2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

posted by xpert11

Twelve million or twenty million the numbers are thrown around so causally. I agree with Justin the immigration plan is nothing more then a vote winner.

(1) Immigration along with a (2) balanced budget is yet another hole American politicians have dug in the name of the (3) orchestrated political divide. [Edited by Don W]

1) We have ignored the problem for so long that it now has a life of its own. You recall all those appointees for high office who had to decline the honor AFTER it was revealed they had used or were using undocumented Latinos - usually but not always - to tend their children?

As I have pointed out, this is not a crime committed by poor people. Like bribery of public officials, it is a crime committed ONLY by the Rich and Famous. The R&Fs. The Movers and Shakers. That is why you never see anyone but the poor Latino getting kicked around by the police. Locked up without regard for his or her children at home alone. And etc. It is impolitic to bite the hand that feeds you. Note: A strong progressive police union could stop the uneven law enforcment and inhumane tactics. Could. If we had one.

2) Half the population are beguiled that the budget doesn’t matter. The other half believe the rich should be taxed to bring it into balance. Which is not going to happen. Not as long as the lawmakers are depe3ndant on the rich for the money to remain in office. The real crunch will come when the Medicare and Social Security begin drawing on the Trust Funds that the R&Fs have already spent as tax cuts. I’m telling you, during World War 2 the top tax bracket was 91%! It can happen again! There was an excess profits tax on businesses. We know how to fix this, but do we have the will to do it?

3) You say “ . . orchestrated political divide” which is interesting. Are you saying both immigration policy and budgetary policy are both calculated or planned to achieve ceratin goals or objectives? For example, a very large number of our people are resentful and even fearful of the indefinite but ubiquitous illegal immigrant. Could they be taking the place of the 1890s anarchists and the 1920s and 1950s Communists or Red sympathizers a/k/a Fellow Travelers? Bogey men. Enemies. Anti-Americans.

Are you suggesting the leaders of the Dems and the GOP are in unharnessed collusion on this issue because both parties want the same outcome, to be able to use it as a diversion from the rich getting so much richer and the poor always getting poorer? A wedge issue in the on-going class war?

Man, you are being harsh on our leaders who want to appear at least benign if not actually beneficent. GOP and Dems.

[edit on 6/5/2007 by donwhite]

The most recent Republican debate has ended. I couldn't help but notice that Wolf Blitzer tried hard to provoke a fight in the first half. Overall, the questions were good this time, and I still say that Wolf betrayed his Democrat bias. The GOP candidates who spoke Hillary's name didso out of fear, I think . Their attempts to invoke her name to inspire fear failed.

Immigration dominated, and as usual the tier two candidates were on the ball while the front runners were shameless in their obfuscation. the party is clearly divided and the candidates seem to know it. Many of the candidates seemed deferential to Rudy. Blitzer himself seemed to act like Rudy was the big dog on the set. Was it me, or was Ron Paul pretty much frozen out?

Originally posted by donwhite
As I have pointed out, this is not a crime committed by poor people. Like bribery of public officials, it is a crime committed ONLY by the Rich and Famous. The R&Fs. The Movers and Shakers. That is why you never see anyone but the poor Latino getting kicked around by the police. Locked up without regard for his or her children at home alone.

Well an illegal alien is in the US little alone working they are breaking the law so they are an criminal as well. But I do agree with your sentiments illegal aliens do cater for business interests wet dream and for people who are to lazy to use there own lawn mower.

2) Half the population are beguiled that the budget doesn’t matter. The other half believe the rich should be taxed to bring it into balance. Which is not going to happen. Not as long as the lawmakers are depe3ndant on the rich for the money to remain in office. The real crunch will come when the Medicare and Social Security begin drawing on the Trust Funds that the R&Fs have already spent as tax cuts.

Rather then punish people for there success with higher tax rates spending should be reduced in order to balance a budget. Tax hikes to balance the budget should be an absolute last resort IMO. Social Security is and will run into the ageing population which means more people taking out then putting in. Other wise I will leave social security for another topic .

3) You say “ . . orchestrated political divide” which is interesting. Are you saying both immigration policy and budgetary policy are both calculated or planned to achieve ceratin goals or objectives?

Other then there views on social issues and taxes both parties are very much alike remember that many of the dems supported the war in Iraq for example. Both parties support the corporate gravy train and anti free market practices as well as being corrupt. The Republican party spun the line that if you don't support the war you don't support the troops aside from such logic being BS (how about providing quality health care for injured troops ? ) the divisions surrounding the Iraq war were deepened.

