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: 42
15
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


xpert11 Unless the Republican Party loses in a landslide will they go back to the drawing board? It seems to be a stupid question at first given how the Republican Party is currently imploding but as the Iraq war as shown it is always easier to bury your head in the sand. But sooner or later you have to come back to reality.

Mr X11, I do not see the Republican Party currently “imploding.” Just the contrary. There are 4 top tier candidates and 1 or 2 in the second tier who might replace McCain if he drops out like we keep thinking he will. As J/O often reminds, running a successful race is a lot different than just running. If I ever get my way, you are looking at what CFR - Campaign Finance Reform - would produce at every election. A plethora of candidates of all stripes. Ron Paul would have as good a chance as Rudy Giuliani. Or heaven forbid, as Fred Thompson.

The GOP has 2 rather distinct “wings.” For want of a better word, I’ll call the 2 wings, the Western wing and the Eastern wing. Not all people fit all descriptions. The Western wing was captured by the Neo Con group. This happened because Reagan was asleep at the wheel, but what’s new? And domestic politics at that level had no appeal to Bush41 who saw the world as his playground.

Neo Cons knew their philosophy would have no more followers than Ron Paul has. A Libertarian. They realized early on that the Religious Right was ripe for the picking. A small but tough core of RR leaders had rejected all hopes of compromising on Roe v. Wade. Those steadfast ideologues realized Roe was the best thing that ever happened to them. Like the Nine Eleven Event later proved to be for Bush43. “It is an ill wind that blows no one to shore.” For the RR leaders it was to be ALL or NOTHING! Hallelujah! P T L!

The Eastern wing of the GOP is inhabited by reasonable, rational and practical people. Mrs. Snow and Mrs. Collins. Mr. Jeffords and his successor Bernard Sanders. John and his son, Lincoln Chafee who just lost to a Dem. Jacob Javits of NY. Edward W. Brooke, III, African American from MA, only black elected AFTER Reconstruction ended in 1876.

Arthur Vandenberg of MI, a GOP who was largely responsible for getting a favorable vote in the US Senate on the UN Treaty. Hugh Scott of PA who was also Senate Minority Leader. He was followed by John Heinz whose widowed wife became famous in 2004. Well, I hope I have not gone on too much here. I must add Mr Republican as proclaimed by Time Magazine, Robert A. Taft of Ohio. These are people called Eastern Establishment Republicans. You can live with them. Ideology takes second place to necessity and propriety.

They Easterners have an INCLUSIVE view of America whereas the GOP’s Western wing has an EXCLUSIVE view. You know the Western wing. They have been in power since 2001. Ugh! They gave us Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc and etc.

[edit on 9/26/2007 by donwhite]




posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Just a reminder to you all that there will be another televised Dem debat0e on t.v. tonight. I can't tell you why the Republicans aren't having more debates, but hey aren't. Hm.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Well if you hold to many debates in today age of 24 hour news networks and the internet you will undermine there worth and effect. From what I have seen of US political debates I find the use of the word debate to be a bit dubious. The debates seem to resemble an extended version of twenty questions.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   
I'm sorry to see that our politicians jumped in to the elecoral 'fight' so soon. I think it was a real mistake to start the '08 race so early. I hope that nobody does this again.

It seems clear to me that the only thing that is pushing up the election effort is the fact that so many of our political and social elites want to have done with W. They want it now now now. I wouldn't be surprised to see whole books come out over the next ten years that make the case that "everyone" wanted a new leader...now now now.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I'm sorry to see that our politicians jumped in to the elecoral 'fight' so soon. I think it was a real mistake to start the '08 race so early.


I have to agree with there IMO there is something wrong when the candidacy race goes on for half an electoral cycle.




It seems clear to me that the only thing that is pushing up the election effort is the fact that so many of our political and social elites want to have done with W. They want it now now now


Didn't the so called elites aka corporate interests help to elect Bush in the first place ?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I think you can make the case that Corporate America chose to back Bush43. It seems clear to me that C.A. is not backing the GOP candidates as fully as they are the Dems. Based on what I can find, it seems that even the FFA's (to include Don's R and F's) have forsaken the Republicans.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   
FYI, I just heard on FOX that Newt Gingrich has officially ruled out any bid for the 2008 presidential race. I wonder if he'll endorse one of the other candidates?



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by djohnsto77
 


FYI, I just heard on FOX that Newt Gingrich has officially ruled out any bid for the 2008 presidential race. I wonder if he'll endorse one of the other candidates?

