Who SHOULD be McCain's running mate??

[dick_fitts]

i disagree.

i think huck represents at least a third of the party, and more importantly, empassioned volunteers.

... And I think the only reason he's managed to get any votes at all in any of the primaries since New Hampshire is because most of us realize that Sen. McCain essentially has had a stranglehold on the nomination. That is to say that unlike in the Democratic primaries, where there has actually been a contest for the nomination, a lot of registered GOP voters haven't been showing up at the polls to vote because we've known for a while now -- yes, even before Romney dropped out -- who the GOP nominee will be. Lazy though it may sound, it doesn't really appear to be worth the trip to the polls: a waste of gas.

Huckleberry should himself take note of that, given his obvious proclivity for running out of it while cruising down the road. It's time for him to stop putting any more in his van's tank. Would definitely do the party he claims to love so much some genuine good.

He's all in it for himself. A real circus act, that Huckleberry. Pathetic.

[DemPlans]

Huckleberry should himself take note of that, given his obvious proclivity for running out of it while cruising down the road. It's time for him to stop putting any more in his van's tank. Would definitely do the party he claims to love so much some genuine good.

He's all in it for himself. A real circus act, that Huckleberry. Pathetic.[/color]

Huckabee might not have majored in Math, but he seems to know his GOP History, and Statistics.

YEAR Nominee : Runner Up
==== ====== : =======
1976 Ford : Reagan
1980 Reagan : Bush (41)
1988 Bush (41) : Buchanan
1992 Bush (41) : Dole
1996 Dole : Buchanan
2000 Bush (43): McCain
2008 McCain : Huckabee
2012 Huckabee

(One exception = a 2nd place Buchanan finish ensures a Bush nomination.

[MrSinatra]

please fix your above post, i did not say that.

as to DF:

you call names well, and i have np with your opinion on what huck should do from mccains pov, but you did nothing to answer my question as to why huck shouldn't be veep.

[dick_fitts]

please fix your above post, i did not say that.

as to DF:

you call names well, and i have np with your opinion on what huck should do from mccains pov, but you did nothing to answer my question as to why huck shouldn't be veep.

I never called you any "names," Mr. Sinatra. So whatever point you're trying to make there -- well, I guess you at least made that connection to yourself.

Obviously, I was talking about Huckleberry.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- and umpteen-thousand more times, if need be -- the Evangelicals in the GOP are doing more to bring down this party more than ANYTHING the far-left liberals could ever hope to do.

Listen to Sen. Obama's words, the key one being "CHANGE". Do you honestly think that anyone who sees how the GOP is allowing -- enabling -- the far-right Evangelicals like Huckleberry in the party to set the course of policy for its future can view such hijacking by them to be a good thing? Unless the GOP starts itself to open up to the idea of "change" within its own ranks, it may as well cede to the Democrats for the next century and beyond.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that people are sick and tired of old white men. And irrespective of his popularity in the South, the anachronism that is Mike Huckleberry is sounding the death knell for the GOP that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan long since defined as its credo.

That's why Huck shouldn't be veep. There is no way in hell he can help McCain carry any geographic area save the South -- and maybe not even there.

Change: That's why Huckabee has absolutely no business whatsoever being McCain's veep.

[MrSinatra]

please fix your above post, i did not say that.

as to DF:

you call names well, and i have np with your opinion on what huck should do from mccains pov, but you did nothing to answer my question as to why huck shouldn't be veep.

I never called you any "names," Mr. Sinatra. So whatever point you're trying to make there -- well, I guess you at least made that connection to yourself.

Obviously, I was talking about Huckleberry.

i never said u called me a name. i said u call names well. u just admitted as much. i only enter into it with the observation.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- and umpteen-thousand more times, if need be -- the Evangelicals in the GOP are doing more to bring down this party more than ANYTHING the far-left liberals could ever hope to do.

Listen to Sen. Obama's words, the key one being "CHANGE". Do you honestly think that anyone who sees how the GOP is allowing -- enabling -- the far-right Evangelicals like Huckleberry in the party to set the course of policy for its future can view such hijacking by them to be a good thing? Unless the GOP starts itself to open up to the idea of "change" within its own ranks, it may as well cede to the Democrats for the next century and beyond.

i don't care what empty rhetoric obama has or the fools that follow it. there is no there there, he's a pied piper, and his followers are fools.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that people are sick and tired of old white men.

the demonization of white men, esp christian men, continues.

