2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

posted by Justin Oldham

As you may know, Bill Richardson tossed his hat in to the Presidential ring
yesterday. My sense of the thing is that he is angling for the vice Presidency, but I'll have more to say about that in other threads. The question that should be asked now is, how will the conservative camp deal wit this? None of the GOP contenders would seem to be positioned to be VP material. What say you all? [Edited by Don W]

Gee, I saw what I thought was a poll earlier today showing Hillary #3 behind Obama and I don’t know who. Maybe that was money collected?

I’ve written the Dems seem to be pinning their hopes for ‘08 in the west. I think they rightly saw Florida in ‘00 and Ohio in ‘04, so I have a lot of respect for what looks to betting on the west in ‘08. New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Nevada and Idaho. Maybe Arizona and Wyoming?

That explains why the Dems took their convention to Denver but it does not explain why the GOP went to NYC. Mayoral races aside, I don’t think the GOP have carried NYC since 1928. Maybe Michael Bloomberg has an ace up his sleeve? Maybe he is the one who will give HIS acceptance speech at the WTC Memorial? How’s that for high drama? Maybe adding a giant outdoor tv screen showing the Shock and Awe in Baghdad on March 18, 2003 running in the background, with 1000s of watts of sound?

Bill Richardson will not be a factor in the GOP primaries or debates. As you point out, it only makes sense if he is part of Hillary’s plan to use the long time between now and August, ‘08, to whip up some popular support for Richardson.

Romney seems to be making a deeper imprint on GOP talking heads then either McCain who is getting the ‘too short temper’ ax, or Giuliani who no one will admit can carry the GOP base. How can you plan on 270 electoral votes if you can’t energize your base? I’m saying Rudy is the “throw away” candidate for ‘08.

[edit on 5/22/2007 by donwhite]

It may very well be that the GOP has already made up its mind that Giuliani will be their sacrificial lamb for 2008. The NY convention would allow him to strut on familiar ground without suffering the slings and arrrows that might befall any other candidate in any other location.

So far as I am aware, Hillary maintains all leads by the slimest of margins whithin her party. Obama seems to be slowing a bit, but then again so is she. As previously stated, I do think she would like to have Richardson as her VP because she's planning long range.

The Dems have and will keep the black vote, but they don't quite have a lock on the Hispanic franchise just yet. With that in mind, Hillary can still play kingmaker in regards to both men. Assuming that her administration starts and ends with no critical errors, either man could be in a good position to be the next President.

Assuming that Richardson is her VP, and Obama holds some high cabinet post (SecState, etc.), the Dems could conceivably have a long stay on Capital Hill. Such a troika would be hard for the Republicans to answer.

Originally posted by donwhite
America export cars? That would be a first! With 45,000 miles of interstate highways and 2 million miles of paved roads of first class standards, our cars are too large, too heavy, too fuel hungry for the 3rd world.

Ease there notice how I didn't name the US car manufacture who MAY export cars that run on alternative fuels . Unless current American Car makers pull there fingers it may be up to new players to sell cars in the US that alternative fuels. You see if US car manufactures brought out designs that cater to the demands of the market they wouldn't be in the hole that they are in now providing they have access to third world markets.

The corporate culture of paying executives high pay packets and not on the basis of there performance has contributed to the problem as well. Either US car manufactures will adopted to the market , cut executive salary's and hire better lobbyists or perish.

Free market? Going to Heaven! Free market? What’s that mean? How can we have a free market when the US taxpayers are paying for research and development of products? Would that be only a Half Free Market? To be honest,

Good point but I would make the case that funding research and development is a way of looking at options to break up the monopoly that oil company's have. Bear in mind that the funding prevents the oil company's from buying out an idea before it has got off the ground.

Bear in mind that the concepts still have to stand on there on merit and price in the market place.

I mean. Free market advocates seem perfectly willing to make the market NOT free by accepting government subsidies and rules to keep out competitors.

American politicians pay lip service to a lot of things including having the best interests of Americans at heart. The only joke is how many Americans get a bee in there bonnet about Europe being Socialist when there own country very much embraces the same system but under a differnt model.

