OT: 2008 Presidential Election

by **Rick** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:31 am

Whom would you vote for? These are the candidates so far from www.politicalgateway.com There may be more, but they are not listed there. Obama wasn't listed, but I added him because he made his announcement yesterday.

by **Wally_Hatchet** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:40 am

As of right now: Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter.

by **Rick** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:40 am

Sam Brownback - R is running as well.

by **Wally_Hatchet** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:45 am

I believe Evan Bayh has stated he has decided not to run.

I havent heard anything about Boxer or Dean running.

Dont forget about Julianni and McCain.

Gore and Rice have not entered the race and both have said they will not run in '08.

by **Rick** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:51 am

Well then this is a flawed poll. Sorry about that.

by **Barb** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:17 am

Wally_Hatchet wrote:As of right now: Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter.

I really like Mitt Romney. It's too bad the zealots of the Christian right probably won't vote for him because he's a Mormon. :roll:

by **lights1961** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:37 am

john mccain... Bush will be proven right in troop surge deployment by January 2008... Mcain who has been only guy on Bush side... will seize the moment....... everyone else will implode... think Howard Dean after Iowa 2004...

Rick

by **SteveForever** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:40 am

Isn't Edwards running and possibly Guilliani?

by **Barb** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:43 am

steveforever wrote:Isn't Edwards running and possibly Guilliani?

Giuliani would be great, but he's got too much personal baggage, I think. That doesn't matter to me, I''m just voting for who will be the toughest on National Security, with taxes my secondary issue. The rest of it just doesn't really matter all that much to me right now.

Yes, Edwards is running. He announced in New Orleans the day after Gerald Ford died.

by **conversationpc** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:06 pm

Barb wrote:I really like Mitt Romney. It's too bad the zealots of the Christian right probably won't vote for him because he's a Mormon.

Umm...There are some who feel that way but most Christians I know don't seem to think it is an issue. I think this is a red herring argument by some on the right who don't like the fact that there are a lot of Christians involved in the Republican party.

by **conversationpc** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:08 pm

Barb wrote:Yes, Edwards is running. He announced in New Orleans the day after Gerald Ford died.

Edwards...There's a guy that I just don't trust much at all. He just comes across as real slick and produced and just sickeningly over the top. I think I actually like Kerry more than him and that's saying something.

by **Barb** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:51 pm

conversationpc wrote:
Barb wrote:I really like Mitt Romney. It's too bad the zealots of the Christian right probably won't vote for him because he's a Mormon.

Umm...There are some who feel that way but most Christians I know don't seem to think it is an issue. I think this is a red herring argument by some on the right who don't like the fact that there are a lot of Christians involved in the Republican party.

I didn't mean the Christian Right as a whole -- I meant specifically the zealots and you know what kind of people I'm talking about! :lol:

by **conversationpc** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:28 pm

Barb wrote:
conversationpc wrote:
Barb wrote:I really like Mitt Romney. It's too bad the zealots of the Christian right probably won't vote for him because he's a Mormon.

Umm...There are some who feel that way but most Christians I know don't seem to think it is an issue. I think this is a red herring argument by some on the right who don't like the fact that there are a lot of Christians involved in the Republican party.

I didn't mean the Christian Right as a whole -- I meant specifically the zealots and you know what kind of people I'm talking about!

Yeah...People like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. :roll:

by **The_Noble_Cause** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:26 am

As head of the DNC, Howard Dean can't run.
Rice has been a sub-standard secretary of state and is a proven liar.
Anyone who is contemplating casting the lever for her is doing so strictly out of idealogical kinship or just thinks it'd be neato to see a black person or a woman take the White House.
McCain is a pasty-faced weasel.
Hillary is a fake Democrat just like her husband.
Edwards and Obama strike me as being a tad green, but maybe experience is overrated (just look at the career public servants that comprise Bush's cabinet: Cheney, Rumsfeld - could a newbie really do much worse?)
Brownback is against destroying embryos for stem cells. Embryos, which are inevitably destroyed anyways.
Clearly this guy is insane.

John Kerry is the dark horse. The 2004 election had a historic voter turnout for both sides. That ain't chump change. With the GOP evangelical vote still reeling from the Ted Haggard scandal and feeling un-energized due to '08 candidates of dubious morality (i.e. Gulliani, Gingrich, etc ) Kerry could sweep it.

by **ohsherrie** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:44 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Rice has been a sub-standard secretary of state and is a proven liar.
Anyone who is contemplating casting the lever for her is doing so strictly out of idealogical kinship or just thinks it'd be neato to see a black person or a woman take the White House.

I can't imagine any other possible reason for doing so. Nothing about her has impressed me in the slightest.

