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: 19
15
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Ron Paul fans: I posted his overnight appearance on FOX News here:

Video: Ron Paul Appears on FOX's Red Eye




posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I have commented on the interview in the relevant thread.
Ron is singing a chorus to those who are unhappy with aspects of the Republican party. As for Ron chances in 2008 the fact that he talks a lot of sense will count against him because the majority of Republican party supporters have been brainwashed into swallowing the party line hook line and sinker.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
There does not seem to be a revival of Republican fortunes at this time. I'm been doing a little casual back tracking and it seems to me that overall contributions to GOP candidates are down. I've also been giving some more thought to what the candidate of the future should look like.

Republican party bosses who are just now coming in to their own are likely to be gun-shy when it comes to the Religious Right by the end of the next decade. It would not surprise me to see evangeliical right-wingers take a stab at reforming their segment of the party, but...we will most likely see them split off from the traditional GOP "net" to form their own colations...and dare I say it...their own p-party.

That's right. You heard me. My thinking is nowthat by 2020, we could see the formation of a conservative religious political party.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
That's right. You heard me. My thinking is nowthat by 2020, we could see the formation of a conservative religious political party.


Well that would hardly be that shocking in places where minor parties have a chance to get elected. Even in NZ which you might consider socially Liberal such a party exits although they didn't win any seats at the last election.

Things have been quiet on the Western Front McCain "bomb bomb Iran " joke has gone unnoticed due to other events. No doubt it come back to haunt him politically later on . Personally I found McCain jingle quite amusing.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   


posted by Xpert11

I have commented on the interview in the relevant thread. Ron is singing a chorus to those who are unhappy with aspects of the Republican party. As for Ron chances in 2008 the fact that he talks a lot of sense will count against him because the majority of Republican party supporters have been brainwashed into swallowing the party line hook line and sinker.



I may have acquired a reputation for bashing the GOP that I do not deserve. I do not dislike any of the people who wear the Republican badge. I do however and with vigor, oppose the policies those selfsame people support. Policy bad, people good. On most issues we ordinary folk have insufficient time and are unable to readily locate the necessary references to reach independent judgements. We are disinclined to examine in depth the great issues facing the United States. Instead we use an easier “shorthand” of genuflecting to the two party platforms.

The reason America does not sink into violence like the people of Iraq is we continue to believe we have a shared interest in the outcome of our still democratic institutions. We as a people remain inclined to welcome fairly arrived at compromises and generally we do not insist our own preferred vision be accepted in toto by 100% of the populace.



There does not seem to be a revival of Republican fortunes at this time. I'm been doing a little casual back tracking and it seems to me that overall contributions to GOP candidates are down. I've also been giving some more thought to what the candidate of the future should look like.



Since one can make a long argument that rich people are smarter than poor people, adding to that the simple fact poor people do not give much money to “grease” the wheels of politics, the candidate who is most in favor of the rich will receive the most money. The poor will only participate in this economic oligarchy on November 4, 2008. Thereafter the poor should revert to their historic task of eking out a living until needed once again in 2010 and 2012.



posted by Justin Oldham

Republican party bosses just now coming into their own are likely to be gun-shy when it comes to the Religious Right by the end of the next decade. It would not surprise me to see evangelical right-wingers take a stab at reforming their segment of the party . .



The recent 5 to 4 SC ruling banning late term abortions may be the apogee in the RR agenda. It is patently obvious (to me) that Congress ought not be in the medical practice business, nor in the religious beliefs enforcement game. This ruling is the consequence of the “perfect storm” convergence of small government justices intent on weakening the Federal government, aligned with the (much too) religious who still harbor virulent theological resentment towards the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion. Say freedom of conscience.

Whether this victory by the RR will put them to rest, or re-invigorate them in their ultimate goal in life - raison d’etre - of repealing Roe v. Wade, remains to be seen. Whichever way it goes in this electoral cycle it will give us a strong indicator of the degree of permanence likely to remain between the secular GOP and the RR component. Surely God will “call home” most of the current leaders of the RR before 2012. Their successors may not share the same goals of the old farts now running the show. It is for sure none of the founders of the RR are small "d" democrats. They have very low thresholds for dissent. Orthodoxy is their rule, and it is they who set the orthodox.



“ . . but . . we will most likely see them split off from the traditional GOP "net" to form their own coalitions . . and dare I say it . . their own p-party.
That's right. You heard me. My thinking is now that by 2020, we could see the formation of a conservative religious political party.



