Sizing Up the GOP Contenders for 2008
If this straw poll means anything, (and thankfully for Republicans, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t) get used to having a Democrat in the White House again.
Frist Wins Southern GOP Conference Straw Poll
This man has no chance of becoming president. None. John McCain is…well, John McCain. He actually could win the presidency, but do we want him to? Do we have any idea what we’re getting? Is there any real consistency to what this guy stands for? He seems to zig just when you think he’ll zag, and zag when he should zig. I appreciate his military service, but I don’t trust him. Mitt Romney? Well, he did get elected governor of Massachusetts; is that a good thing? At least the name “Giuliani” wasn’t mentioned; I think that him getting the nomination is what we should call the “nightmare scenario”; heads we lose, tails you win. I like George Allen, but if, down south, he trails Mitt Romney in a straw poll, things aren’t exactly starting out with a bang for his candidacy, you know? Same can be said for Mike Huckabee; what a great, great guy, probably a better choice than George Allen, even, but he’s not exactly jumping out of the gate.
Still, of course, it’s way, way early; this straw poll means nothing—which is about the best news to come from it.
UPDATE: Commonwealth Conservative would seem to agree with me almost exactly.
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
8 Responses to “Sizing Up the GOP Contenders for 2008”
Any opposition to Romney based on his Mormon background or is it simply that he is from Mass? He has pretty good leadership skills from what I can tell.
Vigilius ~ Mar 13, 2006 at 11:36 am
Good question. I’m not certain what I think regarding the Mormon situation, whether that would cause me not to vote for him. I don’t generally believe in a religious test for office, but I might make exceptions. Mormonism is a faith that is very, very far removed from evangelical Christian faith; that alone wouldn’t necessarily disqualify a person for my vote, but I’m sorry: Mormonism asks people to believe things that are fairy-tale in nature. I honestly wonder how reasonable people can buy into that theology, though I guess many do. I’d have to say “maybe” to voting for Mitt…
I’m sort of kidding about the Massachusetts deal—although I wonder how a Republican who’s not a RINO can possibly be elected dogcatcher in that state.
Byron ~ Mar 13, 2006 at 11:47 am
By fairy tale, you mean things like walking on water, raising the dead, and being mystically impregnated by God? How about axe heads floating on water? Just curious…
Vigilius ~ Mar 13, 2006 at 2:59 pm
No…none of those things are difficult to believe in if you accept the possibility of the supernatural, and the concomitant possibility of divine miracles. But I remember (and it’s been awhile, forgive me) studying Mormonism a number of years back, and its basic tenets are far, far removed from Christianity. Perhaps “fairy tale” isn’t the best way to put it, but the distance between Mormon teaching and evangelical faith is vast, huge, and impassable. Wish I remembered more specifics, I honestly do…
Byron ~ Mar 13, 2006 at 3:03 pm
So…. it’s just Mormon miracles you have a problem with? Or the miracles that undergird the Mormon beliefs?
Vigilius ~ Mar 13, 2006 at 4:24 pm
I have no problem with miracles per se. I have a massive problem with Mormonism from top to bottom; I do not accept the Mormon “miracles” as miracles, in significant part because I do not accept the Book of Mormon nor the testimony of Joseph Smith or its prophets.
Wow…did we get away from subject on this thread…but hey, I’ll continue, if you care to.
Byron ~ Mar 13, 2006 at 4:38 pm
No, let’s not talk about Mormonism anymore. You’ve been generous with your time and energy responding to something that was a bit off the path…. Thank you.
Vigilius ~ Mar 15, 2006 at 8:57 am
One interesting thing (well, I found it interesting anyway) was the London “Times” a few months ago commenting on how the likely alterations in Electoral College vote allocations for 2012, 2016 and 2020 would strongly favour the Republicans, generally increasing the number of Electors in more Republican states and reducing those in more Democrat ones. Simply population shift.
The interesting consequences were first that the only Democrat who could realistically win in 2012 would be a sitting President seeking a second term.
The other is that the shrewd Republican candidate playing the long game would not seek the Presidency for 2008, but aim to be number 2. That the important person to look at is who is their Vice-Presidential candidate as she (or he) would have a good chance of being Vice-President 2009-2017 and then President 2017-2025, if the Electoral College becomes weighted in favour of the Republicans.
Graham ~ Mar 23, 2006 at 3:34 pm