Brownback to Announce 1/20
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 — Comments (120) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Kansas City Star is reporting that Sam Brownback will officially begin his campaign for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination January 20th, at an event in Kansas City:
Brownback's speech, which is still being written, will "be much more inclusive than just a conservative set of issues" and will hit on the main themes of his campaign, said Rob Wasinger, the senator's campaign manager.
"The things that people talk about are not the only things he's working on," Wasinger said. "He'll talk about religious freedom, taking care of the poor, challenging people to rise up and confront the challenges we face."
...
Brownback hopes to stake out a position as the true fiscal and social conservative in the crowded Republican field. While he's a long shot against presumed front-runners such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, he has clear appeal to conservatives, who distrust all three.
The key to Brownback's success will be his early efforts in Iowa, a state whose caucus system is uniquely suited as an upset ground for a candidate like Brownback, who will be comparatively short on money, but whose strength is communication to small groups.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | MT-SEN: Baucus (D) polls under 50 — Comments (26) »
Brownback to Announce 1/20 120 Comments (0 topical, 120 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
If this stinkin' party can't do any better than...
A Rockefeller Republican in Guiliani
An abortion panderer in Romney
and a "too little, too late" defeatist in McCain
... then I will CHEER when the party loses in November 2008.
Run like Reagan!
their favorite sons, Rock and Rudy. See the Goldberg piece and Murdock's Archive at Race 4 2008.
And you mustn't sell Mitt short. He panders on many more issues than just abortion! I'm kidding since I like Romney, but...Can you laugh and cry at the same time, as in cheering GOP losses and crying over your rodham at the same time? The Hill under Bill (at least once during a Chelsea producing rape?) doesn't pander against abortion, she promotes same like The Donald promotes bad hair.
Oh yeah, I'll already BE crying, I think, after all the Democratic bills the President didn't veto during this Congress. So what's two years of all Democratic government?
But, don't get me wrong. I don't think McCain has a chance to win, and I wouldn't be surprised if Giuliani isn't running at all. Romney is trying to set himself up as The Conservative against those two, but that won't be good enough when the other candidates start announcing.
Run like Reagan!
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
Hunter threw his hat in the ring to stay on the Sunday talk shows after losing his chairmanship, IMO. I know why you like him, though: he's as obedient as Barney and Miss Beazley. ;-)
Obedient to whom? God maybe.
I agree with Hunter on most issues. He strikes me as an earnest and honest man that can't be bought. No scandals. Seems like he has character and courage and he's a little rough around the edges. I think he would be a good President. What can I say?
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Gamecock, the DeVine Conservative Voice Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report and is Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report
I agree I went too far there. I apologize and take it back unconditionally.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
Brownback actually possesses the sincerity that McCain used to fake so well, and he's a deep and profoundly decent human being who will have an appeal extending far beyond those who share his core values. The fact that he has core values will make him more attractive than most of the compeition.
You have to be kidding. So who would you have compared Reagan to? Pelosi?
If Brownback comes out against "comprehensive immigration reform" he might very likely get my vote.
Senator Brownback is pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants, and this position alone will end his chances of ever becoming President. He also has some problems with not enough charisma and trying to become President after being a U.S. Senator. If Senator Brownback was truly a "pro-enforcement of all of the present laws as they relate to illegal immigrants" politician as well as a former Governor of Kansas, then he would have a much better chance of winning in '08 or at least being a first tier candidate for President.
Better pro-illegal immigration than pro-abortion like Mitt.
Better pro-illegal immigration than pro-tax like John.
Better pro-illegal immigration than pro-gun control like Rudy.
Run like Reagan!
At what cutoff does it happen, that we haven't already hit?
Look, I'm all in favor of throwing employers of illegals in jail, and deporting the parents of US citizens if they're illegal aliens (letting them take their American child with them if they wish, of course).
But our field right now is rotten, just rotten. Brownback, from what I've seen so far, is someone I can hold my nose and vote for.
Run like Reagan!
Draft Dennis Miller!