And irrespective of his popularity in the South, the anachronism that is Mike Huckleberry is sounding the death knell for the GOP that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan long since defined as its credo.

That's why Huck shouldn't be veep. There is no way in hell he can help McCain carry any geographic area save the South -- and maybe not even there.

Change: That's why Huckabee has absolutely no business whatsoever being McCain's veep.

i disagree. he won the states in the south mccain will need.

and the idea that being an evangelical means you destroy the party or hurt the party is laughable.

maybe u didn't like either bush or reagan, but evangelicals put those 3 in office.

demonizing them now is simply despicable.

i'm not an evangelical myself, i disagree with them on some things and i don't like falwell or robertson or those types... but huckabee ruled from the governors office, not the pulpit, and your blanket dismissals strikes me as bigotted or at least rude. somehow i don't think i'd hear you say "single women are ruining the democrats" or "blacks are destroying hillary."

[dick_fitts]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that people are sick and tired of old white men.

the demonization of white men, esp christian men, continues.

Like the nation, the GOP is changing. Though I'm white myself, it's time we get used to it, if any of us truly wants this party to survive even as much as 20 more years.

And irrespective of his popularity in the South, the anachronism that is Mike Huckleberry is sounding the death knell for the GOP that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan long since defined as its credo.

That's why Huck shouldn't be veep. There is no way in hell he can help McCain carry any geographic area save the South -- and maybe not even there.

Change: That's why Huckabee has absolutely no business whatsoever being McCain's veep.[/color]

i disagree. he won the states in the south mccain will need.

Sen. McCain will win those Southern states anyway -- with or without the support of the Evangelical vote. It's a "lesser of two evils" thing, if you will.

and the idea that being an evangelical means you destroy the party or hurt the party is laughable.

Think so, eh? Okay then, see how many electoral votes a GOP nominee with a totally clueless, far-right, Populist -- and again, anachronistic -- veep like Huck is able to help help McCain procure in the traditionally-liberal Northeastern states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont. I'm willing to bet neither of us will be laughing at the results of that travesty of a ticket we see the day after the election.

maybe u didn't like either bush or reagan, but evangelicals put those 3 in office.

demonizing them now is simply despicable.

True, to some extent. But remember, Reagan's strength also came from his ability to communicate with typical "yellow dog" Dems who, drawn to his message of change (yep, there's that word again) became "swing voters" who opted to vote for the party, not the person. Neither Reagan nor Bush's chief strength came solely from Evangelicals, and it's a bit megalomaniacal for any Evangelical to assume as much. (And oh, btw, to answer your cleverly-worded ad hominem, back-handed sucker punch: Yeah, I voted for the elder Bush. I was too young to vote for Reagan in either of his terms.)

i'm not an evangelical myself, i disagree with them on some things and i don't like falwell or robertson or those types... but huckabee ruled from the governors office, not the pulpit, and your blanket dismissals strikes me as bigotted or at least rude. somehow i don't think i'd hear you say "single women are ruining the democrats" or "blacks are destroying hillary."

I have lived under the rule of Huckabee here in Arkansas for a little over 10 years. And though I know that certainly doesn't make me more qualified to speak about him than it does you, I can safely say that I'm fairly confident I'm a lot more acquainted with his Populist BS policies than you seem to be. You call me "bigoted or at least rude" for that? Fine. I call it real. And no, you wouldn't hear me saying something as ignorant as "... single women are ruining the democrats" or "blacks are destroying hillary" because that would be just, well, ignorant. Don't put words into someone else's mouth. That's a lot more rude than your suggesting that my disdain for Huckabee's anemic gubernatorial terms stem from anything more than the fact that -- based on my experience of having gone through his tenure here in Arkansas -- he was less of an overall good governor embodying the general will of the people of Arkansas than he'd likely ever be as our nation's vice president. And that ain't saying a whole helluva lot.

[MrSinatra]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that people are sick and tired of old white men.

the demonization of white men, esp christian men, continues.

Like the nation, the GOP is changing. Though I'm white myself, it's time we get used to it, if any of us truly wants this party to survive even as much as 20 more years.

and so what? do you take that to mean we need to be silent? we need to act like the fools fathers are portrayed as on sitcoms, or evil like in movies?

whats your point? just what exactly are you recommending? white people shutup?

