Redstate

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

It doesn't always go the way people think it will. It just might be the year of the.. liberal... Republican.

For the good of the country. Conservatives can compromise. And some long-time Dems can compromise (due to the inexperienced candidates their party is offering and/or because giving Dems control of everything-house,senate,pres, makes no sense right now). And we will all be better off.

I respect your argument, but the electorate is going to look at the candidate's personal life.
Judy & Rudy does not work. New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago and San Francisco have the kind of moral demography that will cut Rudy some slack - and they will vote Democratic. And the rest of America? Rudy won't have a prayer.
You've seen the kind of examination the candidates who have not been ducking the early primaries have undergone.
If Rudy wins Florida, the media will go full bore on his marriages, children, and other aspects of his personal that simply will not play.
At a time when responsible people worry that America has lost its moral compass, do you honestly believe Americans could hold their nose and vote for this guy?

Do you really think Rudy's personal life is going to matter compared to Bill Clinton two presidents ago, especially since his likely opponent is going to be Hillary Clinton?

Can you name me *anyone* that's going to switch to voting *for* Hillary Clinton based on Rudy's personal life?

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Do you really think that the MS will take the Clinton to task on anything? They run all over any GOP, including (maybe especially) Rudy. And not dare go after the King, and therefore the queen, of shame on a single issue.

Our only True chance was to offer up a TRUE conservative that the American people as a whole would have gotten behind. The closest we have right now is Thompson,, the real man was hunter. But thanks to RINO globalist talk show hosts like Rush, Sean, and many others he was kept out of the discussion... Now we have nothing to contrast Bush "the worst steward of conservative values an ideas ever".

So going with the more RINO BUSH like candidate is exactly what eh demwits want... Did you see the DemDebate last night... all three basically have decided that McCant is the GOP nominee... They're pushing their guy so they can run on the "No more Bush" ticket instead of the ideas and solutions tickets... because they don't have any that make sense!!

My choices are shaping up like this: Thompson (since the best man is now out), Romney, Giuli, Huck... And there is no other republican running...McCant is a true blue Demwit with a red coat on and Pauly is s libertarian with an identity problem....

I directed your attention to a pressing issue. I even gave you a second chance to cooperate. You failed to comply. Now get your sorry, racist self out of here.

HTML Help for Red Staters

exactly saints in real life. If the divorce rate in Red States was something like 4 percent and say, 60 percent in blue states, you might have a point. Reality shows otherwise, and most people are based in reality.

You claim Red States will not vote for Rudy? And whom will they be voting for, using the template of personal sinlessness? Hillary?

I am actually glad "average Republicans" are often more realistic than political zealots such as we.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

There are two Republicans right now-those who will vote and those who will not.

Those planning on voting are in almost equal parts driven to keep the Dems OUT as much as they are in getting IN an ideology or pet issue.

It is what it is-and I don't like it-but...

well, I repeat myself.

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

I am motivated to keep the Democrats out and to advance what you characterize as a "pet issue." My primary motives are (1) protection of the law for the unborn, and (2) restoration of political equality (i.e., rejection of judicial activism) for those of us who don't agree with the prevailing mores of the secular elites. I oppose Democrats for that reason, and I vote Republican for that reason.

There are other "pet issues" too. But the above take priority.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

my choice of the term "pet" is based on how those who don't CARE about abortion enough to drive their votes have chosen to look down their noses at it...not how I feel personally.

I consider abortion the number one issue in life...above and beyond all others in the matters of our Republic...but none of these candidates share that concern to the degree I do...and you...so we stay home or vote. If we vote, we have to pick from the least of the bad on the most of what they can do to keep things from getting even worse.

I will be the first to say Giuliani's position on abortion is an abomination against everything I believe. Know what?

Not enough of the people engaging their brains and their feet to the ballot boxes share my opinion on the matter.

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

But I did assume that you were reffering to the pro-life cause as one of those side issues that we should agree to disagree on, meanwhile we get back to the supposedly "important" stuff we all apparently agree on, like cutting the capital-gains tax.

Thanks for the clarification.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

whetever reason. So where do you get the statement "Not enough of the people engaging their brains and their feet to the ballot boxes share my opinion on the matter."

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

Who reduced Abortion rates anywhere. Do you care about the babies or about bellowing ?

Or to borrow from the great communicator "Its amazing how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit for it"
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Query to what extent the abortion rate went down (1) because of something he did, (2) despite anything he did, or (3) regardless of anything he did.

Do you know the answer?

Let me provide one answer, the abortion rate sure as heck didn't go down BECAUSE he used his bully pulpit to characterize abortion as merely an issue of "choice," and to say that abortion, like any other medical procedure, should be payed for by the government.

He may have done other things, but the abortion rate went down despite his enthusiasm for legal abortion, government-provided abortion, and Roe v. Wade.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

No offense meant here but I am going to work on the assumption you are of the male glandular persuasion. You are nineteen, living in NYC and have just found out something unplanned has happened. The last thing you care about is what the mayor is saying from his bully pulpit. What you care about is that its easier and cheaper to put the child up for adoption than it is to just end its life.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Not that you consult Giulinai's latest speech. But if invocation of the unborn child as a child has been banished from public discourse, it is more likely that an invocation of the "child" during one's personal deliberations, and discussions with the young lady in question--will be absent.

Why do you think there is so much dispute over the government simply using the word "marriage" with respect to certain relations?

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

It wouldn't have made a difference and I give thanks every day I draw breath that I was born before Roe V Wade.

The bully pulpit is important for eventually getting rid of abortion. Its not relevant in stopping horny teens from killing their unwanted get.

Teaching abstinence helps, making certain that you don't place in situations where they have no choice helps even more.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

My vote would be for 3.

Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? If so, please explain what Rudy did to cause abortions to decline in NYC?

Does the phrase promote adoption mean anything to you ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Are you implying Rudy prevented abortions by increasing adoptions?

When I ask for an explanation, I'm being serious. I keep hearing Rudy supporters saying he caused abortions to be reduced in NYC. I'm skeptical, but willing to listen to a rational argument supported by facts. I've yet to hear one.

As the preferred alternative to abortion. Adoptions are up abortions are down. Its about as clear as anything in politics.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

What does this even mean? Did he give speeches about adoptions, did he pay people to put kids up for adoption, what are we talking about here.

Note that abortion rates fell across the entire United States in the 90s and adoption rates rose. New York City fell further but it had a *lot* farther to fall. Its abortion rates are still a lot higher than elsewhere. In fact, its an abortion mecca for late-term abortions. I don't blame Rudy for this, because NYC is what it is, but no one thought Rudy was some kind of pro-life hero until it was discovered pro-lifers weren't buying his campaign like he wanted.

What specific policies did Rudy do to promote adoptions? What are the stats on adoptions in NYC? Do they show some massive increase that can be attributable to a Rudy policy? Still skeptical and waiting on facts.

He established the first child protection agency in NYC history that reported directly to the mayor. He streamlined the adoption process and established government outreach programs that paired potential adoptees with potential parents. He got family courts to hold adoption saturday sessions with specific purpose of getting adoptions done.

As a result adoptions were up 66% in NYC.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

...isn't that welcome to our world?

Good show haystack.

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

Of course, if you're like me, anything that goes against your very being can still be enough to allow you [with a clear conscience] to abstain from voting or vote according to your beliefs.

