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: 20
15
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Generally when a party or person plans to be elected to office the party and/or the person have to do a significant amount of planning and in American politics a whole lot of fund raising. Having read the responses concerning Ron I think that he is making a token bid. I cant work out why Ron would make a token bid currently he is highlighting why traditional conservatives are unhappy with the Republican party.

Ron could also be risking his chance of gaining the nomination in the future.
Why wasn't the planing and movement to get Ron into the White House started back in 2003/4 ?
The likes of Hilary and Obama(SP?) have clearly planed and put in place the machinery need for them to have a realistic chance at wining the nomination. I'm not even sure if any of the Republican contenders have done that so Ron isnt alone in that regard. It seems like that Rudy and others decided to run on the spur of the moment.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by xpert11]




posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   
There you go. That's why I say that Mr. Paul is not making the effort that he would make if he were really in this thing to win it. I don't mean any disrespect to the man, but he's just playing at this and it shows.



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
There you go. That's why I say that Mr. Paul is not making the effort that he would make if he were really in this thing to win it. I don't mean any disrespect to the man, but he's just playing at this and it shows.


For the sake of discussion lets assume that Justin is also right about the Republicans lose the 2008 election.
Will the Republican candidate who loses political career be over ?
Nixon was defeated narrowly by JFK and after a lean patch he made a political come back that took him to the White House.
I think that the Republican candidate who wins the nomination has to go for victory it is the only attitude that a candidate should take into any election.

Should the Republican candidate put in a respectable showing but still lose will they have a political life line that can be used in 2012/15 ?
Kerry was a disaster as candidate and almost won in 2004 mind you his stock as candidate as sunk and cant be salvaged.

The dems don't impress me in the slightest. Eight years of Bush was enough to motivate the party and the candidates to prepare for 2008. Maybe the Republicans had become complacent kind of like the first Bush admin did . Bush senior and his team, may have thought it was there right to win the 1992 election. The danger of that kind of thinking is by the time you set about changing your mind set it is far to late.



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
There you go. That's why I say that Mr. Paul is not making the effort that he would make if he were really in this thing to win it. I don't mean any disrespect to the man, but he's just playing at this and it shows.


I respect your opinion. I'm still not buying it. It could just be, after watching Bush stampede over the U.S. Constitution for 8 years, that Ron Paul got fed up. Maybe he saw a viable window for his platform, knowing so many Americans are disgruntled with the direction of both parties. Even if he is just putting on a show. He has my vote. If for no other reason than to send a message to the GOP. Which is, your going to lose some votes to some obscure 3rd party candidates if you don't start acting like the "conservative" party again.



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I do believe that you will see roughly ten percent of the voters using their ballots to telegraph their anger. If somebody/anybody manages to develope both message and money, you will see the creation of a viable third party candidate. Perot's flame-out in 1989 is still fresh in the minds of many. The indy candidate of the future will have to be cleaner than clean and cooler than cool. It can happen, but its not going to happen now.



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Should the Republican candidate put in a respectable showing but still lose will they have a political life line that can be used in 2012/15 ?


It depends on who it is. McCain would be way too old to run again, but Giuliani could certainly could try again. I think though Giuliani would beat any Democrat in the general election now anyway, it's the Republican primary that's going to be the hurdle for him.



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Operating on the assumption that Giuliani is the nominee, I sitll don't see him winning in the general election. The evangelicals will stay home ifthat happens, which would do more than guarantee the win for the Dems. It would widen their margin of victory. Ouch.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Please note the new video interview section referenced in the original post.

Again please u2u me with any new videos or appearance infos.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Hey, John. What are you talking about? I'm lost. Did I miss something?



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I just put some links to videos of the candidates in the first post of this thread.



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   


Ten Republican contenders for the 2008 US presidential election are preparing to take part in their first debate.

Among those to brave the TV cameras at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, are Rudi Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Lesser-known candidates are hoping to raise their profile ahead of the primary elections early next year.

