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: 39
15
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Well given the scripted nature of American politics at the highest levels I would be inclined to think that the serious candidates would have advisor's that are able to coach them so they appear to speak in an unscripted manner. Maybe Huckabee doesn't have these people on his staff or the people he has on his books aren't very good there job.

A candidate must not appear to be following a script and at the same time they must show conviction without any passion . Just look what happened to Dean when he displayed some of the fire in his belly.




posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Speaking of 'fire,' what says you all about the resignation of Alberto Gonzales? Looks to me like the A.G. is getting out while he still can.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
IMO the only reason Gonzales stayed in the job so long was to act as buffer between the Dems and anything else that could be politically damaging for the Bush admin. It looks like that Gonzales could be another fall guy just like Scooter Libby was. In political terms the Bush admin is a ship that is sinking slowly. IMO its going to be interesting to watch the Republican nominee campaign because the person will look to distance themselves from Bush while praising him at times and never being seen with him on the campaign trail.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Interesting to see the Republicans take anoethr hit today in the form of GOP Senator Larry Craig (Idaho). I'm sad to see that yet another Republican can't keep their pants on. Democrat strategists will havea field day with this. MY own I.M. has been going off all day. Sheesh.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I am aware of the fact that the cops try to stitch someone up from time to time . In this I am sure that they must have had more then an inkling of Craig sexual orientation before they brought such a weak case to court other wise his lawyer would have gotten him off with ease and he could have claimed political harassment.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
I am aware of the fact that the cops try to stitch someone up from time to time . In this I am sure that they must have had more then an inkling of Craig sexual orientation before they brought such a weak case to court other wise his lawyer would have gotten him off with ease and he could have claimed political harassment.


It did not come off like that to me. This kind of enforcement comes only after several complaints by ordinary citizens. I am sure no one knew that Senator Craig was on his way through Minneapolis.

CNN reported the policeman was signaled by Mr Craig when Mr Craig intentionally moved his foot closer to the policeman's foot. I did not know men played "footsie." Apparently this is a well known signal - unknown to me until now - somewhat akin to the prancing of a bantam rooster bird wanting to copulate with another chicken?

In any case the original charge was “lewd conduct” which must be defined by Minnesota Criminal Code. An offer of or a solicitation of illegal conduct? Illegal in a public place. To avoid taking proof in open court, Mr Craig accepted the traditional reduction in the charge to the vague and general “disorderly conduct” and paid a fine of $500 and costs. Frequently $150. That offer is made to every first time offender regardless who he is, by every prosecutor I ever heard of. That was no special treatment.

Craig avoided the cost of a good lawyer; in his case, probably $5,000. The outcome would have been the same IMO. You and I would pay a lawyer about $1,500 without a trial, $5,000 with a jury trial. And in court, you never have better than a 50/50 chance. There is always one winner and one loser.

Craig obviously thought this incident would go unnoticed. He should have known better. In every courthouse in every large city, someone is in the pay of the local newspaper as a “stringer” and got $50 to $500 for this story. In cash. Denialability. IMO.

Do you think Larry Craig should resign NOW?

[edit on 8/29/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I'm not sure that Mr. Craig wil resign. He will most likely serve out the rest of his term. Next month, he'll tell us that he's decided not to run again. He'll go home with the whole Senate retirement package. I'm not looking forward to the damage this will do to the Republican image, but hey...I'm sure that his 'secret' was known.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I'm not looking forward to the damage this will do to the Republican image,


Well its not the Republican party image was very good to start with at the moment .
What's a few more holes in a sinking ship ?
I agree that Craig will be headed for an early retirement.



but hey...I'm sure that his 'secret' was known.


His family and close friends must have known that he was gay . I'm surprised given the nature of American politics that he wasn't outed you cant keep the nature of your sexuality a secret forever. But there are probably many mutual secrets being kept and politics should be about policy and not a politicians personal life.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   
There are no real secrets in Washington D.C. except the ones you keep. Once you've told one otehrperson, the chances are good that the truth gets out. when you're the Speaker of the House or one of the Whips, you get to know stuff about people that shouldn't see the light of day. It's a don't ask don't tell culture.

My spieculation is that he doesn't think of himself as gay. He may think of himself as bi-sexual. Like Slick Willy before him, he may define sex as being intercourse between a man and a woman. It doesn't really matter any more. He IS done.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   


- After months of not-so-coy will-he-or-won't-he political flirtation, Fred Thompson has finally and officially announced that he is a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
Fred Thompson joins the race for the GOP nomination only four months before the first voting.
"I am running for president of the United States," he said during a taping of NBC's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" Wednesday evening, drawing applause and cheers from the audience.
It's the same venue that helped launch the electoral career of another celebrity-turned-politician, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.


source

Fred has finally gone from getting his toes wet to jumping into the swimming pool. Given Fred poor fund raising figures if he wanted any genuine chance of winning the nomination he had to enter the race late as he has done. By being a late comer to the party he gives his opponents less time to sling mud at him and he has to sustain the momentum needed to carry him to victory for a lot shorter period of time.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Newt Gingrich was right when he suggested that a 'stealth candidate' could upset the races by entering late. Thompson will have to run as fast and hard as his money will allow. He's got a chance to craft a public image that could gain him the lead in Republican circles.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Thompson entering so late could go one of many ways. He is the darling of the media, so he will not take much bad publicity for entering late. It will be intresting to see how he does in the debates, because in the couple of time i have seen him talk, it was not gone well... IMO he is just another one of "the boys"

Now, on Crappergate, or Tappy Craig, what a mess. I realy feel bad for the guy, seriously. Now the whole nation knows what it means to tap your feet in the bathroom, no one can walk into a public restroom the same any more. Next time im in a stall i have got to have my switchblade out, and if i see a foot comeing in for a tap, just you wait! This is just such a wierd situation, i can't belive that he would pleade guilty, then have the odasity to say he is innocent, i think he should resign, and whats with this new 'fad' of announcing your retierment and not having it take effect for WEEKS/Months. But back to Craig, i never heard of the guy before this... at first glance, his face gives off the same vib as Dick Channy, an evil man that has many skeletons in his closet.

