2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

The Republicans have a tough decision to make. They've been carrying the President's water for some time now on the 'easier' border security options. McCain himself is welded to the guest worker concept. If the GOP doesn't do an about-face by the end of the summer, they won't be able to. As for McCains big mouth, I have a feeling he's about to have something in common with Howard Dean.

Taking as approximately accurate the popular estimate that the number of undocumented workers in the US is 11-14 million, and the number that 500,000 people per year enter the US illegally, we can see we have an immense problem. No one ever tells us how many “illegals” leave the US every year and return home.

90% of the problem lies along the US-Mexico border. I believe this border is about 1,800 miles long. You can get the exact length from the CIA World Factbook website. As every country with a long borders has learned, it is not cost-effective to attempt a 100% closure. Fortunately for us, no Mexicans have been involved in any terrorist movements nor have any perpetrated any acts of terrorism.

Without waxing overly sentimental, many Mexicans harbor in the deep recesses of their national memory, the notion the great Southwest is really Mexican territory taken from them in 1846-1848. Which everybody admits is a practice forbidden today by the United Nations Charter. Everybody except Israel and the United States. But I digress.

A good reminder how deeply embedded into our economy those workers have become was given 3 months ago when the ICE - Immigration and Customs Enforcement successor to INS - raided five meat processing plants owned by Swift and Company. The real intent of the raid - to frighten and humiliate the illegal community - is disputed, but the ICE said out of 1,100 undocumented workers at the plants, they arrested 70 people using stolen identities. That fact alone does not implicate the Mexican workers as those who committed the thefts. They very likely paid good money for those ID’s. Swift and Company was not charged with any violation of law.

Large employers like Swift and Company use Illegals to either break up existing unions or prevent the organizing of the company by new unions. So party, illegals are serving the union busting goal of American business.

Lower wages. America’s unregulated employment market will follow the general rule of supply and demand. Ergo, keep the market filled with cheap labor and you will keep down the wages of everyone. That’s first year MBA stuff.

Racial policy is also involved. The undocumented workers are taking many jobs that formerly African Americans performed. And poor whites. Yard work. Roofing work. Digging work. Kitchen cleanup work. Restaurant work. And so on. This practice - whether intentional or not - serves to further isolate the American underclasses. To rise from the bottom you need a dependable job paying good wages with fringe benefits. What is America doing to bring that along?

The American government is benefitting, too. All money paid into the SSA system including the Medicare tax, that is not allocable to an established account, is regarded as a “bonus” by the Government, which promptly spends it.

Sure, it’s obvious we need a picture ID card issued to each incoming person who wants a temporary visa, usually intending to work. The card could also establish a SS account number so that money earned here could be credited or transferred to the social security account in their home country.

Those workers already here would be fined $500, and put on a list which would hold up the process for 1 year, for a probationary period to assure good conduct. Then they would be granted a Green Card as a permanent resident, and be allowed to go into the same process for citizenship as anyone with a Green Card. Many Mexican and other Central Americans do not want citizenship. They do want legal status, but they intend to return home at some future time.

This is going to be the outcome. There is no other way to address this problem. The Rich and Famous want them here. The Poor and Poorer do not. The Rich and Famous run the country. Guess who wins that one?

That’s my view.

[edit on 3/28/2007 by donwhite]

The media destroyed Dean because he dared show some passion rather then just endless political ramblings. The brainwashed masses brought what the media told then hook line and sinker.

I failed to make one thing clear in my previous post about McCain's comments.
On a personal level I don't have a problem with McCain's comments aside from the fact he got a bit carried away.

On a political level his comments were sheer stupidly. The media has left McCain alone so far because its eyes and interest lies with the non binding resolution calling for a troop withdrawl from Iraq.

The fact that the media has left McCain alone , destroys the delusions of those who swear by the Liberal media conspiracy. but much like those who supported the war in Iraq they choose very selectively what they want to see and hear.

I had a chance to talk with somebody tonight who read my book. It was just fifteen minutes in IM, but you know ho fast those conversations can go. A lot of peole are taking note of McCain's slow fizzle.

One of the things that generated postive ratings for my work when it first came out were...the criticisms of my speculation that the Republicans would soon be out of power. Holy cow, you'd think I was advocating for something obscene. So, here war, three years later...and I'm not wrong. I'm about to be...much more "correct."

