Who is the most Republican candidate

[jdobbin]

After yesterday's debate on FOX, many of the Republican candidates continued to say they were the most Republican of the candidates. Who is the candidate who will appear to the right in the party *and* win an election?

[M.Dancer]

After yesterday's debate on FOX, many of the Republican candidates continued to say they were the most Republican of the candidates. Who is the candidate who will appear to the right in the party *and* win an election?

Rudy....no wait.....McCain.....?

[maldon_road]

Rudy....no wait.....McCain.....?

Ron and Fred.

[Sulaco]

Ron and Fred.

This answer demonstrates the inanity of the question.

[jdobbin]

This answer demonstrates the inanity of the question.

And yet that is what the race for the Republican nomination has come to: who is the most Republican?

[jdobbin]

Rudy....no wait.....McCain.....?

Some say Huckabee is the most Republican. Some say Thompson.

Many on the right don't consider Romney, McCain or Guiliani as Republican enough.

[Sulaco]

And yet that is what the race for the Republican nomination has come to: who is the most Republican?

Umm --- no...

As is always the case the battle is between the various ideological groups that make up the party (same as for the democrats). The question in the end will be which ideological groups prevail and/or which candidate appeals to the most voting members of the party - whether by striking the best policy compromises or by seeming most electable or both.

It's not about who is "most Republican".

Really - talking politics with you is like speaking with a 9th grader.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Sulaco

[jdobbin]

Umm --- no...

Funny, 'cause I see this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304077,00.html

n the very likely case you had more important things to do this weekend than following politics — like witnessing my beloved Cleveland Indians crash and burn in the American League Championship — believe it or not, you missed a rare moment of political importance.

Social conservatives awoke from their self-induced slumber.

On October 4, James Dobson published an article in The New York Times reporting that a group of 50 conservative leaders had voted to consider proposing a third-party candidate if a pro-choice contender were to receive the Republican nomination.

The scheme was meant to scare party organizers and opinion makers away from Rudy Giuliani. The effect — at least at first — was just the opposite. For two solid weeks, Republicans bickered about what to do when Giuliani wins. They broke themselves down into two mythical factions: the practical and the principled.

The religious right thinks Guiliani is not Republican enough. Many won't vote for a Mormon and others don't like what McCain has said about the religious right in the past.

During the recent debate, they bickered about who was the most Republican and the most conservative.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303827,00.html

Giuliani, however, was prepared to rebut accusations that he is not a "real Republican" — a term frequently used at conservative forums in the days leading up to Sunday night's debate. He said not only did he reduce taxes and balance the budget, but he "drove pornography out of Times Square."

Seems to me that the issue of who is a real Republican was brought up just the other day.

Edited October 23, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Umm --- no...

As is always the case the battle is between the various ideological groups that make up the party (same as for the democrats). The question in the end will be which ideological groups prevail and/or which candidate appeals to the most voting members of the party - whether by striking the best policy compromises or by seeming most electable or both.

It's not about who is "most Republican".

Really - talking politics with you is like speaking with a 9th grader.

Why the insults? Just by observing several of the conservative and Republican forums, the debate centered on who is a real Republican. You don't think that was being discussed?

[Sulaco]

Why the insults? Just by observing several of the conservative and Republican forums, the debate centered on who is a real Republican. You don't think that was being discussed?

Umm no - what is being discussed is which of the candidates appeals to whcih Republican sub-groups. Some will appeal to Social Cons, others to financial others to both but not at the same levels.

[jdobbin]

Umm no - what is being discussed is which of the candidates appeals to whcih Republican sub-groups. Some will appeal to Social Cons, others to financial others to both but not at the same levels.

And yet on the Sunday talk shows in the U.S., they said Meet the Press and FOX News that it has become a question of who the real Republican is. The fact that Guiliani had to address that very question in the debate this week kind of puts a fine point on it.

[maldon_road]

The religious right thinks Guiliani is not Republican enough.

Fully 50 per cent of U.S. voters say when it comes to Clinton, she can campaign all she likes, but there is no way in the world she can win their support.

That number is up slightly from 46 per cent in March, the Zogby poll said.

Older voters – 59 per cent – were the most hostile to the attorney and former first lady-turned-senator, who is seeking to become the first female U.S. president. The survey ranked leading Democratic and Republican hopefuls.

Among Republicans, frontrunner Rudy Giuliani drew a great deal of negative responses: 43 percent said they would never vote for him.

http://digital.montrealgazette.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

What do Hilly and Rudy have in common? They are both liberals. Americans don't like liberals and that is why a liberal can't be elected President of the US next year. And Rudy is not a Republican.

