I don't think Guliani could handle a national election.
My folks hate him, and we have no connection to New York at all.
That said, I don't think McCain could make it either because, despite once being the Maverick, he is now just a Republican lapdog on most issues (although I must commend him for telling Bush to back off with the Swift Boat issue).
My eyes are on, suprisingly, Newt Gingrich to be one of the top Republican contenders in 2 years.
Gingrich was never the devil peoplemade him out to be. He was a real conservative rather than one of the fraud we have now. I didn't agre with him on much but he did get a decent working relationship with democrats to get important things done. The left hates to admit it but balancing the budget was as much Gingrich's doing as Clinton's.
That said, I don't think McCain could make it either because, despite once being the Maverick, he is now just a Republican lapdog on most issues (although I must commend him for telling Bush to back off with the Swift Boat issue).
And in leaving him out of the equation, Senator Kerry gave an unwarranted pass to his old friend Senator McCain, who should be ashamed of himself tonight.
He rolled over and pretended Kerry had said what he obviously had not.
Only, the symbolic stick he broke over Kerry's head came in a context, even more disturbing: Mr. McCain demanded the apology, while electioneering for a Republican congressional candidate in Illinois.
He was speaking of how often he had been to Walter Reed Hospital to see the wounded Iraq veterans, of how, quote "many of the have lost limbs." He said all this while demanding that the voters of Illinois reject a candidate who is not only a wounded Iraq veteran, but who lost two limbs there: Tammy Duckworth.
Support some of the wounded veterans. But bad-mouth the Democratic one.
That said, I don't think McCain could make it either because, despite once being the Maverick, he is now just a Republican lapdog on most issues (although I must commend him for telling Bush to back off with the Swift Boat issue).
And in leaving him out of the equation, Senator Kerry gave an unwarranted pass to his old friend Senator McCain, who should be ashamed of himself tonight.
He rolled over and pretended Kerry had said what he obviously had not.
Only, the symbolic stick he broke over Kerry's head came in a context, even more disturbing: Mr. McCain demanded the apology, while electioneering for a Republican congressional candidate in Illinois.
He was speaking of how often he had been to Walter Reed Hospital to see the wounded Iraq veterans, of how, quote "many of the have lost limbs." He said all this while demanding that the voters of Illinois reject a candidate who is not only a wounded Iraq veteran, but who lost two limbs there: Tammy Duckworth.
Support some of the wounded veterans. But bad-mouth the Democratic one.
And that is why only a non-lapdog Republican should get the nomination. But that doesn't happen in America.
That said, I don't think McCain could make it either because, despite once being the Maverick, he is now just a Republican lapdog on most issues (although I must commend him for telling Bush to back off with the Swift Boat issue).
And in leaving him out of the equation, Senator Kerry gave an unwarranted pass to his old friend Senator McCain, who should be ashamed of himself tonight.
He rolled over and pretended Kerry had said what he obviously had not.
Only, the symbolic stick he broke over Kerry's head came in a context, even more disturbing: Mr. McCain demanded the apology, while electioneering for a Republican congressional candidate in Illinois.
He was speaking of how often he had been to Walter Reed Hospital to see the wounded Iraq veterans, of how, quote "many of the have lost limbs." He said all this while demanding that the voters of Illinois reject a candidate who is not only a wounded Iraq veteran, but who lost two limbs there: Tammy Duckworth.
Support some of the wounded veterans. But bad-mouth the Democratic one.
And that is why only a non-lapdog Republican should get the nomination. But that doesn't happen in America.
Party politics rule supreme
good news is a Repbulican lapdog has about zero chance of getting elected in 2008 unless the Dems fuck up massively
nexuscrawler on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
And that is why only a non-lapdog Republican should get the nomination. But that doesn't happen in America.
Party politics rule supreme
good news is a Repbulican lapdog has about zero chance of getting elected in 2008 unless the Dems fuck up massively
I hope that this is true, but two years is a pretty long stretch. I agree that the Dems have an opportunity to show people that they mean business, and it also seems like the GOP is hitting some strategic and structural problems. But I think it'll take more than failing to massively fuck up to actually maintain electoral advantage.