At least the debates won't be boring.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
Allowing even more amnesty for illegal immigrants to occur throughout the U.S. will only lead to the death of conservatism as well as the death of the U.S.A.! Many of these illegals will register to vote for the Democratic Party and for "leftist politics" to the point that conservatives truly won't be able to register enough new voters to ever keep up with the never ending overpopulation influx of illegals to the U.S.! Credible conservatism will be finished soon!
Many immigrants adhere to a hard work ethic, maintain close contact with their families, and generally have fairly conservative values (as I understand, a lot of immigrants are conservative Catholics). I've heard often that being conservative carries the baggage of pessimism with it (Ronald Reagan and many others would disagree), and perhaps I'm a naive optimist, but 1. I still don't think of it as amnesty, and 2. I don't believe any sort of plan is a death knell for conservatism.
I'm only concerned with the illegal immigrant population that is purposely breaking all of the laws of the U.S. just by being in the U.S. illegally! True conservative immigrants will come here legally, and they will not come here illegally if they truly believe in conservatism. You can't just group all of the immigrants together and assume that they are also just as equally also conservative when it comes to politics. Also, many immigrants, both illegal immigrants and legal immigrants, come into the U.S. and then immediately get onto the welfare rolls for the rest of their lives! Therefore, you can't just assume that a majority of immigrants to the U.S. must also be hard working. Some of them truly are, but many others truly are not. If immigrants can just get onto welfare for life and not have to work at all, then many immigrants will end up taking advantage of this. There are still way too many illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, and U.S. citizens who truly are "able bodied individuals" and who are on welfare for life when they should be working instead. The present U.S. welfare system still continues to create "government dependency" instead of encouraging as many people as humanly possible to get to work and become successful on their own. If the U.S. welfare system was truly working to the best of abilities, then it would only be a "temporary fix" for the majority of people who are presently on welfare. There obviously would be exceptions made for all of the "truly non-able bodied" individuals currently on welfare within the special needs populations. The welfare support would be there for people who truly need it until people were able to successfully get back to work on their own, and the welfare system would be set up so that it would successfully encourage people to get off of welfare as soon as possible. We still need successful welfare reforms to occur within the U.S. Also, attrition towards the illegal populations needs to successfully occur in order to fully encourage the immigration populations to only come here legally.
There are few principles more fundamentally conservative than that of learning from experience. The reason we know for certain the last amnesty didn't work? We're talking about having another one a generation later. There are two moral considerations that get short shrift from the establishment on this issue. First, we are acting as a de facto provisioner of welfare for the Mexican government. They are as surely "on the dole" in helping their surplus labor become the problem of another nation's taxpayers as any chronically unemployed individual in this country; by affording them open borders we ensure that they will never be confronted with the consequences of their poor economic choices. Second, there are literally millions around the world on waiting lists and in queues outside our embassies who face extreme deprivation and languish under the threat of physical harm in their countries. There is nothing innately moral about sanctioning the behavior of someone whose illegal actions place him ahead of those millions.
was its flagrant dishonesty on employer sanctions. It required workers to have documentation--but explicitly prohibited employers from checking on the authenticity of the documents. Should have been called the Counterfeiter Enrichment Act of 1990.
documents in question can be easily forged, and in 1990 there was no effective way to check the status of a SS number or a DL, it was not unreasonable at all. In 1990, you couldn't check a SS number through the system in any reasonable time frame (months) and I don't know of a state that would respond to inquiries about DL's from employers.
Today, OTOH, it is doable cheaply and easily.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Mr. Bush's amnesty would destroy the republican party. Why Bush and Rove can't see it is one of the great mysteries of our day. It will also mean the death of this country as we have always known it. So, that being the case, I doubt the Republican Party would be missed much anyway if this amnesty goes through.
It is time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.
both have this idea that Hispanics will be a GOP constituency. They base this on the fact that Bush did OK in Texas among Hispanics and perhaps on the fact that Jeb Bush has done quite well among Cubans in Florida (as have almost all GOP candidates). Unfortunately I don't see those successes translating in nationwide GOP votes, and just as unfortunately both Bush and Rove, once their mind is made up, cannot be persuaded by contrary data that they are wrong.