And irrespective of his popularity in the South, the anachronism that is Mike Huckleberry is sounding the death knell for the GOP that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan long since defined as its credo.

That's why Huck shouldn't be veep. There is no way in hell he can help McCain carry any geographic area save the South -- and maybe not even there.

Change: That's why Huckabee has absolutely no business whatsoever being McCain's veep.[/color]

i disagree. he won the states in the south mccain will need.

Sen. McCain will win those Southern states anyway -- with or without the support of the Evangelical vote. It's a "lesser of two evils" thing, if you will.

in a general election vs obama? maybe, maybe not.

but for cash strapped campaigns, evangelicals are, and pardon the pun, a godsend.

tell me, how did huck make it this far?

national figure? nope.
party backing? hah.
cash? nada.

he had the support of people who identified with him and his own charm, thats it. i don't discount his family campaign style strategy. he has real volunteers, nationwide, not just the south.

and the idea that being an evangelical means you destroy the party or hurt the party is laughable.

Think so, eh? Okay then, see how many electoral votes a GOP nominee with a totally clueless, far-right, Populist -- and again, anachronistic -- veep like Huck is able to help help McCain procure in the traditionally-liberal Northeastern states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont. I'm willing to bet neither of us will be laughing at the results of that travesty of a ticket we see the day after the election.

bush won with quayle, the worst veep in history. people don't not vote for someone due to veep. they do the opposite however, they vote for someone b/c of veep. mccain needs to solidify the party. mccain is a third of it, huck is a third, romney is a third. but its the huck portion that can come thru for mccain, (unless romney would give mccain access to his bank account).

i simply don't share your disdain for huck or evangelicals, and no winning strategist would give this voter base the finger. thats just a bad idea, plain and simple.

maybe u didn't like either bush or reagan, but evangelicals put those 3 in office.

demonizing them now is simply despicable.

True, to some extent. But remember, Reagan's strength also came from his ability to communicate with typical "yellow dog" Dems who, drawn to his message of change (yep, there's that word again) became "swing voters" who opted to vote for the party, not the person. Neither Reagan nor Bush's chief strength came solely from Evangelicals, and it's a bit megalomaniacal for any Evangelical to assume as much. (And oh, btw, to answer your cleverly-worded ad hominem, back-handed sucker punch: Yeah, I voted for the elder Bush. I was too young to vote for Reagan in either of his terms.)

i never said soley, i am aware of reagan democrats, (as well as other republicans) . but evangelicals were huge in the base, clearly. reagan didn't need dems at all, he landslided, via his base.

and reagan didn't promote just the word change, as obama does. he actually said what he meant to do, and then he did it. reagan never had a cardboard sign that only had "change" on it. reagan was never that empty and hollow.

btw, reagan dems obviously voted for the man, not the party. any suggestion otherwise is silly.

i'm not an evangelical myself, i disagree with them on some things and i don't like falwell or robertson or those types... but huckabee ruled from the governors office, not the pulpit, and your blanket dismissals strikes me as bigotted or at least rude. somehow i don't think i'd hear you say "single women are ruining the democrats" or "blacks are destroying hillary."

I have lived under the rule of Huckabee here in Arkansas for a little over 10 years. And though I know that certainly doesn't make me more qualified to speak about him than it does you, I can safely say that I'm fairly confident I'm a lot more acquainted with his Populist BS policies than you seem to be.

fair enough. but i like the fairtax, and i like other ideas he has. i don't demagogue them as populist, do you?

it also seems to me your peers relected him, so your opinion is not the majority one.

You call me "bigoted or at least rude" for that?

not for that.

Fine. I call it real. And no, you wouldn't hear me saying something as ignorant as "... single women are ruining the democrats" or "blacks are destroying hillary" because that would be just, well, ignorant. Don't put words into someone else's mouth. That's a lot more rude than your suggesting that my disdain for Huckabee's anemic gubernatorial terms stem from anything more than the fact that -- based on my experience of having gone through his tenure here in Arkansas -- he was less of an overall good governor embodying the general will of the people of Arkansas than he'd likely ever be as our nation's vice president. And that ain't saying a whole helluva lot.

for this:

But according to Pastor Huckabee, we probably shouldn't be gambling, anyway.

clearly a swipe at his reliogious affiliation, or do you deny it? if not why say it like that? its obvious by now of your disdain for evangelicals.

and btw, i know secular liberals that are against gambling... its hardly just a "pastor" thing.

the Evangelicals in the GOP are doing more to bring down this party more than ANYTHING the far-left liberals could ever hope to do.

another religious bash. yet you say the blacks or hillary line are obviously ignorant... but not this?

again, i don't say they are above criticism, but doing more to bring down the party than anyone else? sounds bigotted, sorry. i don't know how you could justify such a broad sweeping generalization, given that evangelicals are such a large part of the party.

