The Establishment's Pick?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

STING2

Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Joined
Oct 22, 2001
Messages
8,876
The Establishment's Pick?
By KAREN TUMULTY / WASHINGTON

Posted Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006
"Republicans, unlike Democrats, like to anoint their presidential candidates early. The leading indicator is often the G.O.P. moneymen, who rush to get into the game at the first whiff of a winner. In 1998 and '99 they got behind a newcomer Texas Governor and made him the early, formidable favorite for the 2000 race. Now, although it's two years until the first primary contest of 2008, a surprising number of those very same people seem to be settling on a most ironic choice: Arizona Senator John McCain, George W. Bush's bitter adversary in 2000 and a mischiefmaker whose name has become synonymous with the cause of making money less important in politics."

"Reports recently filed with the Federal Election Commission show that McCain's Straight Talk America political-action committee raised more money in the second half of last year than that of any other potential G.O.P. presidential candidate. Even more significant is the number of big-name Republican fund raisers who are climbing aboard, suggesting the beginnings of a money operation that other contenders in the party will have difficulty matching. None of McCain's new allies are more impressive than former Congressman Tom Loeffler of Texas, a mega--fund raiser for Bush. Loeffler says he has told McCain he is willing "to be your bottle washer, or I'll fix the flat on the Straight Talk Express bus." While Loeffler notes that he has been "very, very, very close friends" with McCain since the 1970s, he says McCain is finding new chums among the same Republicans who invested so much to keep him out of the White House six years ago. "The battle of 2000 is far behind," Loeffler says, "and they are looking for a winner in 2008.""

"In some ways, it is the most practical of calculations: conventional wisdom has it that while a Republican primary would be difficult for McCain because his maverick bent has alienated many in his party, his crossover appeal would be hard to beat in a general election, especially if the Democrats nominate a polarizing candidate like Hillary Clinton. And fund raisers, more so than party activists, have always kept their eyes focused on the next election. McCain's strategists note that he is talking a lot these days with California investor Gerald Parsky, who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Bush in 2000, and New York financier John Moran, who was Bob Dole's national finance chairman in 1996. Parsky has not picked a horse yet for 2008 and says McCain consults him primarily on economic policy. But he says of McCain, "He is a great public servant, and I think very highly of him.""

"McCain's strategists say that while the party establishment is softening toward McCain, the candidate has not changed. Says one: "The Republican mainstream is shifting, and all of a sudden, John is in it." Surely no one could be more surprised than McCain by how things turn in politics: the scourge of the Establishment is finally finding love in the G.O.P.--and it's coming from the people who write the biggest checks."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1158966-2,00.html


FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Feb. 7-8, 2006.

Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 election were held today, for whom would you vote?

John McCain 51%

Hillary Clinton 38%

Unsure 11%



Zogby America Poll. Dec. 6-8, 2005

If the election for president of the United States were held today and the candidates were John McCain and Hillary Clinton, for whom would you vote?

John McCain 52%

Hillary Clinton 37%

Other Candidate 6%

Unsure 5%
 
McCain kicks ass. There's no way I foresee a Democrat winning the next election.
 
That's because Republicans realize that they have no one else but him. Frist has fizzled and Giuliani hasn't committed. Regardless, that should make the Religious Right get their panties in a bunch. God...I'd love to see that...

For that matter, however, Hillary Clinton hasn't committed to running either. I'd be interested in seeing him and Mark Warner opposing each other, mainly because they're both a little too similar and mainly because I don't expect the Democrats to pick anyone with any liberal ideas this time around.

Melon
 
The neocon movement has had it's day, and it was a disaster. Whoever the Republicans nominate, it will not be someone in the vein of Bush. He can go back to battling brush and leave the country to try and pick up the pieces of our government.
 
melon said:
For that matter, however, Hillary Clinton hasn't committed to running either.
Yeah. I highly doubt at this point that Hillary is likely to ultimately wind up being the Democratic candidate. Too many enemies, too much baggage.

Interestingly, a Hearst Newspapers poll just released indicated that 48% of respondents (1,120 registered voters) felt that Condi Rice ought to run for President (though she has denied interest in the job). The poll also found that 91% percent of Democrats indicated a willingness to elect a woman for President, while only 68% of Republican respondents did.
 
