Redstate

I've voted for him twice and I can't help but really like the man. However fairly or unfairly his reputation is ruined.

I don't know if we can do better in 2008, but we need a fresh start.

but calling Bush a Republican (or conservative) now is like saying Whoppers are McDonald's.

Is burger king really that far away from mcdonalds? :)

I used this analogy.  Bush is closer to being a conservative than a liberal (hence McD's to BK instead of McD's to Panera), but he still isn't conservative.  

...everything at McDonald's tastes exactly the same. The same might be said about Burger King but there are a couple varying tastes. Both are equally stricken from my list of acceptable fast food joints.  

True, Bush's approval ratings will likely never approach 50% again while he's in office.  But history has a way of overlooking the debates of the day and looking more broadly at the consequences.  Like Truman, who left office with approval ratings in the 20s, Bush may yet be better regarded from the long view than he is today.

Personally, I incline towards the "three terms is too much for anyone" view, but I've still been a good deal happier with Bush's good moves than I've been unhappy with his bad ones.

..."I'd prefer somebody else, but because all the prospective GOP 2008 candidates looks worse for one reason or another, I'd probably be forced to support him, even though I don't really want to."

;)

I like President Bush on most issues but he's no Reagan! I would have supported a 16 year term for Reagan but I think two terms is long enough for Bush. Like most second term presidents he's struggling and that not likely to change much.

I like the idea of new blood in the White House as long as it's not a Democrat, liberal, or Billeary Clinton!!!

Two terms is enough for anybody.  Even Reagan.

That said, what bugs me is that none of the Presidential candidates have really excited me yet.  The only two people who have excited me are Jeb Bush and Haley Barbour, and they're not running, as of now.

As for the declared candidates, Giuliani, McCain, Hagel and Rice all deviate from conservatism in critical ways.  I'm not really much of a Religious Right person, so Brownback doesn't appeal to me.  Huckabee I fear is just more of the same on spending policy.  Allen is okay, but he doesn't really do it for me.  Frist is weak.  Newt is good on ideas but the last time he was an elected official, it didn't really work out.  I do like Romney but I have serious questions as to how a Mormon from Massachusetts will do in the rural South.  I wish it didn't have to be that way, but it is.

I'm just hoping one of the existing candidates, or another potential candidate, moves me.  Because I just can't get excited over anyone in the crop we have now.

I generally agree with your assesment on the other candidates.  Allen would be just as strong as Bush on foreign policy, Iraq, general war on terror, and judges.  He would be better on spending and immigration.

I really doubt that Bill Clinton would pass up a chance for a third term if he was given it.  I guess the question to ask Democrats is: if Bill Clinton could run for a third term in 2008, would you support him?

Had the President not lied to me about illegal immigrant AMNESTY, I would have supported him. Not now, I can't appreciate my representatives lying to me at any time.

so I won't vote.  But if I were, I would almost certainly not vote for Bush, for the same reason I don't want to see Clinton or Gore at the top of my ticket.  

It's time to move on.  We've been stuck seeing the same old faces for far too long.  We know everything there is to know about them.  It's time for fresh blood and new ideas, in BOTH parties.  Go Warner!

At least, I think.

prerequisite for becoming a politician you may need to rethink your position ;0)

The other thing with Allen (and Frist, and Brownback) is that Senators typically don't do well in Presidential races.  I think that's part of the reason why I'm somewhat leery of Allen.  And it's unfair to him, I know, but that's the way it is.  Maybe if he was Governor of Virginia right now instead of Senator, my opinion might be different.  But a Senator really has to be Kennedyesque (JFK, not Ted, of course) to bowl me over for a Presidential race.

I'm not saying I couldn't support Allen of course.  But I'm looking for someone more and so far I'm not seeing it.

You guys need to check out JPod over at the Corner.  

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

He has a great piece about schism within the party and how that only serves to elect the Hil-dabeast.

a lot of "Four more years" chanting when he was giving speeches during the 2000 campaign.

As for the declared candidates, Giuliani, McCain, Hagel and Rice all deviate from conservatism in critical ways.

Condoleeza Rice declared she's a candidate for President? I missed that press release.

Electing Hillary might be worth it if it'll wake the Republicans the hell up.  

Thanks, but I've carefully thought out my position already. I won't support with cash or my vote any politician that willfully lies to me. If you're willing to be lied to and will continue to support those representatives who lie to you, feel free.

Do you remember the Southern Republican Leadership Conference held this past spring in Memphis?  They are as about as Southern and Evangelical as they come.  Those are the two groups that are supposed to have the most antipathy towards Massachusetts Mormons.

Every prospective 2008 Presidential nominee was given 15 minutes to address the conference.  After it was all over, the attendees voted in a straw poll.

