Talk:United States Republican presidential candidates, 2008/Archive 1

message: Wesley Clark should be removed from this list unless there is proof he has switched sides. He ran in the 2004 election and won Oklahoma in the Democratic primaries. Binarypower 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wesley Clark is not a Republican

message: I do not think the part on John McCain is balanced or well written and needs to be revised.
My thought is:  Who cares who runs for the Repub's they are TOAST anyhow after allowing a crooked administration to rule like dictators for the past 6 1/2 years.  These guys were ONLY for themselves.  Look to see who has profited from the war, it definitely is not the American people.  See how George Bush was put into office and used the office as an instrument to get oil prices to the highest in American history.  Look who profited from the war in Iraq....Chaney's old buddies?  What about Rumsfeld....look into him a bit.   And the Republican's did all they possibly could to play innocent.  Mark my words, it will be all in the history books in the years to come.   I was a Republican up until the point they put Bush on the ballot back in 1999 and I could not put myself to vote for someone of his nature.  Now after seeing how the Republican party is the most close minded party, I will NEVER vote for a republican again....no conscious, no humanity,....and a LOAD OF GREED !!!
HELLO! WE'RE FORGETTING A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN THIS WIKIPEDIA ENTRY!!! OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, KEN MEHLMAN AND MIKE HUCKABEE BUT THERE'S MORE
:Huckabee is on there, buddy. Frankg 02:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the constitution is amended before the 2008 election, he should be omitted. Arnold Schwarzenegger would be a natural candidate if eligible, just like Jennifer Granholm for the Dems. The only way they should be included on each party's page is only after a theoretical constitutional amendment passes and they show signs as to being interested in a presidential run.--Folksong 04:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed D. Kennedy. His campaign's webpage is a Yahoo group with 10 members.Still A Student 00:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the photos, but could someone fix them so they line up with the text? I suppose creating a new section for each paragraph would do it, but there ought to be a more elegant way. Extra space below each paragraph would be no real problem. (also in Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election) Still A Student 01:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *sigh* nevermind, someone's gone mess that page up ...  SargeAbernathy 14:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial comments 

message: correct me if I'm wrong, but Mitt Romney's not on the list at the moment. jj 15:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed it. jj 15:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romney 

message: I won't start a revert war here, but I'm sorry, but I just want to note that Hagel is not a "conservative" Republican, despite today's changes to his entry. - Nhprman List 22:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hagel 

message: Potential third party candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election has been listed as an Article for Deletion here.  As the AfD is about a companion page, and the results could effect the viability of this page as well, you are encouraged to check out its AfD listing. --Tim4christ17 11:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The concensus of that article's AfD was keep. --Tim4christ17 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Companion page up for deletion

message: First, I don't know why Donnie Kennedy got added back, since he's a yahoo group with 10 members. Secondly, I haven't found ANY link for the Fred Phelps thing, outside of people citing this article in prominent places. I do not want us distributing false information. Can anyone source this?? -Umdunno 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And excuse me, but Phelps has been added by anonymous users BOTH times. (not counting reverts) -Umdunno 04:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone source these obscure candidates? 

message: Someone please give a source for the Phelps statement. He was a Gore supporter and seems to hate America, so I doubt he would seek the GOP nomination. Tim Long 19:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phelps

message: I moved Donnie Kennedy's entry to the bottom of the "Other people mentioned as possible candidates" section, out of the "Announced" section, since there is no evidence he has announced. However, he is discussed as a potential candidate. This, perhaps, will help solve the edit war about his status. I also question Phelps being in the "Announced" category, since there is no evidence presented that he has made an announcement on his radio show, as presented here. If no evidence is presented, he should also probably go to thse "mentioned" section. The only truly announced  candidate for the GOP nomination (and the only one actually announced AND campaigning), is John Cox. - Nhprman List 16:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kennedy moved, not an announced candidate 

message: "Giuliani is, however, pro-choice and pro gay rights, which might hurt him in the primaries against a strong pro-life and anti-Gay marriage candidate, such as George Allen or John McCain." 
Here's a link to another wiki entry that clearly shows that McCain at least voted anti on gay marriage amendment banning it. Therefore we should take out McCain's name. (Creator22 20:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John McCain Falseification

message: and for his efforts to get to the bottom of the "Mark Foley Scandal."
Seems to early to be so optimistic on this one. Do others have information I don't? He may very well be doing all he can, but at the present time it seems POV. It has certainly brought him into the spotlight. Whether it will end up for better or worse for him remains in question though. Khirad 09:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's under fire from the Right as well as the Left over this matter (a Washington Times editorial called for his resignation, and Human Events says Congress needs new leaders.) It hardly seems likely that he's considered seriouesly as presidential timber at this point, but that's just my view. - Nhprman List 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hastert

