2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

Now that I've had a chance to look closer at the Tancredo exploratory effort, I'm convinced that he's doing it to trawl for money and to get a shot at somebody's cabinet in the event that a Republican wins the Presidency. The sad fact is that the GOP is so thoroughly divided at this point that they will most likely be their own worst enemies.

I am still waiting for good fresh candidate from the Republican side and so far I have seen names that I have no clue who they are or what they preach they are standing for.

I have seem more candidates from the Democrats than Republican yet.

What is going on.

Only a fresh face can beat Obama right not.

Has the Republican party become stagnat when it comes to candidates?

I was watching Mr. McCain on "Meet the Press" this weekend. His performance and attitude, combined with what I've learned from severla offline sources, leads me to believe he's losing faith in his chances for the GOP nomination. And...I think he might be right.

The GOP top brass is painfully aware of what's going to be said in tomorrow's State of the Union address. They're also cringing in advance of the expected national reaction. With this in mind, they may be shifting their support to Giuliani.

Rudy is smart enough to stay off the radar just now, which will serve him well if he realy does pull the pin. A source has told me that McCain might have been asked earlier this week to re-consider his Presidential run. I can't verify this, so take it with a grain of salt.

I've conducted a small survey of my own, and I've learned that people in my own neck of the woods are just plain fed up with what they see as do-nothing politics. That's country talk for "incompetence." I haven't heard this kind o ftalk since the days of Jimmy Carter. My worst fear is that tomorrows State of the Union speech will only put more nails the Republican coffin.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
My worst fear is that tomorrows State of the Union speech will only put more nails the Republican coffin.

I agree, I remember a poster that mention something about the American idol having more popularity than the president.

If they have the people to chose between watching American idol and Bush state of the union you pretty much know what the obvious choice will be.

But is something I don't get, Bush is out of the door he is not for re-election, the Republican Party is in charge . . . so . . . they can control what Bush has to say.

But it seems to me that they either has lost control of Bush or is other powers working behind the president that the old leaders of the Republican party can not control or control them also.

Something weird going on since Bush has been president and the power of the Republican party base.

Originally posted by marg6043
But is something I don't get, Bush is out of the door he is not for re-election, the Republican Party is in charge . . . so . . . they can control what Bush has to say.

Unlike most parliamentary forms of government the individual is elected President in the US form of government, not a political party. The party can control the party platform prior to the election, but it has no power to force an individual to comply once he/she is elected President. Like wise the President has no direct power to force members of his party in the congress to support his programs.
.

Originally posted by df1
The party can control the party platform prior to the election, but it has no power to force an individual to comply once he/she is elected President. Like wise the President has no direct power to force members of his party in the congress to support his programs.
.

I see, but then it means that he may be working not in favor of his own political party under he was elected but whatever he feels like it after elections.

I got it.

Now doesn't this jeopardizes the Party as a whole unit? and the chances for other wannabees to be favor by the people?

When people vote for a particular candidate of a party they are not only voting for that candidate but also for the ideologies of the party that the candidate is supporting.

posted by marg6043

I remember a poster mentioned something about the American idol having more popularity than the president. If they have the people to chose between watching American idol and Bush State of the Union you pretty much know what the obvious choice will be. But is something I don't get, Bush is out of the door he is not for re-election, the Republican Party is in charge . . . so . . . they can control what Bush has to say. [Edited by Don W]

Under normal circumstances, I’d agree. But you saw what B43 did to the cover provided to him to extricate himself from Iraq by the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group? Rejected it outright! More of the same, he says. Like a crazed gambler betting his grocery money on the next card. This man is not normal. You laugh, but anyone who can sign 154 death warrants is not normal. 1 every 2 weeks for 6 years. You’re talking Saddam type.

But it seems to me that they have either lost control of Bush or other powers behind the president that the old leaders of the Republican party cannot control or that controls them also. Something weird going on since Bush has been president and the power of the Republican party base.