It is true that there a true free market doesn't exist anywhere in the world (no country would fully privatise there military for example ). But even in economy's without Corporate socialism which adopted more of an Free Market model there are opportunity's for people to better themselves they just have to be flexible.

Let private enterprise remain private for God’s sake (if not our own), but let it do some enterprising, if it has not forgotten what the entrepreneural spirit looks like.

No one is going to show entrepreneurial spirit unless they can have a fair crack at the market place providing that they are competitive and they can meet the markets demands. e.t.c

That is the joke. And it’s on us.

And the punch line is that the USA has become what some many Americans claim to hate.

On another note entirely given that voters from both parties aren't entirely happy with the candidates on offer Bill should go for broke or withdraw and build up the machinery needed for a future run . Since the candidates are taking part in an long distance race the Republican party may wait and see what they can turn up and/or manufacture against Bill if he is a serious contender.




[edit on 22-5-2007 by xpert11]

posted by Justin Oldham

It may be the GOP has already made up its mind that Giuliani will be their sacrificial lamb for 2008. The NY convention would allow him to strut on familiar ground without suffering the slings and arrows that might befall any other candidate in any other location. [Edited by Don W]

Makes sense. OTOH, with all the new primaries, some of them very early as in Florida just bumped up to January, 2008, when is it theoretically possible for a candidate (in either party) to lock up the nomination?

Hillary maintains [her] lead by the slimmest of margins. Obama seems to be slowing a bit, but so is she. As previously stated, I think she would like to have Richardson as VP because she's planning long range.

And you mentioned above, although Dems can depend on 80%+ of the African American vote, that is not the case vis a vis the Hispanic voters. Bill Richardson - despite his last name - is of Hispanic origin. Maybe he ought to change his name to his mother’s last name?

Hillary can play king maker in regards to both men. Assuming that her administration starts and ends with no critical errors, either man could be in a good position to be the next President. Assuming Richardson is VP and Obama holds a high cabinet post (SecState, etc.), the Dems could conceivably have a long stay on Capital Hill. Such a troika would be hard for the Republicans to answer. [Edited by Don W]

OK, I am with you on this J/O, but for the high profile job for Obama. He does not impress me as a long-term Senator type, as it takes decades to get near the top there. Obama is a man on the move. 2016 will be his year unless the Dems falter then he may be there in ‘12. Richardson as VP will have the same ambition in ‘16. Maybe a 1968 Humphrey-Robert Kennedy re-run? But without Gene McCarthy.

Obama would be much worse than Condo Rice who I see as a non-starter in Sec State. But Bush43 and VP Cheney don’t really care about that anyway. “Hey, it’s our way or no way!” You don’t have to be too smart to handle that approach. Which is what I think about Condo, she’s not too smart. Scratch Obama for State as that will be the working department in the next Admin, Dem or GOP. Defense? No way. Homeland Security? Well, we have a poor track record up there, so anyway it goes, it would get better.

Sen. McConnell’s wife has wrecked Labor, so he would not want to get into that. Transportation was once where the “graft” was but now none of the old time depts are going to be overly flush with throw around money. We blew all that in Iraq and a little in Afghan. The Post Office is quasi private. The Director of National Intelligence is a failed undertaking.

Treasury needs someone who can add and subtract and speak economic gobblely-gook. I don’t see Obama there. So why would Obama give up a safe Senate seat for a jerk-off job? What’s your take, J/O, on Obama in ‘09?

[edit on 5/22/2007 by donwhite]

posted by xpert11

posted by donwhite .America export cars? That would be a first! Our cars are too large, too heavy, too fuel hungry for the 3rd world.

Easy there, notice I didn't name US car makers who MAY export cars that run on alternative fuels. It may be up to new players to sell cars in the US that run on alternative fuels. If US car makers [had] brought out designs that cater to the demands of the market they wouldn't be in the hole that they are in now. [Edited by Don W]

That’s right, Mr X11. But as I recited in the Daimler-Benz and Chrysler deals, it is not in American car designers or factory managers to do it that way. Heck, my first new car was a 1959 English Ford Anglia, 100E. Followed on by a new 1960 105E then I owned 3 new Beetles, the last one fitted with air conditioning that did not work even when new. I had a new Falcon and a new Fairlane. I’m a Ford person by birth and a small car person by choice.