So. by all means, reject the candidate...but to be honest, you'd be more consistent with that righteous indignation thing you got going there to ABSTAIN...otherwise you're pulling the lever for a pro-choicer in ANY of the Dems. I fail to see how that furthers your cause...one which I share, by the way-Pro-Choice is an abomination.

It's not like Giuliani's going to start performing MORE abortions because he's ok with them. The SCOTUS fight is where we check his personal beliefs at the door...not the ballot boxes.

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

If a Pro Choice Republican gets elected, We would most likely have a pro choice president for 8 years. As it is almost impossible to defeat a sitting president in a primary, and the odds of democrats selecting a Pro life candidate are almost nil. Its actually better to vote for a democrat NOW and then hope the party comes around in four years and nominates a Pro life candidate that can win.

The truth can only be found by those who seek it.

But, let's be honest, the President's real control over social policy comes through the court system. Giuliani has pledged that he will appoint strict constructionist judges. Hillary or Obama? We know we'll get activist judges with those folks.

add that pressure can be applied to a pro-choice republican president (by the base) to move him in a pro-life direction. Harriet Miers and immigration were examples of what can happen when the base raises it's collective voice. I've said it before, if Rudy stands a chance for re-election, he'll be forced to move to the right on social issues. I also can't think of any politician alive today, aside from Bush, with a stronger commitment to the GWOT and national defense than Rudy. He is so far beyond his counterparts they are almost non-existent.

I'm with haystack...

forgetting that a majority of Democrats are in Congress, so getting the judges you want are less likely. Thats a fact.

--roxer

4 years of Hillary means that two, maybe three 80+ year-old liberal judges become 40-or-50-year-old liberal judges.

And there goes any chance of overturning Roe v Wade anytime in the next 25 to 30 years. Just because you're too proud and short-sighted to vote for a Republican that's not pro-life but willing to nominate judges that'll overturn Roe v Wade.

Thanks for nothing.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

The historical pattern is that it's extremely rare for a party to lose the White House only 4 years after it takes it from the other party. Maybe the reason is that in the next election the incumbent can still effectively blame problems on the legacy of his predecessor; whatever the reason, history almost guarantees Clinton's reelection if she wins in 2008.

For anyone that wants to point to Carter 3 decades ago, as an example of throwing a party out of the WH after only 4 years, I ask you how many times in the last century that's happened. Even with a klutz like Carter, it was neck and neck up to the last weeks of the campaign, and it took Reagan's KO in the debate to pull ahead. Anybody here predicting we'll have another Reagan in 2012 to evict Clinton?

Also with a Democratic congress to help Hillary, you can be sure of "voting rights" legislation to ensure that evil Republicans don't unfairly disenfranchise dead people or undocumented Americans. The difficulty of unseating a party after only 4 years in the White House will be magnified by vote corruption.

and the answers that Hillary, or for that matter, any Democrat president will take to remedy the situation, we could easily bee looking back on the Carter years with nostalgia.

It won't take more than four years to bring back a stagflation like you have never seen before. And then, of course, there is the wonder of Islamofascism unchecked for four years.

With nostalgia if we had all gotten lobotomies.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

but President Hillary WILL bring on a thriving underground economy in the sale of Thorazyne.

looking at the gold and oil markets, along with the declines in equities, the writing is on the wall that tough times are ahead.

We may end up finding how quickly a Marxist can turn into a Stalinist if Hillary gets in there. Luckily Carter was a boob who didn't even have his own party unified behind him in Congress. I fear what Hillary could do with Pelosi, Reid, and the MoveOn kooks cheering them on from the peanut gallery. Our woes could quickly shift from economic pain to losing civil liberties, capital controls, massive income redistribution, state takeovers of industries, and protectionist trade policies in a big hurry.

We don't even want to find out how far off the cliff these socialist kooks will take us.

Islamofascism unchecked for 4 years? Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if we got hit not long after she got sworn in. Kind of like the welcoming party Gordon Brown got in the UK. They're going to be anxious to test whoever our next POTUS is to see what they're up against. They're probably also going to be ready to hit somewhere the minute George W. Bush takes that final ride on Marine One to the airport for the plane home.

Even with respect to judicial nominations, the Senate makes a huge difference.

The biggest mistakes Republican presidents have made on US Supreme Court nominations have been when the Democrats controlled the US Senate: Nixon (Blackmun), Ford (Stevens), Reagan (Kennedy), George H W Bush (Souter).

The biggest successes Republicans presidents have made on US Supreme Court nominations have been when the Republicans controlled the US Senate: Reagan (Scalia), George W Bush (Roberts, Alito).

To be fair, there are the cases of Nixon (Renquist), George H W Bush (Thomas) and on the other side of the ledger Reagan (O'Conner). But still, with a Democrat Senate, we aren't likely to get a conservative justice.

that may be the last line of defense for us in checking judges and cabinet appointments.

We also need to keep our eye on the ball for 2010. The only reason Clinton's presidency wasn't an even bigger disaster is because we had Newt and the Class of 94 in there to keep order.

"4 years of Hillary means that two, maybe three 80+ year-old liberal judges become 40-or-50-year-old liberal judges."

That would be a heck of a trick considering that Stevens is the only liberal judge who either is or will be 80+ in the next four years. But, why let facts get in the way of an argument?

But a solid attempt at clouding the issue

Scalia is 72
Breyer 70
Kennedy 72
Stevens 88

Add 5 to all those. You really want to take odds they are all going to be around in 5 years (Yes it is 5 not 4 years)/

So yes why let reason get in the way of harping on a minor point. Of course your response to these matters has been "HAHAHA" So I guess its really not about doing whats right.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You're not particularly good with math, are you? Scalia is 71, Breyer is 69, Kennedy is 71, and Stevens is 87. You don't actually get a year older until your birthday.

Also, Scalia is not one of the liberal judges. Most would consider him conservative. You also left out Ginsburg for some reason. She is liberal and she's 74.

In case it escaped you, adding four (or five) to any of the above results in one (namely Stevens), not two or three like you ignorantly posted, being 80+.

Your continued factual mistakes leaves your credibility in question.

I did not say they would be over 80. I just pointed out they would all be over their three score and ten. And whats more you could expect at least 1 probably more to be replaced by the next potus.

As to the birthday issue you would carry a little weight if you were right.

Inauguration is on january 2009 by that time they will all have had their birthday and the term of office is till january 2013

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

It's not so bad to make a little mistake but you are beclowning yourself by attempting to explain it away.

Your post says "Scalia is 72" (emphasis added). Unless you want to make some sort of Clintonian argument about the meaning of "is," it means current age now and not age in January 2009. It is common practice in the English language to use "will be" when refering to some event in the future.

Why also did you say "add 5 to all those [ages]" if you meant their ages in January 2009? If you meant their ages in January 2009, then you would only add four years to calculate their ages at the end of the next president's term. Is this yet another example of you math perspicacity?

I'll ask again

Do you think that in 5 years one or more of those judges won't be gone ? Are you willing to let Hillary replace them ?

You can worry all you like whether or not I was correct in subtracting their birth year from the current year.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Is your assertion the next presidnet isn't going to be appointing judges or that they will be.

Your entire screed is pointless unless you want to believe that there is going to be zero opportunity for a president hillary to extend the current bias of the court or shift it further to the right.