I can't believe republicans are actually bringing up Newt Gingrich as one of their picks. I mean, Newt Gingrich? Does the contract with America ring any bells? The public was pretty clear this past midterm that congress fucked up. The same congress that Newt himself led to victory. Right.
He was forced out of the leadership eight years ago.
To the bleary persceptions of the public eye, Newt Gingrich represents the heady,idealistic days of the first astonishing conservative surge into power.
Don't count Gingrich out. He's got a lot of potential - maybe more than any other Republican candidate.
Don't count Gingrich out. He's got a lot of potential - maybe more than any other Republican candidate.
Gingrich is old news and was ousted for cheating on his wife IIRC. I don't remember him exactly being the most charismatic guy when the spotlight was on him, either.
I think the smartest republican choice, at least from the choices that republicans are talking about right now, is Mitt Romney. He's solidly conservative, but did a a decent job in a really liberal state and definitely knows how to manage. He put forward a novel plan for health care. He doesn't have a long voting record to attack. About the only obvious knock on him is that he's mormon. I think if things look desperate enough evangelicals will just ignore that.
The republicans are in a lot of trouble, though, unless the democrats run Hillary. They don't have any great looking candidates, and they definitely aren't rallying behind an early consensus pick like they did for Dubya.
Don't count Gingrich out. He's got a lot of potential - maybe more than any other Republican candidate.
Gingrich is old news and was ousted for cheating on his wife IIRC. I don't remember him exactly being the most charismatic guy when the spotlight was on him, either.
You remember wrong.
I think the smartest republican choice, at least from the choices that republicans are talking about right now, is Mitt Romney. He's solidly conservative, but did a a decent job in a really liberal state and definitely knows how to manage. He put forward a novel plan for health care. He doesn't have a long voting record to attack. About the only obvious knock on him is that he's mormon. I think if things look desperate enough evangelicals will just ignore that.
I think the smartest republican choice, at least from the choices that republicans are talking about right now, is Mitt Romney. He's solidly conservative, but did a a decent job in a really liberal state and definitely knows how to manage. He put forward a novel plan for health care. He doesn't have a long voting record to attack. About the only obvious knock on him is that he's mormon.
There goes the "I'd like to have a beer with him" vote.
Don't count Gingrich out. He's got a lot of potential - maybe more than any other Republican candidate.
Gingrich is old news and was ousted for cheating on his wife IIRC. I don't remember him exactly being the most charismatic guy when the spotlight was on him, either.
You remember wrong.
I think the smartest republican choice, at least from the choices that republicans are talking about right now, is Mitt Romney. He's solidly conservative, but did a a decent job in a really liberal state and definitely knows how to manage. He put forward a novel plan for health care. He doesn't have a long voting record to attack. About the only obvious knock on him is that he's mormon. I think if things look desperate enough evangelicals will just ignore that.
I don't think Mitt is going to get very far.
Mitt Romney was elected largely on name potential, having planned the Winter Olympics that occured two years before his election. (His papa was a governor too, but in Michigan, not Masschusetts.)
Why not, though? Who the heck are the social conservatives going to pick in the primary? Certainly not Giuliani, and probably not McCain either.
Mitt Romney was elected largely on name potential
... and I thought the consensus he did reasonably well with it even if he didn't light the room on fire. He's not an incredibly insipiring candidate, but every other name candidate has a ton of problems.
Don't count Gingrich out. He's got a lot of potential - maybe more than any other Republican candidate.
Gingrich is old news and was ousted for cheating on his wife IIRC. I don't remember him exactly being the most charismatic guy when the spotlight was on him, either.
I think the smartest republican choice, at least from the choices that republicans are talking about right now, is Mitt Romney. He's solidly conservative, but did a a decent job in a really liberal state and definitely knows how to manage. He put forward a novel plan for health care. He doesn't have a long voting record to attack. About the only obvious knock on him is that he's mormon. I think if things look desperate enough evangelicals will just ignore that.
