Who would have been a better GOP candidate for president in 2000? Why?
111531
Nobody, the best man won.  Now if Condi can only get the Republican Nomination in 2008 we will be set
1032293
I'd have to pick Chewbacca.\n\nAlf is too much like our current Pres. Way to cynical, and egotistical.\n\nChewbacca, on the other hand, is caring, protective, and a freedom fighter that takes no crap!\n\nMaybe we should nominate Chewey for 2008!
159692
H. Clinton.  I like McCain better as a person (even though he has a nasty temper), but though he is smart, he holds too many extreme positions along with his good ones (e.g., anti-choice, pro-invasion) and when push has come to shove the past 6 years he has supported and campaigned for Bush's agenda each time, with the exception of campaign reform and -- to a degree -- torture of detainees.
274203
McCain might be a good choice because he, more than just about anyone else, can reach across party lines and solve problems.  He tends to work well with Democrats while maintaining his own virtues.  He has a strong military background which is important at this time.  He has a great Senate record.
477570
Personally i think that 'Golum' from Lord of the Rings would have been a better president and even in 2008. at least he says 'precious' when addressing his personal thoughts..lol
1003929
Kerry in 2004 wasn't about to pull the troops home immediately, that seems like a relatively cooperative platform.\n\nJohn McCain in 2000 was basically pure Republican economically and pure Democrat socially, with one or two exceptions.
911990
The Republicans picked a candidate with no brains in 2000 and it worked for them!
710671
GOP:  Once again an ignorant, far right wing religious hypocrit like GWB.  Who?  Irrelevant as long as they are ignorant.\n\nDemoratic Partiy:  With Luck Obama.  Probably the best candidate to surface in years.  Also may be Gov Richardson of New Mexico.
725843
How was that doddering old fool Reagan?\n Yah well McCain shouldnt run for the simple fact that he let the Rove machine run all over him in the 2000 primary. He had his chance.Give it up.\n I was about to say I wouldnt vote him, I would have voted for him in 2000, then I thought hmm, maybe he would be a good President, maybe he is using Bush to get the nomination but really doesnt agree with anything he says at all.
664084
I liked Nixon.  Ford was a good president.  Reagan had loads of charisma, but was a mediocre president half the time and totally undermined our military.  Bush Sr. was a good president.  Bush Jr. is the worst president since Warren Harding, and I think the term "Criminal Republican" applies to him.\n\n\nHe lied to the conservative republicans when he claimed to also be a conservative, he is not.  He is a royalist, who wants to be the "Decider"  He wants the Unitary Powers that come with being a Prince or a King.  He is spending our country into debt by reducing taxes and borrowing from CHINA to pay for his war.  Dick Cheney would've been a much better president.  Colin Powell would have been a much better president.\n\nCondoleeza Rice also fits the term "Criminal Republican", criminal through indifference and negligence.  When Katrina bore down on New Orleans and destroyed it, the first thing she did was go out and buy a $2500.00 pair of shoes.  She is smart, I don't disagree with that at all, but she is a toadie.  She is so grateful at being promoted to the prestigious job of Secretary of State that she will do, and say, anything to support the constitution eroding actions of her president, George W. Bush.\n\nSenator McCain is not a criminal, but he lacks backbone, don't make  him the next president, find somebody strong, with vision, who will DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION and OUR RIGHTS as AMERICANS.  Don't we deserve this?  (Or have we just been way too complacent to deserve this???????)
1106149
Neither, they both suck! We haven't had a good president (let alone a good candidate) since Reagan. It seems like whenever I go and vote, I have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Neither party does whats right for the country. The Reflublicans want to give my money to the rich and the Dummycrats want to give it to the poor. And both give it to some other country. Why cant I keep what I work hard for (I'm middle class)? Just one of many (many) issues with both parties.
894030
Actually, Bush called the second election a 'clear mandate'.  So, no, I don't see it changing with HIM.  Hoewever, the GOP will hopefully be smarter in 08 when they realize that we still live in a democracy, and you better give us someone we want, or face another humiliating loss.  Just think, the GOP could have nominated Elizabeth Dole in 2000 instead of Bush...imagine how different things would be...
1049312
well... as it often seems, both parties seem weak for candidates... I like Edwards, Obama and Warner, but to put them up there with FDR and JFK... that's a bit much...\n\nBut I don't see any Reagans around the corner for the Republicans either, so it could be a little messy...\n\nBut at the same time... I doubt anyone was really thinking FDR or JFK would go down as great presidents two years before they were elected either...\n\nEDIT: Mark Warner, Gov. of Virginia\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner
345214
Well, Bush the younger is a jogger, but assuming they're all back from the dead and in their prime, then all of the presidents who were generals (there were a lot of those in the 19th century) would be probable winners.  I'm gonna go ahead and guess Franklin Pierce, because not only would he have to have been in good shape in the Army, he was also really good looking.  It's always nice to see the handsomest win.  Fatass Taft would definitely finish last, assuming he didn't have a heart attack first.
568710
Do you mean who would I want to win, or who will win the Republican nomination for President in 2008?\n\nI would prefer McCain. Despite his recent pandering to the right, McCain has shown a history of voting with his conscience and really trying to find the right result, not the one most likely to get him re-elected (the last few years changed his image in my mind a bit, but he's still a front-runner in the Republican party for me). And I don't think I could handle another Bush in the White House. Jeb's handling of the Schiavo case was painful to watch.\n\nAs for you will win it? I'd still go with McCain. He's picked up a lot of GW Bush's campaign team and monetary support. He's a front-runner at this time.\n\nBut there's a long time to get there, a lot of other candidates out there (i.e., Giuliani, Romney, Pataki, etc.), and a whole slew of Democrats who want to get to the White House in 2008, too.
567685
It is so hard to speculate what he would have done. An assassins bullet ended any hope for a Kennedy to be president. However he had the same drive as his brother Jack and had that Kennedy charisma that was well understood at the time. His stint as attorney general earmarked the fact that he was tough on organized crime. His public service record was certainly wonderful. I think he would have advanced the civil rights movement. Johnson's war on poverty would have not lost steam and many people would have advanced in life. I would hope that we would have public health care by now if he had been president then. What is wrong with the richest peoples on earth providing a means for a hand up to people that have been pushed down for so long.
1117983
Don't be so sure it won't be a Bush again. Brother Jeb is being touted as a possible Republican candidate. I'd say Hillary Clinton is the front-runner.