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: 17
15
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
On a side note, the mods are looking for victims...I mean participants...for the debate forums. My claws are sharp, and I'm willing to take the challenge.




posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   
It looks like the dems have there own demons .
Can the Republicans and more importantly there 2008 candidates gain anything politically from the dems conflict of interest ?
Given that politics is naturally hypercritically the Republicans should be able to distract people attention away from the party's current woes.

A candidate like McCain could benefit from peoples attention being drawn away from current events.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Note as it says on the CNN website the full interview is yet to be broadcast.


TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.

"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in Florida's capital city.


link

On personal level I don't have a problem with Rudy stance.

Now on a political level the best thing that could happen after the interview is broadcast is that Republican supporters are talking about the likes of Rudy stance on Iraq and for the most point praising him.

Now if the focus remains on abortion and Rudy team cant shrift the focus then the divisions in the Republican party will become highlighted. If McCains comments about walking thou Baghdad were a headache Rudy comments could become the first of many migraines.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Rudy just blew it big time with that statement.

I was absolutely sure the "religious right" was ready to give a lot of slack to Giuliani based on 9/11 and his track record as Mayor of NYC.

But the suggestion that taxpayers money would go to pay for abortions (which a sizeable portion of America believes is tantamount to murder) could, and I think will, hurt him if this sticks.

On a personal note, this report has made me more skeptical of Rudy...I had wholeheartedly supported him before but this really is troublesome to me. I am one of the people who think killing an unborn baby is still murder and I certainly don't want a penny of any tax I pay to go to such a grotesque practice.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Hello there, John. Nice to see you in here. Thre are no two ways about it. Giuliani's stand on abortion was "under cover" for a long time and the Right was starting to warm to him. Now, he's shot himself in the little toe.

On the whole, it's a minor wound because conservatives (nationwide) are not happy with any of the candidates.

As you listen to the talking heads on radio during this week, you will hear some rather oblique attacks on Mitt Romney. Now is the moment when the Left will start implying that Romeny is a tool of the Mormons. I don't expect that to get much traction, but it will do just enough damage to Romney's public image to put him (personally) in a snit.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Hmm things are starting to move again .
Speaking of Romney.......


During a 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, Romney positioned himself as a moderate outsider, warning special interest groups to stay out of the race and saying he supported the Brady gun control law and a ban on assault-style rifles.

"That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA," he told the Boston Herald at the time. "I don't line up with a lot of special interest groups."

Expressing familiarity with and support for gun rights is key among Republican presidential contenders, who count gun owners, members of the military and the NRA itself among their potential supporters.

Romney told his Keene audience, "I'm after the NRA's endorsement. I'm not sure they'll give it to me. I hope they will. I also joined because if I'm going to ask for their endorsement, they're going to ask for mine."



Link

I would like the panels thoughts on this matter.
I can understand why Romeny joined the NRA he wants to appeal to Republican voters with short memory's.
But given his track record why would he seek the NRA endorsement ?
I cant understand why the NRA would endorse Romney when his stance could change depending on the political environment and the voters.

As for Rudy stance on abortion I don't want to take this thread off topic and turn into another pointless abortion thread. So all I'm going to say is that I hope Justin is right in saying that only minor damage as been self inflicted.





[edit on 5-4-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   

posted by Julian Oldham
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. [Edited by Don W]



I have already said I shared Joe Klein’s expressed view that this meeting did not happen. It would have been incongruent. Not congruous. Not in harmony. Not in conformity. A non-starter. I’d be nonplused if it was confirmed.



posted by xpert11
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 ? [Edited by Don W]



November, 1950. After a brilliant back-door maneuver by landing at the impossible harbor of Inchon, next to Seoul, 200 miles behind the North Korean front line at the Pusan Perimeter, MacArthur had broken the back of the NK Army. The United Nations forces led by Mac were racing northwards towards the Yalu River which separated Manchuria, a province of Communist China, from (North) Korea. The ostensible goal was to annihilate the North Korean Army so it would “sin no more.”

Unfortunately for the UN and the US, the Chinese regarded the advent of a fighting army on its border to be threatening and contrary to its national interest. After all, it was barely a year previous when the US had assisted the Nationalist Chinese Army escape to Formosa now Taiwan. The US has since then protected the anti-communist army with the 7th Fleet.

With a 300,000 man army on its right flank, China was not about to permit a 250,000 man army at war to locate itself too close to its center. China properly notified the UN that it would not allow their forces to approach the Yalu River closer than 40 km. Over here, it was given as 25 miles. Mac either ignored the Chinese or he disobeyed his standing orders. I’m not sure those orders have been made public as of this date, and if not, then it is speculation on my part. But I know 2 facts. 1) the Chinese warning and 2) Mac did not respect it.