It’s Neo Cons. We never believed them. We never thought educated people would espoused a doctrine of American dominance of the world we never believe they meant to make this the American Century and they saw a 20 years window of opportunity. Apparently they are for real.

And this means Bush43 is one of the Neo Cons.

Nothing else explains him.


[edit on 1/22/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by marg6043
Now doesn't this jeopardizes the Party as a whole unit?

I'm sure it does jeopardize the strength of the party.

and the chances for other wannabees to be favor by the people?

It is occurring today. Republicans are abandoning the President on issues which they previously supported in order to win public favor.

When people vote for a particular candidate of a party they are not only voting for that candidate...

I can't speak for other people, but I vote for the candidate with no consideration of political party what so ever. If the ballot gave me the option of voting for "none of the above", I might never vote for anyone.
.

posted by df1

I'm sure it [Bush’s position] does jeopardize the strength of the [GOP] party. It [Republicans abandoning Bush] is occurring today. Republicans are abandoning the President on issues which they previously supported [him] in order to win public favor [in ‘08]. [Edited By Don W]

Aren’t we voters unfathomly quixotic? We get mad when politicians do not do our will, but when we change our minds, we berate politicians for changing theirs. As circumstances change, all sensible people must reconsider earlier decisions to see if that still fits. I think changes in circumstances or conditions must dictate what a person decides to do. Unlike socks, in life one size does not fit all.

I can't speak for other people, but I vote for the candidate with no consideration of political party whatsoever . . “

Au contraire! Consider: Modern Democrats claim lineage back to T Jefferson. But Jefferson supported the weak central government concept of governance. Modern Republicans claim lineage back to A Lincoln. But Lincoln supported the strong central government concept. So you see, today’s Democrats would be more comfortable with Abraham Lincoln and today’s Republicans would be more comfortable with Thomas Jefferson. You figure!

I am a party man. Parties endure. People come and go. Issues change. But parties are more likely to keep the same principles over time or evolve to meet changing needs. It so happens I agree with more of the Democratic Party’s principles than I do with the Republican Party. So, for me, it is safer to vole the party than it is to vote the man.

I attribute the mean-spirited politics of today to voting the transient man and disregarding the enduring party.



[edit on 1/22/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Aren’t we voters unfathomly quixotic? We get mad when politicians do not do our will, but when we change our minds, we berate politicians for changing theirs.

You are mouthing the standard establishment rhetoric, "It's the voters fault".

I think changes in circumstances or conditions must dictate what a person decides to do.

I never said otherwise.

Au contraire! Consider: Modern Democrats claim lineage back to T Jefferson.

They can both trace their linage back to the GEICO cavemen for all I care, but be sure to let me know if T Jefferson reincarnates and runs for office as a Democrat.

Parties endure.

Convince me this is a good thing.

It so happens I agree with more of the Democratic Party’s principles than I do with the Republican Party.

What principles might those be? It seems to me that both parties are lacking in principles judging by their actions rather than their words.

So, for me, it is safer to vole the party than it is to vote the man.

Also voting for the myth of what your political party of choice is suppose to represent doesn't require any analysis or thinking, so it is much easier. None of that messy and confusing evaluating the actual positions of the candidates.

I attribute the mean-spirited politics of today to voting the transient man and disregarding the enduring party.

I attribute it to both parties being self serving corrupt dens of inequity with no interest other than perpetuating themselves and the party.
.

It's a shame that the people who win public office aren't the real powers-that-be. It's too bad they can't be their own men and women. The truth is that today's elected officials are, for the most part; middlemen in a process that has become corrupt.

The fact of the matter is that we the voters are supposed to cast our ballots for the other guy when the dominant party makes things worse. It's just not enough for President Bush to be wrongor mistaken. On his watch, his party has failed to DO much of anything. They ere content to keep it that way, no matter who spoke up or gave them a nudge.

I'm not the only one who sees the disintigration of the Republican party. It's been coming for quite some time. Don and I have talked about it off and on over u2 for several months. There IS a form of partisan warfare going on in this country, and the stakes are very high. The Democrats are now poised to win this undeclared war. As per my CM thesis, it's been going on since before the ink dried on the Constitution.