What you have done is little more than blow smoke.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Don't vote for spite. If you can't support a pro-choicer, don't vote for either pro-choicer on either side. Vote for the pro-life Republicans running for offices downticket.

You have the liberal salivating at using them to manipulate you.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Gulliani's upside is (I'd guess) his fiscal/war stances. They are NOT his social stances. Right? And in a world where you apparently can't have all three it seems that the SoCons normally get the short end of the stick.

That's because many conservatives and conservative-leaning libertarians believe in small government--not just small government on fiscal issues, but social issues as well. We want the government as far away from our personal lives as possible. The SoCons who want to use the government and taxpayer dollars to fund social programs and laws that dictate personal behavior actually go against the conservative prime directive of small government, small government, small government. For example, though most of us agree on using the power of the government to stop abortion, far fewer of us would support a federal smoking ban. A lot of us are socially conservative on a personal level and bring up our children to hold socially conservative values, but we don't want the government to use its power to impose specific social values on the entire nation beyond the basics that 95% of the nation accepts.

Plus, for presidential races in particular, many of us conservatives understand that the president does not and should not have much real power to affect social issues. Beyond reassuring ourselves that the candidate promises to appoint strict constructionist judges, we realize that the president's powers do not and should not include telling people how to live their lives. We reject "nanny statism" categorically. Though the president can influence social issues through the power of the bully pulpit when he's popular, he can't really change much socially on his own. He's limited to introducing legislation and wielding the veto pen. He CAN, however, have a tremendous and meaningful impact on national security since those powers are granted by the Constitution. He can also have a strong say in economic issues through budgeting, fiscal policies, foreign policy and trade agreements, executive branch appointments and hires, etc. Fiscal and security concerns are what I think most core conservatives think we're hiring the president to do, not change the moral fabric of America. Clearly, there is a large group of Republicans who DO want the president to crusade for social issues. But I think core conservatives tend to prioritize fiscal and security issues when choosing a president, even when they would identify themselves as strong social conservatives as well.

Finally, all that being said, I think we as a party have bent over backwards trying to give SoCons as long a stick as possible. Some Huckabee supporters are using it now to beat us over the head, if you haven't noticed.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

In some states have judicial activists ORDERED legislatures to raise taxes to pay for programs the judges think are necessary.

Other than that, fiscons have not taken it on the chin. Show me the social-conservative politician who will say to fis-cons: Hey, win all the referenda, elections you want, but I still am gonna put in judges that liberal Democrats like to overturn any success you have in the political arena. Such is Giuliani (or such was him until his recent flip-flopping).

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Tax cutters have done better than anyone under Bush.

Spending hawks and small-government types have gotten the Abner Louima treatment.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

lots of cons now, and in cycles past, have taken turns bending over for the good of the party.

Of the field, and their collective goods and bads, contrasted against the American agenda these particular next 4 years...

well, do the math-abortion is off the table-a Dem held Congress can be thanked for that-wanna fix it? replace them in the mid-terms with the GOP still living on PA Ave.

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

We've ended up with Republican social conservative candidates who when actually in office sign more spending into law. At least Bush got half the FisCon philosophy... tax cuts. Still waiting on significant spending cuts.

You might think you're taking it on the chin... but we've been taking it in the wallet as half-FisCons continue to spend all our money and China's too getting us into more debt... which will just make it harder to cut taxes further later.

...because he's, I don't know, a Corporate-Something (not Conservative certainly and not Liberal) who seems mostly interested in forwarding business interests without real thought to how it effects things, like say, the budget deficit. Hence, tax cuts without limit to spending. And I have no idea how he's viewed from the social perspective. Certainly on the left we see him as bending to the social conservative agenda, but this would not be the first time where both side see a politicians stances as abandoning them.

Calling Bush a corporate whip is just a liberal talking point. Please explain or we'll realize that you are just "A Liberal" and not "A Rational Liberal."

*********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

...without any real attempt to cut spending as well SEEMS to have his interests in spurring business cycles without much care to the other half of the ledger. If you've got a better term for what he's done, let me know and I'll employ it. Or are you suggesting TAX cuts without spending limits IS fiscal conservatism. in which case... I'll call it that.

If the tax cuts were corporate tax cuts, then you might at least have a reasonable *argument* (though I'd still disagree with that view). His tax cuts were for personal income taxes for *people*, not corporations.

Cutting taxes is half of fiscal conservatism. Spending cuts is the other half. But that's exactly my point, which contradicts what you wrote before--Bush and the SoCons have been socking it to the FisCons the last 7 years through their run-away spending.

**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

It's been shrinking steadily since 2004-- less than half what it was, once the 2003 tax cut kicked in.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

...that we still have a budget deficit. We cut taxes which did eventually lead to higher yearly revenues, but spending has continued to grow with each year as well that we are still spending more than we're bringing in.

If we would have controlled spending we could have had more tax cuts by now.

A shrinking deficit is great... no deficit and more tax cuts would be even better. We could have done that.

Wait wait wait....

The Laffer curve is indisputable -- in the long run. I am very skeptical that a tax cut can boost revenues year over year just *one* year out. Many other factors have led to higher tax revenues, not the least of which is the massive annual tax increase for middle to upper income Americans thanks to antiquated and poorly-written legislation -- the Alternative Minimum Tax. I don't have the time to do the research myself -- and I haven't seen if someone else has -- but I would love to see how much of the increased tax revenue is from new families having to pay the AMT (and yes, the overwhelming majority of taxpayers affected by AMT are families and home-owners).

**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

The only way for the AMT to apply to more people is if they were making more money. I'd argue that the economic growth has more to do with this than anything which is helped by, but not solely dependent on, lower taxes.

There are too many variables in economic growth to irrefutably prove they help with economic growth, but that's part of my philosophy. Mainly because I think I know how to spend my own money better than some Washington bureaucrat too.

The only way for the AMT to apply to more people is if they were making more money.

Not true. Well, it depends on whether you're talking about real wages or nominal wages. One (of the many) issues with the AMT is that its not indexed for inflation. The AMT was designed to apply to only 155 high-income families. Furthermore, the AMT is triggered when households have a high number of deductions. Well, since the AMT was designed for the tax structure of 1969, and not 2008 (which has become far more complex), the households that are hit are those with the most deductions -- namely, families with lots of kids, mortgages, IRA deductions, etc etc. It is estimated that by 2010, one in five taxpayers will pay the AMT, and every married household with combined income in excess of $100K will pay the AMT. Quite a big difference from 155 families!

There are too many variables in economic growth to irrefutably prove they help with economic growth, but that's part of my philosophy. Mainly because I think I know how to spend my own money better than some Washington bureaucrat too.

Tax cuts increase tax revenue -- in the long run. Tax cuts spur economic growth and this economic growth leads to more tax revenue. However, in one year the economy does not grow so quickly as to make up all the lost revenue, though it will over a few years. I read in a Time Magazine article that 90% of economists do not believe tax cuts provide an immediate increase in tax revenue, and that makes sense to me.

I agree with your philosophical argument, but it has nothing to do with whether tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.

**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

Oh, but for what it's worth, I think you are right-on with this:

If we would have controlled spending we could have had more tax cuts by now.