Sorry to disagree Mr J/O. Here’s why. American politics are too volatile to see so far out. We are in no better shape than was St. Paul, when looking through a glass darkly. For example, it is not at all certain America will have a woman for president in ‘09, despite it being barely 557 days until the election.

Further, I have mentioned the leaders of the RR, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and a few others, like Ky’s own Bob Russell, are all old. And getting older every day. And will not likely make it to 2020, unless they partake of Oral Robert’s apparent discovery of DeSoto’s mythical Fountain of Youth. We have few clues how their successors will navigate through the GOP waters.

You should know I do not look favorably on the notion of a viable or useful third party in America. From the days of Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison, America has been a 2 party nation. Perhaps influenced by the mother country’s own preference for 2 parties. Aside: Today’s Parliament has a majority party, Labor, and two opposing parties, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Labor is undergoing a transformation under its leader, Tony Blair. He is to the UK's Labor what Bill Clinton was to the Democrats in the US. Dropping the hard left rhetoric in favor of moving a bit to the right and each thinking he will ”stop” at the center. We’ll see how long that lasts. End.



posted by xpert11


posted by Justin Oldham
That's right. You heard me. My thinking is now that by 2020, we could see the formation of a conservative religious political party.



That would hardly be all that shocking in places where minor parties have a chance to get elected. Even in NZ which you might consider socially Liberal such a party exits although they didn't win any seats at the last election.

Things have been quiet on the Western Front McCain "bomb bomb Iran " joke has gone unnoticed due to other events. No doubt it come back to haunt him politically later on . Personally I found McCain jingle quite amusing. [Edited by Don W]



I think X-11 has in mind those countries with proportional representation, the most notable of which is the Israeli Knesset. I concur America is due some radical electoral reforms if we are to maintain the semblance of popular democracy in the face of multi-billion dollar election cycles.

The only successful third party is the Republican Party. 1856, 1860. In the 20th century there were 3 instances in which 3rd parties played a role. 1912. 1948. 1992.

In the first, a popular Theodore Roosevelt bolted the Republican Party to form his own Progressive Party. He was disenchanted in his hand picked successor, William Howard Taft. TR succeeded only in giving the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

In 1948, in relentless opposition to Harry Truman’s move towards civil rights - equality before the law for America’s blacks - South Carolina’s intractable segregationist Strom Thurmond’s State’s Rights Party polled 39 electoral votes. But a surprised Thomas Dewey woke up to find the people had re-elected Harry Truman.

In 1992, the voters divided 43% to Clinton, 38% to Bush41 and 18% to Perot. It is notable that Perot did not run as a “party” because, if he had, he would not have been on the ballot in many states. He ran on his name only without party affiliation. After the election, heady with the real success the 18% voter approval represented, Perot named his party the Reform Party. Aside: Perot lost interest in national politics and Pat Buchanan took over the Reform Party for his 1996 foray into presidential politics. End.

McCain amusing? The only person in America who could possibly have joked his way into the presidency was (the 1930s) Will Rogers and he is long since dead. Disregarding (the 1870s) Samuel Clemens a/k/a Mark Twain.

[edit on 4/22/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
For my money, the best two candidates are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul... McCain, too much of a maverick to ever be elected. Giuliani is too much of a liberal to ever carry the republican base.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Most of the candidates that people like have no real shot at the nomination. THAT is a real sign of just how much trouble the Republicans are really in.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Let me put it this since there is no clear cut favourite for the Republican candidacy what would Ron Paul have to do to have a realistic chance at winning the nomination ?

So far Ron is the only candidate who looks like that they wont self destruct or lack the political smarts to get elected.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Well, now. That's a rather tall order. Okay, let's play.

Mr. Paul needs three things in the next 90 days. Money, name recognition, and multiple policy bomb shells.

Each of his bomb shells can be derived by simply saying what the majority are thinking and suggesting that those ideas would play a big role in his first one hundred days in office.

Name recognition comes from lots of ad buys, atleast two documentaries, one book, and enough radio time to choke Don Imus. Touring, speaking, and touring while speaking.

Money? Now, there's the rub. If all the people who said they liked Ron Paul could give him $20, he'd have more money than Hillary Clinton overnight.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Well, now. That's a rather tall order. Okay, let's play.


To your and other members credits the hard questions haven't been avoided on this thread.




Name recognition comes from lots of ad buys, atleast two documentaries, one book, and enough radio time to choke Don Imus. Touring, speaking, and touring while speaking.


Maybe a nation wide bus tour would be a good option ?
A bus tour would allow Ron to visit rural as well as the larger population areas.



