2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

I want to return to a slightly earlier matter.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Operating on the assumption that Giuliani is the nominee, I sitll don't see him winning in the general election. The evangelicals will stay home ifthat happens, which would do more than guarantee the win for the Dems. It would widen their margin of victory. Ouch.

Well I can understand why the Christian Taliban wouldn't bother turning up on election day if Giuliani was the Republican candidate . So that leads me to a couple of questions for the panel.

Would Giuliani choice of VP have any bearing on the number of evangelicals who turn up at the ballot box ?
Assuming that there was an upset in the primary's have any of the lesser known democrat candidates crafted an image that would attract the evangelicals ?

Now to some of other notes.
I apologize for being less active in this great thread but nothing has come up that would really generate any new opinions from yours truly.
Fiscal conservationism in US politics is as dead as dodo due to the way lobbyists have latched onto the US political system. Of course American politicians aren't blameless. Even if a fiscally sane president is elected he/she still has to deal with Congress and pork projects. See my earlier posts on the matter of a balanced budget for more of my views.

One interesting thought that has occurred to me is having the panel produce a Podcast version of this thread.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by xpert11]

Thread Topic: 2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

posted by Justin Oldham
Hello to all . . now that I have had a chance to review my notes I noticed one thing about the GOP 'debate' which was bothersome to me. None of the front runners sounded like they knew what conservatism was . . the people who had the poorest chance of winning the nomination said more about small government and fiscal conservancy than the big boys . . this reinforces my point that small government advocacy is dead. Are we now in for a decade of bread and circuses? [Edited by Don W]

Probably not. Remember 60% or more Americans describe themselves as “conservative” which obviously means one thing to one person and another thing to another person, just as to be a “liberal” also has no single meaning. In point of fact, most people are part conservative and part liberal. The politicians deny this or ignore it. It is too complicated for a 20 second sound byte! And it contradicts the hidden agendas of the VP Cheney, Pearl and Wolfowitz types.

Most people do not want their unemployed next door neighbor to starve or loose his family home but yet, many people resent him receiving weekly unemployment insurance benefits. Most people would not suffer an infant to die for lack of medical attention when his impoverished parents are turned away from the ER or at the doctor’s office, yet they resent Medicaid paying his child’s bills. Most people are conflicted.

posted by xpert11
I want to return to a slightly earlier matter.

posted by Justin Oldham
Operating on the assumption that Giuliani is the nominee, I still don't see him winning the general election. The evangelicals will stay home if he is the nominee, which would do no more than guarantee the win for the Dems. It would widen their [otherwise narrow] margin of victory. Ouch.

I can understand why the Christian Taliban wouldn't bother turning up on election day if Giuliani was the Republican candidate. So that leads me to a couple of questions for the panel.

1) Would Giuliani’s choice of VP have any bearing on the number of evangelicals who turn up at the ballot box ?
2) Assuming there was an upset in the primaries have any of the lesser known Democratic candidates crafted an image that would attract the evangelicals?

Now to some of other notes.
I apologize for being less active in this great thread but nothing has come up that would really generate any new opinions from yours truly.
Fiscal conservationism in US politics is as dead as dodo due to the way lobbyists have latched onto the US political system.

Don’t you really mean “OWN” US politics and maybe your are reluctant to say so out loud, hoping it is not true? To see just what GOP and PMA control of both the Article 1 and Article 2 branches meant, read the Part D coverage section which was written by PMA lawyers and gleefully passed into law by the GOP Congress.

Then read the Part A and Part B Coverage section of the Medicare Act relating to supplemental insurance policies to see what the Dems Congress and Dems Prez working together gave the country in 1965. Warning! You will turn Dem if you do.

Of course American politicians aren't blameless. Even if a fiscally sane president is elected he or she still has to deal with Congress and pork projects. See my earlier posts on the matter of a balanced budget for more of my views. [Edited by Don W]

1) Surely you don’t regard any GOP president after Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford as “fiscally sane?” The 2 Dem presidents OTOH have proved to be fiscally sane. So why are you still boosting GOP types?

2) All the “pork” earmarked by Congress amounts not to a hill of beans when compared to the Dept of Defense, National debt and Homeland Security fiscal gaffs. 80% to 20%. Do you realize that not one cent of the national debt is due to Social Security or Medicare, both of which have always been and are still operating in the black? That the overwhelming part of our Debt is that which relates to past DoD over expenditures beginning with the much vaunted Ronald Reagan era and almost all the Debt is due to LOWERED taxes on the rich which has not produced the jobs we are routinely promised. Unless you count the jobs produced by American capital in China, India and Mexico. Open you eyes!

