2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

Heres an update.

- Not enough "star" power for Fred Thompson in a GOP presidential field that includes some of his friends? Whatever the case, the actor and former Tennessee senator is considering getting into the 2008 race.

Thompson, who plays district attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's drama "Law & Order," said Sunday, "I'm giving some thought to it, going to leave the door open" and decide in the coming months. "It's not really a reflection on the current field at all," he said.

Link

Given that Fred isn't even getting his toes wet it seems like that he is just interested in attracting attention to himself. His views on gun control and abortion would work in his favour should he choose to get his feet wet.

I've seen that. I've also seen an article that reports on Chuck Hagel and the fact that he "might" toss his hat in the ring later on. I tend to think that xpert is right on. Fred is just trying to say, "look at me."

As you know, there is some flap over the pending relocation of Haliburton. I will not be surprised to the Democrats makethe most of this when it comes time to rake the big mud. I've posted my thoughts on this in other threads, so I won't go in to it here.

The Republicans don't seem to hold the high ground on many things these days. The news from Iraq does seem to be encouraging. I think what they're doing now shoudhave been done years ago. It's just one more reason to downgrade Rumsfeld's performance as SecDef.

As you know, the House is due to hold hearings this Friday during which special prosecutor Fitzergald and Valery Plame will both be questioned. this happens as President bush comes back from what can be called a successful mission to South America.

What should we expect from the conservative candidates in the field?

Internally the Bush admin has finally recognized the value of allies even if you don't always agree. A Republican candidate should spin Bush South American as a success and by the standards of the Bush admin diplomacy it was. Nor would it do any harm if a Republican candidate spoke about counting the influence of certain countries in South America and else where.

As the flip flopping continues a Republican candidate could point out that the troop surge is at odds with the idea of training and handing over the responsibility for security to the locals. On this issue the Bush admin wants to have its cake and eat it as well .

Given the extreme partisan nature of American politics I'm sure that a way will be found to create a mountain out of a mole hill when it comes to the special prosecutors being questioned by both party's.

The issue of the U.S. attorneys...isn't. It's pure politics. Even so, it looks bad for the Bush team. Why? Because the Bush team has been very clumsy. Now that the Attorney General's chief of staff has resigned, and Mr. Gonzales himself has been rude, it's only going to get worse. GOP Presidential candidates would be advised to stay quiet about this poorly handled mess until asked. It's been said that 90% of politics is perception.

To honest ever since Iraq everything as looked bad for the current admin. Some of the criticisms have been justified and others haven't.
The question that needs to be answered is this.
Is the current the president is to blame for everything mindset a trend or just the public reaction to the Bush admin ?
We know that Republican candidates have to deal with after mouth of the Bush admin in some way. Given that everything is either Clinton's or Bush's fault
it may be a trend.

Now can a Republican candidate use this trend to his/her advantage ?
I doubt it Clinton cant be blamed for what's happening today and the Bush admin is on its lasts legs and people want to know what a candidate will do to make tomorrow better.


[edit on 14-3-2007 by xpert11]

I've been tracking the growth of the Federal government since 1980. I was finally able to choose the right words to express what I saw in 1990. I didn't start writing my book 'til 1998. I remain convinced that what we are seeing is the net result of a larger trend in both government and the private sector.

As our social and political elites gather more power unto themsleves, they are tempted to overstep their Constitutional authorities and the boundaries of reason. George W. Bush didn't bring this down on us all by himself. The sad truth is that he's had a lot of help He may take th rap for a lot of it because so much of it comes down on his watch.

I still say that at their most basic, the forces tearing us apart are Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist. The Federalists are on their way to a win. they've crushed their opposition. As we have pointed out so many times in this discussion, "conservatism" as we have known it is dead. The philosophy of limited government may continue to exist in the hearts and minds of some, or in the halls of some right-wing schools, but its potential as a political movement has been sought, found, and strangled.

The challenge for many of us in this forum will be to live with it, and learn how to navigate in the new world order. I was motivated enough to put my thoughts in a books, but even I've got to accept what my future looks like. Does that mean I throw in the towl and register as a Democrat?