Are you suggesting the leaders of the Dems and the GOP are in unharnessed collusion on this issue because both parties want the same outcome, to be able to use it as a diversion from the rich getting so much richer and the poor always getting poorer? A wedge issue in the on-going class war?

If you define the class war as an minority suppressing the majority ability to access a more affordable standard of living and the ability to better themselves via the Free Market then I would say that both parties are indeed in collusion on this issue.

Man, you are being harsh on our leaders who want to appear at least benign if not actually beneficent. GOP and Dems.

The truth is a cruel mistress.
The voter sets the standard by what politicians are judged and by what standards they should aspire to. There is the saying about sticking it to the man you might say that the political machinery in the US is very much about keeping the man down.

Here in NZ were no longer welded to the two party system. So I have a choice beyond one other party if I chose not to vote for Labour at the next election. Put another way if an voter is unhappy with the government there are plenty of options available. I would consider NZ to be slightly more of mixed economy rather then a free market one however it is still possible for people to better themselves via the free or mixed market.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by xpert11]

posted by xpert11

posted by donwhite
As I have pointed out, this is not a crime committed by poor people.

I do agree with your sentiments illegal aliens do cater for business interests and for people who are to lazy to use there own lawn mower. [Edited by Don W]

It is much more than “do cater” to and “too lazy" to. Germany , after War 2, brought in mainly Turks to work in their booming factories. France did the same with Algerians primarily. I’m sure other Western countries did much the same in varying degrees. In the 19th century we conquered those countries by force of arms and exploited the natives in their own lands. In the 20th century we learned it was more efficient to bring in the 3rd world poor people and work them in our own country. Ghettos. It is still exploitation of the poor countries by the rich countries. But on a more efficient scale. Colonialism decked out in a new suit of clothes!

3) You say “ . . orchestrated political divide” which is interesting. Are you saying both immigration policy and budgetary policy are both calculated or planned to achieve ceratin goals or objectives?

Other then their views on social issues and taxes both parties are very much alike . . Both parties support the corporate gravy train and anti free market practices as well as being corrupt.

Are you suggesting the leaders of the Dems and the GOP are in collusion on this [immigration] issue . . A wedge issue in the on-going class war?

If you define the class war as an minority suppressing the majority ability to access a more affordable standard of living and the ability to better themselves via the Free Market then I would say that both parties are indeed in collusion on this issue. The truth is a cruel mistress.
The voter sets the standard by what politicians are judged . . There is the saying about sticking it to the man; you might say that the political machinery in the US is very much about keeping the man down.

Here in NZ were no longer welded to the two party system. So I have a choice beyond one other party if I chose not to vote for Labour at the next election. Put another way if a voter is unhappy with the government there are plenty of options available. I would consider NZ to be slightly more of mixed economy rather then a free market one however it is still possible for people to better themselves via the free or mixed market . . [Edited by Don W]

To which I can say, “Thank you” for the well put views and also for the info on NZ, which you might say is “rational” thereby making te US “irrational?”


Reference Foot Note: How many is 12 million? The following states are contiguous:
Montana (.9), 380,000 sq km; Wyoming (.5) 253,000 sq km; Utah (2.5) 219,000 sq km; Idaho (1.4) 216,000 sq km; Kansas (2.7) 213,000 sq km; Nebraska (1.7) 200,000 sq km; South Dakota (.7) 199,000 sq km; and North Dakota (.6) 183,000 sq km. Populations in millions in parentheses. Total area: 1,853,000 square kilometers (640,000 square miles).

If all 12 million of the undocumented workers (the number perhaps includes their families?) were located in the 6 states above, they would total nearly 12 million. Wikipedia via Google shows 232 political units by area, #16 being Indonesia (1.9 m sq km) and #17 being Libya (1.7 million sq km) so if the 6 states above were a foreign country it would be the #17 largest country in the world! NZ is #75 @ 271,000 sq km. The Vatican is smallest, #232, at .44 sq km or .17 sq mi. 110 acres. I wonder if there really are that many undocumented workers in America? 12 million. That's a lot. I don't know any, do yuo?

[edit on 6/6/2007 by donwhite]

Actually, I do know a few illegals. One of them lives in my neighborhood a few blocks over. Alaska is notoriously slack when it comes to immigrations enforcement. I run in to Russians all the time who are here without the right papers.