Every survey I've seen puts Cubans in a very different voting category than other Hispanics. The leaders among the Cubans (at least in the first wave) were the highly educated largely because they were thrown out or had to flee for their lives.
Without Castro, I'm not sure that the Cuban immigrants would have been significantly different than the Haitians. And the Cubans already have a hole in the Fence. One raft from Tampico to Houston, the other from Havana to Key West, who gets to stay?
Most new arrivals are going to be democrats until they reach age 30. The GOp should try to win over Hispanics the same way they do everyone else: Reaganite conservative values. Don't pander or over compromise on principles, like the border, for a pipe dream. A pipe Rove smoked. Bush actually belives in this open border business. Its part of his adopted Texas ideology and its dangerous post 9/11 and even not considering 9/11 given the numbers that are coming too fast to assimilate and the burden on local communities.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
Re: Most new arrivals are going to be democrats until they reach age 30.
New arrivals? Assuming they are not voting illegally, it will hardly matter where they are politically for several years until they can become citizens. However, what I suspect will happen is that the new arrivals, oncet hey become citizens will mostly lean Democratic, as will their children. It will only be in the third generation that voting behavior will assimilate to the general norm. That at least is pretty much how it has worked with past immigrants and assuming nothing else changes I see no reason to think it will work out differently with Hispanics.
Re: Bush actually believes in this open border business. Its part of his adopted Texas ideology
To be a bit fair to Mr Bush, I have heard it claimed that Texas has rather little trouble with its Mexican immigrants, at least relative to other states. Mr Bush may be seeing things through Texan eyes, rather than Arizonan or Californian.
But the fact is open borders worked for most of the past 200 years. But not since the change in the law in the Ted Kennedy bill in the late 60s and esp not since the early 90s.
Read "Alien Nation."
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
On the national ticket. As for NYC, lets face it the place had absurd gun laws before he got there.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
I want someone who is willing to call the existing laws ridiculous and would sign a repeal of those already there. Somebody who likes gun control but promises to not sign new bills is not acceptable to me... because I don't place that much faith in politicians vetoing bills they like. There's basically no judicial oversight of gun control laws, so we are going to be stuck with what the legislature and executive come up with. Rudy would have to come out and do a 180 on this issue for me to be able to support him.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I would argue the nation has survived abortion and will no matter what. The other three hurt the nation in the security and economic realms far more.
What's 1.2+ million legally killed humans per year next to unrestricted access to firearms?
Clearly, some people have their priorities out of whack.
------------
Fnord.
Appreciate the point, but let's not overlook the many lives saved by the Second Amendment.
The right to bear arms IS the right to defend innocent life. Without private ownership of firearms, it is difficult to imagine how many millions of additional Americans would be murdered, raped, robbed, and terrorized by criminals.
This is not abstract speculation. Take my sister, a short & slight woman who would have little chance unarmed against most male attackers. About ten years ago, she was approached by a man, at night, in an otherwise empty parking lot in Albuquerque, NM. He wasn't just "taking a shortcut" through the lot, he was coming right at her. She saved herself from robbery, and perhaps rape, by brandishing a handgun, and the scumbag took off. Her exercise of Second Amendment rights prevented the Albuquerque Police from finding a brutalized, terrorized, or even dead woman in a parking lot that night.....
I also had the "pleasure" of living in a bad neighborhood near Cleveland several years ago. Someone got into our apt building, apparently high on something. He was accosting random people in the hallways and even knocking on doors to see who might be foolish enough to open up, "asking" for money. He came to MY DOOR, and I was very scared. I called an acquaintance who lived on another floor of the same building. He came upstairs, got out of the elevator, and called out so I could hear him down the hall. I opened my door, and this drugged-out bully found himself facing a handgun on one side and a shotgun on the other. Amazingly, he decided to duck into the stairwell and we heard him RUNNING for dear life down the stairs. When the police finally arrived, he was nowhere to be found in the building.)
I know you're not saying that "gun rights" aren't important. But they're far more of a priority than your comment implies. It's impossible to tell whether banning abortion would save more lives than allowing law-abiding citizens to bear arms.