There are pictures of reinforced patrols dipping their feet into the Yalu. It would be to us like a fighting Latin American Army charging up the Mexican Gulf Coast towards the Rio Grande River.

By the end of November, 1950, the Chinese intervened into North Korea. Not looking for a war with the US, the Chinese government technically did not cross the Yalu River. Instead, they said their soldiers had volunteered to come to the aid of their neighbors, the North Koreans. So everyone accepted the fiction the Chinese Army in North Korea was a volunteer army and not the regular PLA.

MacArthur had publicly urged the US Army to support the KMT - Kuoming-tang of Chiang Kai Shek before it was forced to evacuate the mainland. But more consequential, Mac wanted authority to use nuclear bombs in a land war with China. Pres. Truman was unwilling to 1), engage China on its own soil and 2), to use nuclear bombs. Apparently Mac would not change his view and so, unwilling to quit, Pres. Truman fired him. Mac had played one hand too many with an old poker player, Truman. It got him an early retirement.

Bush will not fire Petraeus. Bush is on his last go-around. Besides, Petraeus is essentially supporting the Bush Surge. He is in Bush43's corner because he says he can produce the needed result by Labor Day. A oft spoken time limit for the Surge to work or we quit.



Historical Note: In my lifetime the city has been called “Pei-ping” then “Peking” and now “Beijing.” The city’s name has not changed, it is just the on-going difficulty we have putting Chinese names into English. DW

[edit on 4/6/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Well now. If the Feinstein thing isn't enough for you, try this on for size.

Edwards campaign scandal.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham
Well now. If the Feinstein thing isn't enough for you, try this on for size.



Look at this, J/O
1) John Edwards and his wife have been campaigning as a team for years.
2) Most people, IMO, who would take the trouble to e-mail him about his wife’s recurring cancer, are John Edwards supporters.
3) I have not heard of any of those e-mailers who have complained about being solicited.
4) In fact, those e-mailers “coughed” up $3.3 m. which reenforces my points just above. (I assume the $3.3 m. came from his total e-mail data base and not sympathy writers alone).

I made a more extensive comment on this issue on another thread. I think it will pass as quickly as the Hillary to Apologize issue.

Similarity, I don't see the CNN statement by Rudy - on abortions - as having much traction. McCain made the biggest faux pas when he boasted about walking around the Baghdad Bazaar in calm and safety, but the cameras later showed him not only wearing body armor, but 30-100 US Army types surrounding him - various estimates - helicopters overhead, road blocks, and check points to prevent ingress into the area where he "walked around Baghdad safely." McCain will regret that flippant observation.

Footnote: Although I am only a small contributor, I get USPS from Hillary every week, e-mails every day, and last week, I got a letter from Obama. Well, not from him personally. Instead of sending $25 once, I send $10 3 times over 6-8 weeks, which builds the number of "small contributors" wihch number is more important than the money. I use checks as I don't want my VISA card number "out" there.

[edit on 4/8/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
You'll get no argument from me when it comes to McCain. His boast about street-level security in Baghdad will go down in history as one of his most debilitating self-inflicted wounds. I am reminded of President Nixon who often remarked about the success of his Vietnamization policy.

Edwards committed a social sin that looks very bad. In real world terms, he did nothing illegal. McCain's statement carries with it no legal repercussions, but makes him look worse that Edwards in that he appears to be out of touch with reality.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
From a political perspective.
Both Rudy and McCain need to learn the rules of the game. Even if they don't like the rules of the game if they want to elected they will still have to obey the rules. Rudy and McCain cant change the rules themselvs because the media and "special interest " groups are the ones who write the campaign rules.

Now to my personal opinion . The rules aren't pretty but reality of a situation rarely is. The rules of the game may even be undemocratic unless the bulk of the population is made up of "special interest " groups.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   
What is this all about?

One day he says he's been a lifelong hunter, then says he's mainly just shot rodents and other varmints? (at least more than twice)


He can't be that dumb, he's worth about 500 million dollars. Who's advising this guy?


[edit on 4/9/2007 by djohnsto77]



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I've gotten a lot of mail recently about Elmer Fudd...I mean...Mitt "second amendment" Romney.

I have to admit that I'm very sorry to see yet another allegedly conservative candidate make such an amateur mistake. I agree with John. I'm really not sure who is advising these guys, but the candidates need to fire them and get their money back.

There is another factor here that we're not talking about. All ofthe conservative candidates have loads of money, and they run in social circles that you and I will never be members of. It's hard for them to fake being a "common man" when they are clearly not. It's hard for their political advisors to make suggestons on topics they know nothing about.

In recent days, Newt Gingrich has been on YouTube with his very bad Spanish trying to make ammends for a social bias that he...didn't know he had. "What? Are you kidding me? THAT was a mistake?"



