k wrote:

Decius wrote:

k wrote:
[Well, there we go. Not that there was much chance of me supporting these candidates, but they've pretty much all gone out the window for sure now. McCain's the only one with a reasonable response, but he's out for other reasons. Fuck all these guys. -k]

Well, I'm not sure I mind Ron Paul's response on this topic, but he is questionable to me for other reasons. Why is McCain out for you? What bothers me far more than what these candidates, is when the audience chose to applaud. They scare me far more.

Did you read the Dem's debate. Did that even happen? I haven't heard anyone talking about it. I'm wondering if there were any similarly telling moments. I looked at some of it but most of it was blah blah blah....

I hate to be so cynical, but it all sounds like a lot of blah blah blah to me these days.

These guys (the GOP candidates) have a very serious problem. To get the nomination, they have to appeal to "the base" (which oddly enough is the translation of Al Qaeda) and the base is still pro-war and pro-Bush, which about 70-75% of the country is not. They're the ones who vote in the primaries, and getting the nomination means getting them to vote for you. They're John Dean's sheep, the ones who want authoritarian rule.

McCain has/had popularity as the maverick of the "straight-talk express," but the support he would have had from the old "Reagan Democrats" is toast because of the war. His position on torture is right, but too many of his other positions are absolutely antithetical to so many other things, that I don't think he can win in a general election anymore. (the I'll follow him to the gates of hell with a great big smile on his face thing was just weird)

Rudy is burned on choice. Romney is a Mormon hurting him with the religious wing, and pushed universal health burning him with the money branch. Ron Paul is burned because he's really a libertarian, and while the goes over fine with the wallet Republicans, the religious wing hates him. Tancredo and Hunter are both running on xenophobia, Tommy Thompson has shown he's out to lunch, and probably the only candidate that might catch the "big 3" that's currently in the race is Brownback, who epitomizes the phrase "What's wrong with Kansas?"

Getting the nomination on the other side is much easier. Democrats are for the most part not "single issue" voters. They can handle people who have contrary views, so long as those contrary views are not dominant (i.e. single issue candidates). The problem for Republicans is going to be getting people form the independent section to go their way, and with the current state of the country (polls doing a breakdown of party ID with 40%+ considering themselves Democrats) they need that to happen in droves. With the positions they're taking now to survive the primaries, I can't see that happeneing.

There are only three scenarios I can see the Republicans holding onto the White House after noon, January 20, 2009.

1) Fred Thompson gets in the race and kicks ass. He's got face recognition, a voice to carry people, reasonable conservative credentials to get him the nomination, and could maybe swing enough independents.

2) Someone pulls a rabbit out of their hat in the bunch of jokers already running. I'm not seeing that, but I suppose it's possible.

3) W takes the country all the way to Banana Republicanism, chucks the Constitution and declares himself el Presidente for life. To do that he'd need a repeat of 9/11 or a Reichstags fire, and even that probably wouldn't save W, people would blame him for not protecting them, so why should he stay now? 1776 all over again.

RE: Republican Presidential Candiates on Torture