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: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Well, now. the toehr shoe has dropped. PM tony blair made is announcement today, and he left no room for doubt that British forces will be scaled back to nothing by the end of 2008. He intends to set in to motion a plan that wil reduce the U,K. committment by 3,000 persons by the end of this year.

As predicted, he is selling this as progress. Even the Bush administration is toutting it as progress. I'm not sure that I agree with Don's assessment that it's all about the royal blood, but who knows? We are taling about the Brits, and they do have a real thing for their blue bloods.

Okay, then. Today is a new day. The Republicans here in the U.S. have a chance to take this 'progress' ball and run with it. Blairs reasoning can be used to justify a step-down that ends in 2008 just in time for Bush to leave office. Can they do it? Should they do it?




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

The other shoe has dropped. PM Blair announced today British forces will be scaled back to nothing by the end of 2008. He will set into motion a plan reducing the Coalition Force commitment by 3,000 by the end of this year. I predicted he will sell this as progress. Even the Bush administration is touting it as [proof of] progress. I don’t agree with Don's assessment that it's all about the royal blood, but who knows? We are talking about the Brits, and they do have a real thing for their blue bloods. Okay. Today is a new day. The Republicans have a chance to take this 'progress' ball and run with it. Blair’s reasoning can justify a step-down that ends in 2008 just in time for Bush to leave office. Can they do it? Should they do it? [Edited by Don W]



1) Can they do it? Sure they can. They already have the cover needed in the ISG Report by GOP elder statesman James Baker. Hand picked by Bush41, I believe. Even Thomas Gates must have been in agreement but he declines to admit that now in his new post as “clean up” man for the Oberfuhrer Herr Rumsfeld (and B43). Not the reliable #4 long ball hitter in the batting order, but the humble janitor who follows the drunk as he staggers around vomitting first here, then there.

2) Should they? I don’t know. Maybe Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson can get the lamb (Sunni) to lay down with the lion (Shia) and there will be peace in Iraq. You’d think those guys who routinely talk with God would help us when we need it most. Where’s Oral Roberts? Has he gone Howard Hughes on us?

Recall Oral reported God told him to build a 800 foot cross, send money. But when the money did not come in - God apparently did not speak to the money grubbers - Oral had to settle on a 400 foot “mini-cross.” Another time, Oral said God told him to raise $7 million or he’d have to "Come Home," e.g., die, but when the faithful could raise only $3 million, Oral said “he’d take it and take his chances” with God. Apparently Oral was right and God had mis-spoke. Where are those prophets when we need them?


[edit on 2/21/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
The Bush43 administration has shown a stubborn resolve to NOT do the correct, right, or oppoortune thing even when it's laying on the table in front of them. Blair's political "out" may not be tempting enough for the likes of W.

Now, then. What would you finely tined political minds suggest that the Presidential candidates do with this gem? Do they swallow any pride they might have and run with it? Or, do they say something mildy critical of Tony and move on?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Well there is no other way that they can spin it other then that the British withdrawl is progress. Fox news will do the rest of the spin for them .

The danger is that candidates will let the burden of Iraq overwhelm much like there are Bush admin has. Other issues need to be dealt with and put under the spot light.

Here is a couple of issue.

National Budget.
Reagan support for a constitutional amended that requires a balanced budget and presidential power of veto should be used as a rallying call for the amended to be put in place .

All the pork projects that get funded could be revealed or at least the Democrats ones. The problem is that a balanced budget was made to look evil by the Republicans in the 90s and there supporters were often dumb enough to fall for this hook line and sinker. So in effect the Republicans have created a wedge for themselvs.

The Republican candidates will probably just play a lip service to fiscal responsibility.

Intelligent Design
The beloved concept of the religious right who fear science is taking hold and it is threatening the technology and scientific lead that he US gained and held thou out the Cold War. In short ID needs to be given the boot.

The Republican candidates will sit on the fence at best rather then risk losing votes. Both issues require action and a candidate with real political courage.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   
What you suggest may be a bit more 'liberal' than what the RNC leadership may be willing to accept at this time.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
What you suggest may be a bit more 'liberal' than what the RNC leadership may be willing to accept at this time.




I can understand why a Republican would avoid of the issue of Intelligent Design . Anybody who turns a balanced budget into a partisan issue and oppose keeping the US out of the red is undeserving of holding office.

How can it be to Liberal if Reagan supported such an idea ?

Republican supporters have been brainwashed into thinking that things such as balanced budget is an Liberal idea. Mind you some people would believe anything that Fox News told them.

