scurtis_34471
Member
Newt is too cozy with the Christian Coalition psychos and THAT I can live without. In my experience, the Christian Right is neither.
2008 Pres candidates?
- Thread starter Marshall
- Start date
- Status
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
Seeing as how Ron Paul would never have a shot, whatsoever, Tom Tancredo. Although he voted for Patriot Act, he hasn't been questioned as to why as far as I've heard. He is extremely pro-gun, and he is definitely more Conservative than most of the jackaholes currently being looked at. And amnesty is the most important issue to our national sovreignty as of right now.
Diamondback6
Member
Yeah, but Condi's already said "I don't want the job".
TheHardcase
Member
Probably not. He's too threatening to the globalist agenda of both parties, and he's too much his own man to play ball with the multi-national corporations who write the checks and call the shots.
Still, he got my vote in 2004 and will get it in '08 if the new electronic ballots in California allow for a write in. I'm through voting for the lesser of two evils. You can see how well it worked out on Tuesday.
ETXhiker
Member
Sadly, my prediction is Rudy vs. Hillary. Almost screwed vs, totally screwed.
Can'thavenuthingood
Member
Just read an interview http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/tancredo.php with Tancredo, I hadn't heard of the National Council of Resistance (NCR), a political arm of the Mujahedin-e Kalq (MEK).... Its in opposition to Iran's president Ahmanutjob. Odd that the mainstream media hadn't picked up on it. Maybe not.
I agree immigration is probably going to be the issue that gets the next President elected. That will depend I suppose on how many illegal immigrants are granted the right to vote. Or achieve citizenship by the Congress lowering the bar over the next 2 years.
I'd vote for Tancredo however I have not seen or heard much from him on other issues. Of course the MSM has been having a BushHillaryfest and virtually everything else is lost in the sausage.
I think when looking at a Presidential candidate, one has to look at he/she from the Democrats point of view. Meaning how are they going to defeat or destroy them? Which is what they do. I think even now the dems are setting out to destroy all conservative people who might raise their head above the fray and make a run at the job. It seemed to be a successful tactic this last midterm cycle attacking the opposition and not voicing a better idea.
Condi Rice I believe has several sights centered on her forehead waiting for Hillary to order the shot. All Condi has to do is look like she might be taking actions as a candidate and she will be destroyed. Whether true or not one has to defend against accusations taking time away from the message. The Democrats grinding machine has proven to be effective in winning by default ever since the Clintons showed up on the scene.
Now Waxman, Pelosi, Shumer and Kennedy are going to ensure a constant nightly barrage of fingerpointing, accusations, charges, investigations, subversive plots uncovered and the destruction of the Republican party. Say it often enough and it becomes the truth.
McCain to me is untrustworthy. He is too much like a loose cannon, ya never know which way he is going to go. I see him as a the same critter as Hillary, positioning himself for the best support rather than taking a position thats good for America and standing tall to defend it. He has used up his POW status capital long ago, he's just power hungry. And he oppose's Tancredo's thoughts on immigration.
I'd like a guy like Fred Thompson, more outside the DC loop. A straight shooter and asks the questions regardless of answers. He went back to acting on Law & Order.
Tancredo and Rice in any combination may be a good ticket. But Rice is Bush as far as the MSM and dems will project it and anything Bush is a loser. Thats a tough one to overcome, the proof is last tuesdays results. And Tancredo has to overcome or beat back McCain who seems to be admired by the opposition.
I agree with Biker that immigration and the associated security problems are going to be a big concern. But if it is downplayed in the news outlets that most people watch or read, the Tancredo's messages will be minimized.
Like the opposition faction in Iran referenced above giving headaches to Ahmanutjob, if we don't see it on or in the news, it doesn't exist.
A genuine Conservative has to be out there somewhere.
Vick
I agree immigration is probably going to be the issue that gets the next President elected. That will depend I suppose on how many illegal immigrants are granted the right to vote. Or achieve citizenship by the Congress lowering the bar over the next 2 years.
I'd vote for Tancredo however I have not seen or heard much from him on other issues. Of course the MSM has been having a BushHillaryfest and virtually everything else is lost in the sausage.
