[tegemu]

What is your take on the recent group of Republicans who spoke about being a contender for the Repub's next candidate for Pres - as regards their stand on guns and RKBA?

[boofus]

Neither Guiliani or Bloomberg or McCain would get my vote. If they nominate those nutsacks I will stay home on election day.

[ArmedBear]

They're all authoritarians.

I'm thinking the Republicans are floating Guiliani to make McCain more palatable. Bloomberg has no redeeming qualities.

At least McCain has Western instincts.

I'd vote for McCain over Hillary, but only because I think he, while a pathetic attention whore and a statist, is not evil at the core in the same way as she.

[seeker_two]

If these are the best the Republicans have to offer, the conservative base will be conspicuously absent in '08.... :scrutiny:

We're not buying the "lesser of two liberals" excuse any longer... :cuss:

[ArmedBear]

That's nice, seeker.

Sit and wait for the Republicans to come up with someone, and then don't vote for him/her.

Way to get involved in your country.

Sorry, but "don't blame me, I voted for {Libertarian, Green, CP, or P&F candidate}" is a load of horsecrap. And I'm an LP member.

How about, "Blame me! I was too busy jerking off with my little group of non-joiners to help get a good candidate through the primaries. In real terms, I did nothing but complain."

If, in fact, you volunteered and did some substantial work to help a 3rd party campaign, you get a pass from me. But absent real work and commitment to a third party campaign, a vote for an obscure 3rd party candidate is no different from writing in "Mickey Mouse."

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Nobody gets to be the Republican candidate for President without going through the primary election first. If we let an anti-gun candidate win the primary, then we have only ourselves to blame for the choices we get.

As for the candidates mentioned, Bloomberg has no redeeming qualities to my mind and is actively anti-gun. Giuliani at least can lead; but is also anti-gun.

McCain participated in shredding free-speech under the guise of campaign finance reform and has actively supported extending this law to the Internet to further stifle speech. In addition to that, he is the recipient of over $2 million in campaign funds from Andrew McKelvey, former director of Handgun Control, Inc. McCain has actively lobbied for legislation proposed by McKelvey's new gun control group, Americans For Gun Safety and has introduced several "gun show" bills pretty much written by AGS.

If any of those candidates win the Republican primary, we are going to face some ugly choices.

[ArmedBear]

Didn't know McCain had gone that far. My feeling about McCain is that he's dirty; I just can't put my finger on it. Campaign money has something to do with it. McCain-Feingold and the Savings and Loan scandal should have been enough to get him voted out of office, but he's really good at the attention-whore game.

What's surprising is that AZ voters support the guy.

Time for me to register Republican, so I can vote in the primaries.

[Standing Wolf]

They're all authoritarians.

I'm inclined to call them "statist parasites," but "authoritians" is every bit as accurate, as well as shorter.

[TooTaxed]

It was McCain who prevented the NRA from being active in campaigning the last 60(?) days prior to election day.:fire:

On the other hand, Condeleeza Rice is very strongly pro-gun rights, besides being a highly intelligent, articulate and gutsy lady. If she can be persuaded to run, she would have this Southern boy's vote.:eek:

As far as I can tell, all Democrat front runners are strongly anti-gun rights.:cuss:

[hvengel]

Condeleeza Rice would also likely pull a significant number of Black votes if she were running. Black voters also tend to vote on strick party lines so that has the possible side effect of bringing these votes in for Rebpublican candiates farther down the slate. If that happened it would hurt the Dems bad.

I should add that of the Repub candidates that have been talked about in then press she is the only one that I would willingly vote for.

[seeker_two]

ArmedBear: I'll let my sig answer your question....

Rice would get my support. She is far closer to the Reagan-conservative idea of the conservative base than any of the others mentioned so far....

But I think the neo-Con (-artist) Republicans will get a rude awakening in '08 if they run McCain, Bloomberg, Giuliani, or any other RINO... :uhoh:

[mwelch8404]

Yes. http://www.constitutionparty.org/ is seeing a big upswing in Utah, too.