From where I sit, the 12 million figure is low. Once you factor in all the family members who will cross to get forged papers when the law goes in to effect, that number will definitely grow. that says nothing about all the family member who will come as part of the legal entitlements afforded under the new law.

Well the NZ political system is as rational as politicians allow it to be.
The US political system is under the control of influences that didn't exist 300 years ago and maybe Americans never really adjusted and settled in to be a global superpower. Being a global superpower seems to be at odds with Americans distrust of authority from a central source this is despite the fact the US came out on top of the first Cold War.

The other problem is that some Americans think think that the answers that may have solved problems three hundred years ago will some how fix Americas problems today. Pearl Harbour proved that an isolationist policy is at best unwise. But despite Pearl Harbour Ron Paul who seems to represent old school conservatives seems to be inclined to think that an isolationist America is the way to go.

posted by xpert11

The NZ political system is as rational as politicians allow it to be. Being a global superpower seems to be at odds with American’s distrust of authority from a central source this is despite the fact the US came out on top of the first Cold War. Pearl Harbor proved an isolationist policy is at best unwise. But despite Pearl Harbor Ron Paul who seems to represent old school conservatives seems to be inclined to think that an isolationist America is the way to go. [Edited by Don W]

Gosh, Mr X11, I have to agree with you here. But did you really mean to say we won the “FIRST” Cold war? Are you following the G8 too closely?

In another vein, I want to ask you about the GOP’s NON candidate, Tennessee’s former Senator Fred Thompson. Mr Bjshobbes started another thread asking about Fred Thompson and his “possible” candidacy for the GOP nomination for president in the 2008 election. It seems to have dead ended. We have there the usual and expected replies. Some say he is next best to white bread, others doubt he has the credentials to be our Maximum Leader. They say Fred may be one witty never at a loss for words NYC prosecutor, but he is definitely not Commander-in-Chief For Life material.

So I’m making a serious inquiry here. Follows are some of my usual pithy remarks. The GOP’s 3 leading contenders have been, based either on popularity polls or on money raised - perhaps the only poll that really counts - are the famous and frequently married NYC mayor, hero of the Nine Eleven Event along with the Vietnam ex-POW turned long time senator from the water scarce state of Arizona, AZ to you postal freaks, but that’s not the equivalent of the alpha and omega quote of Biblical fame, whose claim to notoriety is his ever slipping ratings from top dog to middle dog and now, looking to be shortly the bottom dog, and the Mormon turned liberal turned conservative which makes him look all too opportunistic to some. He boasts he will not give up his religion - I am unaware anyone asked him to do that - so I want to know if he still believes in polygamy?

Fred Thompson must have a special (high) opinion of himself. He knows what you and I know, that all the punsters - oops, commentators - are just aching to see him “jump” into the race! Jump may not be a good word here, he being over 65 years of age, but OTOH, he may not need an unlimited supply of Viagra to keep his youngish wife from wandering too far away from the old corral. Which brings up a point about an old man who likes young women enough to marry one and young women who like old men enough to marry one. It is not against the law but frankly, I am at a loss to say this all too prevalent human trait indicates anything I’d want to recommend to the children of our great nation. Who or which group along with our much praised but mostly neglected War veterans - “thank you for your service” - gag - gag - if I hear that lying line one more time I’m going to lose it, are mostly talked about but are not the recipients of much money to go with the talk. (I know, I know, that sentence is over long and I can’t find the subject either).

So what is Fred bringing to the table? What does Fred have we can’t live without. No Jena, we are not asking you. (I think Jena is his wife). I have not seen any pics of her but since we are arguing over pole dancing I’d expect her to be an overly endowed but still attractive chick, maybe a bottle blonde? Like Marc Rich’s ex- wife of the good olden Bill Clinton days? Whose first name I have long ago forgotten but her DDs I have not.

So let’s get “off his wife” if you’ll excuse a pun in bad taste, and get back to Fred. We pretty much know he is a synthesis of the top 3. We already think we know where he stands on all the GOP hot button issues. And like Mitt, he’ll probably straddle any fence that blocks his path to the top most ascendant position in American culture. But in all honesty that is not a fault of the candidate, that is our fault because we want the candidate to be both contemporaneous and consistent, a physical if not moral impossibility in our ever changing world.

So, I’m asking anyone who wants to volunteer. What does Fred bring to this race we cannot live without?