To no one's surprise Frist won.  It was his home turf, after all.  The fact that he had bussed in supporters didn't hurt, either.  

The big news of the poll was that Romney came in second and by a fairly decent margin.  Allen finished a distant third, edging out McCain.

I do not think we need to fear making Romney our 2008 nominee for President.  He has shown that given the opportunity, people like what he has to say and what he stands for.  

I am like Rush Limbaugh.  I have faith in the American people.  If given the chance, the majority will make the right choice.

the wrong direction - time for a well needed course correction.

Too much free spending and earmarking going on.

A limited (weakened) federal government is a citizen's best friend.  Funding authority = power and more power needs to be held by local governments.

Aren't there any other Reagan conservatives out there?

and then after 4 yrs vote for Jeb, that way our presidential line will read Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush and that will make me chuckle.

...to stop voting?  Good plan!?!

Aglanon, that's the first good laugh I've had all day. I like your humor. Twisted, but I like it.

...and then George P. (Jeb's son) in alternating election cycles and keep the rhythm going.

--furious

You are the one who said all politicians lie to us, not me. I don't agree with you on that, and will continue to vote for those who do not lie to me. It should be remembered that in my state the very popular Dr. Tom Osborne was running for governor, but supported the same amnesty proposal as the President. His loss surprised everyone, except those of us who voted against him because of it.

...but I'd be afraid to think what they would wake up to.

I have two comments regarding this hypothetical online poll regarding Bush running again in 2008. First, no I would not vote for him for the following reasons:(in no particular order)

1.)His apparent loyalty to the rich(i.e. tax breaks) Thus, creating an extremely wide gap between these two socioeconomic gap.

2.)The dishonesty underneath his reasons to go to war in Iraq (a country which wasn't directly related to 9/11 despite his claims)

3.) The wiretapping of American citizens.

4.) The disaster of Hurricane Katrina.

5.) His outright arrogance (He is the "Decider"). Last time I checked, the President along with the American people, his cabinet and advisors are the deciders.  

And I could go on. However, I also want to address this online poll as well. I think there needs to be more options than those posted. The only two options that allow a person to choose that he/she wouldn't vote for Bush is if they wouldn't vote for any Republican or they wouldn't vote for Hilary Clinton either.

These seem to be quite biased. I'm sure there is a significant amount of people out there that would vote for the right Republican candidate, just not Bush as well as a significant amount of people who would not vote for Bush, but may seriously consider Hilary.

What about posting an option that simply says "I won't vote for President Bush"? I'm sure that will  allow many more peopel to feel comfortable voting in this poll.

... because it starts out as wondering if Ike would have sought a third term in 1960 (Truman could have legally sought a third term)? If he did, and beat JFK (likely; Ike was more popular than Nixon, and Nixon barely lost), then so much plays out differently that the current political situation is pretty much impossible to see from there.

There is a reason no President until FDR won more than two terms.  It is just too hard to keep the momentum going.  They run out of energy and ideas.

I am still a Bush supporter, but he has disappointed me too many times not to seriously look elsewhere.  It is time to move on.

Who did you vote for in 2004 and in 2000?  I'm guessing from the tone of your post that you didn't vote for Bush in either.

I would much rather have someone like George Allen in office than Bush.  As much as I personally admire the man and respect what he has done since he's been President (economy mainly), I just think he isn't the best guy for the job anymore.  And he has contributed greatly, but NOT solely, to what could be a big Republican loss in November.

I would have to vote the onion ring ticket

Washingtons single most brilliant insights were knowing when to walk away and that were other contributions you can make in life. Not all of his successors have shared his brilliance or ability. For those that don't term limits provide a mandated gracefull exit for them and a safety valve for the country.

A peacefull and orderly changing of the gaurd is something that has benefitted our nation beyond measure.Coupe d'etat is virtually unthinkable in our nation, after all what would be the point when an election will be coming in a few years and the plotters forced out after no more than 8. We have not had uprising or war from leaders going bad like milk past its expiration date.

When Clinton said he would like to seek a third term I thought it was greatest indictment a president could make against himself. Forget about clintons arguable record of non achievement. Forget about the scandals and controversies. That he could equate 4 years of him outweighing over 200 years of orderly transitions of political power some of which occured while the country was in the midst  civil war, well that was a little too much.

I like the Presidents policies for the most part and I think he has been able to do a good job despite barriers the left has placed in his way. But, the left has smelled blood in the water from the begining and it can't have been easy for the whitehouse to deal with them. I am thankfull he can't run for a third term, because it does give him a gracefull way to exit and a new administration will give all americans a chance to heal the divisions that beset us.

