2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

I've been unable to get off to bed because I've been online IM'ing with some political sources back east. the Gonzales thing is getting out of hand, and it's largely due to the fact that the Bush team has no credibility.

One of my sources claims to work for a Presidential contendor, but I doubt him. Even so, he's keen to craft a mesage for his 'boss' to take to the media. I've been kicking this one around all day. The witch hunt is on, and it can't be stopped. Not now.

Short of staying away from Gonzales altogether, I can;t help but think that the candidates should raise their own defensive smoke screams. Excuse me, that should be "smoke screens." The ideal cover would seem to be the looming economci crisis--but--doing so would violate the old school rule that that thou shalt not take shots ath thine fellow Republicans.

Let me explain. If any of the candidates choose to say something like, "There are more important things to deal with," They'll be asked to explain even as they are acused of blowing smoke. Talking about the credit meltdown and other negative financial indicators will most certainly take the heat off them...and put it on the Bush administration. If you're on the bush team, you're gonna feel betrayed as the muck starts to flow in your direction.

Looking at this from the purest of political viewpoints, somebody's got to want the job more than they want to hang cool with their party. Ifthe national level party bosses understood that, they might be willing to play kingmaker by giving their preferred candidate covert permission to sling the mud. Trouble is, the old guard can't think like that anymore.

As you know, McCain dusted off his bus, and he's back on the road. It's a move he can make that's not too spendy and it will look good for a while. Now that California is going to move its primary up to February of '08, we're going to see a stampede of States following suit. McCain knows what that means. If he's not on top by the end of June (2007), he won't be. This is a fact that all the conservative candidates need to get a lock on.

I've blocked out most of my day to hunt for the Waxman committee hearing on CSPAN to watch Fitzgerald and Plame have their say. by this time next week, I suspect we will see a lot more subpoenas in the mail. I'm not so sure that Cheney will go, but I do think Gonzales might if the wolves get any closer. Cheney is the kind of guy who would give up his mother if it meant ten more minutes in office. He's a fighter, and unless he is willing to bring down the Bush team, Alberto himself is highly expendable.

Yessir, it's going to be an interesting day.

I'm leaning towards thinking that they're going to have dump Gonzalez. I don't think that's fair but there certainly is evidence he was trying to evade Congress and what he promised them during his confirmation hearings.

I'm sure the spy satellites can see the heat signature from Alberto's shredding machine from space right about now. Let's be clear about one thing. Thie Dems are making the most of this tempest in a teapot to justify a subpoena for the Attorney Gernal...among others. Once he has been served, teh can ask him about literally anything they want to know about.

It is for this reason that the Dems don't have to impeach President Bush. They can gimp the entire Republican party without touching him. As I said in my own off-site blog more tha na year ago, it'll be death by ten thousand paper cuts. that's why I say that in purest Machievellian terms, whoever wants to be the GOP nominee needs to develope a taste for red meat...and they need to do it now.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Short of staying away from Gonzales altogether, I can;t help but think that the candidates should raise their own defensive smoke screams. Excuse me, that should be "smoke screens." The ideal cover would seem to be the looming economci crisis--but--doing so would violate the old school rule that that thou shalt not take shots ath thine fellow Republicans.

The old school rule was broken when McCain criticized Rumsfeld. As for the smoke screen a Republican candidate should be pushing those issues to the fore front of the agenda. So far the Democratic Congress and candidates have done little but start pointless debates about the Iraq war. A Republican candidate needs to take the opportunity to set the agenda.

Talking about the credit meltdown and other negative financial indicators will most certainly take the heat off them...and put it on the Bush administration. If you're on the bush team, you're gonna feel betrayed as the muck starts to flow in your direction.

If Bush wants to help himself he should shut up until his time in office expires.
As for the Bush team feeling betrayed welcome to politics and the effects of your own incompetents.

As for McCain hitting the road there is no substitute for getting on the ground and greeting and meeting people. It is important that such things aren't lost amongst the TV adds and what passes for presidential debates if a candidate wants to get elected.

Cheney is the current target for the dems but come 2008 unless Cheney himself is facing criminal charges all the dems efforts will have gone to waste.







[edit on 16-3-2007 by xpert11]

I've got the Waxman hearing on the t.v. in my office as I type this. Valerie Plame Wilson her own bad self is being questioned. They aren't generating what you'd call good soundbites, but the Dems are certainly being methodical in their questioning. If I wasn't a political "specialist" I'd be asleep already. Even so, VPW is having her day and she's making the most of it. The committee has been advised to ask for certain documents that I'm sure have been controlled by Langley for their content.

Putting aside my own views and taking a purely political perspective Bill Richardson support of medical marijuana may provide Republican candidates with an issue that they can add fuel to the fire on. By attacking Richardson stance the Republican candidates can avoid turning on the Bush admin and distract peoples attention away from Capital Hill.

The risk is that Attacking Richardson will gives his campaign more attention and media spot light then he would have gotten.

Related thread

[edit on 17-3-2007 by xpert11]

The House committee on government oversight and reform held its open session today for a total of four hours and twenty minutes. Valery Plame Wilson was the first person to testify. She had the floor for two hours, approximately. Afterwards, Waxman questioned the director of White House records and information policy as well as the director of White House records and information security. This was followed by a presentation made by two different laywers. One defending the Bush position on the Libby verdict and the U.S. Attorney scandal, while the other presented the case against President Bush in these matters.

During her testimony, Mrs. Wilson told her side ofthe story. According to her, it was decided by her superiors to send Joe Wilson to Niger to follow up on the rumor of an alleged Iraqi uranium purchase. It was her contention that her supervisors thought it was a good idea to send Mr. Wilson on this errand, which they deemed of dubious importance. As part of her testimony, she directed the committee in general terms to seek out certain individuals and memorandums that would back up her story. She was asked her opinion regarding several "hypothetical" security breach scenarios.

The net result appeared to me to be that Waxman was angling for a new round of subpoenas aimed at persons inside the Vice President's office and the Attorney General's office. When the White House directors for information policy and seucrity each admitted that they had not yet started any investigations on to the Libby or Plame-Wilson matters, Waxman became irritated. When they asnwered in the negative about activities relating to the Attorney General's office, Representative Waxman had more to be unhappy about.

Both of the laywers who presented pro and con arguments regarding administration activities were of the opinion that the letter of the law was still in tact. Questions of proper behavior remained unresolved, but no actual legal transgressions had occurred in regards to the U.S. Attorney scandal. Both were also in agreement that an actual security breach had taken place in the Vice President's office relating to the Plame-Wilson affair, though their opinions over motive differed.

There was no testimony from special prosecutor Fitzergald.

The stage now seems to be set for the Attorney General to be called before this committee. Large-scale examiniation of sensetive records seems likely. Documents from the Vice President's office and that of the A.G. are likely to be sought by this committee. Despite persistent questioning, the committee didn't seem to be able to find the Vice President worthy of a subpoena during this hearing.

Having seen all this for myself, it now seems likely that Alberto Gonzales will be called before the House and Senate oversight and judiciary committees. Guilty or not, he gets to be the administrations sacrificial lamb. I have no doubt that shredders are running at full speed inside his office as you read these words.

What does this mean for the Republican party?

1. Office of the Vice President

Verdicts in the Libby trial, combined with testimony taken before this House oversight committee, will justify subpoenas for staffers and documents inside the office of the Vice President. Let's just call this what it will be. A fishing expedition. The door will be open to probe Iraq war intelligence and a whole host of "other" issues that may interest the majority leadership in both houses of Congress.

2. Office of the Attorney General

The U.S. Attorney scandal provides the justification for a fishing expedition here, too. Look for topics like border security, surveillance, and detainee torture practices to be examined in a very public way. It could be months before Gonzales himself takes the stand or is forced to resign. It seems likely that special prosecutor Fitzgerald was not present at today's hearing so that he could appear "objective" as he warms up his legal team to plunge in to these deep and bloody waters.

If the Rumsfeld resignation was a stunning blow to the Bush43 administration, today's oversight committee hearings marked the beginning of a very messy end for what is already a lame duck President. I have said for some time now that this was the most likely outcome of recent events, and I see no reason to change that opinion now.

The outing of a undercover CIA agents Identity is treason there is no masking this even if the Dems are using the incident to go after the likes of pre Iraq War Intel.

The question is how long will this political fire storm hold the media and public attention ?
The longer the media and the public are interested the more a Republican candidate will have to distance themselves from the current admin. In the current climate I cant see the media or the public losing interest any time soon.

So the Republican candidates will just have to live with the political fire storm as a back drop and move on to other issues. We know what the back drop will be were just waiting to see rest of the stage will be set.

J/O
I have the Waxman hearing on the t.v. The committee has been advised to ask for certain documents that I'm sure have been controlled - redacted - by Langley for [unfavorable] content.

X-11
Bill Richardson’s support of medical marijuana may provide Republican candidates with an issue. The risk is that by attacking Richardson it will give his campaign more attention and media spotlight then he would have otherwise received.

J/O
The House committee session . . Valery Plame Wilson was the first person to testify. Waxman questioned the Director of White House information policy and the Director of White House information security.

According to Mrs. Wilson, it was her superiors decision to send Ambassador Joe Wilson to check on the rumor Iraq had purchased “yellow cake” uranium from Niger. She suggested the committee seek out individuals and memoranda that would back up her story.

Relating to the Plame-Wilson affair, both lawyers agreed that an actual security breach had taken place in the VP's office, though their opinions over motive differed.

Documents from the VP's office and the AG are likely to be sought by this committee. I have no doubt that the shredders are running at full speed inside his office as you read these words.

Despite persistent questioning, the committee didn't seem able to find the VP worthy of a subpoena during this hearing. [It’s too early. VP Cheney will be the last one called. You don’t call him until you have him all “wrapped” up and he is unable to lie. Your goal is to force VP Cheney to plead the 5th Amendment in public.]

What does this mean for the Republican party?

1. Office of the Vice President
Verdicts in the Libby trial and testimony taken before this House oversight committee will justify subpoenas for staffers and documents inside the office of VP Cheney. The door will be open to probe Iraq pre-war Intel and a host of other issues - Halliburton MREs - that may be of compelling interest to the Dems in both houses of Congress. [The B43 Administration is at great risk how it handles the next several months. Recall that Clinton was impeached not for having sex but for perjury regarding sex. This is not the same as Nixon’s Watergate as Nixon had co-conspired to commit a real crime, burglary. His cover-up fell apart when Butterfield and Dean ratted him out.]

2. Office of the Attorney General
The US Attorney firing scandal provides the justification for a fishing expedition. It seems likely that special prosecutor Fitzgerald was not present at today's hearing so he could appear "objective" as he warms up his legal team to plunge into these deep and murky waters. [Does the SP law give Fitzgerald carte blanche to track down all wrong-doers, or must the appointing authority give him directions?]

X-11
The outing of covert CIA agents is treason. [Objection! See US Con, Art. 3, Sec. 3, Clause 1] There is no masking this even if the Dems are using the incident to go after the Iraq pre-War Intel [shenanigans]. The question is how long will this political firestorm hold the attention of the media and the public?

The longer the media and the public stay interested the more distance a Republican candidate will have to put between themselves and the Bush43 Admin. Republican candidates will have to live with the political firestorm as a [permanent] backdrop [to November 4, 2008] and move on to other issues. We know what the backdrop will be; we’re just waiting to see how the rest of the stage will be set. [All the foregoing was edited (bowdlerized?) by Don W]

Don W
Although early calls for impeachment of B43 were quickly dismissed by both Pelosi and Reid, I think I can see more clearly their post November 7 strategy. It’s called the “Death of 1000 Cuts.” Speaker Pelosi can get any bill out of the House she or the Dems leadership want or need.

Majority Leader Reid OTOH, can’t get much worth talking about out of the Senate. He has 50 votes - maybe 51 - but needs 60. He can’t move too far “left” or he will lose some of his cadre. Moving towards the right, it looks as if he can pick up no more than 5 or 6 votes. Still far short of the 60 votes requied to shut off debate.

This will wok OK for the Dems as long as the public is constantly reminded that it is the GOP who are the obstructionists. To make sure of this, the Dems must be more than clever, they must be smart. So far, I believe it is working for them.

[edit on 3/17/2007 by donwhite]

The House oversight committee on government reform gave us a small taste of what is to come. As we consider further discussions on thsi topic, we've got to keep this "backdrop" in mind. We're about to see real criminal investions and witch hunts carried out at the same time. The very notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is out the window.

As you may know, the laws governing special proscecutors have always been rather vague. The SP can't take anything to a grand jury that they didn't get through legal means. In the context of what we see today, this really means that Congress and its many committees will have to sign off on all documents and testimonies before they can be used by the SP.

Once again, I'd like to point out that the Democrat strategy does not require an actual impeachment of President bush or vice President Cheney. All they've got to do is keep the Republicans in the news (in a bad way) for the next 20 months. given the slow speed at which bureaucratic wheels turn, this should not be hard. It's taken the new Congress four and a half months to reach this point. We may not see Mr. Ganzales himself in the hot seat for another four and a half months.

The saying that if you throw enough mud eventually some of it will stick applies.
The other re occurring theme that we will see is Republicans distancing themselves from the Bush admin. I cant help but feel that the Dems are beating a dead horse. Lets not forgot that the Sun is slowly setting on the Bush admin as 2008 comes closer.

IMO the Republican candidate that wins the 2008 nomination will not be connected to the Bush admin. Despite not being a fan I would still like to see Bush leave office on a positive or at an least quiet note.

[edit on 18-3-2007 by xpert11]

Originally posted by xpert11
IMO the Republican candidate that wins the 2008 nomination will not be connected to the Bush admin.

The least connected candidates, according to your criterion, would be Giuliani or Romney. If McCain dropped out of the race, you might get your wish. Romney is still not exibiting any real signs of ambition, so we could be facing a Gingrich-Giuliani ticket.

Here's my question for the panel, based on xpert's theory. Which is better for the Republicans? Gingrich-Giuliani, or Giuliani-Gingrich? I ask this question becuase it really does mater who goes first.

[edit on 18-3-2007 by Justin Oldham]

posted by Xpert11
“ . . if you throw enough mud eventually some of it will stick. The other theme we see is Republicans distancing themselves from the Bush admin. I cant help but feel that the Dems are beating a dead horse. Lets not forgot that the Sun is slowly setting on the Bush admin as 2008 looms closer. Despite not being a fan I would still like to see Bush leave office on a positive or at an least quiet note.

posted by Justin Oldham

The least connected candidates, according to your criteria, would be Giuliani or Romney. If McCain dropped out of the race, you might get your wish. Romney is still not exhibiting any real signs of ambition, so we could be facing a Gingrich-Giuliani ticket.

Here's my question for the panel, based on xpert's theory. Which is better for the Republicans? Gingrich-Giuliani, or Giuliani-Gingrich? I ask this question because it really does mater who goes first. [Edited by Don W]

Need I remind X-11 that as of today, 3/18, 3,220 Americans are KIA and 6,000 are wounded so severely they will never be whole again. There is no such thing in America as either being accountable or accepting responsiblity. It's "Move ON Dot Org." It’s out of our culture. You only quit when you’re on your way to jail, say Hello Butch Cunningham. Say Hello Ohio’s Mr Nye. Hello Mr Abramoff. Say Goodby to Mr. Libby as he believes he is holding an ace in the hole! When you can sink the ship of state, it’ll be no jail time for him. Ask Bush41 how that went down in the Casper Weinberg and his 6 deputies case.

On LBJ’s watch 27,000 young American boys went KIA in Vietnam, followed by Mr Nixon who promised to bring peace in 1968, but instead gave us 6 years of war and 22,000 more KIAs. Accountable? Responsible? Not so’s you can tell.

2008 In 300 Words or Less. Romney was a true flash in the pan. McCain is dying a slow death. Newt is re-making himself into a man of experience and reasonableness. Giuliani thinks the Joe Gatti case and the Nine Eleven Event will hurtle him past his other problems like a shabby divorce, representing undesirable clients and so on. Gingrich, of Georgia topping the ticket, to put the South into play, and for Cheney’s job, Giuliani from New York to off-set Hillary and keep her close to home. That looks like a formidable ticket to me. In this case, I see Hillary and Bill Richardson for the Dems. Dems win in Ohio and the US, 54% to 46%. Add 10 seats in the Senate and 5 more in the House.

[edit on 3/18/2007 by donwhite]

There's an interesting line of questioning that some of you may wish to take part in. You may find it useful.

Is there such a thing as a experienced politician without baggage ?
I think that we all know that the answer in this case is no . So the issue becomes how a campaign team deals with the baggage and attacks from the other side of the fence.

Questions have already been asked about Rudy advisor's on this thread........

The other issue is dealing with the Bush admin supporters clearly a candidate would at least need some of there support and yet at the same time the candidate would be criticising the Bush admin.

If the Republicans want to do more then just present a sacrificial lamb in 2008 there supporters will need to unite behind fresh blood and not become fractured along the lines of Iraq/Bush admin and 2008/fresh blood crowd.

posted by xpert11

Is there such a thing as a experienced politician without baggage ? I think the answer in this case is no. The other issue is with the Bush admin supporters . . a candidate would need some of their support and at the same time would be criticizing the Bush admin . . their supporters will need to unite behind fresh blood and not become fractured along the lines of Iraq/Bush and 2008/fresh blood crowd. [Edited by Don W]

Each of the 2 major political parties are an amalgam of varied interests. The nominee is the one who can pull support from more of those diverse groups than any other candidate. As you implied in your opening line X-11, compromise is the art of every successful politician. Or, as you described it, “baggage.”

The best example on the scene is Hilary’s vote FOR the war in 2001. Barack will not be the only one to remind her of that vote. Being as smart as she is, she seems to have calculated an apology will lose more votes than re-telling the truth, “then was then, now is now.” Or restated, is it better to be wrong and strong or to be seen as weak and admit your error?

My position is to defuse any equivocal issue. Apologize, in other words. As time moves on the apparent disadvantage of an apology, if any, diminish but if not dealt with, the issue remains. Festers. Ie, gets worse.

The same general principle applies to the GOP as well. The 2008 candidate must not only renounce the Iraq War but he or she must denounce the run-up to the war, that is, the phoney WMD claims, and the implied promise to the American people that the 2nd Gulf War would be as quick and painless as the 1st Gulf War. And try to put distance between himself and the entire Bush/VPCheney/Rice/Rumsfeld team that got us into the worst mess in living memory. And which a hapless Bush43 is now casting about for a way to extricate the US. Meanwhile, men die every day in Iraq. And Bush43 is surprised to learn after 6 years in absolute power than the VA is not working. Geez! What a blunderer, who imagines himself as the Decider.

[edit on 3/20/2007 by donwhite]

When it came to the conditions at Walter Reed(SP?) becoming public the Republican party was awoken from its own propaganda that it had been spewing for so long.

Now when any Republican or Republican candidate pledges that he/she supports the troops the ghost of Walter Reed will come back to haunt them. Really the only thing a Republican candidate can do is to promise to make improvements and distance themselves as much as possible from the disgraceful situation.

Now the memories of troops being spat after returning from Vietnam have been replaced by the US military mis treatment of its own personal. The punching bag has moved across the political spectrum. After all the crap that the people who opposed the Iraq have gotten when it came to the "who supports the troops debate" you can be assured that the punching bag will be beaten to a pulp.

We've had some intersting developments in the last 24 hours. As you know, the Justice Department has released 3,000 pages of internal correspondence that is meant to show that they were not acting "politically" in regard to the U.S. Attorney firings.

Based on what's been reported about the contents of those released records, we can at the very least infer that this 'crisis' is just one more self-inflicted wound. My first impression is that there was a lot of miscommunication.

Having said this, let's be clear on one thing. The Dems are making a lot out of a little. Theirs is a political stunt, but it is a stunt with significant repercussions. The way is now open for Democrat leaders in the House and the Senate to issue subpoenas that can and will investigate the matter of pre-war intelligence.

A lot of people have participated in this discussion since the threat opened. We've seen partisanship and cold hard reasoning typed on to these pages. If you go back and read what has come before, you'll begin to see that a concensus has ben building. This is the kind of long-run dialogue that we need more of across the country.

posted by Xpert-11
When it came to the conditions at Walter Reed Hospital becoming public the Republican party was awakened from its own propaganda that it had been spewing for so long. [We Republicans alone Love The Troops!] Now when any Republican candidate pledges that he or she supports the troops the ghost of Walter Reed will come back to haunt them. [Edited by Don W]

Privatization. What role if any do “contractors” play in the Waiter Reed and Bethesda medical centers play? I heard the word mentioned one time by Gen. Kyle. No one seems to have picked up on that. I smell Halliburton and VP Cheney in this.

The memories of troops being spat after returning from Vietnam have been replaced by the US military mis treatment of its own personal. The punching bag has moved across the political spectrum. After all the crap that the people who opposed the Iraq have gotten when it came to the "who supports the troops debate" you can be assured that the punching bag will be beaten to a pulp.

“What goes around, comes around” is especially true of politics.

posted by Justin Oldham

We've had some interesting developments in the last 24 hours. The DoJ released 3,000 pages meant to show they were not acting "politically" in regard to the U.S. Attorney firings. Based on what's been reported about the contents of those released records, we can at the very least infer that this 'crisis' is just one more self-inflicted wound. My first impression is that there was a lot of mis-communication. [Edited by Don W]

What do you mean? “Mis-communication?” Intentionally mis-stated? Are you referring to the earlier testimony by Gonzales that is now contradicted?

The Dems are making a lot out of a little. Their’s is a political stunt, but it is a stunt with significant repercussions. The way is now open for Democrat leaders in the House and the Senate to issue subpoenas that can and will investigate the matter of pre-war intelligence. A lot of people have participated in this discussion since the threat opened. This is the kind of long-run dialogue that we need more of across the country.

I disagree this matter is “a lot out of a little.” while it is true enough that each new administration picks its own 93 US Attorneys, it has been the long standing governing principle that politics stops at the appointment. This principle is a must for American government to hang on to the respect it has. This firing of 8 US Attorney’s without cause, is a serious breach of the traditions that help make America the country it is. This transgression is equally as serious as lying about WMDs.

Yes, the Dems will play this as well as the Walter Reed matter for all its worth. This is payback time to the GOP for not doing its job the past 6 years. Let’s hope the Dems keep it on as high a plane as politics will allow.

[edit on 3/20/2007 by donwhite]

Someone like Romney needs to be selling himself as new Republican for the 21st century. In reality the only difference will be that Romney isn't connected to the Bush admin. If the cupboard wasn't so bear I would say that Romney could be after the VP seat.

Can Romney raise the funds needed to sell himself and create the image of a 21st Century Republican ?
If so how should he do it ?

I could buy Rudy as a "21st Century Republican" because he more Liberal on social issues and is considered to be a moderate.

On another note everything is partisan on Capital Hill and it dosnt look like the situation will change any time soon.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 20-3-2007 by xpert11]