The republicans are in a lot of trouble, though, unless the democrats run Hillary. They don't have any great looking candidates, and they definitely aren't rallying behind an early consensus pick like they did for Dubya.
You're forgetting Mitt is also the guy under whom gay marriage got passed.
Somehow I don't think that will appeal to the Republican base very much.
Indeed I do. Still, I wonder how well he could recover from this in a general campaign, particularly given how big a theme republican corruption is right now (source wikipedia):
Gingrich admitted to "unintentionally" giving inaccurate information to the House Ethics Committee during the course of the investigation. The committee did not indict him on charges of intentional perjury. The matter was settled when he agreed to reimburse the Committee $300,000 for the cost of prolonging the investigation. The payment was described as a "cost assessment" and not a fine by the Committee. He also agreed to not "spin" the story in the media, but admit publicly to his transgressions.
On January 10, 1997, the New York Times printed a story that revealed Gingrich, in collusion with other House Republicans, planned to abrogate his agreement by misrepresenting the ethics violations he committed. The story was supported by quotes from a taped phone conversation between Gingrich and his fellow Republicans. A firestorm of controversy ensued, with Republicans insisting that the privacy of the participants in the conversation has been breached, and others insisting that the public has a need to know about Gingrich's intent to violate his agreement with the Ethics Committee.
You're forgetting Mitt is also the guy under whom gay marriage got passed.
He sent letters to everyone in the U.S. senate asking for a federal amendment to ban gay marriage, twice. He reluctantly backed civil unions in MA because the only other option given to him by the court was gay marriage, but said repeatedly that he believed both were wrong. Then he went out of his way to revive a 1913 law banning people unable to marry outside the state from marrying in Massachusetts. Do you think conservatives will really hold against him having his arm twisted by the massachusetts judiciary? They'll blame those "activist liberal judges."
If anyone, you're going to have to look at Chuck Hagel to have a chance in HELL of having a shot in 08. Everyone here keeps saying "Christian Right Christian Right", but really, the smart Republican will ditch the fringe of the party and run for the center as fast as possible. It was Rove's relying on the megachurch fringe to do the GOTV (that's where his "I have the math" statement came from) and the massive incompetence of the Republicans that caused this crushing blow.
I think that the lunatic fringe has had its moment in the sun, at least for now. I just wonder how long its going to take before the Republicans realising that running further to the right isnt the answer.
I can't believe republicans are actually bringing up Newt Gingrich as one of their picks. I mean, Newt Gingrich? Does the contract with America ring any bells? The public was pretty clear this past midterm that congress fucked up. The same congress that Newt himself led to victory. Right.
He was forced out of the leadership eight years ago.
To the bleary persceptions of the public eye, Newt Gingrich represents the heady,idealistic days of the first astonishing conservative surge into power.
Don't count Gingrich out. He's got a lot of potential - maybe more than any other Republican candidate.
It makes sense, and Gingrich undoubtedly has a kind of firebrand charisma. On the other hand, he's indelibly associated with a revolutionary, immoderate, and probably impractical approach. I have a feeling that two years isn't enough that Americans will be itching for adventure again.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
You're forgetting Mitt is also the guy under whom gay marriage got passed.
He sent letters to everyone in the U.S. senate asking for a federal amendment to ban gay marriage, twice. He reluctantly backed civil unions in MA because the only other option given to him by the court was gay marriage, but said repeatedly that he believed both were wrong. Then he went out of his way to revive a 1913 law banning people unable to marry outside the state from marrying in Massachusetts. Do you think conservatives will really hold against him having his arm twisted by the massachusetts judiciary? They'll blame those "activist liberal judges."
They will indeed, but I'd guess that simple association with Massachusetts would be enough to damn him, as I'm sure he cooperated with the Mass state legislature on "lib'ral legislation" at least a few times during his first term. Also, he's a Mormon, which makes him quite a bit less attractive in the eyes of "Christian Voters". There's also the whole Big Dig thing, which was kind of everyone's fault, but can get pinned on him in a national race.