Money? Now, there's the rub. If all the people who said they liked Ron Paul could give him $20, he'd have more money than Hillary Clinton overnight.


Would this be due to the Republican candidates party lacking competent advisor's and campaign mangers in general ?



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Being "good" at whatever you do isn't enough. I am a "good" writer, and I still have to break in to my biz. Mr. Paul and anyone else who wants to make it in national politics have all got one thing in common. They've all got to do more than they are.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 05:38 AM
link   
I would still like members input concerning how Ron can improve his chances at winning the Republican nomination in the mean while the guns are no longer silent.



“I want to say to the elite of this country - the elite news media, the liberal academic elite, the liberal political elite: I accuse you in Littleton…of being afraid to talk about the mess you have made, and being afraid to take responsibility for things you have done, and instead foisting upon the rest of us pathetic banalities because you don’t have the courage to look at the world you have created.”

On ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asked Gingrich if he would apply those same words to the Virginia Tech tragedy. “Yes,” Gingrich said, offering a rambling, nonsensical response that segued into Don Imus and McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform


source

On a personal level I think that Gingrich is delusional if he actually believes what he preaches. Politically preaching such warped BS will appeal to the hard core (read brainwashed ) Republican supporters. However I cant see why anyone who isnt a hard core Republican would vote for this guy.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   
My two cents.

If you weren't paying ANY attention AT ALL to the last election cycle, you should know by now that Republicans aren't going to fare well in the next election cycle either. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure that out.

Ron Paul is the only Republican capable of winning the general. It's more difficult for him to win the nomination than the general. You put any Democrat against any Republican in 08 and it's going to be a Democratic victory. Those swing states, where the election is REALLY held, are NOT going to be very Republican friendly. Unless you send Ron Paul to the general. He can defeat ANY Democrat. Think of what the debate would be like! The Democrats would be outflanked on both the left and the right. Marginal voters and even hardcore liberals would come out for him. It would be a smashing success in the swing states, plus the red states would equal victory... thinik Ronald Reagan like margins.

So, it doesn't even matter what you think of Ron Paul. He's the only one that could prevent a Hillary/Obama Whitehouse. And I'm sure you agree with the Dr. much more than you agree with Hillary. Plus, he would reign in what will be an even more Democratic congress and re-center the policy debate in a much more conservative direction. Republicans could ride his coattails to at least softer landing in '08 ala '94.

The current direction of the GOP and their positioning and branding is severely damaged right now. It would behoove you to hold your nose and pull for Ron Paul '08 or bust... Or bust. Besides, with all the crappy "frontrunners" aka corporate candidates, you wouldn't get anything conservative out of them anyway, except for war - not that they would win as it is. Think about judicial appointments, folks.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Hello sailor, I can very much appreciate your enthusiasm for Ron Paul, but thre is a lot of behind-the-scenes "stuff" that Mr. Paul just does NOT have going on. For those who really mean to do it, a Presidentual "machine" can take years to build. If he really wanted the job, you'd know it.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
If he really wanted the job, you'd know it.


No offense Justin. If he didn't "really" want the job. he wouldn't run. I've grown to respect your opinion on matters. But, I think you are shrugging Dr. paul off a bit too soon. He cannot be ignored by the mainstream media forever. Come May 3rd many Americans will hear his message for the first time. It is a message that, in my opinion, many Americans "want" to hear.

Perhaps you could enumerate on this behind the scenes "stuff" that is required to really want the job. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Perhaps you could enumerate on this behind the scenes "stuff" that is required to really want the job. Thanks.


Well, let's see if I can do this without putting anyone to sleep. Any Presidential canidate will have an army of people behind them in various administrative rolls. In each of the 50 States, you will typically see 50-70 people on the team that range from organizers to fund raisers, and canvasers. You'll be looking at offices in each major city, which will run an average expense of $10,000 per office per month. This says nothing about the handlers, and other high end talent.

Then, we come to the unpaid talent. Most of the people who ring your doorbell or call you on the phone to get out the vote are unpaid volunteers. Anyone who is taking a survey or asking for money will usually be drawing a minimum wage. You'll be looking at roughly 6 paid persons per city who work for the minimum wage, with another 30-100 per city who work for free. The 'average' Presidential candidate can have as many as 20,000 behind them.

If the candidate remains viable, and the fund raising goes well, you'll start to get in to the deal-making. Candidates promise jobs to certain people in order to get their services. Suppose you want a phalanx of high-end laywers? Maybe you want your very own Karl Rove? You can get those jobs filled by promising jobs. It takes time to investigate those potential hires, and its not unusual for them to fail your background or loyalty tests.