[edit on 5/6/2007 by donwhite]

Medicare ?
Don I'm not sure why you pulled that rabbit out of the hat in to response the points I raised. For the record Medicare is a product of the Dems forty years ago. LBJ made dumb decisions when it came to Vietnam but at least on the domestic front rightfully or wrongfully he had ideas and plans of his own. The Republicans supported the war in Vietnam so it was parts of LBJ domestic programs that they opposed .

One last word on healthcare if a government run system cant cope with the demands of a country of four million people how will further government involvement be of any benefit in a country of three hundred fifty million people ?

Today the dems have won a mid term election off the back off anti Bush/Republican sentiment but they have yet to demonstrate any plans and values of there own. I don't oppose the existence of the min wage or moderate increases in the min wage from time to time. In this case the dems used a min wage rise as a vote winner more then anything else.

I never said that any Republican admins after Ford were fiscally responsible. Ford would be considered to socially liberal and wouldn't fit into the Republican party today. I was merely avoiding repeating the same things I had posted previously.

I support tax cuts providing there is reduction in spending. The US defence budget is inefficient and a lot of the funding is grossly wasted. The US defence industry pretty much as a monopoly which as led to a culture of failure being rewarded rather then punished.

With the exception of weapons systems that need to be developed in the US for national security purposes if the US defence industry faced the competition that it should in a free market economy it would go the way of the American auto making industry.

Things like the bridge to nowhere would seem to indicate that Congress must take its share of the blame for Fiscal lunacy. The Bush admin has failed to address the the issue of more jobs being created at Walmart then in higher paying areas. Bush has let events in Iraq swamp him and his admin that's what happens when a nice guy who has no business being president is elected twice.

Here's a piece of critical thinking for you. In 2009. as the 112th Congress comes in to session, we may be able to start looking at the GOP members of the House and Senate to see who might be the next Republican to make a good President. Bear in mind that we will have to wait for 2010 to check out the individual State governors. At that time, we should know if there will be any chance at all for 2012 or even 2016.

As long as the Dems don't make any serious mistakes, they may very well control all three branches of government through 2016, and dare I say, 2020. I know that sounds grim, but I'm taking a close and had look at what it will take for the GOP to "reform." I still have to nail down what that reform is going to look like, but I am working on it. I have some thoughts on where the Dems are headed, but I'm saving that 'til after Don gets back from vacation.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I have some thoughts on where the Dems are headed, but I'm saving that 'til after Don gets back from vacation.

No fair. Play now.

They'll grab enough of the Evangelical vote by appealing to the "doomsday" in us all with enviro-apocalism to rebuild another 40 year reign. Assuming of course we have another 40 years on this planet.

See, it's working already.

Based on all the reading I can find, the right-wing evangelical camp is divided and demoralized. The net result may be that they don't turn out in large numbers. From what I can find, it looks like they are not organizing and pushing money like they did in 2000 or even 2004. It's true that they are going to put their own spin on Environmentalism, but I'm not sure they'll have enough juice (this time) to go for the enviro-apocalypse that you suggest.

I'm guessing, but I think Bush43 is planning to get Rhoe v. Wade overturned before he leaves office. If he can pull that off, we could see a lot of fence mending in Republican ranks. The "fight for life" would take on new meaning for the evangelicals. That new-found political energy would be enough to sustain them through the 2008 Presidential defeats. Under those conditions, many of the Democrat social initiatives would be viewed with suspicion. A good spin doc could convince the religious right that it was necessary to mobilize for a larger and longer fight. Something like a "crusade," if you will pardon the use of that word.

Interesting. Could very well be, though it sounds like the "culture war" will be taking up arms in that scenario.

Not to push the doomsday scenario unnecessarily, but that's a couple home grown terrorist bombings from civil war if I follow you.

I mean, if Bush somehow overturns choice, heads will explode on both sides. All bets for civil discourse are off.

I can't believe a serious Republican politician would want to end choice anyway. That would be like Halliburton inventing a free perpetual energy machine. Though my respect for G Dub would go up immensely if he delivered that final FU to his party before retiring to a beer farm in Texas.