So "lives saved" is not a clear basis on which to make banning abortion a higher priority than protecting and restoring the right to defend innocent life with firearms.
I'd be glad to see the GOP actively work to repeal restrictions on the right to bear arms AND prohibit at least second- and third-trimester abortion.
It's impossible to tell whether banning abortion would save more lives than allowing law-abiding citizens to bear arms.
You remember when I said 1.2 million per year, right? Given that the murder rate in this country is around 15,000 a year (and slowly declining), and ours is comparable to that of England (land of no guns) I'd say it's pretty darn well possible to know to know that, actually.
That's not to say that I'm just crazy about gun control, but I know where it lies on my priority chain.
------------
Fnord.
Abortion is a symptom of a dying society, Slouching Towards a fall of Rome-like Gommorah.
There is surviving and there is surviving. Both we and Japan survived WWII.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
I am having a real hard time parsing it.
As to the Japan US reference which one survived better ? At this point its a little hard to tell ;-)
Veritas magna est et praevalet
I think abortion on demand is a sign of our decadence as a society and the kind of sin that eats away at our soul, and, if not arrested will lead us down the path that Europe is near the end of. So, no, ultimately we will not "survive" abortion. I have a special disdain for the word "survive" because of the way liberals often use it to describe "survivals" that Patrick Henry would trade death for.
I don't want just to survive. I want to Live long and prosper (see Spock on Star Trek).
better?
I do think its not a close case as to which country has survived better between us and any nation, except that it is true that we make it possible for many to live beyond their means by paying for their defense.
We have many children nations we indulge.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
When that which is most sacred is considered an inconvenience it can only mean people no longer understand why they were put on earth.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
I wish I were more well-versed in computer programming, I'd just write an algorithm that would randomly create a commenter who would come into each Brownback thread and announce, with no regard for the definition of the word "amnesty," that Brownback is an "amnesty candidate!!!!!!!111!!!" and that therefore he can "NEVER BE PRESIDENT!!!one!"
It sure would save a lot of time.
------------
Fnord.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
Johnthebaptistmoore, you make some good points about Brownback.
The fact is that he does support rewarding millions of illegal alien lawbreakers with legal status and a path to citizenship. Title 8, Section 1325 of the United States Code prohibits improper entry into the United States by aliens. Violation of that code section can be punished as a misdemeanor or a felony. Brownback wants to give legal status and a path to citizenship to millions of illegal aliens that committed a federal criminal offense. Title 8, Section 1325 provides in part:
Section 1325. Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
What upsets me is that even more amnesty for illegals will be happening throughout the U.S. very soon, and there's nothing that anybody can really do about it! All of the damage that this "more amnesty for illegals" causes will be very intense, and it would take too long to even list it all! Thank you, Republican Party, for soon destroying the entire U.S. existence as a country as well as eventually destroying conservatism throughout the U.S.! The giant influx of illegals coming into the U.S. will be for leftist politics forever, and U.S. conservatism will eventually die!
Maybe Senator Brownback can follow Edwards lead and announce down in New Orleans during Mardi Gras which falls on the 20th.
Heck if he hurries maybe the Krewe of Bacchus might still need a King...He could announce from the Bacchus float and instead of beads, toss campaign buttons...or not.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
I am so excited...George W. Bush...oops I mean Sam Brownback is running. I cannot wait to volunteer for his campaign. ;)
Brownback is the compassionate conservative in this race. Didn't we make that mistake 7 years ago? This compassionate conservative nonsense means bigger government and fewer people voting Republican. It has gotten us nothing but out of power with bigger government.
Unless Brownback renounces the compassionate conservative crap, I do not see him winning.
And a paleocon insurgency combined with Lib Media doomsdaysaying cost us the fourth and least important of the four. CompConservatism so far is batting .750.
Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan
1-Illegal Immigration wan't an issue in 2000 and even in 2004 the war was numero uno.
2- Bback is also soft on the war
3-Bush has gotten us 2 terror regimes removed, a 90% fixed SCOTUS, no mo 9/11s and a great economy.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
I'm glad a solid pro-lifer has thrown his hat in the ring. He'd be a great VP choice for Giuliani.
Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan
than the Rude One. I don't see the two of them on the same ticket--much less with Giuliani in the top slot.
Romney or Guliani will leave abortion alone. Any true conservative knows that issue belongs to the states. Passing social conservative legislation at the national level goes against the federalist principles conservatives are supposed to support.
The Goldwater Republicans are being replaced by social conservatives that want to pass all kinds of morality legislation at the federal level. Brownback is the champion of this movement. Social conservatives came to the GOP because they didn't want the government to interfere with their religious beliefs. Now they want to use government to impose their own morality, with anti-abortion laws, flag burning laws, gay marriage amendments. The founders never envisioned the federal government imposing social values on all the states, states were supposed to be independent when it came to things like this.
The primary purpose of the President and the federal government should be the GWoT, and Romney and Guliani can articulate the threat and what needs to be done as well as anyone, and they are proven executives and administrators.
You are arguing, in effect, that a conservative would value the proceduralism and structure of federalism over such an elementary principle as the value of every human life - an argument which I have exposed as profoundly unconservative in another context. It is important to remember that American Constitutionalism is not Conservatism, nor was it at the time of the founding. Whatever the values of federalism w/r/t abortion, that does not make belief in federalism the sine non qua of conservatism, especially when stacked against the principles - motherhood, family, human life - that abortion eviscerates.
The states rights cudgel is, no doubt, a handy one to grab for those who would support a squishy candidate on abortion (and to his credit, Giuliani is no suish - he's firmly in support of it), but it is the height of absurdity to place federalism above first principles and call that "conservative," yet more to toss around the self-contradictory libertarian aversion to "legislating morality" and call that conservative. You cannot just pick from a grab bag of what some modern Republicans think and call all those who disagree with your hodge-podge "unconservative," and I would think that someone of your background would know as such.
------------
Fnord.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Gamecock, the DeVine Conservative Voice Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report and is Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report
The Constitution as written and as interpreted by the lucid-thinking says that abortion is properly understood as an issue reserved for the states. If you believe, as I and I would imagine many others in this forum do, that the issue is more important than a mere question of state's rights, the appropriate course of action to federalize this would be a constitutional amendment. Absent that (and at present it will fail), the best course of action we have is to loose abortion from its constitutional penumbra and fight it out in the fifty states.
as interpreted by the Supreme Court says that abortion is not a matter for the states, but for the Federal government.
Why are so many people in the dark about this? The abortion issue never comes up with without several people reciting their belief that it is properly an issue for the states. Philosophically speaking, maybe. Legally speaking, no way.
I would take a pro-choicer who will appoint decent judges over a pro-lifer who would appoint activist judges (who may happen to be personally pro-life) for POTUS. It's not like there is going to be a national abortion ban crossing the Presidents desk, now, or at any time in the future. I'm happy to return the matter to the states, where some will be able to ban the procedure or at least place restrictions on it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The Goldwater Republicans were led to power by one Ronald Reagan, who was so passionate about abortion that he published a book on it during his first term in office.
And these 'social conservatives?' 20 years ago they were the Reagan Republicans, part of the 'silent majority' that was being brought permanently into the Republican fold.
If anyone's being replaced, it's the northeastern libs like Romney and Giuliani, and for that I say Thank Goodness.
Run like Reagan!
I meant "Reagan Democrats" not "Reagan Republicans," sorry.
Run like Reagan!
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
Re: Any true conservative knows that issue belongs to the states.
Right. And until Roe vs Wade is overturned the issue will not be with the states. No one here as far as I know is asking for a president who makes abortion illegal by royal decree. They are asking for one who will appoint judges that will not invent an abortion right out of whole cloth, and return the issue to the states.
Any true conservative knows that issue belongs to the states.
Any true conservative perhaps knows that the issue should belong to the states, but since 1973, abortion most definitely has not belonged to the states.
Sending abortion back to the states very much depends on getting the right person in the White House.
Personal appeal in small groups does mean something in Iowa no doubt, but like it or not so does money. What do you do with a guy who has personal appeal and a vast war chest like Romney?
I could see the chaisma giving Brownback little more edge than in a state like California or something, but every study shows that campaigns who spend the most win the most.