Hillary's not running. If she does, she won't win, she's too divisive. I think the Republicans might like her too because she'll be easy to beat. Warner will be alot harder.
 
verte76 said:
Hillary's not running. If she does, she won't win, she's too divisive. I think the Republicans might like her too because she'll be easy to beat. Warner will be alot harder.

Warner has no where near the recognition of HRC.

To the original post - it is interesting that the appearance of how the two parties arrive at their choice for nominee differs.
 
nbcrusader said:


Warner has no where near the recognition of HRC.

To the original post - it is interesting that the appearance of how the two parties arrive at their choice for nominee differs.

That's true right now, but it could change.
 
We'll see what the voters decide in 2008. We all saw what happened to Dean, he imploded as fast as he exploded, so who knows what may happen with other candidates as well. 2.5 years is an eternity in the realm of jockeying for being POTUS.
 
U2democrat said:
We'll see what the voters decide in 2008. We all saw what happened to Dean, he imploded as fast as he exploded, so who knows what may happen with other candidates as well. 2.5 years is an eternity in the realm of jockeying for being POTUS.

The way I see it, Dean imploded cos the corporate media didn't like him. Ultimately it will be whoever the corporations want.

In relation to those the argument that Hilary has baggage, Rice has baggage too (Iraq war, etc).

Guiliani could still emerge as a convincing candidate - as you say, it's early days yet.
 
Last edited:
I didn't like him either...I don't think he was a good candidate and I don't think he would have made a good president :shrug:

Guiliani may run, but people will realize that there is more to this man's record than the 9-11 NYC mayor. Bring it on.
 
STING2 said:
The leading indicator is often the G.O.P. moneymen, who rush to get into the game at the first whiff of a winner. In 1998 and '99 they got behind a newcomer Texas Governor and made him the early, formidable favorite for the 2000 race.

This is the truth.

The money men choose W. Not the American people.

In 99 he polled well because no one knew who the fuck he was.
His name was "George Bush" and he polled well against Al Gore because of the Clinton sex scandal.

These same people are responsible for taking McCain out in 2000.

I had high hopes for McCain back then leading a populous movement with broad appeal.
He seemed to be his own man.

Since then some things he has done has caused me to lose the confidence I had then.

The money men running the GOP have wrecked many things.
McCain has lost his luster.
 
Re: Re: The Establishment's Pick?

deep said:


This is the truth.

The money men choose W. Not the American people.

In 99 he polled well because no one knew who the fuck he was.
His name was "George Bush" and he polled well against Al Gore because of the Clinton sex scandal.

These same people are responsible for taking McCain out in 2000.

I had high hopes for McCain back then leading a populous movement with broad appeal.
He seemed to be his own man.

Since then some things he has done has caused me to lose the confidence I had then.

The money men running the GOP have wrecked many things.
McCain has lost his luster.

Find me an opinion poll that shows McCain losing to any potential democratic nominee for 2008.
 
financeguy said:


The way I see it, Dean imploded cos the corporate media didn't like him. Ultimately it will be whoever the corporations want.

In relation to those the argument that Hilary has baggage, Rice has baggage too (Iraq war, etc).

Guiliani could still emerge as a convincing candidate - as you say, it's early days yet.

Guiliani is pro-choice and the Republican party will never elect a pro-choice candidate.
 
nbcrusader said:
We are two and a half years away from the election.

But only 18 months away from the start of the primary campaign season. Both parties this time around will be going through the process, so expect many candidates to jump in big time starting September 2007 in order to secure the media spotlight. This also means that prospective candidates will have to make up their minds at least a few months prior to September 2007.
 
najeena said:
The neocon movement has had it's day, and it was a disaster. Whoever the Republicans nominate, it will not be someone in the vein of Bush. He can go back to battling brush and leave the country to try and pick up the pieces of our government.

Americans re-elected George Bush with a 51% majority, the first majority since Bush's father won in 1988. So obviously there is strong support for his policies regardless of what some weekly poll might indicate. McCain has strong support and recognition as the polling indicates. It is also well known that he supports most of the Bush Administrations major policy decisions over the past 5 years.
 
