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: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   


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 control 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 movers and 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 matter what he says, he has 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 no 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]




posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
As a historian, I'd have to say that our political system has been "going wrong" since the founding of the country. In some respects, the high-minded idealism refected in the Constitution doesn't match reality. The weakness of Men has proven to be insurmountable. the goals set by our Founders may have been just out of reach.

Having said that, I do think that we can one day be that society that they hoped for. As each decade passes, we continue to redefine what's actually "possible." If we can hold it together just long enough ,we could push back the frontiers of our own ignorance just long enough to make it happen.

Let me give you just one example. Tonight we will see a sitting President make the annual State of the Union speech. We're likely to witness some policy changes that refect a lot of arm-twisting. We're also likely to see evidence of continued obstinance when it comes to...certain things. The changes signalled by that speech will still document faltering steps forward.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

“ . . our political system has been "going wrong" since the founding of the country . . the high-minded idealism reflected in the Constitution doesn't match reality . . weakness of Men has proven to be insurmountable . . the goals set by our Founders have been just out of reach . . If we can hold it together just long enough, we could make it happen.

Let me give just one example. Tonight will see a sitting President make the annual State of the Union speech. We're likely to witness some policy changes that reflect a lot of arm-twisting. We'll also likely see evidence of continued obstinance when it comes to certain things. The changes signaled by that speech will still document faltering steps forward. [Edited by Don W]



Well, we should not pre-judge him. I don’t know if you noticed, but it was my impression the Wednesday night speech was the best Busht43 has ever made. Had it not have been for the facts on the ground contradicting him, he was entirely believable. I was surprised his ratings did not improve.

I do not believe Bush43 is sincere when he says he wants to work with the Dems. Hey, he said he wanted to be a “unite-er” in 2000, and he has missed 6 years of opportunity to do it. Even in his WH luncheon sit-down by the fireplace with Speaker Pelosi, he implied “working together” meant doing things his way. Nay, not "implied," that is exactly what he said. Speaker Pelosi, a proper guest, politely ignored him but I know she is too smart to miss that subtlety. Plainly put, he does not use conciliatory language. It is a foreign language to him.

Nor have any of his actions supported his claim of wanting harmonious relations with the newly empowered Democrats, post-November 7. He did not consult on replacing Rumsfeld. Opportunity missed. He did not consult on the “new way forward” surge strategy in Iraq. Opportunity missed. He did not consult on appointing Negroponte (Rice’s replacement?) to #2 at State. Opportunity missed. No consultation on Negroponte’s critical DNI post replacement. Opportunity missed. And etc.

I have finally decided that it is Bush43 who is the No. 1 of the Neo Cons in W-DC. There is no other explanation to explain his actions. His outright rejection of the ISG Report proves it beyond doubt. Any realistic politician would have grabbed onto that bi-partisan document as his “cover” out of a failed undertaking in Iraq. He could have “accepted” the Report in public, in a joint appearance with Baker and Hamilton (Wow!), and then gone on with his own plans in private and blamed everything going wrong on the Dems in Congress or the ISG. Give me a break. This man is self-deluded - encouraged by Alberto Gonzales - over what he imagines are the powers inherent in being Commander-in-Chief. He sees no restrictions. None. Read the US Con, Art. 2, Sec. 2, Clause 1.


[edit on 1/23/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Does anyone thnk that McCain might NOT run for President at this point? I'm beginning to think he is having a change of heart.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

Does anyone think that McCain might NOT run for President at this point? I'm beginning to think he is having a change of heart. [Edited by Don W]



You, know, J/O, I’ve never seen McCain show the enthusiasm I’d expect in a candidate seeking the job of a lifetime, reserved for only 43 men so far in our 220 years of national history. The strongest job in the Universe. That would give me goose-bumps, at least for a while. Look, John McCain is old, not young. He served 6 years in a Vietnam prison camp which cannot be good for your health. I have never seen a less energetic man on the campaign trail. Maybe you are right. Maybe he just wanted some behind the scenes clout. Watch Hillary and Barack. They are real candidates. And hey, John Edwards is not going to go peacefully into the night, despite what Bill Clinton may urge him privately.



