It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Will A Pro War Democrat Run For President?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:49 PM
Coming from the U.K I’ve noticed that every living Conservative leader (including the present one David Cameron) supported the war in Iraq (after all it’s our democracies main opposition), and that both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown also support the war in Iraq (after all Gordon Brown is the sure successor to our democracies party of government).

I was wondering whether you the American people will also be faced with the same choice. After all this was your choice last time when you were last asked to elect pro war John Kerry as president.

Personally I don’t think America’s two political parties “DemoRep” can call America a functional democracy until at least one of them chooses someone who had the foresight not to support this war.
After all the public can be excused; politics is not their business and the mass media tends to be (more often than not) their only information source. Don’t know about you but I take a very different view of politicians who in many ways (should) be one up on us; and if they are not, I beg to differ whether they are fit to be leading us.

Unfortunately I wonder whether this takes away the reality of the question I'm posing; will the effects of lobbying, mass media ownership by the very few (along with many other factors) lead to the democrats selecting a pro war politician as their candidate for you to choose as president?

It does look as though others are taking this democracy problem seriously…

Then again there are others (yep Hillary is pro war )

And there’s this Lieberman guy too
Someone called John Martha has “changed his mind”. But do I believe him? No; and anyway its too much of a risk. My opinion is that he could be giving in to political lobbying now that his support was there when it was needed for the more economic sort.
Therefore (in my view) American’s would be wise to boot him out of their presidential democrat candidate voting list.

And perhaps there’s a few other such candidates that my Google search didn’t bring up?

My Question is what do you the American people think?
America is in for a change of government; the democrats can wreck it by selecting a pro war candidate and asking the people “to change horses in a time of war”. Even though "the war" isn’t really here it’s over there; and wherever its been so far the horse has broken a few of its legs. But why should you change horses if both horses have the same legs, the same policies?

It scars me that this question is even necessary; but clearly it is. I would join the democrats just to vote (assuming we’re not past a time limit). I certainly wouldn’t remain a member if they did select a pro war candidate. But I haven’t a clue about what’s going to happen and would really like to know more about what you think.

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:21 PM
The Dems don't have any winners to run. Kerry was for AND against the war. He tried to take both sides on every issue. That's what the Dems do. There isn't an anti war anything voters will listen to because pulling out prematurely would cause a catastrophy. And just in case you're missing it, the war is being won and we are in better position to protect ourselves from Iran in the process.

The Libs won't regain power here so don't get yourself all jazzed up for the party.

posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 02:02 PM
As far as I can tell, and I freely admit to being more than slightly browned off by the Dems, there isn't a single Prowar would be candidate out there, so I think your fears are groundless, Liberal. Unfortunately, IMHO, the Democrats, at least the noisiest ones, have hitched their political wagons to the notion of the war being a bad idea and needs to end tootsweet. Since I disagree with that particular notion I obviously, will be less inclined to vote Democrat, not only this fall in the midterms, but in 2008 when we, the voting public, choose W's replacement. It's my contention that unless and until the Dems choose a more moderate, read centrist, candidate to run for the nations highest office they haven't a snowballs chance of winning back the Oval Office.

There are moderate Dems out there, or at least more moderate, who would make viable candidates: Joseph Liebermann...and others who's names escape me at the moment
. Hillary ain't one, she's a liberal democrat who is attempting to camoflage herself as a moderate, and apparently succeeding given how the farleft of the Democratic party is villifying her lately.

My opinion on the war not withstanding, we are there and can't leave without catastrophe arriving shortly thereafter. In time, yes, but that time isn't even remotely here yet. It would be nice if the democrats and some republicans would realize this. It sounds trite, but there truely is no substitute for victory, and the next President, whoever it is must realize that.

If anyones interested in my the '08 presidential election the Dems are going to run a Clinton/Obama ticket...the Republicans will run Guilliani/(southern republican to be named later)'ll be nasty and contentious...and I see the dems winning the white house, but still without a majority in either house of congress.

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 12:40 AM
I do think a pro-war Democrat will run and win. It's quite likely to be Hillary and Obama, or Edwards. I started looking in to this two years ago as part of my first novel. The fact is that this election is theirs to be won or lost. The Republicans have nobody in house who wants the job that can win.

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 10:30 AM
Nobody in the House? Maybe. Newt Gingrich is gearing up though and it would be nice to have a conservative on the ticket. Tancredo wants it too and, at first glance, I like him.

I disagree that it's, "theirs to lose". They have no solutions and if their best idea is to run against Bush, who obviously won't be running, then that would be typical.

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:08 PM
Gingrich and Tancredo have more character than clout. At this stage in the game, neitehr one has a 'machine' in place to begin the process of running for office. A lot of habeen made of Newt's recent travels to certain States, but I think he's just maneuvering to be seen maneuvering. He servesthe GOP well as an advisor and a courier-scout.