Also, since you seem to be a first-time commenter at RedState, I would advise you that laundry lists of shopworn and conclusory anti-Bush talking points are a good way to be a last-time commenter at RedState.

The inter-Republican issue is larger than Bush.  To what degree do Christian Conservatives define the Party?  Are the traditional Republicans permanently on the sidelines?  Is it likely that a "card-carrying" Christian can win the general election anytime soon?

To my mind, nothing will speed the fracture of the Republicans faster than continued control by the Christian activists.  The libertarian, business, free-market, fiscal conservatives and other small-government types will bolt if religion continues to drive so much of the party's platform and policies.

did Bush create the hurricane with his wreckless environmental policies that created global warming or was did he prevent New Orleans from following its own evacuation plan.  Maybe he tinkered with the spark plug wires.  http://wizbangblog.com/2005/10/04/never-flooded-new-orleans-buses-not-used-
for-evacuation.php

Wire tapping Americans, huh?  So you think its perfectly normal for someone in this country to call known terrorists over seas?  I guess I'll disagree on that one.

Think for yourself and don't just type in some talking points from leftists.  I hope you still around and expand your knowledge, those leftists are leading you down a bad course.

But I get the strong feeling that he's a lightweight.

(If we could combine Gingrich's intellect with Allen's temperment and Romney's telegenicness (sic), I'd be a tad happier...)

the effects of a runaway TalkingPoint-O-Matic™ in a couple of days.

Just take your finger off the trigger, lay it down, and step back and no one will get hurt.

I did not vote for President Bush in the 2000 primary and I likely would not vote for him in a primary in 2008.  Heck if someone else had run in 2004 I MIGHT have voted for them.

That being said, I would vote for President Bush in 2008 if he were the GoP candidate (I voted for him in 2000 and 2004).  I don't agree with all his policies, but he always better then any Democratic candidate.

Bush's evangelism, his loyalty to his policy team, and the esteem with which he is held in the rest of the world all recommend against him.  I am not saying that I disagree with any of them, only that we could use some fresh blood.  Even if he advocates the exact same policies, a new Prez will have loosed all of the baggage of the controversy over war in Iraq and would, I reckon, be more effective.  If Jeb had any other last name he'd be at the top of my list.  

If 2008 gave me the same choice 2000 gave me, Bush v. McCain, I'd do the same thing I did in 2000: not vote Republican.

I'm with you on this one. Big government is bad government.

You raise some good questions. The general consensus seems to be that the GOP doesn't stand much of a chance without the Christian conservative vote. It's such a critical component, in fact, that the Democrats have been working hard to position themselves as a Christian-friendly party in order to steal away some of the GOP's advantage. The Economist occasionally covers the dynamic; Sister Hillary: Can the Democrats close the God gap? and American theocracy: Is God ambidextrous? are worthwhile reads.

Good point about this being a primary vote and not the general election, where people generally are more willing to toss out a protest vote.

I don't like polls such as this altogether, its like a poll asking: "If Bill Gates was going to give you your choice of a free car from among 4 choices, would you take the Toyota?"  How the heck do I know!? What are the other 3 choices?

1st time visitor over here from Instapundit.

What we need to do is allow Mexico to annex the US and then vote GWB into office in the next election immediately following the annexation and bingo ... problem solved.  8 more years!

/sarcasm

He was governor of virginia from 1994 to 1998, won in a landslide against an opponent that led him 30 points and left office with a 68% approval rating.

That thing was a sham, it was hardly a representative sample of people who traditionally vote in these things since frist stacked it with his volunteers.  Remember now that romney flew in a bunch of volunteers.  I think hotline had a bunch of  postings on that shortly afterwards.  

I found the poll thought provoking - it is purely hypothetical so i took it that it was meant to bring out some of the more subterranian feelings Red Staters might have at this point. I live OS and didn't vote in 2000 because I was overwhemingly uninspired by either candidate. Post 9/11 I was glad we had Bush and I voted for him in 2004 with enthusiasm (In Palm Beach County - where my vote surely counted <grin>) and any Republican I could find on the Ballot. I had always voted for the Democrat when in doubt, thier behaviour post 9/11 has changed that. Liberman I'd vote for or any Democrat that I thought was a goodun, but otherwise I'll vote Republican unless the candidate proves he's is badun. I'd prefer Guiliani for his competence and fighting spirit but understand he probably would be hard to nominate. I think we are likely to get Hillary and if we do we are likely to get a bunch of Democratic congressmen who will push the old Liberal agenda. I think that will self destruct, and I think Hillary will be much more likely to see Iraq through than the left of her party would want. But I'd feel much  safer with a Republican in the Whitehouse and would vote for a conservative Republican just to keep national security in Republican hands for another 4-8 years and we have a better idea of what we are doing in the GWOT. As far as I am concerned the Democratic party has completely lost my confidence in the area of National Security. To disillusioned Republicans I would beg you to get out and vote for your people this fall and in 2008.