I guess by today standards Ike must be a Liberal rather then any kind of Conservative.


Eisenhower's reputation has risen because of his non-partisan nature, his wartime leadership, his action in Arkansas, his being the last President to balance the budget (before the second Bill Clinton term),


Link

Next the Republican spin machine will have to portray Reagan as a Liberal if they wanted to squirm out this net cast by a candidate with guts .

On other unrelated matters.

How do you think a Republican candidate should deal with climate change ?



[edit on 22-2-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 22-2-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 22-2-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 22-2-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   
One of the chief problems faced by all Republican contendors just now is the fact that their base is jaded. The ultra-right abused its position in the part, and failed to bring its agenda to fruitition. For the average voter, this means they're tired of hearing about some things.

Reagan was a compromiser, and he made the act of compromising look like the right and proper thing to do. Those of you who may remember what he did to Gorbachev at Rijkevic (Iceland) will understand why I make this point. Today's top Republicans made the mistake of of forcing an all-or-nothing stance on the opposition, so they got nothing.

Reagans real genious was that he realized some deal was better than no deal. If you were right, your side would inevitably get the rest of what you wanted because the opposition would have no choice but to give it to you. If you were rwrong, you could minimuze your damage and be seen as magnanimous in defeat, which would be good for PR and that all important next deal.

Having said all this, you know where I'm going as I answer your query about Intelligence Design. Achknowledge it, but don't push it. Satisfy the base that you'd be willing to carry their water without committing to a blood-and-guts campaign to make it a reality.


As of January 21'st of 2009, the Dems will have enough majoritive power in the House and the Senate to ram through anything they want. They have already shown that they don't intend to compromise on their agenda. In purest political terms, they're getting payback. They're also being tempted to forget the lesson of Reagan. Some deal is better than no deal.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
You have voted Justin Oldham for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

Reagan was spot on when it came to compromise I'm sure that he would have rather got everything he wanted but compromise is always better then doing nothing . I mean I don't understand how the Republican could have dug themselves into such a deep hole under the US system of governance. Your going to have to compromise and when you have the numbers to pass bills without bipartisan support you better make hay while the sun shines.

So lets assume that a Republican candidate is elected and the face a democratic controlled Congress the elected president will be in a lose - lose situation if he/she compromises he/she will lose the support of there core voter base. If he/she dosnt compromise the president will be rightly crucified for doing nothing.

The 2008 election is winnable but the Republicans need rethink some of there stances and ideas and start re educating there supporters via Fox News.

On a side note under the Commonwealth system of governance you need a majority to govern and 85% of the time politicians vote along party lines and deals to form governments are often made post election.


df1

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
A wild card for the Republican nomination might be Joe Lieberman. He is being courted by the Republicans to shift the political balance in the senate and I would have to believe if he flipped sides that he would expect some pretty hefty compensation. His being Jewish could be an issue. How do you think this would play in the southern states with Joe as the candidate?


Time Magazine
In his 18 years in the U.S. Senate, Joe Lieberman has cultivated an image of himself as a lonely prude among the morally corrupt, that rare Washington official who places principle above politics. But with the Democrats' hold on power dependent on just one vote — in effect, his — and with Republicans courting him to tilt the balance in their favor, Lieberman has been indulging in some fairly immodest political footsie. Early this year he terrified fellow Democrats by skipping several of the weekly caucus lunches that cement party fidelity in the Senate. Recently he was spotted in the Republican cloakroom talking with South Carolina's Lindsey Graham about reforming Social Security. He even says he might vote Republican for President in 2008, a not-so-veiled hint that he would prefer John McCain, his fellow true believer in the Iraq war, to most, perhaps all, Democratic alternatives.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   
If Lieberman was to switch parties, he'd be an interesting VP pick, but I don't think he'd have any chance of being at the head of the ticket so soon after such a conversion.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   


posted by xpert11
How do you think a Republican candidate should deal with climate change?