Not likely. Why? Because there is sometimes a point to be made, and the only way to make that point is to be in the loyal opposition. In as much as I have a good track record when it comes to the predictions, I would give it all up to be wrong. From now on, "real" Republicans who want to champion the cause of small government and fiscal accountability will have to do so with well chosen words and carefully thought out deeds.

My speculation is that the American system works best when both sides of the Constitutional conflict are in check. As we fall under the spell of Federalism, the proponents of big government will have it their own way for some time...much like the Republicans did for the first six years of the Bush 43 administration. Eventually, they'll break the system and it'll be up to "somebody" to restore the balance that we lost. that fix may very well come in the form of resurgent conservatism in whatever form.

Bear in mind that there are Republicans and Democrats on both sides of this schism. Even when the Democrat party holds House, Senate, and Presidency, you're still going to find Republicans willing to aid the cause of big government. Liberals will "own" the future stigma of having championed too much big government only because the political party most closely associated with them will be in charge during the collapse.

I once heard somebody say, "good citizenship is good citizenship, no matter what party you belong to." When our nationalism fell in to disrepair, we began our collective journey to this point in time. We've got a hard lession to learn, and a lot of people will pay for that wisdom. As we come back from it, I have every confidence that we will be a better nation, and a better society.

posted by Xpert11
Fred isn't even getting his toes wet. It seems like he is interested in attracting attention to himself. His views on gun control and abortion would work in his favor should he choose to get his feet wet. [Edited by Don W]

Does that mean he is finished on “Law and Order?” Or looking for his own tv show?

posted by Justin Oldham
I've seen that. I've also seen an article that reports on Chuck Hagel and the fact that he "might" toss his hat in the ring later on. I tend to think that xpert is right on. Fred is just trying to say, "look at me." As you know, there is some flap over the pending relocation of Haliburton.

The 109th Congress amended the I R Code to set a tax rate of 5% on income earned outside the US and brough back here.

I will not be surprised to the Democrats make the most of this when it comes time to rake the big mud. I've posted my thoughts on this in other threads, so I won't go in to it here. The Republicans don't seem to hold the high ground on many things these days. The news from Iraq does seem to be encouraging. I think what they're doing now should have been done years ago. It's just one more reason to downgrade Rumsfeld's performance as SecDef. The House is due to hold hearings this Friday during which special prosecutor Fitzgerald and Valery Plame will both be questioned. This happens as President Bush comes back from what can be called a successful mission to South America.

If by “success” you mean he was not pelted with eggs as in Nixon and Caracas. I would rate the trip as a failure, even as a 7 days photo-op, which is all it was anyway.

[edit on 3/14/2007 by donwhite]

As Ronald Reagan said.
All great change in America begins at the dinner table.
Or rather today after the TV is turned off and people have left there PC. Any kind of political change has to start at the grass roots . Unless Republican supporters vote for a third party en mass the dye has already been cast for the 2008 race and election. Aim for 2012 should be the aim of any grass root movements looking to effect change.

Don as for Fred being finished with Law and Order I guess he could star on TV and make a 2008 bid. Hold that thought.

Gee I wonder how big this thread will be by the time 2008 rolls around.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 14-3-2007 by xpert11]

It is my hope that WE will have the longest thread on ATS by election time in 2008.

I don't think that bush's South American trip was a failure. It's what he shouldhave done five years ago, during his first term in office. Let's call it for what it is. bush neglected South America, and now he's playing catch-up.

The meeting in Brazil was possibly the most productive of all theevents. As icrebreakers go, the whole trip was worth doing. It's too bad that Hillary will be the one to capitalize on what he did. The Sao Paolo ethinol agreement shows considerable promise.

Yes, I do think the die is cast for 2008 unless somebody makes a catastropic boo-boo. I don't see Republicans making a comeback until 2016 when Hillary leave office. If she made no real mistakes, and did good, we could be facing a lockout that lasts well in to the middle of the century. It's not heresy to suggest that we could get good leadership from a Democrat.

