2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

I get the feeling that 2008 could be a lost opportunity for the Republican party. I have outlined the reasons on this thread. So for the sake of discussion I will assume that Justin is right and Hillary wins the 2008 election.

So with 2015 in mind my first inclinations are that the next Republican President will come from the military maybe even a Westpointer. Having served in the likes of Iraq might produce people who support spreading Democracy via military force and they will have the ability to implement such ideas successfully.

Alternatively the person could come from a pure College background with high income parents footing the bill or someone who is footing the bill themselves and dosnt think that they are poor because the government tells them that they are.

Of course the person could have both a military and College background.

As for 2008 at this stage its looking like Rudy or nobody.
But who knows where the road will take us ?
A week little alone a year is a long time in politics. A lesser name my rise from obscurity.

Former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson officially announced his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination Sunday, telling ABC's "This Week" he is confident about his chances.

"In Iowa, the polls last week came out that I was in fifth place and moving up and at 5 percent," he said, adding that things are starting "to coalesce, and I feel very, very optimistic about my future."

The former four-term governor of Wisconsin set up a presidential exploratory committee in December and filed a statement of candidacy in January. His campaign spokesman said last month that Thompson's formal announcement would come in early April

link
Wkipedia

Tommy Thompson is clearly going after Republican voters who are unhappy with Rudy being a moderate Republican.
How dose the panel rate Tommy Thompson chances at this stage ?

Also It looks like that McCain has been reading this thread again.

"The American people are not getting the full picture of what's happening here. They are not getting the full picture of the drop in murders, the establishment of security outposts throughout the city, the situation in Anbar, the deployment of additional Iraqi brigades who are performing well and other signs of progress," he said.

McCain has said he backs President Bush's plan to deploy 25,000 troops to Baghdad and Anbar province in an effort to fight terrorism and sectarian violence in the regions.

While some of the troops have been deployed, the entire force will not hit the ground for four more months, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

Link

While I am glad that the security situation is improving in Baghdad it is three years to late much of the American Public is fed up with the botched war in Iraq.

[edit on 1-4-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 1-4-2007 by xpert11]

Thompson's entry in to the race further underscores my point that the GOP is too deeply divided to put up a credible candidate in 2008. As you all know, the 1st quarter campaign fundraising numbers are out. Tommy's got to somehow find a way to "unite" Republican money if he wants to stay in the game.

posted by Justin Oldham

Thompson's entry in to the race further underscores my point that the GOP is too deeply divided to put up a credible candidate in 2008. As you all know, the 1st quarter campaign fund raising numbers are out. Tommy's got to somehow find a way to "unite" Republican money if he wants to stay in the game.

I have not seen those fund raising numbers yet. Now, TT was the Sec of HHS from WI under B41, was he not? What’s he doing today for a living? He threw his hat into the ring once before if my memory serves. Mitt Romney has a certain cache. He was a Republican governor in a normally Democratic state. Otherwise, he’s pretty much unknown outside Salt Lake City. Newt Gingrich is “used” material. Like an old car that’s been restored. OTOH, he is a known quantity. This makes it easy to be “for” or “against” him. John McCain wants to be taken seriously, but it seems he is not. He is fast making himself into a “single issue” choice. Which brings me back to Rudy Giuliani, ex-mayor extraordinary of NYC. Not exactly a bastion of right wing philosophy.

At this time, it looks to me that Giuliani is the “default” choice of the GOP.

[edit on 4/2/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by df1
All of the current field of Republican hopefuls appear to be damaged goods in some manner or another. Perhaps the Republicans should draft Ron Paul. He is more distanced from Bush than any other Republican, he is economically conservative, he opposed Iraq on constitutional principles and he will attract libertarian voters to the polls.

I just started reading this thread. It surprised me a bit that this post was ignored. I think Ron Paul should be backed by the Republicans. The Republican party has lost their roots. No longer are they a party fighting for individual freedom, fiscal responsibility, reduced federal government, and free trade. Ron Paul is all these things. Not to mention, he was against the invasion of Iraq from the get go.

If you really want to see a change in this country. You aren't going to get it from the Democrat or Republican front runners. You are just going to get more of the smoke screen issues; more of the hacks and drones who wouldn't really make a big change in Washington. Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani may as well drop the pretense and just run on the same ticket, for heaven's sake. And since they're part of the same racket, they both despise Ron Paul much more than they dislike each other. Another excellent endorsement for Ron Paul, in my humble opinion.