Do you honestly think that anyone who sees how the GOP is allowing -- enabling -- the far-right Evangelicals like Huckleberry in the party to set the course of policy for its future can view such hijacking by them to be a good thing?

far right?

are single women far left? are blacks who monolithically vote dem, far left?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that people are sick and tired of old white men.

its sickening to see you buy into the fashionable bash white men pop culture sickness.

Like the nation, the GOP is changing. Though I'm white myself, it's time we get used to it, if any of us truly wants this party to survive even as much as 20 more years.

so republicans and/or our ideals are solely the province of whites?

RIDICULOUS.

sorry, it all sounds bigotted to me, or at the very least, rude and unenlightened.

goldwater didn't "change" his ideals when he got his ass handed to him. there's a lesson to be learned there.

Sen. McCain will win those Southern states anyway -- with or without the support of the Evangelical vote. It's a "lesser of two evils" thing, if you will.

evangelicals now equal an evil?

not rude? not bigotted?

would you say 'obama doesn't need the blacks, lesser of two evils?'

Think so, eh? Okay then, see how many electoral votes a GOP nominee with a totally clueless, far-right, Populist -- and again, anachronistic -- veep like Huck

why is he "far right"? b/c he is evangelical?

kind of hard btw to be both far right and populist.

[6079smithW]

bush won with quayle, the worst veep in history

Hey, at least he didn't get indicted like Agnew.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

dick-

I think the major mistake you make is thinking that, for the GOP to grow, the Conservative message needs to change.

I completely disagree.

The emphasis should be to convince those who are willing to listen to join the Conservative movement. The genius of Reagan was that he was able to convince 'moderates' and Reagan Democrats that it was in their self-interest to join the Conservative GOP movement. He didn't alter what it was to be a Conservative, didn't water-down the message...certainly didn't move the message to the Left.

The GOP isn't going to win by becoming more like Democrats. Why vote for a faux Liberal when you can get the genuine article? We have to articulate the fact- and yes it is a fact- that the Conservative message of personal freedom and liberty, limited governmental intrustion into your daily lives, self-reliance and self-responsibility and maximizing your individual potential is the best way for one to live their life while at the same time arguing that the Social Democrat agenda of an all-powerful and pervasive nanny-government is the wrong prescription for them.

As to your argument that Huckabee isn't the right man for Veep, I tend to agree. I do not think that he can bring anything in particular to the race. McCain is almost certain to win the South with or without Huckabee. And you're right that Huckabee's religious message won't play well in the secular west and northeast (though frankly it's their loss). And the MSM and Democrats (basically the same thing) would ridicule Huckabee endlessly, saying that he's trying to establish a Souther Baptist Caliphate in Washington.

I liken Huckabee's position in the race now much as I did Ron Paul's place from the beginning of the campaign: at this point Huckabee will have to be content to influence the debate. Maybe he can get McCain to embrace the Fair Tax (doubt it but one can dream, right?) and to reject federal funding for embryonic stem cell experimentation- heck, maybe he can reinforce McCain's desire to scale back the size and scope of the Federal government.

[ScottT]

dick-

I think the major mistake you make is thinking that, for the GOP to grow, the Conservative message needs to change.

I completely disagree.

The emphasis should be to convince those who are willing to listen to join the Conservative movement. The genius of Reagan was that he was able to convince 'moderates' and Reagan Democrats that it was in their self-interest to join the Conservative GOP movement. He didn't alter what it was to be a Conservative, didn't water-down the message...certainly didn't move the message to the Left.

The GOP isn't going to win by becoming more like Democrats. Why vote for a faux Liberal when you can get the genuine article? We have to articulate the fact- and yes it is a fact- that the Conservative message of personal freedom and liberty, limited governmental intrustion into your daily lives, self-reliance and self-responsibility and maximizing your individual potential is the best way for one to live their life while at the same time arguing that the Social Democrat agenda of an all-powerful and pervasive nanny-government is the wrong prescription for them.

