2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

You could be on to something there. In many respects, the lst two decades have a lot in common with the last two acknowledged periods of revivalism. I do think that future historians will point to the religious right as a polarizing force that played a central role in the destruction of the classical American conservative movement.

posted by Justin Oldham

You could be on to something there. The last two decades have a lot in common with the last two acknowledged periods of revivalism. I think future historians will point to the religious right as a polarizing force that played a central role in the destruction of the classical American conservative movement. [Edited by Don W]

I first became aware of the religious right and its very much planned and well controlled propaganda war on liberalism and as you are now mentioning, on American conservatism. The NARB - National Association of Religious Broadcasters - is the medium through which they laid their plans and put the same message out to millions of daily (devoted) listeners. After each annual convention the entire spectrum of radio talk shows mimicked the new line for the year. This had nothing to do with religion, well, not what I regard as real religion, but it had all to do with school vouchers, school prayers, school book selection processes, school book contents, and banning such items as free condoms in middle schools and etc.

It was pure and simple a devious plan to gain control of the public schools in America. I’d say, off hand, they have 65% succeeded.

Now they are attacking the genuine conservatives. OTOH, I say “we shall overcome” those anti intellectual and anti liberty apostles of gloom and doom.


[edit on 5/31/2007 by donwhite]

As you know, Billy Graham was recently memorialized, idolized, and merchandised at the opening of his library. Like I said before, keep your eyes on Franklyn. I think that the religious right has been burned just enough to make them step back from the flame to say, "that's hot."

We should expect them to re-trench and find new waysto extend theri influence through corporate American. They won't be a legislative foce in politics again for quite some time.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
We should expect them to re-trench and find new waysto extend theri influence through corporate American. They won't be a legislative foce in politics again for quite some time.

I agree that the RR wont die quietly and that they will try and reinvent themselves. Relationships of convenience have to be of benefit to both sides which leads me to my question .
What would corporate America gain from having the RR in there camp ?

The one thing that the Republican party is showed is that if only one party is benefiting from an Relationship of convenience it is time for the other party to end the Relationship. I could certainly see the RR focusing on ensuring that unmarried and same sex couples don't get health insurance in the workplace.

Originally posted by xpert11
What would corporate America gain from having the RR in there camp?

Grab some pop corn, this'll take a few minutes.

The religous right can have a positive effect on Corporate America becasue it won't tolerate certai nforms of exploitative consumerism, which would include certain forms of conspicuous consumption. What I'm really gettingat here is a slight decrease in "vice." It's true that guys like Jimmy Swaggert had (and may still have) a taste for hookers and booze, but they will outwardly advocate just enough abstinance and moderation to have some measureable effect on the society.

As a consumer 'force,' the religious right will have a lot of dollars to influence the market place with and...once they learn how to do that...they'll make their presence felt much more so than they do today. Yes, I know it's been tried in the past, but...we have the internet to contend with. News letters and consumer alerts of all kinds can be blasteda round the world at a moment's notice to urge the faithful to buy or boycott as desired.

Now, then. I haven't been ignoring my u2's. I've got a prediction for those of you who asked. In ten years, you're going to see the rise of what might be called Corporate Churches. Hold on, it's not what you think. Eat some more of that pop corn and let me finish.

We've seen the rise of the Mega-Churches, which are part of that 3rd awakening that Don mentioned a while back. The next step will be corporate takoevers and branding that targets the faithful. Imagine something to the effect of Catholic Cola, which is marketed to Catholics. Once the congregants are urged to buy, you'll see that corprate entity groom its image by doing "good works" and supporting worthy causes. It won't be owned by a specific church, but it'll be so closely affilliated that you'll need a microscope and a surgeon to find the dividing line.

posted by Justin Oldham

posted by xpert11
What would corporate America gain from having the RR in there camp?

The religious right can have a positive effect on Corporate America. It won't tolerate exploitative consumerism, which would include conspicuous consumption. They will outwardly advocate just enough abstinence and moderation to have some measurable effect on the society.