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

(1) You'll get no argument from me when it comes to McCain. His boast about street-level security in Baghdad will go down in history as one of his most debilitating self-inflicted wounds. I am reminded of President Nixon who often remarked about the success of his Vietnamization policy.

(2) McCain's statement carries with it no legal repercussions, but makes him look worse that Edwards in that he appears to be out of touch with reality. [Edited by Don W]



1) Senator John McCain endured 6 years as a POW in Vietnam. That gives him hero status to me. As in Butch Cunningham, it buys a lot of wiggle room. It does not make him presidential material, as in the case of Dwight Eisenhower after War 2. JFK catapulted War 2 hero status to the presidency over lack-luster Richard Nixon. Yet many Americans believe service in the military is a strong plus for any candidate. I wonder why?

Sunday’s CBS60 Minutes showed it all. But John McCain answered the nastiest questions more than 10 minutes. He didn’t flinch, he didn't try to lay it off on some other person, he didn’t claim misquotes or claim he had a headache that day. Unfortunately for him, he re-asserted he still believes what he said is accurately indicative of the improved situation in Baghdad. That’s his story and he’s sticking with it.

2) I’ve remarked on Edward’s cancer story elsewhere.

[edit on 4/9/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

I've got a lot of mail recently about Elmer Fudd . . I mean . . Mitt "Second Amendment" Romney. I have to admit that I'm very sorry to see yet another allegedly conservative candidate make such an amateur mistake. All of the conservative candidates have loads of money. They run in social circles that you and I will never be members of. It's hard for them to fake being a "common man" when they clearly are not.

In recent days, Newt Gingrich has been on YouTube with his very bad Spanish trying to make amends for a social bias that he . . didn't know he had. "What? Are you kidding me? THAT was a mistake?" [Edited by Don W]



Hey, Newt is a good ole Georgia boy. Not a red neck from walking behind a mule all day, but still thinking the same way. But really, being prejudiced is not always a bad thing. It’s your attitude towards people that counts more than your preconceived ideas however flawed those are. A man of good will can do good even if he does not always act correctly.

Yes, I watched Mitt on CSpan Saturday. He is trying to be someone he is not. Whether we would like him if he was himself we’ll never know. Despite his #1 showing in money, Mitt remains #6 in the polls. I guess you’d say “he is not connecting.”



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I don't think that Romney is connecting with the people who will actually put down their sodas and t.v. remotes to go out in to the night and the rain to cast a vote. He has clearly connected with the people who are capable of giving him the most money, but as I have said elsewhere, we are learning that America has more money for political contributions than we thought we did.

Gingrich and Romney aren't the only Republican contenders to suffer from Al Gore's Disease. McCain and a Giuliani both have tried and failed to reinvent themselves or change their tune in much the same way as Al did in 2000. the really 'good' paid political strategists know that you've got to reinvent years before you actually run for the Presidency. Much as Hillary has already done.

I contend that none of the current GOP candidates feel comfortable just being themselves...because...they know they can't win by just being who they are. Hillary had just enough time to learn her part (much like any actor does) to pull it off convincingly. One can easily make the case that Obama built his 'facade' while still in State-level politics, and it has served him well ever since.

In today's world of 24-7 media, you've got to be "on" all the time. The simple fact is that the Preston Fisks and Karl Roves of the world are few and far between. The best candidates are the ones whom you have enough time in seclusion to "make."



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
There is another factor here that we're not talking about. All ofthe conservative candidates have loads of money, and they run in social circles that you and I will never be members of. It's hard for them to fake being a "common man" when they are clearly not. It's hard for their political advisors to make suggestons on topics they know nothing about.


Hmm I think that a candidates background is very important in this regard. Someone who comes from a low income background and comes into money later on has an understanding of how the majority of people live.

Can anybody name a Federal politician who dosnt have six figures next to his/her name ?

Beyond that a lot depends on how the dems candidates show themselves to be in touch with the common man. So far there will be no need for the (alleged ) vote rigging. Republican candidates are defeating themselves with self inflicted wounds. Its almost like deep down in there hearts none of them want to run in 2008 but they are doing so out of loyalty to the party.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   


posted by xpert11


posted by Justin Oldham
There is another factor here . . All of the conservative candidates have loads of money and they run in social circles that you and I will never be members of. It's hard to fake being a "common man" t's hard for their advisors to make suggestions on topics they know anything about.


Hmm I think that a candidates background is very important in this regard. Someone who comes from a low income background and comes into money later on has an understanding of how the majority of people live. [Edited by Don W]



You are speaking intuitively, Mr X11. My observations tell me that just the opposite is more likely to be the truth. Bush43 unlike Bush41, excepted. JC Watts, Walter Williams Clarence Thomas are all examples of people born with a double whammy against them. Poor and black. Through hard work and like all successful people, more than their share of good luck, they reached a pinnacle in our society. But each of them has forgotten from whence he came. That is why I call them “cannibals,” because they “eat” their own kind to get ahead in a white man’s world. No Oprah Winfrey’s they. No Harry Belafonte’s they. Condolezzee Rice is totally self centered, self involved. Unlike Colin Powell.