The mainstream media is leaving John McCain and the other GOP contenders to their own devices because they know what the rest of us on this board already know. As much as I dislike it, I can't escape the conclusion that the Republican party has self-destructed. if I could see it coming years in advance, so could the top Democrat leaders. I don't blame them for capitolizing on it. That's why they call it politics.

I do hope to see the 2008 Republican nominee take his defeat with some grace. I don't epxect the current crop of old guard leaders to actually learn their lesson, but I do expect them to head off in to the wilderness with their chins up. In ten year's time, I hope to see my preferred party emerge from exile with a new attitude and a new mission that will actually champion conservativism in government.

posted by Justin Oldham

I had a chance to talk with somebody tonight who read my book. One of the things that generated positive ratings for my work was my speculation that Republicans would soon be out of power. Holy cow, you'd think I was advocating something obscene. So, three years later . . and I'm not wrong. I'm about to be . . much more "correct." [Edited Don W]

Prescient? The ability to “see” ahead. Actually, this is not a mysterious power, but is the result of careful observations, the assignment of appropriate values and the ability to keep personal biases out of the equation. Congratulations, Mr J/O!

A lot of people are taking note of McCain's slow fizzle. The mainstream media is leaving John McCain and the other GOP contenders to their own devices because they know what the rest of us on this board already know. I can't escape the conclusion that the Republican party has self-destructed. if I could see it coming years in advance, so could the top Democrat leaders. I don't blame them for capitalizing on it. That's why they call it politics.

I attribute this to gerrymandering. I have heard it said now the Dems have to poll 55% of the vote to gain a 50% +1 majority in the Congress. I lived through that spiraling downward process in Ky from the halcyon days of Warren-Burger court’s “one man, one vote” to the Rehnquist present. Of course, the most flagrant violation of one man one vote took place recently in Texas under the aegis of Tom DeLay. This issue is in turn muddied by the approval of drawing districts to assure minority representation.

Computer-assisted demographically driven gerrymandering is now de rigeur for state legislatures. A re-districting commission composed of academics, geographers and demographers could do no worse. It is asking too much of ordinary member of state legislatures to do it right, when the opportunity for partisan gain is so evident.

I do hope to see the 2008 Republican nominee take his defeat with some grace. I don't expect the current crop of old guard leaders to actually learn their lesson . . In ten year's I hope to see my preferred party emerge from exile with a new attitude and a new mission that will actually champion conservatism in government. [Edited by Don W]

It could happen. Newt Gingrich is busy making himself over. His new face shines well in mixed company. Liberals and moderates. The old time rhetoric is missing. Single issue politics is passe. Newt no longer repeats that famous Regan edict, “Government IS the problem, not the solution.” As if we could have none of it, there would be no problems? I rank Reagan’s depth of understanding the nature of politics as equal to but no better than Bush43's. Reagan knew only 3 things without cue cards, 1) the rich should not be taxed, 2) the USSR was the evil empire, and 3) Star Wars would save America.

I do believe it is time for a radical overhaul of the delivery system of governmental services, and the reversal of the anti-government forces who have been privatizing government.


[edit on 3/29/2007 by donwhite]

Republicans like myself who prefer small government have been left out in the cold. We've been lied to. The Bush administration's "privatization" has been nothing like what was promised. The boondoggle that we are now forced to live with isn't just the fault of Democrats or Republicans. It's the fault of those who have practiced pure greed, and the politics athat enabled that greed.

This is the sin that Republicans in high office know about and refuse to talk about. In the months leading up to the 2008 elections, you can bet that bloggers like myself will be stirring he pot as we talk about this unspoken scam. Future members of the Republican party will have a hard choice to make. Returning to the old ways of small government won't be easy, and in fact may no longer be possible.

My long term hope is that some time around 2016, the next generation of GOP leadership will come to power and come to their senses. By then, the American peole may have recognized that the party is over, so to speak. My speculation is that proponents of big government from both sides of the aisle will have brought the nation to the edge of destruction, depression, or both.

The sad fact is that THEY are gonna have to break it before WE can fix it.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I do hope to see the 2008 Republican nominee take his defeat with some grace. I don't epxect the current crop of old guard leaders to actually learn their lesson, but I do expect them to head off in to the wilderness with their chins up.

Well I sure hope that 2008 Republicans have more of a belief in victory then you do other wise the election is already lost.