[edit on 6/7/2007 by donwhite]

I sometimes ask a person who exactly we is ?
If one defines we as the Republican party then Fred would offer a candidate who has widespread appeal amognst the Republican supporter base and could possible the nomination. Fred could well sell him self as the only Conservative candidate.

Note I am not saying that Fred is another Reagan.

Now assuming I'm wrong and Fred does run this time around.

In 1976, Reagan challenged incumbent President Gerald Ford in a bid to become the Republican Party's candidate for president. Ford was considered a more moderate Republican.[39]

Reagan soon established himself as the conservative candidate; like-minded organizations such as the American Conservative Union became the key components of his political base.[40]The ACU benefited from early knowledge of the changes in rules permitting PACs to contribute to campaigns, and "undertook one of the first independent, non-party campaigns on behalf of a presidential candidate," sponsoring hundreds of radio and newspaper ads contrasting Reagan's conservative views with Ford's

source

Now I grant you that Fred wouldn't be running against an incumbent but I can still make a pretty good comparison. I could see Fred supporters portraying him as the only conservative in the race and I could also see media adverts supporting the concept I just outlined. On a purely political level Fred may have to readjust his views on abortion if he is serious about running and winning under the nomination as the party favourite son.

Fred views on abortion.

In a 1994 National Political Awareness Test, Thompson checked the following responses regarding abortion:[8]

* Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.
* A woman under the age of 18 should be required to notify a parent or guardian before having an abortion.
* States should be allowed to impose mandatory waiting periods before abortions are performed.
* Congress should eliminate federal funding for clinics and medical facilities that provide abortion services.
* Congress should eliminate abortion services from any federally funded health care plan.
* Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states.

source

Hmm paying lip service to the pro life movement may not be enough to attract there political support.

Now if we is defined as the people of the USA its a differnt story .
I wont pass final judgement on what kind of leader Fred would be and quiet frankly since there is nothing to indicate that Fred is electable in 2008 so I will never get the chance to pass judgement on Fred as president unless despite his age he his testing the waters for a future run.

When the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Bush in 2000 it was the beginning of a leadership drought that has lead the US and the world down a path that if we keep going down we may not be able turn back. If the circumstances were right and Fred was elected he would be able to steady the ship and prevent it from sinking.
Could the US and the world live without Fred as an future president ?
At this stage and I am willing to keep an open mind I would have to say NO. Preventing a ship from sinking and sailing that ship across stormy water are two different things.

The question I would ask is this would the US be better after having Fred as president ?
Can you name five presidents who the US couldn't have done without ?
I could name three and the names would be debated but alas I am straying onto another topic.


On another completely differnt note IMO the US won the first Cold War when the Berlin Wall fell. However with the influence that comes with the economic rise of China and Russia rebuilding its influence in Eastern Europe in short another Cold War is on the arisen or has already began

[edit on 7-6-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 7-6-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 7-6-2007 by xpert11]

posted by xpert11
Can you name five presidents who the US couldn't have done without ? I could name three . . but alas I am straying . . [Edited by Don W]

Let’s do the easy one first. 1) George Washington. Without him, there would be no US. I offer next, the 2) John Adams who appointed our pre-eminent jurist, John Marshall as Chief Justice, who made the American judiciary what it once was and could be again. 3) Abraham Lincoln. Again, without him there would be no US. 4) Theodore Roosevelt, who was a Progressive Republican. 5) FDR, who modernized and bureaucratized America making it ready for the 21st century.

I sometimes ask who exactly are “we?” If “we” are the Republican party then Fred offers a candidacy that has wide appeal amongst the Republican base and could possibly win the nomination. Fred could well sell him self as the only Conservative candidate.

I suppose so. I wonder how he stands on budget deficits vis a vis tax cuts? Is the latter to be preferred regardless of the former? Does he regard deficits as something to be ignored? Instead of paying off the debt, now we monetize the debt which means we inflate it out of burdensomeness. About 2.75% a year will get the job done provided we can keep real growth a fraction higher. Like 3%.

Note I am not saying that Fred is another Reagan. Now assuming I'm wrong and Fred does run this time around. “In 1976, Reagan challenged incumbent President Gerald Ford in a bid to become the Republican Party's candidate for president.”

Don’t start me on Reagan. He is not my favorite person if you don’t already know.

