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: 35
15
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I would imagine that Thompson is getting a lot of pressure from the RNC to not run. My thinking is that the national committee has already made its peace with the coming loss, and they don't mind letting Giuliani take the fall. If there's even a small chanc that he could lose the nomination to Fred, they may not like the notion that they'd have to back Fred essentially from scratch. They may be looking to save a portion of their elections war chest for the 2010 Congressional races.




posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
For me it is too early to predict anything regarding the elections on either side as there are very good possiblities of major events happening that will throw all the best laid plans of each presidential run in shambles.

It's a whole new ballgame if things with Iran turn from smoldering to real fire. What if, as is A.Q. norm lately (Spain), to try to do things before an election to influence them? Either of those scenarios will cause massive changes in the political landscape leading up to an election.

These next 6 months are ripe with the chance for events to overshadow any other plans a politician may have.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
J/O, you’re OK on conclusions. But shaky on reasons. Consider: In 1948, Harry Truman was still new in his unanticipated job. He wanted a civil rights plank in the up coming Convention’s platform. Warned of the consequences, HST went ahead. J Strom Thurmond took a (Dixiecrats) walk and got about 38 electoral votes. Former VP Henry Wallace, severely disappointed he was not president, ran off with Idaho populist turned Democrat Senator Glenn Taylor but gained no electoral votes nor did they change the outcome in any state. Truman faced the GOP’s odds-on favorite Tom Dewey, who earned his fame as a gangland prosecutor and was now governor of NY.

Almost everyone thought Dewey would win. Except Truman. Would it not be a shocker if Fred Thompson could pull a ‘48 Truman re-run? Due to our perverse fascination with the slave favoring Electoral College, you don’t have to get a majority vote to win the office.

On election day
Here is what I say
Stay in bed
Fred is dead!

[edit on 8/2/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
If it were upto me, Fred would tour the country stumping for Giuliani. Yes, I know it SHOULD be the toehr way around, but rudy has the bit in this teeth, and he won't back down now. Fred comes to the race too late, with too little in the way of funds and manpower. Image is the one thing that Thompson has that the other GOP candidates can't hold a candle to. If it were up to me, I'd get some backers and write a script. then, make a GOP friendly movie starring Thompson and a few others, which would hit theaters or air in mid-2008.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Don I don't disagree with the idea that Fred has skeletons in his closet. But you have to bear in mind that such a reasonable approach my not be taken by the Christian right who would forgive anybody for anything providing the person mentioned Jesus. It is worth remembering that the Christian right rise began when they backed the only president to have been divorced.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Marg, I think you're pretty much right.

But there's really no clear right-wing social conservative out there and right now I think national security trumps any social issues, so actually Giuliani may have a chance. I don't think people trust McCain.


McCain is done.

There's no reason in the world why Giuliani should be leading any GOP polls for national office. Hell, if it weren't for his authoritarian impulses (and getting rich off 9-11) I wouldn't mind him (right now), either.

He's socially liberal which is an anathema to the religious right. And those are the people he needs.

Ron Paul is the only viable, yes viable, true conservative - scratch, Libertarian - Republican in the race (in the general election). If given an audience - equal to that of Rudy McRomney - he kills.

It'll be interesting to see how the Ron Paul dragon is slayed. (Sad) He'd be a good president.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
If it were upto me, Fred would tour the country stumping for Giuliani. Yes, I know it SHOULD be the toehr way around, but rudy has the bit in this teeth, and he won't back down now. Fred comes to the race too late, with too little in the way of funds and manpower. Image is the one thing that Thompson has that the other GOP candidates can't hold a candle to. If it were up to me, I'd get some backers and write a script. then, make a GOP friendly movie starring Thompson and a few others, which would hit theaters or air in mid-2008.


The problem for Fred Thompson is he serves at totally pre-Sept. 11 mindset. Old rich white guys. That ain't flyin' in '08.

If Fred Thompson had a lick of sense, he'd say thanks, but no thanks. If he runs, he'll ruin a fairly good reputation.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   
One thing that is really pissing me off is Ron Paul's support online not being reported in the MSM. They are blacking his run out, folks. Totally.