Remember that Presidential politics does turn on image. Fred Thompson is a smart guy, and he's got a lot of media presence that could be used to good advantage. Remember that nobody figgered Schwartzenegger for a politician, much less a deal maker who could rule by concensus. My speculation is that the next Republican we see in the White House could be in Iraq right now.

I do expect the military families in this country to play an important role in keeping the small government 'dream' alive and in living memory. in some respects, the McCain "mold" will be revived. As these future Republicans re-capture their ethics and values through military service, they will once again earn what they lost. I can;'t tell you if this future Prez is a zoomie or if SHE has sand in her shorts. Like Jimmy Carter, they could be a submariner. Who knows?

That's what can make the future so exciting.

posted by xpert11

As Ronald Reagan said. All great change in America begins at the dinner table. Or today after people have left their PC. Any political change has to start at the grass roots . Unless Republican supporters vote for a third party en mass the die has already been cast for the 2008 race and election. [Edited by Don W]

If they did not do that in 1992, with Ross Perot, then it is unrealistic to think they will it in 2008. The only time a 3rd party effected the outcome of an election in the 20th century was in 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party ticket. He split the GOP vote and thereby elected Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

I cannot think of a single instance in the 19th century, either. Unless you want to call the Republicans a third party in 1856 and 1860 when Abraham Lincoln won a plurality in a 4 way race. America was a no party country in the first election, 1789. But America was a 2 party country by the 2nd election in 1792. For good or for bad it will remain that. Change has to come from 1 of the 2 parties.

As for Fred being finished with ‘Law and Order’ I guess he could star on TV and make a 2008 bid. [Edited by Don W]

I am not sure. It is a lot of work to be a tv star, even in the 2nd order. It take a lot of time to be a candidate, too. Either is a full time job. I don’t tink there are enough hours in a day to do both, at least do to both well.

Justin Oldham some of your comments just scream of Ike who led the Republicans out of the wildness with a VP candidate by the name of Nixon. Since this thread is about 2008 I will move on the Republican party will have assessed the possible Demcrate candidates.
Hillary is her self , her vote for the war in Iraq and her connection to health care plans in the 1990s serve as a mark against her.
Barrack lack of experience can be used against him if the novelty factor dosnt wear off first.
Edwards I'm not sure what ammo will or would be used against him. His 2004 to Kerry may be enough to turn some voters off.

Don I wasn't being entirely serious when I said that Fred should star in his own TV show and make a 2008 bid. On a more serious note Don has raised a good point about third party's in the US people may choose not to vote for them for fear of spiting in this case the Conservative vote and ending up with something worse then the current Republican party.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 14-3-2007 by xpert11]

One of the many questions I can't answer just now is, how much will the Republican party shrink or atrofy? I have been thinking of Eisenhower late, but that's merely a coincidence. If the GOP shrinks just a little, it might (might) create enough room on the national stage for a third party.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
One of the many questions I can't answer just now is, how much will the Republican party shrink or atrofy?

I'm not sure if I grasp what your getting at.
Are you asking what it would take for the Republican vote to shrink and for traditional Republican voters to vote for a third party ?

I'm sayingthat if the Republican defeats continue, we should expect that party to shrink. It will lose influence and membership that could open the way for a third party to make its own way on to the national stage.

Until the GOP is redefined with a new crop of leaders, it may continue to lose potency. Tehrare I think 19 Republicans up for re-election in the Senate. Current speculation is that as many as six will lose to be replaced by Democrats. Under those conditions, the Republicans will be steam roller'd when the 111th Congress convenes.

From a purely academic perpective, this is a necessary turn of events forthe Republcians, who need to be sent packing utnil they can re-define themselves. As a citizen, I find this turn of events t obe scary stuff. It's my opinion that the last thing we need right now is a leader who will most certainly build on what Bush43 has already done.

The prospect of this was scary enough for me to write about it. It's a central teme in the work I'm known for, and it's what I talk about here. Nobody fels more betrayed than I do (as a voter) by the Republican party. As a scholar, I understand what's happened and why. If it really does take a third party to rekindle conservative political forces in America, I'm all for it. If the GOP can once again find itself, I'm for that too.

