It is not unusual for incumbent presidents to face some form of primary challenge. Reagan gave Nixon in '68 and Ford in '76 a run, and Buchanan ran against Bush I in '92. We have the likes of Nader who is plaguing those on the left, but after '92, we haven't seen the same effect with Republicans. That doesn't mean that conservatives are happy with W.

Antiwar Conservatives webpage

Conservatives for Kerry webpage

Congressional republicans criticize Bush over spending

Questions for debate:

1.)Should George W. Bush have faced a primary challenger?

2.)What challenger would've had your vote if he/she ran? Which one would help make Bush a better candidate against Kerry?

3.)Are people to the right of George W. Bush still imortant in the Republican party?

Interesting list of candidates my Democratic friend from Nebraska has drawn up for my political party. I didn't vote for any of them because I don't like any of them particularly, although Quayle is ok I suppose. The other three are fruitcakes of various and assorted flavors. Couple of corrections though to the history printed here. In 1968, Nixon wasn't an incumbent President, LBJ was and did face opposition in his own party from Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy over the war in Vietnam. In 1976, Ford was the incumbent, but he was never elected on a national ticket, even as the VP so the Reagan challenge was reasonable and an attempt by Reagan to move the party away from the so-called "Rockefeller Republicans" aka "the Country CLub Republicans". In 1980, Jimmy Carter did face a challenge from Ted Kennedy simply because Carter had messed up so badly. Buchanan's challenge to Bush in 1992 was more an attempt by Buchanan drive the GOP towards a more isolationist stance on things like NAFTA than it was a serious attempt by him to win the nomination. In each of these cases of the party in power having a challenger there was a central dividing issue within the party. I don't believe that situation exists to any significant extent this year within the GOP.

Checking through the website provided by Nebraska29 and some of the "conservatives" listed, I kind of had to roll my eyes a little bit. Most of them I've never heard of, and the ones I have heard of are hardly hardcore conservative Republicans. For example, I would consider Chuck Hagel to be somewhat to the right of moderate, but not very far, and I'm not so sure that he isn't supporting Bush for President. Perhaps since he comes from Nebraska my Democratic friend might enlighten me on that one? On to the questions posed....

1.)Should George W. Bush have faced a primary challenger?

Good question. It might have been helpful for him to face a primary challenge to enable him to begin getting his message out a little sooner. It was a little frustrating at times for Bush supporters like me to have to basically sit on our hands while the 9 dwarves bashed away at him day after day. Might have been helpful to have something for us to talk about within the Republican party.

2.)What challenger would've had your vote if he/she ran? Which one would help make Bush a better candidate against Kerry? Certainly none of the ones you listed would have done that. I would have preferred an up and coming rising star in the GOP to have made a run to begin building a national organization for 2008. Maybe someone like a Steve Largent or JC Watts or even Colorado Governor Bill Owens might have challenged the President a bit and forced him to hone his message a little better early on. Not sure that any of them even wants the job though.


3.)Are people to the right of George W. Bush still imortant in the Republican party? Definitely, most definitely. I think the mainstream right wing of the Republican party is still the core of the party and I place them slightly to the right of President Bush and on some issues, to the right of where I am. On others, they are to the left of where I'm at. But, they are still the heart and soul of the GOP in my opinion. No Republican can possibly win a national election without them.

1.)Should George W. Bush have faced a primary challenger?

I've said this very thing in other threads as well. The lack of a challenger has done two things: (1) given Bush no real challenge from his base to his message and his tactics; (2) forced the Republicans to support an Administration that has clearly stepped in deep doo-doo the past two years. What Republican is happy about $500 billion budget deficits? What Republican supports a President who can't seem to fire cabinet members who screw up?

A challenger would have helped.

2.)What challenger would've had your vote if he/she ran? Which one would help make Bush a better candidate against Kerry?

None of the above. I like some of Aquilla's choices. Certainly not Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum . If a fiscal conservative/social moderate had run from the Republicans, I'd support him over either Bush or Kerry.

3.)Are people to the right of George W. Bush still imortant in the Republican party?

On the fiscal side, people to the conservative side of Bush are important to both parties. On the social side, can't see how being the Taliban party would help.

I didn't vote. I think an 'Other' choice would have been good. Bauer and Robertson would never, ever be serious contenders for the presidency. Keyes would be a better choice, and he wouldn't have had a snowballs chance in hell.