The event comes a week after eight Democratic presidential hopefuls held their first debate in South Carolina.


source

This aren't going to be pretty the media has already highlighted how Republican candidates have broken the 11th commandment . We could well see some more self inflicted wounds. Whether or not the debate is a scripted event for television or a genuine debate is another issue entirely. I wasn't impressed by the so called 2004 presidential debates.



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Yes, I was watching the debate with a bit of a biased view... Being a staunch Ron Paul supporter and all. But, i would have to say I was impressed with how Dr. Paul handled himself tonight. The only candidates that really stood out to me were Romney and Paul. It didn't seem to scripted to me either.



posted on May, 4 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I think Romney did very well, but still has that plastic Disney audioanimatronic robotic look.

McCain was pretty solid.

Giulliani was good, but stumbled around the abortion issue.

Paul certainly showed how different he is from the others.

I was also impressed by some of the lesser-known candidates such as Duncan Hunter.



posted on May, 4 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Here is a bit of summary for those like me who didn't see the debate.


The 10 rivals showed their conservative credentials across 90 minutes of debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, each claiming to be a worthy heir to the political legacy of the late 40th president.

They stressed the importance of persisting in Iraq, called for lower taxes and a muscular defense and supported spending restraint.

"The first pork barrel, earmark bill that crosses my desk, I'm going to veto it and I'm going to make the author famous," said McCain.

The field split on another issue, with Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raising their hands when moderator Chris Matthews asked who did not believe in evolution.


source

Well at the candidates had enough sense not go for the I'm more conservative then the other guy one up contest. Tom and Mike views will win them friends with the religious right but for Americas sake I hope that those kind of views never make it to the White House. The US lack of creditability internationally is only temporary but if science loses out to religion the US will become a laughing stock permanently.

Could Tom and Mike just be paying a lip service to the religious right since there is no candidate that truely fits the religious right bill ?



posted on May, 4 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link   
You can see the full debate here:

First Republican Primary Debate



posted on May, 4 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   
OK has any one given any thought to the fact it might not be such a good idea for Republican candidates to use Reagan as a measuring stick for success ?
Think about it for a moment.

Unlike the Soviet Union Islamic extremists aren't going to go bankrupt nor are they going to admit that the system has failed in light of any US military build up. We know that Reagan was dubbed the great communicator and for good reason.

The vital skill of being able to communicate ideas isnt entirely lost on the Republican candidates but you might ask if the ideas they are communicating are up to scratch. Reagan preached the same themes thou out his political career he didn't have to paint himself as someone he wasn't.

Don't get me wrong I'm a Reagan fan but the Republican party needs to create a new standards and measures of success. It is unfortunate that Bush ability to communicate ideas is non existent because some of his ideas could well form the aims that make the new measurement of success.



posted on May, 4 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

I believe you will see roughly ten percent of the voters using their ballots to telegraph their anger. If anybody manages to develop both message and money, you will see the creation of a viable third party candidate. Perot's flame-out is still fresh in the minds of many. The independent candidate of the future will have to be cleaner than clean and cooler than cool. It can happen, but its not going to happen now. [Edited by Don W]



1992. Ross Perot polled 18% of the popular vote to Bush41's 38%. Most commentators reckon Perot pulled equally from the Dems and GOP so even without Perot, Clinton would have won, so they said. Those of you who look to 3rd parties for reform and even victory, must keep in mind the US system is so much stacked against a 3rd party that in 1992 Perot could not clam to be a 3rd party candidate, but had to run as an individual. That’s another non benefit you State’s Rights boys bring to the table. How sweet it would be if we had ONE Federal electoral law? Instead of hiring 51 law firms for each of the states and DC, you could hire ONE law firm for America.

On winning. If America adopted the 50% +1 vote required to win the presidency, there would have been a run-off in 1992, giving the GOP one more chance. But our Electoral College as it is currently arranged makes that neigh on to impossible to accomplish.

