Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/17/2006 12:47:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 1:58:36 PM EDT by scrum]
With all the poll/talk on crappy (IMHO) candidates like Rice and Powell, I would like to know more about George Allen, VA Senator and former Gov. He seems to have good ratings by NRA, GOA, and conservative groups, and the Brady bunch seem to hate him, likewise the ACLU. He's a little centrist, but most winning candidates are.

I have heard two conservative friends (neither a Virginian) suggest Allen lately, so I want to know more from his constituents.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:10:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 2:14:18 PM EDT by bulldog1967]
Well,

I think he votes conservative, which is always a plus.

But the wife and I were down at UVA for her 20th reuninion and went to see Larry Sabato speak.

He's the political analyst for Fox News and Runs the www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2006011101.

He did a breakdown of the 2008 election by candidate, both Democrat and Republican.


He mentioned that George Allen was a classmate of his and wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed.


That being said I think he and Mitt Romney are the front runners right now.


Mr. Sabato also said that Hitlery dosn't have a chance in hell.

"The Presidential Prizefight '08
Ideology Versus Electability in Both Parties (Part I: The Republicans)

Larry J. Sabato
Director, U.Va. Center for Politics


As 2006 dawns, the presidential sweepstakes--or is it a lottery?--is taking on heightened visibility. Partly, it's President Bush's overall weakness, apparent or real. A lame duck residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue encourages early speculation about the Bush succession if only because political observers don't believe George W. Bush can or will get much done for the balance of his term. (As usual, the political cognoscenti are probably wrong, but never mind...)


Then, too, the wide open nature of the 2008 party primaries is remarkable. This is only the fifth time since the dawn of the twentieth century that the incumbent President or Vice President has not been running--the earlier examples were 1908, 1920, 1928, and 1952. In 1908 and 1928, the incumbent Republican Party had obvious, winning successors in William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover, who filled the early void much as a Vice President in-line to succeed Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge would have done. There is no obvious Republican successor to George W. Bush in 2008, an electoral situation that only Woodrow Wilson (laid low by a debilitating stroke) and Harry Truman (crippled by devastating unpopularity) faced. Wilson promoted no Democrat because he clearly hoped for a third consecutive Democratic nomination, despite his illness. Truman eventually helped Adlai Stevenson become the Democratic standard-bearer, though he had no real influence to produce victory for Stevenson in the autumn of '52.

With Dick Cheney obviously removed from any surprise presidential consideration after his chief of staff's indictment, will Bush try to promote another GOP candidate, publicly or privately, before the crucial moment comes in the 2008 primary season? Even if Bush remains unpopular with the general population in early 2008, his endorsement might have critical influence with loyal Republicans unsure of what to do without a crown prince. On the other hand, Republicans could be looking for the un-Bush if they are convinced the electorate wants a change in direction after eight years. In this circumstance, Bush's nod could backfire, and candidates may try to avoid close association with the President. It's so early, who can say which scenario will play out?


For the Republicans, the early informed speculation has focused on the renewal of the McCain phenomenon. John McCain's possible '08 nomination seemed unthinkable after his 2000 campaign imploded and he was left with backing only in moderate segments of an overwhelmingly conservative party. The last maverick nominated by maverick-averse Republicans was Wendell Willkie, who lost to FDR in 1940. McCain had also painted himself into a liberal corner, despite a fairly conservative Senate voting record. His support for First Amendment-destructive campaign finance reform, his transparent (and reciprocated) bitterness towards Bush, his attacks on Christian evangelical leaders, and perhaps most of all, his slavish fan club in the elite New York-D.C. establishment press corps were all counted heavily against him by rank-and-file conservative Republicans. McCain's bouts with cancer and his age in '08 (72 years) made his prospects even more remote.