Look closely at the people who have money and manpower NOW. Not the parties. The individuals. What do you see? There is no Republican in the mix right now with a fat wallet. The GOP won't turn it's money loose until they have a clear front-runner or a de facto nominee.

Mrs. Clinton is the only Democrat with a fat wallet. the otehrs have personal fortunes, but nothing they can afford to throw away on a roll of the dice. Her Senate race is a mere formality at this point, which allows her to fatten that wallet just a little more.

Now, back to the title of this thread. Based on the evidence presented, Mrs. Clinton will be the pro-war Democrat to take the prize in 2008. Doesn't mean I like it, but it is what I see coming.

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:37 PM
Justin has a point, but 2008 is still a long way off and the way things change between now and then can make a lot of difference.

The Democrats will probably take the house this November, and the Senate is going to be very close. It could be 51-48-1 or 50-49-1 in either party's favor. I see the Democrats holding all of their states and winning Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Missouri to make it 50-49-1 Republican- of course Sanders will vote with the Democrats but Cheney will hold the tie-breaker then.

If it goes 50-49-1 Republican though, I think John McCain might declare himself an independent in a bid to get on the ticket with Hillary. They can sack the sneate leadership that way too, which I'm sure would make the black sheep of the Republican party feel pretty vindicated.

That's a big deal. With the house alone, the democrats can purse-string the war in Iraq to a slow pullout. All they have to do is announce their intention and start cutting supplemental appropriations.

This means that pro-war and anti-war will cease to be a major issue in the Democratic primaries. It will still be an issue in the general election, but there's no reason for the Democrats to fight amongst themselves over who was pro war when the war is ending; it will be most important to present a united front against the war for the general election, since their congress is killing the war and that's what they have to live with. (and I stress purse-stringing slowly instead of an outright shutdown of funding because the democrats need to 1. Keep it as a reason to vote against the Republicans in 2008 and 2. Deprive the Republicans of a fiasco over there to point at.)

So yes, a Democrat who is considered "Pro-war" will probably get the nomination, but it won't be such a big deal.

McCain's fundraising abilities after defecting and losing the ability to take from Bush's contributors will be in the toilet as far as ideology is concerned, but it would cure the curse of seeming weak and lend credibility to Hillary's campaign, probably a good thing for the ticket's overall fundraising ability.

The Republican warchests for 2008 will develop. They'll have the country's attention anyway by running a novelty candidate, and there's no such thing as bad publicity- being attacked the way Tancredo would be is just free advertising, because Republicans see it too the very things the Democrats will be saying against him will be the things the Republicans want to hear about him.

The big problem in my ametuer analysis is that the Republican candidates are going to be spending more than they'd like just to win the primary, so they'll be spending less and running more on the recognition they've already established then.

The usual suspects, people like Rice, Frist, and Guiliani, will probably command more money but "insurgents" who would represent more of a change in the Republican party like Tancredo, Gingrich, or McCain (if he stays Republican) are actually a little better understood already (perhaps not as much when compared to Condi though), and may command more loyalty from the voters just on recognition.

I think money will matter less in the general election though if the ones I've called "insurgents" bag the nomination. Any one of them has a built-in ability to attract a segment of the party that might not bother showing up to vote for Frist, for example, so spending on getting out the vote will be slightly less important.

Back to the topic, it will be a 'pro war' democrat, except that there's no such thing anymore.
It's really could be a clean-slate election if the Democrats have the spine to challenge the war once they take congress. Instead of war centered (unless the democrats want to waste money campaigning against a lame duck) I think it could be much more about reshaping the respective parties. Dare I speculate that we may actually be asked to vote "FOR" a candidate rather than against one for the first time since 1988.

Both parties need to redefine their bases anyway.

The Republicans need to get back in touch with popular middle class issues like border policy, fiscal responsibility to bring peope in from the middle and reduce their dependence on evangelicals.

The Democrats need to get back into Bill Clinton mode with specific plans to deal with crime and poverty. While they're at it they need to downplay security issues without ignoring them by trying to revive the post-gulf war myth of the all-powerful coalition air campaign.

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 01:41 AM
Let's try to steer this in a slightly different direction now. If we know that a Pro-War Dem will win the White House, what should we expect a seriously spanked GOP to do after the fact? Will they re-invent or will they whine?

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:01 AM
I've been meaning to raise that in Off_The_Street's "3 Party System" thread for a few days now and I keep on running out of time.

Conservatives have had just about enough of this Republican Party. It'd have fractured already except that it's still in charge. Once the Democrats take the house, senate, and presidency (House this year with a close or tied senate, then senate and presidency in '08) there'll be no reason for Republican voters not to rip the party up and rebuild it, and this will probably be easier than it sounds since the very thing that's gonna give the Democrats a majority will cease to exist the minute Democrats take power.