1996. Based on the popular vote achieved by Perot in 1992 who named his party the Reform Party after the election, the FEC - Federal Election Commission - awarded the Party a share of the presidential campaign finance money for 1996. Perot had lost interest by then. And perhaps he saw another run as unlikely to produce anything resembling the reforms he favored. OTOH maybe Perot perceived that Clinton was getting more done than even he would likely have been able to do if he had gained the 1992 victory but wholly lacking a base in Congress to work from.

Pat Buchanan, masquerading as a Reagan Republican but always a Libertarian in his soul, if not a closet Anarchist, slyly stole away the Reform Party in 1996 to be his own vehicle for a predictably futile run on the presidency. Banned from the all important tv debates, but armed with 17 millions of taxpayer dollars (for which there is all too little accounting), Pat did his best but in the end, polled less than 3% of the nationwide vote. Which ought to jar 3rd party hopefuls back to reality.

1789. The first presidential election. Held late because the requisite number of states - 9 - had not signed on in time, was run without organized political parties but that does not mean the public was not divided in its political points of view. George Washington won all 10 states voting, which justifies many saying he was elected unanimously. A feat equaled only by James Monroe. NC, NY and RI were late getting onboard.

By the 1792 election - now 15 states as VT and KY had joined - America had 2 very different political parties. The strong central government favoring Federalist Party which became the Whigs, which then disappeared, and the weak central government also called state’s rights favoring Jeffersonian Republican Party which became the Democratic-Republican Party, then split into 2, both claiming to be the Democratic Party. A North and a South wing. Split over slavery and not over tariffs as some contemporary Civil War Historical Revisionists like to fantacize.

In 1856, a 3rd party, the Republican Party, was formed. It is the only successful 3rd party in Americana. For the 1860 race it nominated Abraham Lincoln who barely won by a plurality, garnering just 39% of the popular vote but gaining a majority in the Electoral College. Unlike the earlier 1800 election where the House cast 31 ballots before choosing Jefferson over Aaron Burr. Itself an electoral fluke any repeats of which were avoided by adopting the 12th Amendment.

America, for better or worse, is a 2 party country. It will take a constitutional amendment to alter than sufficiently to make 3rd parties viable. Instead of soapboxes.

[edit on 5/4/2007 by donwhite]



posted on May, 4 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Seems like among the second tier candidates the talking heads are saying Mike Huckabee did best, but I don't see it. I think I was most impressed by Duncan Hunter among those with whom I hardly have any name recognition.

Tancredo I thought did really bad, probably the worst of the lot. But it wasn't totally his fault, that Chris Matthews kept cutting him off while letting others go way past their time. Like someone said MSNBC ran it more like a game show than a serious debate.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Hello to all. I've been busy with other things, but now that I have had a hcance to review my notes...I did notice one thing about the GOP 'debate' which was bothersome to me. None of the front runners sounded like thye knew what conservatism was any more. The people who had the least chance of winning said more about small government and fiscal conservancy than the big boys did. This only reinforces my point that small government advocacy is dead. Are we now in for a decade of bread and circuses?



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Like someone said MSNBC ran it more like a game show than a serious debate.


What else could they do? It was 10 guys that want to lead a party they spent 90 minutes running away from. I mean if the answer to every question is Ronald Reagan, it's not even a game show. It's a drinking game. By my 19th shot, I was ready for McCain to lead them in a whistle off remembering the good ol' days of being a Republican.

We dig dig dig dig dig dig dig in our mine the whole day through
To dig dig dig dig dig dig dig is what we really like to do
It ain't no trick to get rich quick
If you dig dig dig with a shovel or a pick
In a mine! In a mine! In a mine! In a mine!
Where a million diamonds shine!

Heigh-ho, Heigh-ho
Heigh-ho, Heigh-ho
Heigh-ho



new topics




 
15
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join