Your first reflex will be to take a cynical view of all this, but...remember that nobody ever got elected to the Presidency because they were morally and ethically correct. Message matters, but organization and the will to use it wins the day. When I look at a candidate, I look past their message to their manpower and their money. If Mr. Paul were to take the right steps, he could build the organization he needs in roughly 4-8 years. The "team" he needs here and now does not exist. That's why I don't think he is a contender at this time.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by Justin Oldham]



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham


posted by LostSailor
Perhaps you could enumerate on this behind the scenes "stuff" that is required to really want the [presidential] job. Thanks.


In the 50 States, 50-70 people on the team . . organizers to fund raisers . . offices in major city run average expense of $10,000 per office per month . . we come to the unpaid talent. Most of the people are unpaid volunteers. taking a survey or asking for money a minimum wage. The 'average' presidential candidate can have as many as 20,000 paid workers and volunteers behind them.

If the candidate remains viable and fund raising goes well you'll start to get in to the deal-making. Candidates promise jobs to certain people in order to get their services. Maybe you want your very own Karl Rove? You can get those jobs filled by promising jobs . . remember nobody ever got elected to the presidency because they were morally and ethically correct. Message matters, but organization and the will to use it wins the day. If Mr. Paul were to take the steps, he could build the organization he needs in roughly 4-8 years. The "team" he needs here and now does not exist. That's why I don't think he is a contender at this time. [Edited by Don W]



Why run? For some people it may be just an ego trip. A few minutes to bask in the public eye. Publicity he could never afford. Which enhances him in his business or other political undertakings.

I must confess I do not know why an obscure former congressman from Texas has such a devoted following. Once I associated him with the “Flat Tax” but now I’m not sure I had that right. Then I thought he was a genuine Libertarian, and those otherwise good people have been victims of my verbal assault when I called them “Anarchists without Bombs.”

The Prohibition Party still runs a candidate in Ky. As does the Socialist Worker Party. And the Communist Party USA was on the ballot for many yeas. Gus Hall. Minnesota has the Farmer-Labor Party, NYC has the Liberal Party, and I feel sure the old Norman Thomas Socialist Party is on a few ballots. I guess for them it is a cheap form of census taking. But all to no avail. Because America is an unalterably 2 party country, you may as well spend your time in one of those parties where your efforts might bear fruit.

[edit on 4/23/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Why run? For some people it may be just an ego trip. A few minutes to bask in the public eye. Publicity he could never afford. Which enhances him in his business or other political undertakings.


As far as I can tell he does have a pretty viable platform. He raised 20% more money than either of the supposed Republican front runners in Vermont so far. The enthusiasm of the internet crowd backing him is far greater than any other candidate. I personally have passed out flyers all over my hometown and numerous other people that I keep in contact with online have done the same. On their own time and money by the way.

I just want to point out that he is not a "former" congressman. Also, if you look into him, something you actually have to do because the media seriously censors him, you would see why he has such a devoted following. He is not an official Libertarian even though he ran with them in 1988. Although, for all realistic purposes, the Libertarian part is the true "conservative" party now. I understand the U.S. is a two party system. In many ways I find that sad... But, you can't change the system when the two parties have made it virtually impossible to do otherwise. They are not dumb, they know that a third party is bad for both parties.

He is not for the flat tax. But, he is one of the only candidates we have running right now that understands Americas plight with the private Federal Reserve. Not since JFK have we had a president willing to do something about that monster problem... He is also adamantly against anything to do to with this NAU.

My opinion on why he has such a strong following is simple. He is squeaky clean! Seriously, try to dig some dirt on him. His voting record is impeccable, he doesn't accept the lucrative congressional pension fund, he returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year. He's the only candidate that still does what he is supposed to do. Which is uphold the U.S. Constitution.

If he got the nod for the General. I can guarantee that people would be coming out of the woodwork to vote for him. He would have just about every anti war vote. Also, any Democrat educated enough to understand that social healthcare is a bit more complicated than Hillary or Obama are willing to admit. He wants to end this socially destructive federal war on drugs and make it an individual state issue. Seriously, does anyone still think that it is doing anything good? He is the only candidate I trust to take back the outrageous power our executive branch has now, and return some checks and balances to the Federal government. Basically, he is every constitutional patriots dream candidate.