**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

Cutting taxes increases growth and therefore long-term tax revenue. But that's not what the Laffer curve is about. The curve is a short term thing where people decide whether they get more marginal utility from working or from watching Greenbay shamble around the field like zombies and lose in overtime.

Laffer is just a guy. Also, I doubt you will find him saying there is a bad time to cut taxes and government waste.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

from The Countervailing Force.

If it's true that a balanced budget is within sight then I still find it curious that this story hasn't been told, up to and including the present, as we learn the federal government will front the people something like $150-200 billion.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

The FisCons have taken it on the chin for the last 8 years. Karl Rove's whole strategy was to appeal to the social cons, unite the evangelical vote, and propel Bush to victory. It worked. Honestly, ARL, this whole division is *very* upsetting to me. My staunch fiscal conservative views derive philosophically. As a self-labeled "evangelical Christian," my underlying philosophy is shared by many of the SocialCons in America, but we apply that philosophy in different ways. In other words, my fiscal conservatism *comes from* my social conservatism--the two in my mind are inseparably joined. I believe in a limited government *because* of my philosophy of mankind.

**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

...has not been put into practice, because then we could all test if it works instead of being placed (as we have been for the last few years) to judge a manipulated version of your view of conservatism. I may disagree on what the outcome of such a test might be, but I'd prefer to see it played out as intended instead of the bastardized policies under the current administration.

The Conservative Coalition of the 80's / Reagan Coalition is about as close of my view of conservatism that you'll find in the public arena. I didn't shape it after Reagan--like I said, it's philosophically, not anecdotally, driven--but I'd say that it passed the test.

**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

To pull a Kowalski, I'll add that a central tenet of the 94 revolution was to balance the budget. Tellingly, the House leadership of the last 8 years were Newt's intraparty rivals that were the loudest in calling for his ousting. Not surprisingly, they did not follow in their former party leader's desire to balance the budget and continue implementing the Contract with America.

*********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

Some of us just lived through 6 years where a President would veto stem cell research but not pork barrel spending, a world where the biggest entitlement since the Carter administration passed under the R banner but the Congress had time to deal with a single woman in FL who was on life support, and a place where spending rises like Amish bread.

If that was FisCons in control and hitting the SoCons on the chin, I have absolutely no idea what a SoCon in control hitting the FisCons on the chin would look like. And I don't want to find out.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Amish bread is great with fresh butter.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

2 Conservative Supreme Court Justices,
The Ban on Partial Birth Abortions,
and the faith-based initiative, the SO-Cons didn't get a thing.

"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men

Are you gonna cede the commanding heights?

We haven't been the mainstream for a long time--but we are closer to the center than the radicals.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

But I think you'll find that those heights aren't so commanding. Sure we believe that social issues have an impact on society, but Govenrment policy will never win over *cliche alert* the hearts and minds of the people. Bottom-up is far more effective in the long run.

The way our culture is going counter-culural, anyone on top making rules generally encourages people to break them more. Asessing the myriad roots of these social issues is far more than we could and ever should expect of government.

"Any love letter is incomplete without a Ronald Reagan quote"
--my sophomore year roommate

Something tells me that you don't recollect the abomination that was the Carter administration. Yes, the republic survived, but the human cost was extraordinary. To people who grew up during the great depression, it was a walk in the park. Pampered baby boomers faced with similar circumstances would OD on Paxil in no time flat. (If Hillary care pays for Paxil)

Opinions may vary, but I consider it a moral obligation to pick the lesser of two evils. To refuse to save one twin from drowning because you think siblings should always be kept together does not seem terribly logical to me on any level. For the sake of argument, lets say Rudy would outlaw third trimester abortions and Obama favors even partial birth abortion. How does one stay home and give half a vote to Obama?

Of course, you should fight like hell for your guy in the primaries. If your guy fails, pretty please vote for the individual that will do the least damage in the next 4 years. Don't let a Dem president fill the next two or three openings on the SCOTUS.

Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies...

Can you tell me where the polls were in January 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, et al, and whether they had any relevance at all to the final outcome?

The only election in recent memory where polls taken this early have mattered at all was in 1984, since Reagan was up 20 then and was up 20 pretty much the whole way. Somehow, I don't think we're in a similar situation today.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men

Hay Adam,, get off your poll.. that will start to hurt after a while.. ;v)

That's the problem with RINOs and liberals they live and die by polls.. They have no vision, no ideas, and no conviction.. McCant is the perfect example of that.. He is NOT the Soldier he once was,, and hasn't been for at least the last eight years...

Dem polls have been right on now haven't they.. hehehe....

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

That's why Rudy's numbers tanked in December, was because of that cheap hit piece claiming he was concealing security costs from seeing his then-girlfriend. More than a few here at Redstate were taken in by it, even.

I'd bet my bottom dollar some Dem operative was behind it-- they've feared Rudy all along, and what better way to take him out than by letting Republicans do it for them?

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Did I miss something? Were there negotiations of which I was unaware?

How ARE you, Penn?

Never really went any where, but I'm doing great. How bout you!

Please listen to haystack though. I don't know what went on, but I do know that is a wise thing to do.

Geesh, I digress.

I would urge you to stay away from the primary election stuff. Instead, try talking about the Democrats, local Pennsylvania politics, or current events. But stay away from the primaries, because you tend to get out of hand when you venture there.

HTML Help for Red Staters

But read my response to HayStack, below. I'll leave my comments and posts to the visitors to judge. In my opinion they have been well perceived with generally positive responses from the RedState gallery.

In all fairness to HayStack, I misjudged a response he had on a thread of mine yesterday. I agree with him that I overreacted, but I stayed with in the limits of cordial debate. I think he may have overacted in this case.

this thread has nothing to do with fredheads. It is a discussion about Giuliani and my endorsement of his candidacy with a basis set in his record and the contrasts of the candidates still statistically likely (or capable) of clearing the primary. Thompson will not clear the primary, and he is not part of this discussion.

You come in here and pee on the carpet, and I will see to it you no longer have a carpet to pee on.

Discuss Giuliani v McCain if you like-tell us why I am wrong on the merits of my description of what he (Rudy) brings to the general election for the GOP-but stop this silliness before it's too late. Tonight we want to talk grown up stuff, m'kay?

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

Here you go my friend. First, let me say I have no criticism of your post. Excellent analysis and you make a great case for your candidate Rudy. As you know I rationalized my support for McCain because immigration isn't a real big issue for me personally.

However, my "peeing" on the rug had to do with the general tone of the comments in the thread. As soon as I read you piece I knew social conservatives would be alarmed to say the least. I think McCain can hold this fragile alliance together, so I simply made my position known to other McCain supporters whom I've come in contacted with here this past week and suggested staying out of the Social Conservative versus the Economic Conservative battle that followed.

There is no doubt that Giuliani is the most divisive candidate to social conservatives as some of the comments reflect. In fact I think you told social conservatives to "get over it".

I just keep rehashing that You Tube piece showing Guiliani's as mayor supporting federal tax dollars for abortion. Ouch, that will do much to fracture the conservative base.

I personally think everyone could attempt hold their noses and vote for McCain. But I seriously, doubt evangelicals will hold their noses for Rudy.

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

because he is not maleable in the way that McCain and Romney seem to be. Rudy will not kiss the medias behind to score points---not in his nature.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Rudy wouldn't kiss a king's behind if it was the only way to suck out the poison.