We should remember that even if they do manage to strike down Rhoe v. Wade, the lobbyists won't be out of a job. That's a Federal law. As they savor their victory, they will pass the hat again so they can do battle in each of the States that don't fall in line with their agenda.

There are two ways the Republican party can deal with the Abortion level.

The first is purely political.
The Republican party could just pay lip service to overturning Roe vs Wade in order to have there core supporter base in raptures and at the ballot box.

The second option is a lot worse and more then just political tactics.
Assuming that Bush and his party managed to get Woe vs Wade over turned it would be the beginning of a long slide that ultimately sees the end of the rights women have fought so hard for. I'm not a fan of abortion but one of the reasons I am pro choice is that abortion acts as a kind of buffer that preserves women's rights.

Rather then turn this into an abortion thread I invite members who haven't already to post in this thread

Bert/Bin Laden '08
The only Republican ticket that could actually win.

posted by Justin Oldham

“ . . the right-wing evangelical camp is divided and demoralized. It's true that they are going to put their own spin on Environmentalism, but I'm not sure they'll have enough juice to go for the enviro-apocalypse Xpert11 suggested.

I'm thinking Bush43 plans to get Roe v. Wade overturned before he leaves office. If he pulls that off, we could see a lot of fence mending in Republican ranks. That new-found political energy would be enough to sustain them through the 2008 presidential defeat. A good spin doc could convince the religious right that it was necessary to mobilize for a larger and longer fight. Something like a "crusade" if you will pardon the use of that word. [Edited by Don W]

posted by xpert11

There are two ways the Republicans can deal with the Abortion issue.

The first is purely political. Republicans could pay lip service to overturning Roe . . The second option is a lot worse and more then just political tactics. Assuming Bush managed to get Roe over turned it would be the beginning of a long slide that ultimately sees the end of the rights women have fought so hard for. I'm not a fan of abortion but one of the reasons I am pro choice is that abortion acts as a kind of buffer that preserves women's rights. Rather then turn this into an abortion thread I invite members who haven't already to post in this thread. [Edited by Don W]

Have You Read Roe v. Wade?

Roe stands for 2 propositions. 1) That there is a right of privacy in our Constitution. 2) That states have a limited right to regulate non therapeutic abortions.

The “right” of privacy is found in the 9th amendment of our Constitution “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

This concept - the right of privacy - is reinforced or bolstered by other references to personal rights found in the 1st amendment’s freedom of conscience or religion; the 4th amendment’s right to be secure in your person and that no warrants shall issue but on probable cause that you have committed a crime; the 5th amendment’s protective limits on criminal prosecutions including the right not to incriminate yourself - no torture - and the inestimable right to due process of law; the 6th amendment’s right to trial by jury in a public place and a lawyer to assist you; the 7th amendment’s right not to be tried for the same offense twice; and the 8th amendment’s right to reasonable bail.

The Supreme Court further defined the “Right of Privacy” to mean that a state shall not make any laws that intrude into your “private space” except for a compelling state reason.

As for the second proposition, the Supreme Court divided a pregnancy into 3 definable trimesters of roughly 13 weeks each. During the first trimester no state laws are permitted, the matter of abortions being purely between the pregnant woman and her physician. In the second trimester defined as when the fetus “quickens” all state laws must protect the mother and not the fetus, by regulating the adequacy of the physical facilities where the abortion is to be performed. But in the third trimester defined as that stage of development of the fetus where it can live outside the womb, usually 25-26 weeks into the pregnancy, any reasonable state law can be enacted up to and including the banning of an abortion. (A fetus younger than 25-26 weeks cannot breathe on its own outside the womb due to its lungs not being fully developed.)

As you can see, the Anti -Choice Movement could have compromised on Roe from the first day in 1973, but it understood if it did, it would loose its impetus and the issue of abortions would forever be behind us. The Anti Choice Movement foresaw the utility of a “no compromise” stance and have pushed relentlessly to keep the fight an all or nothing fight. They are now in sight of a “nothing” victory.

Regrettably in my mind, abortions are purely a medical and religious issue and ought not to be a political issue, if you believe in the First Amendment. To have or not to have abortions has no appropriate place in the public forum. To that extent and on that understanding, I too oppose Roe. Until we are mature enough as a people to adopt that position, I support Roe.

Federal involvement on the abortion issue is based on the 14th Amendment.