The religious right will have a lot of dollars to influence the market place and . . once they learn how to do that . . they'll make their presence felt more so than today. Yes, it's been tried in the past . . but we now have the internet . . News letters and consumer alerts of all kinds can be blasted around the world at a moment's notice to urge the faithful to buy or boycott as desired.

I've got a prediction for you. In ten years, you're going to see the rise of what might be called Corporate Churches. Hold on, it's not what you think. We've seen the rise of the Mega-Churches, which are part of that 3rd awakening that Don mentioned.

The next step will be corporate takeovers and branding that targets the faithful. Imagine something to the effect of “Catholic Cola” which is marketed to Catholics. [Baptist Root Beer? Unitarian unicycles.] Once the congregants are urged to buy, you'll see that corporate entity groom its image by doing "good works" and supporting worthy causes. It won't be owned by a specific church, but it'll be so closely affiliated that you'll need a microscope and a surgeon to find the dividing line. [Edited by Don W]

You are out front on this, Mr J/O!

You’re right though, it’s already here. Just look what happened to the neighborhood funeral home industry over the past 2-3 decades. 4 or 5 national chains now own 90% of the funeral homes. The price of funerals is now over $6,000 on average. Kill the ‘free market’ and you get monopoly pricing. It happens every time but we cannot seem to figure how to avoid it. The anti-regulators are killing us. Hmm? Yet we say we love and are devoted to the free market. Who are we kidding? Or, who is kidding us?

[edit on 6/1/2007 by donwhite]

I would say that it is fair bet that Justin is spot on about Corporate Churches and the future of the RR. The RR will have to hire lawyers who specialize in US tax laws because people are already debating if Church's should be exempted from taxation. If one follows Justin thinking the RR will use there relationship with corporate interests to regain there influence with the Republican party. The RR would be able to influence what candidates there corporate buddy's give financial support to.

When 2012 or 2016 roles around the RR could well have rebuilt there influence on American politics via a differnt route . I cant wait to see what corrupt hypocrisy the future has installed for the RR insider trading perhaps ?

And lets not forgot the RR began its rise under the icon of the American Conservative movement Ronald Reagan . Reagan wasn't perfect but he didn't go round having extra martial affairs or seeing gay hookers so for his time in office he could live with the Republican party being in bed with the RR. After the Republican party failed to put an end to the relationship of convenience the only genuine Conservatives left were Libertarians. Since the US at least claims or appears to be more Conservative then the rest of the world some of the more moderate Conservatives weren't aren't bothered by the fact its the Libertarian party or nothing.

So the question must have been asked do I stick by my party that has been hijacked by corrupt hypercritics or do I vote for a party that has no chance at holding office ?

Originally posted by xpert11
So the question must have been asked do I stick by my party that has been hijacked by corrupt hypercritics or do I vote for a party that has no chance at holding office?

That's why I say that the time is fast approaching when it'll be possible for a third party candidate to make just the right impression to actually start something.

A lot of Republicans are going to stay home on election day. I'll go so far as to say 25%. Yes, I know that there are rumors about Fred Thompson, but I'm gonna wait until I see it to believe it.

Here is my take on Fred since talk of him running first cropped up.
I still stand by my previously stated opinions.

I'm still not convinced that Fred will run for his party nomination this time around. The impression I get is that Fred is testing the waters for an 2012 0r 2016 run. Since the response of Republican supporters to the idea of Fred running has been positive across the board he may look to start planing a future run. Since the campaign cycle is pretty much half an presidential term the idea that Fred is casting his eyes beyond 2008 is hardly beyond this world.

It seems a sound plan at this Fred gives himself and the Republican supporter base four to eight years to get organised and energized . Of course the risk is that another candidate will come along and steal his thunder but with Arnold barred from running due to his place of birth Fred looks to be taking a sound gamble at this stage.