I think when looking at a Presidential candidate, one has to look at he/she from the Democrats point of view. Meaning how are they going to defeat or destroy them? Which is what they do. I think even now the dems are setting out to destroy all conservative people who might raise their head above the fray and make a run at the job. It seemed to be a successful tactic this last midterm cycle attacking the opposition and not voicing a better idea.
Condi Rice I believe has several sights centered on her forehead waiting for Hillary to order the shot. All Condi has to do is look like she might be taking actions as a candidate and she will be destroyed. Whether true or not one has to defend against accusations taking time away from the message. The Democrats grinding machine has proven to be effective in winning by default ever since the Clintons showed up on the scene.
Now Waxman, Pelosi, Shumer and Kennedy are going to ensure a constant nightly barrage of fingerpointing, accusations, charges, investigations, subversive plots uncovered and the destruction of the Republican party. Say it often enough and it becomes the truth.
McCain to me is untrustworthy. He is too much like a loose cannon, ya never know which way he is going to go. I see him as a the same critter as Hillary, positioning himself for the best support rather than taking a position thats good for America and standing tall to defend it. He has used up his POW status capital long ago, he's just power hungry. And he oppose's Tancredo's thoughts on immigration.
I'd like a guy like Fred Thompson, more outside the DC loop. A straight shooter and asks the questions regardless of answers. He went back to acting on Law & Order.
Tancredo and Rice in any combination may be a good ticket. But Rice is Bush as far as the MSM and dems will project it and anything Bush is a loser. Thats a tough one to overcome, the proof is last tuesdays results. And Tancredo has to overcome or beat back McCain who seems to be admired by the opposition.
I agree with Biker that immigration and the associated security problems are going to be a big concern. But if it is downplayed in the news outlets that most people watch or read, the Tancredo's messages will be minimized.
Like the opposition faction in Iran referenced above giving headaches to Ahmanutjob, if we don't see it on or in the news, it doesn't exist.
A genuine Conservative has to be out there somewhere.
Vick
TheHardcase
Member
Totally screwed would be McCain vs. Hillary. If that happens it would be time to turn out the lights, because the party would definitely be over.
Langenator
Member
Thompson at the top of the ticket, with the current governor of SC, Sanford IIRC, as understudy/VP/successor.
My prediction is that the Dems will come up with someone that seems reasonable to much of America (but is still a statist) and the Reps will come up with someone that even the party loyal has to hold their nose to vote for.
Right or wrong, a lot of America doesnt see it this way, and noone is going to get elected on this issue all by itself.
Right or wrong, a lot of America doesnt see it this way, and noone is going to get elected on this issue all by itself.
MN. Governor Tim Pawlenty.
He just won a second term here in MN. His name has been mentioned as a possible candidate.
He twice signed shall issue legislation into law here. He also signed a range protection bill into law.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/outdoor_activities/shooting_ranges/range_law_q&a.pdf
http://www.patrickruffini.com/2008wire/index.php?c=Pawlenty
http://www.governor.state.mn.us/
http://timpawlenty.campaignoffice.com/
He just won a second term here in MN. His name has been mentioned as a possible candidate.
He twice signed shall issue legislation into law here. He also signed a range protection bill into law.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/outdoor_activities/shooting_ranges/range_law_q&a.pdf
http://www.patrickruffini.com/2008wire/index.php?c=Pawlenty
http://www.governor.state.mn.us/
http://timpawlenty.campaignoffice.com/
TooTaxed
Member
McCain is the one who muzzled the NRA with his campaign reform bill...which the Democrats just loved. NO WAY!!:banghead:
Would much prefer Condi Rice as a candidate...highly intelligent, tough, thorougly pro-gun.
Would much prefer Condi Rice as a candidate...highly intelligent, tough, thorougly pro-gun.
PotatoJudge
Member
Alan Keyes. I like a guy who'll actually give straight answes in a debate. I think if he became president, he'd be quoted as much as Jefferson and Lincoln.
