Redstate

I believe that most of the concern about Romney on abortion actually stems from some things he said during his 1994 Senate run. I am looking for a quote.

Good prescriptive post on what should happen in 2008.

Though I'm one of those old-fashioned, cold, calculating, realist conservatives, so I tend to look at what I think WILL happen, regardless of whether I like it or not.

I think you're right about Allen.  He's filling a lot of leadership vacuums in the party right now, but wait until a) social conservatives find out about his real views on abortion and b) establishment conservatives find out about his Confederate flag incident.  Both will run as fast as they can, and his campaign will prove itself to be an inch deep and a mile wide.

Ultimately, I just don't think most of the candidates either you or Tim mention can win in 2008.  Huckabee, Sanford, Pawlenty --- they're all too new, too green, too untested.  Give them a few more years.  Maybe 2012 or 2016.  They'd all be good veeps though.

Romney is interesting.  He's doing the whole social conservative conversion thing, a la Bush 41.  But conservatives knew Bush 41's conversion was solely political as well, and they accepted it.  They could do the same with Mitt if he turns out to be the most attractive candidate in other areas.  I think his religion will matter far less than many think.  I think his New England demeanor and lack of charisma will matter far more.

McCain and Rudy will eat up the blue state primaries, and some of them are big, and some have tons of delegates.  New Jersey.  California.  Michigan.  New York.  Illinois.  And, of course, New Hampshire, which generally weeds out all but 2 or 3 candidates.  If Rudy and McCain finish in the top 3 in NH, a ton of candidates that might play well in other parts of the country will see their campaigns end long before the opportunity presents itself.

The question right now really is whether there's a red-state candidate that can consolidate conservative support in IA, jump over and win SC, and then compete with Rudy and McCain across Middle America, defeating them in TX and FL and other heartland states in order to win the delegate count.  Right now, there really isn't anyone like that.  And if that doesn't change, realistically, we could end up with Rudy v. McCain.  

I think that in some cases the statements of current governors need to be taken in context - the context of the states in which they run.  This is like taking it in stride when a nominee to an appeals court says "Roe is settled law."  He has to say that because an appeals judge has to follow Roe until the Supremes overturn it.

So Romney has to say certain things in a liberal state like Massachusetts that may not completely reflect his personal desires.  He may want to do a lot more, but can't - better to have most of the load than no loaf at all.  But in a setting like the White House things could be different - he'd have more ability to move right.

This also applies to Bayh - in a pretty conservative state, being a fiscal liberal's a good way to lose one's job.  I think his Senate record is more indicative of his true feelings as he's better able to move to the Left.

a big fan of your work StevenK :) heheh

In 2008 a focus on fiscal issues more than anything save national security is what our party needs. Especially if there are more than 2 openings on the Supreme Court that are filled with strict constructionists by President Bush. I am more of a fiscal conservative than a social conservative. Don't get me wrong, I am sure that I have the same views on issues that social conservatives have, it's just that I focus more on the economic. And spending has gotten way out of hand.

Other than Powerline, does anyone know of some blogs out of Minnesota so I can keep track of Pawlenty? Everything I have heard of him I like, plus coming from a swing state in a swing section of the country is nice. I am pretty familiar with Bill Owens (voted for him in 1998 when I still lived in Colorado), and am sure he would make an excellent president. And I wish Jeb Bush would haven taken his wife's maiden name before he became governor of Florida.

Said in '94

 Romney disclosed that he became committed to legalized abortion after a relative died during an illegal abortion. The disclosure came after Romney, who said he is personally opposed to abortion, was asked to reconcile his beliefs with his political support for abortion rights. "It is since that time that my family will not force our beliefs on that matter," He said the abortion made him see "that regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal."

 That really disgusts me.

He was in favour of the "assault weapons" ban & the Brady bill.