Yet McCain has made many smart moves. The turnaround came first with his intense campaigning with President Bush when the President's reelection was far from a sure thing. Bush needed McCain badly, and McCain showed up without attitude. Then, McCain's fervent backing for the administration's Iraq policy provided vital ballast when Bush was being buffeted on all sides in 2005. In addition, McCain has begun to reemphasize his conservative positions on social issues, such as gay rights and abortion. Amazingly, this has cost him little support from his legion of media friends who, while far more liberal than he, enjoy his free-wheeling company and the 'bipartisan' aura he extends to their shows. (No doubt, with Ben Bradlee's JFK friendship in the early 1960s as a model, these anchor-elites and print impresarios hope and expect their tie to lead to rewarding White House access in the McCain administration.)

Underlying the McCain revival is a growing belief by senior Republicans that a candidate in the Bush mold will be unable to win the elusive "third term" for the GOP. The most reliable and powerful campaign theme in all of American history is, "It's Time for a Change." After two terms of George W. Bush, the public is likely to want a change of some sort, providing it's not too drastic. A candidate who looks and sounds like Bush will be at a significant disadvantage, goes this line of thinking. Therefore, say the GOP's high pooh-bahs, why not give the electorate a refreshing change via the Republican nomination? There may be no more convincing rationale for McCain's nomination, but this assumes that Bush remains unpopular and that electability trumps ideology. The latter is never a sure bet with party activists, who usually hold to principle even with the prospect of defeat.

The polar opposite of McCain is the Beltway insiders' choice for GOP nominee, Senator George Allen of Virginia. Allen has long been a conservative golden boy, and where he does not fit the Right's requirements, he has been flip-flopping his way toward acceptability (changing his support of hate crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation to opposition, switching from opposition to support of the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and so on--not to mention finding religion on ethanol, Iowa's quid pro quo for caucus consideration). The Allen image of charismatic cowboy-cum-tax cuts reminds his ardent supporters of Ronald Reagan, though critics see in him a re-make of George W. Bush: a very conservative, tobacco-spitting Southern governor with a misspent youth, a hee-haw demeanor, a lack of substantial foreign policy experience in a dangerous age, and ever-ready inarticulate bromides that substitute for sound policy. Nonetheless, if Republicans decide to stick with the tried-and-true, Allen could easily end up as the party's presidential nominee. Having defeated women for both the U.S. House in a special 1991 election and then the Virginia governorship in 1993, Allen would hope for a Hillary Clinton nomination--his easiest path to the White House.


Other Republican candidates are in the hunt in this wide-open contest, and yet it is difficult to see a path for some of them to win. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is magnetic, articulate, intriguing, and close to New Hampshire, so he could surprise us. But how does a Mormon from Massachusetts--the enemy state for Republicans--overcome all the obvious obstacles in his path, such as only one term as governor, some moderate positions in his 2002 campaign, and his lack of foreign policy experience? New York Governor George Pataki is also underwhelming. He is surprisingly obscure for a three-termer, is leaving office unpopular in his home state, would be unlikely to carry New York in November, and has positions on social issues so liberal that he cannot hope to secure the votes of most GOP conservatives.

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee lost over 100 pounds, which is admirable, but it doesn't make for much of a presidential platform. And can Republicans contemplate choosing a presidential nominee from Bill Clinton's state so soon after the Clinton administration? Little known Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has a geographic advantage, perhaps, in the Iowa caucuses, but he is perceived as a Sammy-one-note on abortion. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a hard-driving, exceedingly bright man who has secured the worst reviews for his budding candidacy in the entire field. Maybe once he leaves the presidential candidacy hellhole called the Senate in early 2007 he will be able to regenerate his White House bid. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is eternally engaging and creative, but no one yet takes his potential candidacy seriously. Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska might be a substitute for John McCain if McCain chooses not to run, yet he has most of McCain's problems and few of his advantages. Oh yes, Nebraska is also close to Iowa.

Some of the arguably best Republican candidates aren't running, including former Big Apple Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Could one or more reconsider? Could a hero or two from the 2006 elections emerge and take the party by storm? All possible, but not bloody likely. "
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 4:53:00 PM EDT
it's game over for the Repubs if Mark Warner gets the Democrat nomination. He'll attract a lot of disaffected Republican voters.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 5:13:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 5:13:51 PM EDT by Hank_Rearden1]
Allen is a great guy. He is honest, well meaning. He is also good speaker and salesman. In recent years has been a friend to the 2nd ammendment. He tries to surround himself with smart people. Unfortunately, he is dumb as wood.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 5:37:52 PM EDT
Allen was pro-gun rights as gov - then flip-flipped on gun rights when he ran for senate (said he would vote to renew clinton AW ban). Latter he flipped back our way and did voteto kill the clinton gun ban.