The corporate culture of paying executives high pay packets and not on the basis of there performance has contributed to the problem as well. Either US car manufactures will adopted to the market , cut executive salary's and hire better lobbyists or perish.

You know why that is? To answer my own question, it is because the managers have learned how to control the Board of Directors. That is the old time theoretical group of corporate overseers which has been entirely co-opted into a managerial rubber stamp. It can’t get too bad for directors! That could be fixed, but not as long as we can’t get CFR. Campaign Finance Reform. You see, in America, everything hinges on CFR. You want more rational health care? CFR. You want a national disaster plan and people to implement it? CFR. You name, if its bad, it can only be fixed by CFR.

Good point [on Free Market] but I would make the case that funding research and development is a way of looking at options to break up the monopoly that oil company's have. Bear in mind that the funding prevents the oil company's from buying out an idea before it has got off the ground. Bear in mind that the concepts still have to stand on there on merit and price in the market place.

That was OK in the 1920s. It had some relevance up to the 1950s. But today’s mega-corporations have all the money in the world. Plus, they screw the US taxpayers endlessly by taking tax money on research then taking out the patents in their name. No prosecutions under AG Gonzales. I’m telling you X 11, it’s all gone sour because we the people have surrendered the electoral process to the money mongers. CFR.

On another note entirely given that voters from both parties aren't entirely happy with the candidates on offer Bill should go for broke or withdraw and build up the machinery needed for a future run . Since the candidates are taking part in an long distance race the Republican party may wait and see what they can turn up and/or manufacture against Bill if he is a serious contender. [Edited by Don W]

Yes and No. Yes as far as serious run for the nomination in 2008 but No when looking at it long haul. If you are going to be a player in big time politics, you have to poke your nose around like Ron Paul, for example. Out of sight, out of mind. Anathema for a politician.

[edit on 5/22/2007 by donwhite]

Don if US or any other car manufactures in the US aren't willing to change there ways then they will perish and deservedly so. I cant see CFR happening any time soon the status qua suits minority's that has the power to serve there own interests and do nothing else. Funding for research and development shouldn't be a blank check if a company is consistently using up tax payer dollars and the market place isnt becoming more competitive or the nations interests aren't being served then it is time to cut off tax payer funding.

Continual funding a company with tax payer dollars that has failed to perform the required tasks in the past is just another way of giving corporate hand outs. Success should always be rewarded and failure penalised.

[edit on 22-5-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 22-5-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 22-5-2007 by xpert11]

I assume that the panel has had time to digest the testimony of Ms. Monica Goodling. What says you about that?

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I assume that the panel has had time to digest the testimony of Ms. Monica Goodling. What says you about that?

Well the scandal has become like watching a re run of your favourite TV show you know the plot and you have seen the show an hundred times but now the TV network is showing a new episode. The most damaging aspect of Monica (from what IV read ) seems to be the fact that she admitted to screening candidates based on there political views.

But another orchestrated event has taken place.

The current bill contains a set of political benchmarks that the Iraqi government should meet to keep U.S. reconstruction aid flowing.

Bush must submit reports in July and September indicating progress in meeting those goals.

Compromises were accepted by both houses to forge the new measure, which contains about $20 billion in spending for domestic programs.

Among the new measures are improved medical care for veterans, the $2.10-an-hour increase in the federal minimum wage and Gulf Coast hurricane recovery.

The bill also, for the first time, explicitly states that U.S. forces would leave Iraq if asked by the Baghdad government.

source

Really the min wage hike is just a vote winner this wasn't the time to be debating such measures. While I'm not against the min wage going up from time to time the real question is how to get people out of Walmart and into more high skilled and high paying jobs. Behind closed doors when no one is around Bush will be happy with the comprise even if he cant agree to it for political reasons.