When Brownback has 1/10 of the money to spend in IA he will have to work much much harder. The problem is they will all be working hard.
The reason some candidates can earn lots of money and others don't is because the guys with money can pick winners- that's why they have the money. Or as the golden rule says: He with gold makes the rules.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com
***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***
Earned media counts at least as much as the paid kind, and winning a caucus earns you a lot of free media attention. That in turn brings people onto the bandwagon, and boom, robusto!
Run like Reagan!
Right on... part of the problem I have with those claiming another candidate will emerge are devoid of this concept. If you lack national name ID, you need a huge war chest. The longer you stay out of the race, the less money you will have. Some have been talking about Gilmore from Virginia, but I think he suffers from the name ID problem plus the fact Virginia GOP has not faired very well since his reign. Some attack Romney for his home state having a bad state party, but there is no comparison with Virginia, which is a red state trending blue.
Newt might be able to climb the hurdle, but I doubt he will run and he has too high of negatives to win a general.
I forgot which congressman did this, but he won the election with $300,000 versus $5.1 million of his opponent.
There are abberations in everything.
Michael Barron did a study in November that showed congressman who spent more won (from what I remember) 97% f the time. Senators won 92% of the time. This was in the 90's till 2004.
In the years that it was less it dropped by maybe 5% (again I am doing this from memory) but the ratio between congressman and senators stayed the same.
Clearly your congressman was part of that lucky 3% who had some other issues or factors that drove him through.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com
***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***
Maybe more people give money to likeable candidates and more people also vote for likeable candidates.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
these statistics are a little too high and too reoccuring to ignore.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com
***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***
I am suggesting a range of causality:
It goes from A causes B (money causes people to win) to B causes A (winners raise more money than losers).
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I thought that is what exactly the implicatios of the pole were. The winners nearly all of the time raise the most money. I guess you are arguing that it could be a sign or a bi-product rather than a cause?
Either way:
not earning very much= Bad
Earning the most= Good
www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com
***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***
Is the same reason they can raise more money ?
I.E. the more popular guys can raise more money and because they are more popular they do better at the polls ?
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
report that one of the candidates who comes over best in small groups is George Pataki. Does that mean he has a serious shot? Er, no. He has been consistently underestimated throughout his career. I did not believe for a moment that he would take out Cuomo, but the prospect of his becoming President "stands not within the prospect of belief". He is not even the biggest name from his own state - which is quite an achievement for a three term governor.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
"The reason some candidates can earn lots of money and others don't is because the guys with money can pick winners- that's why they have the money. Or as the golden rule says: He with gold makes the rules."
in American politics, and that is ready money." --Phil Gramm, in effect announcing the end of his presidential campaign.
in this race is Mike Huckabee. Pawlenty for vice president.
H/P 2008!!!
As soon as he is a serious enough candidate for the base (and his primary opponents) to start delving into his liberal record as governor.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
A candidate that I feel quite comfortable voting for in the primary. To me, Brownback reflects the positive changes in the GOP in the last 8 years, that government when used effectively is not a bad thing. After all, I'm a neo-con, not a libertarian. Brownback brings with him not only his pro-life credentials but also the fact that he would continue what I think is Dubya's quietest legacy (and the one that he is said to be most proud of) which is the increase in Aid and assistance and trade with Africa. G.W. has tripled the funding to Africa, and Brownback as shown by his willingness to sponsor legislation about the genocide in Sudan with Obama, is not someone who is going to sit back and let Africa die without trying something, which as a Christian I find relieving. I also see Brownback because of his strong Christian background as a strong leader for those oppressed by totalitarian regimes in other parts of the world. I'm sorry GC, there's no way I could pull the lever for a social liberal like Rudy in the primary with as principled as a man as Brownback running. Thank God I can now say I'm not voting for McCain.
What political philosopher do you most admire? "Christ, because he changed my heart....When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the Savior, it changes your heart and changes your life." -George W. Bush, echoed by me
Positive changes... government has got bigger and probably less efficient than it was when Bush took office. Medicare Part D, Homeland Security, etc... are all nightmares. The legacy of Bush on domestic matter is that my generation will be paying for his compassionate social programs. I really do not think it is compassionate for parents to spend and bill their children and grandchildren.