It almost seems like your only choice is whether the top tax rate should be 35% or 38.1%, or whether the government should invade country A or country B. If you don't like either option, you are screwed. We need a change in Washington. It is long over due. Our government is like Casey Jones, riding that train... High on coc aine. It's time for a rehab session.

just my .02

Thanks for taking the time to read the old posts. I, for one, appreciate it. I've talked with Don by u2 regarding Ron Paul. He's not in a position to affect the 2008 race, but he could be a future contender if he watned to.

Any of the current unknowns who want a shot at the White House in 2012 or 2016 will have to start NOW. Remember that Hillary started laying the foundation of her 2008 bid back in 1999. today's unknown conservatives are going to have to start from scratch if they want to craft their image and be in position for kickoff in 2012. Even if they fail, they could still be viable in 2016.

In the case of Ron Paul, he has already passed his "sell by" date. His political future is no more. He could, however, become the number one voice for contemporary conservatism if the worked hard to be seen and heard much more so than he is today.

I know a little something about this from personal experience. As an emerging writer, I am "noteable." I'm not yet famous, but my work and my message keeps getting seen and heard by more and more people. Like a politician trying to carry water for his team, I have to cultivate my base. How do I do it? Persistence, man. It's all about persistence.

Here we go for anyone who hasn't seen the fund raising figures yet.

Republican Mitt Romney reported Monday he had raised $23 million for his presidential campaign during the first three months of the year, shaking up the GOP field. Sen. John McCain of Arizona lagged with $12.5 million raised.

McCain, at one point considered the Republican to beat, acknowledged he had "hoped to do better" in the first quarter of the year, although his campaign manager, Terry Nelson, said in a statement: "Fundraising in the first quarter is no more important than fundraising throughout the entire primary election campaign."

link

Maybe key Republican donors and grass roots supporters have came to the conclusion that McCain just isnt electable . Finance wise Rudy will need to do better to prevent the gap widening between him and Romney.

Aside from McCain Iraq gamble on a political level I don't understand he put the focus on Iraq. IMO if McCain wants to convince Republican supporters that he is electable he needs to focus more on domestic issues.

On a political level McCain and his team seem to lack political smarts and it is costing him in more then one way. McCain may have mis read the dems intentions. One thing is for certain McCain needs to bring his team together and come up with a new course of action ASAP.




[edit on 2-4-2007 by xpert11]

Well, now. Look at what I found. It's amazing what you can find when you look for it. Seems that the Republicans are trying to salvage their party. have alook and tell us what you think. I'm still digesting. Good night.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Well, now. Look at what I found. It's amazing what you can find when you look for it. Seems that the Republicans are trying to salvage their party. have alook and tell us what you think. I'm still digesting. Good night.

I did take a look but am not sure what I should be seeing?

This morning I looked around for something on Tommy Thompson.

Other than some information on record during his stint as Governor of Wisconsin, I found little. He did seem to do well in his "welfare reform' and “school choice” endeavors.

I do like his purposed solution to Iraq. Divide into 3 "states" and begin distributing oil revenues in 3 ways, Iraq’s central government, territorial government and residents. And, how about his suggestion that the Iraqi government “vote” whether or not to have the US there.

In his remarks to the DesMoines Register he mentions that he is pro-life. He also talks about big changes to US health care, including regulating nicotine. He doesn't really express what the changes to health care would be. I didn't see any information about where he stands on immigration either.

After his time as Secretary of Health and Human Services, he was with “Applied Digital Solutions.” The devices from this company, the VeriChips, scare me. These chips are to be injected into human flesh for medical records, payments and identification purposes.

Sources:

DesMoines Register

wikipedia

posted by Justin Oldham
Well, now. Look at what you can find when you look for it. Seems that the Republicans are trying to salvage their party. have a look and tell us what you think. I'm still digesting. Good night. [Edited by Don W]

From Salon: It should be noted that Time's Joe Klein, a bit confusingly, seemed to take issue with Mitchell's depiction of Petraeus meeting with the Republican caucus. "I don't think he did," Klein says, as Mitchell shakes her head in irritation, and Matthews simply tells them to "agree to disagree."