As a Senator he has not been a real leader on gun rights ......
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 5:48:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 5:49:43 PM EDT by Bladerunner]
Given a choice between any of the other candidates mentioned, I would take Allen in a heartbeat.

I don't think Governor Warner will take many Republicans if he got the Democratic Nomination. He will have to take a sharp turn to the left to secure the Democrat base and that alone will be enough to alienate any potential Republican defectors.

Sabato blows his credibility by even mentioning Giuliani as a potential hero to "take the party by storm". Rudy is extremely liberal on every social issue, he is anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, to name a few and could never win the nomination.

I find it ironic and unfortunate that Jeb Bush has no chance in 2008 because of Bush fatigue. He is probably the best of the entire Republican field. If the Dem's take the election in 2008, I hope and pray he will run and win in 2012.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 2:24:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/18/2006 2:25:06 AM EDT by Tirador223]

Originally Posted By Hank_Rearden1:
Allen is a great guy. He is honest, well meaning. He is also good speaker and salesman. In recent years has been a friend to the 2nd ammendment. He tries to surround himself with smart people. Unfortunately, he is dumb as wood.



Well said. Allen has gone far on not much personal substance. I just read the above quote about Allen and the path to the White House and it almost made me want to throw up my breakfast.

Link Posted: 1/18/2006 3:07:24 AM EDT
Funny finding this post, as I was wondering about Allen just the other day.

He was right much of a lightening rod as Goveronor, but since getting into the Senate it's been like: Where's George?
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 3:42:05 AM EDT
Allen is our only chance of keeping the White House in 2008... and that is a scary thought. If the dems get smart and do run Warner, Allen must counter Warners pro-gun history. At this point in time, he can't win.

The only way Allen can turn the tables is to submit and work damned hard on some serious legislation like nationwide CCW, repeal of the sporting purpose language in gun related law, and repeal the MG ban... if he doesn't, he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning. No other Republican has any chance of winning against Warner at all.

To make it work, Allen must begin submitting and getting passed some good firearms friendly stuff now. He can't wait if he wants to have any chance... If he doesn't get something good passed by the end of 2006, write him off.

Mike

Link Posted: 1/18/2006 3:48:06 AM EDT
George is a great guy. I have met him numerous times, even had breakfast with him last year. He is a strong leader, good speaker and is cut from the same mold as Ronald Reagan. He is a strong conseravative and he has some libertarian tendencies. He regularly talks about the "nanny state". He has and will always have my 100% support unless he votes on some horrible bill.

Many of you ask what he has done since being sent to Washinton. He was the reason why Republican's gained seats in the Senate back on '04. He hasn't been pushing any bills through the senate is because he is tired of all the damn laws and right now he is one of the very, very few in Washington who is trying to curb the out of control government spending.

I am also surpised how many people have jumped on the "He is stupid" bandwagon. As I said before, I met him many times and never have I scratched my head from a dumb statement. He is smarter than 98% of the senators in Washington. People say the same thing about George Bush.

For those of y'all who think he is a centris or not very good on gun rights, he abolished parole in Virginia and was the SOLE reason why we have the good CCW laws in Virginia.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 3:53:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hard Rock:
Allen is our only chance of keeping the White House in 2008... and that is a scary thought. If the dems get smart and do run Warner, Allen must counter Warners pro-gun history. At this point in time, he can't win.

The only way Allen can turn the tables is to submit and work damned hard on some serious legislation like nationwide CCW, repeal of the sporting purpose language in gun related law, and repeal the MG ban... if he doesn't, he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning. No other Republican has any chance of winning against Warner at all.

To make it work, Allen must begin submitting and getting passed some good firearms friendly stuff now. He can't wait if he wants to have any chance... If he doesn't get something good passed by the end of 2006, write him off.