Rudy wouldn't suck up to an oxygen tube in a flooded submarine.

If there is one thing Rudy does, it is inspire confidence. If only he were pro-life he'd have been higher on my list. I went to a speech he gave, it was fantastic. Very few people can speak for America and Americans like America's Mayor.

absentee

I pick Rudy because I think he will not get worse on the issues. He is who he is, and he is not PC nor prone to pandering.

Plus, if Rudy does something I won't like, I don't think he will rub my face in it like McCain will.

In short, the parameters around his potential behavior is more defined. McCain could turn out to be great, or he could turn out to be Nixon.

Not my thinking, but I don't fault you for it.

absentee

the early primary results are clear, and the polling heading into Florida changes but a little...the voters from the GOP are trending well to the middle-and they care dramatically less about philosophy and ideology.

Rush may be right, but the '08 mood is not about liberalism or conservatism it's about republican and democrat-and right now the first pair has nothing to do with the second...my personal opinion is irrelevant.

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

Todays poll shows Romney leading Florida by about 5%. Still too early, but it may show that Republicans might still have some conservative fight left in them.

If you don't win a signifigant portion of the Congressional elections and the White House, your philosophy and beliefs are non-starters. They are the trees that fall in the woods when no one is around.

I'm not ready to throw in the towel on Fred just yet, but should he get beaten, I'll have a tough decision on whether I could stomach McCain or Giuliani. I know for a fact I couldn't stand either CLinton. Not her, nor the CLinton mini-me named Huckabee.

"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

Abortion is an abomination. I am against it and I want it outlawed.

know what? The people voting have this way down on their list. I don't, but those who will be voting do.

Our ability to change abortion laws doesn't rest with one man-if Ronald Reagan was running for President today, he would not be able to change one darn thing without a Congress who believed, like you and I that this is an abomination and no different in the eyes of God than murder...killing the defenseless unborn even MORE so.

Want to change the laws? Flip Congress. If you think any in the GOP field are going to change things with the mess up on the hill now, your just kidding yourself.

Re-read my post. If the GOP wants to go moderate for a while, we have little choice but to follow suit. The issues we sell our souls over now can only be bought back after we get Conservatives in CONGRESS. Rudy is being supported here because he will do the least damage to the OTHER once-thought-of Conservative ideals than the others...in my personal opinion, anyway.

If I could, I'd be voting for Thompson. Since I can't, of the remaining 4...Rudy has the moxie on the issues this mess of a Congress plans on taking up between now and 2010. That's all. No capitulation to life issues...just pragmatism concerning whether enough people care about it just now-I live for 2010 and 2012...til then, it's damage control.

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

Boy am I going to hate switching to Romney if he doesn't pull it off.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I'm ok with Romney, but it would still feel like an "anybody but McCain" decision (kind of like my support for Bush in 2000).

In descending ??
Anybody but Hillary
Anybody but Edwards
Anybody but Obama
Anybody but Huckabee
Anybody but Ron Paul
Anybody but McCain

McCain isn't even on the fear side of the equation. He'd just be too busy being bi-partisan for the press to get anything done
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

My "anybody but" was referring to those with at least a remote possibility of becoming the Republican nominee. Thankfully Paul and Huckabee aren't in that set, though Huckabee might continue being an annoying distraction for a while.

The field to choose "anybody but McCain" from is getting smaller. With Thompson effectively out now, if Giulliani gets taken out that leaves Romney as the only choice.

I occasionally trash McCain, but if we get stuck with the media whore as our nominee, I'll have no reservations about supporting him over Clinton or Obama.

The gap between McCain and RP is immense.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Since none of the remaining frontrunners is particularly conservative, we're going to be forced to concede *something* for each of them, and whatever we concede is going to be extremely painful. Since the president can't do very much to impact the abortion issue (that's reality), we should focus on things he CAN affect--things the president is in fact constitutionally responsible for. Like national defense. I won't concede that, no matter what.

Does anyone know who McCain and/or Romney are likely to rely on for advice?

Redguy, the life issue will continue with Rudy as president. We get a strict constructionist Supreme Court, the states will regain their right to restrict abortion and many of them will. Since abortion will become a state issue for the near term it then won't matter much if we have a pro-choice or pro-life president [unless we get a rabid pro-choice Dem president who appoints activist judges to the Supreme Court].

On a state level, the arguments against restricting abortion are very weak. If South Dakota prohibits abortion, South Dakota women who are desparate for abortions will go to North Dakota to get them instead of getting back-alley abortions. I'm not sure how valid that argument about back-alley abortions is anyway, but it breaks down completely at the state level. As more and more states restrict abortion the life culture grows. Also, as some states begin outlawing abortion and nothing terrible happens, the pro-life case can be made stronger for imposing restrictions in states that still permit abortions.

Rudy would fight the Dems; McCain would be Mr. Bipartisan.

Not trying to threadjack or anything, but Brooklyn Museum case is one of the reasons that I won't vote for Rudy. His rhetoric and decisions in this case seem to fly in the face of the 1st Ammendment. I am all for human decency, but I don't think that the government should exert force over "art" that they disagree with. In fact Guiliani is one of the worst offenders when it comes to first ammendment issues. Maybe that's not as big of a deal as other issues with Guiliani, but it is an issue.

"And a special thank you...the citizens: You are paying all the taxes, creating all the jobs, raising all the children. This government is yours. Thank you for letting me serve you. I love this job." Mitt Romney

The government should not exert force over artists and violate their first amendment rights.

To further the government not exerting force over art it should
1. Stop funding PBS
2. Cut all funding for the NEA.
3. Eliminate all tax privileges for museums and gallerys

At that point the government would no longer be exerting coercive control over the art world.

Whats more the Artists that are so jealous of their rights should lead the charge in this. After all their freedom is at stake here.

Otherwise they might get used to the idea that whoever pays the bills gets a say.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

we are now looking for the best "electable" candidate instead of the person who would make the best President.

Thus, the "isn't that what primaries are for" logic is kind of done with us.

If Rudy makes a good showing in Florida, he has a decent shot at the FredHead vote.

I would take either Rudy or Mitt over McCain---I don't have a strong preference between the two.

Rudy might be the most likely to pick Fred as a VP--which would be an added bonus.

Though I'm sure all our conjectures will be for naught, I think it is safe to say that Fred signing on as VP to any of the other tickets would virtually assure the nomination. Would you agree?

absentee

that he is folding his tent? I heard that Reagan lost the first 11 primaries before he went on to win the White House. We havn't arrived at the states where he is strong.. I'm hoping he will hang in there. As you can read from all these threads, there doesn't seem to be much agreement as to who the main man ought to be... I see a good posibility of a brokered convention where they msy just have to turn to the guy that can bring the party together... That guy is Fred Thompson.

I don't see Fred in the top spot. That's why I switched to McCain and others are switching elsewhere.

He hasn't withdrawn, but I was suggesting that if he did and if he were to be the VP for any of the candidates, pre-Convention, it would effectively wrap-up the primary for that candidate.

On the other hand, I think an endorsement from him would slip away in the breezes coming from our radios and televisions and have little effect outside of places like Redstate.

absentee

That's why I have been a strong advocate of a Conservative group buying one of the MSM outlets, such as NBC or CBS,(they aren't doing too well financially at this time). That way the conservative voice won't be shut out. That's the big untold story in this campaign...