Onto another matter.

Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani says if elected, he'd be open to his wife's attending Cabinet meetings on issues in which she's interested.

In an interview with Barbara Walters to air Friday on ABC News' "20/20," the former New York city mayor and his wife, Judith Nathan Giuliani, answered questions about the six marriages between them and whether she was the "other woman" who caused the breakup of his second marriage to TV personality Donna Hanover.

Rudy Giuliani, the current front-runner in the 2008 GOP race, discussed what role his wife would play if he were to win the White House

Link

We have already covered how Rudy being a social Liberal makes some people unhappy so I wont cover that ground again. The information that interests me is that of the role his wife would play in the White house.

In a world were everything is turned into a political issue against a candidate is the role of Rudy wife in the white House something that could be used against him ?

Originally posted by xpert11
In a world were everything is turned into a political issue against a candidate is the role of Rudy wife in the white House something that could be used against him ?

For better or for worse, Hillary Clinton "broke the mold" when she became the most politically contraversial First Lady in American history. Presidential wives have played many different roles throughout our short history as a nation. There is no specific law governing their activities. it's all tradition.

The tradition of the "silent spouse" began with Martha Washington, who was known to have a dislike for politicians. To be fair, she had a lot on her plate. She ran the family business while George was off saving the the nation, and then leading it.

Dolly Madison, wife of our 3rd U.S. President, was known to be just as "sharp" as her husband. Even today, historians from around the world pour over a thousand clues that...suggest...she had a prominant but silent role in the shaping of her husband's policies.

Eleanor Roosevelt easily earned the title of America's first openly active First Lady. Today's historians and biographers are treated to a lot of documentation that makes it clear that FDR had his hands full. His wife had no trouble at all when it came to makeing and using her own brand of political mojo. She outlived her husband by quite a few years, and was alternately loved and hated by the press for her activism.

Jaqueline Bouvier-Kennedy (Don's watching, gotta get this right!) benefited from television in a way that gave her "star power," but she seldom used it without her husband's approval. Even so, being the first televised First lady made it easier for her make friends and influence people.

When Bill Clinton joked, "you get two for the price of one," he must've laughed even harder behind closed doors. He really wasn't kidding. Bill and Hillary have been a politician's dream team since before I was born. It was only a matter of simple statistics and time before random factors would combine to give us...this.

Nobody expects the First Lady to be silent any more. When looking at the candidate, most Americans also look at the spouse. Older voters are not happy about the prospect of getting a two-fer, but the younger folks seem to like it. it smacks of greater equality.

Now that he's spilled the milk, you can bet that the MSM will use this opening as an excuse to eviscerate...I mean probe...Mr. Giuliani's [current] wife. Will it do him any good? Not likely. Future historians are likely to classify this statement as just one more self-inflicted wound.

Don't get me wrong. I want the Republicans to win. It hurts me to see "my team" failing so badly. When you're hot, you're hot. When you're not...you're just "not." When the Republicans now in office haven't been wrong, mistaken, or uninformed, they've bet wrong or made bad guesses. They've done all of this with the help and advise of their spouses.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by Justin Oldham]

I have given the matter of Rudy comment and the role of First Ladys some thought.

First up I will give my personal opinion.
I don't have a problem with a First Lady having input when it comes to policy's that she is passionate about and/or has knowledge about. I would have a problem with a First Lady running the country or having to much political influence beyond her knowledge and experience. I hope you can all understand what I'm getting at.

BTW if Hillary is elected does Bill become a First Husband ?

Now on a political level Rudy comment could be spun like this.
"If you elect Rudy his wife will have to much influence ."

So my question to the panel is this.
What scripted answer should a Republican candidate give when asked about the possible future role of his wife in the White House ?

posted by Justin Oldham

posted by xpert11 . In a world were everything is turned into a political issue against a candidate is the role of Rudy wife in the White House something that could be used against him ?

Hillary Clinton "broke the mold" when she became the most controversial First Lady . . the tradition of the "silent spouse" began with Martha Washington . . Dolly Madison, wife of our 4th President, was known to be just as "sharp" as her husband. Eleanor Roosevelt easily earned the title of America's first openly active First Lady. FDR had his hands full. His wife had no trouble making and using her own brand of political mojo. Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy being the first televised First lady made it easier to make friends and influence people. Bill and Hillary have been a politician's dream team.

