Who would you have voted for-- Republican primaries???

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

copying the other thread

1964: I'd join NH in writing-in Lodge
1968: Rockefeller
1972: Nixon
1976: Ford
1980: Baker
1984: Reagan
1988: Kemp
1992: Bush (although at the time, I was in my "PD phase" and supported Buchannan)
1996: Alexander (although at the time, I was in my "PD phase" and supported Buchannan and Keyes)
2000: McCain

[Taft]

1964: Goldwater
1968: Rockefeller
1972: Nixon, holding my nose in all likelihood
1976: Reagan
1980: Reagan
1984: Reagan
1988: Robertson
1992: Buchanan(protest vote)
1996: Buchanan(anti-leadership protest vote)
2000: McCain

[NHPolitico]

1964: Goldwater
1968: Rockefeller
1972: Nixon, holding my nose in all likelihood
1976: Reagan
1980: Reagan
1984: Reagan
1988: Robertson
1992: Buchanan(protest vote)
1996: Buchanan(anti-leadership protest vote)
2000: McCain

It's funny to imagine that people actually trusted Nixon before Watergate happened. All that we who were born after 1970 remember is the Nixon as Dr. Evil caricature.

[Gustaf]

1964: Goldwater
1968: Rockefeller
1972: Nixon, holding my nose in all likelihood
1976: Reagan
1980: Reagan
1984: Reagan
1988: Robertson
1992: Buchanan(protest vote)
1996: Buchanan(anti-leadership protest vote)
2000: McCain

It's funny to imagine that people actually trusted Nixon before Watergate happened. All that we who were born after 1970 remember is the Nixon as Dr. Evil caricature.

He had the image even before though, didn't he? "Would you buy a second-hand car from this man?" When was that used as a slogan?

[opebo]

1964: Goldwater
1968: Rockefeller
1972: Nixon, holding my nose in all likelihood
1976: Reagan
1980: Reagan
1984: Reagan
1988: Robertson
1992: Buchanan(protest vote)
1996: Buchanan(anti-leadership protest vote)
2000: McCain

It's funny to imagine that people actually trusted Nixon before Watergate happened. All that we who were born after 1970 remember is the Nixon as Dr. Evil caricature.

He had the image even before though, didn't he? "Would you buy a second-hand car from this man?" When was that used as a slogan?

I've always admired Nixon's ruthlessness and unsentimentality.  Great character for foreign policy.  However he was awfully far left domestically for a Republican.

[Gustaf]

1964: Goldwater
1968: Rockefeller
1972: Nixon, holding my nose in all likelihood
1976: Reagan
1980: Reagan
1984: Reagan
1988: Robertson
1992: Buchanan(protest vote)
1996: Buchanan(anti-leadership protest vote)
2000: McCain

It's funny to imagine that people actually trusted Nixon before Watergate happened. All that we who were born after 1970 remember is the Nixon as Dr. Evil caricature.

He had the image even before though, didn't he? "Would you buy a second-hand car from this man?" When was that used as a slogan?

I've always admired Nixon's ruthlessness and unsentimentality.  Great character for foreign policy.  However he was awfully far left domestically for a Republican.

Yeah, I suppose you would.

[Nym90]

Yes, Nixon was always regarded as a shifty character, even when he was running for VP in 1952 Harry Truman said that about him.

[opebo]

Yes, Nixon was always regarded as a shifty character, even when he was running for VP in 1952 Harry Truman said that about him.

Hah, the pot calling the kettle black.

[12th Doctor]

Yes, Nixon was always regarded as a shifty character, even when he was running for VP in 1952 Harry Truman said that about him.

Hah, the pot calling the kettle black.

Truman wasn't shifty.

[opebo]

Yes, Nixon was always regarded as a shifty character, even when he was running for VP in 1952 Harry Truman said that about him.

Hah, the pot calling the kettle black.

Truman wasn't shifty.