My pick (or dream candidate) who would maybe have a shot is Ron Paul, R (TX).
Paul webpage

1.)Should George W. Bush have faced a primary challenger?
Yes

2.)What challenger would've had your vote if he/she ran? Which one would help make Bush a better candidate against Kerry?
See above

3.)Are people to the right of George W. Bush still important in the Republican party?
I think most of the republican party is still to the right of GWB. Bush acts with taxpayer money like a drunken democrat at the Kennedy compound.

While I'm not sure Paul would win the primary, he would most certainly attract small 'l' Libertarians like myself, as well as disaffected republicans ans conservative democrats.

In 1968, Nixon wasn't an incumbent President, LBJ was and did face opposition in his own party from Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy over the war in Vietnam.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake, it turns out that the primary challenge was four years later-a couple of months during the Iowa and New Hampshire races, and nothing afer that. You are also correct about Reagan taking on Ford. You have to give Ford credit, how can you not love a guy that wore checkered bell-bottoms and had side-burns? I love the scene in Fletch where Chevy Chase takes his outrageously dressed friend to a strip-club, introduce him as Gerald Ford, and they both get a round of applause from the crowd.

For example, I would consider Chuck Hagel to be somewhat to the right of moderate, but not very far, and I'm not so sure that he isn't supporting Bush for President. Perhaps since he comes from Nebraska my Democratic friend might enlighten me on that one?

To me, he's a conservative. On issues like abortion, gun control, free-trade, military spending, health-care, and spending-he follows the republican line very well. He gets a moderate reputation because he loves to go on Face the Nation and criticize the president. At the same time if you listen, it's not a criticism of what the president is doing as a whole, rather, it's more of a criticism that the president should do more than what he's done. He's crafted an independent, maverick reputation, inspite of voting for the party line over 80% of the time. Then again, it was him who vetoed the idea of a "manufacturing czar" from Nebraska. Our democratic senator(who voted for Ashcroft's nomination and votes with the president more often than Hagel mind you) was behind the guy, and allegedly, that's why Hagel deep-sixed the manufacturing czar, because our democratic senator had ties to him and backed him. Hagel beat out the democratic candidate earlier for that senate seat. The two just don't like each other. Well, I looked up a few things on "voting report card" kind of things and here's what I found-I figured this might give you a more honest picture about him than what i could tell you.

abortion rights report card- "F"

U.S. campaign to end Israeli Occupation "A-"

National Foreign Trade Council 'A+"


I really like your choices-Largent, Watts, & Owens would definitely be social conservatives not of the fruitcake variety If anyone could tell me how to modify a poll without taking away the original message, I would be inclined to change the listings.

1.)Should George W. Bush have faced a primary challenger?

I'd say just about anyone if the GOP was pating attention to the pulse of the country. Bush Approval Ratings Lowest Ever







The GOP has picked the wrong horse to win in my opinion, and they could have done a better job by going for a more fiscally conservative, socially moderate candidate that was tough on terror.

2.)What challenger would've had your vote if he/she ran? Which one would help make Bush a better candidate against Kerry?

I don't really know enough about the Republicans listed above (or the ones not listed) to vote in this poll. However, I would have seriously considered a new Republican challenger provided they were fiscally conservative (unlike Bush), Socially moderate (unlike Bush) and had a strong stance for the WOT (which Bush does but I don't trust him or his motives, too many lies we need a clean slate).

I may consider myself a Democrat, but I'm not above voting for a more moderate Republican if I felt they were qualified and wouldn't run off and try and legislate morality.

Bush should have faced some primary challenge. Everyone listed wouldn't really provide a contrast. Bush is already a social conservative, maybe not as homophobic and racist as Pat Buchanan but he is a social conservative. I think the best person to run against Bush would be Rudy Guiliani. Guiliani would help Bush move beyond his 9/11 credentials and create a message on domestic issues. Bush would have one more dimension because he couldn't just invoke 9/11.
To answer the third question people to the right of Bush are still relevent in the republican party. There is a large segment of the public who really believe in 50's christian values. The right of the republican party represents them and that makes it relevent.

None of the potential challengers listed as poll options are acceptable. Buchanan is the Old Right isolationist candidate, and there's no support for that. Quayle isn't bad, but he's still damaged goods; everybody still thinks he's an idiot. He's not, but that's the perception, and it's hard to change. Robertson and Bauer are religious right fringe candidates.

I'd like to see a challenge from the libertarian wing of the party. The obvious choice for that is Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), the only true libertarian in Congress. Of course as things stand now, Paul is no more politically viable than Robertson of Bauer, being equally a fringe candidate, just from a different fringe. The point however would not be to win the nomination, just to coalesce the libertarians in the party, which would be enough of an accomplishment.

I second that! I think he would do great things for this nation if only Congress lets him, and he gets elected.