A Rudy/Huckabee ticket

Both have a certain interest. Huckabee would not be the worst vice president we ever had. Of course with the current order of succession, it would be him then Nancy Pelosi, then Harry Reid. Not good.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Not Reid... the Senior Senator from the Byrd Memorial State of West Virginia.

absentee

for a Rudy/Thompson ticket. Thompson would make a good balance and he certainly could get things done in the Senate. It would be fun to watch him work...

Same logic.

Joe Schmo's blog

Only that he would likely appoint the right kind of judges

"What would Reagan do?"

We can not allow Hillary (or Obama or Edwards) to win the White House...at all costs, no matter what. Skim the net for yourself...the circling of the wagons against the Dems is a far greater driver than ideology-look at the bloodletting in this thread alone between fiscons and socons. the only thing the factions agree on is that they must not lose...

I'm just playing independent journalist here...well, ok-as a Conservative I guess I'm not REALLY independent...I'm just throwing down all the mud into one big pit here

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

but the Republic will not only survive me voting for Batman in the upcoming general election, it will also survive four or eight years of Hillary or Obama. Losing elections sucks. It's not the end of the world.

survive. But everybody in it might not. Look what 8 years of Clinton did for our security. Downsizing the military, the "wall" between government agencies communicating vital information about terrorists to each other, etc.

Those 17 sailors on the Cole were killed while Clinton was President - and Clinton's response was _____________
America will be less safe under Clinton or Obama.

I hope Rudy is our nominee and our next president. If Fred is our nominee I'm voting Fred in November. If Huckabee is our nominee I'm voting for Huckabee. If McCain is our nominee, I'm voting for McCain. If Mitt's our nominee, I'm voting for Mitt. All of them are far, far superior to Obama and Clinton.

"All of them are far, far superior to Obama and Clinton."

Okay. And when those chickens come home to roost, I'll be there waiting with a nice, steaming mug of I-told-you-so.

Why?

on the issues of the greatest importance to me, all four of them are indistinguishable from the Democrats.

By this I don't mean that all four men have the precise same flaws, but rather that each of them is indistinguishable from a Democrat on at least a couple of the issues that I consider deal-breakers.

all four of them are indistinguishable from the Democrats

Truly a noteworthy Redstate post - one that ignores reality even more than a typical dkos post.

you ought to enroll yourself in some remedial reading comprehension courses.

Here, I'll even repeat myself for you, and bold the part that you cut:

On the issues of greatest importance to me, all four of them are indistinguishable from the Democrats.

This is not the same as saying, "all four of them are indistinguishable from the Democrats," period.

Your "greatest importance" qualification doesn't redeem your "indistinguishable from the Democrats" nonsense when it's in answer to the question immediately above it:

Do you really think any of them [4 leading Republicans] aren't far superior [to Clinton/Obama]? Why?

If you don't see any issues important enough to make some of those Republicans "far superior" (or for that matter far inferior), it must be that something like support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is the only issue you care about, and everything else is too unimportant to make any of those Republicans "far superior" to Clinton or Obama.

The Second Amendment, which immediately disqualifies Romney and Giuliani.

The First Amendment, which immediately disqualifies McCain.

The economy and foreign policy, which immediately disqualifies Huckabee.

Taxes, which immediately disqualifies Huckabee and Romney.

Basic honesty, which immediately disqualifies Romney.

Limited government, which immediately disqualifies Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani.

Shall I go on?

I realize I am just whistling in the wind, but please ... indulge me.

Is there no room for strategy? Isn't the election a bit more than some weird Match.com checklist? Don't you have practical concerns you hope to have addressed?

Take Giuliani. Weak on Second Amendment (apparently). So you don't vote for him. Where does that leave you?

What ever happened to fight another day? Accept you can't have it all this time, take the best you can get, and work on a new strategy to get it all next time. Why not do that?

I literally don't understand. Really.

absentee

"The best I can get" on any one of these issues is either (a) a Republican who sucks on one or more of the rest of them, or (b) a Democrat who sucks on all of them.

You're counseling a half-a-loaf approach -- that I should content myself knowing that I'll only have to eat part of the turd sandwich rather than the whole thing. Take what I can get today, and leverage it into bigger and better things tomorrow, especially since ZOMG A HILLOBAMA PRESIDENCY WILL BE AWFUL.

Three problems:

(1) I still have to eat at least several bites of a turd sandwich. Not good eats, as Alton Brown would say.

(2) There is no evidence that helping a bad candidate win today creates leverage to help a better candidate win tomorrow. If anything, the reverse is true, as it fosters "they have noplace else to go" attitudes among politicians.

(3) The Republic will survive four of eight years of Hillary or Obama, silly protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

I'm not trying to "send a message" or "teach the GOP a lesson". I simply think, on the basis of long observation, the so-called "strategic voting" you're suggesting does not work in practice. If we stand on principle and lose, then we get screwed on that issue for the next four or eight years, but our opponents have to spend the political capital and suffer the blame. If we compromise and win, then we're not only getting screwed on that issue for the next four or eight years, but we've signaled that that issue really isn't that important to us after all.

There are some concessions that I'm simply not willing to make. There are some things that are that important. On certain issues, the signal I prefer to send to our leaders is, "Issue X is so important to me that I'm prepared to sit out elections, and potentially cost you a chance at public office, rather than compromise on it. So either get right -- and do it convincingly -- or get bent."

You may draw the line differently than I do. You may believe, for instance, that the war in Iraq is the most pressing issue of our times, and that it's absolutely vital that we elect a candidate who "gets it" on the war, all other considerations be damned. I think you are terribly wrong (if for no other reason than the war will eventually end) but I respect your right to make that determination. I would appreciate that same respect in return.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

the ongoing effort to kick to the curb those of us who refuse to support ideologically-compromised turds.

You're the one choosing to walk out in your snit. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I'm simply observing that the remaining candidates for the nomination are four-flushers, and that I will not vote for any of them. You guys are the ones bidding me adieu as if this somehow implies I'm either leaving the Party or you're giving me the boot.

were Hillary vs. Paul? I'll probably get yelled at, but it's a hypothetical I've wondered about recently with the anybody-but-a-Democrat calls. With Hillary, we get nationalized health care and the war continues. The Bush tax cuts evaporate. With Paul, we retreat from Iraq and very little gets accomplished, but government would probably decrease in size one way or the other.

Anyway, I'm leaning toward Giuliani because of his tax position. I doubt any of the three (Romney, McCain, Giuliani) will be very good if civil liberty or federalism issues come up, and I don't see any difference in terms of judges. McCain would probably be the best on national defense, though.

And Romney may *literally* be a fascist with his save-the-auto-industry promises :D.

And support for the saner parts of his platform.

I'd try to find an exit pollster after I was done to make certain the word got out.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

do any of things you list when he is pro-choice? Are you hard of hearing? He said he will preserve a womans right to choose.

BTW Rudy is my #2 if Fred is out. By a mile.

Technically, I'd be illiterate or blind, not hard of hearing.

That said, my list was not to say Rudy would stand for life; I was just pointing out that - contrary to what a couple of folks said - a prez has a lot of tools to fight for life.

Thought it was a "to do" list for Rudy.

You say you're a "gettable" Republican vote in 08, but to get you we'd have to write off the vast majority of Americans. No thanks.