I grant you Fred wouldn't be running against an incumbent but I can still make a comparison. I see Fred’s supporters portraying him as the only conservative in the race and I could also see media ads supporting the concept. On a purely political level Fred may have to readjust his views on abortion if he is serious about running and winning under the nomination as the party favorite son.

Mitt Romney has done that and he is still considered a contender. Fred should have no trouble “expanding” on his earlier views. But I think the single issue voter is passe in America. People are embarrassed to admit it in public today whereas in the past, they boasted of it.

Now if “we” is defined as the people of the USA it’s a different story . I won’t pass final judgement on what kind of leader Fred would be. There is nothing to indicate that Fred is elect-able in 2008. I will never get the chance to pass judgement on Fred as president. If Fred was elected he would be able to steady the ship and prevent it from sinking.

You’re calling Fred a “caretaker” president? Humph! We called Ike a caretaker president. But in 1953 a bumbling Ike along with the Dulles brothers and Kermit Roosevelt’s CIA, snafu’d in Iran while trying to pull the Brits chestnuts out of the fire, and brought us to where we are today in Iran.

In a straight line. From Iranian Prime Minister Mosaddegh to President Ahmadinejad. We converted Iran’s constitutional monarchy into an absolutist despotism which later morphed into a theocracy. Caretakers can sometimes be worse than activists. Well, not a smart activist, but beware of an ideologue zealot. And here we are in 2007. Another caretaker? No thanks. The world will not wait on us.

Could the US and the world live without Fred as an future president? The question I would ask is this would the US be better off after having Fred as president ? [Edited by Don W]

Well, as a social activist who sees many problems at home and abroad that demand immediate attention, I don’t think there is time to keep dragging our feet. Our first order of business is to settle the on-going Israel-Arab Conflict begun in 1948. That is essential to the shutting down of the ill conceived Bush43 War on Terror. Unless you put Global Warming as No. 1. Or our own problem with immigrants from south of the Rio Grande. Which problem cannot be fixed here but must be addressed there, at the source, a problem for which we are largely responsible anyway. Our eggs have hatched and are coming home to roost.

Foot Note: I bought bananas for 39 cents a pound yesterday. Do you see the significance of that? The same price for a decade. Cheapest item in the store. Where does that put the peon in Guatemala or Honduras? Is it any wonder the peons have to “go north” to keep alive?

[edit on 6/7/2007 by donwhite]

More than anything else, I'd have to say that Fred Thompson brings a better public image to the '08 race than man y of his GOP colleagues. Like Reagan before him, his media imgage is so well tuned that it will be hard to beat, if he runs. Like Reagan before him, his is articulate in a populist way that none of his competition can match.

Okay, full disclosure time. I said that Fred would not run. As we sit here now, he is being wooed pretty hard and it now seems likely that he will announce shortly after the 4th of July holiday. Word on the street is that he's already passing the hat among high-value donors with a goal of ten million dollars.

I'm not going to start reworking my political calcs until I see him actually committ. Reagan's two best assets were always his image and his oratory. He knew what Dale Carnegy knew when it came to making friends and influencing people. If Thompson gets in he will dust off that playbook and use every page of it. I have maintained for a long time now that its not enough to be telegenic. You've got to have a public image that is second to none, and an unrivaled skill in oration.

Like Reagan before him, he would have to call in the best managers if he wins becuase he won't be sharp enough on his own to make all the hard decisions by himself. I don't mind that so much. Just as no man is an island, no President is capable of being an expert on everything. Thompson knows just enough about populism to resurrect it and make it work for him.

posted by Justin Oldham

More than anything else, I'd have to say that Fred Thompson brings a better public image to the '08 race than many of his GOP colleagues. Like Reagan before him, his media image is so well tuned that it will be hard to beat, if he runs. Like Reagan before him, his is articulate in a populist way that none of his competition can match. I said Fred would not run. As we sit here, he is being wooed hard and it seems likely he will announce shortly after 4 July. Word is that he's passing the hat among high-value donors with a goal of ten million dollars.