message: I changed the format to a table, per the changes on the Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election.  --myselfalso 21:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. However, whoever added Rep. Hunter to the "announced" candidates is incorrect. He simply announced an exploratory committee. Romney, McCain and the others have done the same. He should go in the "potential" category. Nhprman List 04:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One could make the argument that since this is an article about potential Republican candidates that Romney, McCain, and others belong in the announced category.  --myselfalso 05:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, none of those others have announced, and are very careful not to do so, because then they have to abide by McCain-Feingold and stop taking thousands of dollars from individuals. But in reality, you do have a point, since they are clearly running. Nhprman List 14:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Where is Duncan Hunter on this list?  He has already announced the formation of an exploratory committee and, therefore, should be considered a potential candidate.  Metstotop333 19:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duncan Hunter? 

message: Doing a search on FEC showed that John Cox and Michael Charles Smith both have filed with the FEC, and therefore are taking this seriously.  .  So do they get put up on the wikipedia page, or is there a different "sign" for wikipedian's to officially list someone's name? SargeAbernathy 20:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct, and the correct move. If they aren't here, they should be on an ANNOUNCED page (and that page wouldn't include McCain and Hunter, since they have only set up committees to explore a race, and have not formally announced, as this Potentials page correctly notes. - Nhprman List 15:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree about moving it to an ANNOUNCED page.  I think this article should be renamed Republican candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election and have the sections for potential and possible.  --myselfalso 17:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Potential candidates is the correct name for the page, as they will remain potential candidates for the 2008 race until they have either won their primary or declared as an independent.    Remember that the name of the page is "Potential Republican Candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election" NOT "Potential Candidates for the Republican Nomination".  Also, for myselfalso, we couldn't use the name you suggested because while there can be multiple Republican candidates for the Republican nomination, there can only be one Republican candidate for the 2008 Presidential Election.  However, within the page there should, of course, be a differentiation between the announced and potential candidates for the nomination - so readers know how serious the different potential candidates are about the race. --Tim4christ17 talk 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cox, Smith, and the FEC 

message: In 1952 the (incumbent party in the '52 election) Democrat nominees were neither the incumbent President OR Vice President. VP Barkley sought the Democratic nomination, but lost out to (then) Illinois Governor Adlai E. Stevenson II. Therefore the line First incumbent party, not to put forward as candidate an incumbent President or Vice President since 1952, is inaccurate. GoodDay 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited in the correction; the Republican Party, was the last (incumbent) party, to nominate a Presidential candiate (in 1928) who was neither the incumbent President OR Vice President. GoodDay 16:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since 1952 ?

message: There are a lot of words which prop up a lot like Exploratory committee (which I believe is a legal requirement), Political action committee etc. Make sure these are wikilinked at least once as most non-American readers are unlikely to know what they are. Nil Einne 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't forget wikilinks for important concepts 

message: Okay I know this is completely OT but does anyone in their right mind really think Jeb Bush is going to consider running? His brother has basically screwed up any chance of that completely since it seems to me no one in their right mind would vote for another Bush in the 2008 election even if he's a democract hippie who believes in free love and hates his brother (which he isn't) Nil Einne 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a little OT.  My thought is that he'll consider running, but decide to wait until 2012 or 2016.  Can you imagine what it'd be like to have two dynastic candidates for president (if Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush both decided to run)?  --Tim4christ17 talk 14:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the plan is G.H.W. Bush (1989-1993); W.J. Clinton (1993-2001), G.W. Bush (2001-2009), H.R. Clinton (2009-2017), J. Bush (2017-2025), C. Clinton (2025-2033), and so on.   John Broughton  |  Talk 01:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's hillarious, John! ;-) Although it is also very scary, since that indeed seems like the plan. American political parties are the LEAST creative ones in the world, I'm afraid. The GOP has had a Dole or a Bush on the ticket every election since 1976. Think about THAT. LOL - Nhprman List 03:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeb Bush 

message: So that people will not re-add the candidates that have declined to run, and all former candidates will probably be on a shortlist of veep nominees.--Folksong 18:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added a Former Candidate category... 