 

has declared his opposition to abortion since that trama in 1994. (I'll try and find some recent quotes, but he was recently in Spartanburg, SC at a GOP party rally and declared his pro-life position.)

 Evolution from pro-choice to pro-life is allowed and i think will be accepted by GOP primary voters, especially given his stance against the Mass sup ct gay marriage decision.

on abortion and what are the details on the Confederate flag "incident"? I am a conservative and would like to know.

I agree that the diary analysis is astute, but would differ in these regards:

1. The characterization of the field as "weak" is meaningless given the state of the democrat party and the fact that we are at war.

George W. Bush was and is "weak" in many ways as a campaigner and articulator of the conservbative position. He's a good president and does most of the right things, but his main assets in campaigns were his conservative positions and the discredited dstate of the dem party and failed liberal policies.

2. I do agree that Richardson and Bayh would be good candidates and have good state records on fiscal conservatism, but both have pandered to the left,a dn must do so to get money to campaign as dems, and this is their achilles heel. Only a very weak repub could lose.

Ithink we are going to find that the 2008 GOP candidate will out do Bush in victory marginsin popular and electoral % majorities by FAR!! His weakness as a candidate and refusal to take the dems on more aggresively is the only reason he didn't get 58-60% of the vote.

3. I have been disappointed with Sanford in SC, my native state and who was the first repub I ever voted for except for meaningless local offices!

He is a bit flakey. A bit!!!!!

4. I doubt any strng pro-war dem can win the nominationand even so, I doubt the country would turn over the war to a candidate that has failed to denounce most of his own party leaders disgraceful behavior since soon after 911 and especially since the Iraq war.

2004 was the hugh water mark for the dem party as we know it, in terms of voter turnout, and much of the turnout were probably illegitimately cast votes of felons and unregistered illegals (half-kidding).

Plus, dems don't have babies and haven't been since Roe and the dems have seen the high water mark with blacks and hispanics, who are motly christians and are increasingly on to the fcat that their religious beliefs are looked upon with disdain by their white liberal plantation masters.

So, I rate

1. Romney
   
   
2. Owens
   
   
3. Allen

Yes, I agree that GWB was weak as a communicator, and that probably hurt him a bit.

I've always said that if we were able to replace GWB's voice and oral communication skills with those of, say, Newt Gingrich or Rudy Giuliani, Bush would have won with 55 percent of the vote even with all the same policy positions.  About half of this country wrote Bush off from the start.  It's not fair, but it's true.

I think a Bush-style conservative who is a good speaker, who is charismatic, and who maybe comes from the midwest or a more purplish part of the country would be able to win by 10 or 12 points over a liberal Democrat.

Anyway, the issue with Allen and the flag.  When Allen was younger, so the story goes, he used to hang a big 'ol Confederate flag in his living room.  He also had a noose in his law office, symbolizing law and order.  The thing is, these two things were totally unrelated.  The flag just symbolized his pride in the south.  The noose was sort of a joke about his belief in law enforcement and being tough on crime.  But both of these things together will send a message to people up north similar to the whole Trent Lott thing.  Everyone knows Trent Lott didn't mean anything by what he said, but the stain of racism has left such a bad taste in this country's mouth that any politician who reminds us of it is basically shown the door.  I suspect the same thing will happen to Allen once he tries to go national.  People up north, even in the midwest, don't get the whole flag thing.

As for his abortion views, he seems to be pro-choice for at least the first term, which are probably his real views because in VA, he wouldn't have to run that way.  If he was pro-life, he could just run as pro-life and win in a state like that.  But he's gained solid ground with pro-lifers by being very careful to support all the abortion legislation that comes before Congress.  Because there's so little of that anyway, and because it all has to do with late term abortions, he's able to say that he has a 90 percent plus right to life rating, all while being personally in favor of early term abortions.  Of course, that may be irrelevant if he will appoint originalist judges, but it is something that he's being very sly about, and once it comes out, people may change their minds about him.

didn't get the flag thing as young liberals as well, and you make a good point about the difficulty of non-southerners to understand it.

