Scenario for 2008?


PDA






Texpatriate
October 5, 2005, 11:24 AM
Interesting to think about but perhaps the elephants will forget their anger. I like to think about long term big picture things. The conservative talking heads are all hacked at Bush right now over Harriet Miers- Limbaugh, Colter, and even George F. Will- the list goes on. It remains to be seen whether she will survive confirmation, but will this frustration fire up the Republican base in 2008 (a long time from now addmitedly) to the point that they will nominate an ultra-conservative along the lines of Pat Buchanon or Barry Goldwater? And if in so doing, will this cause moderates to jump ship and elect Hilary? In my experiece conservative republican voters tend to be a lot less forgetful than their liberal democrat counterparts.

If you enjoyed reading about "Scenario for 2008?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
NCP24
October 5, 2005, 11:35 AM
The Hilary Beast yuck!!!!! Lets hope not.

longeyes
October 5, 2005, 11:49 AM
Politics is called the art of the possible for good reason. If you want to exert power you need to compromise. Up to a point. The question for '08 is what will those of us on the Right be asked to give up in order to "keep power?" We thought, ironically, we HAD power when Bush was elected, TWICE, but it's become apparent that the values we expected to see promoted and strengthened are becoming phantasmal. There are trends in this country that need to be stopped, not merely absorbed or domesticated, otherwise we won't recognize America in a few years. Illegal immigration is one issue. The implications of Kelo are another. Promiscuous governmental debting is yet another. Many others. A third party, farther to the right, would be no surprise.

charby
October 5, 2005, 11:54 AM
Please don't paint me as a commie...

I think Hillary would be an effective president, she really isn't as screaming leftist as people paint her to be, granted she isn't a strong second amendment supporter mainly because she doesn't have the knowledge that we have a bout firearms, I think this applies to most of the folks who support gun laws. Hillary's downfall is that she has a Y chromosome and that will not allow her to be elected to deep rooted prejudice in all segments of society.

Really what America needs for out leadership is a progressive movement that encapsulates the best things about conservative and liberal ideals.

There needs to be smaller more effective government

A effective environmental/conservation movement

A sense of community among all Americans but allow individualism to grow

Industries such as media and utilities need to be regulated again, get a lot more smaller groups owning less than a few owning large segments

Earnings needs to be more balanced between upper management and the rest of the workers, a spirit of entrepenurialism needs to be pushed

Illegal immigration needs to be stopped

People need to be held accountable for their actions

A strong need to keep religion out the government

A push to encourage parents to teach there children

A way to stop generations of welfare recipients

Hold elected officials responsible for mistakes

My two cents worth

Charby

idakfan
October 5, 2005, 12:16 PM
I think Hillary would be an effective president, she really isn't as screaming leftist as people paint her to be, granted she isn't a strong second amendment supporter mainly because she doesn't have the knowledge that we have a bout firearms, I think this applies to most of the folks who support gun laws. Hillary's downfall is that she has a Y chromosome and that will not allow her to be elected to deep rooted prejudice in all segments of society.

Really what America needs for out leadership is a progressive movement that encapsulates the best things about conservative and liberal ideals.

1. There needs to be smaller more effective government

A effective environmental/conservation movement

A sense of community among all Americans but allow individualism to grow

Industries such as media and utilities need to be regulated again, get a lot more smaller groups owning less than a few owning large segments

Earnings needs to be more balanced between upper management and the rest of the workers, a spirit of entrepenurialism needs to be pushed

2. Illegal immigration needs to be stopped

People need to be held accountable for their actions

A strong need to keep religion out the government

3. A push to encourage parents to teach there children

A way to stop generations of welfare recipients

Hold elected officials responsible for mistakes

My two cents worth

Charby



1. Klinton for smaller Gov? I Believe It!
2. Klinton for closed Southern border? I Belive It!
3. Klinton for private/home schooling instead of Gov. Indoctrination Camps? I Belive It!

Hillary in 2008 people. You heard it here, SHE'S NOT SO BAD!

:uhoh:

NCP24
October 5, 2005, 12:27 PM
Hillary in 2008 people. You heard it here, SHE'S NOT SO BAD!Yes she is the Hilary Beast yuck!!!!!

thereisnospoon
October 5, 2005, 12:32 PM
Longeyes +1

longeyes
October 5, 2005, 12:46 PM
Hillary is the answer.

To the wrong question.

Henry Bowman
October 5, 2005, 01:05 PM
but it's become apparent that the values we expected to see promoted and strengthened are becoming phantasmal. I recently had an oppotunity to speak personally with Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), Senate Majority Whip. He confirmed that the majority in the Senate is a fragile one. There is not a conservative majority, just a majority of Senators with an "R" after their name. As Republican Whip his power over the other Rep members "is all carrot and no stick."