I believe Newt enjoys more the role of ELDER statesman. Because he has moderated his earlier strident POV, he is well received even in what he’d call liberal circles. Although I do not agree with all his suggested solutions, that a former top Republican leader now acknowledges issues I have long known about as PROBLEMS worthy of addressing at the national level seems like a sea change to me. Whereas Nixon’s several re-incarnations were always brought into question by his subsequent sinister moves, Newt for once appears to be honest.

Who if anyone, will Newt endorse? Based on Fred's on again off again start, I think Newt is unlikely to back Fred Thompson. Fred may turn out to be the FIRST candidate to drop out of the race even ahead of broke but not broken John McCain. Newt will not support McCain because of McCain’s constant ignoring the clear implications of the ‘06 election. I think McCain's maudlin tv ad showing him in the Hanoi Hilton will be of no help but to raise sympathy for a good man whose time was past in 2000. McCain was NOT a war hero, but he WAS a man who served heroically.

I don’t foresee Newt backing any of the lower tier, because they are at best VP material and it’s too early to begin choosing someone for that slot. So I’ve written off everyone one but the top two, Rudy and Mitt. Mitt is running a lot of PRO War Preparedness ads here in FL. Hey, Tampa is home of the Central Command! Mitt wants to FIGHT somebody, bu he dare not say who. I believe Newt is TOO smart for that. Which means Newt is most likely to endorse RUDY. IMO.

[edit on 9/29/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   
IMO Newt can accomplish more as an elder statesman then he good as a failed presidential candidate. In the elder statesman role Newt can act as the wise father figure. Perhaps Newt also saw the writing on the wall in terms of the 08 election. Moderate Republicans beware should Rudy win his party nomination and lose the election the moderate element of the Republican party and its supporters will face the squeeze.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Xpert11 IMO Newt can accomplish more as an elder statesman then he could as a failed presidential candidate. Perhaps Newt also saw the writing on the wall in terms of the ‘08 election. Moderate Republicans beware should Rudy win his party nomination and lose the election the moderate element of the Republican party and its supporters will face the squeeze.

Well look here, the GOP survived the Goldwater debacle of 1964 and came right back and won a narrow victory in ‘68. The GOP survived the Nixon debacle of 1974 and came right back in 1980. And the GOP won a squeaker in 2000. Note: In 2000, even if Florida had not completed its re-count in time to cast its electoral votes and hence, not to have been counted, the GOP - Bush43 - would have won in the House in any case. End of note.

I think you and J/O are worrying more than you need. What happens in 2012 depends much on what happens in Iraq and the Middle East neither of which can be CONTROLLED by W-DC despite our unjustified and disabling belief to the contrary.

[edit on 9/30/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Don I think that there are to many factors at work behind the scenes to make that kind of judgement call. In 1964 JFK legacy would have been probably enough to get the Dems over the line. In 68 the political left would have been fractured over the Vietnam War and that would have been quiet damaging. In 1980 well the Republican Party would have had to put there own worse version of Kerry other wise victory was always going to be there's.


Economic conditions could well be the factor that stirs a Republican come back into White House in 2012 - 16 that's if the legacy of the Iraq War disappears quick enough.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


You have raised GOOD counter-points Mr X11.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Some well-known business leaders have openly changed allegiances. Morgan Stanley Chairman and Chief Executive John Mack, formerly a big Bush backer, now supports Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. John Canning Jr., chairman and chief executive of Madison Dearborn Partners, a large private-equity firm, now donates to Democrats after a lifetime as a Republican. Recently, he told one Democratic Party leader: "The Republican Party left me" -- a twist on a line Ronald Reagan and his followers used when they abandoned the Democratic Party decades ago to protest its '60s and '70s-era liberalism.


source

I stumbled upon this long article that highlights the difference between moderate or should I say sane Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger and those who are hell bent running huge deficits and spending like mad and reducing taxes. The insane elements of the Republican party is even managing to drive some of the party traditional supporters away which must be a sure sign of trouble come 08.

So here is my suggestion to the insane arm of the Republican Party go live in the only country that doesn't have any income tax North Korea .



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


xpert11 This long article highlights the difference between moderate or sane Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger and those who are hell bent running huge deficits and spending like mad and reducing taxes. So here is my suggestion to the insane arm of the Republican Party go live in the only country that doesn't have an income tax: North Korea.