In the mean time, we've got a boat load of trouble coming.

posted by Xpert11

Justin Oldham your comments just scream of Ike who led the Republicans out of the wildness with a VP candidate by the name of Nixon. Since this thread is about 2008 I will move to possible Democrat candidates. Hillary is her self , her vote for the war in Iraq and her connection to health care plans in the 1990s serve as a mark against her. [Edited by Don W]

Around 2000, it was said we spent 14% of our GDP on health care. Germany was #2, at 9%. All other industrialized countries were between 5% and 8% of GDP. Recently a MD on the tv said it was 18% in 2006. Last week I heard another person say, quite casually, that by 2010 it will be 20% of GDP. The number of uninsured people continues to rise. America ranks 11th in infant mortality and 13th in longevity, both of which are rough “rule of thumb” measures of the quality of health care in a country.

We saw the Republican 109th Congress turn over the writing of Medicare Part D to the drug companies. The PMA felt so bold they included a provision forbidding the Medicare authority from seeking bids on medications, as already the VA has done for years. Outrageous! I thought Republicans believed in the “Free Market?” It was to solve all our problems? If you want to see how it was done by LBJ and the Democrats in 1965, just compare the Part D with the Medicare Supplemental Insurance law for Part A and Part B.

Because the cost of health care in any country is an integral part of its economy, the cost is reflected in the prices for other goods and services. That in turn means that a nation like the US, with 14% of GDP for health care, when one of our companies bids against a company form a country like Germany, with 9% of GDP for health care, our company is at a 5% disadvantage. If all other factors are equal, then on any foreign contract, the Germans have an advantage. And the French, the British, the Spanish, the Italians, the Japanese, and so on. All of those countries have state controlled health care systems on the theory that health is too important to leave to private companies. Health care is too much invested in the security of a country to let it meander around in the unregulated world of globalized businesses.

Finally, America has at least 2 tiers of health care. One for the rich and one for the poor. Example: the Republicans have reduced the money available for Medicaid every year. Fewer and fewer health care provides will accept Medicaid. In a conversation on my last visit in January, my dentist said that over the years Medicaid has constantly reduced the amounts he is paid. He is paid $22 for an extraction. A service he would charge me $150. His luxo office is located in a suburban office park and he gets very few Medicaid patients, he said he did serve those who came in but he could not afford to do it if he got too many Medicaid patients. Where are we heading?

Barack’s lack of experience can be used against him if the novelty factor doesn’t wear off first. Don I wasn't being entirely serious when I said that Fred should star in his own TV show and make a 2008 bid. On a more serious note Don has raised a good point about third party's in the US people may choose not to vote for them for fear of splitting the Conservative vote and ending up with something worse then the current Republican party.

Right! Historically, we have always had more than 2 parties. But the others are more “fringe” parties than real “third” parties. In the UK, the Labor Party is in power - barely - and the rest of the House of Commons membership is closely divided into the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats Party. I’m ignoring the Scottish National Party. The UK has a viable 3rd party. The same is true in France and Germany, and I believe in Italy, too.

In Israel, the Lekud (the old Conservative Party) routinely polled 45-48% of the popular vote. The socialist Labor Party routinely polled 45-48% of the popular vote. A plethora of minor parties - primarily religiously oriented - held the balance of power. Note: Israel has proportional representation. We recently witnessed the conservatives in Mexico win the presidency by 50.001% versus 49.999% for the Left. I wonder how many Diebold voting machines they have in Mexico?

posted by J/O

One question I can't answer now is, how much will the Republican party shrink or atrophy? I have been thinking of Eisenhower late, but that's merely a coincidence. If the GOP shrinks just a little, it might (might not) create enough room on the national stage for a third party.

Sociologists tell us the US is predominately conservative in its political outlook. American politics have been basically the same since 1789 until 1933. Dominated by the R&Fs. The Movers and Shakers. There was a sea change with the New Deal. But, by the 1938 election, Americans were through with social experimentation in the political arena. They began to return to their old ways.