The GOP nominee for President in 2008 will be a sacrificial lamb. The only way any Republican candidate (including Rudy) could have any hope of winning involves some very nasty tactics. They'd have to eviscerate Bush43 and continue their attacks non-stop while at the same time preaching hot and heavy reform. Even then, they still don't enhance their odds enough to beat a ham sandwich (with or without cheese, assuming that the ham sandwich had no connections to Abramof).

If I could give one piece of advice to the GOP leadership, it would be one word. Re-invent.

posted by df1

You are mouthing standard establishment rhetoric . . They can both trace their linage but be sure to let me know if Jefferson reincarnates and runs as a Democrat. It seems to me both parties are lacking in principles . . voting for the myth of what your political party of choice represents doesn't require any thinking so it is much easier. None of that confusing evaluating the actual positions of the candidates . . I attribute to both parties being self serving corrupt dens of inequity with no interest other than perpetuating themselves and the party.[Edited by Don W]

Political parties formed in the US by the time of the 2nd election in 1792. The current parties are basically the Goldwater (GOP) and Clinton (Dems) parties. Because America is more right rather than left, the GOP starts out in front and the Dems must always play catch-up. Since Goldwater in 1964, the GOP has held the WH 28 years (by 2008) to the Dems 16 years. I’m looking forward to another 8 years under Clinton beginning in 2009.

Americans do not like 3rd parties. Once, in 1824, James Monroe was elected as the candidate of both parties. Equal to George Washington's first election in 1789 when he carried all the states voting. There has never been a 3rd party candidate elected, unless you call Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party of 1860 a 3rd party. Two times since Lincoln 3rd parties have been spoilers. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party gave the election to Wilson and in 2000, Ralph Nader's Green Party gave the election to Bush43. Perot played no role in the outcome of the 1992 election although he polled more votes that any prior 3rd party.


[edit on 1/22/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Political parties formed in the US by the time of the 2nd election in 1792.

Political parties are not inherently bad. The problem with political parties in the US is that two particular political parties have been institutionalized at the expense of all of others parties and ideologies. The media and corporatism also play a role in this Demopublican corruption of our political process, but I will hold those thoughts for a more appropriate thread.

I’m looking forward to another 8 years under Clinton beginning in 2009.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. But I doubt that you will get Hillary.
.

posted by Justin Oldham

It's a shame that the people who win public office aren't the real powers-that-be. It's too bad they can't be their own men and women. The truth is that today's elected officials are, for the most part, middlemen in a process that has become corrupt. [Edited by Don W]