As to your argument that Huckabee isn't the right man for Veep, I tend to agree. I do not think that he can bring anything in particular to the race. McCain is almost certain to win the South with or without Huckabee. And you're right that Huckabee's religious message won't play well in the secular west and northeast (though frankly it's their loss). And the MSM and Democrats (basically the same thing) would ridicule Huckabee endlessly, saying that he's trying to establish a Souther Baptist Caliphate in Washington.

I liken Huckabee's position in the race now much as I did Ron Paul's place from the beginning of the campaign: at this point Huckabee will have to be content to influence the debate. Maybe he can get McCain to embrace the Fair Tax (doubt it but one can dream, right?) and to reject federal funding for embryonic stem cell experimentation- heck, maybe he can reinforce McCain's desire to scale back the size and scope of the Federal government.

Weapon,

I would never suggest that the GOP should "become more like Democrats" in order to try to win elections. God forbid.

Yet I'm still one of those who believes there are still rather significant differences between what some consider to be "moderate Republicans" (like, say, Lindsay Graham & Trent Lott) and "moderate Democrats" (like, say, Ben Nelson & Evan Bayh). And HUGE differences between them & mainstream Dems like Biden & Richardson. (The hard-left-wing, like Boxer, Feingold & Durbin, obviously aren't even worth mentioning in the same discussion with actual humanoids).

But for as much as many on our side love to espouse the "genius" of Reagan & this stated ability of his to "inspire" moderates & Democrats to the conservative "movement"........the fact is that in the two midterm elections during his presidency, he lost 26 house seats in the first one, and several more house seats & an incredible nine senate seats in the second.

NINE senate seats.

Was he already dealing with a Democrat majority when he took office? Yes. Did that make things more difficult? Certainly. But even so, I sometimes feel that there's a bit of "revisionist history" that tends to be told by loyal Reagan supporters some 20 years after-the-fact.

To be sure, the election results that occurred during his two terms aren't necessarily indicative of some great "migration" toward conservatism that took hold. In fact, the other side would argue those elections were a symbol of something exactly OPPOSITE. I certainly don't agree with that, either......but I do sometimes think that the credit he gets for "expanding" & "revolutionizing" the conservative movement tends to get embellished a bit.

Consider the huge illegal immigration flap that took place last summer. Thankfully, that "shamnesty" bill got killed. And if there is another attempt to pass one, it should be immediately killed again.

Had there been any such "principled resistance" when Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens in 1986 while declaring, "I support amnesty, because I believe in solving this problem compassionately"......it's almost certain that we never would've ended up in the mess that we did.

Yet Reagan got a 100% free pass. Still does to this day.

No, I'm not "blaming" him. Certainly not any more than anybody else. That's because, unlike the amnesty-supporters of today, Reagan was ALLOWED to get away with selling out to special interests (in that case, at least).

And there've been plenty of others who've claimed to carry the "Reagan coalition" mantra who deserved to be called out for their own neglect over liiegal immigration, but have also gotten away unscathed.

Probably the WORST offender of all who's never been criticized is Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich led the big wave of the "Contract With America" take-over in 1994. He was the Speaker Of The House---which would be second in line to the Presidency---from 1995 to 1999. The single most powerful conservative in our government. Today, he writes books, holds speeches & seminars, and gives endless TV interviews absolutely EXCORIATING the Bush Administration and the Republican party (and rightfully so, mind you) for their failures to take more action on illegal immigration.

The criticism is ligitimate.......but when it comes from Gingrich, here's my BIG, BIG beef:

Where in the hell was HE on this issue while he was speaker of the house??? Gingrich didn't leave that post until 1999.

NINETEEN NINETY-NINE. Is anybody going to try to convince me that we didn't already have a big illegal immigration problem by the mid-90's? Hell, I live in California. It was HUGE problem.

Gingrich?? He did absolutely NOTHING.

Did nothing. Proposed nothing. Attempted NOTHING. That a Democrat was in the White House is totally irrelevant. The fact is, he never even TRIED........and, in fact, there were PLENTY of reasons to try.

And yet Gingrich never did.

No, like everybody else, Gingrich punted. He kicked the can down the road. Too "dicey" an issue to tackle.

Then just five & six years later, with no political stake in the matter and a license to simply grandstand by his minions, he was running all over the country mouthing off about how everybody ELSE has screwed immigration all up.......and he doesn't even have the balls to raise his OWN hand & at least say, "Hey, I screwed up, too. MY congress should have done something.....and we DIDN'T".

