflopping so terribly. Hes more flipped on rhetoric - in 2000 he dug into the fundies, and now he makes nice. But on policy, he was anti-abortion in 2000, and hes a moderate on judgeships now. I dont see him as a real flipper.

I dont know if he'll be able to keep his temper under control. Hes done a pretty good job of it the last few years, subject to extreme provocation (I mean heres a man who really cares about victory in Iraq, saw Rummy tossing it away, and managed to be civil in his calls for Rummy to resign)

I agree that hes very tied to the surge - if that fails robustly, hes history. On the other hand if it succeeds a big piece of the right and center will see him as prescient (the ones whod hate him for supporting the war anyway probably wont vote GOP anyway)

Hagel, AFAICT, aint such a maverick. Not on judicial nominations, not on global warming. Not on anything except for policy, and there he hasnt really done anything maverick till recently (when it was politically safe) hes mainly been gone on talk shows and thrown hints of not liking neocons.

McCains real problem with the GOP is still McCain Feingold, again something on which hes been consistent - this bugs the hell out of the deeply partisan GOP right, and they wont forgive him. Not sure how that partisant issue will play among ideological GOP constituencies (There arent that many high Tory George Will type voters)

[GSgCGxsF]

Originally posted by Admiral
I still think that McCain, Romney, and Guliani will end up going down in flames, leaving someone with bona fide conservative credentials like Huckabee to be the nominee. Newt

[G778G9P0]

Uh... Guiliani is far from being JUST a Mayor. That's like saying Eisenhower was just a General.

Sans 9/11, Guiliani wouldn't even have been spoken about for the Presidency (even though he had a good track record among most for his work in NYC). His very liberal positions on certain issues though will undermine him, IMO.

He's also got a problem with unamiable divorces and corruption (remember Bernie Kerik?) ready to be dug up. IMO, he's a paper tiger.

Hes more flipped on rhetoric - in 2000 he dug into the fundies, and now he makes nice. But on policy, he was anti-abortion in 2000, and hes a moderate on judgeships now. I dont see him as a real flipper. He opposed overturning Roe last time around...

McCains real problem with the GOP is still McCain Feingold, again something on which hes been consistent - this bugs the hell out of the deeply partisan GOP right, and they wont forgive him. Not sure how that partisant issue will play among ideological GOP constituencies (There arent that many high Tory George Will type voters)

Until June, he supported a more robust public financing system for the Presidential election (the bill even bore his name), and has now abandoned it. He claims that it was due to conflict of interest...

He also flip-flopped on the 2001 Bush tax cuts (used to oppose them, now support them).

[addyta.org]

Originally posted by Ramo


He's also got a problem with unamiable divorces and corruption (remember Bernie Kerik?) ready to be dug up. IMO, he's a paper tiger.



He opposed overturning Roe last time around...

McCains real problem with the GOP is still McCain Feingold, again something on which hes been consistent - this bugs the hell out of the deeply partisan GOP right, and they wont forgive him. Not sure how that partisant issue will play among ideological GOP constituencies (There arent that many high Tory George Will type voters)

Until June, he supported a more robust public financing system for the Presidential election (the bill even bore his name), and has now abandoned it. He claims that it was due to conflict of interest...

He also flip-flopped on the 2001 Bush tax cuts (used to oppose them, now support them). even last time, McCain said hed like to see the point where McCain wasnt necessary. More importantly he said that stance on abortion wouldnt be a litimus test for judgeships, and Im quite sure he hasnt changed on that.

Taxes? well there could be a stare decisis thing - its one thing to oppose a tax cut, another to repeal one thats in place and that folks are relying on. Or he could have a different view of the macro economy now. As for conflict of interest, since he is now a pres candidate, that seems reasonable.


I suppose there IS an advantage to running when youve only been in the Senate for two years, and not had enough time to build up a complex and apparently contradictory record on issues. Two years, for example, isnt enough time to have been in office throughout a complete macroeconomic cycle, which would sure simplify ones views of tax cuts.

I have a lot more sympathy for those who have been in DC for a long time, long enough that changing positions in response to changing circumstances was necessary, in BOTH political parties, than for neophytes who loudly proclaim their consistency, while avoiding taking stands on controversial issues.

[GalasaKoll]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
First off, do people really care THAT much about the Mormon thing? The wingnut evangelicals do and they control the Republican nomination process so any Mormon candidate is DOA.

[Lenny Hensley]

even last time, McCain said hed like to see the point where McCain wasnt necessary. He did say that; he said this as well:
But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...cain082499.htm

I suppose there IS an advantage to running when youve only been in the Senate for two years, and not had enough time to build up a complex and apparently contradictory record on issues. Two years, for example, isnt enough time to have been in office throughout a complete macroeconomic cycle, which would sure simplify ones views of tax cuts. It's the same tax cut. He opposed it five years ago before the ballooning budget deficit, and supports it now. And remember, this is the guy who's the chief advocate of escalation in Iraq; that doesn't come cheap.