He described the Senate as "100 people all of whom were their class president." The misbehavers get the Whip's attention and those who tow the conservative line get jealouse. The "gang of 14" 7 Ds and 7 Rs) have shown their power. There are enough liberal Republicans who, if discounted, would eliminate the Rep majority. Likewise, there are enough moderate Dems that they could break any pseudo-fillibuster.*

His advice: Don't focus on getting rid of the RINOs. Focus on replacing the Democrat Senators in solidly red states. This would move the Repub majority over 60% and make the conservatives closer to 50%.



*There hasn't been an actual fillibuster in more than a decade.

gc70
October 5, 2005, 01:09 PM
Hillary really isn't a screaming leftist - she's more of an old-style communist.

She also doesn't look as comfortable trying to wear the middle-of-the-road disguise as Bill did, although she will fool some people.

Camp David
October 5, 2005, 01:22 PM
I think Hillary would be an effective president

ME TOO! That way she can return to the White House the furniture she stole earlier! :o

Waitone
October 5, 2005, 01:35 PM
We will see what 2008 looks like by looking at 2006. If Bush doesn't straighten up and fly right according to the dictates of his base, there will be no republican domination in congress in 2006 and the presidency is in doubt in 2008. Chances of democrats making gains by themselves are slim. They will make their gains when the republican base says, "that's it, I'm through." Throughout his first and into his second term, BushRove driving point is "Where they gonna go?" Well, it now is apparent that sticking with republicans is implementing the democrat's agenda. The next step is to dispense with imitation democrats in favor of the real McCoy.

Perhaps the best thing to happen to Bush would be for Miers to be rejected by republicans. Bush will have option but listen because at that point the prospects of his party are in danger. The man has PO'd entirely too many of his supporters. It can not continue.

Lone_Gunman
October 5, 2005, 01:41 PM
If Bush doesn't straighten up and fly right according to the dictates of his base, there will be no republican domination in congress in 2006 and the presidency is in doubt in 2008.


They have already lost me, and it doesn't matter what Bush does at this point. I will either vote Democrat (if they run a moderate), or not at all.

HankB
October 5, 2005, 01:47 PM
I intensely dislike Hillary. But consider this: in some recent public statements, she's actually positioned herself to the right of George Bush on issues like illegal immigration and border security.

What does that say about "our" man who defeated John Kerry?

Correia
October 5, 2005, 01:56 PM
Hank, it says that Hillary is the smarter politician.

Her senate record is actually very conservative. Because she is smart, and learned from Kerry's mistakes. She is a communist to the pit of her black shrivelled soul.

She would be an effective president, if you define effective as calculating and evil.

charby
October 5, 2005, 02:09 PM
Hillary is not a communist, she is full of socialist ideas. Just making a correction.

If the GOP puts another Good Ol' Boy up for President I might consider voting for the other party. I voted for W on both elections, I don't regret my choice but lately I have been pretty disenchanted with the course he has been taking.

charby
October 5, 2005, 02:18 PM
dup... to quick with mouse click

USAFNoDAk
October 5, 2005, 03:48 PM
If the GOP puts another Good Ol' Boy up for President I might consider voting for the other party. I voted for W on both elections, I don't regret my choice but lately I have been pretty disenchanted with the course he has been taking.


I also think that Bush is alienating his base, and has been doing so for some time. His only redeeming qualities seem to have been that he enacted the tax cuts and was not afraid of world opinion in taking down Saddam. I think his first Supreme Court pick was adequate, but not necessarily excellent. We don't necessarily know about the second pick at this time.

Govt. has grown tremendously under Bush. He was luke warm on the elimination of the AWB, and even publicly stated that he supported it at one point in time during his first campaign.

He has put forth a huge new entitlement program in prescription drugs for SR.'s. He has increased spending on education and glad handed Teddy the Bull Frog Kennedy in the process.

He has all but abandoned any plans of reforming SS.

I don't necessarily kick my self in the kiester for voting for him (twice), but I am scratching my head more and more everyday wondering how he has been good for conservative ideologies.

