Is it just me or does the pool of potential presidential candidates for 2008 (for both parties) seem incredibly devoid of persons worthy of the office? Not in a long time have I been so disgusted as I am when I look at the pool of folks waiting to vie for the job when GW's tenure is complete.
I'll admit that I do not pay a whole lot of attention to political analysis; my news comes from the AP wire and the only analysis I get is from DRUDGE. So maybe I'm missing a few names that have been stirred into the pot. But when I look at the potential candidates for the Republicans, I see: Bill Frist, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani as the likely frontrunners. Of the bunch, Frist is by far the truest conservative but lacks backbone. Having followed his career closely as a fellow Tennessean, I said that the Republicans were making a mistake when they appointed him majority leader and so far I have been correct. Frist can't even control his underlings in the Senate. . . how in the heck can we expect him to control Moscow and Pyongyang? McCain is a RINO and would be best served to run as Hillary's running mate. Rudy Giuliani has some decent ideas but his morals stink, IMHO. And I have voted in the past for Republicans primarily because of social issues. Giuliani is very weak on social issues and I shudder to think what his election would mean for gunowners who would put all their trust in him simply because he is labeled a Republican.
On the Democrat side, I see Hillary Clinton and John Kerry as the frontrunners right now, with a whole pool of others who could slip up and make some noise. I don't have to say anything about Clinton except that I feel that she is a sorry excuse for an American. Kerry showed in 2004 that he lacks presidential composure. And then there are none of those other Democrats who I think could do an even halfway decent job of running our country. When I look at the field of potential primary contenders I see names like Joe Biden, Wes Clark, Russ Feingold, maybe John Edwards . . . None of those guys have shown me that they have an ounce of presidential material in them.
I've already said that I won't vote Republican in 2008 unless the party selects a candidate that distances himself from the current cowardness that has manifested itself in the Senate. There are some names that are popping up that I really don't think will get close to getting the nomination, but I could be wrong . . . Names like Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, George Pataki . . . Honestly, I don't see anything that sounds appetizing about that field, with the possible exception of Jeb Bush. And I wouldn't vote for a Bush again simply because both Bush 41 and Bush 43 have disappointed me in the White House.
I hope Alan Keyes runs. Otherwise, I guess I'll be voting for Peroutka.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
It's realy hard to admit to being a republican today. The bush clan needs some genetic additives. A small influxe of brain cells would do a world of good to family that touts two failed presidents.
Short and simple, I agree. However, another name currently floating around is George Allen, R-VA. He's a bit young as far as presidential candidates go, but he is intelligent and informed, rock-solid on principle, and he gives a hoot about his constituents and his country.
Now I'm not a Republican--I just play one at the polls from time to time. But if Allen were to lead the party, I might just reconsider a few things and join up. He stands by the Constitution and has enough individual/states rights principle in him to satisfy my Libertarian side, but he's tough on terrorism and illegal immigration, which I can't say of any of the Libertarian candidates.
I thought Colin Powell's name would be floating around, but thus far I havn't seen anything about him. It is a very weak Rep. field at this time, and unless the Rep. comes up with a good candidate I'm afraid Hillary will be hard to beat.
timbercruiser, I don't know if I agree. . . I think Hillary will be hard to beat in the primary, but I believe that whether she wins the primary will determine whether the GOP can keep control of the White House for another four years. Hillary is too polarizing and she won't capture the much-needed fence-sitting voter. A lot of people like Hillary, as the poll-discussing thread on here shows, but it's either love-or-hate with Hillary, and Gallup Poll figures show Bill Frist, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain would each outpoll Hillary by at least five percentage points in a head-to-head matchup.
Of course, at the same time, one reason I would figure Hillary will have problems reaching the White House is because so many Americans - especially southern Americans - would not vote for a woman. But America is so divided politically right now that I think a lot of folks who would ordinarily vote Democrat but not for a woman will put their distrust for the opposite gender aside to avoid voting Republican. That and the fact that a growing number of Republicans are becoming fed up with their party and I guess anything can happen, especially considering that the election is still three years off.
I sure do dread the possibility of Clinton in the White House, though.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Presidential field for 2008
Otherwise, I guess I'll be voting for Peroutka.