Balanced budgets, entitlement reform, and paying down the debt are important issues for me and Brownback's compassionate conservatism does not address these concerns. Saving the Africans from clobbering each is all well in good, but I think we need to get our own financial house in order first.
This is why I support Romney. He is the only candidate who has balanced a statewide budget without raising taxes, reformed an entitlement program, and expressed a desire to pay down the federal debt.
f your looking at everything purely fiscally fine, but IMO, I don't mind paying for Homeland Security when it has prevented terror attacks for the last 6 years. If you want a fiscal conservative candidate, I agree, Brownback probably isn't your man just like I want a social conservative candidate which means Romney isn't my guy. Like I said I'm pulling the lever for my guy in the primary and whoever emerges in the general. Either way, I plan on living in one of the reddest states in the country by next year, the great state of Texas, and we'll be deep red no matter who I vote for, just like my home state of illinois will be blue no matter what.
What political philosopher do you most admire? "Christ, because he changed my heart....When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the Savior, it changes your heart and changes your life." -George W. Bush, echoed by me
Texas, where I also live, ain't gonna be red much longer. Republicans loose more and more areas as more and more Hispanics
vote (legally or illegally)combined with people who immigrate here from California and the Rustbelt. San Antonio and Austin are nearly pure democrat now.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
and state capitals almost always lean Democrat. That's even true of Salt Lake City in the most Republican state in the nation. The question is how do the suburbs and rural areas lean.
Salt Lake City is a great example of a blue city surrounded by red suburbs and rural areas. The Democrats might barely hold Salt Lake City, but the suburbs are overwhelmingly Republican. The Provo-Orem Metro area south of Salt Lake City is considered the most Republican urban area in the nation.
If balanced budgets and paying down the debt are big issues to you, big enough that you'd rather the government swipe enough moeny from the people to do it, instead of lowering taxes as President Bush did, then I think you're out of step with the Republican mainstream.
Run like Reagan!
Romney supports Bush's tax cuts and has went as far as meeting and recruiting many of Bush's economic arichtects. He's also signed (as well as Brownback) a no new taxes pledge.
Also, paying down the debt and balancing the budget don't have to come at the expense of taxes.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/inside_report_rudys_mi...
www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com
***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***
As far as I'm concerned, if you're that perilously close to a surplus, taxes are too high.
Run like Reagan!
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
I'd much rather see it go to pay off our debt than to see it go to Africa or any other Compassion "Conservatism" scheme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Replies_to_argume...
The budget should be balanced, not in deficit or surplus. All surpluses should be used to pay down existing debts and to give tax rebates.
In fact, back in the 70's this was one of the Republicans biggest issues. Lowering taxes and cutting the budget are equally important. Unfortunately, the budget is not getting cut regardless of the party in power.
But make no mistake. Budget deficits mean something. We have to do something about them. If they aren't paid off through tax revenue, they will be paid off (stealthily) through inflation. But they will be paid back. Lets do it the right way and cut spending.
Do you have any evidence that budget deficits cause higher inflation, when the government isn't creating more money to pay off the deficits? Our government sells bonds to cover shortfalls, so I woudln't necessarily expect a monetary change.
Run like Reagan!
until you change the way appropriations are made in Congress. Everybody blames Republicans for deficits (because they are most often running the Administration) but no one blames Congress (which is most often run by Democrats). Yet it's Congress that spends the money.
As things stand, way too many subcommittees (dozens of them) can spend money and no one in Congress gets any points for controlling spending. That's going to get worse under the Democrats. Large tax increases are probably inevitable. (The other possibility is really huge deficits. It'll be entertaining to see how the Dems explain that.)
In fact, back in the 70's this was one of the Republicans biggest issues.
Seems like plenty of reason to ignore it to me. Were the 70s the heyday of conservatism? Even the Republicans were liberal in the 70s. And it sure worked out well, didn't it?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Who said I opposed low taxes. It is possible to have budget surpluses and low taxes. They are not exclusive things. They become mutually exclusive when we have a bloated government. The first step towards balancing the budget is not raising taxes, but cutting spending. Keep cutting spending until you reach a point where the government is balancing the budgets.