This is the amendment that created Federal citizenship as opposed to the pre-14th state citizenship only. The writers of that Amendment chose the word “person” when defining the protections offered, and it is a simple fact of the English language that a fetus is not a person until it is born alive, at which time the 14th Amendment applies.

Republicans beginning with Ronald Reagan grasped the electoral opportunity presented by the Right Wing Religious who love to mix politics and religion, and have garnered decisive votes ever since. By employing the litmus test of blindly anti the right to abortions on judicial appointees, the Republicans have nearly wrecked 2 centuries of cultural progress in America.

As the 18th Amendment demonstrated, religious American’s cannot resist the opportunity to impose their personal religious convictoins on the general population. God Save Us From The Godly!

[edit on 5/8/2007 by donwhite]

Hello, Don. That's one of the better asssessments I have read in a long time. My own reasoning for being "pro choice" is much more basic than all that. You might call my logic "libertarian."

The Constitution and our society at large has enshrined the idea of choice in most every thing we do. When the religious right insists on an impositiion of their values, they are in effect taking away somebody's right to make a choice. From where I sit, that smacks of hypocrisy.

Now, then, Let's stay on track with this thread. Giuliani is testing well so far with his pro-choice stance. While I do like a pro-choice stand, I can see that my earlier prediction is right on target. He can only test well on this issue if the evangelicals are falling back and preparing to go hermit for a few years.

posted by Justin Oldham

Hello, Don. That's one of the better
assessments I have read . . My reasoning for being "pro choice" is much more basic than that. You might call my logic "libertarian." When the religious right insists on imposing their values, they are in effect taking away somebody else's right to make a choice. From where I sit, that smacks of hypocrisy.

Giuliani is testing [and moderating?] his pro-choice stance. I like the pro-choice stance and I see my earlier prediction is right on target. He can only test well on this issue if the evangelicals are falling back and preparing to go [into] hermit [mode] for a few years. Now, then, Let's stay on track with this thread. [Edited by Don W]

Thanks, Mr J/O. On Roe v. Wade Errata:
1) “They are now in sight of a victory leaving “nothing” to the pro choice advocates.”
2) “ . . on that understanding, I support Roe until we are mature enough as a people to adopt the pro choice position.”
3) “ . . the litmus test of unalterably anti abortion . . “

PS. Another case was filed in Harris County (Dallas) Texas, styled Jane Doe v. Henry Wade, to protect the petitioner’s identity, as in this case, the second one, styled Mary Roe v. Henry Wade. Wade being the same prosecutor who would have tried Lee Harvey Oswald but for Jack Ruby.

The first case was dismissed as moot by the lower court because it was filed after the woman delivered her child, whereas, in Mary Roe, the case was filed before she delivered the child which gave her standing, although the Supreme Court ruling came more than one year after the birth of her child.

[edit on 5/8/2007 by donwhite]

This is where I don't understand the way Rudy campaign is being managed.
A perfect opportunity to seize on a very important issue and take the focus off his Abortion stance is slipping by.

WASHINGTON - The Senate effectively killed a bid to allow consumers to buy their prescription medicines abroad Monday, requiring U.S. officials to certify the safety and effectiveness of such drugs.
The certification amendment, passed on a 49-40 vote, would require health officials to do something they have long said they cannot.
Because of that, the vote undercut a second measure that would permit prescription drug imports from Food and Drug Administration-approved sources in Canada, Australia, Europe, Japan and New Zealand.

source
ATS thread

Surely Rudy could seize on this as a way of making aspects of health care more affordable without the US tax payer being involved. IMO the fears of counterfeit drugs are mostly BS you just need to take a look at what airfare wars do for ticket prices (it is cheaper to fly between Aust & NZ then it is to fly domestically in NZ ! ) to see what increased competition could do for medicine prices.

How can someone support a free market economy and not speak out against monopoly's ?
Rudy should make the logical case that an ageing population will be contributing less tax dollars and the demand for medication is going to rise . So allowing people access to cheaper medicine via a more competitive market is the best option.

posted by xpert11

I don't understand the way Rudy’s campaign is being managed. A perfect opportunity to seize on a very important [importing foreign made medicines] issue and take the focus off his Abortion stance is slipping by. [Edited by Don W]

Perhaps Rudy is also getting a lot of PMA money? Recall the PMA has 1,100 lobbyists in W-DC and spent $150 million last year! Your home grown Mafia at work! The NRA on steroids. Maybe the PMA has co-opted ALL the Dem and GOP candidates? How long will it be before you guys grab onto my CFR - Campaign Finance Reform - wherein ALL private funds are barred from public electoral campaigns? That the public pays for electioneering by the candidates. And we make the use of any private money a criminal offense? Elections are too important to continue selling to the highest bidder.