Rich men, of high birth, like Washington, the two Roosevelts, many of the Kennedy family, have all done more for the common man than all the common men who attained power have ever done. Exceptions to that “rule” would be Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and LBJ. And yes, I’d include RMN in that list, too. Begrudgingly. And in that same vein, Bill & Hillary Clinton deserve consideration.



(1) Can anybody name a Federal politician who doesn’t have six figures next to his/her name? Republican candidates are defeating themselves with self inflicted wounds. (2) It’s like deep down in their hearts none of them want to run in 2008 but they are doing so out of loyalty to the party. [Edited by Don W]



You have to be able to spend a lot of time running for any office. In the more highly visible offices, like mayor, sheriff, judge, governor, state legislator or even school board, the candidate who can spend 24/7 has a better chance than the poor joe who must work 8 hours, commute 2 hours and raise a family in his spare time. We could have what you are lamenting we don’t have, if we wanted it. We could pay candidates who have less than a stated amount, to run for office, say $15 an hour spent politicking. I guarantee you 99% would not finish the first week. No system is perfect despite what Bush43 says. Democracy in America is still a work in progress after 232 years, so how are the Iraqis going to “pickup” on it in a few months? Crazy!

[edit on 4/10/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 01:56 AM
link   
It's been reported that the Bush administration has extended military tours in Iraq to a maximum of 15 months instead of the usuaul 12. I can't help but wonder how the conservative Presidential candidates are taking this.

I don't imagine its good news for John McCain. Much of the iair time for my local news was taken up with the local reaction to this change in policy. Anchorage is a military town, and its rare to see anything negative on the news about the armed services. Tonight, I was treated to something I haven't seen since Vietnam.

One of the things that is making it harder for the Republican candidates to carry water for their team is this; news reports of a spouse who is killed in Iraq on the first or second day of addition deployment. I cannot begin to describe the rage of the wife who is left behind. It's really quite something when they look right in tothe camera and say...some of the thing they say. Each and every single one seems to dedicate themselves to anti-Republican political activism.

It's not a local trend, either. You see this kind of thing all over the country. When I'm out in public, I can't help overhearing the some of the conversations around me. the prevailing opinion seems to be that many people feel like they've been lied to and had their trust mis-used. they now hate the Bush administration and the GOP specifically in ways that abandon logic and embrace pure hate. Wow.

I bring this up for discussion because I'm sensing a sea change that has been a long time in coming. With so many Republican candidates found to be lacking...such as Mitt the Hunter...and so many other who show themselves to be without virtue...what can be done to salvage this election? I do have some positive thoughts, but I want to hear from the rest of you first.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I cannot begin to describe the rage of the wife who is left behind. It's really quite something when they look right in tothe camera and say...some of the thing they say. Each and every single one seems to dedicate themselves to anti-Republican political activism.


Is the media using the widows grief to spin the tired line of highlighting the Iraq wars woes ?
Those who swear by the Liberal media conspiracy must be all over this. You just know that any advisor's in the dems camp must be thinking about how clips of grieving widows will help to create the basis for campaign adds a bit further down the track.



With so many Republican candidates found to be lacking...such as Mitt the Hunter...and so many other who show themselves to be without virtue...what can be done to salvage this election? I do have some positive thoughts, but I want to hear from the rest of you first.


Any adult person needs to be able to recognize when they are being given bad advice or in this case when there campaign is being badly run . If the current crop of Republican candidates are unable to do this then they don't have the means of winning in 2008.

The answer to your question is quite simple Republican candidates need to find some advisers and campaign manages who are at least competent otherwise they will go the way that Kerry did in 2004 the only difference being that the losing margin may be bigger.

On another note.


Speaking at a conference in Washington, he urged campaigners to focus on the positives of cutting carbon emissions rather than making people feel guilty.

The movement must change its image just as he helped transform the "sketchy" reputation of bodybuilding, he said.

California is seen as leading the way in tackling climate change in the US.

The state - the sixth largest economy in the world - signed a law last year which set a target of cutting its greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020.

And while Mr Schwarzenegger cannot stand for president in 2008 because he is not US-born, he has made it clear he wants his views on climate change to play into the race


link

Republican candidates could use climate change as a topic that draws peoples eyes away from Iraq although they could just be opening themselves up for another series of attacks and self inflicted wounds. .
Will Schwarzenegger be able to influence any aspect of the Republican party 2008 candidates campaigns ?


[edit on 12-4-2007 by xpert11]




top topics



 
15
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join