Democrats: Which Republicans are you most worried about?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm most worried about the wingnuts, and not the moderates (best example of a moderate is Guilani), for the following reasons

1. Wingnuts will easily win the primary
2. Wingnuts inspire the base to come out and vote, just like they did for Bush.
3. If the Republicans run to the center, it'll look like the left's positions are better than the right's, so it will encourage America to finally start moving to the left.
4. Guilani isn't going to do well in the south in a general election. Moveon might be able to help things by endorsing him.
5. A moderate Republican is far better than a wingnut Republican.

[TheWildCard]

I'm most worried about the wingnuts, and not the moderates (best example of a moderate is Guilani), for the following reasons

1. Wingnuts will easily win the primary
2. Wingnuts inspire the base to come out and vote, just like they did for Bush.
3. If the Republicans run to the center, it'll look like the left's positions are better than the right's, so it will encourage America to finally start moving to the left.
4. Guilani isn't going to do well in the south in a general election. Moveon might be able to help things by endorsing him.
5. A moderate Republican is far better than a wingnut Republican.

It worked last time because of the large number of marriage votes going on around the country. Thats what made Ohio swing to the Republicans in my opinion. Not that he was a "wingnut" just a better choice compared to Kerry.

[Beet]

Yeah, having 2004 be the big push for gay marriage wasn't exactly the brightest idea. All of that stuff should have waited until after the election.

Though personally I'm against any sort of judicial activism on this issue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah, having 2004 be the big push for gay marriage wasn't exactly the brightest idea. All of that stuff should have waited until after the election.

Though personally I'm against any sort of judicial activism on this issue.

Obviously Gavin Newsome and the MA Supreme Court weren't part of the Kerry campaign. Ironically the DLC tried to claim Newsome as one of their members.

[Joe Republic]

5. A moderate Republican is far better than a wingnut Republican.

Agreed.

[elcorazon]

I disagree.  I think the dems have lost about 20 or so states regardless of who the republicans nominate. I also think there are a lot of economically conservative states that are voting democrat of late who could easily vote for a socially liberal republican.  States like NJ, CT, WI, PA, NH, ME, even IL could be in play with the right candidate.  Truth be told, I haven't thought about it a ton in terms of who fits the bill.  I don't think Giuliani would be a good candidate for other reasons.

[jokerman]

McCain -not simply because he's moderate (which he really isn't in particular), but because he's well liked by the American people and has a Mr. Smith type appeal to him.

[opebo]

I disagree.  I think the dems have lost about 20 or so states regardless of who the republicans nominate. I also think there are a lot of economically conservative states that are voting democrat of late who could easily vote for a socially liberal republican.  States like NJ, CT, WI, PA, NH, ME, even IL could be in play with the right candidate.  Truth be told, I haven't thought about it a ton in terms of who fits the bill.  I don't think Giuliani would be a good candidate for other reasons.

But, elcorzan, don't you see that the Republica Party is controlled by the religious so a 'socially liberal republican' winning the primary is an impossibility?

[TheresNoMoney]

I also think there are a lot of economically conservative states that are voting democrat of late who could easily vote for a socially liberal republican. 

How can you call a party that has the highest national debt/budget deficit in history and the highest spending of any administration in 30 years as "economically conservative"?

Democrats are much more economically conservative in the traditional meaning nowadays than the Republicans are.  The parties have switched places when it comes to fiscal responsibility/spending.

[elcorazon]

I disagree.  I think the dems have lost about 20 or so states regardless of who the republicans nominate. I also think there are a lot of economically conservative states that are voting democrat of late who could easily vote for a socially liberal republican.  States like NJ, CT, WI, PA, NH, ME, even IL could be in play with the right candidate.  Truth be told, I haven't thought about it a ton in terms of who fits the bill.  I don't think Giuliani would be a good candidate for other reasons.

But, elcorzan, don't you see that the Republica Party is controlled by the religious so a 'socially liberal republican' winning the primary is an impossibility?

yes, but the question was who do you fear as a candidate, not who realistically can win.

[elcorazon]

I also think there are a lot of economically conservative states that are voting democrat of late who could easily vote for a socially liberal republican. 

How can you call a party that has the highest national debt/budget deficit in history and the highest spending of any administration in 30 years as "economically conservative"?

Democrats are much more economically conservative in the traditional meaning nowadays than the Republicans are.  The parties have switched places when it comes to fiscal responsibility/spending.

maybe somewhat true, but I still think an old style socially liberal Republican could compete in those states.  Perceptions don't always agree with reality, and there are many Republicans who are still "economically conservative" even if the current administration fails to fit this bill.

[MODU]

I also think there are a lot of economically conservative states that are voting democrat of late who could easily vote for a socially liberal republican. 

How can you call a party that has the highest national debt/budget deficit in history and the highest spending of any administration in 30 years as "economically conservative"?

Democrats are much more economically conservative in the traditional meaning nowadays than the Republicans are.  The parties have switched places when it comes to fiscal responsibility/spending.

maybe somewhat true, but I still think an old style socially liberal Republican could compete in those states.  Perceptions don't always agree with reality, and there are many Republicans who are still "economically conservative" even if the current administration fails to fit this bill.

The easiest example is:  "Senate highway bill sets up showdown with Bush"

WASHINGTON – After struggling all spring to pass a belt-tightening fiscal 2006 budget, the Senate overrode it the first chance it got to boost funding for highway projects.

Wednesday’s 76-22 vote allows the $284 billion package to grow by about $11 billion, setting the stage for a veto showdown with President Bush, who has insisted on a $284 billion cap. It’s a shaky start to a year that’s supposed to be marked by fiscal austerity. But the revolt’s wide margin suggests that many Republicans are prepared to buck the White House to address what they regard as an urgent national concern.


The voting record isn't posted to the Senate website yet, but it's easy to see that it's not just the Republicans (nor the Administration) which has been loose with the country's cash.  How hard is it to say "Ok, this year we're not going to pork-up on large funding bills?"  An additional $11 Billion?  Could not those special tasks wait for next year?  While I admit there are some large spending packages the President has pushed for in the past (not including the war funding), Congress seems to be just as bad, if not worse, as far as not being fiscally responsible.

[Wakie]

John McCain is the only Republican I'm worried about.  He bends too easily to party pressure.  Weak.