Some means has to be found to pressure the Iraqi government into compromising with moderates on both sides of the ethnic divided. My only concern is that the wrong people could be punished by cutting off aid although fixing schools shouldn't require any where near the amount of money being talked about. Major reconstruction projects cant take place until the security situation improves.

Ms. Monica Goodling before the Senate Judiciary Committee? She gave me the impression like so many good secretaries - Nixon’s Mrs. Rose Mary Woods - who believe loyalty to their immediate employer is the paramount virtue. Both worked for the United States Government, but neither seem to realize that. This Monica weakly said the Deputy AG who quit a couple weeks ago “may have shaded the truth” to paraphrase John Wayne. She said AG Gonzales may “not have recalled” all the details she thought he might. Maybe he needs to put on his “thinking cap?”

She appeared to have testified reluctantly. She may be more forthcoming in private sessions. Clearly, she wants to be the “good gal” and stay out of trouble but at the same time, not to let down her past employers. That does not look good on her future job apps. This Monica was clearly in over her head, doing a job for which she had no practical experience. A lightweight in a heavyweight job. On another rung, our society cannot survive without snitches, yet we still abhor them!

I heard tonight that Hillary has stretched her lead over Barack to 28 points. Has barack seen the last of the big money donors? I heard that Edwards has dropped to 14%. They did not say what Barrack’s numbers were. Does this mean it is over before it starts? Is it to be Clinton/Richardson in '08?

[edit on 5/24/2007 by donwhite]

I have no doubt that Ms. Monica intends to save her own powderpuff behind. I speculate, but I'm thinking she got advised to be cooperative now to avoid being dragged through the deeper mud later on. this advice may have come from family or friends. Either way, she appears to have taken it. As a former whistle blower, I KNOW Don is right. We want 'em but we hate 'em.

As I watch the Obama campaign, I can't help but think that he is losing steam because he's not trying to stoke his boiler. I think he's shacking off on his speaking engagements. I do think the big money has decided to wait and see through the end of July before they hand out more to anyone on either side of the aisle.

I hope all of you have a good Memorial Day weekend. I'm due to put in an appearance as The Famous Author, and then its all about the grillin' and the time spent with friends. Everything that I am and everything that I have is made possible by the sacrifices of others. I intend to remember that over the course of this holiday.

Remember those races when you were in school and there was always a kid who sprinted into the lead only to run out of puff before the half way mark that is what candidates on both sides of the political fence need to avoid doing. You see the trick is to keep up enough steam to stay in the race which allows a candidate to save there coal reserves for later on. There is no use running out steam before the half way mark of the race.

In Obama case the novelty of him being a candidate is probably wearing off and his vote against the Iraq war isnt enough to keep him in the race.

Okay, we're done with Memorial Day weekend. Shake off that barbecue hangover and let's get back to it.

Debate rages hot and heavy on Capitol Hill over the immigration bill that President Bush likes so much. Republican voters seem to be quite unhappy with this bill that GOP politicians seem to be content with passing. If they do pass it, should we expect voters to hold a grudge in November of 2008? I say, "yes."

Al Gore is due to appear on Hardball tonight, and I'll bet he's there to sell more of his "stuff," and pull Hillary's tail...just a little. Dems of all sorts seem to be wishing extra hard for Al to toss his hat in to the ring. Should he? Remember that he's got enough money now to kiss off any contributors he doesn't want. Like Michael Bloomberg, he can write his own check...I mean tichket, if he wants to.

Cindy Sheehan dleclares that she's had enough with both political parties. Is she really goingto quite and go home? Or, is she going in to hiding so she can write a book?

Recent radio activity suggests that Newt will decide by October 1 if he will run for President. Can he really expect to get traction before the primaries with just three months (or less) to run on/in? I think he's just trying to stir the pot, and he'll beg off in October.

OK I'm not surprised by the fact that Republican supporters would be unhappy with the emigration bill if current trends in around 75 - 100 years the numbers of illegal aliens in the US could be equal or greater then that of the legal US citizens and residents. Time seems to favour the pro illegal emigration camp the more benefits, voting rights e.t.c illegal aliens get the more powerful the illegal alien voting block will become.