Straightforward. If they believe it (climate change) is real, say so, if they don’t, say so and why. If “yes” or “no,” what do they recommend the Congress should be doing about the issue. For me, the issue is closed. I want the US to sign on to Kyoto. We have 5% of the world’s population and produce more than 20% of the world’s polluting gases. We need to deal with that ourselves, regardless what China and India do. Get our own house in order before we begin to tell others what or how to do it.



posted by Justin Oldham

One of the problems faced by Republican contenders is the fact their base is jaded. The ultra-right abused its position in the past, and failed to bring its agenda to fruition. For the average voter, this means they're tired of hearing about some things . . Today's top Republicans made the mistake of forcing an all-or-nothing stance on the opposition, so they got nothing. Having said all this I [will] answer your query about Intelligence Design. Acknowledge it, but don't push it. Satisfy the base that you'd be willing to carry their water without committing to a blood-and-guts campaign to make it a reality. [Edited by Don W]



Soft-pedaling on one side solicits a reciprocal soft pedal on the other side. If the candidate tries to walk the tightrope, it could backfire and he loses both his base and the Dems who also believe in ID.

I have changed my POV. I am no longer wiling to be so strident. Whatever I think of ID, the people who believe it are as good as, and as entitled to their opinion as I am of mine and it is important to keep open all avenues of compromise up to and including concessions. A re-run of the Scopes Trial is a lose lose situation for Dems. Give’em ID in senior high and let’s move on. Omar Khayyam said it best, “The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.”



As of January 5 of 2009 [probable date Congress will convene], the Dems will have enough majority power in the House and the Senate to ram through anything they want.



I do not like the words “ . ram through . ” as relates to Congress. Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist did that for 6 years and I have had enough of that on either side. Dissenters must have an opportunity to speak, and as often as practical, get an up or down vote on their proposals.


[edit on 2/22/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Thanks all the way around. You guys are starting to embarass me. Please continue to do so. Like my sig says, they serve us or we serve them. It's the most basic and fundmental of Machievelli's principles of government.

Politics, regardles of nation, is all about getting what you want. Sometimes, you get all of what you want. In other cases, you're lucky if you get a little taste. In some cases, you get none.



Both parties are operating in a political environment that is out of balance. the majority party finds itself in a position to "ram it through," so their gonna do it because they clearly recall the recent days in which they had no voice. Are they out of line? Yes. You may say that they "should" swim torward compromse, but they're too busy with all the greed and the settling of old scores.

Compromise doesn't happen because the majority party says it does. Compromise doesn't happen because the minority party sudden seems to think it's a good idea. Compromise happns when its the least painful way to get what you want. To paraphrase my favorite classical thinker, bargain or bleed as necessary.

As voters, we've always relied on our elected leaders to do the right thing. In the past, we've voted for the person who said they wre going to do the right thing. Now, the lines are blurred and every-body says they're going to do the right thing.

Those of you who read my stuff know where I think all of this is headed. Even so, I've got to tell you that the only reason that I continue to be read by more and more people is that others are beginning to see what the rest of you now see. I'm just the blabber-mouth who's talking about it in books, blogs, and radio.

if you go back and look at the last four posts, you'll see that each of the people who wrote them answered their own questions or changed their POV on something. THAT is how it's supposed to work. Bleed or bagain as necessary. Change your point of view only if you now realize something that you didn't get before.

Why do we expect less from our leaders? We shouldn't, but we do. We assume that they're currupt, and we act with no surprise at all when they are. The Republican part that we've known is no more. It fell prey to its own desease. If its membership wants to keep the old banner from the battlefield's mud and blood, it's got to adapt. It means compromise. It means changing points of view.

Suppose you could get what you wanted in four political moves? Would you take it, or would you insist on doing it in one swipe? You may hate Intelligent Design, but it's worth noting that this 'idea' didn't just suddenly happened. It was brought forward one step at a time. Poliitcla Correctness didn't just happen yesterday. It came upon us slowly and over time. The people who made these ideas so "mainstream" didn't want to bleed, but they were willing to bargain.

Being right is not enough. More people have been politically 'killed' on the moral and ethical high ground than all the rest who perished in the gutter.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

You guys are starting to embarrass me. Please continue. Like my sig says, they serve us or we serve them. It's the most basic and fundamental of Machiavelli's principles of government. Both parties are operating in a political environment that is out of balance. The majority party finds itself in a position to "ram it through" so they’re gonna do it because they clearly recall the recent days in which they had no voice. [Edited by Don W]



Speaker Pelosi has promised a better run House than Hastert delivered. I want to see her pledge put into effect. Over and over. Counting votes is a practical necessity, but in these stressful times, we need as many Members as possible reaching a consensus that benefits America first and the Dems second.