Salon’s Joan Welsh: “Ah, Chris: This is a factual matter, not an issue people are free to disagree about. Either Petraeus met with the GOP caucus or he did not. Here's hoping reporters can get to the bottom of these questions quickly.”
End of Quote.

Here’s the letter I posted:
The Underlying Facts About Iraq
Critics of the current Administration’s War policy are as much motivated by a loss of confidence in the pronouncements of the various leaders as they are by the news of the facts on the ground. The War in Afghan is going backwards and the original mission in Iraq is so long ago we have to be reminded of it. WMDs. Iraq is now into a Civil War. Today's issue is the same issue we debated in Vietnam, “How can staying longer help achieve our goal?” There is a lot more written in our Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, the Congress, about running a war effort than there is in Article 2, Section 3, the president. That argument is a diversionary one, in my opinion, to avoid facing the real issue above.

The link I provided will take you to an article on Salon dot-com that reports on a recent meeting between Gen. David Patraeus and top Republican national committee brass. Seems the RNC bosses are trying to arrange a pullout from Iraq.

As I've said in this thread and many others, the Republicans have no choice but to withdrawl from Iraq during Bush's watch. If they don't, the voter backlash in 2008 will be so bad that it could permanently wreck the Republican party.

Here's the rub. Publicly, the Bush team is talking trash about the Dems because THEY want a "date certain" for withdrawl.

This is a matter of party politics that Karl Rove has no control over. He's a paid political fixer. He doesn't actually make policy. While I have no doubt that he has counseled a depature, even he must be frustrated by the fact that the Salon article unmasks this covert effort.

posted by Justin Oldham

The link I provided will take you to an article on Salon dot-com that reports on a recent meeting between Gen. David Petraeus and top Republican national committee brass. [Edited by Don W]

1. Politicization of the military. 1. Partisanship by the military. Surely the 4 star general with a Congress now willing to call him to task, would not be seen in 1000 meters of such a meeting. Retired generals are free to speak their own convictions, but an active duty Commander-in-Chief is not permitted such a luxury. I cannot believe this happened.

The Republicans have no choice but to withdrawal from Iraq during Bush's watch. If they don't, the voter backlash in 2008 will be so bad that it could permanently wreck the Republican party. Here's the rub. Publicly, the Bush team is talking trash about the Dems because THEY want a "date certain" for withdrawal.

It is undoubtedly true that any resistance group would take into account its plans and activities vis a vis the absence of US fighting forces. But exactly how that would manifest itself is not at all certain or clear. It is hard to imagine how there could be more violence in Iraq than there is now. I guess anything is possible. OTOH, it might well be the signal to the citizens of Iraq to call an armistice, while they talk. Syria - Sunni - and Iran - Shia - would be at the table, even if just as observers. Who knows, if the US left overnight, there might be peace in Iraq? After all, it is an Iraqi issue and it must be reolved by Iraqis. Recall also the 1980s-1990s, for 15 years, Lebanon had a civil war. I don't thnk any rational person wants a re-run of that.

Karl Rove is a paid political fixer. He doesn't actually make policy. While I have no doubt he has counseled a departure, even he must be frustrated by the fact that the Salon article unmasks this covert effort.

If it happened, heads should roll. And quick. Not like B43 who promised instant retribution if he found out who leaked the CIA agent, or the fast shuffle when, in B43's view, the voters rejected Rumsfeld - as if B43 is not the Decider - and so on. If Gen. Petraus did this, he needs to be fired.

[edit on 4/3/2007 by donwhite]

Civilian leaders on both sides of the aisle have been working behind the scenes to politicize the army. This has been going on for as long as I can remember, even back in the day when my father served. In today's world where so many active duty officers run the intelligence agencies, it's not hard to see why Patraeus would be meeting with the Republicans. I have speculated in this thread and others that he may have future political ambitions.

Gentlemen,

Thank you for your explanations. I guess I am a bit naive.

I really have enjoyed your posts and am learning. It's back to reading again for me.

Justin since the article you are talking about requires registration I am going by the description you gave in this thread.

There will be no withdrawl from Iraq while Bush is still in office. Bush is making sure the buck is passed onto someone else and as I have said Iraq suits the dems interests nicely.

Registration? Yikes. I'm hooked in to so many news sources, I can't keep track of them all. Ha. You should see my e-mail box first thing in the morning. I AM a news junky.