The other factor at play will be how the Republican party emerges from the next four years or so putting the 2008 election aside the RR has suffered a set back and a new breed of Liberal Republicans could emerge . the amount of support and the effect of Republicans in the Rudy mould is yet to be seen.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by xpert11]

posted by Justin Oldham
That's why I say that the time is fast approaching when it'll be possible for a third party candidate to make just the right impression to actually start something. A lot of Republicans are going to stay home on election day. I'll go so far as to say 25%. Yes, I know that there are rumors about Fred Thompson, but I'm gonna wait until I see it to believe it.

posted by xpert11
Here is my take on Fred . . I'm not convinced Fred will run for his party nomination this time around. The impression I get is that Fred is testing the waters for an 2012 0r 2016 run. [Edited by Don W]

Uh, uh, Mr X11. I disagree for 2 reasons.
1) Fred is too old for that game. He’ll be living at Golf World FL by then.
2) This is the best time ever since maybe 1940 one commentator said last night, certainly since 1952 in my memory, for the nomination to be really up for grabs.

It seems a sound plan but with Arnold barred from running due to his place of birth Fred looks to be taking a sound gamble at this stage. The other factor at play will be how the Republican party emerges from the next four years or so putting the 2008 election aside. The RR has suffered a set back and a new breed of Liberal Republicans could emerge. The amount of support and the effect of Republicans in the Rudy mold is yet to be seen. [Edited by Don W]

You know, late 19th century and early 20th century found many of the most progressive politicians were Republicans. I’m think of Senator LaFollette and President Theodore Roosevelt. They were found mainly in the upper mid-west, from Nebraska to the Dakotas. Democrats, William Jennings Bryan aside, because of the Senate’s seniority system coupled with the 2/3rds vote to shut off debate - reduced to 3/5ths by LBJ - gave the South a dominant and socially conservative role in the Legislative Branch from the beginning of the Republic until LBJ was president. Ronald Reagan invited them over to the Republican Party and they crossed over in droves. Boll weevils they were called.

[edit on 6/2/2007 by donwhite]

It's now or never for Fred. Like McCain has already done, he risks overstaying his sell-by date. Any Republicans who wants to cast a long shadow in American politics in the future must start his/her planning now. the banishment will last 'til atleast 2012 and possibly through 2020. Any future Repubican President is likely to be in his/her mid-30's just now, possibly over in Iraq getting sand in their shorts. They might also be one of those up and comers on Wall Street just now. The only thing we do know for certain is that none of the conservatives with their hat in the right just now will be taking that Oath in early '09.

posted by Justin Oldham

It's now or never for Fred. Like McCain has already done, he risks overstaying his ‘sell-by’ date. Any Republican who wants to cast a long shadow in American politics in the future must start his/her planning now. The banishment will last 'til at least 2012 and possibly through 2020. Any future Republican President is likely to be in his/her mid-30's just now, possibly over in Iraq getting sand in their shoes. They might also be one of those up and comers on Wall Street just now.

The only thing we do know for certain is that none of the conservatives with their hat in the ring just now will be taking that Oath in early '09. [Edited By Don W]

January 20. My late father’s birthday. Changed from March 4 by the XXth Amendment. First applicable in 1937.

J/O, I’m thinking you are TOO pessimistic today. Sure, the Dems won a narrow victory in ‘06 - 51 to 49 in the Senate and 1 Dem too sick to ever show up. 50 to 49 in reality. The slimmest of all possible margins. The House is 230 to 205 - I am not sure - which is a good working majority but it takes 60 votes in the Senate to do your own thing. It is 518 days from today to November 4, 2008. This being June 2. That’s a long time. We will face many problems between now and Election Day. The hurricane season (June through November) is upon us. Katrina was as bad for Bush43 and the GOP as Iraq. Well, I'd say, Iraq 50%, Katrina 25%, All else, 25%.

But look at this:
1) If this SURGE works, and
2) if the American public is willing to accept 100+ KIAs every month, and
3) if Iraq makes the needed compromises, and
4) if the Sunni disenchantment with the Insurgents continues, and
5) if Turkey will leave the Kurds alone, and
6) if Iran will trade back our hostages for their hostages,
then Bush43 may be able to start bringing the troops home like Nixon did, a few at a time!
But he will claim vindication, that he was right all along and the GOP prospects will skyrocket! Which will make the 2008 GOP nomination a thing of value, unlike Goldwater's 1964 "throw away" nomination.

[edit on 6/2/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

1) If this SURGE works, and

There are far to many ifs here that are very unlikely to happen while Bush is still in office. I have already commented on the troop surge so all I'm going to say is once the Surge ends so will its positive effects.