I think we'll see an attempted mutiny within the Republican party, probably something reminiscient of Perot with the power to take votes from the moderate left as well. The problem is that it won't be exciting to the Bush supporters in the religious right who will eat just about anything if you sprinkle some Holy Water and barbeque sauce on it.

The outcome of that power struggle will probably dictate what happens to the Republican party, and that in turn will have a lot to do with the 2010 midterm election. If the insurgency that I'm predicting can retake congress for their party, then they might have the clout to drag the party around a bit. They might even manage to loosen up their collar socially speaking and become competitive in California again over time.

Long story short, both parties need to get their stuff together. The Democrats don't appear to have done it; instead they are coming back to power as the natural result of the crap that goes down when one party runes the whole government. The Republicans now have a chance to get their stuff together when the Democrats come back to power, or they can do what the Democrats did and it'll probably bounce back and forth for a while then until economics or demographics change enough to crush one party or the other.

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:02 AM
I think your analysis is a best case scenario for the Republicans. I fully expect them to get stupid and give McCaine the nomination. too many people who serive on the Republican National Committee are in apology mode just now. They're afraid that McCaine will bolt and go indy. My speculation is, from all the online journals I can find, that they'll buy him off to attempt the presentation of a unified front.

The republicans have no ex-military in their ranks. The Dems do. You've heard the term, "wave the bloody shirt." Look for the Dems to do it, and look for the Republicans to be intensely jealous. Rudy Guilliani is military, but he does have a tough-guy rep that he's been carefully guarding. I expect him to do a lot of campaigning for the GOP, but he won't get anyting better than a cabinet post.

The hard right is in control ofthe GOP, and they'll stay there until discredited or simply driven out by shifting political winds. the mutiny that you mentioned is possible, and its where we might get a third party from. I'm not sure a third party candidate...whoever that might be...will win but he/she/it will scare the living daylights out of top Dems and GOP'ers alike.

Republicans need to re-invent. I say this as a conservative. I think the party to re-invent first will do great things in this century. We're gonna have to see an economic down-turn before that happens. No pessimism here. Just being rational. They won't fix it 'til it's broke and in very small pieces.

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 04:27 AM

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
They're afraid that McCaine will bolt and go indy. My speculation is, from all the online journals I can find, that they'll buy him off to attempt the presentation of a unified front.

It's a valid concern for them to have. If the Senate splits 50-49 Republican, I think McCain will blackmail them by threatening to defect and cause the Republican senate leadership to be sacked.

They shouldn't be in apology mode though, they should be in fix their crap mode. They need to tap into the Democratic mantra with their own conservative approach- "It's the economy stupid". Not all Americans are quite as deep or quite as in to all the ins and outs of policy as some of the wonderfully astute people here, but all Americans understand moneyThe Republicans need to get back into conservative mode and make easy-to-understand points about how what they plan to do for the common man in terms of dollars and cents. While they're at it, they should try to marginalize the influence of the religious right if they can. That's how you win the middle. That's been screwing them for a while- that's part of what screwed McCain in the 2000 primary and in turn made the general election such a close call.

I'd say you're pretty on target Justin.

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 01:08 PM
Here's the thing I struggle with. The conservatives who actually know what's going on are peole very much like me. We're not in D.C., and we're not in charge of anything except our votes. So, how to be heard? I've been posting on various boards since late 2004. It's nice to meet others who think like m,e but all we're really doing here is preaching to the choire.

I consider myself to be very (very) fortunate in that I'm a first time novelist who has met with some success. My work translates well in both conspiracy and mainstream markets. For every success like mine, there are 10,000 writers who don't make it this far. My work has given me a soapbox from which to be heard, and for the msot most part, few people disagree with my basic points.

I wish I could say that I had the ear of more powerful Republicans, but I don't. The only way to make thath appened will be to earn more success as I start spreakin' the cash around. I don't like to admit it, but the Repubican party will have to crash and burn like a 1976 Ford Pinto before the rest of us are heard. In the mean time, thisl eaves the Dems free to enjoy a better strategic position by default.

This hypothetical Pro-War Democrat that we're talking about here has the potential to hijack what few good ideas the GOP has had up 'til now. I think this discussion might be well served if we take a look at what that agenda might look like. It would certainly involve warfighting policy, something that looks like tax reform, and a stab at real privatization. In certain respects, we could see the Dems "out conservative" the conservatives.

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:03 PM
The democratic party is in has allowed the far-left to get in front and display 'their' image. The far-left is not where the typical democrat stands. That plus the whining, the reiteration of incorrect facts, plus the fact that some dems have flipped on recent promises (Corzine D-NJ) and added extra taxes has doomed the dems chances of regaining any seats.......they will probably lose a feew more.

Of course....remember the after the November elections the dems (far-left) will complain about losing stating that the elections where fixed (diebold) and not coming to the realization that the majority of American does not agree with the far-left viewpoint. At least the repubs have, for the most part, kept the far-right from getting involved.

new topics

top topics


log in