It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

page: 14
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 05:38 AM
link   
For your consideration, here's another blurb that you might find amusing.




posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I'm watching the Alberto Gonzales thing, and I think I'm seeing the opposition falter. It was a good move for the Bush team to release 3,000 pages of "stuff." Yet again, this is looking like another self-inflicted wound that didn't have to happen.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
the republicans don't have a single good candidate. Rice is too sullied with the mud from Iraq and her too close assoication with bush.
newt the gingrich doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell and while guilliani looks good for the republicans the funnymentalists will not back him same with romney and McCain would have had a lot more credibility if he had told bush to sit on it and rotate as opposed to sucking up to him but since the republicans like to chose a successor in line with party rank and seniority it will probably be MaCain.

It would be a great time to be a democrat if it weren't for our batch of candidates...OI VIE! I don't wanna vote for any of em.... GORE IN 08!!!



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 06:22 AM
link   
As you know, Al Gore was performing on Captol Hill yesterday. I watched atleast an hour of it before my meter got pegged. It occurs to me that his activity before Congress would make some pretty good soundbites for political commercials. Who knows? He might be just eccentric enough to think he can win. My read ofthe man is that he wouldn't take the pay cut. He likes being a star...for however long that will last.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

I'm watching the Gonzales thing and I think I'm seeing the opposition falter. It was a good move for the Bush team to release 3,000 pages of "stuff." Yet again, this is looking like another self-inflicted wound that did not have to happen. [Edited by Don W]



Although Gonzales deserves to be canned for his many disgraceful and patently non-traditional “interpretations” of the US Con and his disdain for the Law of Treaties and so on, this firing issue is too complex for the public to grasp. You’re right, J/O, this one is dying. But it just adds more fuel to the anti-WH movement.



posted by Grover

The Republicans don't have a single good candidate. Rice is too sullied with the mud from Iraq and her too close association with Bush.



Nobody ever took her as even a potential candidate. Her name was once offered by Republicans hoping to off-set the total failure of the GOP to bring forth women of national stature.



Newt the Gingrich doesn't have a snowballs chance and while Giuliani looks good for the Republicans the funnymentalists will not back him. Same with Romney. McCain would have a lot more credibility if he had told Bush to sit on it as opposed to sucking up to him but since the Republicans like to chose a successor in line with party rank and seniority it will probably be McCain. It would be a great time to be a Democrat if it weren't for our batch of candidates. I don't wanna vote for any of ‘em . . GORE IN 08! [Edited by Don W]



Au contraire, Mr G. Newt has had either an epiphany or a eureka moment. His rhetoric is strongly mainline down the middle. He is placing himself well for a dead-locked convention. Rudy remains the front-runner and may stay that way in the eyes of the media. You’re right to question how he’ll fare with the GOP core. Romney never seemed to be even up to the “flash in the pan” level. Ain’t no GOP convention going to nominate a man from Massachusetts. McCain will continue as #2 by default. The last time your seniority observation came into play was 1976, Ford v. Reagan. Goldwater in 1964 was a “throwaway’” candidate who changed America without ever intending to do so. He (and Nixon) made Reagan possible. As for the Dems and Al Gore, I liked him in ‘00 and I like him more in ‘07 but I don’t see him anywhere near to running again in ‘08. As I have said before, due to age and other confluences of politics, ‘08 is Hillary’s year. It is still her’s to lose.



posted by Justin Oldham

Al Gore was performing on Capitol Hill yesterday. I watched at least an hour before my meter got pegged. It occurs to me that his activity before Congress would make some pretty good sound bites for political commercials. Who knows? He might be just eccentric enough to think he can win. My read of the man is that he wouldn't take the pay cut. He likes being a star . . for however long that will last. [Edited by Don W]



Well, he’d have to cut back on his $30,000 electric bill at least. Or would the taxpayers get the privilege of paying it on the grounds the Secret Service requires electric power in order to provide security for the Prez and his family, etc? Recall the US paid more to “up-grade” Nixon’s private residence in CA than it cost him to buy it. Not to even mention his summer house in Palm Beach, FL. Next door to his money-laundering banker buddy, Bebe Rebozzo. And etc.