TallPine
October 5, 2005, 04:11 PM
otherwise we won't recognize America in a few years
I already don't recognize it anymore .... :(

charby
October 5, 2005, 04:57 PM
Perhaps the best thing to happen to Bush would be for Miers to be rejected by republicans. Bush will have option but listen because at that point the prospects of his party are in danger. The man has PO'd entirely too many of his supporters. It can not continue

Problem is that he doesn't listen when he is being told he isn't doing the right thing.

longhorngunman
October 5, 2005, 09:47 PM
Hard to push things like SS reform through when you have a majority on paper but no real support from the congresscritters. Like Bowman said our "Republican" senators are all a bunch of me first, number 1 quarterback types, when actually we and the president need some down and dirty offensive lineman in there. With me it's an open book on Miers, actually the more I hear the more I like Bush's choice. Sad to face reality but if my personal favorite, Judge Janice Rogers Brown had been selected the Dems would have torn her apart with her past comments and our linguini-spined RINOS would not have voted for her. Those who say Bush is not a true conservative are absolutely right, but he is as close to a conservative as we can get in this ever socialist leaning country of ours. When he ran in 2000, it wasn't as a Reagan conservative but as a "compassionate conservative" :rolleyes: and that is exactly what we got. His leadership on the WOT which is a multi-front war has been superb though and even better than I imagined he would do.

longeyes
October 5, 2005, 09:54 PM
I'll say it again: We are the minority and need to think of how to protect the legacy of the Founding Fathers. That means reinforcing states' rights and, if necessary, working to create some form of regional autonomy. Does that sound extreme, crazy? Maybe. I just don't see "a unified America" meaning anything but a continuing slide toward a centrally-controlled welfare state that will put people like us into de facto subjugation.

TamThompson
October 5, 2005, 10:42 PM
Hope y'all don't mind just a little bit of nit picking, but in the original post I think what the author meant was that Hillary LACKS a Y chromosone, not that she has one. Women have XX, men have XY.

Rufus Pisanus
October 5, 2005, 10:53 PM
originally posted by charby:

I think Hillary would be an effective president

I have a bridge to sell you...It's in her "home" state in fact!

She is - unfortunately for us - smart. It is clear that her senate seat it's only a jumping board for something better. She is purely and simply an actor trying to show people with a short memory - and that have forgotten her initiatives in CLinton's first term, the book "It takes a village" etc - that she is not ultra liberal but rather mainstream. She even waved shotguns when campaigning in New York. I am sure we would see a lot of her hunting but, being smart (unlike Kerry), she would take a class first...

Standing Wolf
October 5, 2005, 11:25 PM
Which ones are the Republicrats again? Are you sure the Democans aren't in the majority? I can't tell them apart even with a score card.

ctdonath
October 5, 2005, 11:35 PM
charby,
Hillary has made it clear that she is an extreme left-wing socialist, all the way from her doctoral thesis right thru "It Takes A Village" and her tenure as 1st Lady. Her recent "conservative" leanings are, to anyone following her, a front - she's doing exactly what she needs to do, saying exactly what she needs to say, to win enough votes to become President. She has learned from the mistakes of her predecessors, and is not saying what she believes precisely because doing so will scare off voters.

Having observed her antics for years, she is indeed a flaming leftist. Gender has nothing to do with it.

Put simply: Hillary is a complete liar, saying ANYTHING to win. 40% of voters will vote for her blindly; she just needs to persuade 6% of voters to go her way - and those "moderates" are best swayed by conservative words (regardless of stark proof she doesn't believe anything "conservative" she says).

BTW: NOTHING she has ever said/done indicates the slightest support for the 2nd Amendment. Armed citizens historically tend to be a problem for would-be tyrants like her.

No_Brakes23
October 6, 2005, 12:32 AM
Which ones are the Republicrats again? Are you sure the Democans aren't in the majority? I can't tell them apart even with a score card. +1.

Used to be you could count on telling the difference by which rights they attack. No anymore. We have Republicans who hate guns and Democrats who hate free speech.

longeyes
October 6, 2005, 01:38 AM
Hillary is the spiritual daughter of Saul Alinsky. Elect her and you will get Che in a pants suit.

from wikipedia:

Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 Chicago, Illinois - June 12, 1972 Carmel, California) is generally considered the father of community organizing. A criminologist by training, Alinsky in the 1930s organized the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago (made famous by Upton Sinclair's The Jungle). He went on to found the Industrial Areas Foundation while organizing the Woodlawn neighborhood, which trained organizers and assisted in the founding of community organizations around the country. In Rules for Radicals (his final work, published one year before his death), he addressed the 1960s generation of radicals, outlining his views on organizing for mass power. A young Hillary Clinton was a major admirer, writing her undergraduate thesis on his work and ideas.

Author of Reveille for Radicals, Alinsky encouraged controversy and conflict, often to the dismay of middle-class activists who otherwise would sponsor his activism. [1] Alinsky is often credited with laying the foundation for confrontational political tactics that dominated the 1960s [2], but late in his life he encouraged holders of stock in public corporations to lend their votes to "proxies" who would vote at annual stockholders meetings in favor of social justice. While his confrontational style took hold in American activism, for a while at least, his call to stock holders to share their power with disenfranchised working poor never took hold in U.S. progressive circles.