[hwp]

Maybe they can win Utah's 5 electoral votes............................... when a rodeo bull flies out of a rat's butt.

My prediction:

No third party candidate will win a single COUNTY in the 08 presidential election.

I wonder how much "upswing" the constitution party has had in Utah?

How many US congressional seats?
How many seats in the state house or senate?
How many Sheriff's?
How many dog catchers?


Just answer this question:

Due to the recent "big upswing" of the constitution party in the most conservative state in the union, how many elected officials (at any level) were elected running on the Constitution party ticket?

Nuff said.


Tell me what the pie in sky taste like :rolleyes: fellas?

[RealGun]

- as regards their stand on guns and RKBA?

I am taking a closer look at George Allen. I don't expect any of them to be particularly or proactively a gun nut's ideal candidate. It doesn't matter a whole lot, because the Democrat will be dangerous in any case.

[Smurfslayer]

Senator Allen has been extremely helpful with the effort to repeal the NPS ban on self defense.

http://bighammer.net/pages/24/index.htm

[Rockrivr1]

You have to watch out for the Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney. In a recent poll it shows that he's gaining a lot of support. He may be a sleeper. He is a Republican, but no friend to gun owners. When he we running for Governor, he was asked about whether he planned on changing any of our states gun laws. He stated that he though our laws were fine the way they were and he had no plans to change them. :banghead:

[AJ Dual]

Condi has said repeatedly she's not interested in running for President. It's now to the point I'm beginning to believe her. :(

The main problem, as I see it, is she's too smart to want the job. :rolleyes:

Which of course, is why she'd be perfect for it. :banghead:

[Lone_Gunman]

Condeleeza Rice would also likely pull a significant number of Black votes if she were running

Disagree. I don't think black people will vote for her. She will be accused of being an Uncle Tom, just like Colin Powell.

As for Mitt Romney, I don't think the Republicans will nominate a New Englander. The last person from up there to win an election was JFK. I don't want a RINO candidate, and I especially don't want a Massachusetts RINO. Until I know more about him, I am opposed to him.

[CarbineKid]

Lets see theres Jeb Bush, Mit Romney, and the guy i'de like to se RIs own Donald Carceri(but that will never happen). Then theres always Colin Powell, and the guys whos still my favorite non politician General Stormin Norman(Im not going to even try to spell his last name).

[Lobotomy Boy]

I disagree about Rice not pulling the black vote. There are huge numbers of black people who don't vote Democrat because they don't vote at all. Someone like Rice would draw a lot of votes from black voters who normally don't vote at all.

Until someone better steps up, she is the only candidate I could support.

[ARperson]

I'm sure this hasn't made it outside the state lines of Indiana, one of our local Congress Critters has made some discussions about possible contenders for POTUS in '08. Mike Pence.

On the whole, I'd have to say I like the idea. One of our local radio talk show guys has Pence on every week, and they frequently joke how Pence has been quasi-blacklisted by the Prez because he won't toe party line if it doesn't fit with his (Pence's) conservative platform. And conservative he is.

Another Indiana boy who has been getting some headlines (though maybe only in our state) is Senator Evan Bayh. A democrat and former governor of the state, I'd say he's got a good chance of getting Indiana to go Dem for Prez for the first time in long, long, long time. However, if it does look like he's got a chance, I'm getting big time involved, since this man routinely follows Ted Kennedy's actions like a love-sick puppy. Hoosier values my arse. He's as liberal in his voting record as the worst of them. Trouble is, most Hoosiers won't see it since he was (had to be) fairly conservative as governor.

But aside from these local possibilities, I am not happy with the names that appear to be popping up as contenders. For the first time in my life, I will probably vote for the better candidate, rather than voting to keep the democrat out. If that means this country goes down hill because the conservative vote gets split, so be it. We're on that slippery slope anyway. And if flirting with disaster wakes up America, that's all the better. If it doesn't, well, the tree of liberty is looking pretty thirsty. 230 years is a long time to expect a country to survive without any real cultivating and nourishment.