[edit on 3/22/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I wouldn't say that the Republicans fear Al Gore running in 2008 but he may be doing them a favour by not running.
Gore stacks up rather well compared to the other candidates from his party.
Gore has VP experience and a consistent stance on the Iraq war.

As I noted earlier the Republicans will have done there homework and are already taking snips at Gore.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   
As AI read him, I don't think that Big Al wants back in to D.C. politics. He's enjoying his pop culture status. I do think his performacne on Capitol Hill was a sham. He was there to film a movie. They'll take the five hours of video they shot and re-mix it for a direct-to-DVD release that will net him a shipload of cash.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I just want to take the opportunity here to thank everyone who's kept this thread (as well as other Conservative Forum threads) going with some of the most intelligent conversation on ATS.

For some reason that's not yet clear, all FSMEs have lost their ability to give applauses, so although I'd love to give you all more applauses for keeping this great discussion going, I simply can't.

I'm not sure if this is a temporary problem or a permanent change, but I just wanted to let you know I'm so happy with the continuing conversation here and would love to reward you all, but just can't at the moment.

I hope you all continue the good work no matter what happens.


[edit on 3/22/2007 by djohnsto77]



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Shucks, man. We're all just harmless pundits here, doing what we do best. What? Me? Yes, I am harmless. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I am also following this thread and learning a great deal from it.

I would like to ask if any of the lesser well known or financially able Republican candidates look good? Would they have any kind of chance to show their "stuff" on the internet?

[edit on 3/22/2007 by Mahree]



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Shucks, man. We're all just harmless pundits here, doing what we do best. What? Me? Yes, I am harmless. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.


or as a good friend of mine used to say... "I didn't do it and I won't do it again."



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree
I would like to ask if any of the lesser well known or financially able Republican candidates look good? Would they have any kind of chance to show their "stuff" on the internet?


Ok heres my take.
The internet is playing an increasing role in candidates campaigns. Social Networking and web sites such as Youtube provide a means to gather and coordinate(SP?) supporters as well as providing a medium for supporters opinions to be heard.

The internet may even up the balance sheet for a short while but this would be soon off set by other candidates spending more money on the likes of Google
Advertising. The other factor is the older elements of the population who are a lot slower or just not interested in embracing the IT age.

So the audience would be limited in some respects and if the window exits to use the Internet to gain a profile it would only exist for a short time.

As for Al Gore it might be in the dems voters best interest if he runs but IMO in terms of bringing climate change to our attention he is probably better off staying away from political office. Having said that if I was in the dems camp I would still be looking to change Gore mind.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
As we have recently seen, the internet is still full of surprises. Lesser known candidates (Ron Paul, for example) have a greater motivation to find new ways to use this tool. In the future, we'll see a lot of underdogs look at the information superhighway as a means of getting their messages out.

The viral video incident (which I linked to, above) demonstrates how one person with a PC and a lot of patience can pull off something that garners a lot of attention for a very small price (in dollars). It's worth noting that the younger generation will eventually age and come to power, and they'll be unable to function without the internet



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Justin Oldham do you think that once the political party's machines find there way and truly move in on the internet that individuals will still be able to make there voices seen and heard to the mainstream voting population ?

I wasn't quite sure which thread to post this question on so if you want to you can post your answer here .

Just let me know if you post your answer on the other thread.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   

posted by xpert11
Heres my take. The internet plays an increasing role in campaigns. Social Networking sites like Youtube provide a means to gather and coordinate supporters as well as providing a medium for supporters opinions to be heard. The other factor is the older population is slower or not interested in the IT age. The audience would be limited in some respects . . if the window exists to use the Internet it would only exist for a short time . .

As for Al Gore it might be in the Dems best interest if he runs but IMO in terms of bringing climate change to our attention he is probably better off staying away from political office. Having said that if I was in the Dems camp I would still be looking to change Gore’s mind. [Edited by Don W]



May I jump in? Part 1. Yes, X-11, the internet usage by politicians will grow exponentially. Or as we formerly said, geometrically. For “linear’ we said arithmetically. The money-moguls and politico-control freaks are working 24/7 X 365 to somehow bring the internet under regulation and control. Their raison d’etre will be 1) child porn and 2) global terrorism. Not necessarily in that order. I do hope we are able to avert that ultimate act of subjugation of the masses by the elite. That issue ought to be out front on the internet.

