It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Short of staying away from Gonzales altogether, I can;t help but think that the candidates should raise their own defensive smoke screams. Excuse me, that should be "smoke screens." The ideal cover would seem to be the looming economci crisis--but--doing so would violate the old school rule that that thou shalt not take shots ath thine fellow Republicans.
Talking about the credit meltdown and other negative financial indicators will most certainly take the heat off them...and put it on the Bush administration. If you're on the bush team, you're gonna feel betrayed as the muck starts to flow in your direction.
Originally posted by xpert11
IMO the Republican candidate that wins the 2008 nomination will not be connected to the Bush admin.
posted by Xpert11
“ . . if you throw enough mud eventually some of it will stick. The other theme we see is Republicans distancing themselves from the Bush admin. I cant help but feel that the Dems are beating a dead horse. Lets not forgot that the Sun is slowly setting on the Bush admin as 2008 looms closer. Despite not being a fan I would still like to see Bush leave office on a positive or at an least quiet note.
posted by Justin Oldham
The least connected candidates, according to your criteria, would be Giuliani or Romney. If McCain dropped out of the race, you might get your wish. Romney is still not exhibiting any real signs of ambition, so we could be facing a Gingrich-Giuliani ticket.
Here's my question for the panel, based on xpert's theory. Which is better for the Republicans? Gingrich-Giuliani, or Giuliani-Gingrich? I ask this question because it really does mater who goes first. [Edited by Don W]
posted by xpert11
Is there such a thing as a experienced politician without baggage ? I think the answer in this case is no. The other issue is with the Bush admin supporters . . a candidate would need some of their support and at the same time would be criticizing the Bush admin . . their supporters will need to unite behind fresh blood and not become fractured along the lines of Iraq/Bush and 2008/fresh blood crowd. [Edited by Don W]
posted by Xpert-11
When it came to the conditions at Walter Reed Hospital becoming public the Republican party was awakened from its own propaganda that it had been spewing for so long. [We Republicans alone Love The Troops!] Now when any Republican candidate pledges that he or she supports the troops the ghost of Walter Reed will come back to haunt them. [Edited by Don W]
The memories of troops being spat after returning from Vietnam have been replaced by the US military mis treatment of its own personal. The punching bag has moved across the political spectrum. After all the crap that the people who opposed the Iraq have gotten when it came to the "who supports the troops debate" you can be assured that the punching bag will be beaten to a pulp.
posted by Justin Oldham
We've had some interesting developments in the last 24 hours. The DoJ released 3,000 pages meant to show they were not acting "politically" in regard to the U.S. Attorney firings. Based on what's been reported about the contents of those released records, we can at the very least infer that this 'crisis' is just one more self-inflicted wound. My first impression is that there was a lot of mis-communication. [Edited by Don W]
The Dems are making a lot out of a little. Their’s is a political stunt, but it is a stunt with significant repercussions. The way is now open for Democrat leaders in the House and the Senate to issue subpoenas that can and will investigate the matter of pre-war intelligence. A lot of people have participated in this discussion since the threat opened. This is the kind of long-run dialogue that we need more of across the country.