If Gingrich would at least do that (which, of course, he WON'T), I'd have a lot more respect for him.

But it'll never happen. His ego (not to mention his fear of hurting his "Country Club" standing) won't let it.

Funny how, until just recently, Gingrich sounded for so long like one of Hillary Clinton's campaign managers while never missing an opportunity to throw the current administration under the bus.

[Red]

David Petraeus

He'd be my vote for "outside the beltway" VPs. He's a better fit for Huckabee than he is McCain simply because McCain is already strong on the war.

I think he's earned it and it may also be a popular move. Granted, generals don't often make good presidents, but he'd just be the VP. If things continue to go well in Iraq, he might be an excellent choice. The only problem is... the McCain is already strong on the war. It's the domestic side that he needs help on. Regardless, I think David Petraeus would be a popular choice and he's earned it.

My dream team would be Huckabee/Petraeus, but that would require Huckabee to win something.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

Scott-

I hope you didn't take my response above to be directed at you. It wasn't.

I just take great exception to those who think that Conservatives or what it is to be a Conservative needs to change with the times, 'moderate' its message.

Hogwash. Conservatism works every time it's tried.

Look at the 2006 Midterms. Democrats looked at districts where Bush narrowly won in 2000 and 2004 and found the most conservative Democrats they could to run against the Republican incumbents. Yep...Democrats ran to the RIGHT of the Republicans. And it worked like a charm. The bad news for these Blue Dog Democrats is that they were given absolutely zero power once elected as the far-far-far-Left Democrat agenda was advanced by the 100% far-far-far-Left leadership in the House. They should have seen that coming and ran as Conservative Republicans...but how were they to know?

On the topic of Reagan....

While it is true that his coattails weren;t as long as one might expect, the fact is that he was able to reach across the aisle in a way that Bush hasn;t and McCain can't. Bush and McCain can work with the current Liberal leadership in Congress only to the extent that they are willing to surrender the Conservative agenda. This incarnation of Democrats truly are "my way or the hiway".

But Reagan, by virture largely of his ability to take his case before the American people, was able to get Democrats to meet him more than halfway on the Conservative side of the issues, again and again. THAT'S what I'm referring to.

As for Reagan's version of amnest for illegals...it's one of the few faults I've found with him and his policy. The problem here is that he did compromise a bit further to the left of middle ground than he should have and believed that the Democrats, who controlled both houses of Congress, would follow through on their end of the bargain and close the borders. They didn't, and for much the same reason they won;t now. This is one of the instances wherein Reagan had the "trust" side of his famous proverb down but forgot the "verify" part.

As for Gingrich....

You know he was my choice for the GOP nomination for the get-go. If you're looking for someone with the vision of an Obama but has real and concrete plans on how to achieve those goals, Gingrich is your man. He is one of the very few truly visionary individuals of which I am aware.

I'd disagree that the fact that a Democrat occupied the White House during Gingrich's tenure as speaker was "irrelevant".

Bill Clinton is the consumate politician of our time. He had Reagain;s ability to communicate though he lacked any sort of moral compass that compelled him to do the right thing (much less the Right thing). Pretty much anyone who has met Clinton will tell you that he has the rare ability to make you feel like the only person in the room when he's talking to individuals, groups or the masses. He has the sort of charisma that Beelzebub would be jealous of and no conscience that prevents him from misusing it.

Clinton, like Reagan, was able to take his case to the American people, play the victim card and lie like a trooper to get his way. Managing to get the American public to place the blame for the 1995 government shut down on Gingrich and the Republicans was perhaps the greatest instance of propaganda and public manipulation since anything Hitler ever did. Gingrich had all the facts on his side...and yet lost in the realm of public opinion. And that's not the only example. Repeatedly losing to someone like Clinton had to wear on Gingrich to the point where he basically gave up in 1999. I've always wondered what if Gingrich had still been speaker once Bush was elected....or at least still serving in the House.

As for him throwing this Administration under the bus....if he has and is, he's not the only one to do so. Listen to the Conservative talking heads on tv and radio. While there are issues on which they (and I) still agree with President Bush, there is no longer the need to "carry the water" of the Bush Administration and defend everything they did, do and will do. While I think it's fair to say that Republicans have always been far more willing to break ranks with their leadership on matters of principle than our Democrat friends have ever been, we probably did continue to defend Bush on matters that he really didn't deserve our support.