[edit on 1/23/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Here's a new question for the panel. How does the President's State of the Union speech factor in to your take on the GOP's chances for '08? Did B43 say enough of the right things to give his fellow Republicans any hope? Did he give the conservative Presidential candidates any useful ammunition?


df1

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
JO, at this point bush43 could part the red sea, change toxic waste into wine and go for a stroll down the middle of the Potomac and it still would not be enough to help conservative republicans in 2008 as long as one pair of US boots is on the ground in Iraq.

It is possible for a Republican to win the white house in 2008 if Bush43 does not compound his failures any further. He can still hurt Republican candidates, but he can be of no help to them.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   



posted by Justin Oldham

Here's a new question for the panel. How does the President's State of the Union speech factor in to your take on the GOP's chances for '08? Did B43 say enough of the right things to give his fellow Republicans any hope? Did he give the conservative Presidential candidates any useful ammunition?



posted by df1
JO, at this point Bush43 could part the Red Sea [Sea of Reeds?], change toxic waste into wine and go for a stroll down the middle of the Potomac and it would not be enough to help conservative Republicans in 2008 as long as one pair of US boots is on the ground in Iraq. [Edited by Don W]



Look, not one American wishes our soldiers ill. Not one American does not wish success for the Iraqi. Who are dying by the dozens every day. And every American feels regret for the dead on both sides. The reason we are where we are is because of 2 things:
1) Bush43 has lied to us so often that we cannot believe anything he says now, and
2) we have seen the Iraq Civil War get worse, not better, for 2 years, all the while the Bush43 people deny there is a civil war. So how can we join the mindless hoopla chorus Bush43 is trying to harmonize?



It is possible for a Republican to win the white house in 2008 if Bush43 does not compound his failures any further. He can still hurt Republican candidates, but he can be of no help to them.



Agreed. If the Iraqi get it together - it’s in their best interest - and settle down to some acceptable level of civility or accomodation between now and November, the more or less agreed to cut-off date, then the GOP will be back in the '08 game big time. B43 highlighted and promised joint action with Dems in Congress, on
1) Immigration,
2) Energy conservation and alternative fuel sources,
3) admitting Global Warming is both real and a problem that must be addressed, and
4) Iraq, as dealt with above.


[edit on 1/24/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

B43 highlighted and promised joint action with Dems in Congress, on
...
2) Energy conservation and alternative fuel sources,


Isn't that like the 7th address on how the little oil baron is going to finally do something?



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Rant.

I think that what the oil barons are doing is to wait until it becomes lucrative enough so they can made the switch and keep the profits.

But first the littler man has to do the job for them before they can buy them out.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   
When he appeared on "Meet the Press" this sunday, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee announced that he would form his own exploratory committee for the Republican party's Presidential nomination. There are now almost as many GOP hopefuls as their are Democrat contenders.

Here is my question for the panel. How many more Republicans will toss their hat in to the ring, and will it matter?

My gut tells me that some are trolling for quick money. Others are placing their Iraq war bets now. If the Dems are left holding the bag when the withdrawl happens, some of these guys might be thinking of cashing in. What says you? Can any one of these people be taken seriously at this time?



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

When he appeared on "Meet the Press" this Sunday, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee announced that he would form his own exploratory committee for the Republican party's Presidential nomination. There are now almost as many GOP hopefuls as there are Democrat contenders.

Here is my question for the panel. How many more Republicans will toss their hat in to the ring, and will it matter?

My gut tells me that some are trolling for quick money. Others are placing their Iraq war bets now. If the Dems are left holding the bag when the withdrawal happens, some of these guys might be thinking of cashing in. What says you? Can any one of these people be taken seriously at this time?



In reverse order. Yes. All of them can be taken seriously. I seem to recall that Bush43 was ignored in 1999 until he won a primary or two in 2000. The pundits spent a lot of time discounting those early wins.

A Donor list is a prime asset for anyone with national aspirations. This year presents a unique opportunity for people with those ambitions.

The glow of being a majority in Congress was smashed last week when at the news show with his new Lt. General David H. Petraeus Bush43 flatly said, “I am the decision maker.” I understand Petraeus is getting his 4th star as part of an incentive package to get him to ride the wild bull of Baghdad.