He came from the Kansas City Democrat machine.  The party back then was astoundingly corrupt.

[© tweed]

1988: Robertson
1992: Buchanan(protest vote)
1996: Buchanan(anti-leadership protest vote)
2000: McCain

It's funny he supports the christian right's protest candidates three straight times and then supports a sensible candidate with McCain in 2000.  Maybe he just votes for the candidate that he thinks speaks their mind, which is true of Robertson, Buchanan, and McCain.  Although it would be better if Robertson didn't speak his mind

[NHPolitico]

1964: Goldwater
1968: Rockefeller
1972: Nixon, holding my nose in all likelihood
1976: Reagan
1980: Reagan
1984: Reagan
1988: Robertson
1992: Buchanan(protest vote)
1996: Buchanan(anti-leadership protest vote)
2000: McCain

It's funny to imagine that people actually trusted Nixon before Watergate happened. All that we who were born after 1970 remember is the Nixon as Dr. Evil caricature.

He had the image even before though, didn't he? "Would you buy a second-hand car from this man?" When was that used as a slogan?

I've always admired Nixon's ruthlessness and unsentimentality.  Great character for foreign policy.  However he was awfully far left domestically for a Republican.

Yeah, I suppose you would.

I bet opebo is sad because he can't vote for Attila the Hun.

[NHPolitico]

Yes, Nixon was always regarded as a shifty character, even when he was running for VP in 1952 Harry Truman said that about him.

Not really because no serious portion of the public subscribed to that view.  Nixon was viewed as presidential in all three races he ran. He narrowly lost to JFK because he wasn't as stylish as JFK was at the dawn of the TV age.  Nixon had good support from black people and a broad cross-section of the country-- different income levels and ethnicities and religions.   He wasn't as personable as some politicians, but he was viewed quite favorably overall until Watergate.

[Gustaf]

Yes, Nixon was always regarded as a shifty character, even when he was running for VP in 1952 Harry Truman said that about him.

Not really because no serious portion of the public subscribed to that view.  Nixon was viewed as presidential in all three races he ran. He narrowly lost to JFK because he wasn't as stylish as JFK was at the dawn of the TV age.  Nixon had good support from black people and a broad cross-section of the country-- different income levels and ethnicities and religions.   He wasn't as personable as some politicians, but he was viewed quite favorably overall until Watergate.

Yes, but the image was still there, just like the "Slick Willy" image was there for Clinton before Lewinsky, and while he was still winning elections. I repeat, "Would you buy a second-hand car from this man?"

[Nym90]

Exactly. I wasn't saying that Nixon was widely regarded as of poor character, but there was definitely that perception out there at least among some. In other words, Watergate wasn't a complete shock, Nixon had always seemed like the type who might try to pull something of that sort.

[opebo]

Yes, Nixon was always regarded as a shifty character, even when he was running for VP in 1952 Harry Truman said that about him.

Not really because no serious portion of the public subscribed to that view.  Nixon was viewed as presidential in all three races he ran. He narrowly lost to JFK because he wasn't as stylish as JFK was at the dawn of the TV age.  Nixon had good support from black people and a broad cross-section of the country-- different income levels and ethnicities and religions.   He wasn't as personable as some politicians, but he was viewed quite favorably overall until Watergate.

Yes, but the image was still there, just like the "Slick Willy" image was there for Clinton before Lewinsky, and while he was still winning elections. I repeat, "Would you buy a second-hand car from this man?"

This raises an interesting question - who was more unprincipled and corrupt, Nixon or Clinton.  It is a very tough choice!  I'd say Clinton, but admit its a close contest.  Anyway both were similar - unideological do-anything-to-win social climbers.  

As for Watergate, I always thought it was totally exaggerated by the liberal press, and that the resignation was absurdly out of proportion with the offense.

[Gustaf]

Yes, Nixon was always regarded as a shifty character, even when he was running for VP in 1952 Harry Truman said that about him.