Lookit...our nominee is almost certainly going to be someone who disagreed with probably half- at least- of the Bush Agenda and well over half of the truly large issues. Can Democrats ever point to a similar circumstance?

[Red]

Lookit...our nominee is almost certainly going to be someone who disagreed with probably half- at least- of the Bush Agenda and well over half of the truly large issues. Can Democrats ever point to a similar circumstance?

Bush isn't really that conservative anyway. I don't like neocons. I want a real, limited government conservative. Not a Christian who recognizes Socialist principals. I mean other than the tax cuts and his weak attempt a school reform how conservative was he? Did he ever try to reduce spending? The government has grown exponentially since he and the other neocons have been in office and I do want a change. I just don't know if McCain will limit government enough to satisfy me as a conservative any more than Bush did.

At least he's not pro abortion. That's the overriding factor for me in all elections. I'd vote for a Communist if they were against abortion and everyone else was for abortion.

[ScottT]

Scott-

I hope you didn't take my response above to be directed at you. It wasn't.

I just take great exception to those who think that Conservatives or what it is to be a Conservative needs to change with the times, 'moderate' its message.

Hogwash. Conservatism works every time it's tried.

Look at the 2006 Midterms. Democrats looked at districts where Bush narrowly won in 2000 and 2004 and found the most conservative Democrats they could to run against the Republican incumbents. Yep...Democrats ran to the RIGHT of the Republicans. And it worked like a charm. The bad news for these Blue Dog Democrats is that they were given absolutely zero power once elected as the far-far-far-Left Democrat agenda was advanced by the 100% far-far-far-Left leadership in the House. They should have seen that coming and ran as Conservative Republicans...but how were they to know?

On the topic of Reagan....

While it is true that his coattails weren;t as long as one might expect, the fact is that he was able to reach across the aisle in a way that Bush hasn;t and McCain can't. Bush and McCain can work with the current Liberal leadership in Congress only to the extent that they are willing to surrender the Conservative agenda. This incarnation of Democrats truly are "my way or the hiway".

But Reagan, by virture largely of his ability to take his case before the American people, was able to get Democrats to meet him more than halfway on the Conservative side of the issues, again and again. THAT'S what I'm referring to.

As for Reagan's version of amnest for illegals...it's one of the few faults I've found with him and his policy. The problem here is that he did compromise a bit further to the left of middle ground than he should have and believed that the Democrats, who controlled both houses of Congress, would follow through on their end of the bargain and close the borders. They didn't, and for much the same reason they won;t now. This is one of the instances wherein Reagan had the "trust" side of his famous proverb down but forgot the "verify" part.

As for Gingrich....

You know he was my choice for the GOP nomination for the get-go. If you're looking for someone with the vision of an Obama but has real and concrete plans on how to achieve those goals, Gingrich is your man. He is one of the very few truly visionary individuals of which I am aware.

I'd disagree that the fact that a Democrat occupied the White House during Gingrich's tenure as speaker was "irrelevant".

Bill Clinton is the consumate politician of our time. He had Reagain;s ability to communicate though he lacked any sort of moral compass that compelled him to do the right thing (much less the Right thing). Pretty much anyone who has met Clinton will tell you that he has the rare ability to make you feel like the only person in the room when he's talking to individuals, groups or the masses. He has the sort of charisma that Beelzebub would be jealous of and no conscience that prevents him from misusing it.

Clinton, like Reagan, was able to take his case to the American people, play the victim card and lie like a trooper to get his way. Managing to get the American public to place the blame for the 1995 government shut down on Gingrich and the Republicans was perhaps the greatest instance of propaganda and public manipulation since anything Hitler ever did. Gingrich had all the facts on his side...and yet lost in the realm of public opinion. And that's not the only example. Repeatedly losing to someone like Clinton had to wear on Gingrich to the point where he basically gave up in 1999. I've always wondered what if Gingrich had still been speaker once Bush was elected....or at least still serving in the House.

As for him throwing this Administration under the bus....if he has and is, he's not the only one to do so. Listen to the Conservative talking heads on tv and radio. While there are issues on which they (and I) still agree with President Bush, there is no longer the need to "carry the water" of the Bush Administration and defend everything they did, do and will do. While I think it's fair to say that Republicans have always been far more willing to break ranks with their leadership on matters of principle than our Democrat friends have ever been, we probably did continue to defend Bush on matters that he really didn't deserve our support.