One more thing. I call the "you may as well spend your time in one of those two parties" thing a crock. If the GOP keeps going in the direction it is going more people are going to get fed up. I can't pull myself to vote for a Democrat. It just goes against everything I believe in. So, the only viable option is the Libertarian party or some obscure congressman from Texas. If enough people get fed up with the GOP and start "wasting" votes on Libertarians, the GOP will have to take notice and change their big spending big government big war stance.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   


posted by LostSailor

As far as I can tell [Ron Paul] has a viable platform. He raised 20% more money than either of the supposed Republican front runners in Vermont so far. I want to point out he is not a "former" congressman. The enthusiasm of the internet crowd backing him is far greater than any other candidate. [Edited by Don W]



Mr L/S, I stand corrected on “former” and ask you what district he represents. Romney and Giuliani are the two GOPs who have collected the most; is that overall, or Vermont only?



He is the only candidate running right now that understands America’s plight with the (1) private Federal Reserve. Not since JFK have we had a president willing to do something about that monster problem . . He is also adamantly (2) against anything to do to with this NAU.



1) What is America’s plight with the Fed? Created in 1913 to be America’s central bank. Federal oversight of private banks. After Nixon “floated” the gold stock, our money was purely “paper” backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the United States. The Fed is the means our Government has to regulate the supply of money and its cost - or discount rate. You cannot run a trillion dollar economy without a Fed, by any other name.

2) North American Union. There has always been a North American union. It just did not have a name. Unless you call it the “Monroe Doctrine.” Or its rag-tag successor known as the OAS - Organization of American States.



His voting record is impeccable . .



Without knowing his voting record, I assume he does not support cutting taxes on the rich so we can pay for our current expense by borrowing on our grand-children’s future? I suppose you mean he opposes repeal of the estate tax on the very rich, to discourage creating family dynasties passing from generation to generation, which would diminish the opportunity of the poor to compete.



If he got the nod for the General, I can guarantee people would come out of the woodwork to vote for him. He would have just (1) about every anti war vote. Any Democrat educated enough to understand that social (2) healthcare is a bit more complicated than Hillary or Obama are willing to admit. He wants to (3) end this socially destructive federal war on drugs and make it an individual state issue.



1) What is his stance on the Surge? What is his stance on setting a date certain to begin withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq? What’s his stance on trying to catch the corporate “thieves” who have stolen billions from the US taxpayers in Iraq?
2) What’s his plan to provide healthcare access to the 45 million Americans who cannot afford insurance? What’s his plan to bring the 8%-10% annual healthcare cost increase under control? Did you know the US spends almost two times as much per person on health care as any other industrialized state and our health care statistics are ranked below a dozen other countries. We pay more and get less.
3) So now, instead of screwing up with one Federal law we cannot enforce, he recommends we pass 50 state laws creating a hodgepodge of laws. How is that mess going to be better than the mess we have now?



He is every constitutional patriots dream candidate. One more thing. If the GOP keeps going in the direction it is going more people are going to get fed up. I can't pull myself to vote for a Democrat. It just goes against everything I believe in. [Edited by Don W]



I am a constitutional patriot. I doubt I would be welcome in the Ron Paul camp.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Mr L/S, I stand corrected on “former” and ask you what district he represents. Romney and Giuliani are the two GOPs who have collected the most; is that overall, or Vermont only?


That is Vermont only. Also, he represents the 14th district of Texas.


Originally posted by donwhite
1) What is America’s plight with the Fed?


1) The problem with the Fed is that it is a "private" central bank. Congress is supposed to have control over our monetary unit. This is a pretty lengthy subject that many Americans are not aware of. Try googling "private federal reserve" sometime. Yes, you will get some crazy conspiracy theory websites. But if you filter through the bad ones, you will find some credible ones as well. You should ask yourself why our Federal government has to pay interest on our own monetary unit.


Originally posted by donwhite
2) North American Union. There has always been a North American union. It just did not have a name. Unless you call it the “Monroe Doctrine.” Or its rag-tag successor known as the OAS - Organization of American States.


True, but it is being taken to a completely new level now days. The sovereignty of the U.S. as we know and love is at stake.


Originally posted by donwhite
Without knowing his voting record, I assume he does not support cutting taxes on the rich so we can pay for our current expense by borrowing on our grand-children’s future?


I can assure you he would cut taxes for everyone. He has been named the taxpayers best friend his entire time in Congress. He also understands a bit better than most about how our middle class is struggling right now. It has nothing to do with taking from the rich to give to the poor.

You ask a lot of good questions... If you want to see his stance on almost all issues... You need look no further than here my friend.

Hehe... Try to find that much info on any other candidate.


He was just on CNN tonight with Lou Dobbs.



[edit on 23-4-2007 by LostSailor]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join