As for Republican supporters holding a grudge in 2008 since none of the candidates have set there world on fire for there Republican supporters so the only way I can see Republican supporters lodging a protest is by not turning up to vote. If the Republican core supporter base fails to turn up on polling day the Dems will win the election in a landslide.

I disagree with Al gore when it comes to the causes of climate change but I from what I have read about his latest book he spot in this case. The problem is that people discredit or credit Gore based on there political stances rather then dealing with Gores ideas on an case by case basis.
Someone like Gore is essential in the current US political climate because the ideas he raises for public debate wouldn't see the light of day otherwise. Justin Gore seems to work under the same sort of reasoning that you do but he stands on the other side of the political fence and deals with different issues.

I don't care what Cindy Sheehan does as long as she shuts up . If she writes a book I wont be racing out to buy it. Newt is an fruit cake who is unelectable. I have yet to see any evidence that Newt has put the machinery in place to become a fruit cake who is electable. So if Newt runs he would join Paul on the same scrap heap but for differnt reasons.

posted by Justin Oldham

We're done with Memorial Day. Shake off that b-b-q hangover and let's get back to it. Debate rages on Capitol Hill over the immigration bill Bush43 likes so much. GOP voters seem quite unhappy that GOP politicians seem content with passing. If it passes, should we expect voters to hold a grudge in November ‘08? I say, "yes."

Al Gore is due on “Hardball” tonight . . I'll bet he's there to sell more of his "stuff" and pull Hillary's tail a little. Dems of all sorts seem to be wishing extra hard for Al to toss his hat in to the ring. Should he? He can write his own check . . I mean ticket, if he wants.

Cindy Sheehan declares she's had enough with both political parties. Is she really going to quit and go home? Or, is she going into hiding so she can write a book? Recent [talk] radio suggests Newt will decide by October 1 if he will run. Can he expect ‘traction’ before the primaries with just three months to run? I think he's just trying to stir the pot, and he'll beg off in October. [Edited by Don W]

1) Immigration bill. You know how I fell about this slap at Americanism surely conjured by the devil which masquerades as a law-to-be.

2) Al Gore. He’s bound to feel badly over 2000. He must have replayed that in his mind 10,000 times. Gore would have gone though the UN and chased OBL until captured. We would not be out $555 b. and 4,000 KIA and many more to come and the shaky balance of power in the Middle East broken beyond human repair. No Patriot Act. No Guantanamo Bay. No Abu Ghraib. Not rendition. No secret prisons. No torture whether we admit it or not. No secret executive orders. No “enemy combatant” status determined by America’s version of Baron Geoffrey’s Star Chambers of Merry Old England. None of this. Just OBL doing time next door to the Blind Sheik. But Al run again? I think not.

3) Newt Gingrich. Newt has made all the proper pronouncements for 2008, and has taken ideological backwater on his earlier days in the House. And maybe Newt has even obliquely expressed shame over his treatment of his sick ex-wife. But Newt is too old. Too long in the tooth. Too much baggage. I think he is like Al, a horse put out to stud who longs for one more run around the track!

posted by xpert11

I'm not surprised Republican supporters would be unhappy with the immigration bill . . if current trends continue in 75 - 100 years the numbers of illegal aliens in the US could be equal or be greater than legal US citizens and residents. Time seems to favor the pro illegal immigration camp . . more benefits . . voting rights etc. As illegal aliens get more powerful the illegal alien voting block will come. I can see GOP supporters protesting by not turning up to vote. If the Republican base fails to turn up on polling day the Dems will win the election in a landslide.

I disagree with Al Gore when it comes to the causes of climate change but I have read about his latest book . . he [is] spot [on] in this case. Someone like Gore is essential in the current US political climate because the ideas he raises for public debate wouldn't see the light of day otherwise. J/O, Gore seems to work under the same sort of reasoning that you do but he stands on the other side of the political fence and deals with different issues.

I don't care what Cindy Sheehan does. If she writes a book I won’t be racing out to buy it. Newt is unelectable. If Newt runs he would join Paul on the same scrap heap but for different reasons. [Edited by Don W]

1) Immigration. You have seen my earlier expose on the proposed bill.
You may have deduced that I adopt the position best expressed by the Jewish poet, Emma Lazarus, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Has our lamp gone out?