Part 2. Al Gore run for real? No. The current system is based on the changes in the law and on the moving of state primaries and caucuses up ever earlier. This Saturday is the day for “coming clean” on money and each candidate must disclose how much he or she has collected this past quarter. We’ll get that info every quarter. And lurking out there are the 527s not covered under any regulation.

Because it is rich people who do the donating, the R&Fs I often refer to, we are in reality getting the opinion of who rich people want to be our next president. Expressed in dollars and cents. The currency of politics. Admittedly, the rich are smart. Smarter than the poor. But are the rich just guessing, like us, or are they brazenly buying? Hedging their "bets?" Is this why over 50% of eligible voters refuse to vote? Refuse to waste their time?

This system most nearly resembles the pari-mutual betting system used in race horses. The track (and state taxes) takes its cut off the top, then divides the remainder to the winners. Win, place and show. In this case, the R&Fs are the track. They always win. It’s the suckers who lose. It will remain that way until we have publicly financed elections. And we ban all private money in OUR elections as a corrupting influence. Real CFR.


posted by Justin Oldham The internet is full of surprises. Lesser known candidates (Ron Paul, for example) have greater motivation to find new ways to use this tool. In the future, we'll see a lot of underdogs look at the information superhighway as a means of getting their messages out. The younger generation will eventually come to power and they'll be unable to function without the internet . . [Edited by Don W]




Refer to my comments above about the freedom of expression being in jeopardy by the Power Elites. People who feel strongly about this issue ought to communicate those feelings to their elected representatives and to any candidates for office, at every level. Someday some brave soul will host a website specifically for that purpose. Every elected official in the US of A would be listed including an e-mail address if available , which would give users the opportunity to express their sentiments.

Before the internet there were few crimes that a person could commit in his or her mind. Today it is apparently against the law for a person to view a child pron site. While I abhor child porn - and prostitution at any age - the old limits on what could get you in trouble seem to be eroding. Inchoate is the word for just thinking about a crime. This comes closer and closer to Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451" Thought Police. The ubiquitous tv monitors. And other means to compel conformity. Mix that 1953 novel with George Orwell’s prescient 1948 progenitor of the genre, “1984" and you have a prescription for the Patriot Act extensions. It all bodes ill for the common man.


posted by xpert11 Justin Oldham, once the political party machines move into the internet do you think that individuals will still be able to make their voices heard to the mainstream voting population? [Edited by Don W]



Good question, X-11. Offhand I’d say “yes.” But be wary as I have said in my warning above. You can see the direction our country is taking. The recent acquisition of BellSouth by AT&T brings it home. Where formerly you had 2 giants competing, now you have one super-giant. Where is the competition now? Will not AT&T take advantage of their position to raise prices of their products so that it is us, the consumer, who will pay for BellSouth, in the final analysis? Where were the so-called regulators? What does “monopoly” mean to them?

Under the guise of making American companies more competitive, globally speaking, we are becoming more and more dominated by fewer and fewer companies. Boards of Directors have more to do with out lives than does the Congress of the United States. In practice, we have repealed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and the Clayton Act forbidding restraint in trade. Not good. We obviously do not believe in our own self-proclaimed super-solution, the Free Market.

[edit on 3/27/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
First up I will deal with some lose ends.

The internet to a certain extend an extension of what happens beyond the keyboard. Things such as child pornography have been brought to the public (hence politicians interest ) attention. Today governments need advisor's or leaders who deal with the internet need to know the difference between a proxy Server and DNS. Much of the brainwashed masses that make up Republican supporters don't care that there party practices corporate Socialism. Remember these are the people that think that there warped views of Socialism will lead to the end of the world.


Returning to the central focus of the topic.
So how dose a Republican candidate deal with Internet related issues ?
The obvious route has already been outlined on this thread in effect controls put in place in the name of the so called public interest.

But the above stance wont set the agenda or make a candidate stand out from the rest. So a more unlikely stance would be this.
Since people and free enterprise function better without regulation why is there any need to regulate the internet ?
Things like Child Pornography need to be cracked down on outside of the internet. Simple logic should tell people that.