Reagan's two best assets were his image and his oratory. He knew what Dale Carnegie knew when it came to making friends and influencing people. Thompson will dust off that play book and use every page. I have maintained that its not enough to be telegenic. You've got to have a public image that is second to none and an unrivaled skill in oration. Like Reagan he would have to call in the best managers because he won't be sharp enough to make all the decisions by himself. I don't mind that so much. Just as no man is an island, no President is capable of being an expert on everything. Thompson knows just enough about populism to resurrect it and make it work for him. [Edited by Don W]

I heard he was first elected to fill out Al Gore’s term. He then won re-election by a very large margin, I guess in ‘94, which was a GOP tide turner sparked by Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. Now many would argue it is no write home accomplishment to snooker Tennessee voters, but still, even as they demo’d in ‘06, for good or bad, they do know what they want! I don’t think Tennessee can lay claim like Ohio can to have been on the winning side in every election since 1864.

Although I admit Reagan won 2 terms in office, I have little regard for him as president or governor. I always remember him as the Welfare Cadillac man. Tapping into America’s latent racism. Unworthy of the highest office in the land in the late 20th century. He had disdain for the law and either ordered or allowed the Iran Contra Scandal right in the White House. Then he play acted a tottering old grandfather on the witness stand who remembered everything but the answers to the hard questions. Oscar quality for sure.

I suppose Fred’s laying out of the presidential merry-go-round this long yet remaining fully viable must prove the ‘08 race was stared prematurely. I think this was an unintended consequence of a campaign finance reform effort to keep track of as much money as possible. We know the serious candidates start running the day after the prior election. In other words, you start in November, ‘04 for the ‘08 race.

But that has always been the case in real life. The behind the scenes work is taken care of until the mid-term election is over. Normally the campaign stayed behind the scenes until New Hampshire and later Iowa came on in February of the election year. But not now. Instead of liberating candidates from the endless money hunt, they have only succeeded in extending it. Which is a polite way to say that everyone with a special interest who has the bucks will get a chance to “bid” or “buy” his way into the hearts and minds of America. The remaining 99.44% of us remain as pure as Ivory Snow.

Perhaps someday we’ll have publicly financed electioneering from day 1. Can you image an America where Ron Paul would have as much opportunity to be president as Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton? An America where you would not have to be named Bloomberg to think about a 3rd party? It’s hard for me even to imagine. Such a condition has never existed here, after 1789. So the Rich and Famous won the Revolutionary War after all!

[edit on 6/7/2007 by donwhite]

I suppose so. I wonder how he stands on budget deficits vis a vis tax cuts? Is the latter to be preferred regardless of the former? Does he regard deficits as something to be ignored? Instead of paying off the debt, now we monetize the debt which means we inflate it out of burdensomeness. About 2.75% a year will get the job done provided we can keep real growth a fraction higher. Like 3%.

Where to now for the Republican party ?
The Republican party has no where to go. Newt and co turned the idea of fiscal responsibility into a partisan issue in the 90s so no Republican candidate can push fiscal responsibility without being seen as to Liberal by the parties core supporter base. The party connected patriotism and supporting the troops with an dumb war and boy it took long enough but the chickens are coming home to roost. The RR influence means progress Republicans still have a hard time forging the road ahead.

The blame Clinton trick wont work any more for most of the time bush has been in office the Republican party had control of both houses.

Don’t start me on Reagan. He is not my favorite person if you don’t already know.

I figured as much. Bear in mind that I was comparing Reagan entering the 76 race to Fred possible running for the 08 ticket. There will only ever be one
Reagan .

Our first order of business is to settle the on-going Israel-Arab Conflict begun in 1948.

That conflict needs to be solved by more internal forces rather then the US but that's just my opinion.

That is essential to the shutting down of the ill conceived Bush43 War on Terror.

There is no need to put an end to the War on Terror. But US military and civilian leaders do need to use there brains currently the US military is spread to thinly which means it doesn't have the resources to win the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Unless you put Global Warming as No. 1.

We cant stop climate change but measures do need to be taken to prepare for the loss of land and to protect major cities. The lack of security at the US borders is a case of letting the grass grow under (the US ) feet.

Real leadership is required desperately before it is to late.

No one person can handle the mantel of leading a country by themselves. So there is nothing wrong with having knowledgeable advisor's to fill in some of the cracks. Problems arise when leaders like Bush are all to easily influenced by ideologically driven advisor's who not little about the subject matter.



[edit on 7-6-2007 by xpert11]

posted by xpert11[/I]

Where to now for the Republican party? The Republican party has no where to go. Newt and Co turned the idea of fiscal responsibility into a partisan issue in the 90s . . no Republican candidate can push fiscal responsibility without being seen as too Liberal by the party’s core . . The RR influence means progressive Republicans still have a hard time forging the road ahead . . There will only ever be one Reagan.