2) GOP and their candidates. I don’t know. I think there is a real process going on in which each candidate is testing the waters and then molds his POV to fit the response. This is the normal electoral process. It is not to be disdained as evidence of lack of conviction, it is rather the process we call compromise, wherein every act and deed in a democracy is at bottom - a compromise.

3) Al, Newt and Cindy Sheehan. Al, NO. Newt, NO. Cindy, how’d she get into this Conservative Candidates thread?

[edit on 5/30/2007 by donwhite]

I was watching Fox News yesterday as part of my daily information download (I watch many news channels every day), and I heard a commentator say what I've been thinking for a long long time. "Social conservtism is dead, and the religious right killed it by going too far."

You just KNOW that the GOP is undergoing a transformation when you hear THAT on Fox. Couple this with the fact that the Republicans appear to be betting on Giuliani, and you've got yourself a verifiable transformation going on.

Will the Republican party of 2009 be "Democrat light?" I begin to think so. I'm ready to es-plain myself, but I'll wait to see what the rest of you have to say first.

posted by Justin Oldham

I was watching Fox News as part of my daily information download - I watch many news channels - and I heard a commentator say what I've been thinking for a long long time: "Social conservatism is dead, and the religious right killed it by going too far."

You know the GOP is undergoing a transformation when you hear THAT on Fox. Coupled with the fact the Republicans appear to be betting on Giuliani and you've got yourself a verifiable transformation. Will the Republican party of 2009 become a "Democrats light?" I begin to think so. I'm ready to explain myself, but I'll wait to see what the rest of you have to say first. [Edited by Don W]

Social conservatives hurt themselves in part by their unabashed self-righteousness, but mostly by failing to show any degree of tolerance. It’s “My way or no way” which is not good in any democratic setting. Even your followers who may have joined up for other reasons, begin to fall by the wayside as the group’s extremism grows and variations inside the group are less welcome. Most followers are not nearly as single minded as are the leaders. It’s the nature of things. For most of us, making a living is Job One as Henry Ford’s billboards once publicized.

Recall hearing on History Channel that even some of the Nazi SS began to refuse to kill Jewish people. Himmler himself - who never watched the murders he orchestrated - told the Fuhrer there must be methods of mass killing that involved the executioners less. Remember also that I’ve warned you’all since the 2000 campaign began that it is no ordinary man who can sign 154 death warrants in 6 years - one every 2 weeks on average - and stay normal, sharing our human perspectives on life. Impossible!

Unless you have a full appreciation for the legal significance of the governor’s signature on a death warrant, you may not grasp the basis of my accusation. But the #154 ought to raise your eyebrows! And your natural curiosity.

J/O, you are right about Giuliani. He continues the GOP front runner long after his public admission he supported the right to choice, and he seems to be able to live with more welfare than most GOPs, much as Nixon, and so, he might indeed be a Nixon II. Us Dems could live with that, provided he promises to stay out of the burglary sideline.

I say Rudy would be a most formidable candidate for the Dems assumed designee Hillary to combat. Perhaps that is why the GOP fat-cats choose NYC for the convention! Giant screens showing the Nine Eleven Event with Giuliani skillfully “edited” electronically into the scenes and then, the whole convention retiring to the newly dedicated WTC Memorial for the acceptance speech! 40 foot outdoor tv screens, 10,000 watt sound system. Sweet Jesus, Madison Avenue Reigns!

[edit on 5/30/2007 by donwhite]

Assuming that the religious right doesn't have more lives then a cat which is something people like me have to be mindful of the religious right out lived its usefulness about fifteen years ago. Reagan used the religious right to get elected and its just as well for the religious right that Reagan developed alzheimer's.The ultimately corrupt religious right used Clinton antics to latch onto the Republican party .