Please let me make amends by posting a link that I know you can get to without registering.

Source

EXCERPT:
-------------------------------------------------

This morning on the Chris Matthews Show, NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell revealed that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, met “very recently” with the Senate Republican caucus to discuss their strategy on Iraq legislation.

“Petraeus went to the Republican caucus and told them, I will have real progress to you by August,” Mitchell said. The Republicans claim they told him that after August, they will end their support for the war. “They have told him at a caucus meeting as very, very recently, that if there isn’t progress by August — and real progress means not a day of violence and a day of sanity — that they will pull the plug.”

The link I provided goes to a site that;s got a YouTube link that some may find useful.

------------------------------------------------------------

My thinking is that the military has no business being this political. I am now lead to believe that Patraeus may have future political ambitions.

Old School wisdom suggests that it would be to their advantage for the Republicans to foist the Iraq war off on Hillary, but there's just too much negative energy in play to make that work.

I know what "M.C. Rove" knows. If the Dems are allowed to be the ones who bring the troops home, Hillary's second term is assured and the Republicans will fall just that much futher from grace.

This morning on the Chris Matthews Show, NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell revealed that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, met “very recently” with the Senate Republican caucus to discuss their strategy on Iraq legislation.

“Petraeus went to the Republican caucus and told them, I will have real progress to you by August,” Mitchell said. The Republicans claim they told him that after August, they will end their support for the war. “They have told him at a caucus meeting as very, very recently, that if there isn’t progress by August — and real progress means not a day of violence and a day of sanity — that they will pull the plug.”

This morning on the Chris Matthews Show, NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell revealed that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, met “very recently” with the Senate Republican caucus to discuss their strategy on Iraq legislation.

“Petraeus went to the Republican caucus and told them, I will have real progress to you by August,” Mitchell said. The Republicans claim they told him that after August, they will end their support for the war. “They have told him at a caucus meeting as very, very recently, that if there isn’t progress by August — and real progress means not a day of violence and a day of sanity — that they will pull the plug.”

In terms of 2008 unless the dems choose to make an issue of it I don't think Petraeus meeting will have any effect on the campaign. Otherwise I'm not sure what to make of this maybe the meeting is reflective of the political battle over which branch of government controls the direction of the war in Iraq.

I cant see the Republican party as whole abanding the Bush admin. We do know that any military leaders who aren't yes men got fired by Rumsfeld.

Petraeus probably choose the wrong forum to express his views .
By what I call the MacArthur - Truman standard has Petraeus done anything wrong ?

Politically unless the dems make an issue of the meeting it will matter very little.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by xpert11]

“ . . on the Chris Matthews Show, NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell revealed that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, met “very recently” with the Senate Republican caucus to discuss their strategy on Iraq legislation. Mitchell said, “Petraeus went to the Republican caucus and told them, I will have real progress to you by August.” Republicans claim they told him that after August, they will end their support for the war. “They have told him at a caucus meeting as very, very recently, that if there isn’t progress by August and real progress means not a day of violence and a day of sanity that they will pull the plug.

”

I find this allegation too much to believe.

posted by Justin Oldham
(1) “ . . the military has no business being this political. I am lead to believe Petraeus may have future political ambitions . . wisdom suggests it would be to the advantage of the Republicans to foist the Iraq war off on Hillary, but [I believe] there is just too much negative energy in play to make that work.

(2) I know what "M.C. Rove" knows. If the Dems are allowed to be the ones who bring the troops home, Hillary's second term is assured and the Republicans will fall just that much further from grace. [Edited by Don W]

1) I do not believe Andrea Mitchell is correct in her reporting. I concur that it is not appropriate for the active duty military of any rank to meet with a partisan group unless the opposing side has “signed off” on the meeting. For me, it is inconceivable.