Not really because no serious portion of the public subscribed to that view.  Nixon was viewed as presidential in all three races he ran. He narrowly lost to JFK because he wasn't as stylish as JFK was at the dawn of the TV age.  Nixon had good support from black people and a broad cross-section of the country-- different income levels and ethnicities and religions.   He wasn't as personable as some politicians, but he was viewed quite favorably overall until Watergate.

Yes, but the image was still there, just like the "Slick Willy" image was there for Clinton before Lewinsky, and while he was still winning elections. I repeat, "Would you buy a second-hand car from this man?"

This raises an interesting question - who was more unprincipled and corrupt, Nixon or Clinton.  It is a very tough choice!  I'd say Clinton, but admit its a close contest.  Anyway both were similar - unideological do-anything-to-win social climbers.  

As for Watergate, I always thought it was totally exaggerated by the liberal press, and that the resignation was absurdly out of proportion with the offense.

I'd say Nixon, b/c he messed with the Democratic system, Clinton just with his practicant.

[opebo]

Yes, Nixon was always regarded as a shifty character, even when he was running for VP in 1952 Harry Truman said that about him.

Not really because no serious portion of the public subscribed to that view.  Nixon was viewed as presidential in all three races he ran. He narrowly lost to JFK because he wasn't as stylish as JFK was at the dawn of the TV age.  Nixon had good support from black people and a broad cross-section of the country-- different income levels and ethnicities and religions.   He wasn't as personable as some politicians, but he was viewed quite favorably overall until Watergate.

Yes, but the image was still there, just like the "Slick Willy" image was there for Clinton before Lewinsky, and while he was still winning elections. I repeat, "Would you buy a second-hand car from this man?"

This raises an interesting question - who was more unprincipled and corrupt, Nixon or Clinton.  It is a very tough choice!  I'd say Clinton, but admit its a close contest.  Anyway both were similar - unideological do-anything-to-win social climbers.  

As for Watergate, I always thought it was totally exaggerated by the liberal press, and that the resignation was absurdly out of proportion with the offense.

I'd say Nixon, b/c he messed with the Democratic system, Clinton just with his practicant.

I don't know what a practicant is, but Nixon didn't mess with the democratic system, he just burglarized and bugged.  Its not as if he rigged ballots or something.  Democrats do that in practically every inner city/indian reservation.

[Gustaf]

Yes, Nixon was always regarded as a shifty character, even when he was running for VP in 1952 Harry Truman said that about him.

Not really because no serious portion of the public subscribed to that view.  Nixon was viewed as presidential in all three races he ran. He narrowly lost to JFK because he wasn't as stylish as JFK was at the dawn of the TV age.  Nixon had good support from black people and a broad cross-section of the country-- different income levels and ethnicities and religions.   He wasn't as personable as some politicians, but he was viewed quite favorably overall until Watergate.

Yes, but the image was still there, just like the "Slick Willy" image was there for Clinton before Lewinsky, and while he was still winning elections. I repeat, "Would you buy a second-hand car from this man?"

This raises an interesting question - who was more unprincipled and corrupt, Nixon or Clinton.  It is a very tough choice!  I'd say Clinton, but admit its a close contest.  Anyway both were similar - unideological do-anything-to-win social climbers.  

As for Watergate, I always thought it was totally exaggerated by the liberal press, and that the resignation was absurdly out of proportion with the offense.

I'd say Nixon, b/c he messed with the Democratic system, Clinton just with his practicant.

I don't know what a practicant is, but Nixon didn't mess with the democratic system, he just burglarized and bugged.  Its not as if he rigged ballots or something.  Democrats do that in practically every inner city/indian reservation.

I think that is messing with the Democratic system. Hmmm...it's possible that I just made up the word practicant, it happens sometimes when one uses a foreign language. I was referring to Monica Lewinsky.

[12th Doctor]

Yes, Nixon was always regarded as a shifty character, even when he was running for VP in 1952 Harry Truman said that about him.