I actually banned the wearing of the confederate flag in my car as  teen and youn adult but as I've grown older, I understand more now about the different relationship of the states to the union before Lincoln made clear the situation is permanent! And I have come to revere the southern men that fought for the right to self govern just as those at lexington and concord did, even if slavery was legal.

Slavery was on its way out and eventually would have been banned in the south, but I thank God Lincoln won!!! Three canadas could not have beat hitler!

I am pro life but if Allen is for originalist judges and favors the states determining the legality of abortion, then i would support him.

This is the first I've heard that Allen is pro-life in the 1st tri-mester, and that would be a factor if he favors Roe.

Mymain problem with Allen, who I like a lot!! is that constant grin. I guess i want a little Dubya smirk!!

I can't be satisfied since Reagan!! or as Rush says

Ronaldus Magnus

I think Romney would be perfect and I am sure the Mormon thing will be irrelevant even to most GOP Christians down here. Heck, back in 1960, many protestants down hre didn't even sonsidr catholics to be Christian! and yet JFK won much of the south.

Yeah, we haven't had the total package since Reagan.  Ah well.  No wonder he won 58 percent of the vote.

Romney will not win one single southern primary.  Here is why-

For better or worse, wrong or right, Mormonism does not play well with evangelical Christians.  Particularly in the south.  Many see the LDS church as nothing more than a big cult.  Right up there with the Jehovah's witnesses.

Just my humble opinion, but I'd put money on it and I don't do that often.

to attend some evangelical churches below the Mason-Dixon line on your next visit to civilization c17wife (of course c17husband is invited as well!!) and how have you been by the way.  The $2 is the bet (the divorce prevents me from any larger risk, as well as the fact that Romney could lose all the southern primaries to an equally good son of the south candidate with mormonism playing no factor at all.)

Romney's recent visit to the Greenville-Spartanburg GOP meeting where he received a rousing and enthusiastic reception argues agianst the stereoptype.

You should first visit one of the most devout evangelicals down here. That would be ....moi! And given one of the more technical definitions of a cult (the addition of the Book of Mormon, to the canon, ie the Bible) Mormonism is a cult. So I would vote for a cultist!

We loved Dale Murphy by the way! And Jon=hnney Miller. And Danny Ainge.

Next, we'll visit my hometown church and talk only to the members that are evangelicals ( that would be about 100%!) and discuss their 1960 votes for JFK, and discuss with them if any baptists in 1960 considered the catholic church to technically be a cult given the equality they give to church history with scripture, and why that didn't prevent them from voting for a catholic.

And then we can discuss the disaffection for a southern baptist. ie clinton and why he never won the majority of the evangelical vote and why Gore lost.

Now, you have set this up so that if Romney loses, even to a native southerner, to be able to claim that southern evangelical aversion to mormonism must be the reason, which of course, is not necesarrily the case. And given the editorials the msm runs as "polls" we can count on "data" to bacj that up, but

Yes, there are some, I'm sure that would vote that way, but some will also not like the color of his eyes.

many evagelicals won't even know that mormonism is a cult, technically, given the ignorance of many in the pews for social reasons and lack of schlarship.

And especially given the more recent transformation of the term post-jim jones, to be more associated with extreme behavior and violence, many would argue you down based on people's admiration for the personal behavior of the Mormon's they know, Dale Murphy, etc.

A Hindu, polytheist repub was recently elected in Louisiana. And I promise you, the differences between fundamenmtal monotheism christianity and the polytheisrtic hinduism with a god for every molecule couldn't be more stark.

I guess after that recent unpleasantness that ended in 1865 still we should expect the yankee stereotypes of us to take a couple of centuries to wear off, but what with TV and paved roads, I thought maybe we were not still seen as knuckle -dragging hillbillies, especially to a razorback!!!

just kidding a little there. Some of our basketball players knuckles do drag a bit.