It is just as well that Barry Goldwater isnt alive to see what the Republican has become a hybrid of corporate Socialism and ruling over every aspect of a person life. Thats what you get for letting extremists take over.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I know that all of you have been following recent events in D.C. What is your current read on the Republican situation? House and Senate have each passed spending bills that would fund the military while at the same time requiring a withdrawl by September 2008. give nteh toxicity ofthe U.S. Attorney scandal, what says you about the future?



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Well nothing unexpected has happened in the 2008 race or in Washington thats why the pace of this thread has slowed down for now. The political heat has been turned up a notch on the Bush admin with the 2008 timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq.

McCain will be reasonable happy with the results of his gamble although from his point of view an actual withdrawal from Iraq needed to be this year for McCain to gain the most profit from his bet. Still McCain is playing smart politics.

Assuming that a troop withdrawal from Iraq does go ahead come 2008- 9 the Dems are going to be very lost without there two punching bags and then they will have to face the music of not having any real direction since Gore lost to Bush in 2000.

Ultimately McCain looks set lose on his bet. The truth is that the Iraq war continuing in its current form suits the dems best interests. Politically the war in Iraq is like a bombing range the Dems can always come back to it and every time there will still be a target.


[edit on 28-3-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 28-3-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 28-3-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 28-3-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   
As I look at the long-range political radar, future Republican strategy will revolve around just two things.

1. They'll bash the Democrats for their weak stand on national defense. In the long run , we shuld look for GOP leaders to say time and time again that the Dems caused us to lose the war. they'll claim the pull-out was forced, and unjustified.

2. I actually do think the RNC is going to hatch a plan to hang the illegal immigration issue around the donkey's neck. They'll be coming to the realization any day now that they need to get as far away from McCain's position on illegals as they can. The most extreme repositioning they can do is to champion the notion of strict border security AFTER McCain's bid for the Presidency fails.

I've been listening to McCain's rhetoric on the floor of the Senate. He's made many boastful claims in the last 48-72 hours about just how well the new tactics associated with the troop surge are working. Most noteably, he has has said that there are neighborhoods in Baghdad that he himself could walk safety in. Ouch, man. Ouch. The media will have no trouble feeding him his words. Take some aspirin. This humiliation will be painful to watch.

President Nixon swore up and down that his "Vietnamisation" process was a stunning success, and to a certain extent the media bought in to it...until...the summer of 1974 when the NVA began its ten month drive to conquor the South. Seems to me that McCain and his party superiors should know better than to dust off this old lie...but...politics can make you do strange things.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
1. They'll bash the Democrats for their weak stand on national defense. In the long run , we shuld look for GOP leaders to say time and time again that the Dems caused us to lose the war. they'll claim the pull-out was forced, and unjustified.


Yeah the Dems haven't managed to defeat such attacks yet.
The Dems could respond with the argument that they ended a war that had no strategic direction after Saddam was moved. Of course they wont be able to defend the fact that a regime that is a greater threat then Saddam was has come to power.



The most extreme repositioning they can do is to champion the notion of strict border security AFTER McCain's bid for the Presidency fails.


Do you think that the Republican candidate who wins the nomination will be tough on border security ?
If a Republican candidate goes down that road they will have to do more then just talk the talk he/she will have to have a solid policy that can walk the walk. Getting tough on illegal immigration is a good road to go down even some non traditional Republican voters want border security.



I've been listening to McCain's rhetoric on the floor of the Senate. He's made many boastful claims in the last 48-72 hours about just how well the new tactics associated with the troop surge are working. Most noteably, he has has said that there are neighborhoods in Baghdad that he himself could walk safety in.


Well I have yet to be convinced that the troop surge isnt anything more then Bush just passing the buck onto some one else.
As for McCain's comments they haven't hit the media yet .
I have to ask why ?
McCain's only way out of his verbal blunder is to either go to those neighbourhoods in Baghdad or admit that he got carried away. Surely McCain could have highlighted any improvement security wise in Baghdad without digging himself a hole.

McCain should just admit that he got carried away unless he wants to put more focus on the troop surge. Putting more focus on Iraq dosnt seem like a smart idea.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join