2) if the American public is willing to accept 100+ KIAs every month,

There are two possible reasons for the American public not accepting the low causality rate in Iraq . The first is because the war was unpopular the second reason is more complex and goes back to the social changes and changes that took place media coverage during the Vietnam era.
Don where do you get the figure of 100 KIA a week from even with the troops surge the causality rate hasn't gotten near 100 KIA per week ?

As for three and four the Iraqi government is well to much like a government politicians are there same everywhere.

5) if Turkey will leave the Kurds alone,

Well I think it is reasonable certain that the Kurds will be left alone for as long as the coalition remains in Iraq.

6) if Iran will trade back our hostages for their hostages,

Do you mean the US free Iranian enemy combatants that have been captured ?

If the extremely unlikely event of Bush being vindicated for invading Iraq happens he will have already left office.

I would like to remind you all that there will be another televised Presidential debate tomorrow for the GOP candidates.

McCain earned the ire of conservatives when he co-sponsored immigration reform legislation with Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, last year -- a proposal critics charged provided amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Still, McCain's position may cost him with the very conservatives he's been trying to woo.

"There's this trust issue with conservatives and McCain and it's here [in New Hampshire] as well as elsewhere in the country," said Dante Scala, an associate professor at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, the site of Tuesday night's GOP presidential debate.

Source

Now the effects of the immigration bill and Mccain support for is being felt .
Its the South American voting block vs Republican supporter base and its a knock out to the South American voting block . Either way McCain was going alienate somebody but he has made the wrong choice IMO you cant win the election without winning your party nomination .

And having voting blocks that appease illegal immigration become more influential is against the interests of the US.

posted by xpert11

McCain earned the ire of conservatives when he co-sponsored the immigration reform legislation - a proposal critics charge offers amnesty to illegal immigrants. McCain's position may cost him with the very conservatives he's been trying to woo. "There's this trust issue with conservatives and McCain . . it's here [in New Hampshire] as well as elsewhere in the country" said Dante Scala at Saint Anselm College, the site of Tuesday's GOP presidential debate. [Edited by Don W]

The effect of McCain’s support of the immigration bill is being felt . . it’s the Latino voting block vs Republican supporter base - the evangelicals - it’s a knockout to the Latino voting block. Either way McCain was going to alienate somebody . . he made the wrong choice IMO. Rule 1: you cant win the election without first winning your party’s nomination . . having favored the voting block that appeases illegal immigration becoming more influential is against the interests of the US. [Edited by Don W]

Estimating. This problem - 12 million undocumented workers - is only an estimate. Although I have great confidence in the reliability of the sampling process, I do not have equal confidence in those who take the samples. Two weeks ago an opponent of the current bill put out the number 20 million, but no one seems to have grabbed onto that.

The Department of Labor contends the unemployment rate is steady at 4.5%. The Department does not count workers out of a job more than 1 year. They go off the radar then. The 4.5% rate is purely a political number. It is based on samples and it is also an estimate. Just as the jobs “created” in the preceding month are estimates. And so on.

All estimates subject to manipulation. If the Labor Department is staffed with Liberty College incompetents like Monica Goodling in Justice, then you can see why I have no confidence in Bush43 sycophant’s numbers.

Consider: If the 12 million number is accurate - most everybody uses it - then that equals the combined population of NH, ME, ID, NB, WV, NM, NV and UT. 12.5 million. To get to 20 million, you have to add KS, AR and MS. That’s a lot of people, legal or otherwise. So I pose you this question: How many illegals do you know?

Maybe this “problem” is like the Social Security “problem,” mostly hot air? Xenophobia gone metastasized?

The problem has been around since 1846-48 when we took California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and part of Colorado from Old Mexico. We “made” the inhabitants American citizens, like it or not. Later we took their land despite our promise in Article12 - conveniently left out of the Senate version of the treaty - to recognized Spanish land grants. Duplicitous. Not an auspicious beginning. Things rocked along OK until the 1960s when improvised Mexicans began to cross the Southern border in unprecedented numbers. To forestall that we conjured the Maquiladoras.