Now that Giuliani's spilled the milk, you can bet the MSM will use this opening to probe his current wife. Future historians are likely to classify this statement as just one more self-inflicted wound.

I want the Republicans to win. It hurts me to see "my team" failing so badly. When the Republicans now in office haven't been wrong, mistaken, or uninformed, they've bet wrong or made bad guesses. They've done all of this with the help and advise of their spouses. [Edited by Don W]

J/O, I read too much of your material to know that it is true, that you really do want the GOP to win. Most people are so partisan they overlook even the most obvious miscues of their favorite party.

I was an Ed Muskie fan, but when he shed a tear in public, he was pushed out of the race. So now we have a guy who can sign 154 death warrants without a blink! We set weird standards.

Recall from history Abraham Lincoln’s wife? I believe she was bi-polar. Lincoln had his own mental problems, too. Woodrow Wilson’s wife was a strong character. It was rumored that she and Colonel House, WW’s assistant, actually ran the US the last 18 months of his term. Nancy Reagan performed a very useful task, IMO, keeping Ronnie from being exploited by some of his advisers and putting brakes on his more weird ideas. I do think he was already an “early” Alzheimer in his last term. He mixed his movie roles with real life, he slept at many cabinet meetings and is rumored to have slept through Iran-Contra.

Our current president exhibits some signs of a serous disconnect with reality and a total incapacity to change his mind or to at least give the public appearance of open-mindedness and to have cursorily explored all his options. He is fascinated by his post, The Decider!

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
Omar Khayyham


[edit on 3/30/2007 by donwhite]

You know what? This thread needs more flags. It's just that good. Flag it, people. Let's show it off to the world!

One of the reasons why I would like to see a GOP win is that my historical sensebilities tell me that we really do need a Conservative in the Presidency just now. After the Soviet Union collapsed, it really was time for a lazzaise-fair Democrat. It's what we needed, and it is what we got.

I'm not going to bore anyone with the socio-political stuff. I'll save that for my stuffy poli-sci posse. Suffice to say that we're not going to get what I think we need jsut now. The last thing that W has been is conservative. The lack of conservative leadership has been felt by all of us.

Having said that, I'm still willing to plug along with this discussion. There are new things that come up all the time that need our attention.

A Conservative?

Out of the box? I think it is legitimate to argue that FDR was the most conservative president of the 20th Century. He sought to preserve the American Way of Life and was hugely successful.

But let me stay mainstream. In my lifetime the closest to being a “true” conservative - as opposed to just looking backwards - was Dwight David Eisenhower. 1952-1960. It is important to recall the times in which he was president.

The Great Depression began on Black Tuesday, October 24, 1929. The falling dominoes effect took down the economy and by 1932, the country (and the world) was in the worst economic slump it had ever experienced.

It is well documented the Democrat FDR’s New Deal did not end the Depression. World War 2 did that. But what FDR did was to make it oh so endurable! You were not alone! There was help out there. And our leader cared. Very comforting. Very antithetical to Herbert Hoover.

Not everybody liked the New Deal. Not everyone appreciated FDR. In 1946. The 80th Congress went Republican. It enacted the 2 term limit 22nd Amendment which was passed over President Truman’s veto.

The Democrats. Truman wanted to run again in 1952. He was exempted from the 2 terms limit. His advisers and his own judgment told him he could not win. His strong civil rights stance ended the Dems Southern coalitoin. Labor troubles hurt him in the Iron Belt. A new phenomenon, inflation, was running wild hurt across the country. But most important, he was saddled with an unwinnable war in Korea. He fired MacArthur who wanted to use nuclear bombs. Truman said "No." So he settled for the privilege of naming his successor-to-be. This was ok back then, before the nominating process was democratized. He choose Adlai Stevenson.

The Republican Party. In 1944, popular NY Governor Tom Dewey had the nomination pushed on him as the sacrificial lamb. After the Republicans won the 1946 off-year Congressional election the presidential nomination took on a new attraction. In 1948, it looked good for the GOP. Their time had come!

1948. Dewey asked for a second run at the presidency, claiming he had earned it in 1944. The GOP agreed and Dewey was the nominee in 1948. After the GOP success in the 1946 election, most observers said Dewey was a sure bet. Everyone but Harry Truman. As part of that deal, the 1948 GOP Convention agreed that Senate Majority Leader Robert Alphonse Taft, of Cincinnati and known as Mr. Republican, was next in line for the run in 1952, if Dewey failed.