Edited October 23, 2007 by maldon_road

[jdobbin]

What do Hilly and Rudy have in common? They are both liberals. Americans don't like liberals and that is why a liberal can't be elected President of the US next year. And Rudy is not a Republican.

Certainly Guiliani was on the defensive about being labeled as not being a real Republican.

As far as Clinton goes, she is building up quite the lead and some are saying the only one who can beat her might be Guiliani.

The problem for Guiliani if he wins is that the religious right is thinking a third party candidate if he or some other Republican candidates win.

[maldon_road]

As far as Clinton goes, she is building up quite the lead and some are saying the only one who can beat her might be Guiliani.

I think Clinton will be the Democratic candidate. But she is too disliked by the public as a whole to win the big prize.

[mikedavid00]

After yesterday's debate on FOX, many of the Republican candidates continued to say they were the most Republican of the candidates. Who is the candidate who will appear to the right in the party *and* win an election?

Everyone knows it's Ron Paul who's the most right wing. But he can't win an eleciton.

Ron Paul also my hero.

I personally believe that the Republicans will win if Hillary runs becuase Hillary is a female and regardless of policy, Americans wont be ready to elect in a female and that will most likely be the last we ever here of her..

Edited October 24, 2007 by mikedavid00

[jdobbin]

I think Clinton will be the Democratic candidate. But she is too disliked by the public as a whole to win the big prize.

In any other time you might be correct but with the Republicans facing a host of problems related to being in office for eight years, it will be an uphill battle to beat a Democratic candidate...even Clinton.

[maldon_road]

In any other time you might be correct but with the Republicans facing a host of problems related to being in office for eight years, it will be an uphill battle to beat a Democratic candidate...even Clinton.

Rudy would beat Hilly. And a Mormon would trump a female.

[jdobbin]

Rudy would beat Hilly. And a Mormon would trump a female.

I heard such claims of Republican victory in the mid-terms about the Senate and the Reps. There were a few here that seemed to think victory was assured.

[maldon_road]

I heard such claims of Republican victory in the mid-terms about the Senate and the Reps. There were a few here that seemed to think victory was assured.

Bluntly, Hilly is a woman and Obama is black and there is no electable white male on the horizon for the Dems.

[jdobbin]

Bluntly, Hilly is a woman and Obama is black and there is no electable white male on the horizon for the Dems.

So far the polls disagree with you on the electability issue of a Democratic candidate for President.

[maldon_road]

So far the polls disagree with you on the electability issue of a Democratic candidate for President.

A poll 13 months from the election? That's as useful as a square wheel.

[jdobbin]

A poll 13 months from the election? That's as useful as a square wheel.

Yes, I suppose the Republicans could trend upwards, as you say, because the United States is not ready for a black, a Hispanic or a woman candidate but I have seen no indication thus far that this is the trend.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, I suppose the Republicans could trend upwards, as you say, because the United States is not ready for a black, a Hispanic or a woman candidate but I have seen no indication thus far that this is the trend.

Nonsense.....the US has had all three on numerous party tickets, and wrt to "black" or "Hispanic", how many have become Prime Minister of Canada?

[Guest coot]

Nonsense.....the US has had all three on numerous party tickets, and wrt to "black" or "Hispanic", how many have become Prime Minister of Canada?

Either you aren't comprehending what Dobbin just said or you just desperately want to discuss Canada despite its irrelevance to the conversation. Why didn't you mention that Clinton wasn't Black or HIspanic either? That would have fit in nicely with your series of copy-and-paste "Canada too/Clinton too" posts.

[bush_cheney2004]

Either you aren't comprehending what Dobbin just said or you just desperately want to discuss Canada despite its irrelevance to the conversation. Why didn't you mention that Clinton wasn't Black or HIspanic either? That would have fit in nicely with your series of copy-and-paste "Canada too/Clinton too" posts.

And it would appear that you don't like such references for obvious reasons. The post revealed only a superficial understanding of US politics, political parties, ballots, and diverse candidates. Since this is a Canadian board, I look forward to demonstrating that such sanctimonious posts ring hollow, and I will do it as often as I please.

Example - Gallery of US presidential nomination candidates from 1972...(photos are so good for that "visible minority" thing in Canada):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presiden...didates_gallery

Women candidates for president.....no problem:

http://jofreeman.com/politics/womprez.htm

Edited October 27, 2007 by bush_cheney2004