We have to reduce/eliminate entitlements and eliminate agencies of the federal government entirely.
That will reduce spending forever. "Cutting" merely reduces the stretch of the octopus. But like the octopus, the government will regrow the tentacle.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
I agree. The entitlement programs need to be restrained and some need to be outright eliminated. Agencies like the Department of Agriculture must go if we are cutting the size of government. Maybe retain a small piece of education to enact some basic standards. Everything else should be gutted in that department. While we are at it, I say eliminate HUD by giving all the current residences owned by it to their current occupants with some stipulations.
I'd do it the other way around... cut USDA down to 1-2% of its current size and eliminate the Dept of Education. The USDA does some pretty legitimate stuff, like inspection work. You can't say the same about the Dept of Education.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
This may make me a dissenter on this board but I agree about fiscal responsibility, or at least your conception of it. I am not in favor of higher taxes, but taxes discipline budgets to an extent that deficit spending simply cannot. As per Africa though, I would posit that foreign aid is one of the cheapest means of foreign policy available. Our aid in Indonesia and Pakistan after their respective disasters cost a mere pittance in the scheme of the federal budget but won us more goodwill there and around the world than pretty much anything else we've done this term.
that foreign aid has done anything positive at all for our "goodwill" around the world. Despite many years and billions of aid dollars they pretty much all hate us. In fact you can point to a lot of concrete harm it has caused in the past, like being used to feed armys and finance dictators.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Free trade is far superior to foreign aid in my opinion. The best thing the West could do for Africa is eliminate all the agricultural subsidies given by Western governments.
seems to be a lack of executive experience. Add to that the fact that he's a senator - we just don't elect Senators President in this country - and I think he's a non-factor.
If Rudy runs and commits to nominating Scalia and Thomas clones to the Supreme Court AND pledges to only enforce the gun laws already in place, he'll have my vote. Why?
1. He would win. As a country we cannot afford four years of Hillary!, Obama, Biden, or any of the socialists the Democrats would nominate. I do NOT want to lose while trotting out someone who doesn't have crossover appeal. I don't want to eke the next election out. I want to win it by a couple of touchdowns.
2. I believe he would govern even more conservatively than Bush on all the issues (taxes, spending, conservative justices, and the Middle East) that are crucial in the coming years.
3. He would likely balance his ticket, possibly with Newt, which would make me absolutely giddy waiting for him to absolutely DEMOLISH whoever the #2 is on the Democrat side.
I believe that if we drift too far to the right on the immigration issue and fail to compromise here, we are doomed to be a minority party for the foreseeable future. We simply cannot afford to lose.
"I just disproved my own argument. Where's my degree from Paul Maguire University??" -- Bill Simmons
Rudy showed bad, bad judgment there. Not to mention his Hasty Pudding Club moment in a dress and scarf. Nor his "unconventional" domestic arrangements. I don't think you can overcome all that.
'Course, he did get rid of the squeegee guys.
I think the biggest effect is that he gives "pure-play" social conservatives a destination. I think it hurts Romney the most. Romney desparately needs to finish higher than third in Iowa. To do so, Romney needs to rack up very strong support among social conservatives. Brownback makes that much harder. If Romney finishes third in Iowa, he probably does not do much better in Nevada. That leaves everything riding on New Hampshire. As the local candidate, Romney has to win or finish a strong second there.
So Brownback poses real additional problems for Romney. Without a total Giuliani meltdown before Iowa, Romney has a very tough road to traverse, and Brownback makes it tougher.
He's a Movement Conservative who never stole a freight train.
That said, in 2008, his effect will be as follows: If they held an election in Hiroshima, he would lose to Paul Tibbets.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
At least if he wins the primary we'll carry Kansas. :)
He'll have some appeal to those on the hardcore social conservative wing, but that's about it. If he's lucky, maybe low single digits in the Iowa caucuses will be his high water mark.
Good man, Sam. Best of luck.