Mike


Why does everything have to revolve around gun rights? How about turning the tide of socialism in this country? Doesn't any of that matter to you? So if Allen doesn't come out and try to end the sporting purposes law you are just go and vote for Warner? That is incredibly ignorant. Any time a person runs as a limited government conservative they win. Warner is not a conservative. He may be a little centrist of social issues, but believe me he is a big government liberal. Not to mention none of us have any idea where he stands on national security.

I really don't understand the love fest everyone is having with Warner.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 5:31:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By Hard Rock:
Allen is our only chance of keeping the White House in 2008... and that is a scary thought. If the dems get smart and do run Warner, Allen must counter Warners pro-gun history. At this point in time, he can't win.

The only way Allen can turn the tables is to submit and work damned hard on some serious legislation like nationwide CCW, repeal of the sporting purpose language in gun related law, and repeal the MG ban... if he doesn't, he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning. No other Republican has any chance of winning against Warner at all.

To make it work, Allen must begin submitting and getting passed some good firearms friendly stuff now. He can't wait if he wants to have any chance... If he doesn't get something good passed by the end of 2006, write him off.

Mike


Why does everything have to revolve around gun rights? How about turning the tide of socialism in this country? Doesn't any of that matter to you? So if Allen doesn't come out and try to end the sporting purposes law you are just go and vote for Warner? That is incredibly ignorant. Any time a person runs as a limited government conservative they win. Warner is not a conservative. He may be a little centrist of social issues, but believe me he is a big government liberal. Not to mention none of us have any idea where he stands on national security.

I really don't understand the love fest everyone is having with Warner.



You say Allen has talked about the "Nanny State" and all. That's fine, but talk is CHEAP. What has HE done in the Senate to "Turn the tide of socialism in this country?"

Anything?
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 7:27:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bladerunner:


Sabato blows his credibility by even mentioning Giuliani as a potential hero to "take the party by storm". Rudy is extremely liberal on every social issue, he is anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, to name a few and could never win the nomination.



Sabato tries to play the non-partisan professor part, but he's as leftist as the rest of this town.
Read enough of his statements to the local C'ville pulp papers (Hook,Cville,etc) and you'll see his liberalism leak through occasionally.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 11:30:09 AM EDT
One thing that's going to get me if it's Warner vs Allen is that the race will be portrayed as involving two Virginians. Allen's from LA and Warner's from Connecticut.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 3:53:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By METT-T: One thing that's going to get me if it's Warner vs Allen is that the race will be portrayed as involving two Virginians. Allen's from LA and Warner's from Connecticut.


I did not know Allen was from Louisianna...are you sure?

Anyway - Allen doesn't strike me as the sharpest knife in the drawer - kind of reminds me of Dan Quayle. 'Course, Dubya is no Ronald Reagan when it comes to public speaking - I find him difficult to listen to, almost like fingernails on a chalkboard. I'm embarrased for him, really...

God, I miss Reagan...wish they could clone him...we need another man like him...



Link Posted: 1/18/2006 4:01:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By varoadking:

Originally Posted By METT-T: One thing that's going to get me if it's Warner vs Allen is that the race will be portrayed as involving two Virginians. Allen's from LA and Warner's from Connecticut.


I did not know Allen was from Louisianna...are you sure?

Anyway - Allen doesn't strike me as the sharpest knife in the drawer - kind of reminds me of Dan Quayle. 'Course, Dubya is no Ronald Reagan when it comes to public speaking - I find him difficult to listen to, almost like fingernails on a chalkboard. I'm embarrased for him, really...

God, I miss Reagan...wish they could clone him...we need another man like him...

LA as in the one in California. His dad coached the Rams for a spell before moving to Washington to coach the Red Skins.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 4:48:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/18/2006 4:49:18 PM EDT by varoadking]
Ah...L.A. Thanks - didn't register...

I remember his dad - forgot he coached the Rams, I only remembered the Redskins. Gotta wonder how many people remember that Lombardi coached the Skins too...
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 10:37:02 PM EDT
God forbid Romney gets the nomination. Having grown up in a mormon household back west, and knowing the attitudes of the people there and in other places, there will be 11 million mormons voting for him just cause of his religion. Bad idea in my opinion, as he is NOT as conservative as one would expect from a repub. He is a RINO.