After yesterday's Republican debate, the online polls all said Ron Paul won. Fox "noise", ABC and Drudge all posted the results; and yet, not a single mention of that phenomenal fact in the corporate news.

Its pathetic. Ron Paul is shaking some ground. On NBC "news" this morning, they showed stock footage of the debate; and yet, they did not show Ron Paul at all - but showed and highlighted the rest of them.

It'll be interesting to see how the straw poll shakes out next Saturday. What will everyone do if Ron Paul wins, or comes in 2nd or 3rd? The establishment would Sh(*&it a gold brick. And I would pay good money to see that.

In the form of a donation?


I think he could do it; but saying that, I still think the establishment will wipe his candidacy out somehow.

I know one thing, right now Ron Paul has more money on hand than supposed front runner john mccain; and his support is on fire online. The more people see him, the more popular he gets.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:34 AM
link   
EastCoastKid welcome to the thread.
Ron faces two problems the first is as you say the establishment is against him . The second problem is that Ron is targeting the wrong audience most of his supporters are Libertarians rather then Republicans.
IMO Ron belongs to a differnt political ideology then the rest of his party he is a Republican in name only. I mean no disrespect by this but as a Libertarian Ron has no business being apart of the Republican party.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 03:59 AM
link   

posted by xpert11
EastCoastKid welcome to the thread. Ron faces two problems the first is as you say the establishment is against him . The second problem is that Ron is targeting the wrong audience most of his supporters are Libertarians rather then Republicans.

IMO Ron belongs to a differnt political ideology then the rest of his party he is a Republican in name only. I mean no disrespect by this but as a Libertarian Ron has no business being apart of the Republican party.


South Carolina just threw a monkey-wrench into the smooth workings of the heretofore orderly early caucuses and primaries. Leaving out the actual dates for now, it seems South Carolina got miffed in a big way when Florida moved its primary up to the week prior to Super Tuesday which remains on February 5. SC claimed to have the “right” to be FIRST amongst the southern states with a primary. A somewhat dubious claim, they rest their case on their Republican Primary and not on a two party primary as the other states had.

Be that as it may, SC’s action triggered an automatic response from New Hampshire which advanced its date. The NH state law says they will have their primary 7 days before any other state even if it has to be tomorrow. That in turn triggered Iowa which has a law saying it’s caucus must be 8 days before NH. That works out to place the Iowa caucus on New Years Day, January 1, 2008, followed on January 8 by the NH primary. Unless some other state wants to get into the news on the cheap.

Ron Paul fans, wake up! Rudy is still leading in Iowa and neither Romney nor McCain - he still won’t say uncle - seem likely to catch him. Fred Thompson’s numbers are falling so his early boom may well have been a boomlet! A shooting star!

The Dems seem to be moving more and more to Hillary. Despite the best efforts by Barack or John E. to trip or embarrass her, she is too quick and turns each attempt to her advantage. Deft, you might say. Sure footed. Confident. She'll make sausage out of Rudy and Fred. Heck, she could have been a Rhodes scholar had she been so inclined. And if they admitted women. I don’t know about that. Won’t it be nice to have a president who can read? And not depend on worn uot quips.

I can see it coming (November 4, 2008). Rudy and Fred, versus Hillary and Barack. NY and TN vs NY and IL. Unless PEACE breaks out in Iraq, I cannot see the GOP ticket carrying the day.

[edit on 8/11/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Rudy must be envious of the kind of lead that Hillary has over her nearest rival Obama in the polls. Clearly the Iraq issue was ans is going to have a negative impact on the Republican party this time around. This thread has been going for a while now and the Republican party game plan to take the focus away from Iraq is yet to appear. Still with American politics any verbal blunder , unscripted or poorly scripted moment could be used against an opponent with great effect . Of course this can work against you as well.

Waiting for an opponent to trip themselves up is not a good strategy to deploy at the best of times little alone when you could be against a well refined political machine which goes by the name of Hillary Clinton. Hillary has been at Bill side so it is no wonder that she has mastered the political game.