[Moondoggie]

I agree, AR person. Sometimes you gotta lance a boil before it will begin to heal....YEEEOUCH!

We suffered 8 yrs with Clintons in the White House and managed to survive.

"We" were relieved that Gore/Kerry didn't get the job, but what has Bush done for us besides tax cuts? Fix Social Security...nope. Close the border with Mexico....nope. Anything else of his own initiative...nope. Without 9/11 he'd be a zero issue president.

The biggest part of the problem inside the beltway is the perpetually re-relected representatives who have devised a byzantine system of obfuscation that hasn't been seen since the Ming Dynasty. Small wonder that 86% of respondents in a recent poll stated that they didn't think we needed a country anymore. I can see their point of view.

Term limits would be a great start.

[wingnutx]

Time for me to register Republican, so I can vote in the primaries.

Time for me to register Independant, which lets me vote in either primary in AZ.

Romney will never get nominated. Too many people (myself not included) will never vote for a Mormon.

I'd like to see Rice run, at least as VP. She's more a quiet brainy type anyway, so VP might be perfect for her.

[LAR-15]

Tom Tancredo said he will run and if he does I can vote for him with a good conscience.

[neoncowboy]

I can't think of any republican besides Condi that I would be willing to vote for. Even that is pretty scary...I'm pretty sure she was more than a little influential in the design and execution of the Patriot Act and guess she would continue in her mentor's tradition of gobbling up more power and more money for Uncle Sam...

I figure a Hillary administration is about just what we need to get the republicans to start acting like conservatives again.

[beerslurpy]

If we let an anti-gun candidate win the primary, then we have only ourselves to blame for the choices we get.

Yes. Vote in your damn primaries people. It is so frustrating when people sleep through all the political action and then whine in November. The real election is during the primary. Getting good candidates is the key to having good election results. If you dont participate in this process, the election will be decided before it happens, usually in a way you dont approve of.

[Lone_Gunman]

Lets see... the primaries are important, but exactly who in the 2000 Republican primary should we have voted for?

The choices in that primary were very weak.

[stevelyn]

What's your take?

I think we're hopelessly and catastrophically screwed.:what: The next couple of election cycles are going to change things for the worse nationally.

Due to Bush's tilting at windmills in Iraq, and spending like a Great Society democrat, the republicans are going to get their collective arses handed to them in the mid-term elections. They've been given the chance to shine and we've barely gotten a faint glow from them.:fire: Congress will shift left this November by a comfortable margin.:mad:

From the current rogues gallery of wannabes, there isn't one on the list I could in good conscience vote for as president. Rice will have my vote if she runs.
The best we can possibly hope for as it stands now, is for the elections to create an absolute gridlock where nothing neither helping or harming can be accomplished. Unfortunately that leaves running the country in the hands of unelected bureaucratic pukes for four years.

We're still screwed.:uhoh:

[Waitone]

Some politicos are quietly saying conditions are ripening for a 3rd party candidate. Not sure I agree.

Condi may be attractive as a candidate after she has proven herself as an elected official. Problem for me is I want to wash off anything having to do with the Bush family. Full stop.

[Gaiudo]

Given that Tom Delay won the straw poll, does that hold any water for his viablity? He's got an excellent gun rating from GOA and NRA.

However, I wonder if the recent lobbyist scandals would hurt him enough to bring him out of contention. Plus, we are looking at a BIG time politician, we are talking the biggest out there in the Repub circles. Might make for a viable canidate, but also we get stuck with a true politician.

wish Condi would run.

Nick

[Sylvan-Forge]

http://www.ronpaul.org/

[RealGun]

- as regards their stand on guns and RKBA?

Condi Rice is not on the list. And stop pretending that she stands separate from the war in Iraq, taking shots at Bush on the one hand and fawning over Condi Rice on the other. If all you care about is her support of gun ownership, leave it at that. She's a hawk, don't kid yourself. Her job is to position Iran and Syria as the next bad guys. Listen to her sometime. I support all that as long as mothers understand why their sons and daughters are dying in the process and they were given the straight story.