I guess what disturbs me is to have such a thing said with the only way of disproving the alleged "bigotry" to be if he wins. And given that he could lose for many other reasons,  it is kind of unfair. But we're used to it. We don't depend on our self worth for to be understood in the corp home of starbucks...

I'm sure you would agree that anyone from Massachusetts in 2005 deserves scrutiny!! I'll admit to that bias! But from what i know of the list given, I am for Romney for Allen, and despite my extremely high iq and gpa!, my views are not unsual for evangelical.

love ya gal, but you are wrong to suggest mormons, in general, don't "play well." No, we won't make him pastor, or join his church, but we love good citizens and we can always pray for his soul. And we love the neat dresssers they are on the bikes more than we like the kook earth in the balance tenneesee baptist and the congenital lying woman abuser arkansas baptist. neither of them can even come down here and raise money or be seen with dem candidates.

we also voted for a quaker in 1972. Not sure of the applicability of the cult definition.

Hey gal. I think maybe you need some Waffle House coffee instead of that strong Starabucks!

Honestly, you couoldn't find many people that would vote for a baptist liberal over a mormon conservative.

Now, all things being equal, yes, I guess we would go with a baptist

except those free wills.

By the way, in heaven, please be quiet when you pass the southern baptist room. Bec ause we think we're the only ones there.

later gal

just got up for some water

back to bed

got ameeting with a seventh day adventist cult member tomorrow

ps

you know we love you and the humour is just that

parting shot: I predict no southern baptist will win a northwest primary

we dont play well up there, unless we are liberals that ignore the trachings of the church and evolve and grow and rub sg=houlders with paula jones!

I think you're wrong about California Republicans.  The majority of the state (concentrated around the SF Bay and Los Angeles) is very liberal, but that's (obviously) not where the Republicans are.   The Republicans are inland, and tend to back solid conservatives like Dan Lungren (devout Catholic and gun rights hero in this state), Bill Simon (ran on a "culture of life"), and (if not for Arnold) Tom McClintock.

Republicans lose statewide elections because of that conservatism too, especially on abortion.  The party keeps its principles, though.

So California may be the state of Pelosi and Boxer, but don't blame us California Republicans for them!

I think McCain is going to have too difficult a time rebuilding burnt bridges with the GOP base.  Had he spent the last 6 years actually doint that, instead of burning more bridges he would maybe have a chance.

New Hampshire still loves him, and he could still do very well here, but he is helped by the fact that NH lets independants swing either way, and the majority of the state is registered independant.

I honestly think Rudy could become stronger.  His biggest strength is that he is a bonafide fiscal conservative and draws a hardline on security.  He also isn't afraid to take on the tough tasks.

His biggest failings are of course his pro choice position, I am not sure the pro civil union thing hurts him as much as it might be seen-but it might.  Rudy could maybe neutralize these by arguing that he will appoint originalist judges-and I got an inkling of that last night, when he was discussing Roberts on (Hannity and Colmes maybe-can't remember now what I was watching).  He still has a tough row to hoe-especially in the South, but out of the weak candidates I think he may have the best ability to appeal to the base, and maybe even appeal to the evangelicals (something McCain may struggle with, since he has worked so hard to distance himself from them).

Right now overall I think the GOP field looks weak-and some of the best candidates aren't interested.

This will help guys like Rudy and McCain appeal to the base without turning off the center.  Fair or otherwise, Scalia has a reputation with moderates as an "extremist."  Roberts, like Rehnquist, seems like an okay guy.  If Rudy or McCain say that they will appoint Justices "in the mold of Justice Roberts," that will satisfy both conservatives and centrists during the campaign, especially if they contrast it with, "And Hillary will appoint judges like Ginsberg."  Voters will realize they have a choice between future SCOTUS Justices that are shrill liberal ideologues or sensible thoughtful conservatives.