The 1964-1968 period was an anomaly brought on by the convergence of two events. The assassination of JFK and the unexpected socially acute conscience of LBJ. A Southern Democrat The Congress was conservative albeit controlled by the Democrats. It was pushed into action in part out of respect for JFK’s memory. Strange as it may sound to you coming from me, Nixon validated LBJ’s enactments. Nixon could have undone much of the Great Society if he had not himself supported it in concept if not in its particulars.

It was Ronald Reagan who led the grand assault on the New Deal and the Great Society, followed on first by Newt Gingrich and then by Bush43 with a vengeance.

posted by Xpert11
I'm not sure if I grasp what your getting at. Are you asking what it would take for the Republican vote to shrink and for traditional Republican voters to vote for a third party ?

I think that’s it, but we’ll let J/O speak for himself this time.

posted by Justin Oldham

I'm saying that if the Republican defeats continue, we should expect that party to shrink. It will lose influence and membership that could open the way for a third party to make its own way on to the national stage. Until the GOP is redefined with a new crop of leaders, it may continue to lose potency. There are I think 19 Republicans up for re-election in the Senate. Current speculation is that as many as six will lose to be replaced by Democrats. Under those conditions, the Republicans will be steam rolled when the 111th Congress convenes.

Let me jump in here! I suggest you both go to Google and look up the 1934 (74th) and 1936 (75th) Congresses, to see how low you can go and live to fight another day. I believe the Dems had a 2/3rds majority or close to it. From 1936 onward, the Dems numbers declined until in 1946, the GOP won. That was the 80th Congress that HST labeled the “Do Nothing” Congress and unexpectedly won re-election in 1948. There were 2 third parties in that race. The left leaning Progressive Party led by Henry Wallace (FDR’s very popular Sec. of Agriculture and 1940 VP) and Idaho’s Senator Glen Taylor strumming his guitar, for VP. In the south, J. Strom Thurmond, then the youngest governor of South Carolina, and a senator from Alabama, ran on the State’s Rights Party (Dixie-crats) ticket. They got 39 electoral votes, I believe, and carried LA, MS, SC and maybe AL? Tom Dewey had been predicted as a shoo-in. This is the famous Chicago Tribune paper that HST holds up, its headlines saying, “Dewey Wins!” HsT does a famous imitation of H V Kaltenborn who predicated a GOP sweep.

The 2008 Dems need to do better than win 6 GOP senate seats to be impressive. Senator Johnson may never return. Until South Dakota gets a democrat for governor, he will continue to hold the “empty” seat. That makes the current senate lineup 49 +1 for the Dems and 49 for the GOP. The 1 being the good fellow from Vermont who replaced Sen Jeffords. Note: the sole congressman from Vermont also runs as an Independent but votes with the Dems. Why is that?

Due to the 3/5ths rule on cloture, the Dems need 60 votes to be able to rampage! That means the Dems need to hold their own 14 or 15 seats up - not a sure bet - and to gain 9 but preferably 10 of the 19 GOP seats up in 2008. Not easy but it is agreed the Dems have a better chance than they’ve had in a very long time to do it. As of today, the swing issue will be Iraq.

From a purely academic perspective, the Republicans need to be sent packing until they re-define themselves. As a citizen, I find this turn of events to be scary stuff. It's my opinion that the last thing we need right now is a leader who will most certainly build on what Bush43 has already done. The prospect of this was scary enough for me to write about it.
It's a central theme in the work I'm known for, and it's what I talk about here. As a scholar, I understand what's happened and why. If it takes a third party to rekindle conservative political forces in America, I'm all for it. If the GOP can once again find itself, I'm for that too. In the mean time, we've got a boat load of trouble coming.

Take courage, Mr J/O. I don’t see it so darkly. First, we must declare an end to this supreme folly Bush43 mis-labeled the War on Terror. Bush43 co-opted the Nine Eleven Event for electoral purposes and the advancement of his Neo Con agenda. How he hi-jacked our brains. It has served his purpose well. Now, we must return to reason and serious introspection to devise a sensible and affordable way to undo the harm the West has done in the Middle East and around the world over the last 2 centuries. Our chickens have come home to roost. Metaphorically speaking.