Like BJ bringing BJ's into the publics lexicon, Craig has brought the divient sexual practices into the political arena. Craigs actions have brought the underground "signals" of the homosexual activities to the American public, in the span of about 10 years the perversion of our polotical leaders has gone from premiscious actvity, to a 'how to start' guide on Homosexual behaviour in public restrooms.

In all Craig should resign, on the basis that he admited to a crime, because in his words, "would make it go away", im sorry Craig, your sick actvities and lack of judgement, prove that you do not have the moral fortitude to continue your service, so step asside Mr. Craig, and try to decide on what orface you pefer...



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
There's no doubt that the Craig scandal will harm Republican prospects in November '08. Did any of you see the latest GOP debate? I thought itwas very telling that the front-runners waffled on the matter of Irqq, while the second tier candidates were quite specific about what they thought, and why. I think that tendancy to be specific is what makes it possible for those candidates to stay in the race.

Now that Fred Thompson has formally entered therace, a lot will be expected of him. I suggest that he might pick up a lot of ground if he can be as specfic as Ron Paul and others. There's no doubt that he has the support of the media in much the same way as Obama does, but he can still fall out of favor with the MSM much faster than Obama could.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
While I haven't seen the Debate Ron seems to resemble a doctor who's cure for broken arm is to kill the patient . I can understand why the Department of Homeland Security should have an axe hovering over its head but canning the CIA doesn't seem to be the brightest idea on the block.
Someone should as Ron who should take care of the likes of counter intelligence in the US its not something that can be left up to the private sector.

Ron is misguided but he does seem to convoy the message of old fashion conservatism. It was just a bit to much to see one of the candidates talk about honor.
Surely honor would have demanded that Bush resign a long time ago or not run for reelection ?

[edit on 7-9-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   
The words of the front-running candidates make it clear that the GOP is still wed to a flawed strategy, and tney know it. They seem to be ready to ride this thing down in flame, no matter what.

I like what I see of the progress in Iraq, but we are seeing "Nation Building" and its being called "War." To get the "win" that Bush wants, we'll have to be there for another two decades. The voting public is not ready to do that. If the Bush team had sold this to us as actual nation-buidling, we might be different situation today.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



posted by Justin Oldham
The words of the front-running candidates make it clear that the GOP is still wed to a flawed strategy, and they know it. They seem to be ready to ride this thing down in flame, no matter what.


They have no choice. It is Bush43. It is his personality. See newest book. Bush - like Nixon - does not want t defeat on his watch. Bush - unlike Nixon - has run out of time. For Bush43, it will be spin. How much can he ignore?

The 535 Members of Congress are sufficiently divided that no concerted action can be taken that is CONTRARY to the wishes of the Commander in Chief.


I like what I see of the progress in Iraq, but we are seeing "Nation Building" and its being called "War." To get the "win" that Bush wants, we'll have to be there for another two decades. The voting public is not ready to do that. If the Bush team had sold this to us as actual nation-building, we might be different situation today.


The first democratic government in South Korea was elected in 2000. But that progress was made AGAINST the designated minions of the US. It speaks well for democracy (S Korea), but ill of the United States.

[edit on 9/7/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   
IMO even if the next US president pulls there country's troops out of Iraq the US military will have to be enlarged to cope with the current global political climate. The only way to avoid enlarging the US military would be to abandon the War on Terror.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 02:00 AM
link   
I'll stand on what I've already said. If bush leaves the withdrawl to Hillary, he guarantees her a second term AND he damns the Republicans to more years in the wilderness. I'm not sure that the GOP contenders get this.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


How does Bushs' reluctence to leave Iraq in a timely fashion, translate into 8 years of Hillary?

Not to mention that Hillary has the reputaion as a War Goddess? She clearly has more fight to her then her husband, he is definatly the lover, and her the fighter...

If Clinton wins, i belive that we will not see an end to these conflicts in the middle east between US forces and those that oppose our nation, mabye only an expansion, into Asia, and southern America.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
For a variety of non-military reasons, the majority of ameircan voters will spank the GOP in November of 2008. the backlash won't be totally about the Iraq war, but it will play a major roll. If Hillary gets t obe the one who brings the troops home, she will be rewarded at the polls in 2010 by having more Dems in office, and...she'll be re-elected in 2012. Even if all she does is de-estacale the U.S. presence in Iraq, the majority of voters will be happy to see it and they'll ballot accordingly.

Tehre are a lot of people on ATS who agree with you when it comes to the matter of military committments around the world. I am one of them. I think Hillary will de-escalate in Iraq and grow the size of the U.S. military. She'll fight a series of small-scale brew-ups around the world. I think she will do so with greater 'ooomf' than Bush has done. Mr. Bush let Rummy con him in a low budget slow dance. Hillary will see the wisdom in killing gnats with sledge hammers. Its in her nature.

Bear in mind that the conomy is going to tank on her watch. She won't have any problems blaming it on bad policy which she inherented from the Republicans. The few military successes that she does have will go some distance towards enhancing her image as a smypathetic but embattled leader. I'll stand on the predictions I've already made. So far, I am not wrong.



new topics




 
15
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join