A country accent (actually, Huck's is pretty mild) ... and, of course, they're the only ones who have shown some understanding of, and sympathy with, gun rights!

There are plenty of conservatives who would have spotted that connection at a glance. Say "Fred and Huck" and it's clear what's being talked about. Just not all that many of them here.

Look, I agree with you, there are major problems with Huckabee. Get Mitt Romney to promise to veto an AWB renewal and I'll vote for him. In most respects I find the notion of Mitt as nominee slightly less in-your-face-offensive than the other two anointed ones.

Problem is, the elitist doofus is on record -- in the middle of a Republican primary, mind you! -- as saying that in order to protect "law enforcement," i.e., the agents of the state, we need to prevent American citizens from owning "weapons of unusual lethality," i.e., precisely the types of arms whose possession, in private hands, the Second Amendment exists to guarantee.

Incidentally, are you hunters out there cool with that kind of talk? Schumer and Kennedy introduced legislation a while back to ban ordinary .30-06 and .30-30 ammunition. "Armor piercing," you see. In some ways grandpa's scoped bolt action hunting rifle is a lot more "unusually lethal" than an AR-15.

Point is, Mitt has to have a serious, public "road to Damascus" moment with regard ti 2A, then I'd happily consider supporting him.

before they caused Fred to exit.

Fred would have been the unity candidate for Huckabee and Rudy supporters. On the prolife side of the equation, Fred was definitely #2 behind Huckabee. Now Huckabee supporters are going to be left with a very passive pro-life candidate (McCain), a recent convert (Romney), or a pro-choice candidate who will probably pick good judges (Rudy).

This is exactly why pro-Life Fred Supporters (and the various pro-life groups) were so hopeful about Fred and so frustrated with Huckabee supporters.

The inability of Huckabee supporters to go with the second strongest pro-life candidate means that they will almost certainly end up with someone far worse.

not close the the #2 guy for ficons or national security cons.

Seems plausible.

I got behind Fred even though he's second best on Second Amendment issues. Maybe third best, depending on how you read Huckabee's record in Arkansas and his (uniformly excellent) remarks on gun rights on the campaign trail.

(Who's #1 on guns? Criticize Ron Paul all day -- and there's plenty to criticize -- but he takes the prize on that issue.)

That's identical to saying "Single-Issue National Security voters Almost Want Me To Turn Anti-Military."

While I share your prioritization of abortion below the very top of my issue list, there are people who see abortion as a current holocaust-equivalent mass-scale murder going on in this country right now, and as a result are acting in the only way their consciences will allow -- to stop it, or at least to keep from endorsing its continuation.

Agree with them or not, they are reacting to what they see as the most important issue we are facing -- much like those who base their opinions and votes on national security and the War on Terror are reacting to what they see as the most important issue we are facing today.

Further, they are a significant component of the Republican coalition. Abandon them, or spit on them, at the risk of becoming a semipermanent minority.

Is that worth it to you?

Looks like I've hit a sore spot. Sure, people should always vote their conscience. The difference is, most Rudy supporters would vote for our nominee, regardless, just to keep a Democrat out of office. Hardline pro-lifers, by compairson, would stay home if the nominee isn't Huckabee, thus putting a Democrat in office.

thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com

Look Lanny--I actually agree with you in that I do not appreciate having my support for a Republican Presidential candidate equated with rising to power on a pile of dead babies, but at the same time Jeff makes a valid point about the perspective of those who hold such views. While it may not be my perspective, what he is saying is that our disagreeing does not lessen their conviction.

You can debate this, but I don't think it does your argument any good to call the other side "dumb."

Read above. Also: abortion is on the decline. Great news, of course.

thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com

Looks like I've hit a sore spot.

Um, not if by that you mean "it looks like you're one of those staunch pro-lifers I just insulted." If you think that's the case, you need to re-read my comment.

The difference is, most Rudy supporters would vote for our nominee, regardless, just to keep a Democrat out of office

And so would most supporters of the other candidates, as well, regardless what they say now.

Hardline pro-lifers, by compairson, would stay home if the nominee isn't Huckabee, thus putting a Democrat in office.

Do you know any "hardline pro-lifers"? Among the ones I know -- which is quite a few of them -- the only option that is off the table for them this fall is Rudy. They'll vote for McC, FDT, Mittney, or whomever else the nominee might be.

Ignorance can be cured if you're willing to do a little bit of work to educate yourself. However, the laziness that breeds permanent ignorance cannot be.

Please find out more information before you spout nonsense like this and beclown yourself again.

I just put forth an opinion, and instead of engaging me intellectually, you call me "ignorant" and "spouting nonsense." And here I thought only libs hurled insults at someone they disagreed with.

My opinion, if I am allowed one that differs from yours, is the danger, I see, is social conservatives staying home if Rudy is the nominee. However, since Hillary will be the Dem's nominee, social conservatives will turn out regardless of our nominee. You can never underestimate the hatred of Hillary Clinton, especially where I live - South Carolina.

thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com

If I'm hurting the "party". The party, just like the government exists to help the country. If it does not then it needs to be torn down, so that a new one can be created.

It was out of the ashes of the whigs that this one was formed as one focused solely on the most important moral issue of the time: Slavery. Not tax cuts, not federalism.

The truth can only be found by those who seek it.

HTML Help for Red Staters

We lost Santorum, but kept Spector. Nice job GOP. Really good show.

I wish Santorum had won, for various reasons including not having Harry Reid running the Senate, but it was the voters in Pennsylvania (and Santorum's inability to persuade them) that account for his loss.

If the GOP governed conservatively Santorum would not have lost. He wouldn't have to apologize for larger government and increased debt. He wouldn't be smeared by sex scandals. The GOP lost all its cred with fiscal responsibility and competence due to governing like moderates/liberals.

The GOP lost it for Santorum.

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

This is somewhat conjecture, but it's a valid possibility, and much wiser men than I believe it to be so.

Penn is a state that goes 51-48 Democrat -- much more purple than blue. Santorum was well-known as a conservative stalwart, which meant the Dem voters hated him but he had a large and ardent GOP following. When he sold out and supported Specter against Toomey in the primary in 04, that was very bad. When it all played out and Toomey lost by less than 1%, that ruined Santorum. With the Dems hating him and the conservatives hacked at him, he got slaughtered in 06.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

HTML Help for Red Staters

nt

But that wouldn't stop him from filibustering judicial nominees who might threaten Roe v. Wade.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

absentee

I loved Santorum but he really lucked out in PA when he first ran and then for his re-election faced less then stellar candidate who didn't raise as much money but he still only received about 52% of vote I think it was

PA trended more blue (look at all the congressional seats we lost) and then Santorum went down because many thought he didn't fit state anymore.

Spector's version of an open tent is a moth-eaten tarp with no side walls.

Democrats hated Santorum so much that they ran the most conservative Democrat they could find against him. Spector gets the junior varsity opponents because the Democrats know that on the issues that matter to them, Senator "Not Proven" will be on their side.

Can somebody use Nom de Plume as his nom de plume?

This coming from the guy quoted on every nickel in America.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

it seems to me that he could end up helping Rudy since those pro-life voters wouldn't end up with McCain or Romney.

I was hoping Huckabee voters would have seen this dilemma earlier and compromised with a Thompson vote, but now the compromise candidate is Romney.