WASHINGTON - The Senate effectively killed a bid to allow consumers to buy their prescription medicines abroad Monday, [voting to require] U.S. officials to certify the safety and effectiveness of such drugs. The certification amendment, passed on a 49-40 vote, would require health officials to do something they have long said they cannot.

How can someone support a free market economy and not speak out against monopoly's ? Rudy should make the logical case that an ageing population will be contributing less tax dollars and the demand for medication is going to rise . So allowing people access to cheaper medicine via a more competitive market is the best option. [Edited by Don W]

Many PMA have factories in Ireland where medicines are made for sale around the world. Except in the US. Where prices are 2X or 3X the price paid elsewhere. The PMA “owns” both the Congress and Presidency.

You will never have your country back until public elections are paid for with public money.

[edit on 5/9/2007 by donwhite]

The power of lobbyists is eztraordinary. Here in Alaska, one serviing legislator and three former legislators have just been indicted on charges of taking bribes from Veco oil services company. Prosecutors are now hot on the trail of a fourth former legislator who is...the son of Senator Ted Stevens. All of them are Republicans, and they sold old for amazingly small amounts of money. I think Randy "Duke" Cunningham had the right idea in one respect. If you're going to sell out, think big. Big big big.

I think xpert11 has a point, and its a good question worth asking. None of he GOP contenders have particularly destinguished themselves very well when it comes to the question of health care.

J/O Remarks:
“I think xpert11 has a good question worth asking. None of he GOP contenders have distinguished themselves very well when it comes to the question of health care.” [Edited by DW]

DON: Impossible! In 1993, newly elected Bill Clinton assigned this humongous full time task to Hillary. At first, she got a lot of support from even the doctor’s AMA. The project moved smoothly UNTIL the issue of setting prices came along. Then all but the Nurses - ANA - wavered and finally backed out. The AMA, the AHA, the PMA and the health insurance companies all quit. Without them, there could be no plan to make health care accessible and affordable to 100% of Americans.

At that time, 1993, about 12% of our GDP went to health care. No other country was in double digits. Germany was #2 with 9%. Last year, I heard a medical doctor say the US was spending “nearly 18%” on health care. This year I heard others say health care will cross the 20% line in 2010. I don’t know the numbers worldwide but I’m sure the US is still way out in front. Yet the US ranks 10th or 11th in infant mortality and 12th or 13th in longevity, the two quick down and dirty indices of the overall health of a nation. So what gives?

Just yesterday, we saw the PMA control 40 votes in the Senate. Americans cannot buy prescription medicines made in even the safest and best countries in the world. The Dems start with 50 votes - SD’s Sen. Johnson is still out sick- but need 60 votes to pass any highly controversial bill. This means the Dems must have 10 GOP votes to make it work. The needed votes are not there.

Only CFR will make it work.

[edit on 5/9/2007 by donwhite]

Health Care reform... no, I'll say it plain, Socialized medicine, is a dead issue with Dems. The only one talking about it seriously is JE.

But he's desperate. I do like his moxy though.

I trust I don't have to qualify comments in this thread with facts, qualifiers and counter talking points.

We all know America (the stubborn over-marketed child of Europe) will have socialized medicine just as soon as we put a Ronald Reagan hair quiff on it, and the people will rejoice. Just not now.

Originally posted by RANT
I trust I don't have to qualify comments in this thread with facts, qualifiers and counter talking points.

I'm not sure what your point is there your input is of course welcome in this thread.

We all know America (the stubborn over-marketed child of Europe) will have socialized medicine just as soon as we put a Ronald Reagan hair quiff on it, and the people will rejoice. Just not now.

Do you consider making all aspects of the US health health industry operate in the free market to be socialized medicine or are you referring to a government run system that can be found in countries outside of the US ?

I ask because some Americans seem to regard any thing that the US government does to be an evil form of socialism. Lobbyists working on behalf of drug companies will work hard to preserve the status quo . After they have it made a virtual monopoly'(s) the drug companies dont have to care about Anti Free Market practices and finding ways to make medication affordable to people of all incomes.

[edit on 9-5-2007 by xpert11]