What I don't get is pretending that Rice is that different from George Bush, except that Bush is better qualified by way of experience as a Governor of a large State (Texas). Which one you prefer to watch and listen to is superficial.

Rice, like Powell, is too good for the ugly process of getting elected. Slipping in as Cheney's replacement would be perfect.

We have no idea who the real Condi Rice is as a political animal. All we know is that she represents someone else and that most foreign policy is per her advice, planning, or concurrence.

[Lobotomy Boy]

Condi may be attractive as a candidate after she has proven herself as an elected official. Problem for me is I want to wash off anything having to do with the Bush family.

I understand the sentiment entirely and believe she lied to us, or at least exaggerated to a criminal degree when presenting the case for war. But watching her perform her duties as Secretary of State has given me some hope. Unlike the Bush family, which seems to have been clubbed upside the head with the stupid stick when it comes to genetics, Rice is brilliant. Yes, she could be considered a treacherous liar, or at the very least a cynical pragmatist, but I think that may be just what we need to negotiate the treacherous political waters of the 21st century. The polar opposite would be some sort of naive ideological moonbat like Jimmy Carter, which is exactly what we don't need. Granted Rice played a crucial role in getting us into this mess; that doesn't negate the fact that she's well equipped to get us out of it. I think she is.

She's a hawk, don't kid yourself. Her job is to position Iran and Syria as the next bad guys. Listen to her sometime.

I have become more and more of a hawk myself. I originally thought that an Iraqui occupation was unwinnable and that while Saddam Hussein was an A-hole, it wasn't worth the cost and effort to depose him. I now think I may have been wrong on both counts. With the benefit of hindsight, I think it was worth it, and the war may have been winnable, had the arrogant, isolated trioka of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush listened to their generals and done the job right. Instead, they punished anyone who disagreed, leaving incompetent yes men like Tommy Franks to prosecute the war according to their egg-headed ideological visions.

Ultimately I think Rice shoulders her share of the blame for this too. I just believe, after watching her in action especially regarding Iran, that she is much, much smarter and more capable than the chickenhawk trio of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush.

BTW, while I don't think war with Syria or Iran is a good idea right now, I agree with Rice that they are "bad guys."

[Lone_Gunman]

I think Rice is nothing more than a theoretical candidate for discussion on internet forums.

I don't think she has any intention of running. If she did, she would not get the Republican nomination. And if she did by some freak circumstance get the nomination, she would not win, regardless of whatever kind of freaky left winger the Democrats run, including Hillary.

I think to underestimate the significance of her race is naive. I do not think black people, the majority of whom consistently support Democratic ideas, will vote for her. To assume they would underestimates the intelligence of black people. Do you really think they are going to say, "Condi is against everything I support politically, but since she is black I will vote for her"? No that won't happen. The majority will still vote Democratic. A few will even villify her, and call her an "Uncle Tom". But the majority will just silently vote democrat.

Additionally, in the rural south, she will run poorly. White males in the rural south will not be enthusiastic about her. I don't think they will go out and vote for Hillary over Condi, I just think they won't show up at the polls. Additionally, a lot of rural white males have become dis-infranchised with Bush, and are eager to vote Democrat in 2008, if the Dems will only run a more moderate candidate. If that happens, Condi would be blown out of the water in the south.

When the dust settles, I predict the Republicans will run McCain/Giuliani, and the Democrats will run Clinton/Richardson, and the Republicans will win.

[hwp]

a lot of rural white males have become dis-infranchised with Bush, and are eager to vote Democrat in 2008

Cite your source please.

I am a rural white male and have seen/heard nothing of the sort.

[Lobotomy Boy]

Having thought about it for a week, I think the posters who call Rice unelectable are correct. All the Dems would have to do is play an endless loop of Rice saying, "I believe the title of that memo was 'Al Quaeda Determined to Attack U.S." It would be even more devestating than, "I voted for the bill before I voted against it."