1952. After the unexpected defeat of Tom Dewey in 1948, the GOP licked its wounds until 1952. Everyone knew that Ike, as he was universally called, was a likely president-to-be of the United States. There was much speculation over which party would get him to be its nominee. As in history beginning in Greece and Rome, great generals are often made a nation’s leader. Entirely illogical, it is nevertheless one way a grateful people can honor the person who did so much for them in their hour of great need. An honorarium.

The Dems offered the nomination to Ike. He declined. I always thought he did that because of the Southern Democrat’s iron grip control over Congress. Ike was conservative as are most Americans, but he knew the Jim Crow world of America’s south was too long running, was un-American, and had to change. He also knew that with both branches under the same party, it was never going to happen. Peacefully. OTOH, maybe Ike was a Republican?

So what happened between January 20, 1953, and January 20, 1961? The Democrats regained control of the Congress in 1954. This was in large part due to the extremism and excesses of Sen. Joe McCarthy. He was labeled as on a “witch-hunt.” Ike allowed the Rosenbergs to be executed on June 19,1953, a blight on America.

Lately, I hear much of the credit for the interstate highway system being assigned to Ike. Him being a conservative and all. The Dems controlled both houses of Congress. Before I give too much credit to the Republicans, I’d like to know the final vote in each house on that bill.

Ike forced the UK and France along with Israel, out of Egypt. The US had withdrawn its promise (made under Truman) to finance and help in the building of the Aswan High Dam. The Republicans broke the country's word and cancelled our offer of aid to Egypt. Egypt seized the Suez Canal. The GOP also cancelled a high dam on the Snake River when they took power in 1953. The 3 low dams they later built there - primarily for eclectic power companies - are now about to be taken down. Silt. Democratic high dams last for centuries, GOP low dams last only long enough to cash the dividend checks. Hmm? More conservative values?

Ike reluctantly ordered the use of the U2 by the CIA. Ike, a product of the early 20th century morality, who believed violating a nations air space just because you can did not sit well with him. He proposed the “open skies” program where both the US and the UsSR could overfly the other’s country. No deal.

Ike was very slow in the racial relations battles waged in the 1950s and 1960s. He was a “separation of powers” person and believed the race issue must be dealt with by the legislative bodies of American - an impossibility surely a reality known to him - and the judiciary. He finally moved in Little Rock, after weeks of delay, and then left too soon to get the job done.

To my knowledge, Ike never endorsed the 1954 Brown v. Topeka case ending Jim Crow. I do know for a fact Ike once said the worst mistake he ever made as president was nominating Earl Warren to be Chief Justice. Without Earl Warren, it is highly doubtful the Supreme Court as then constituted would have taken that dramatic and overdue step that rally saved America from itself. No racist himself, he was just limited government man. At a time crying out for a strong government! I fault him for this.

Ike took baby-steps into Indo-China. Guided in large part by the Dulles brothers, John Foster, New York investment banker, as Secretary of State, and his more adventuresome brother, Allen W, as head of the nascent CIA, the new domino theory was very popular. Their first important operation was the intrusion into the domestic politics of Iran, and the overthrew of a democratically elected government, and placing the Shah on the throne. We are still suffering from that Intel mis-calculation.

Ike, on their advice, counseled the newly formed South Vietnamese government not to participate in the elections of 1956 as it agreed to do in 1954 at Geneva. Thus the war just ended at Dien Bern Phu was restarted on our advice. Ike sent about 700 men in a MAG to Saigon. Military Advisory Group. That number had increase to just under 2,000 when JFK took office. 59,000 KIA later, we thought better of it.

Ike had planned the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that was to overthrow a socialist - turned communist - Fidel Castro. One of our first bladders in intelligence. I always say I pray Fidel will live at least until Jan. 20, 2009. That will mean he has outlived 10 presidential terms. Vive Fidel!

Finally, I don’t count the 1960 Francis Gary Powers U2 shoot down as Ike’s fault. That was bad luck. It’s like blaming the sitting president (JFK) for the 1963 loss of the Thresher. More significant in Ike's stewardship was the CIA overthrow in 1954 of Jacabo Arbenz. Pushing Guatemala into internal civil war that endures to this very day! Thank you Ike.