If the Republican party has chosen Rudy as a throw away candidate is he aware of this fact ?
Who in there right mind would be a throw away candidate ?
Surely a smart candidate would hold off until a better time unless there age counted against them. Out of the two candidates who are flirting with the idea of entering the race I like Fred the best because Newt reminds me of Nixon.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 05:49 AM
link   

posted by xpert11
Waiting for an opponent to trip themselves up is not a good strategy to deploy at the best of times little alone when you could be against a well refined political machine which goes by the name of Hillary Clinton. Hillary has been at Bill side so it is no wonder that she has mastered the political game. If the Republican party has chosen Rudy as a throw away candidate is he aware of this fact? Who in there right mind would be a throw away candidate? Surely a smart candidate would hold off until a better time unless there age counted against them. Out of the two candidates who are flirting with the idea of entering the race I like Fred the best because Newt reminds me of Nixon.


Well, why could it not have been that Bill was being tutored by Hillary? He was after all, the “front” man, the playboy, the guy outside, whereas she was the stay at home mom type and did her stuff behind the scenes. If she wins it all we’ll see.

On throwaways. I don’t think any candidate regards himself (or herself) as a “throwaway” candidate. We label some like that because we see the possibility of wining as so low as to not make sense to work so hard just to lose. But that ignores Harry Truman in 1948. Or even Reagan in 1980 before the Ayatollah gave the election to anyone but Carter.

I’m just the opposite on Fred v. Newt. Fred is TOO much into the resinous thing for my taste. Newt has gotten over that. But I don’t think either can pull Rudy off the wining track he is now running on. And so far, Rudy has gained his prominence by being Rudy. That’s his greatest strength. Even in a preachy GOP.

[edit on 8/11/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Well, why could it not have been that Bill was being tutored by Hillary? He was after all, the “front” man, the playboy, the guy outside, whereas she was the stay at home mom type and did her stuff behind the scenes. If she wins it all we’ll see.


Anything is possible the other possibility is that both Bill and Hillary have the ruthless political smarts and that now it is Hillary turn to shine under the sun.





I’m just the opposite on Fred v. Newt. Fred is TOO much into the resinous thing for my taste. Newt has gotten over that. But I don’t think either can pull Rudy off the wining track he is now running on.


Well I find the fact that Newt reminds me of Nixon to be unsettling. For more on this matter see this thread.
I don't think that Fred career as an actor should be held against him should he chose to run. Occupants of the Oval Office have come from many differnt backgrounds including high ranking military leadership , mining engineer and career politician.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

posted by xpert11
Clearly the Iraq issue was ans is going to have a negative impact on the Republican party this time around. This thread has been going for a while now and the Republican party game plan to take the focus away from Iraq is yet to appear.


First order of business in 2009 is to declare the War on Terror OVER! We must take a new and more sensible look at the underlying conditions that gave rise to OBL and his ilk. We can spend less money dealing with those problems than we now spend on war, which is about $12 b. a month. We can end the constant state of fear here at home inspired by the Neo Cons. Let's acknowledge the Nine Eleven Event as our own wake up call.

All Middle East relations are predicated on a settlement of the Arab Israeli dispute on a fair basis to the Palestinians. This is essential to PEACE in the Middle East. That is the sine qua non in the ME. Do that and we will have removed the cause celebre of al Qaeda. Its raison d’etre. If we cannot do that then we cannot do much else in the Middle East nor can we have peace there.

[edit on 8/11/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
First order of business in 2009 is to declare the War on Terror OVER! We must take a new and more sensible look at the underlying conditions that gave rise to OBL and his ilk.
......
All Middle East relations are predicated on a settlement of the Arab Israeli dispute on a fair basis to the Palestinians.


What do you propose in Lieu of the War on Terror? Perhaps we should tell the Spaniards to leave Spain since it is in the hands of the Infidels. We could pay for their repatriation somewhere else.

Trying to reason with Radical Islamists in a way that you think is rational is like letting a convicted sex offender be a baby sitter IMO. Yeah, I know Sam have done some bad things in the past, but lets give him a chance with our kids. I know that sounds harsh but when have the Radical Islamists ever shown a concession or wanting to compromise?