message: Just giving a heads up.
:rewritten with a sourced statement. Simon12 02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huckabee will soon be deleted if there are no sources added

message: I'm bumping Keating up to "Potential Candidates". He's in SC "exploring" (campaigning) today. That puts him beyond mentioning, IMO. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/elections/16284419.htm -Umdunno 02:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keating 

message: Why isnt he at the bottom with the other no--name candidates like Smith?
:Read three sections above for current discussion Simon12 05:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cox

message: I'd like to propose a compromise:  adopt the following standard - All candidates for President who are actively campaigning nationally receive an entry in the same format (name, thumbnail photo, and a brief, non-POV written description).  "Campaigning nationally" doesn't mean just sending out press releases, or appearing in a national newspaper story.  Rather, it means having a large number of state organizations (at least being set up) and a large number of volunteers, and spending a significant amount of time and money on campaigning, including national travel.  (Cox would qualify, by such criteria.)
Could I get a show of hands - support, oppose?  John Broughton  |  Talk 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Year's proposal 

message: Why is Keating not in the declined candidates anymore? Someone replaced him with Condi, when they both could've been in without someone being bumped. 24.107.147.61 14:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  keating 

message: Why don't they include Michael and Richard Smith in the "Official Candidates" section? -Halibut Thyme, 6 November 07
:see above discussion. J Klein my talk my contributions 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smith and Smith

message: (Cross-posted to: Talk:Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Democratic candidates )
I think the distance distinguishing candidates with exploratory committees and those who have made the "formality" of announcing they are running for president is miniscule. 
Here's an example from a candidate's press release, Mitt Romney, which was put out when the Romney for President Exploratory Committee, Inc. was established.  In substance, the Federal Election Commission considers exploratory committees equal to presidential campaign committees, that the report and account is the same, and the "substance" of the difference is merely changing the name of the entity, if even that, when the candidate "announces" their candidacy.  All funds of the exploratory committee are just as available as subsequently raised-post-announcement funds. In fact they are exactly the same, as far as the FEC is concerned.  In other-words, this "exploratory committee" business is window-dressing on a committee that actually is a fully qualified federal presidential campaign comittee.   
Here's the quote from the Romney press statement of January 3, 2007:
Q:  What is the difference between this exploratory committee and formally announcing Governor Romney's candidacy?
A:  This committee has been registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) allowing it to begin soliciting resources and organizing a federal campaign committee structure in anticipation of a formal announcement in the near future.  Once an announcement is made, the word "exploratory" will be removed from the name. The committee formed today will use the money raised before and after a formal announcement.
Q:  Can money raised by the exploratory committee be used by an eventual Romney for President Campaign Committee?
A:  Yes. In fact, it's the same account. Governor Mitt Romney Forms Presidential Exploratory Committee  Press Release. Wednesday, Jan 03, 2007. Retrieved January 30, 2007.
Isn't time to state that all candidates with exploratory committees are right now presidential candidates? -- Yellowdesk 05:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exploratory comittees are equivalent to Presidential Campaign Committees 

message: what happened to Mike pence? 216.165.2.17 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Pence? 

message: I saw a blurb across the bottom of CSPAN this morning that said Chuck Hagel will be announcing whether or not he will run at a news conference this coming Monday.  Anyone know of any sources reporting this information?  --Aranae 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hagel announcing something Monday

message: Fred Dalton Thompson, former senator from Tennessee and current Law & Order actor, has been drawing interest over the past few days.  There's currently a "Draft Thompson" movement beginning to form.  Here's a link to some of the speculation.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valadius (talk • contribs) 06:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred Dalton Thompson 

message: Just wondering if we could get some non-trivial published sources on this. I don't listen to his show, but I know he makes a lot of crazy claims and remarks. Also, the webcounter on his website is extremely easy to hack... you just vote once, clear your cookies, and turn them off, and then you can vote as many times as you want. It is clearly being hacked by scripts because the numbers go up by 100 or so every time you refresh the page. I guess thats original research, but it's true. It should not be taken literally. Danski14 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: Well, I managed to find one reference, used on the Michael Savage article, which I have been working on to get NPOV. Danski14 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ummm... How do we know Micheal Savage even *might* run for office?

message: Given the criteria for "official candidates with multi-state campaigns", I do not feel that local candidates with sparse media coverage (outside of their specific locality) mandate inclusion within this article. Regards, Djma12 (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though I would contend that an encyclopedia article is not the best forum for such a conversation. Djma12 (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And I agree - the forum is no good for the conversation, but the encyclopedia drives a good bit of traffic to the campaign website. Mikesmth 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki is not a personal advertisement Djma12 (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: and Michael Savage??  Most of these candidate entries have more to do with the personality listed than political ideology.  Good luck at separating any political campaign from advertising. Mikesmth 03:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One at a time.  I am slowly working through the candidates.  Incidentally, please wait until the Afd is finished on your page before re-inserting. Djma12 (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single state candidates 

message: Why can't we move the "other candidates" to the main lists? Tim Long 00:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't we set a standard a few months ago? Why isn't it being followed? (See above.) Calwatch 20:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We agreed that Cox should be on the main list, and he is being treated like a main candidate. See this from the Des Moines Register: Simon12 03:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lesser known

message: Does anyone else feel this page should be moved to 2008 Republican presidential candidates?
Hoponpop69 03:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move page?