If anyone, you're going to have to look at Chuck Hagel to have a chance in HELL of having a shot in 08. Everyone here keeps saying "Christian Right Christian Right", but really, the smart Republican will ditch the fringe of the party and run for the center as fast as possible. It was Rove's relying on the megachurch fringe to do the GOTV (that's where his "I have the math" statement came from) and the massive incompetence of the Republicans that caused this crushing blow.
I think that the lunatic fringe has had its moment in the sun, at least for now. I just wonder how long its going to take before the Republicans realising that running further to the right isnt the answer.
Which would be all well and good, if you didn't have a primary where all the religious fundies in the red states were already under the impression that they were victims of persecution.
They will indeed, but I'd guess that simple association with Massachusetts would be enough to damn him, as I'm sure he cooperated with the Mass state legislature on "lib'ral legislation" at least a few times during his first term. Also, he's a Mormon, which makes him quite a bit less attractive in the eyes of "Christian Voters". There's also the whole Big Dig thing, which was kind of everyone's fault, but can get pinned on him in a national race.
Let's see, (I'm bored so I did some wikipedia digging, good to know this guy since he's the most obscure member of the big 3-4 on every conservative list)...
Conservative: spending cuts and fee increases to cover a state budget deficit, tougher drunk-driving law, various laws supporting former armed services members, vetoed pro-illegal immigrant education bill, "voluntary" greenhouse gas reductions.
Liberal: Assault weapons ban, supports stem cell research, tuition to top 25% Mass. students, promised to maintain pro-choice status quo while running for gov (has since changed his mind).
Arrest rates went way down on his watch, although the crime rate fell a little bit too. Denounced Harvard for hosting former president khatami. Oh yeah, and he called the big dig a "tar baby." Not exactly macaca but it's a start.
Nissl on
360: Purkinje
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
They will indeed, but I'd guess that simple association with Massachusetts would be enough to damn him, as I'm sure he cooperated with the Mass state legislature on "lib'ral legislation" at least a few times during his first term. Also, he's a Mormon, which makes him quite a bit less attractive in the eyes of "Christian Voters". There's also the whole Big Dig thing, which was kind of everyone's fault, but can get pinned on him in a national race.
Let's see, (I'm bored so I did some wikipedia digging, good to know this guy since he's the most obscure member of the big 3-4 on every conservative list)...
Conservative: spending cuts and fee increases to cover a state budget deficit, tougher drunk-driving law, various laws supporting former armed services members, vetoed pro-illegal immigrant education bill, "voluntary" greenhouse gas reductions.
Liberal: Assault weapons ban, supports stem cell research, tuition to top 25% Mass. students, promised to maintain pro-choice status quo while running for gov (has since changed his mind).
Arrest rates went way down on his watch, although the crime rate fell a little bit too. Denounced Harvard for hosting former president khatami. Oh yeah, and he called the big dig a "tar baby." Not exactly macaca but it's a start.
He didn't seem like a terrible governor, until he decided he wanted to run for President and then decided to pretty much leave the state and go around to GOP junkets where he slagged off Massachusetts, the state which he happens to still be governor of.
Healey wasn't a great candidate as his successor, but I think she was pretty damaged by Mitt giving Mass the sendoff finger.
I think that the lunatic fringe has had its moment in the sun, at least for now. I just wonder how long its going to take before the Republicans realising that running further to the right isnt the answer.
2/3rds of their party is that fringe.
The Republicans are no longer a centrist party at all.
My money is on the fundamentalists supporting Sam Brownback.
Looks like McCain has officially launched his campaign too (cnn has it here).
I'm personally looking forward to the next 18 months of primary infighting. With any look at all the Pubs will either tear themselves apart or end up with an interesting candidate I could consider supporting. Either way it'll be fun to watch
I can't believe republicans are actually bringing up Newt Gingrich as one of their picks. I mean, Newt Gingrich? Does the contract with America ring any bells? The public was pretty clear this past midterm that congress fucked up. The same congress that Newt himself led to victory. Right.