The closest you get is Hamas saying "Ok we will give Israel a 30 year truce" but I won't recognize them or honor any previous agreements. Pray tell, what does Hamas have in mind in year 31? That's their idea of being magnamious and compromising. My God, Radical Islamists are going after other Muslims and you want to "talk" and be fair with them? I personally don't really see the point in negotiating with someone who REALLY does want to kill you.


Doesn't the settlement have to be fair to all parties involved? What about Israel? Guess it doesn't have to be fair for them.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   

posted by pavil

posted by donwhite
First order of business in 2009 is to declare the War on Terror OVER! We must take a new and more sensible look at the underlying conditions that gave rise to OBL and his ilk.......All Middle East relations are predicated on a settlement of the Arab Israeli dispute on a fair basis to the Palestinians.


What do you propose in Lieu of the War on Terror? Perhaps we should tell the Spaniards to leave Spain . . . “


Law enforcement. InterPol. UN Resolutions. Joint task forces. Shared intelligence. Use lawful means to apprehend unlawful persons. Open trials. And etc. Why to people ignore the simple fact the blind sheik Abdel-Rahman is in prison convicted in open court for the 1993 WTC bombing? Our laws work when you use them. If OTOH you are looking for an excuse to EVADE the law then the Nine Eleven Event was it.

Spain has its own problems. The Basques have been struggling for independence for generations. The perpetrators of the Madrid train station bombing wanted the Spanish to get out of Iraq. The majority of Spanish people wanted OUT of Iraq.

The US had coerced the Spanish government to become one of the coalition of the willing for what price we do not know. We do know the US offered Turkey $6 b. to let us pass through their territory into Iraq, which they wisely declined. The Spanish people got to vote on the issue and they got their way. The US does not respect any election that goes against the US policy.


Trying to reason with Radical Islamists in a way that you think is rational is like letting a convicted sex offender be a baby sitter IMO.


No it’s not. The US Government has the audacity and disrespect for Americans intelligence by telling the Iranians we - Condo Rice - will sit down with them if they will CONFORM to our demands BEFORE we sit down. We - Bush43 - tells the North Koreans to conform BEFORE we will have discussion with them. We - Rice and Gates - tell the Palestinians to CONFORM to our demands BEFORE we will sit down with them.

I am not crazy. I am not stupid. I know how international discussions proceed. This is not the way. Bumfuzzled Americans sit by and let nincompoops run the country. We sowed the wind, we reap the whirlwind.


The closest you get is Hamas saying "Ok we will give Israel a 30 year truce" but I won't recognize them or honor any previous agreements. Pray tell, what does Hamas have in mind in year 31? That's their idea of being magnanimous and compromising.


Hamas was chosen by the Palestinian people in a free and monitored election. Before the counting was finished the US in the person of Bush43 warned the Hamas we would NOT talk to them UNTIL they gave up the most important - to them and of no consequence to us - the most important RIGHT the displaced Arabs have, the RIGHT of RETURN. Bush43 is no poker player and he holds the US citizenry in disdain. You don’t give up your bargaining points until the other side is face to face. You don’t conduct genuine diplomacy in the US Controlled Media. Unless you are Bush43.


My God, Radical Islamists are going after other Muslims and you want to "talk" and be fair with them? I personally don't really see the point in negotiating with someone who REALLY does want to kill you.


You have to talk with your adversaries. Arab killing Arab is an Arab problem. Unless you are trying to impose a puppet regime on an Arab country - Iraq - and the people living there resent that. The rich and famous Arabs collaborating with us like it. They have sold their country out for a big payoff from ExxonMobiil and TexacoChevron and their position of power and personal safety guaranteed by the US Marine Corps. That did not work in Vietnam and it will not work in Iraq.


Doesn't the settlement have to be fair to all parties involved? What about Israel? Guess it doesn't have to be fair for them.