Well X11, this is interesting. Don’t sailors say “rats jump off a sinking ship?” I have a problem though. Where were these socially responsible people in ‘01 when Bush43 opted for deficit financing? Where were they in ‘03 when Bush43 opted for a preemptive war? Or where in ‘04 when he sought ratification for his preemptive war? I’m wary of rats abandoning the ship when its taking on water. How long will those guy “ride” with my ship? Are they just a “sunny days” crew? Are they having a death bed conversion?

Or just an eureka moment? Money means nothing to them. It is a commodity to be spent whenever they see a return just ahead. Aside: I don’t know why anyone opposes publicly financed elections. Money always asks for and gets its quid pro quo. And that is always more than publicly financed elections would cost. Always. Oh well I‘ve been on this platform since I first began to read political materials, more than 50 years ago.

It’s my opinion the R&Fs actually endorse the deficit financing. 1) It puts more money in their pockets. 2) They can buy US “paper” with that money. 3) They will earn interest on that “paper.” 4) They can leave the “paper” to their children. If you are an R&F-er, there can’t be a better way to “make” money. It’s called “generational shifting” of the tax burden. It also is generational shifting of the wealth of the country.

I HATE IT. We are giving away our future.

[edit on 10/3/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

I HATE IT. We are giving away our future.

[edit on 10/3/2007 by donwhite]


Reminds me of Star Wars Episode III, where they give power to the chancoler, and these words are uttered.

"So this is how democracy and freedom die"
"To tunderous applause"

The question is, what are we suposed to do?

I mean we could just take the easy way out and move to say New Zealand, but who wants to do that.

How do we take our country back from the iliigenitmate's



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TKainZero
 


TKainZero The question is, what are we supposed to do? I mean we could just take the easy way out and move to say New Zealand, but who wants to do that. How do we take our country back from the illegitimate's.

Although I believe NZ is a place where any Euro type descendants could find happiness and fulfillment, it is hard to leave the place of your birth. Maybe we are like migrating birds? Maybe we have little magnets in our brain that GPS on our place of birth? Like bonding. It is special, no doubt. Just look at the people who are “living” in Gaza?

The answer to your question is: C F R. Campaign Finance Reform. It ought to go without saying that “he who pays the fiddler calls the tune.” So why do we let big money “pay” the fiddler. Look at this past Monday’s announcements about raising money. Hillary raised $22 m. and Barack raised $17 m. In 3 months. Almost the same they reported 3 months ago.

It is still 13 months to November 4, 2008. Election day. There are 4 more quarters to report. How much did you send in? How much did I send in? I belong to the Dems $6 club. I send in $6 a quarter. Humph! Does that give me “access?” Will Hillary take my phone call? Of course not. BUT if I was one of those Bundler’s we hear about, Mr Chu for example, and I brought in $200,000 at one time and did that every quarter, do you think Hillary would take my phone call?

OK, everybody knows our Congress and our presidency is for sale. Does it have to be that way? The Rehnquist Supreme Court said YES. I once counted - but I have mislaid the numbers - how many times the words, “elect” “election” “electoral” and “vote” appear in the US Constitution. I think the answer is 20. The Rehnquist Court said “Free Speech” which is NOT in the US Con but is in the First Amendment and appears but ONE TIME trumps the 20 times election etc. appear. Rehnquist says 1 man with billions TRUMPS 300 million people who want an honest electoral process. I do not believe the Warren Court or the Burger Court would have said that. I do not accept that Rehnquist Rule as a valid reading of the US Con.

I believe the public must pay 100% of the cost of public elections. I believe it must be made a crime for any person to put into or to accept private money relating to an election. I believe the public has a RIGHT to define and describe how its electoral process will be established. Free speech has nothing to do with paying for elections. And for sure, “Free speech” does not trump 300 million citizens.

[edit on 10/4/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TKainZero
 



All I can say is that change starts at the grass roots level. A starting point is to have desirable candidates who aren't corporate puppets elected at the local council level. Don always bear in mind that were ever you go there will always be corruption the question is this.
Does the system deal with corruption adequately ?
Locally an MP has finally had criminal chargers laid against. So far the sytem is working.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


xpert11 All I can say is that change starts at the grass roots level. A starting point is to have (1) desirable candidates who aren't corporate puppets elected at the local council level. Don always bear in mind that were ever you go (2) there will always be corruption the question is this. Does the system deal with corruption adequately? Locally an MP has finally had criminal chargers laid against. (3) So far the system is working.

1) Good reminders, Mr X11. With the “sky is the limit” campaigning, even local candidates are going on tv and radio and running newspaper ads. Not to mention the ubiquitous lawn signs and well sited billboards. So who is funding these “civic” minded citizens?