He was forced out of the leadership eight years ago.
To the bleary persceptions of the public eye, Newt Gingrich represents the heady,idealistic days of the first astonishing conservative surge into power.
Don't count Gingrich out. He's got a lot of potential - maybe more than any other Republican candidate.
It makes sense, and Gingrich undoubtedly has a kind of firebrand charisma. On the other hand, he's indelibly associated with a revolutionary, immoderate, and probably impractical approach. I have a feeling that two years isn't enough that Americans will be itching for adventure again.
The problem with firebrands is that fires burn out. Gingrinch definitely has charisma, but it's the kind of charisma that only lasts for a certain amount of time before you start seeing through it.
I think that the lunatic fringe has had its moment in the sun, at least for now. I just wonder how long its going to take before the Republicans realising that running further to the right isnt the answer.
2/3rds of their party is that fringe.
Without having a lot of evidence to back it up, this seems to be something people are forgetting in the wake of the last election. The demographics of the country haven't changed that much.
TroubledTom on
Wii friend code: 8704 3489 1049 8917
Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
I can't believe republicans are actually bringing up Newt Gingrich as one of their picks. I mean, Newt Gingrich? Does the contract with America ring any bells? The public was pretty clear this past midterm that congress fucked up. The same congress that Newt himself led to victory. Right.
He was forced out of the leadership eight years ago.
To the bleary persceptions of the public eye, Newt Gingrich represents the heady,idealistic days of the first astonishing conservative surge into power.
Don't count Gingrich out. He's got a lot of potential - maybe more than any other Republican candidate.
I can't see Gingrich being a serious contender. The hospital bed divorce from his first wife, the affair with his aide, the divorce from his second wife, the ethics investigation and NYT expose, calling women's menstrual cycles "infections" as an argument against females in the military,...
New Yorkers would choose Hillary over Giuliani in 2008: poll
NEW YORK (AFP) - By a 67-47 percent margin, New Yorkers think senator and former first lady Hillary Clinton would do a better job as US president than their former mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a Quinnipiac University poll found
New Yorkers would choose Hillary over Giuliani in 2008: poll
NEW YORK (AFP) - By a 67-47 percent margin, New Yorkers think senator and former first lady Hillary Clinton would do a better job as US president than their former mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a Quinnipiac University poll found
Guess that answers that.
Is this the poll that had George "Spend-half-the-last-year-in-Iowa" Pataki come in under a generic "unnamed Republican"? That was the hilarious bit.
The only democrat that came close in the NY poll I heard was Obama.
I can't believe republicans are actually bringing up Newt Gingrich as one of their picks. I mean, Newt Gingrich? Does the contract with America ring any bells? The public was pretty clear this past midterm that congress fucked up. The same congress that Newt himself led to victory. Right.
He was forced out of the leadership eight years ago.
To the bleary persceptions of the public eye, Newt Gingrich represents the heady,idealistic days of the first astonishing conservative surge into power.
Don't count Gingrich out. He's got a lot of potential - maybe more than any other Republican candidate.
I can't see Gingrich being a serious contender. The hospital bed divorce from his first wife, the affair with his aide, the divorce from his second wife, the ethics investigation and NYT expose, calling women's menstrual cycles "infections" as an argument against females in the military,...
The guy was a clown.
You're forgetting that the Republicans nominated George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Enough said.
Here's the beautiful thing about Newt Gingrich: He represents a kind of unfallen grace to the faithful of the Republican Party. Not only in the sense that he was forced out before the horrendous clusterfuck of the last few years, but in the sense that his career occured before the recent split between social conservatives and more limitted government types. He isn't caught in the crossfire of the culture wars the same way McCain is.
Posts
BEFORE ELECTIONS: "You can't rush this war on terror. It may take a decade. Or more. Timetables are bad."
AFTER ELECTIONS: "The Democrats have two short years to fix everything or else nobody will ever trust them again. Also, timetables are bad."