John Kerry is the dark horse. The 2004 election had a historic voter turnout for both sides. That ain't chump change. With the GOP evangelical vote still reeling from the Ted Haggard scandal and feeling un-energized due to '08 candidates of dubious morality (i.e. Gulliani, Gingrich, etc ) Kerry could sweep it.

Great points.

I heard this morning that a couple reporters from the Washington Post and one from somewhere else have started a website call www.politico.com . They gave up their jobs with their news organizations and are going to devote their time exclusively to digging out facts and sorting out issues from now until the elections. I think it could be really interesting and informative.

by **Wally_Hatchet** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:17 am

Barb wrote:
steveforever wrote:Isn't Edwards running and possibly Guilliani?

I''m just voting for who will be the toughest on National Security, with taxes my secondary issue. The rest of it just doesn't really matter all that much to me right now.

^ Those are my 1-2 issues too. My third issue would be ridding ourselves of illegal immigrants and keeping them out.

Latest Washington Post poll (1/21/07):

CLINTON - 41%
OBAMA - 17%
EDWARDS - 11%
AL GORE - 10%
KERRY - 8%

Next to Dennis Kuchinich, John Kerry is biggest idiot of all of the candidates and he doesn't have a chance in hell of being nominated or elected President. With that said, I hope he gets the nomination as it would guarantee a Republican win. :wink:

Here is the list of candidates so far:

Officially in or expected to run:

Bill Richardson - D
Dennis Kucinich - D
Hillary Clinton - D
Barack Obama - D
Joe Biden - D
Tom Vilsack - D
Christpoher Dodd - D
John Kerry - D

Rudy Giuliani - R
Duncan Hunter - R
Mitt Romney -R
John McCain - R
Sam Brownback - R
Mike Huckabee - R
Tom Tancredo - R
Newt Gingrich - R

by **The_Noble_Cause** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:41 am

Wally_Hatchet wrote: My third issue would be ridding ourselves of illegal immigrants and keeping them out.

You mean like George Bush, the man you voted for, and wants to grant illegals amnesty?

Next to Dennis Kuchinich,

The man called the Iraq War a farce since day one.
If we listened to people like him alot of American lives would still be around to hug their families and to reach their next birthday.

John Kerry is biggest idiot of all of the candidates and he doesn't have a chance in hell of being nominated or elected President.

With his saved-up treasure trove from the 2004 election, his odds may be better than you know.
Keep underestimating him. That's why many in Washington have dubbed him the dark horse.

Save your right-wing slime mongering self the trouble of pointing out how he also looks like a horse.
I am well aware of this.

by **Rockindeano** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:52 am

lights1961 wrote:john mccain... Bush will be proven right in troop surge deployment by January 2008... Mcain who has been only guy on Bush side... will seize the moment....... everyone else will implode... think Howard Dean after Iowa 2004...

Rick

Huh?

Bush proven right? Dude, it wasn't his decision to announce more troops. It was others. he simply ordered it after his plan was proven shit.

Jesus, I would love to know the average IQ of a republican. Embarrassing.

by **Rockindeano** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:55 am

I am sure glad that Newt and brownback are in there. They will surely destroy the GOP (what's left of it anyway). Those two morons are so right of right, they don't even register.

Thanks GOP.

by **fredinator** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:32 pm

This is very interesting--I would never have thought John Kerry as a dark horse... I really still like Edwards, but I'm hearing the same ol' chestnut that he's too slick, etc. I like Obama, but I don't like Obama; I think I feel the same way about Hillary... How about Chuck Hagle--I can't believe I actually like a Republican--talk me out of this, please.

So you all think John K is still a possibility? (I hope so; I really admire him...)

Nancy

by **Rockindeano** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:36 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
John Kerry is the dark horse. The 2004 election had a historic voter turnout for both sides. That ain't chump change. With the GOP evangelical vote still reeling from the Ted Haggard scandal and feeling un-energized due to '08 candidates of dubious morality (i.e. Gulliani, Gingrich, etc ) Kerry could sweep it.

Dude, I love ya, but you need to throw that Kerry card away. He has NO chance. Clinton will inhale his sorry ass. Hell, the Clintons will make sure he gats a cabinet position, and will surely make sure he gats his sorry ass defeated in the primaries before Super Tuesday. If he couldn't beat a piss poor candidate in president Bush, he surely has no chance against Clinton, Edwards or Obama.

by **lights1961** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:08 pm

RockinDeano wrote:
lights1961 wrote:john mccain... Bush will be proven right in troop surge deployment by January 2008... Mcain who has been only guy on Bush side... will seize the moment....... everyone else will implode... think Howard Dean after Iowa 2004...

Rick

Huh?