Right! Except for the first 20 months (in 2001-20003) when the Dems had a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate as Sen. Jeffords of VT changed from GOP to Independent and voted with the Dems to organize the Senate. It had been 50 to 50 with VP Cheney casting the deciding vote.

That conflict needs to be solved by more internal forces rather then the US but that's just my opinion.

That would be the best way. OTOH, I think when Ritzak Rabin was assassinated and later after the Hamas won the PA election, the possibility the 2 sides can reach an accommodation acceptable by both is very low. The Ariel Sharon faction really want all the Arabs out of the entire country. Ethnic cleansing elsewhere. The US has sufficient power with Israel and bona fides with the Palestinians that we are the only outside power that can end that war. Up to the present, it has suited our policies NOT to settle the issue. When you can’t exercise control, turmoil is next best. That way, no one else can control. That has been US policy in the ME for decades. We are protecting the despotic economic oligarchs who rule the Persian Gulf countries on our side and have contracts with ExxonMobil and TexacoChevron. The Egyptian Brotherhood and other groups like al Qaeda want us OUT of the ME.

There is no need to put an end to the War on Terror. But US military and civilian leaders do need to use their brains . . the US military is spread to thinly which means it doesn't have the resources to win the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. Real leadership is required desperately before it is to late. [Edited by Don W]

We cannot afford more military personnel - it takes 4-5 people in the back to keep one in the front - and we certainly cannot continue the more than $2 b. a week war expense. We have used up 90% of the Army and MC equipment we had prior to 2003. We have used over 50% of the National Guard equipment. It is worn out. We will leave it in Iraq. It will cost up to $100 b. to replace. This is not even mentioned. If we have another Katrina this year, we will not be able to respond.

The 15,000 seriously wounded GIs we have sustained (so far) will cost $5 b. to $10 b. a year for the next 50 years or until all of them have died. The war is now in its FIFTH year. We’re borrowing $200+ b. a year for the war now, and at 5% interest forever - we “service” the debt, we don’t pay it down - that will add $10 b. X 5 = $50 b. every year to our outlays. Even at today's inflated costs, $50 b. a year will buy a lot. But we're already spent it, so our grandchildren will get to pay that bill we should have paid. Boy, that's real character! I wish we had some.

We are at 3,504 KIA today and I only hope we come home before we pass the 4,000 mark, because they, like the 59,000 KIA in Vietnam, died in vain. I say that because we will not have MORE when we do finally leave than we could have had today. That’s called dying in vain.

[edit on 6/7/2007 by donwhite]

If we accept that the notional of small government advocacy is now dead in the United States, it will be hard-er for the GOP to re-invent itself. In a worst-case scenario, the Republicans spend a generation in the wilderness. That's 20-25 years to you and me. Their one link to the past will end up being fiscal responsibility, if that re-invent "sticks." I am reminded of the roman senate, which was not in the least bit responsible about anything during the last 140 years of the Empire.

posted by Justin Oldham

If we accept that the notion of small government advocacy is now dead in the US, it will be hard-er for the GOP to re-invent itself. [Edited by Don W]

I share the goals of the “smaller is best” advocates. I believe they share my goal of “sufficiently sized” government. We have both gone astray and our arguments tend to fall on deaf ears. We have taken “small” and “large” to be similes when they are really meant as metaphors. Get a hold on this because it is crucial to my argument following. Simile. Metaphor.

What we both really want is GOOD government but we are asking for it in different ways. I have come far away from my prior conviction that private enterprise was inherently incapable or philosophically unable to perform public functions or discharge public responsibilities. Government is not business. Rules that guide one will not necessarily guide the other. The Reagan Revolution taught me that it is I who will have to change. That I cannot expect to have it “my way or no way.” That conceptualization is no longer viable. Instead, it must become “our way.”

When I envision the concept, “small government advocacy,” I think in terms of the “level playing field” and that society can express its heart fell belief system through government in the appropriate cases. Water purity for example. Yes, air purity, too. When anyone encounters a problem meeting those standards, then instead of penalties, ways should be found to assist everyone meeting the accepted standards. Government would be a positive force, instead of a negative factor. Most of the opposition to setting good standards comes not from the standard itself, but from the economic disadvantage seen in compliance. Level playing field. Help in coming into conformity. All for the greater good. Of which time is running out.