message: I heard on the grapevine Savage said he won't actually be running on his radio talk show, hence an IP user removed him. What a surprise, eh?  Danski14(talk) 06:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Micheal Savage says he won't be running

message: I'm sorry to open up old wounds and I have looked above, but I still can't see what the decision is as to what defines sufficient notability to warrant inclusion.  First I want to say that I'm not pushing for inclusion or exclusion, merely trying to define a NPOV cutoff.
*Cox - survived AfD: notable enough to get an article = include.
*Kennedy - He appears to have written several books.  The link is blue.  I would propose that if he fails a notability test it would need to be at AfD before being here.
To me, the question is what to do with the red links.  Are we left to ask whether the individual is notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article.  Of the two current red links this may include:
*Cort - He has authored one book according to his website.  Does this pass the notability test?
Finally, an argument could be made that anyone who has filed with the FEC can be listed in this "other" section.  This would include:
*R. M. Smith - He doesn't appear to have a remote chance at having an article (should it be created) surviving AfD unless being on a ballot is enough.
*M. C. Smith - His article didn't survive AfD (would someone please link to that AfD? - I'm assuming there was a notability problem and not merely a vanity editing problem).  He has filed, though.  Again, sorry to open up old wounds.
My opinion is that we need to draw a line.  Candidates belong here if... (choose one or propose an alternative):
#They have an article on wikipedia.
#They are notable enough to have an article on wikipedia even if one does not yet exist.
#They have filed with the FEC regardless of notability.  --Aranae 05:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am putting Cox back on. He has received mainstream political coverage (front page of the Los Angeles Times, for one) and is apparently actively campaigning. Calwatch 01:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't at all suggesting he belongs on the main list.  I was just saying he doesn't deserve to be deleted from the "Other candidates" list.  I would certainly disagree with your decision to add him back to the main list and I think that's been dealt with in conversations above.  My question is, besides Cox and Kennedy, who belongs in the "Other candidates" section?  --Aranae 04:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except we agreed a few months ago that Cox did belong on the main list, and we had a consensus then. If that consensus has changed then we need to poll again, but we had a clear agreement from all the posters three months ago that Cox belonged. Calwatch 04:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I proposed an objective cutoff back in December, (way above), but I will propose it again. This page, from CQ.com, seems to me a reasonable list. It includes Cox, but no other "minor" candidates. Also, Cox is getting some press, and he is being included in GOP cattle calls. . Cox clearly belongs in the top section.Simon12 03:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So to clarify, are you saying we should eliminate the "Other candidates" section and the individuals listed there altogether?  --Aranae 07:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, my comment was a bit off the main topic of this section, as I was addressing whether Cox belongs in the main section, which I believe he does. I have no opinion on any cutoff for the "Other Candidate" section. Sorry for the confusion.Simon12 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other candidates section

message: Why not just list those that get invited to the debates?Hoponpop69 23:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed multiple times above, Cox has received mainstream press attention, he has an organization in multiple states, and an objective source, Congressional Quarterly lists him with the main contenders. Simon12 02:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Cox is not participating in the 5/3/07 debate. Inkan1969 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. If there was a consensus for using debate invitees as a criteria for the list, then this would be grounds for removing Cox. But no such consensus has been reached. I would also note, though, that the next debate in South Carolina on May 15 may only have the top 3 candidates, and likely not all 10 who debated on 5/3. So if we do reach a consensus to use debates as a criteria for the list, it could also knock out Gilmore, Paul, Tancredo, and other lower tier candidates off the list.Simon12 02:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple idea for which candidates to list in main section

message: Why is Fred Phelps listed? It says nothing about 2008 in his article and there aren't any references. Not to mention he hates America, hates the government and chants GOD HATES FAGS! He shouldn't be listed. It's a stretch to include even Savage.
It's obvious vandalism. Removing it. User:Spock 156.34.6.34 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fred Phelps?!?

message: Who the hell is Daniel Gilbert and what is the meaning of that bias entry? Is this the same guy that has the wikipedia article, "Dan Gilbert (businessman)"? If so, his name needs to be linked. I googled him and I can't find a single thing about him running for president.--Zombiema7 02:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel Gilbert?

message: I have added a link to this page from the United States presidential election, 2008 table JLMadrigal 12:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added to United States presidential election, 2008 table 

message: --Robapalooza 17:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added thumbnail Chart summarizing Opinion Polling for the United States Presidential Election, 2008 - General Election - Two-Way Contest - Results of All Democratic and Republican Candidates 

message: :Image:Mitt romney.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mitt romney.JPG