My folks hate him, and we have no connection to New York at all.
That said, I don't think McCain could make it either because, despite once being the Maverick, he is now just a Republican lapdog on most issues (although I must commend him for telling Bush to back off with the Swift Boat issue).
My eyes are on, suprisingly, Newt Gingrich to be one of the top Republican contenders in 2 years.
All the credibility from that was squandered here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/01/olbermanns-special-comment-there-is-no-line-this-president-has-not-crossed-nor-will-not-cross-to-keep-one-political-party-in-power/
And in leaving him out of the equation, Senator Kerry gave an unwarranted pass to his old friend Senator McCain, who should be ashamed of himself tonight.
He rolled over and pretended Kerry had said what he obviously had not.
Only, the symbolic stick he broke over Kerry's head came in a context, even more disturbing: Mr. McCain demanded the apology, while electioneering for a Republican congressional candidate in Illinois.
He was speaking of how often he had been to Walter Reed Hospital to see the wounded Iraq veterans, of how, quote "many of the have lost limbs." He said all this while demanding that the voters of Illinois reject a candidate who is not only a wounded Iraq veteran, but who lost two limbs there: Tammy Duckworth.
Support some of the wounded veterans. But bad-mouth the Democratic one.
And that is why only a non-lapdog Republican should get the nomination. But that doesn't happen in America.
Party politics rule supreme
good news is a Repbulican lapdog has about zero chance of getting elected in 2008 unless the Dems fuck up massively
As an aside, you should do your links with tags, so that you don't break the h-scroll.
He was forced out of the leadership eight years ago.
To the bleary persceptions of the public eye, Newt Gingrich represents the heady,idealistic days of the first astonishing conservative surge into power.
Don't count Gingrich out. He's got a lot of potential - maybe more than any other Republican candidate.
Gingrich is old news and was ousted for cheating on his wife IIRC. I don't remember him exactly being the most charismatic guy when the spotlight was on him, either.
I think the smartest republican choice, at least from the choices that republicans are talking about right now, is Mitt Romney. He's solidly conservative, but did a a decent job in a really liberal state and definitely knows how to manage. He put forward a novel plan for health care. He doesn't have a long voting record to attack. About the only obvious knock on him is that he's mormon. I think if things look desperate enough evangelicals will just ignore that.
The republicans are in a lot of trouble, though, unless the democrats run Hillary. They don't have any great looking candidates, and they definitely aren't rallying behind an early consensus pick like they did for Dubya.
You remember wrong.
I don't think Mitt is going to get very far.
There goes the "I'd like to have a beer with him" vote.
Mitt Romney was elected largely on name potential, having planned the Winter Olympics that occured two years before his election. (His papa was a governor too, but in Michigan, not Masschusetts.)
"And this man expects to bring owner and dignity to the white house?"
The funniest thing about this sketch is just the fact that it isn't funny. I'm trying to figure out what the punchline is.
Why not, though? Who the heck are the social conservatives going to pick in the primary? Certainly not Giuliani, and probably not McCain either.
... and I thought the consensus he did reasonably well with it even if he didn't light the room on fire. He's not an incredibly insipiring candidate, but every other name candidate has a ton of problems.
You're forgetting Mitt is also the guy under whom gay marriage got passed.
Somehow I don't think that will appeal to the Republican base very much.
Indeed I do. Still, I wonder how well he could recover from this in a general campaign, particularly given how big a theme republican corruption is right now (source wikipedia):
Gingrich admitted to "unintentionally" giving inaccurate information to the House Ethics Committee during the course of the investigation. The committee did not indict him on charges of intentional perjury. The matter was settled when he agreed to reimburse the Committee $300,000 for the cost of prolonging the investigation. The payment was described as a "cost assessment" and not a fine by the Committee. He also agreed to not "spin" the story in the media, but admit publicly to his transgressions.