Exactly. But when did it go awry? Teddy Roosevelt was his own man and made the back-room boys mad. TR picked Taft, but was dissatisfied with his performance. That clash gave the US Wilson. Wilson was an unlikely candidate. Beholden the Wm J Bryan, he made him Sec of State until he quit. We’ve heard of Col. House and Mrs. Wilson, but recent historians argue Wilson was aware of what was happening in his behalf, contributing if not orchestrating. Harding was hand picked. Maybe they thought the Cox - FDR ticket would win? Was Harding a throw-away? Coolidge of course was VP who ascended on Harding’s death. Completely unexcepted. Like Gerald Ford. Herbert Hoover was a popular politico from War 1 days of feeding the hungry Belgians. His later engineers in work in the Soviet Union was sharply downplayed. Which brings us to FDR. The guys who had put forth Al Smith in ‘28 would have been discredited. But still, NY seems to have ruled the roost in Dem politics, both Smith and FDR being recent governors. Hey, it’s the Empire State. I have always called NYC the capital of the world. Beijing would fit in the Bronx. Tokyo has been the only threat to that title, but when the real estate bubble burst, Tokyo was out and remains out. HST was hand picked, maybe not by FDR but by anti-socialists - all of FDR’s cabinet but Wallace - to be a reliable successor to FDR who everyone says knew would not finish out his term. HST while his own man, I believe, was also a Democratic Party team player. It was 1952 when the GOP with Eisenhower began the “vote the man” mantra. Before that it was “party loyalty.” Adlai Stevenson, the first presidential candidate I voted for (1956), was hand picked by HST. Although JFK was “vetted” in WVa and elsewhere for his religion, he was also a choice of the behind-the-scenes types who felt “safe” with him, the 2nd son of Old Joe. Who got called home from the Court of St. James at the private request of the Brits for his pro fascist leanings kept none to secret. LBJ got where he got on his own. If there was any behind the scenes operative in his tenure, he was the man! I cannot imagine LBJ taking orders from anyone. Nixon was just as canny as LBJ. He likewise held political power in a tight hand. He did not have to consult outside himself for advice how to deal with any problems. Well, maybe he yielded to Henry Kissinger on foreign affairs. I have a feeling Henry the K was more a boot licker than a policy innovator. I heard Henry admit once that he and Nixon had no “plan” to end and extricate the US out of Vietnam in 1968, that it was a pure political ploy to get elected. But I don’t blame Nixon for doing that. The Dems had no plan either, and it was the Dems who had escalated the War several orders of magnitude past Eisenhower’s minimal involvement. Dems like to point to Ike as the first one to tippy-toe into Vietnam, but it was the Dems who put 550,000 troops there. I do criticize Nixon for delaying our exit, as the voters had put him in office thinking he had promised to end the war quickly, little did they know it would go on 6 more years and 22,000 additional KIA. For that I eternally fault Nixon. Not Watergate. I accept Nixon was correct when he lamely excused himself saying others had done as bad. But they had not been caught red-handed. Gerald Ford was chosen because, after Spiro Agnew and knowing the troubles Nixon was facing, the only “safe” choice was Ford, made by others, unnamed, but I heard Nixon wanted John Connolly. That was like choosing between light and dark. We the people won that one! But look how close we came to losing. Ugh. Jimmy Carter was the first president to win through the newly democratized primary process. The back room boys still are not in total controls of the process, but I feel they have learned that in the end, its money that counts. And controls. If we could identify the top 100 or 200 contributors, then you’d have the mover sand shakers of either party. You’d be surprised how many times the same name would show up on both sides of the aisle. Hey, if you are a billionaire, you don’t give a dam about health care unless you own Humana. Or globalization. You’re already deep into that. Money-wise. You already got the best tax deal on earth, 5% income tax rate on money earned outside the US. Sheee-it. Or a flat tax if you stay home, 15% on dividends. That’s why the flat tax movement has died. They already have it. Reagan was a total opportunist with no shame. I cite the welfare Cadillac story that made him governor then after ruining the UC system, the finest public university system the world, he became president with the inestimable help of Ayatollah Kohmeni. Bush41 barely escaped facing the bar of justice, lest he pardon Weinberger and his 6 compatriots who had no doubt told GHW Bush, we’re not taking this rap for you, alluding to the Iran-Contra shenanigans. To which B41 said, “It’s in the mail.” Bill Clinton did not have the big money boys on-board at first, and whether he ever did is irrelevant because Bill realized he could not be a second FDR but could be another smiling Jimmy Carter with chutzpah. With finesse and a stomach of steel - and 2,920 days of endless GOP harassment and phoney investigations which ought to entitle him to at least the Silver Star. Bush43 we know is America’s first designated president. The Supreme Court elected him, 5 to 4. The lesson I hope every politico has learned form this man is not to lie to the public. That is B43's big problem now. No mater what he says, he lied too many times, no one can believe or trust him now. If he had any character - liars usually do not - he would resign. Bush43 did the worst of all possible lies - he lied gratuitously. That’s a lie when one is not needed. 3,030 KIA and counting. His father has tried to extricate him from Iraq but I’m satisfied B43 is the primo Neo Con and has not intention of leaving Iraq. That is the only explanation unless you subscribe to him being mad after ordering 154 executions. A record.
E N D


[edit on 1/22/2007 by donwhite]