One big source among several is the local cable tv company which is not regulated anywhere. But 99% of Americans think it is. Monopoly - called exclusive franchises here - are prized! Although Americans pay a LOT of lip service to Free Market and to Private Enterprise the truth is that is for the POOR, the RICH prefer NO free market and LITTLE to NONE of the enterprising we want them to do. That’s the CAPITALIST’S mantra. Prices rise, services decline. Corporations cannot contribute but their owners, managers and persons with ancillary interests can contribute! And they do.

2) Yes, there has always been corruption. Look at the disasters that beset the 12 Caesars. Recall even the fate of Robespierre. Our own George Washington had his Benedict Arnold.

3) Almost! The Gonzales affair, precipitated by the firing of the San Diego US Attorney who was about to bring to justice the persons who had bribed sitting Congressman Butch Cunningham, was shrouded with protective “cover” by the firing of a half dozen other UN-cooperative US Attorney’s. Honorable people all who were chasing after too many GOP contributors. A no-no for Bush43-ites and the ever willing sycophant Alberto Gonzales.

To that extent our system is NOT working. J/O fears the extra power aggregated by the Bush43 White House will not be easily surrendered by the next president. I trust he is wrong.

PS. It is raining here in Jax at a 10 inch per day rate! 1:30 PM EDT. We have had 16 inches in the past 20 days. All of summer's wild fires are out. Now its flash floods to watch for.

[edit on 10/5/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

To that extent our system is NOT working. J/O fears the extra power aggregated by the Bush43 White House will not be easily surrendered by the next president. I trust he is wrong.

PS. It is raining here in Jax at a 10 inch per day rate! 1:30 PM EDT. We have had 16 inches in the past 20 days. All of summer's wild fires are out. Now its flash floods to watch for.

[edit on 10/5/2007 by donwhite]


I don't think that Bush43 is going to stay in office beyond his term, that would be too much, that would be such a blannent violation that everyone would stand up and say "WTF".

What is a more likly secnero is that the next President is already choosen, someone to carry on the ideas and polotics of Bush43, which i sjust an externtion of the powers that be, who are the real puppet masters behind the way our country works. And make no mistake about it, the evil is spread throughout both sides of the isle, not that i needed to mention that to you guys.

So this coming election, we must decide which of the canidates are the real deal, and who are the enimies within?

And what is going on with the news reporting how much each canidate is making? All we see now about the canidates is, this one raised 10 million, and this one raised 5 million, so the former is far better, because they raised more money. Have they always been doing this? All we here is how much they raised, and not what they stand for. I can't remeber this happening during the 2000 or 2004 elections, and before that, i was just too young to notice what was going on.

As for How much i sent in... well not a dime... im just a poor college student who is trying to work his way through school (i will not take hand-outs from the goverment) and am hard strapped for cash on a continual basis... so donating cahs is not an options at the moment, latter, closer to election time, if my man is still in the race, and not out of it or worse, i might have to donate.

I feel an urge in me to flee this country, i can't quite place it, but it is an uneaiseness in my gut that tells me to go, leave before the chaos errupts. I have a friend, he lives just across the boarder near Vancouver in Cannada, he just sold everything he has, packed his essentials (Halo 3 + XBOX 360) and is moving to New Zealand, he does not know a single person there, nor does he have any plans. He just decided to get up and leave. I am starting to think in the same way, the only thing that is keeping me here is my education, but i have set a tentative date, if certain events happen, i will leave, by air or water i will leave, and i would have no problem doing so.

I have moved many times in my short life, Being born in northern California, then moving several times around in southern California, then moving overseas, then moving to Glorious Florida, then into the Southern California Vally, and now, having moved back to northern California, the closeest i have ever been to the place of my birth, i feel farther then ever from home. With each passing day i find more to loath about this place i live, and less to like.

R.P.S. Oh how don't you love the weather in Florida, better then any place on the planet, 1 min it perfectly clear, then 30 secs of a torential downpour, then 30 secs later, sunshine again, i love it, living on the coast is so wonderful...



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TKainZero
 


TkainZero What is a more likely scenario is that the next President is already chosen . . which is just an extension of the powers that be, who are the real puppet masters behind the way our country works. So this coming election, we must decide which of the candidates are the real deal, and who are the enemies within?

Although I do not fully subscribe with your description of the state of affairs of America’s domestic politics, I will admit that with such rare exceptions as Harry Truman, Gerald Ford and maybe Jimmy Carter, the rest of the 20th century presidents were “safe” for the Big Boys.