2) J/O, are you saying, obliquely, that the troops will be home, at least the fighting troops, before January 20, 2009? To leave behind a trip-wire force as in South Korea? Where once we had 38,000 men for years. I doubt there are that many there today, what with Afghan and Iraq claims on manpower. Left behind ostensibly to train the Iraqis? Don’t forget Bush43 once stated precisely that “the troops would not come home on his watch.” A boast, like so many of his, to prove empty?

posted by xpert11
In terms of 2008 unless the Dems choose to make an issue of it I don't think Petraeus meeting will have any effect on the campaign. Otherwise I'm not sure what to make of this maybe the meeting is reflective of the political battle over which branch of government controls the direction of the war in Iraq. I can’t see the Republican party abandoning the Bush admin. We do know any military leaders who aren't “yes” men were fired by Rumsfeld. Petraeus probably choose the wrong forum to express his views . By what I call the MacArthur - Truman standard has Petraeus done anything wrong ? Unless the Dems make an issue of the meeting it will matter very little.[Edited by Don W]

More commentary later. But see my above.

[edit on 4/4/2007 by donwhite]

I wouldn't expect the Patraeus meeting to get much traction in the press at this time. Later on, when it's more convenient, we should expect to see it brought up again. As you know, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has gone to Syria. While this 'event' has been reported, I doubt that it will be exploited thoroughly until she's out of the limelight.

I am concerned by what I've seen. You can have a look at my personal blog to see what worries me the most. As a political strategist, I have said that it would be a bad move to let the Democrats claim credit for Bringing the troops home. If Bush43 doesn't de-escalate the Iraq war on his watch, his party will pay for it in November 2008.

This meeting with Patreus suggests to me that the Republican national committee is aware of this possibility. The Senators that who met with this military leader are no doubt thinking about what it would be like for the Dems to have a super majority in both houses of Congress. In many respects, I think they're only just now starting to get the idea that the average voter--regardless of party affiliation--is angry.

In the arena of public opinion, the two-faced nature of Republican policy will be worth a lot to Democrats who want to do more than just win elections. They'll have a historically unique opportunity to thrash the Republican image. I can't recall seeing anything that could do this since the days of Nixon and Watergate.

I've been around the U.S. military for my entire life. I've seen the military culture change slowly over the last 30 years in a way that has unsettled me. In decades past, it was 'uncool' for officers to participate in national politics. The fact that our military was not political used to be one of its greatest appealing factors to the average voter. They were, after all, our protectors. It was only right that they should avoid the taint of poltiics so that if the day came...they could do their patriotic duty. Now, it seems as though our protectors are becoming part of the political class.

In purely historical terms, this is never good for any society when it happens. It's been a uniquely American "thing" for more than two centuries. Our miltiary has not been an extension of the State political machinery. It remained independent because the officer corps refused to abandon the traditions begun by Washington and others who served throughout the Revolution. Now, it seems we've forgotten those lessons. Okay WE have remembered them, but the officer corps hasn't.

posted by Justin Oldham
In purely historical terms, this is never good for any society when it happens. It's been a uniquely American "thing" for more than two centuries. Our military has not been an extension of the State political machinery. It remained independent because the officer corps refused to abandon the traditions begun by Washington and others who served throughout the Revolution. Now, it seems we've forgotten those lessons. Okay WE have remembered them, but the officer corps hasn't. [Edited by Don W]

Maybe we’re paying them too much?
Look at these annual amounts. 4 stars, O10, $174,000, retires at $130,500 for life; 3 stars, O9, $153,600, retires at $115,200 for life. Warrant Officer, W5, $77,400, retires at $58,000 for life. Air Force titles, Chief Master Sergeant, E9, $66,144, retires at 49,600 for life. Senior Master Sergeant, E8, $56,450, retires at $42,350 for life.

Lower ranks, grunts, E2, $17,496 annually, E3, $20,748 annually. I cannot imagine anyone retiring after 20 years service at lower then pay grade E5, which pays $19,365 annually for life, as young as age 38.

In all cases there are also 30 days paid leave annually, general officers have 2 or 3 personal servants, and top generals and some colonels have their own airplanes to fly. Or to be flown by others for them. They have swank officers clubs equal to any private club anywhere. Further, they receive tax free allowances for food - rations - around $300 a month, tax free allowances for housing, up to $6,000 a month for O10s and still other pay incentives, such as long term sea duty, hard duty in remote or isolated places, and incentives as high as $25,000 a year for medical doctors in addition to high ranks and other incentives. Speaking Arabic gets you up to $3,000 a month. And etc.

The enlisted grades all get free food, clothing, housing and medical care. Plus the best training in the world. When not at war, but on permanent duty in the US, most military work 40-45 hours a week. Some hold second jobs.

Got to stop. More later.

[edit on 4/4/2007 by donwhite]