Our options are getting worse by the minute . . .

I am an all around conservative voter (I am pro-life) who considers Rudy better than McCain for a variety reasons. Before the Huckaboom, I would have been willing to say no to Rudy out of party cohesion concerns.

When faced with a pro-life McCain (who appears to have little interest in affirmatively taking on abortion), a pro-life Romney (who is a recent convert), and pro-choice Rudy (whom, given Olsen's role, will be excellent at selecting strict constructionist judges), I don't see a significant different on the life position.

I think Rudy will make careful selections, while McCain will pick an O'Conner over a Scalia to get better press and relations with Kennedy.

The unity candidate could not emerge i.e. Fred because the different factions of the GOP picked candidates unacceptable to the other factions and hunkered down.

I would also blame the MSM and MSConservatives for pushing Rudy so hard early on as to scare the social cons into Huckabee's camp. They were so willing to dump socons for "electibility" (read we blue bloods are tired of Christian zealots camping on our lawn) it opened a lot of eyes to the potential elite vs. populist divide.

We still have a chance to pull the party together, but only Romney could do it. He may have flipped, but hasn't flopped back yet. Rudy and John may deserve credit for standing firm, but they are still on the wrong side.

The MSM has been pushing the Republican voters toward a candidate that has the least chance of winning the general election. That's why Thompson is being kicked to the curb by them....

Friend, I'd suggest you moderate your tone a bit. RedState is a Republican-leaning-conservative site. CFG is pretty highly thought of by some around here because they are pro-economic freedom, anti-regulatory, pro free-market -- i.e., generally conservative.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

I have zero respect for this organization they use their resources to after Republicans (usually weakening them for general) and then never use their resources to go after Dem's

I know for a fact that they do. And mostly the Republicans that they primary, had it coming.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

That's complete nonsense. Just off the top of my heard, I recall the CfG spent heavily to get Coburn elected in 2004. I'm sure there are many more examples out there.

He said they use their resources to go after Republicans and not Dems.

He did not say they don't help Republicans.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Really, it's just silly to try to draw that distinction.

How do you think they helped Coburn? They ran attack ads against his opponent, Brad Carson, a Democrat.

I don't care.

Why don't you actually make an arguable case.
CFG is a 527 they disclose how they spend their money go to their website and get some facts to make your case instead of flinging poo.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

What part of this do you not understand?

The OP said the CfG never goes after Dems. I provided an example of the CfG going after Carson, a Democrat, and helping Coburn, a Republican, get elected. If you think I'm mistaken, then back it up. But, you can't because I'm right.

You have not said what you think you said. You have not made an argument and have not presented anything to prove your case.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I'll make this reeeeal simple. Even you should understand this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaBhm0mk60A

Given enough tries you managed to actually make a case for the position you were stating.

You have a counter example that proves your case. Imagine how much more effective if you had of actually said that at the beginning instead of being dragged kicking and screaming.

Bravo.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You surprise me. I didn't think you would be able to admit that I was right and you were wrong once again. Stay humble, don't speak when you're ignorant of the subject matter, and you'll be OK.

But I doubt you will ever do anything not completely expected.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Is that that the best you could come back with? I was looking forward to something a little more witty. Or, at least with some bite to it.

Sorry I have seen the same things repeat over and over.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

It's like you're not even trying.

But what I was trying to do and what you were trying for are two different things.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Snowe and Collins are probably the best Republicans can do in Maine, as is Smith in Oregon.

Snarlin' Arlen is worse than Lincoln Chafee, though. The Republicans would be better off with a three-toed sloth in Senator "Not Proven"'s seat.

Truly a creature that knows its better not to mess with most things and if you pick your time you can accomplish much.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

So we can lose yet another seat?

Spector votes with party a whole lot so why not be opening. Senator Rendall may be next thing you hear.

Who'd a thunk Amateur hour would become a craze.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Very polemical, and I don't agree with everything you've said, but it's clear you've thought about the big picture.

"People are willing to put up with a jerk as mayor so long as he fixes the potholes, gets the garbage picked up on time, and keeps criminals from crawling into their windows at night. President is different."

That helps me pin down a thought I've had for a while: that a big-city mayor is precisely who you DON'T want for President. The only way to run a city like NYC or Chicago is as a sort of hard-nosed local chieftain. Very far from the kind of executive authority we want a President to exercise. Governor of a state is a lot closer. Even Congress is closer.

The Rudy <-> Nixon comparison is also provocative. Nixon, too, was an autocratic would-be tough guy. Nixon won on a "tough on crime" platform in '68. He, too, was bright and quick and in many respects highly competent.

You say will there ever be a Thatcher again, but 30 years ago, they were asking will there ever be a Churchill again.

When the going gets bad, democracies are capable of producting excellent leaders. When the going is not so bad, we tend to elect middle of the road folks.

So despite what you hear on tv, it must not be so bad.

I'm excited to finally have one of the few Rs who has stood against pork barrel corruption in the White House. When others took the easy road of joining in the Big Government game, McCain, Coburn and a small handful of Senators did their best to stop the porking. While DeLay was saying there was no more spending that could be cut, McCain was trying to end the earmark business.

I'm excited to have a military hero who knows military strategy in the White House. When the Iraq War strategy was failing, McCain had ideas based on experience. And those ideas, in part, are why we are succeeding in Iraq now. His steadfastness (stubbornness?) on defending our troops and our mission against those who would have surrendered makes me excited.

I'm excited to have someone in the White House who knows that cutting spending is as important as cutting taxes to narrowing the scope and size of government.

I'm excited to have someone who doesn't see every issue through a partisan lens. After 16 years of Clinton-Bush partisanship, I and many others are happy to see the prospect of someone who will not see everything as "My Party Wins or Their Party Wins."

I'm excited that McCain helped end the filibuster in the last session of Congress and helped pave the way for President Bush to nominate whomever he wanted as long as they were qualified. Ending that logjam and doing so in a way that showed the ability to compromise and get to a point where conservative judges were being approved is a great success for McCain.

I'm excited to have someone who supports school vouchers, supports personal retirement accounts to reform social security, opposes socialized medicine, and is pushing for lowering capital gains taxes in the White House.

Most importantly, I'm excited to put someone in the White House who I will be proud to call my President. I support President Bush, but he never inspired me. President McCain is and will be an inspiring story of a War Hero Come Back Kid who finally got his chance to lead the nation during Wartime.

I'm excited about McCain.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

He's beyond "politician honest" and almost to the point where he could be tolerable as a normal person. He has all the virtues we need except for ideology. Oh, and he's older than dirt.

Since there are no good candidates, that does make me want to vote for him a little.

I think we'd definitely see the insurgency ended during his presidency.

"I have chaged my mind over time."

Empty Suit

[McCain] has the best numbers, and a history of appealing to Democrats [and] Independents.

Problem is, he can't appeal to Republicans. Has he gotten a plurality of Republicans in any of the states so far?

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Primaries aren't a measure of an ability to appeal to Republicans. They're a measure of first choice. Not the same thing.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I'm not a McCain supporter, but the data available so far seems to contradict your assertion.

If you go by Survey USA over the past several months, McCain attracts a larger percetage of both Republicans and conservatives against Hillary and Obama than any other Republican candidate. This is true in every state they have surveyed.