-Ben
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 6:00:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By Hard Rock:
Allen is our only chance of keeping the White House in 2008... and that is a scary thought. If the dems get smart and do run Warner, Allen must counter Warners pro-gun history. At this point in time, he can't win.

The only way Allen can turn the tables is to submit and work damned hard on some serious legislation like nationwide CCW, repeal of the sporting purpose language in gun related law, and repeal the MG ban... if he doesn't, he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning. No other Republican has any chance of winning against Warner at all.

To make it work, Allen must begin submitting and getting passed some good firearms friendly stuff now. He can't wait if he wants to have any chance... If he doesn't get something good passed by the end of 2006, write him off.

Mike


Why does everything have to revolve around gun rights? How about turning the tide of socialism in this country? Doesn't any of that matter to you? So if Allen doesn't come out and try to end the sporting purposes law you are just go and vote for Warner? That is incredibly ignorant. Any time a person runs as a limited government conservative they win. Warner is not a conservative. He may be a little centrist of social issues, but believe me he is a big government liberal. Not to mention none of us have any idea where he stands on national security.

I really don't understand the love fest everyone is having with Warner.



I agree, but tell me this, how are you planning on convincing 80 million gun owners? I know that a significant percentage of them will look at the pro-active record of both candidates and they will see that Warner hasn't vetoed any gun bills and they will look at Allen and see his flip flop on the AW ban and they'll see a LACK of pro-gun stuff during his administration in Va. and his lack of doing anything pr-active in Congress... they'll vote for Warner.

Allen wants the Presidency, he needs to get VERY pro-active on the gun issue. If he doesn't, the election is over before it begins... mark my words.

Mike
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 1:29:46 PM EDT
he gave us the CWP back. Before that you needed to be real real close to a judge to get one.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 6:59:56 PM EDT

It was Virgil Goode, GOA, NRA, NVCDL who pushed thru CHP reform. Allen was suportive tho....


Originally Posted By IceHandLuke:
he gave us the CWP back. Before that you needed to be real real close to a judge to get one.

Link Posted: 1/20/2006 3:54:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nvcdl:
It was Virgil Goode...



That's right, I remember it.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:21:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By IceHandLuke:
he gave us the CWP back. Before that you needed to be real real close to a judge to get one.



All Allen did was sign the bill into law. Remember in 1995 both houses of the General Assembly were controlled by Democrats.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:37:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bubbles:

Originally Posted By IceHandLuke:
he gave us the CWP back. Before that you needed to be real real close to a judge to get one.



All Allen did was sign the bill into law. Remember in 1995 both houses of the General Assembly were controlled by Democrats.

I am sure Marry Sue Terry would have done the same thing.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 5:32:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By Bubbles:

Originally Posted By IceHandLuke:
he gave us the CWP back. Before that you needed to be real real close to a judge to get one.



All Allen did was sign the bill into law. Remember in 1995 both houses of the General Assembly were controlled by Democrats.

I am sure Marry Sue Terry would have done the same thing.



Good God I forgot all about ole Terry. She had me worried.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:04:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By varoadking:

God, I miss Reagan...wish they could clone him...we need another man like him...




Ditto. Dutch was a good man and a true patriot. If we could get another president who loves and believed in America only half as much as Reagan did, it would be a beautiful thing.

Thanks to everybody for the replies. This is exactly the kind of info I was looking for and it will really help our family decide as we enter another cycle of primaries and elections.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 4:52:12 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 12:32:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:
it's game over for the Repubs if Mark Warner gets the Democrat nomination. He'll attract a lot of disaffected Republican voters.



I think you're right. My big fear with Warner is if he gets the VP nod with Hillary topping the ticket. That is something to fear. The lead would motivate the nut-case base but Warner would calm the fears of those on the line. Its those "independant" voters who are the key to the general election and if just a few in a few key states can vote for Hillary because they think Warner will be a moderating influence, we're in trouble.
Top Top