Scalia and Thomas, unless Roberts proves to be a little more like Scalia and Thomas once he gets there.

But I had the distinct impression from the Rudy interview that he is definitely a believer in conservative judges-just not sure where he stands on originalists.

He was asked about his position on Roe and the courts, and he actually gave a pretty GOP base friendly answer for a pro choice candidate.

I thought his answers were promising, which makes me think he is still strongly contemplating a run, and he may be able to make a good case to the base.  

What were his answers like?  I wish I wouldn't have missed it.  They don't like those interviews to the Web, do they?

I think it was Hannity and COlmes, do they print transcripts?

I do know that his answers actually made me feel pretty encouraged, although nobody asked him outright "hey if you were president what kind of justice would you choose"

He sort of skirted the abortion issue-but it was more because Colmes was trying to lay a "hey you are pro choice, how can you support a guy who may overturn Roe" type question, and he avoided in a way that almost made me think he totally understands that an overturn of Roe doesn't mean abortion is outlawed tomorrow.  I just have the suspicion that while he is pro choice he gets it when it comes to conservative vs liberal justices-I am just not sure where he stands on originalism.

You could tell he thought Roberts was a very good pick, and you could tell that it was a true belief and not a matter of a GOP member playing the party line talking points game.  

For any true fiscal conservative, Bill Owens' star is falling fast. He is splitting the CO Republicans by attempting to suspend the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (and is fortunately being opposed by Bob Beauprez, who is running for Governor). As I recall, he thinks that the caps are too restrictive and is siding with the Dems in attempting to suspend them.    Better keep looking for a #1...

"His biggest strength is that he is a bonafide fiscal conservative and draws a hardline on security.  He also isn't afraid to take on the tough tasks."

That could be a direct description of McCain as well.  He's pluses are fiscal conservatism and his staunch support of the GWOT.  But he is pro-life where Guiliani is pro-choice.

As for the "tough tasks," I'm not sure what you are referring to with Guiliani.  He fought crime, that's one of the easiest things to do as a mayor.  I like the guy a lot and wouldn't mind him being our nominee.  But McCain has taken on immigration and stuck his head out on The Deal which is a lot tougher a task than Guiliani's stint as mayor.

I'm not sure who would have a better chance at winning either election, but they have the same positives (except on abortion).

As for Waffle House coffee, blech.  Sweet tea please.  I don't drink coffee.  I'm not old enough yet.

Seriously, I do get back down south every year and just moved from the great state of Alabama a year ago.

Romney will not win one southern primary.  And yes, I think being a member if the LDS church will hurt him.

FWIW-Tim agrees with me. :>)

Have agreat day, I'm off to the beach.

in the culture wars they are on the same side, and the evangelicals know this.

What hurts him is he is from New England, and sorry New England just doesn't play well in the South-and this divide only seems to be getting bigger.

Romney can absolutely win in the South, depending on his opposition. I don't even think it's a question.

McCain is seriously old but he could make a comeback with the GOP base if he played it right. He might be too caught up in himself to do that, though.

Ultimately, his only road to the White House is through Bush. If the GOP leadership wants McCain, then it is McCain they shall have.

The current crop is weaker than expected because of Owens personal and professional collapse and Sanford's mediocre performance as Governor. I like some people that haven't been mentioned at all and I don't have as much a problem with Hagel as many Republicans do.

If Hagel fixes up his immigration record, he would be pretty solid all-around. His criticism vis-a-vis the Iraq War and the Bush admin will either make him look bad or prescient, so outside events will determine his odds (and of course he will bow to McCain should he run).

Note that McCain essentially came out of nowhere in 2000 and that was without establishment backing (as Dean did with the Dems in 2004). It makes no sense to limit the pool to people that have already expressed interest publically or look likely to have establishment backing.

My main dark horse favorite right now is Jon Kyl. He's a Senator, which I dislike, but he also will be running against Hillary, a Senator, thus neutralizing that disadvantage. He has less baggage than her, that's for sure.