On January 10, 1997, the New York Times printed a story that revealed Gingrich, in collusion with other House Republicans, planned to abrogate his agreement by misrepresenting the ethics violations he committed. The story was supported by quotes from a taped phone conversation between Gingrich and his fellow Republicans. A firestorm of controversy ensued, with Republicans insisting that the privacy of the participants in the conversation has been breached, and others insisting that the public has a need to know about Gingrich's intent to violate his agreement with the Ethics Committee.
He sent letters to everyone in the U.S. senate asking for a federal amendment to ban gay marriage, twice. He reluctantly backed civil unions in MA because the only other option given to him by the court was gay marriage, but said repeatedly that he believed both were wrong. Then he went out of his way to revive a 1913 law banning people unable to marry outside the state from marrying in Massachusetts. Do you think conservatives will really hold against him having his arm twisted by the massachusetts judiciary? They'll blame those "activist liberal judges."
I think that the lunatic fringe has had its moment in the sun, at least for now. I just wonder how long its going to take before the Republicans realising that running further to the right isnt the answer.
It makes sense, and Gingrich undoubtedly has a kind of firebrand charisma. On the other hand, he's indelibly associated with a revolutionary, immoderate, and probably impractical approach. I have a feeling that two years isn't enough that Americans will be itching for adventure again.
They will indeed, but I'd guess that simple association with Massachusetts would be enough to damn him, as I'm sure he cooperated with the Mass state legislature on "lib'ral legislation" at least a few times during his first term. Also, he's a Mormon, which makes him quite a bit less attractive in the eyes of "Christian Voters". There's also the whole Big Dig thing, which was kind of everyone's fault, but can get pinned on him in a national race.
Which would be all well and good, if you didn't have a primary where all the religious fundies in the red states were already under the impression that they were victims of persecution.
Let's see, (I'm bored so I did some wikipedia digging, good to know this guy since he's the most obscure member of the big 3-4 on every conservative list)...
Conservative: spending cuts and fee increases to cover a state budget deficit, tougher drunk-driving law, various laws supporting former armed services members, vetoed pro-illegal immigrant education bill, "voluntary" greenhouse gas reductions.
Liberal: Assault weapons ban, supports stem cell research, tuition to top 25% Mass. students, promised to maintain pro-choice status quo while running for gov (has since changed his mind).
Arrest rates went way down on his watch, although the crime rate fell a little bit too. Denounced Harvard for hosting former president khatami. Oh yeah, and he called the big dig a "tar baby." Not exactly macaca but it's a start.
He didn't seem like a terrible governor, until he decided he wanted to run for President and then decided to pretty much leave the state and go around to GOP junkets where he slagged off Massachusetts, the state which he happens to still be governor of.
Healey wasn't a great candidate as his successor, but I think she was pretty damaged by Mitt giving Mass the sendoff finger.
2/3rds of their party is that fringe.
The Republicans are no longer a centrist party at all.
My money is on the fundamentalists supporting Sam Brownback.
I'm personally looking forward to the next 18 months of primary infighting. With any look at all the Pubs will either tear themselves apart or end up with an interesting candidate I could consider supporting. Either way it'll be fun to watch
The problem with firebrands is that fires burn out. Gingrinch definitely has charisma, but it's the kind of charisma that only lasts for a certain amount of time before you start seeing through it.
Without having a lot of evidence to back it up, this seems to be something people are forgetting in the wake of the last election. The demographics of the country haven't changed that much.
Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
The guy was a clown.
Guess that answers that.
Is this the poll that had George "Spend-half-the-last-year-in-Iowa" Pataki come in under a generic "unnamed Republican"? That was the hilarious bit.
The only democrat that came close in the NY poll I heard was Obama.
You're forgetting that the Republicans nominated George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Enough said.
Here's the beautiful thing about Newt Gingrich: He represents a kind of unfallen grace to the faithful of the Republican Party. Not only in the sense that he was forced out before the horrendous clusterfuck of the last few years, but in the sense that his career occured before the recent split between social conservatives and more limitted government types. He isn't caught in the crossfire of the culture wars the same way McCain is.