We “obtained” an agreement with Mexico to set out a 100 kilometer wide zone along the US-Mexico border where the Mexican minimum wage would be much higher than it was elsewhere in Mexico. But even maquiladora wages were still much below the US minimum wage. Plus none of the wage and hour problems with overtime, none of the safety concerns and none of the environmental responsibilities imposed on US industry. As capitalists got a taste of the “good life” it was like a drug, and we got from there to here in lest than 50 years!. America has been outsourced.

We also agreed that goods produced in the Zone could be fast-tracked into the US. We encouraged may US companies to move some of their operations into the Maquiladora Zone. I remember in 1964 that RCA moved its tv tube yoke winding machines to Mexico from Indianapolis. That essential component of any tv is a very complex winding of coils by precise machines but the operators need only have minimal skill levels to load and monitor the machines. High tech output but low skills to accomplish.

Well, that did not work because we found places that were even cheaper than Mexico. In 1977 the Chinese decided to abandon the Marxist line and go with capitalism. Now, 300 million Chinese live in the eastern part of China and are fully engaged in world-wide capitalism at all levels. China’s other 1 billion Chinese are still waking behind oxen and doing squat labor. There have been more than 40,000 “incidents” that required the PLA to put down in the interior of China. The Chi-Coms have created TWO China’s, just as the Americans - primarily Reagan/Bush 1 & 2 - are creating TWO Americas.

Oops! I got off track, but it is all intertwined with the current brouhaha over immigration. It’s a mess and will not be easily fixed. Maybe we just ought to issue 12 million Green Cards and move on to something else? Like ending US Armed Forces in the Iraq Civil War? Our men are going KIA (dying) about 25-30 per week. I do hope it is not all a waste? Like Vietnam before.

[edit on 6/5/2007 by donwhite]

I'm watching the fight over that immigration bill, and I really do see two destinct camps. There's the camp that represents business concerns, and the camp that purports to represent social concerns. This is one of those situations in which the social representatives will come away unhappy.

posted by Justin Oldham

I'm watching the immigration bill . . I really see two distinct camps. There is the camp that represents business concerns and the camp that purports to represent social concerns. This is one of those situations in which the social representatives will come away unhappy. [Edited by Don W]

As I understand this current bill, there are 2 prerequisites before the enrollment and change of status can take place. 1) a wall running the whole length of the southern border and 2) a working system in place to control ingress and egress.

Frankly I am not aware of any part of the bill I like. I’m not going to re-run my usual rant. You know the litany.

We cannot locate and deport 12 million people. It took the more efficient Germans from 1938 to 1945 transport 6 million Jews to the death camps. If the US begins such a program, I would do all I can to interrupt it. We have to do better than that. We have to learn to live with those “immigrants.”

They only way we can stop Mexicans - and other Central Americans - from coming here is to help those countries raise their standard of living. Run the American corporations and their enforcers, the USMC, out of those countries. Deny the CIA access to any of them and shut out the World Bank.

Halt our imperialism, our colonialism and do the right thing for a change.

The illegals will make us do right! Informed and thoughtful Americans sure can’t.

[edit on 6/5/2007 by donwhite]

There's a loop hole in this bill large enough for me to drive a bus through. having a Z class visa makes you "legal," but it doesn't put you on the path to citizenship. It just makes you "legal" even if you're not paying in to the system you're benefitting from. My one partisan beef about all this is that I think that politicians on both sides of the aisle are just trying to buy the Hispanic vote. Dems will gain more than Republicans, but I don't care. I think its dishonest, no matter who is doing it.

Twelve million or twenty million the numbers are thrown around so causally. Even the lowest figure is greater then the population of New Zealand by an considerable margin. For every job an illegal alien takes is a job denied to legal citizens and residences. I have to agree with Justin the emigration plan is nothing more then a vote winner.

Its ease to see what will happen in the future there will be legal status granted to elements of the illegal alien population and there will be no crack down on people who hire illegal aliens. In other words none of the incentives for illegal aliens to enter the US will have been removed.

Emigration along with a balanced budget is yet another hole American politicians have dug in there name of the orchestrated political divide.