[odysseus]

Lets see theres Jeb Bush

Jeb would get a NO from me. I am now dissapointed and tired of the Bush family "republicans" who have turned away from values they only give lip service too. I don't want to see another family member pushed in who will put special interests ahead of us more than (and more obviously upfront) any other president I can remember except for possibly Clinton. The republican party is very fractured right now if anyone can tell.

I now understand why Reagan did not really trust Bush Sr. much at all.

[Lone_Gunman]

hwp,

I don't have a source. I live in the rural south. It is my impression that man rural white males would vote for a democrat, if they ran a moderate; especially if the moderate democrat ran against Condoleeza.

[Standing Wolf]

Tom Tancredo said he will run and if he does I can vote for him with a good conscience.

I could vote for Tancredo, although I'd guess it's far more likely I'd vote Libertarian again.

[neoncowboy]

it's far more likely I'd vote Libertarian again.

+1

The Republican party is just a pro-life version of statist authoritarianism.

I'm sick of it. I want *real* change and am not settling for the lesser of 2 evils anymore.

[Sgt.Slappy]

A Libertarian, no matter how smart, decent, and appealing to the voters, won't win... It will either be a limp, worthless Republican... or a dangerous, UN-licking, utopian socialist Democrat. We are in dire shape if we expect a presidential candidate with the cojones to keep us merely in the frying pan... I fear we are even now cresting the apex of that toss, which will take us directly into the fire.

[DRZinn]

Guys, guys, GUYS!

How many times must I point out that it depends on the state you're in? If you live in a swing state then sure, vote for the lesser of two evils. But if the electoral votes (you remember those, right?) of your state are a foregone conclusion, then VOTE YOUR BLOODY CONSCIENCE!!!

[RealGun]

But if the electoral votes (you remember those, right?) of your state are a foregone conclusion, then VOTE YOUR BLOODY CONSCIENCE!!!

My conscience wouldn't allow voting for any third party I know of. But then I am not resisting authority and am not anti-establishment. I am only concerned about the legitimacy of authority and its exercise. I am one who believes the Executive branch has more integrity than Congress or the Supreme Court. It is the single branch where accountability can be traced to one person. It is also the only one where term of office is definitely temporary and for which legacy will be closely examined.

Until Democrats reinvent themselves, it is a foregone conclusion that I will vote Republican, warts and all. If a candidate is going to be libertarian, he will have to be a Republican to get my vote. My job is not to pick a fantasy third party but to work on what I consider to be those GOP "warts". To me that would mean setting aside divisive social issues and concentrating on real government, the less the better. The sooner abortion and gay marriage are irrelevant to elections, the better off and more rational we will all be.

[Lobotomy Boy]

Good luck, RealGun. You polish off those warts and I will happily become a Republican.

[ARperson]

You haven't justified your decision not to vote 3rd party, whatever it may be. All you stated is that you think the executive branch stand apart from the legislative and judicial AND that your only choices in your view are Democrat or Republican.

But you haven't connected the two at all, at least not the way I read your post. It sounded like your opinion of the executive branch means that you have to vote for the best person for the job, but you definitely aren't doing that if your Republican with warts is less qualified than a 3rd party candidate.

I'm not criticizing. I just don't see the connection between the two points you were making and am trying to figure out how somebody can put the executive branch on such a pedestal and hold such a high standard to the person who occupies that pedestal, yet still "settle" for voting for someone who obviously has issues.

I think that if more people got off the whole idea of 3rd party will never win and started voting for the candidate they actually thought should win, 3rd party candidates, someday, might actually have a chance of winning. Just look at all the people on this board who refuse to vote 3rd party because of their chance of success (or lack thereof). Eventually, the rest of the country would come to realize that there are more than 2 parties out there. Just because that's the way it's been for such a long time doesn't mean that's the way it always has to be. Not voting for the "best" candidate because you want to vote for a "winner" is folly, IMO.

[RealGun]

There is no third party I would consider joining, and I have studied them all. I like being a Republican, and I like George Bush. He's a good President. It doesn't really matter so much, because I just need a party that is most likely to keep Democrats from winning.