Lookit...our nominee is almost certainly going to be someone who disagreed with probably half- at least- of the Bush Agenda and well over half of the truly large issues. Can Democrats ever point to a similar circumstance?

Weapon,

No, I did not interpret your response that way. Not at all, bro. For the most part, I agree with what you're saying. Just throwing around ideas.

And I agree with you that Reagan was, on balance, more effective at dealing with the left accross the board than Bush has been. My only point (and I have heard such astute pundits as Charles Krauthammer point this out) is that Reagan's record sometimes gets a bit "inflated" today by many of his supporters. And often at the unfair expense of others, who aren't now given the same level playing field that he was.

As I've said before, two things can be equally true & not exclusive of one another:

1.) Reagan WAS the best president of my lifetime.

2.) In this new age of the constant drip-drip-drip 1,440-minute-per-day news cycle, Reagan's legacy has been allowed much latitude by his admirers, with the mistakes he DID make being either minimized or completely overlooked. I can't remember exactly where I heard it (it may have been from Krauthammer as well), but the point was made that if Reagan had been reincarnated today as a presidential candidate with a different face & name but the same resume.......there would likely be many "attack dogs" on our side (who are self-proclaimed "Reagan conservatives") that would be accusing him of being a "liberal".

They would point to his "desire to promote open borders" with the amnesty bill, his raising taxes as Governor of California, as well as flip-flopping on abortion & nominating Anthony Kennedy & Sandra Day O'Conner to the Supreme Court, and would excoriate him as a "compromiser" & a "RINO".

I have absolutely NO doubt that this would be the case from many (and I think we both know who a lot of them would be. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that some of them are people that both you & I admire.)

Would this be fair?? Absolutely NOT. But unfortunately, it's become the knee-jerk political climate we've now come to live in. And to a great degree, Reagan DID benefit greatly from not having to deal with it from the Republican side of the aisle.

As far as Gingrich is concerned........that's where I will disagree with you. At least on an issue like illegal immigration. In four years as House Speaker---very RECENT years---he never, EVER spoke out about addressing the problem. Yet he's been given carte blanche to blast away about it NOW with full immunity.

Let me give you an example of a guy who WAS honest about his own congress's culpability in this mess: JD Hayworth.

He was one of the biggest "border hawks" we had in congress, and I was sick when he lost his seat in 2006. Hayworth blasted the Bush administration all day long about their slow response to address the problem. Still does now as a radio host.

The difference between him & Gingrich?? Hayworth has said REPEATEDLY that when he came into office as part of the "Contract With America" wave in 1994, immigration was a serious problem that they should have dealt with and publicly pushed for action on......and they DIDN'T. I have heard him say, on more than one occasion, "WE screwed up, TOO".

You would never, EVER hear that from Gingrich. He won't take responsibility for ANYTHING. Let me be clear that I am NOT questioning the man's competency, his intellect, or most of his core ideas. But when it comes to being a "team player" and taking responsibility in retrospect on issues as deep & complicated as this, I AM questioning his HONESTY a bit. He's gotten a FREE PASS on the issue of illegal immigration, he KNOWS it, and he takes FULL advantage of that "pass" by using others as a punching bag with full impunity from the right. And THAT gripes me. A lot.

Don't get me wrong-----if Newt had thrown his hat into the 2008 race & had gotten the GOP nomination, I would have voted for him in a HEARBEAT. Not even a question. And if he would've made a border security one of his major issues, I would be standing behind him.

But until the man comes clean & takes his OWN share of responsibility for neglecting the issue while he was one of the most powerful recent GOP representatives in the congress over the last 10-15 years, I will continue to cringe every time he uses the same paragraph to tell everyone A.) how horribly the Bush administration has "sold out" to the liberal agenda by "pandering" to Ted Kennedy on immigration.......and yet B.) how "great a White House administrator" Hillary Clinton would make.

THAT, my friend, is truly enough to make me reach for an air-sickness bag! In my opinion, it is "selective outrage" and political hypocrisy at it's most outrageous & self-serving.

[MrSinatra]

what about ben stein?

before u crucify the suggestion b/c of policy differences u may have, consider the charm and low key star power he brings to the ticket.

people still love him, and he actually has the background chops.