Continued in the following post.

[edit on 3/15/2007 by donwhite]

Continued from prior post, Part 2

To summarize:

1) The Nine Eleven Event began in 1948, in May, when the United Nations - say the United States - created Israel and “gave“ half of old Palestine to the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust. Convinced we could fix a crime committed in Christian Europe by giving Muslim Arab land to Jewish people largely from Europe. Colonialist thinking run amuck.
2) The West won the Cold War. We no longer have need of the excuse of anti-communism to support autocratic, dictatorial, repressive regimes in the Middle East and Africa. Now we must act like it. The US must reduce its own over-dependence on weapons of death. We really do have something great here, something most of the people on this planet want for themselves, but we are letting the warmongers in our own country deny us and the world the fruits of our built-in advantage.

If there is a God, we owe it to Him to bring freedom and security to all God’s chil’uns. This does not mean we are to impose our system on them. Contrary to a popular belief over here, freedom is more than voting. If we don’t know the difference, we need to let others who do lead us.

3) We must, acting through the United Nations, remove despots and murderers who gain control of independent foreign states and then proceed to loot, murder and rape their own citizens. This must end. We are ultimately no more secure than the least secure amongst us.
4) We must work to slow the population growth on this planet. Water will soon be more in demand than oil. Both are finite resources. We are squandering both in unbelievable ways and disgraceful amounts. We must reform our ways or our great grand children will have nothing to reform. You will know America is serious when you see our expenditures for the so-called “Defense” budget drop to less than $100 b. Until then, it’s just more smoke and mirrors.

We’ll see.

E N D

[edit on 3/15/2007 by donwhite]

Well said. Seems that Blaine91555 has red my work, and now he's a fan. I just thought i would pass that on in case you wanted to talk to him about it.

Yes, our situation is grim, but I am confident in the ways I explained that we can overcome it all.

I was disappointed to be see that Rudy's handlers have failed him again. There's a news item out now that talks about something you might already know about. Seems that Giuliani's law firm is still doing business with Citgo, and Hugo Chavez.

Giuliani has made other gaffs in the past--like losing his own playbook--but this one is particularly "stoopid." I've said it before, and I'll say it again. He needs new handlers.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Justin Oldham]

A lot of interesting stuff has been posted so I don't know where to start.

Am I correct in saying that there aren't any third party Conservative candidates yet ?
If the Republicans want to win the Whitehouse in 2008 they will have change there play book.
For the sake of debate purposes I will assume that a Republican candidate wants to do more then just pay lip service to the idea of small government.

We know that anybody that shows passion for there cause will be destroyed by the media and the brainwashed masses. Now the Republican party would make sure that the party machine does the same thing to anyone who has any fancy ideas about brining the party back to its roots.

As for the State vs Federal government debate I have read somewhere on ATS that the states lost the debate after the civil war. But that is another topic.

Don my comments on Hillary and health care where concerned about the Republican party would attack her it isn't necessary my opinion. I am also well aware of the fact that many countries aren't ruled by two partys but that is also another topic.

If the Republican party was to take a heavy defeat on all fronts people could turn to a third party or they could rally behind the party and mount a comeback. I also forgot about Al Gore it is no coincidence that questions were raised about the amount of electricity his house uses as 2008 approaches.

Another problem is despite having control of Congress the Republicans have done very little on the home front.
Other then the No Child Left Behind act what Republicans say they have done on the home front ?
The US economy looks shaky and the jobs that have been created are at the wrong end of the income spectrum.

Rudy needs to be able to tell if his advisor's are doing a good job and giving him good advice. Should he replace his advisor's he will need to choose carefully. IMO Kerry team let him down in 2004 and he wasn't able to make the judgement call that the team that put his campaign rails was veering off the track.

Originally posted by xpert11
Am I correct in saying that there aren't any third party Conservative candidates yet ?

I believe that is correct. It would be highly unlikely any third party candidate would be involved in a primary election, so they're not being sucked into this historically ultra-early race yet.

I think there have been some rumors that Chuck Hagel may want to run on a third party ticket, but certainly nothing official yet.