Alinsky was a ferocious critic of mainstream liberalism. A champion of radical propaganda tactics and propaganda techniques, Alinsky encouraged deception in organizational strategy.

USSR
October 6, 2005, 08:34 AM
...will this frustration fire up the Republican base in 2008 (a long time from now addmitedly) to the point that they will nominate an ultra-conservative along the lines of Pat Buchanon or Barry Goldwater?

And this conservative Republican nominee would be _____? That's the problem we Republicans face in 2008 - nobody around to pick up the conservative mantle. Here is what I believe will happen: the Republican nominee will be a moderate, guys like some of the ones whose posts I have read on this site will either vote for the Dem nominee or throw their vote away on a third party candidate, and the Democrats will take the White House in 2008. Very seldom do you get to vote for what you perceive as a good candidate; most times you have to hold your nose with one hand and pull the lever with the other.

Don

bogie
October 6, 2005, 09:09 AM
What will happen in 2008?

It's already happening. The "Anyone But Bush" campaign is up and running, because it hasn't stopped. It'll spread to _any_ Republican running. Read half the posts on this board, ferchrissake. "Oh, whine, whine, not good enough, either vote for third party or moderate democrat."

The Democratic Underground folks want us to vote third party. In fact, I'd be surprised if there weren't a few offices paid for by the Democrats that are staffed entirely with folks who do nothing but troll conservative message boards with that message.

Lone_Gunman
October 6, 2005, 10:52 AM
If the Democrats run Richardson, there will be a lot of Republicans that cross over and vote for him.

rick_reno
October 6, 2005, 11:03 AM
Miss Hillary's major problem is she polarizes the populace. I believe the people are getting tired of politicians who do this (BushRove included), and will look for a uniter in 2008. Richardson might be able to do that for the Democrats, he doesn't appear to generate the hate that Hillary is capable of producing. McCain will be pitched as that person for the Republicans.
Like others have pointed out, if Bush doesn't find his footing and get back on track - the Republicans can kiss 2008 goodbye.

USSR
October 6, 2005, 11:48 AM
rick,

Agree with you that McCain will probably be the standard bearer for the Republicans in 2008. However, not sure that Richardson can woe the liberal Dem stalwarts who vote in the primaries. Hillary has been positioning herself in the center since becoming a Senator, because she knows that the left will support her in the primaries and she needs to appear to be seen as a moderate for the general election. Not sure that Richardson can move to the left to overtake her in the primaries, while still being percieved as a moderate.

Don

ctdonath
October 6, 2005, 12:38 PM
Miss Hillary's major problem is she polarizes the populace.What problem? So long as she gets 50.01% percent of the vote, she's happy. Considering only:
- 70% of eligible citizens are registered to vote
- about 50% of those actually show up to vote
- about 45% of those who vote will pick the Democrat no matter what
that leaves Hillary needing to sway a remarkably small number of people to choose her.
Polarized? so what? say the right words to 2% of the population and she's in.

longeyes
October 6, 2005, 01:06 PM
There is NO CANDIDATE who can effectively govern the United States as we stand today. This is the result of cultural balkanization, growing moral fecklessness, and the spreading disease of vicarious living-cum-escapism. We may be in WW III, as Bush would aver, but most Americans are in denial or can't be bothered. Fifty years of spiritual self-disembowelment, at all levels, has left our body politic weak, confused, dismembered. What we do to regain our integrity and strength I leave to others to say. It may take a tragedy or two to wake us up.

charby
October 6, 2005, 01:40 PM
charby,
Hillary has made it clear that she is an extreme left-wing socialist, all the way from her doctoral thesis right thru "It Takes A Village" and her tenure as 1st Lady. Her recent "conservative" leanings are, to anyone following her, a front - she's doing exactly what she needs to do, saying exactly what she needs to say, to win enough votes to become President. She has learned from the mistakes of her predecessors, and is not saying what she believes precisely because doing so will scare off voters. .

Probably why she has been taking a moderate to slighty conservative stance lately.

Having observed her antics for years, she is indeed a flaming leftist. Gender has nothing to do with it. .

Has lots to do with it, there are a lot of people out there, male and female that do not want a woman in charge. These people would come out in droves to vote.

Put simply: Hillary is a complete liar, saying ANYTHING to win. 40% of voters will vote for her blindly; she just needs to persuade 6% of voters to go her way - and those "moderates" are best swayed by conservative words (regardless of stark proof she doesn't believe anything "conservative" she says).