Compromise doesn't happen . . Compromise happens when it’s the least painful way to get what you want. THAT is how it's supposed to work . .The Republican Party that we've known is no more . . If it wants to keep the old banner [away] from the battlefield's mud and blood, it's got to adapt . . to compromise . . to change points of view. To paraphrase my favorite classical thinker, bargain or bleed as necessary. Why do we expect less from our leaders? We shouldn't, but we do. We assume that they're corrupt and we act with no surprise at all when they are As voters we've always relied on our elected leaders to do the right thing. Now, the lines are blurred and everybody says they're going to do the right thing . .

. . if you go back to the last four posts, you'll see each of the people who wrote answered their own questions or changed their POV on something . . You may hate Intelligent Design, but it's worth noting that this 'idea' didn't just suddenly happen. It was brought forward one step at a time. The people who made these ideas so "mainstream" didn't want to bleed, but they were willing to bargain. Being right is not enough. More people have been 'killed' on the moral and ethical high ground than all the rest who perished in the gutter. [Edited by Don W]



I’ve come to see that while prayer in school is a non sequitur with me, I’m prepared to let those who want it, have it. I’d suggest setting aside a “prayer room” or chapel in each public school available to children who want to use it. For obvious reasons the room would have to have one way windows accessible to the faculty and staff. Bible reading? Again, it has proved harmless, it having been read “religiously” - yes, a pun was intended - in public schools until the 1960s cases. The un-debated truth is that neither prayer nor Bible reading had any measurable effect on the morals or conduct of the student body. So in truth, it’s not worth arguing about. If we can put these hot-button issues behind us, maybe we can deal with important issues that effect our future on this planet.


[edit on 2/23/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Everyone please assume that I bought you a glass of beer. Have a good weekend. I'll see you on Monday.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Everyone please assume that I bought you a glass of beer.


Well if your ever in NZ I'm going to hold you to that.

As for tackling a problem of course I would like to deal with it in one foul swipe. However you have to tackle problems gradually as Justin Oldham said kind of like erosion causing a landslide. But I'm not a politician I have to much common sense.



Now onto another question.
Out of all the possible Republican candidates who is the best fund raiser ?
If you want background info on why I asked this question see this
thread



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   
To prove that I have other skills, I offer you the following link.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Alright you perspicacious pundits, somebody in the McCain camp must've been reading this thread. It's all over the Sunday talk shows. Talking heads across the board are talking about McCain's mild rebuke of Rumsfeld, "he'll go down in history as one of the worst Secretaries of Defense ever."

The stone cold fact ofthe matter isthat any Republican who wants a shot at the White House in '08 is going to be forced to take shots at the Bush administration, without actually hitting the Commander in Chief. If they do NOT, they risk being dragged down in the polls. You'll find my remarks in this thread from two months ago.

So, the next question is...just how far should the candidates go in criticizing the Bush plan without throwing mud on the man himself? I have my own thoughts on this, but I'd like to hear from the rest of you.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
So, the next question is...just how far should the candidates go in criticizing the Bush plan without throwing mud on the man himself? I have my own thoughts on this, but I'd like to hear from the rest of you.


Well anybody who takes a step from the matter and thinks for themselves will realize that when someone criticizes the likes of Rumsfeld Bush is being indirectly criticized because he approved of the decision making process.
Rumsfeld makes a good target because he is no longer in office. Politically Rumsfeld can be crucified and the Bush admin will take less damage.

Meanwhile the Fox News zombies who support the Bush admin will quite happily think that McCain is leaving Bush alone. The Dems supporters wont object to Rumsfeld taking a hammering. Since Bush already cops a lot of valid and unwarranted criticisms finding other targets is a good idea. McCain will need to throw up such a storm that people dont ask why he supported the actions and people he is attacking.

As for how far McCain should go the Key is to make sure that he dosnt let his emotions overide logic. McCain needs to point out how some Neo cons are already admitting that the Iraq war was a mistake.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:54 AM
link   
I think the kids over at Fox know exactly what's going on. In an effort to carry water for their team, they might be attempting to play along. Even so, the fact of the matter is that McCain's barbs are being well received by conservative voters who are looking for somebody to believe in.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I think the kids over at Fox know exactly what's going on. In an effort to carry water for their team, they might be attempting to play along.


My reference to Fox News zombies refers to the popcorn chewing viewers who don't question what Fox News tells them.



Even so, the fact of the matter is that McCain's barbs are being well received by conservative voters who are looking for somebody to believe in.


How can the people that labelled people who didn't support the Bush admin traitors and anti American not be bothered by McCain criticisms of Rumsfeld ?

Just as long as McCain dosnt take a hit in the polls he my as well ride the massive wave of double standards.




top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join