Aside: But I still think that the POV you are expressing is looking at the wrong side of the mirror. I’m still thinking it’s more a “convergence of interests” rather than pre-planned plot worked out by a few well placed people.

TkainZero And what is going on with the news reporting how much each candidate is making? All we see now about the candidates is, this one raised 10 million, and this one raised 5 million, so the former is far better, because they raised more money. Have they always been doing this?

No, to answer your last question first. Only the first election in 1789 was NON partisan. Everyone “knew” George Washington was to be the first. GW polled all 69 of the votes cast in the Electoral College. (NY, NC and RI did not vote in 1789. 71 electors were eligible but 2 did not cast a vote). In 1820, in the “Era of Good Feeling,” James Monroe was reelected without formal opposition. Roosevelt, Nixon and Reagan enjoyed huge land-slides in their 2nd terms. At the lowest level of elections - poll worker to prospective voter - votes have always been bought and sold. Rich people do it openly. Poor people have to hide. You can’t stop vote buying any sooner than you can stop drug addiction, prostitution and drunkenness. So you try to minimize it.

TkainZero All we here is how much they raised, and not what they stand for. I can't remember this happening during the 2000 or 2004 elections, and before that, I was just too young to notice what was going on.

No, you are remembering correctly. I believe this 2 years long fiasco is an unintended consequence of yet another failed CFR attempt. Campaign finance reform. You’ve heard it said the REAL political players will begin the 2012 campaign on Wednesday, November 5, 2008, the day AFTER the upcoming election.

There is nothing wrong with that. It is reality. To even try to change that is crazy to be kind, disingenuous to be accurate. How long is it from new model concept car until the product is sitting on the showroom floor? If you and I want to buy something, we plan ahead how to get the money or arrange the credit. And etc.

TkainZero As for How much I sent in... well not a dime... im just a poor college student who is trying to work his way through school (I will not take hand-outs from the government) and am hard strapped for cash on a continual basis...

I did not mean to get personal. Before I retired, I regularly gave $300 in presidential years and $150 in the other years. In $25 increments. But I am only giving the $6 per quarter because the number of donors do count. My point was to illustrate that because the Rehnquist Court has said the citizens cannot limit spending in elections, it has got to this current state of affairs.

The Supreme Court could have said it was LEGAL for the citizens to put limits on private funds in public elections. But it chose not to. This is why I faithfully vote Democratic, because I know who stands where. And judicial appointments are probably the most consequential things a president does. For sure those are the longest lasting.

As for you feeling that governmental assistance is somehow less than honorable, I dispute that with you. Before World War 2, fewer than 2% of Americans attended college. Now, it is 30%. The GI Bill afer War 2 began a sea change in our country. I went to college on the Korean GI Bill. PL 550. Not as good as the WW2 bill, but it made the difference for me. Helping students is an INVESTMENT in our country’s future. Not a hand-out.

TkainZero I feel an urge in me to flee this country, I can't quite place it, but it is an uneasiness in my gut that tells me to go, leave before the chaos erupts. I have a friend, he lives just across the boarder near Vancouver in Canada, he just sold everything he has, packed his essentials (Halo 3 + XBOX 360) and is moving to New Zealand, he does not know a single person there, nor does he have any plans. If certain events happen, I will leave, by air or water I will leave, and I would have no problem doing so.

Hey, if our ancestors had not felt the wanderlust, we’d be living in Europe. Well, in Canada and NZ you’ll have better health care by far. America has always stressed and rewarded individualism. In most other countries it is community that is the nexus of society. Here “No Child Left Behind” is mockery, there it is reality. We have one poster here who is a NZ-er. I’ll U2U him. Belize for example, requires a $25,000 “impact” deposit before you can get permanent resident status.

TkainZero I have moved many times in my short life, Being born in northern California, then moving several times around in southern California, then moving overseas, then moving to Glorious Florida, Oh how don't you love the weather in Florida, better then any place on the planet, 1 min it’s perfectly clear, then 30 secs of a torrential downpour, then 30 secs later, sunshine again, I love it, living on the coast is so wonderful...

I came here (Jacksonville) for family reasons. I have one sibling. She was widowed in ‘99. Her children live in Atlanta. She invited me down here in ‘03. Although I married 3 times, I have no children and my wives have died of causes unrelated to marriage. If it were not for my sister, I’d go back to Ky in a heartbeat.

[edit on 10/6/2007 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join