It has only taken ten years for live by my words not by my actions (which included seeing gay hookers and ex martial affairs) to finally put people off the religious right.

posted by xpert11

People like me are mindful the religious right out lived its usefulness about fifteen years ago. Reagan used the religious right to get elected. The [throughly] corrupt religious right used Clinton’s [sexual] antics to latch onto the Republican party. It took ten years for “live by my words not by my deeds” to finally put people off the religious right. [Edited by Don W]

Let’s hope your perceptions are “on target” Mr X11. As oil and water do not mix, so religion and politics do not. Our friends who think otherwise seem to be confused over what is signified by “a nation of Christians” as opposed to their preference, “a Christian nation.” The former we have but latter we do not want.

B43 has worked mightily to shift from the former to the latter, including the taking on of AJ Alito and CJ Roberts, adding to his father’s AJ Thomas contribution to mucking up America. Adding those anti-constitutional types to AJ Scalia and you have 4 solid votes by all too youngish men who will outlive their usefulness long before they meet their Maker.

[edit on 5/31/2007 by donwhite]

Most of the time, I'm ready to say that you need to wait one or even two years after a President leaves office to see what the 'real' long term effects of his legacy actually is. In the case of Bush43, I am leaning to the conclusion that by his hand, he has dealt a severe blow to the religious right that they won't recover from for the rest of this century. I think it'll take three or even four generations for the American polity to forget what has happened during the years of Bush43.

I've been paying attention to what the talkers are saying on religious t.v., and I'm not sure that they get it just yet. For those who don't know, there is a younger generation waiting in the wings to take over from the current crop of gray-haired masters who rule the roost. Falwell leaves behind two sons who are well versed in te family biz, just to name one example.

I'm watching Franklyn Graham closely, because I think he's going to be the new face of the religious right within two to five years. It's hard to find stuff about him but what I do see strongly suggests to me that he views what he does as a business, and he may not approve of his father's meddling in politics. I have no illusions about why he might think that way. Meddling in politics looks to be bad for business from his point of view.

The next generation of Republicans who are able to see the light of day will follow the old mod addage when they deal with the religious right. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." I don't think today's old guard can overcome their generational bias, which will allow them to be harmed by the fallout from Bush43's mistakes in this regard.

posted by Justin Oldham

Most of the time, I'm ready to say that you need to wait one or even two years after a President leaves office to see what the 'real' long term effects of his legacy actually is. I think it'll take three or even four generations for the American polity to forget what has happened during the years of Bush43.

There is a younger generation in the wings waiting to take over from the current gray-haired masters who rule the roost. Falwell leaves behind two sons who are well versed in the family biz, just to name one example.

I'm watching Franklyn Graham closely . . I think he's going to be the new face of the religious right in five years. What I see suggests that he views what he does as a business and may not approve of his father's meddling in politics . . the next generation of Republicans who see the light will follow the adage when dealing with the religious right. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." [Edited by Don W]

Between 1789 and 2007, religion in America has changed. Religion was not nearly so personal in the 18th century as it is now. Most people then did believe in God. But as today, not always in the same God. They were much closer both in time and space to the 100 Years War and the 30 Years War, plus the English had undergone great internal strife caused over religion. King Charles suffered regicide. There was no interest here in re-running what had happened there.

Most educated people took the position expounded by Voltaire that God was the Master Clock Maker who wound up the universe, set it into motion and said, “I’ll be back in 20 billion years.” While God might smile on a nation, people did not look for personal contact from God or for personal favor by the Divinity.

Today, everyone wants to “ask Jesus into your heart.” Or, “have you been born again?” No one back then would dare to speak so causally about Jesus who was revered as one of the Godhead. I am of the opinion Jesus was a unitarian, but that St. Paul and the Catholic Church made him into a trinitarian. (Which theory is well accepted by 99% of the Protestants of today so no ill reference to Catholics is meant). Another popular concept unknown to the 17th and 18th centuries is the “name it and claim it” gospel. Especially popular on the tv circuit where most of the money is raised via telephone offerings by viewers. All too many of the religious of every stripe but especially evangelical Protestants - say mega church - are “in your face” types.

The era of Ronald Reagan to the present will someday be called the Third Great Awakening in America! The sooner it is over, the happier I will be.

[edit on 5/31/2007 by donwhite]