Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Dec 22, 2006.
How would you vote if this is the 2008 presidential ballot?
I voted for Mitt. :thumbs:
I'd write in a name.
Mitt doesn't have a chance of winning the Republican nomination. You may think differently, but among the conservative, religious right Republicans here in Tennessee, the fact that he is Mormon is the disqualifying factor, though I have also heard that if he's liberal enough to get elected governor of Massachusetts, he's too liberal for Southern Republicans.
I'm leaning very strongly toward a third party nominee, perhaps the Constitution Party or the American Independents. I don't see a Republican or Democrat on the list right now that I'd vote for, with the exception of John Edwards and I'm not sure his chances are all that good to win his party's nomination. The Democrats in the race are lining up for VP and cabinet positions in a Clinton presidency, which is the most likely outcome.
Rush Limbaugh would have a ball with that for at least four years. :laugh:
Mitt and McCain are pretty much lining up all of the GOP strategists and insiders, with Guiliani getting a few.
The folks you mention may not find anyone to their liking in the GOP primaries and sit them out - thus being a non-factor.
But, personally, I think that Mitt will be able to defuse the religion issue much like John F. Kennedy did in 1960 and that he will convince enough social conservatives that he is sincere in his stances on social issues that he can win the GOP nomination.
Bear in mind that it is over a year before the Iowa caucuses. And that is almost an eternity in politics. Remember that Howard Dean was being talked as a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination leading up to the Iowa caucuses in 2004. That didn't exactly work out for him.
As of right now, this would be my vote also. I don't know much about Mitt, so that could change.
In the end, it isn't going to matter because Hillary is gonna be president, and Barak will be VP.
This is one time I hope you are correct!
BTW, I voted for Hillary Clinton.
No one I liked was up there. MCain or Obama would be good. Trust has become an issue for me.
Will someone please tell me why they would want Obama for president besides the fact that he is young, black and articulate. What are his credentials? Name some legislation. What has he done?
In Oklahoma such an action is the moral equivalent of trashing
The problem with the poll is assuming the nominees of each party. It is 90% sure Mitt Romney will not be the republican nominee, and Hillary could be beaten for the democratic nomination. No one in the news media now for either major party is worthy of the office.
If you will notice the title of this thread includes the word "hypothethical".
I find it amusing how people are already saying that this person can't win or this person is a shoo-in - like people were saying about Howard Dean being a shoo-in before the Iowa caucuses where he got whipped.
It reminds me of sports where people say one team can't lose a particular game or one team can't win a particular game - and then that team loses or the other team does win.
I guess we humans really don't learn from history.
Read my post again. Hillary is not a shoe in, as you put it. On the other side, Mitt Romney is unelectable. He has already flip flopped on major moral issues of the day, and it more than 2 years until the next president takes office. That is just what this country does not need. To say a position "evolved", what a bunch of baloney. How does a position evolve from murder to life?
You mean, like Ronald Reagan did?
Or like a good friend of mine at work did? Are you calling my friend a liar?
Back to trust.
SURE peoples positions evolve. Some of mine have over the years.
However when a polititions positions evolve 90 degrees, on several issues, right before they decide to run for president, bringing them in line with the base of their party. You can not blame people for wondering if they are being truthful.
Your friend has nothing to do with a politician or this situation. Since I have never met him, how could one possibly comment. Sounds like a silly question to me.
As far as the term liar goes that you use in a work place, that seems to be limited to management.
You were making a general comment that sounded like you did not think that any person could change from being pro-abortion to being pro-life.
But I see that after I called you on it that you have crawfished away.
A smart move on your part.
Yes, this is a goal that Mitt's campaign will have to accomplish. But I think that Christians should give the man the opportunity to prove his bona fides and if he they decide he is genuine that they should welcome him into the pro-life camp - not throw him into the trash because he used to be pro-abortion.
The apostles in Jerusalem didn't trust the apostle Paul after his conversion but his conversion proved to be genuine.
Mitt's a Mormon, and until he has a Christian conversion experience, and denies his Mormon faith, his support among the evangelical right wing of the Republican party will be as close to non-existent as it can get. Frankly, I'd vote for a liberal Democrat before I'd vote for a Mormon, knowing what I know about Mormonism.
Aside from that, you can't be the governor of one of the most liberal states in the country without making political compromises that the right wing of the Republican party will never accept. I don't care how much public pronouncement Mitt makes about his "position," the fact of the matter is that in the next two years, the state legislature in Massachusetts will make absolutely certain that he either has to compromise some more, or loses his effectiveness and either of those scenarios is a death sentence to his faint presidential aspirations.