STING2 said:
Guiliani is pro-choice and the Republican party will never elect a pro-choice candidate.
Actually McCain has sent some pretty mixed signals on where he stands on Roe v. Wade.

Boston Globe, Jan 31, 2000
On “Meet the Press,” McCain said he had “come to the conclusion that the exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother are legitimate exceptions” to an outright ban on abortions. If Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion outlawed, McCain said he believes doctors who performed abortions would be prosecuted. “But I would not prosecute a woman” who obtained an abortion.
Ron Fournier, Associated Press, Aug 24, 1999
McCain said, “I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”

A spokesman later said that McCain “has a 17-year voting record of supporting efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He does that currently, and will continue to do that as president.”
 
George Allen is the establishment's pick. It's notable that Ed Gillespie signed on to Allen's PAC, and Gillespie seems to be connected to conservative powerbrokers in a Rove-like fashion.

McCain represents an easier path to the White House; it will be interesting if the movers and shakers in the party won't hang him out to dry in primary states like South Carolina (again).
 
yolland said:

Actually McCain has sent some pretty mixed signals on where he stands on Roe v. Wade.



Most Republicans including George Bush have essentially the same views in the sense that they are pro-life but realize that and outright ban is politically impossible. Rudy on the other hand is openly pro-choice and does not have a voting record like McCains on the issue.
 
Bluer White said:
George Allen is the establishment's pick. It's notable that Ed Gillespie signed on to Allen's PAC, and Gillespie seems to be connected to conservative powerbrokers in a Rove-like fashion.

McCain represents an easier path to the White House; it will be interesting if the movers and shakers in the party won't hang him out to dry in primary states like South Carolina (again).

George Allen is the favorite of some party activist, he is not currently the favorite of the establishments fund raisers. McCain raised more money than any other potential Republican candidate in 2005. In terms of money, McCain could be in the same position George Bush was in 1999, and that makes him the establishment pick.
 
<PSA>As Sting notes, pre-campaign season is nigh upon us. :wink: So here's a chance for me to again remind any fellow citizens here that if we someday hope to have better choices for leader of the free world than Tweddledumb and Tweddledumber, we MUST starting voting in big numbers in state and local elections.
</PSA>
 
Sherry Darling said:
<PSA>As Sting notes, pre-campaign season is nigh upon us. :wink: So here's a chance for me to again remind any fellow citizens here that if we someday hope to have better choices for leader of the free world than Tweddledumb and Tweddledumber, we MUST starting voting in big numbers in state and local elections.
</PSA>

:applaud:
 
verte76 said:
I have the feeling that *someone* here wants a President McCain.:wink:

Eh, McCain is not my preference but I wouldn't have any trouble supporting him if he was nominated. I think that many voters feel this way. It adds to his attractiveness as a candidate - relatively low unfavorables for such a well known figure.
 
Sherry Darling said:
<PSA>As Sting notes, pre-campaign season is nigh upon us. :wink: So here's a chance for me to again remind any fellow citizens here that if we someday hope to have better choices for leader of the free world than Tweddledumb and Tweddledumber, we MUST starting voting in big numbers in state and local elections.
</PSA>

Wouldn't direct involvement in political parties generate better choices for candidates? Sheer number of voters doesn't change anything.
 
U2democrat said:
Guiliani may run, but people will realize that there is more to this man's record than the 9-11 NYC mayor. Bring it on.

like turning the biggest city in america from a shit hole crime haven to one of the safest cities in the nation.

rudy is the greatest mayor new york has ever seen. his policies pre 9/11 weren't always popular, but quite simply, more often than not they worked. there is no denying that the city was a much better place when he left than when he took over (and not for nothing, bloomberg is doing a damned good job himself).

i would be happy as a pig in shit if rudy or even pataki ran in 2008... but i'm not sold that the republican hierarchy would be willing to nominate a social moderate for president, even one that would be a good bet to carry new york... which is exactly why i hate the republican hierarchy just as much as i hate the democratic hierarchy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom