2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by RANT
I trust I don't have to qualify comments in this thread with facts, qualifiers and counter talking points.

I'm not sure what your point is there your input is of course welcome in this thread.

I meant nothing but compliment. In the 'real world' I'd have to spit on anyone that brought up Socialized Medicine, but that doesn't change the fact it is the answer, though I repeat 'not now.'

I respect marketing and advertising much more than I do reality, so I bow to it's power.

I'm saying baby steps, if that clarifies. But as long as Big Pharma can funnel ads through such and such Chamber of Commerce patting pure evil on the back for voting for Medicare Part D, this is pointless. Grandma aint a PAC.

[edit on 9-5-2007 by RANT]

We've all had enough time to digest the results from the latest Gonzales hearings before the House government reform committee.

I had the pleasure of watching what I think will be history in the making. A.G. Gonzales was...to say the least...on his game. Answers wtihout asnwers, and no shortage of contrition. If I had to pick one single word to characterize the whole thing, it would be "obfuscation."

One of the things that caught my attention would be the fact that the Dems have clearly been doing their homework. The implication seems to be that they are ready to make some rather strategic insinuations. There seems to be little doubt hat the U.S. Attorney scandal goes just a little deeper than we think, but they appear to be ready for a full court press to suggest even more.

Once again, I'm left to scratch my head. If the A.G. had simply fessed up in the beginning, the Dems would have nothing to go on. For several reasons, I kno longer think that Gonzales will go. It could very well be that the administration is ready to carry this open wound until the bitter end. What says the panel?

posted by Justin Oldham

We've all had enough time to digest the results from the latest Gonzales hearings before the House government reform committee. I had the pleasure of watching what I think will be history in the making. A.G. Gonzales was to say the least on his game. Answers without answers, and no shortage of contrition. If I had to pick one single word to characterize the whole thing, it would be "obfuscation."

It’s simple, Mr J/O. AG Gonzales has violated criminal statutes. He either pleads the Fifth Amendment or he claims “I forgot” or “I can’t recall” and etc. to questions under oath.

One of the things that caught my attention would be the fact that the Dems have clearly been doing their homework. The implication seems to be that they are ready to make some rather strategic insinuations. There seems to be little doubt that the U.S. Attorney scandal goes just a little deeper than we think, but they appear to be ready for a full court press to suggest even more.

Look, you know and I know this firing began in the Oval Office. B43 is much into politicizing the office of United States Attorney. What do you think he does all day, every day? That most blatant move is the bad part. It brings the entire justice system into further disrepute. At a time when it is already held in low esteem.

Once again, I'm left to scratch my head. For several reasons, I know longer think that Gonzales will go. It could very well be that the administration is ready to carry this open wound until the bitter end. What says the panel? [Edited by Don W]

Agreed. IF and when the AG goes, it’s all over for Bush43. He might as well retire to Crawford, and as they say in the military, take an “early out.” Oh, B43 will not resign. He lacks the intestinal fortitude for that. But he will be marginalized to the extreme. That is why AG Gonzales will hang on, plus, Gonzales has no desire in following John Mitchell into the Federal pen.

[edit on 5/11/2007 by donwhite]

I'm thinkin' that Don is more or less on target. Gonzales is a smart guy. He's letting the game clock run, and he knows it. So does bush. As i watched the hearing, I didn't actually see or hear anything that smelled of purgery. In certain respects, his song and dance reminded me of a guy I used to work with. The term "weasel" comes to mind.

Okay, then. What to do if you're a Republican presidential candidate on the go? Thursday's hearing alone will provide Democrat challengers with a trainload of damning sound bites. Whaddya do?

I still say that the only real defense any GOP contender has will be to go after Bush themselves. they will have no choice but to to make it crystal clear to anyone and everyone that they won't be "like that." The guys who have no real chance of winning already know what has to be said. We saw a little of that during the debate at the Reagan library.

I did have Robert Mitchel in mind while I watched Gonzo do his soft shoe shuffle. Summer recess is coming, and I'm sure everyone in Congress will be looking forward to it.

If your a Republican candidate you face a tricky proposition you clearly need to distance yourself from the Bush admin and yet at the same time there can be no benefits in highlighting or making the divisions in the Republican party worse.

In terms of poll numbers the Bush admin cant do much worse. Presidents who are re elected usually face a second term scandal. IMO once the majority of people woke up to fact that the occupation of Iraq had been mishandled to say the least that was pretty much it for the Bush admin . The failure to deal with the insurgency from the outset has become the indefensible 2nd term failure/scandal for the Bush admin.

After Rumsfeld was fired there were suggestions that he had stayed longer in his job then he should because he acted as a buffer once Rummy went the Dems would go after the VP. This idea seems to have merit until the Republicans lost control of both houses.
Maybe the Bush admin is trying to use Gonzales in the same way ?
But now that the Dems have control of both houses they have means to apply real political heat.

Turning up the political heat doesn't always equate to taking any real action . Case in point if things improved in Iraq or the coalition withdraw the Dems couldn't gain any political mileage out of the issue any more.

In political terms the attacks against Gonzales are twisting the knife in a very deep wound.

There's a battle of perception going on here, and I think its fair to say that the Republicans are losing it. If I were to be in a position to offer adivce to a GOP candiate, I might very well say ,"pretend like the administration doesn't exhist." Yes, that means not running on the few good things Bush43 has done, but it does mean that the candidate can cast themselves in their own light with their own spin.

There are actually a few good things going on in Iraq just now, but they don't amount to "enough." If you're trapped in a room where 200 people are yelling at you, it really is a good thing if 10 of them leave...but it's not enough.

The so-called 'new' tactics are working, but they will never be enough. Whoever the next President is, they wil be too "incentivized" to bring the troops home. The best we could hope for in that regard would be the retention of a small training garrisonin Baghdad, and even that seems unlikely. the "realpolitik" of the thing is that the army must come home.

If any of the current candidates were "real statemen," I'd think they would be saying and doing things that would be good forthe party in 8-12 years. Trouble is, none of them will be young enough to do anything meaningful in 12 years. All of them, to include Duncan Hunter, will be out to pasture.

This is why I say that the Republican stable is empty. It'll take new blood coming up through the ranks to re-invent this party. I'm sure that the current GOP front runners know this. If they're smart, they're trying to make it look like they are running a good race so they can walk away with some of the leftover money as a sort of consolation prize.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
There's a battle of perception going on here, and I think its fair to say that the Republicans are losing it. If I were to be in a position to offer adivce to a GOP candiate, I might very well say ,"pretend like the administration doesn't exhist."

Justin is spot on in this regard. There is no reason for a Republican candidate to talk about the Bush admin until asked.

Herbert Hoover put it best.
"A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage"
Republican candidates should be selling a modern version of that statement that Includes that there are no people without health insurance.

The so-called 'new' tactics are working, but they will never be enough. Whoever the next President is, they wil be too "incentivized" to bring the troops home.

It is true that the troop surge is having some positive effects despite the fact that it is only a gradual build up. The problem is that the US military doesn't have enough troops to replicate this tactic else where in Iraq.
See this thread



[edit on 12-5-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 12-5-2007 by xpert11]

posted by Justin Oldham

There's a battle of perceptions going on . . I think its fair to say the Republicans are losing it . . I offer this advice to GOP candidates, "pretend the Bush43 administration does not exist." Yes, that means not running off on the few good things Bush43 has done, but it does mean that the candidate can cast themselves in their own light with their own spin.

There are a few good things going on in Iraq just now, but they don't amount to "enough." The so-called 'new' tactics [surge?] are working, but they will never be enough. The next President will feel irresistible pressures to bring the troops home. The best we could hope for in that regard would be the retention of a small training garrison in Baghdad, and even that begins to seem unlikely. The "realpolitik" of the thing is that the American army must come home. [Edited by Don W]

The constant American allusion to “retention of a small training garrison” in Baghdad rests on 2 false assumptions: First, that the Iraqi want foreigners in Iraq. And second, that we remain liked despite what we have done to Iraq.

If any of the current candidates were "real statesmen" they would be saying and doing things that would be good for the Republican Party in 8-12 years. Trouble is, none of them will be young enough to do anything meaningful in 12 years. All of them including Duncan Hunter, will be out to pasture.

This is why I say that the Republican stable is empty. It'll take new blood coming up through the ranks to re-invent the party. I'm sure that the current GOP front runners know this. If they are smart, they will try to make it look like they are running a good race so they can walk away with some of the leftover money as sort of a consolation prize. [Edited by Don W]

I’m not sure failed candidates can keep the money. Legally.

posted by xpert11

posted by Justin Oldham

There's a battle of perception . . "pretend like the administration doesn't exist."

Justin is spot on . . there is no reason for a Republican candidate to talk about the Bush43 admin until asked. Herbert Hoover put it best: "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage" Republican candidates should be selling a modern version of that statement that must Include the promise there are no people without health insurance.

I believe the referenced Hoover campaign slogan was used in 1928, and not in 1932 when the whole economy had gone south.

Hoover was a straightforward Adam Smith capitalist, which theory dictated a specie based economy. Hoover never grasped the New Deal’s advocacy of a new economic theory formulated by Englishman John Maynard Keynes to salvage the national economy. Among the first acts of the New Deal was the termination of the gold standard and the recoupment of all outstanding gold cons.

FDR offered the public $35 per ounce of gold, whereas the traditional price had been $20. The public clamored to turn in their gold and get back the new currency in an almost 2 for 1 ratio. Overnight, the nation’s money supply was nearly doubled. As in an ailing patient receiving a healthy transfusion of new blood!

J/O
The so-called 'new' tactics are working, but they will never be enough. Whoever the next President is, he or she will be under irresistible pressure to bring the troops home.

X11
It is true that the troop surge is having some positive effects despite the fact that it is only a gradual build up. The problem is that the US military doesn't have enough troops to replicate this tactic else where in Iraq.

You said it Mr X11.

[edit on 5/12/2007 by donwhite]

Don, it's interesting to me that you should bring up Hoover. I got a bio about him last year from a friend. It was interesting reading. I note that Bush43 seems obstinate in much the same way as Hoover appears to have been.

I plan to watch the news cycle this week for emerging trends. I have a suspicion that Congress will get very little done before they go in to Summer recess. I'm revising my expectations for the Republicans as best I can. Don has been telling me about the fires in his area by u2, and strangely enough...it has made me think of what I should expect from the GOP over the next few months. Go figure.

posted by Justin Oldham

Don, it's interesting to me that you should bring up Hoover. I got a bio about him last year from a friend. It was interesting reading. [Edited by Don W]

Herbert Clark Hoover. (b. in Iowa, 1874- d.1964) Elected in 1932 to be the 31st president of the United States, March 4, 1929 to March 4, 1933. Hoover was a mining engineer who gained international fame when he supervised the Food Relief Program to Belgium before the US became involved in World War 1. He proved to be an effective administrator and was made Secretary of Commerce in the Calvin Coolidge administration.

Perhaps ironically, Hoover’s first job after graduating in Stanford’s first class in 1891 - he attended on free tuition - was with the United States Geologic Survey. Afterwards, he spent many years in Australia working as an accomplished engineer at various mines. In 1921 the NY Times named him one of the 10 Most Important Men in America.

The 1928 election saw this commentary: “Hoover even managed to crack the so-called "Solid South," winning such traditionally Democratic states as Virginia, Texas and Tennessee from Al Smith. As advertising executive Bruce Barton put it, "Americans knew they may have more fun with Smith, but that they would make more money with Hoover."

What’s in a name? The Democrat’s Boulder Dam, the Republican’s Hoover Dam. The Republicans named the great Colorado River dam the “Hoover Dam” in 1932. The Democrat’s renamed it “Boulder Dam” in 1934, after the nearby city of Boulder, CO. The GOP then re-renamed it “Hoover Dam” in 1947 when the GOP regained control of the 80th Congress. It stuck that time. [I do not believe any public property should be named after a living person.]

The great damming of the Colorado River began inexplicably in 1931. A singular undertaking of the Hoover government. Although the dam was to be a huge producer of electricity, it is my conclusion the real purpose of the dam was to take the water of the Colorado River away from Mexico and divide it among the various Western states. Electricity was a serendipitous by-product. My evidence is the 1933 Hoover veto of the dam building Tennessee Valley Authority Act.

Excepting the Colorado’s Hoover Dam, Republicans have always opposed high dams in the US. See the Snake River’s Hell’s Canyon debate of the 1950s. The GOP is ideologically opposed to publicly owned dams. This led directly to Eisenhower’s withdrawal of Truman’s earlier pledge to Egypt’s Nasser to build the Aswan High Dam. That in turn led directly to the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis and that in its turn gave the USSR its much desired opening into the Arab’s Middle East. Domestic politics can have unintended and unanticipated consequences of disastrous proportions when thoughtlessly played out abroad. Say hello Bush43 and Iraq.

Herbert Hoover was shut out of government service by FDR who believed Hoover had counseled Congressional Republicans to strongly resist the New Deal. When Harry Truman became president, he sought out Hoover’s experience, aid and advice in a large post-war reorganization of the US Government, later known as the Hoover Commission.

Herbert hoover died peacefully in 1964 at age 90, as a well regarded and highly respected former president. (Thanks in large part to Harry Truman.)

[edit on 5/12/2007 by donwhite]

Ron Paul is the only man who could win in the general election because he is opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning.

Concise, as usual. I can't help but wonder what he may have been like as a person. I don't doubt that he was a smart man, but I'm still struggling with some of his Presidential decisions. As I try wrap my brain around what's going on with today's GOP, I keep coming back to Herbert Hoover.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Concise, as usual. I can't help but wonder what he may have been like as a person. I don't doubt that he was a smart man, but I'm still struggling with some of his Presidential decisions. As I try wrap my brain around what's going on with today's GOP, I keep coming back to Herbert Hoover.

Do you come back to Hoover in the sense that he laid the seeds for the new deal ?
In other words do you see the Bush admin having laid the seeds for a future democrat admin to continue a certain trend along the lines of say expanding government powers in the name of security ?

# Signed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, the nation's first Federal unemployment assistance.
# Increased public works spending. Some of Hoover's efforts to stimulate the economy through public works are as follows:

1. Asked Congress for a $400 million increase in the Federal Building Program
2. Directed the Department of Commerce to establish a Division of Public Construction in December 1929
3. Increased subsidies for ship construction through the Federal Shipping Board
4. Urged the state governors to also increase their public works spending, though many failed to take any action.

source

Kosmo Yagkoto the problem is that Ron Paul seems to be lacking the machinery that is is need to make a genuine bid for the White House.



[edit on 12-5-2007 by xpert11]

Originally posted by xpert11

Do you come back to Hoover in the sense that he laid the seeds for the new deal? In other words do you see the Bush admin having laid the seeds for a future democrat admin to continue a certain trend along the lines of say expanding government powers in the name of security?

That's exactly what I was thinking. I have no doubts at all that here will always be a certain segment of the political and social elites who will do this sort of this with nothing but the very best of intentions in mind, but I can't help being uneasy about what I see as an overall destructive trend.

There are very few things in this life that I want to be wrong about, and this is one of them.

Is it just me or does the grass roots level Republican supporter base seem to be lethargic ?
While you cant read to much into one article and thread to many Republican supporters seem to be more worried about avoiding Hillary rather then winning in 2008 (to me that's like choosing between being run over by a bus or a Freight train ) .
It would be a pretty sad state of affairs if the dems won in 2008 because they are better organised and there grass roots supporters were energized. I understand that winning the Republican nomination is a long distance race but at some point the candidates are going to have to bring out some policy ideas rather then just argue about who can carry Ronald Reagan legacy the best.

IMO when a party's grass roots support is lethargic it is a very bad sign kind of like a sick patient who is showing symptoms early on.

So if your a Republican candidate when do you start to bring out any policy ideas to separate yourself from the flock ?
IMO none of the Republican candidates have the personality to be able to rely on speeches and there presences alone to win the nomination.

Can anyone energize the Republican party's grass roots supporters ?
Can anyone think of a candidate or fellow Republican party member of note who can give that one speech and/or event that energizes the party's grass roots supporters ?

On another note .
Is there a reason why Americans don't question the fact that the nomination process takes up half of the electoral cycle ?

[edit on 13-5-2007 by xpert11]

When he checks in, Don will have some choice words on the election cycle for you. He's worth paying attention to.

Now then, on the matter of the Republican base. The sad fact is that the once great party machine is broken. I am reminded of Barry Goldwater, and his fall from grace. Even so, there are certain contemporary factors that need addressing.

The religious right has been discredited as a political force. they've thrown in the towel, and it shows. The fact that they have voluntarily given up is easily seen in the current lack of energy and interest among the State level party organizers.

The religious community has long been a supporter of conservatism. They back Democrats when those candidates meet their tests for conservative ideology. Contemporary political scandals have been magnified by the religious scandals which have occurred at the same time. If you need evidence, Google the name Rev. Ted Haggard.

With so much political and religious failure on their plate, today's Republicans find no reason to be inspired by the current slate of candidates. None of them meet the religious tests, and none will pass political muster. the end result is a Republican base that is lethargic and willing to stay home on election day.

In my role as "the famous author," I run in to a lot of conservatives who are simply resigned to what's coming. on the other hand, I run in to a lot of Dems and Libs who are energized, and they do feel like they have a lot to be positive about. For some, its a fight back from the edge. For others, its payback for the last 12 years of what they call Republican Hell.

In purest political terms, the simple fact remains that...ideology aside...Democrat candidates are cleaner (this time) than their allegedly conservative competition.

posted by Justin Oldham

Don will have some choice words on the election cycle for you. [Edited by Don W]

I wish I did. It seems to have slipped up on us. I think it relates to changes in the campaign money reporting requirements. Then several states have decided they want to play a larger role in the nominating process. In FL for example, they have moved up their primary to February, ‘08, and plan to move it again if other states try to get ahead of them. Nevada has also done this. Both Iowa and New Hampshire have even hinted to having their events in ‘07 in order to stay first.

I don’t like it. I am as sure as I can be that the public will grow weary of it all long before November 4, 2008, and then who knows how they will based their decisions on voting?

OTOH, If PM designate George Brown calls for an election in the UK, the law there requires the date for the election to be set not sooner than 31 days nor longer than 60 days. More than enough time for any candidate to get his views known and yet, not so long as to require several billions of dollars to finance endless campaigning. I predict America will get some real reforms after this extravaganza!

On the matter of the Republican base. The sad fact is the once great party machine is broken. I am reminded of Barry Goldwater and his fall from grace. There are contemporary factors that need addressing. The religious right has been discredited as a political force. The fact they gave up voluntarily is demonstrated in the lack of interest among the State level party organizers. The many political scandals have been magnified by religious scandals occurring at the same time. If you need evidence, Google the name Rev. Ted Haggard.

As an outside observer, it seems to me the failure in Iraq is No. 1 on the disillusionment list. Jack Abramoff is No. 2. Congressmen Cunningham and Nye are No. 3.

Yes, the Religious Right has had more than its share of unfavorable disclosures. Yet, they are winning almost everything they have sought. They have gained the 5th seat on the Supreme Court, the most important single accomplishment from their perspective. Compare the ages of Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito. Only Kennedy is past due to retire. They got the first step towards repealing Roe in the approval of the late term abortions ban law. They have gotten several billion dollars for “faith based” charitable providers. From my POV it looks as if they have got most of what they can expect.

Yet, I also sense the Religious rank and file have lost their enthusiasm, their mmomentum, what I’d call their fanaticism. I think that comes with wining. Same with the secular rank and file of the GOP. They’re tired.

With so much political and religious failure on their plate, today's Republicans find no reason to be inspired by the current slate of candidates. The end result is a Republican base that is willing to stay home on election day. In my role as "the famous author," I run in to a lot of conservatives who are simply resigned to what's coming. On the other hand, I run in to a lot of Dems and Libs who are energized and they do feel like they have a lot to be positive about. For some, it’s a fight back from the edge. For others, its payback for the last 12 years of what they call Republican Hell. In purest political terms, the simple fact remains that . . ideology aside . . Democrat candidates are cleaner this time than their allegedly conservative competition.

Many Dems as still smarting over the Florida 2000 election. Winning in 08 won’t change the world - our response to the Nine Eleven Event did that - but it will give the Dems a chance to restore our place in the world community that we are more familiar with.

[edit on 5/13/2007 by donwhite]

I had a chance to watch John McCain on "Meet the Press" this weekend, and I must say that he seemed well rested and on his gam.e Russert soft-balled him most of the way. McCain himself seemed hell-bent on recanting without actually saying the words. I think the term I'm looking for is "revisionist."

He did a fairly good job of eating a lot of crow in one hour's worth of television. I'm not sure the that the wiser and more reserved McCain will win any more hearts and minds, but his behavior makes it clearthat he is slowly backing aay from the Bush administration. I don't think he has any other choice.

posted by Justin Oldham

I watched John McCain on "Meet the Press" this weekend, and I say he seemed well rested and on his game . . Russet soft-balled him most of the way. McCain himself seemed hell-bent on recanting without actually saying the words. I think the term I'm looking for is "revisionist."

He did a fairly good job of eating a lot of crow in one hour's worth of television. I'm not sure a wiser and more reserved McCain will win any more hearts and minds, but his behavior makes it clear that he is slowly backing any from the Bush administration. I don't think he has any other choice. [Edited by Don W]

I think the earlier McCain was his real self. Yesterday’s McCain was the product of the “handlers” who want to share in the spoils of war. Or victory. Principled stands be damned. Assuming they know what they are doing, we should see McCain begin a rise in the polls today.

I saw Mitt Romney yesterday, I forget which tv show, and I admit he is impressive. Although I have argued for my lifetime that the government is not a business, and being good at one does not make it a given you’d be good at the other, Mitt has an unmatched track record for reform and reinvigorating organizations gone moribund.

Mitt is grossly overstating what he is capable of accomplishing if he is elected to the presidency. He is demagoging the disenchantment the public has over public policy. Half the public wants a balanced budget, half the public wants more tax cuts. He is avoiding the real issue - based on history - that unless a very popular president has a heavy majority in the Congress, he is never going to be able to re-define the 100s of bureaucracies or fiefdoms so abundant in the United States Government. Because I believe Mitt is smarter than I, it seems to me he is willing to lie to the public for his personal aggrandizement. A trait of character I don’t like in any person, especially a president. And in sharp contradiction to the Mormon badge of honor he is so conspicuously wearing.

Brian Lamb interviewed a Pulitzer prize winner who has been in Iraq off and on over the past 4 years: Borzou Daragahi is now employed by the LA Times. You can still watch the 1 hour program on CSpan, Q&A, May 13. To summerize: “The Iraq Civil War must wear itself out and no amount of foreign military force can stop it.”

He gave a sad recount of the unbelievably bad conditions on the ground in Iraq, for Iraqis. He said Iraqis universally resented foreign troops on their soil as an insult to their nation and to their religion. He said Gen. Petraeus’ own public documents call for many more soldiers than we have available. It is his opinion the Surge will fail.

[edit on 5/14/2007 by donwhite]

McCain has no choice he has to craft a differnt image of himself if he wants any chance to win in 2008 assuming that he was to win the Republican party nomination. Really McCain needed to start redefining his image about three years ago. Then again voters do have the tendency of having short memories.

At this stage I think that it is the nomination or nothing for McCain and Romney.
Why do I say this ?
Unless McCain shallow political make over is very successful he will to closely tied the mess in Iraq and the people who created it. Politically the branch of Christianity Romney subscribes would act as mark against his name when it comes to choosing a VP. Mind you the religious right hasn't fallen in love with any of the other Republican candidates.

On a person level I think that the opinion a candidates about evolution as well as there views on the separation of the church and state says more then the branch of Christianity they subscribe to.

The religious right have certainly been shown that those who preach morality are the most corrupt. But I wouldn't write those nut jobs off as being dead just yet . Always remember that threats to your freedom can come from internal forces while your eyes are cast else where.

[edit on 14-5-2007 by xpert11]