"...the 2nd Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our hearts' content. This is not to say that hunting rabbits and turkeys for the family dinner, or defending against dangers, were not anticipated uses for firearms, particularly on the frontier -- this is true. But above all, the Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights." -- Dr. Alan Keyes
"Are we still raising young people who will be emboldened by the truth of human equality to fight for their liberty? Will they resist the temptation to give in to the cowardly behavior that allows tyrants to reign? Will they have the courage to resist tyranny -- particularly when it offers the kind of comfortable servitude that our era of material abundance makes possible?" -- Dr. Alan Keyes
And ArmedBear's sig:
"Do we really think that a government-dominated education is going to produce citizens capable of dominating their government, as the education of a truly vigilant self-governing people requires?" - Alan Keyes
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Alan_Keyes_Gun_Control.htm
If you vote 2A, I don't see how you could do better.
That being said, many people think that he would impose his religious beliefs on others. Others might say he's adhering to the moral principles on which the country was founded- not Christianity per say, which after decades of moral decline in this country are labelled "puritanical," "theocratic," or some other form of name calling.
At least it'd be nice to have a well spoken president.
"...the 2nd Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our hearts' content. This is not to say that hunting rabbits and turkeys for the family dinner, or defending against dangers, were not anticipated uses for firearms, particularly on the frontier -- this is true. But above all, the Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights." -- Dr. Alan Keyes
"Are we still raising young people who will be emboldened by the truth of human equality to fight for their liberty? Will they resist the temptation to give in to the cowardly behavior that allows tyrants to reign? Will they have the courage to resist tyranny -- particularly when it offers the kind of comfortable servitude that our era of material abundance makes possible?" -- Dr. Alan Keyes
And ArmedBear's sig:
"Do we really think that a government-dominated education is going to produce citizens capable of dominating their government, as the education of a truly vigilant self-governing people requires?" - Alan Keyes
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Alan_Keyes_Gun_Control.htm
If you vote 2A, I don't see how you could do better.
That being said, many people think that he would impose his religious beliefs on others. Others might say he's adhering to the moral principles on which the country was founded- not Christianity per say, which after decades of moral decline in this country are labelled "puritanical," "theocratic," or some other form of name calling.
At least it'd be nice to have a well spoken president.
NewShooter
Member
Condi vs. Hillary = catfight 
The_Antibubba
Member
I've heard the name of Chuck Hagel tossed about.
Glockfan.45
member
I doubt the Reps will be running anyone with the Bush name anytime soon
. Jeb would have as much of a chance at election as a paper dog would in chasing an asbestos cat through hell. I have had the feeling Newt may make a run at it but I would expect him to be a third party/independent canidate. Certianly we will see the Dems run something awful like Clinton/Obama/Liberman . I would love to see Rice in office but I cant see that as realistic (sadly I feel color would be an issue still today). I honestly expect McCain or Juliani 
to be the Rep ticket. They will want to be as far from Bush as possible in their choice.The Real Hawkeye
member
Tom Tancredo (R-CO).
Fletchette
Member
Condi!
I agree! She should have been the first one mentioned!
Condi quotes:
I agree! She should have been the first one mentioned!
Condi quotes:
Last edited:
fantacmet
Member
Well of the possibilities all I gotta say so far is NOT HILLARY NOT HILLARY NOT HILLARY!!!!!!!
Cattle_Dog
Member
I would like to see New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson make a run.
Langenator
Member
Richardson on the Dem side would be interesting...however, given that he was part of BJ Clinton's team, I doubt he'd run against the Hildebeast. Might show up as her Veep, however.
However, I think he's one of those "gun control should be up to the states" types...ie, it doesn't fly in NM, so he doesn't push it there, but he won't upset the apple cart in NY, MA, and the PRK.
How the Dems who think gun control should be up to the states but think everything else should be up to the deal with the cognitive dissonance, I don't know.
However, I think he's one of those "gun control should be up to the states" types...ie, it doesn't fly in NM, so he doesn't push it there, but he won't upset the apple cart in NY, MA, and the PRK.
How the Dems who think gun control should be up to the states but think everything else should be up to the deal with the cognitive dissonance, I don't know.
MountainBear
Member
The simple answer would be anyone but Hillary. As for the complex answer, I would not even have the foggiest yet. But I know that the libertarians better examine their priorities and decide if they want a dem in all three or a mix. I think a mix is the lesser of two evils for all of us...
- Status