In 1948, Christians feeling a well deserved sense of guilt and moved by the horrors discovered in the Nazi Death Camps - the Holocaust - decided to “GIVE” the Jewish survivors a HOMELAND. Problem was, they did not consult the people who lived there. The Jewish vote could swing NY and FL. There was NO Muslim vote. Hmm?

The UN Charter for which 450,000 Americans gave the last full measure of devotion, guarantees to every people the right of self determination. Because Palestine was a British Mandate under the League of Nations, it was presumed by Americans who know too little of history that the PIC - person in charge - could do that. So the UN “GAVE” about half of old Palestine to the NEW Jewish state. The Israelis have now taken by force of arms - FORBIDDEN by the same UN Charter - all the reminder. The West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. And Golan.

The Israelis are deep into ETHNIC CLEANSING of the conquered territory so that when the US finally - if ever - forces a settlement, the State of Israel will have it all or nearly all. In total disregard for the UN Charter or its Resolutions. That MAKES Islam radical.

[edit on 8/11/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Don the problem with your argument is that what we regard as radical or extremist Muslims exited long before 1948 in fact it would probably consider the norm until the likes of common decency crept into western civilization .
The Iraq sideshow excluded other then Ron Paul which candidates would pack up and leave Afghanistan in spite of the war being very winnable ?
I understand that bad decision making has led to people rightfully turning against the Bush admin but your cure is worse then the disease.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   

posted by xpert11
Don the problem with your argument is that what we regard as radical or extremist Muslims exited long before 1948 in fact it would probably consider the norm until the likes of common decency crept into western civilization. The Iraq sideshow excluded other then Ron Paul which candidates would pack up and leave Afghanistan in spite of the war being very winnable? I understand that bad decision making has led to people rightfully turning against the Bush admin but your cure is worse then the disease.


My cure is honest, straightforward and would work if sincerely engaged. The American plan is really a disguised attempt to impose a hand picked government in Iraq. We tried that in Vietnam. We tried that in Afghan and now our hand picked man we label President, Mr Hamid Karzai can’t leave Kabul after dark. Leaders we like are called President in America. Leaders we don't like are called Radicals, extremists, dictators and other pejorative terms.

Anyone remember Manuel Noriega of Panama? Now held illegally in a basement jail in Miami for how many years? Who remembers what he was "convicted" of? Does anyone know the circumstances of Robert Hannsen's incarceration? Or even give a hoot?

[edit on 8/11/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
All Middle East relations are predicated on a settlement of the Arab Israeli dispute on a fair basis to the Palestinians. This is essential to PEACE in the Middle East. That is the sine qua non in the ME. Do that and we will have removed the cause celebre of al Qaeda. Its raison d’etre.


Al Qaeda's raison d'être has nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Bin Laden and his cohorts radicalized and formed al Qaeda to fight the Saudi Royal family and their allowing U.S. troops on Saudi soil in the first Gulf war to free Kuwait rather than his mujahideen who fought off the Soviets in Afghanistan. After 9/11 bin Laden has given some lip service to the Palestinian issue to garner more support in the Islamic community, but it's clear that that was never his main issue.



[edit on 8/11/2007 by djohnsto77]



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Don you are making the mistake of clumping all the wars you mentioned into one group. Hamid Karzai has a mandate from the Afghan people and the Government of Afghanistan has done very well considering the tribal divisions in that country. The security situation in Afghanistan now limits what political progress the government of that country.

The government of Iraq has proven to be weak and ineffective enough said. The US lost the Vietnam war because the US military had no idea how to fight a counter insurgency war.


"We were all over Vietnam and I talked to a lot of people....the only ones who knew how to fight this thing are the Australians and the Viet Cong. I sent company commanders to train with the Australians....so they could pick up the skills of those well trained and careful jungle fighters."
-- Lt.Col. David Hackworth in 'About Face'


source

Note you might have to refresh the page a number of times before the quote appears.


The social changes that occurred during era also saw the disgusting treatment of those who served in Vietnam. The North Vietnam's were also so called liberates of the people and many of the opponates of the seem to side with them much like some people defend the insurgents in Iraq.





[edit on 12-8-2007 by xpert11]




top topics



 
15
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join