Bush proven right? Dude, it wasn't his decision to announce more troops. It was others. he simply ordered it after his plan was proven shit.

Jesus, I would love to know the average IQ of a republican. Embarrassing.

Dude, yes it was---I read an article late last summer about the Bush and his adminstration talking about troop surge for one last push for this spring....cant remember where I read it now---- Just remember, when the USA has its victory in IRAQ---OUR WAY...by finishing off the insurgents and then Osama is found---dead or alive, Bush will be validated----

Rick

by **Rick** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:10 pm

lights1961 wrote:
RockinDeano wrote:
lights1961 wrote:john mccain... Bush will be proven right in troop surge deployment by January 2008... Mcain who has been only guy on Bush side... will seize the moment....... everyone else will implode... think Howard Dean after Iowa 2004...

Rick

Huh?

Bush proven right? Dude, it wasn't his decision to announce more troops. It was others. he simply ordered it after his plan was proven shit.

Jesus, I would love to know the average IQ of a republican. Embarrassing.

Dude, yes it was---I read an article late last summer about the Bush and his adminstration talking about troop surge for one last push for this spring....cant remember where I read it now---- Just remember, when the USA has its victory in IRAQ---OUR WAY...by finishing off the insurgents and then Osama is found---dead or alive, Bush will be validated----

Rick

Whatever, he went to war because of WMD. This war should never have happened. I support our troups to the hilt, but they are fighting a war they shouldn't be fighting.

by **donnaplease** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:13 pm

I don't really see anyone there that I'd feel comfortable with at this point. I sure hope some better candidates make their way to the forefront, or we're screwed for '08. I was really hoping Mark Warner would step up, but I guess that's not happening this election cycle.

Where's Ross Perot when ya need him???

by **Rick** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:14 pm

donnaplease wrote:I don't really see anyone there that I'd feel comfortable with at this point. I sure hope some better candidates make their way to the forefront, or we're screwed for '08. I was really hoping Mark Warner would step up, but I guess that's not happening this election cycle.

Where's Ross Perot when ya need him???

by **Saint John** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:16 pm

lights1961 wrote:
RockinDeano wrote:
lights1961 wrote:john mccain... Bush will be proven right in troop surge deployment by January 2008... Mcain who has been only guy on Bush side... will seize the moment....... everyone else will implode... think Howard Dean after Iowa 2004...

Rick

Huh?

Bush proven right? Dude, it wasn't his decision to announce more troops. It was others. he simply ordered it after his plan was proven shit.

Jesus, I would love to know the average IQ of a republican. Embarrassing.

Dude, yes it was---I read an article late last summer about the Bush and his adminstration talking about troop surge for one last push for this spring....cant remember where I read it now---- Just remember, when the USA has its victory in IRAQ---OUR WAY...by finishing off the insurgents and then Osama is found---dead or alive, Bush will be validated----

Rick

"Validation" in Iraq is something that may or may not EVER come. President Bush made a decision several years ago to move the war against Islamist radicalism to Iraq. By doing so, insurgents from all over the world are pouring over Iraq's border to fight our military rather than over OUR border to murder our civilians. Consequently, morally correct or not, collateral damage comes at the expense of Iraqi civilians, rather than American civilians. It will never be able to be proven how many American lives have been saved by his decision to do this. Could be 0, 1, 100, 1,000, 100,000 or a 1,000,000. We'll never know. But we will hear a daily death count from Iraq. Something I think is very unfair.

by **Rockindeano** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:18 pm

lights1961 wrote:
Dude, yes it was---I read an article late last summer about the Bush and his adminstration talking about troop surge for one last push for this spring....cant remember where I read it now---- Just remember, when the USA has its victory in IRAQ---OUR WAY...by finishing off the insurgents and then Osama is found---dead or alive, Bush will be validated----

Rick

You do know that "IF" we (USA) achieves victory, which might happen, it won't be Bush in office when it occurs.

Actually, you are incorrect. Actually, Kerry said in the second presidential debate, that he thought that we should have went in with more troops. Hillary said it. Edwards said it. McCain said it. Murtha said it, although he is against the occupation.

Bush hasn't a clue, my friend. No clue at all.

by **fredinator** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:26 pm

DP: Who is Mark Warner? I've racked by pea brain and I can't think who he is?? :oops:

by **Rockindeano** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:27 pm

fredinator wrote:DP: Who is Mark Warner? I've racked by pea brain and I can't think who he is??

Virginias democratic governor.

He too, hasn't a chance in Hell.

by **fredinator** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:01 pm

I can't even picture him, that's embarrassing!! :oops:

Who do you think might win, Deano?

MR

OT: 2008 Presidential Election

Who would you vote for?

OT: 2008 Presidential Election

OOPS missed one.

Who is online