In a worst-case scenario, the Republicans spend 20-25 years, a generation, in the wilderness. [That means out of office.] The GOP’s one link to the past will end up being fiscal responsibility . . I am reminded of the Roman Senate, which was not in the least bit responsible about anything during the last 140 years of the Empire. [Edited by Don W]

Poignant! Perceptive! Prescient! Plausible! Persuasive! What more can I can I say? I agree. But frankly, I do not see the GOP in such bad shape. It’s true that as we soured with Johnson in 1968, with the Vietnam War, so also have we soured on the Iraq War. But the Dems came back in ‘76 with a NOT spellbinding Jimmy Carter who might well have been reelected in ‘80 but for the Iran Hostage Crisis. I do not foresee a political sea change in the electorate as happened in 1932. I see the GOP dying the death of 1000 cuts, not being decapitated. From which they can resurrect all the easier if the Dems FLOP!

[edit on 6/8/2007 by donwhite]

The Republican party has too much infrastructure to dry up and blow away. Assuming that fiscal conservancy is the only bedrock principle to survive, we could end up seeing a GOP that looks more like that old school Eastern Establish. If that's the case, right-wing Democrats wouldh ave no trouble forming coalitions in the House and Senate when they felt the need.

I've also come to a new epipheny. Starting in 2010, you'll see the religious right begin a long slow slide into historical villainy. More on that as thought solidify.

Which is unaffordable the War on Terror or the US politicians spending unaffordable ?
In terms of the War on Terror a lot of money is spend on the corporate gravy train unnecessary. Since I have covered the ground about the Free Market already I wont go there again. If we stop the War on Terror we will end up living in an Islamic state and that isnt something I want.

So far it’s about $600 b. down the tube, Afghan has returned to its old poppy growing days under the Brits. Afghan is referred to by the talking heads as a “failed narc state.” I don’t know what makes them say “failed” as it looks to me as if it is a great success. More acreage in poppies than ever before. Value to the Afghan farmers over $3 b. which is more than ever. Any nincompoop who calls that “failed” needs to buy a Websters. We conned NATO to bail us out in Afghan, but after the ‘08 election, they will be calling their men back home. It will be up to Gen. Lute to fix.

I don’t even want to go to the American Quagmire in the Iraq Civil War which is now featuring a SURGE in American KIAs. Which is called “partial success” by our Maximum Leaders. Wow! I surely hope we never see anything they would admit is a failure. I really do hope we can look back in ‘09 or ‘10 and say “Ah, at least they (the KIAs) accomplished something!” I really hope we don’t have to say it was “more of the same” as we suffered in Vietnam, just fewer I overall numbers. But when you are dead, it matters not how many others there are, does it?

If Americans really loved their country, they would demand a 30% surtax on all incomes over $100,000 to pay for this War as we go along. And not continue to pass it off on our grandchildren. The nastiest tax
shift imaginable. Paying as we went in War 2 is one major reason our economy flourished in the immediate post war period. But hey, that was the Greatest Generation. If the Baby Boomers had been in charge then, we’d still be paying for War 2. And Cuban cars would make ours look bad.

[edit on 6/9/2007 by donwhite]

The next president will need to deal with the misadventure in Iraq. The Iraq misadventure isnt a death kneel to the War on Terror. If the Dems win the White House in 08 the US will withdraw from Iraq so that will mean that funds that would have been spend in Iraq could be diverted to building infrastructure. Until Afghans in rural areas can access markets they will continue to grow poppy's because they can get the best price and the buyer comes to them.

If a quarter of the money that has been spend on the Iraq misadventure had been spend on building the likes of roads in Afghanistan far more progress would have been made in the War on Terror. Don the idea has occurred to me that the free world should set a goal of defeating Islamic extremism within say ten years and go on a complete war footing like nations did in WW2. It wont happen but its worth thinking about and its a topic for another thread as well.

In the unlikely event that a Republincan becomes President in 2009, we will still see a de-escalation in Iraq. I'm not convinced that a total withdrawl would be in our best interests, but I can see how it would happen. Because the Bush administration has done such a bad job of selling, explaining, and justifying this war, the next President...whoever that is...will gain great gobs of political capital by putting an end to that mission.

If Republicans are astue and more than a little patient, they can in the short run hang a defeatist label on the Democrats that will take a few years towear off. I thinkthat future historians will get wise that to that, and the factual record will stand. the simple fat isthat it will take a full-scale re-invention without exoneration to reposition the Republican party for power later in this century.