Now, Dems are in a dilemma. We want the war in Iraq to have a happy ending. Despite all the bumps in the road we chose to go down, time after time when we could have changed course. Yet we can almost taste the joy we will feel when Bush43 is hung out to dry. We know of no other person in recent memory who deserves it more or who brought it all onto himself. It’s called “getting his comeuppance.”

I was listening to Gov. Huckabee on CSpan as I write. He has already mentioned the religious values theme but with a twist. He’s rejecting the likes of Pat Robertson but embracing the others who have been unable to distinguish the very desirable condition of having politicians who have high moral standards they adhere to, and those who are better at talking the talk than walking the walk.

He is boosting the military theme, and he is calling us the God fearing love everyone and the other side - not named but we know who he is speaking about - Muslims - who practice hate and want to kill all of us! A bit too simplistic. As well as overstated. He’s not my man. But then, I won’t be voting in any Republican primary.


[edit on 1/29/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Although they've changed the label on the can, I still don't see any difference in the contents. My read of Patraeus is that he's taking the promotion because it's a promotion. He really does think ti's a lost cause, but he will still take the promotion. Bush makes it clear that his hands are tied. That surge is nothing more than creative accounting that will in the end alienate more people than it impresses.

If he can get out of this thing with his media image in tact, we could see D.P. in politics in 2012-2016. I still can't shake the feeling that a future U.S. President has sand from Iraq in their boots just now. They could be a Dem, or a Republican. I just can't shake the feeling that this war will produce a future national leader, even if they do run on an anti-war ticket.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
When he appeared on "Meet the Press" this sunday, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee announced that he would form his own exploratory committee for the Republican party's Presidential nomination. There are now almost as many GOP hopefuls as their are Democrat contenders.


I added Huckabee & Brownback to the original post.

I saw Huckabee on MTP, and I'm sorry but this guy just doesn't seem presidential and his name sounds funny!
I don't think he has a prayer.

I can't think of anyone else who could enter now and really change the dynamic with the exception of Condi Rice whom I already listed as a possibility, although she denies it. Pataki wants to run but has no chance against Giuliani who is far more popular and interesting candidate who's also a fairly liberal Republican from NY.

[edit on 1/29/2007 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Since it is extremely doubtful that a Republican, any Republican will be able to win the 2008 presidential race why not do the best you can for the country by selecting and backing the most conservative Democrat available--someone you can at least tolerate. Make sure your choice of Republicans doesn't really have a chance first though.


df1

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer70
why not do the best you can for the country by selecting and backing the most conservative Democrat available...

Without a doubt we have vastly different views of the world, however the last thing I would like to see you do is to compromise your ideals. Imho compromising our ideals is what has put the US in the mess it is in today. Be open to different ideas, let your views change to accommodate a changing world, but please don't compromise your ideals.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
df1, it does not compromise ideals, it tries to protect them. There is absolutely no harm in voting in the democratic primaries for a democrat that is closest to a conservative, or that espouses ideas you can live with. The best way to prevent HRC from ever getting into the White House is to never let her get on the ballot to begin with.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Since it is extremely doubtful that a Republican, any Republican will be able to win the 2008 presidential race why not do the best you can for the country by selecting and backing . Make sure your choice of Republicans doesn't really have a chance first though.


Despite appearances all is not lost for the Republican party in 2008.
Giuliani stands as the best chance of the Republican party getting elected in 2008. As for VP one of the lesser known candidates would be the way to go because they wont have any baggage connected to the Bush admin.

Other factors will come into such as who the Dems nominate , alleged personal history and how well mud sticks. If the Dems nominate hillary Im convinced that Giuliani could beat her because Hillary lacks the support of her core supporter base.

If the Republicans put forward a member of the Christian Taliban and an ignorant supporter of the war in Iraq it will cost them the election and people may choose a Hillary type figure as a lesser evil.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I can't help but notice that rudy is staying very quiet just now. If Newt really is sniffing around in the background, who knows? "Somebody" will have to run for the GOP nod.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I would say that Rudy is staying silent to avoid criticisms from the Christian Taliban. Rudy can sit back and see which candidates run out of steam before the race has even began while using his current support to stay competitive in the polls. Later on Rudy can duke it out with the genuine contenders.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join