Hah, the pot calling the kettle black.

Truman wasn't shifty.

He came from the Kansas City Democrat machine.  The party back then was astoundingly corrupt.

Acctually, he won his first election by campaigning and gaining the support of his old WWI buddies.  Just because he came out of a machine doesn't mean he himself was corrupt.  

[Taft]

1988: Robertson
1992: Buchanan(protest vote)
1996: Buchanan(anti-leadership protest vote)
2000: McCain

It's funny he supports the christian right's protest candidates three straight times and then supports a sensible candidate with McCain in 2000.  Maybe he just votes for the candidate that he thinks speaks their mind, which is true of Robertson, Buchanan, and McCain.  Although it would be better if Robertson didn't speak his mind

The truth is this: I have a great disdain for the GOP leadership.  The coronation rounds drive me nuts, and make me really waffle about whether I'm a Conservative Republican or a Conservative Democrat(and I mean very Conservative as far as Democrat goes).  The problem is that the party is dominated by the same general crowd that's been in power since the mid/late 1970s.  At least the Democrats like to fight it out(although the frontloading needs to go; this season was a bust).

The one thing I do not like is wishy-washy moderates.  McCain was a blunt moderate, and the others were conservatives.  That's generally my litmus test.  Bush is bland, unexciting.  He was in 2000, so I supported McCain(who actually carried my county while getting washed away in the rest of the state).  I am in actuality pro-life and pro-gun rights, but I am also anti-deficit(big beef with Bush here).

[Gustaf]

1988: Robertson
1992: Buchanan(protest vote)
1996: Buchanan(anti-leadership protest vote)
2000: McCain

It's funny he supports the christian right's protest candidates three straight times and then supports a sensible candidate with McCain in 2000.  Maybe he just votes for the candidate that he thinks speaks their mind, which is true of Robertson, Buchanan, and McCain.  Although it would be better if Robertson didn't speak his mind

The truth is this: I have a great disdain for the GOP leadership.  The coronation rounds drive me nuts, and make me really waffle about whether I'm a Conservative Republican or a Conservative Democrat(and I mean very Conservative as far as Democrat goes).  The problem is that the party is dominated by the same general crowd that's been in power since the mid/late 1970s.  At least the Democrats like to fight it out(although the frontloading needs to go; this season was a bust).

The one thing I do not like is wishy-washy moderates.  McCain was a blunt moderate, and the others were conservatives.  That's generally my litmus test.  Bush is bland, unexciting.  He was in 2000, so I supported McCain(who actually carried my county while getting washed away in the rest of the state).  I am in actuality pro-life and pro-gun rights, but I am also anti-deficit(big beef with Bush here).

Why don't you get an avatar, then we would know what state you're talking about!

[Nym90]

Not too surprised that you wouldn't see Watergate as a big deal Opebo. There were many true believers like you who thought that whatever was necessary to win the election was justified. Is G. Gordon Liddy one of your heroes? Would you have burned a hole through your hand to show your devotion?

And I'm sure you have or can easily find documented proof from all of these past elections, in "almost every" inner city and indian reservation, of the names of people who perpetrated election cheating, when they did it, names of those whose ballots were tampered with, and exactly what was done to alter these ballots. Right?

Obviously you'd never make such a serious allegation without having clear proof beyond a reasonable doubt of their validity.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

He needs none of that "proof" stuff... he is a Republican and is above the need for mere "proof".
After all everyone knows that the Dems are just a bunch of crooked union bosses or bleeding heart limosine liberals who should all be shot at birth, and that Republicans are the only true, honest, upstanding human beings left on the planet.
BTW lets fake it that Bush killed Ho Chi Minh! That'll boost his poll numbers...
[/sarcasm]

[Demrepdan]

I supported McCain in 2000...and if he would have made it through to the convention....I would have supported HIM instead of Gore for the general election.