Every politician above a certain level will lie out their teeth to get elected.

BTW: NOTHING she has ever said/done indicates the slightest support for the 2nd Amendment. Armed citizens historically tend to be a problem for would-be tyrants like her.

I never did say she was, just I can't see her going out and perserving any gun rights, I can see her being very partisan on any form of gun control.

I also didn't say that I supported her in being president, I just stated she would probably make a good president, we don't have to agree 100% with someone to make a good president, some of our better presidents were not what we on the THR would consider a candidate of our choosing.

Charby

longeyes
October 6, 2005, 01:54 PM
"Has lots to do with it, there are a lot of people out there, male and female that do not want a woman in charge. These people would come out in droves to vote."

As would the droves who would like nothing better than a woman.

Do you think Bush could beat Oprah?

Otherguy Overby
October 6, 2005, 04:07 PM
charby

Hillary is not a communist, she is full of socialist ideas. Just making a correction.


Might I ask: Isn't a "socialist" just another term for "useful idiot"? IOW, when they get the socialism (communism) they want, some other "correct thinker" will decide they are no longer good for the collective.

PC Speak would be: "their ideas and ideals have failed to progress beyond the revolution."

IOW, it may be only a small satisfaction to the last of the Americans that the enablers of communism will not live long after patriots.


If the GOP puts another Good Ol' Boy up for President I might consider voting for the other party. I voted for W on both elections, I don't regret my choice but lately I have been pretty disenchanted with the course he has been taking.

Did it ever occur to you that George Bush might not be a "good ole boy"? Why not just go ask some "good ol' boys" their opinion?

Standing Wolf
October 6, 2005, 04:38 PM
Fifty years of spiritual self-disembowelment, at all levels, has left our body politic weak, confused, dismembered. What we do to regain our integrity and strength I leave to others to say. It may take a tragedy or two to wake us up.

Longeyes, once again, I'm afraid you may be right.

R.H. Lee
October 6, 2005, 04:52 PM
Ditto to what Waitone and Lone Gunman said up until the time Lone Gunman said he'd vote for Bill Richardson :barf: Whoever the Dems run you can bet the Republicans and their lapdogs will proclaim it to be 'the most important election in our lifetimes....blah, blah, yackety quack et nauseum'. I've been voting Republican for the last 37 years, out of which Republicans have occupied the Whitehouse, what, 24 of those 37 years? Now they've got the Whitehouse and BOTH houses of Congress and they still veer and pander to the left. They've run out of time, out of excuses. Republicans represent me better when they're out of power. I will either vote third party or not at all come 2008, unless there is a sharp and I mean 180 turnaround by the Republican party.

Ok. I'm done. :o

charby
October 6, 2005, 04:56 PM
Did it ever occur to you that George Bush might not be a "good ole boy"? Why not just go ask some "good ol' boys" their opinion?

Not that he is the proverbal county thinking person, but the fact that he put his friends and campaign doners into higher govermental positions, I know all presidents are guilty of this a some level. If it wasn't for W's daddy he wouldn't have amounted to crap in his life.

And to put the record striaght I am a registed Republican, normally vote striaght ticket too, but I am kind of fed up at how my party and the other party has headed in the last couple of years.

StopTheGrays
October 6, 2005, 05:13 PM
And this conservative Republican nominee would be _____?

How about Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour? So long as the recovery of his state continues he may be able to use it as a springboard to higher office. I am not certain of his personal politics though. Does anyone know at least his positions on the RKBA?

Otherguy Overby
October 6, 2005, 05:18 PM
Nepotism is a survival trait.

Charby:
Not that he is the proverbal county thinking person, but the fact that he put his friends and campaign doners into higher govermental positions, I know all presidents are guilty of this a some level. If it wasn't for W's daddy he wouldn't have amounted to crap in his life.


Need I say more? :)

And to put the record striaght I am a registed Republican, normally vote striaght ticket too, but I am kind of fed up at how my party and the other party has headed in the last couple of years.

I admire your principles, my friend, but if you take a dump in one hand and hope for something better in your other hand...

We've entered. All hope is lost.

charby
October 6, 2005, 05:35 PM
Yeah I know about the hand thing, but as much as I bitch and moan about everything, I am glad that I am an American and live here, beats the alternative.

TallPine
October 6, 2005, 07:13 PM
If it wasn't for W's daddy he wouldn't have amounted to crap in his life.
Actually, I don't think his daddy has been all that much help in that regard ;) :p

GWB pretty much did amount to crap, IMO :neener:

If you enjoyed reading about "Scenario for 2008?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!