When I heard about that, I said, "That doesn't sound like Romney style."  So I did some further digging.

What happened was a grass roots group with no connection to Romney called Tennesseans for Mitt took a bunch of people to the conference.  We are talking maybe a couple of vanloads here, 20 people at the most.  The votes cast for Romney in the straw poll were in the hundreds.  

Well, in the finest tradition of Hurricane Katrina reporting, things got a little exaggerated in the press.

While I was a fan of Clinton's, and felt that Republican treatment of him was too often below the belt (and set the bar for the next 8 years), I will admit that by the end, even I was happy to see the last of him. I would not have wanted to see him in office longer.  The main reason?-- I really hoped for some sort of reconciliation between moderate Democrats who were continually embarrassed by his personal behavior, and moderate Republicans who thought the partisan rancor was over the top^.

although given a choice between more Clinton and what we ended up with I would (with all due respect to you RS'ers) have gladly pulled the lever one more time...

^and here i am hoping for moderate Republicans, embarrassed by this administration, to make peace with moderate dems who think the the partisan rancor is over the top....  I guess I will never learn

-- well, you asked...

-foocity

You would have found that the group was tied to two of Romney's close allies or fundraisers or something.  Its on hotline.

he seems like an attractive candidate in many ways...but you know what I find interesting? The number of people, even here on a Republican website, who are ready willing and able to undercut him at every turn. I'm not sure if republicans who support other potential candidates fear him as a likely front runner...or if democrat trolls fear him as a Republican candidate more.

you can read my posts on him and Rudy here.

http://robertm75.redstate.com/story/2006/6/1/14428/09201

and thought HE might have a chance for the national ticket until he shot himself in the foot with his "brainwashed" comment.

He did a goot job for our state...which is the only reason I would look at a candidate, even a Republican, from MA!

give Romney a good hard look and see what you think.  I have many good sources linked to my posts in that diary of mine.  You may be pleasantly surprised.  

I did dig further.  I went to Hotline and searched their archives.  Guess what, it was all grass roots.

Turns out we were both wrong.  The Tennesseans for Mitt crowd may have gotten "more than fifty" there -- more than my "about 20" but still considerably less than Mitt's vote tally.  The "fifty" comes from a supporter in the newspaper that was willing to give their name.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-09-05/a03sr650.htm

Romney: Catholic hospitals not exempt from offering emergency contraception By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press writer

BOSTON -- Facing opposition from women, the Democratic Party and even his own running mate, Gov. Mitt Romney abandoned plans yesterday to exempt religious and other private hospitals from a new law requiring them to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims.

http://www.operationrino.com/web/newsperm.606

Mitt Romney supports AWB and Brady Bill

http://www.operationrino.com/web/newsperm.608

Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.

''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one," Romney wrote in answer to a NARAL questionnaire during the [2002] campaign. ''Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/03/clarity_sought_on_romn
eys_abortion_stance/

Summary of Romney abortion stances

http://romneyisafraud.blogspot.com/2005/02/dime-dropper-willard-mitt-went-t
o.html

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it."

"Regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal,"

Tovia Smith of Boston University radio station WBUR asked: "Mr. Romney, you say you're a moderate on social issues. One who will defend abortion rights, equal rights for women, for blacks, and for gays. In fact you say you will do more to promote gay rights than Senator Kennedy. You also sit on the national executive board of the Boy Scouts of America, which has an exclusionary policy banning gay members. Do you support that policy, and if not have you ever done anything as a board member to oppose it?"

"...I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

http://www.massnews.com/2002_editions/06_June/061802_mn_romney.shtml

"The Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, next month will be the first to open its arms to the gay community. Organisers of the 2002 Winter Olympics have actively gone out to get the gay community involved."

http://www.massnews.com/2002_editions/06_June/061802_mn_romney.shtml

he said he would support domestic partnership benefits, at one point saying they would become a "hallmark of my leadership as governor." ... Romney has broader goals in mind, and will use this opportunity to establish further rights for gay couples, Fehrnstrom said. "At the end of the day, same-sex couples will end up with more rights and benefits than they previously enjoyed," he said.

http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,525039435,00.html

___

For reference this JohnnyZ's profile on FreeRepublic

Hello Everyone. Awhile back, I stated why I wouldn't vote for Bush again in 2008. I just wanted to explain that these were solely my opinions about Bush and that I certainly understand that many people admire and respect him.

Furthermore, the statements I wrote about him were not written maliciously. They were rather opinions that came out during a passionate time.

I hope that I have not offended anybody and if I did, I'm sorry.