So, do you see why I say FDR was the leading conservative president of the 20th century? Or, who mucked up the world most, Ike or FDR?

[edit on 3/30/2007 by donwhite]

I added Fred Thompson to the original post, seems like that's the only FSME power I have left.

Hopefully they'll be returned soon, but S.O. has been really busy lately with DB issues etc.

In our poll, Hillary Clinton loses to John McCain, 42%-48%, and to Rudy Giuliani 41%-50%. Even though Clinton maintains a 7% edge over Obama among Democratic respondents, Obama fares better in the general election matchups. It's so close that it's a statistical dead heat, but Obama still loses: 43%-45% to McCain, 44%-45% to Giuliani.

link

Here some food thought . Much of the road is yet to be travelled and the Republican party is still divided by social Conservatives who help to kill off the concept of a Liberal Republican. Sure this only one poll but it should reinforce the belief that when 2008 comes a Republican flag can be planted on top of the mountain.

The rest of the article just deals with the current woes of the Bush admin which have already been covered on this thread.

[edit on 31-3-2007 by xpert11]

It is still possible for any of the Dems to make a mistake that would cost them the race. Somebody can get cuaght doing something naughty. It happens. It's also possible htat somebody can do something "dynamic" as a result of some national or international event.

When I look at the candidates, I look at the people behind the makeup.

Rudy is riding high at the moment, but he's taking a page from the Obama play book. Look good, speak clear and on positive topics...but...don't say anything policy-related.

Romney is talking the talk, but he's walking like a man who would rather be golfing.

McCain is frustrated and becoming demoralized. He's really getting tired of taking it on the chin. He endures like the trooper he is, but he's just not able to cut the chains that bind him to the Bush war policy.

Ron Paul seems to like the attention he gets at cocktail parties, but he's not doing much to give anyone any hope at all for his candidacy.

Newt is having a lot of fun. I think he gets a thrill out of lecturing. That must be one heck of a view from his high horse. Too bad that mount isn't a steeple chaser.

As you know, we're about to see the 1st quarter financials for all the candidates. Expect to see a number of drop outs later in the week.

Well I am not sure this election. I think the Republicans are now leaning to the middle....

Rudy? Not a chance - like him on the terror fight but he is pro-choice
McCain - Nope
Newt - Yeah I would like him, but he has no shot
Thompson - Maybe


On the Dem side I am rooting for Hillary...

Edsinger are you "backing " Hillary on the basis that Republican supporters and some elements of of the Demarcates(SP?) supporters would rather vote the candidate that the Republicans put forward ?

Who would you like to see win the 2008 nomination and why haven't they entered the race yet ?

Yup! I don't think she can win......


Well I would like to see Reagan but he just cant win one more for the Gipper...



I have not made up my mind yet and I might end up with a write in. I am disappointed all around so far.

How about Zell Miller?

Originally posted by edsinger
Well I would like to see Reagan but he just cant win one more for the Gipper...

I can agree with those sentiments.

I have not made up my mind yet and I might end up with a write in. I am disappointed all around so far.
How about Zell Miller?

Well if Zed switched party's and entered the race race he certainly would makes things interesting.

Zell Bryan Miller (born February 24, 1932) is an American politician from the U.S. state of Georgia. A Democrat, he served as governor of Georgia from 1991 to 1999 and was a United States senator from 2000 to 2005. In the last years of his career, he famously split from his party to back Republican President George W. Bush over Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election and since 2003 frequently criticizes perceived problems he sees in his own party.

Link

Zed certainly represents idealogical divide in American politics more then someone like Rudy dose.
Ed if no third party candidate or Republican candidate comes forward that is acceptable to what will you and other like minded voters do ?

What you're asking for doesn't exist inside the Republican party. Not any more. that's why I keep saying that if we want a return to somthing remotely like those values, the GOP will have to be rebuilt after it crashes.

None of the candidates at the top of the GOP slate are what you or I would call 'real' conservatives. They are hybrids. I'm willing to accept that times have changed and we may not ever again see the conservativism that would champion small government. Doesn't mean I have to like it. Just means I have to understand that wheel has turned.

Having said that, I come back to xpert's question with a twist. Turn on your long range radar, and ping. Doesthe next Republican President come from the military? Or, is he/she in college just now, struggling to show up to class on time. Where will this person come from?