And, I hate to say it, but... if that assumption (Hillary) is correct, the anti-Jeb arguments are that much weaker. Obviously Hillary would keep her mouth shut, so the question would be how the voters accept a Jeb candidacy. I imagine the GOP will poll that question VERY extensively before coming to any conclusions.

McCain/Jeb is a possibility.

I like Pawlently personally, Pawlenty/Rice could be nice. Does he have the charisma, though?

note: I don't think Huckabee or Frist have any chance, nor does Brownback.

note 2: if and when Santorum takes down Casey, his stock will experience a meteoric rise.

I think the talk of Newt wanting to run is legit, and while he has tons of baggage, he also would appeal to the base, and he would nail almost any opponent to the wall in a debate.

He would have Southern appeal given his Southern roots.

I don't know that he would play well in NH, but then the electorate up here is more moderate, and like I said-the independants get to vote, and they may make a difference (although '08 may be a strange year given that both races are likely to be pretty wide open).

NE does not help him either.

Although, Rudy would probably be okay in the south as he is percieved as "America's Mayor" now, not just NYC.

if he can get past the pro choice in a way that would appeal (a promise to appoint originalist/conservative justices may do it for him).

His credentials on defense/security and fiscal conservatism would absolutely appeal in the South, and he has name recognition beyond being a politician from somewhere in the North Atlantic (New York technically is not New England, although some southerners may look at that only as a technicality).

the key is not pro choice, its who decides, 5 lawyers of voters in states.

We may never be able to prove our evangelical sophistication down here to our good friend c17wife (hey bama razorback gal at the beach! I'm goinbg to JAX tomorrow myself for green beer! By the way, I too like McDonalds and dunkin donuts better than waffle house. McD has best lawsuit constructed cups. But the WH could get your mind right! kidding-love ya) since Romney will have southern competition and Rudy and since Romney is from MASS and may have some policy problems and flip flops.

But I know my people and your culture war statemnent is the perfect reason I strugglked to say in 10 paragraphs. Need a paralegal job just me?

New York is worse!! At least new hamshire is in new england.

But I don't expect rudy or romney to get the nomination though I do see Mitt witha better chance.

Allen is the favorite now. Owen.

Jeb would be good

cheney the best

later

While I actually do put more emphasis on the war and social issues just now, once the court is fixed, I do agree that the battle over social issues moves to the grass roots and away from washington.

Do you agree that the only way to get control of govt spending that really makes a difference is health care costs and soc sec? That we simply are not going to be able to cut defense anytime in the foreseeable future? And that the hullabaloo over discretionary domestic spending and pork involve insignificant numbers.

In other words, health care is the key, followed by soc sec. What do you think of Newt's ideas if you've read any on it and do you favor his trying to co-opt Hillary to help.

I actually do respect Newt's motives and mind on this.

And while I don't worship a balanced budget for its own sake, I do think the size and scope of the feds needs to be scaled back

especially given the need to fight and win the war and probably enlarge the military..

any thouhghts?

NO NO NO

The Colorado state legislature became liberal in 2004, and they are trying to dismantle TABOR, Owens has been vetoing these attempts.  Any destruction of TABOR will be by the hands of the legislature, NOT from the man that was a leader in setting it up.

However Owens HAS suggested the gov't take 100 Million from the 500 million tax refund, something that will preserve the Colorado budget, more specifically, education.

(By the way, Owens is a leader in the school vouchers movement too.  Only mentioning that because education was brought up)

Newt is an excellent fiscal conservative, one of the few who I think would fight farm subsidies.  He led the conservative revolution... but he made a big mistake in my book...

He was openly opposed to the war in Iraq.

December 2003

"(The U.S. has) gone off the cliff in Iraq"

"Americans can't win in Iraq."

Still support Newt?  I know I don't... sounds more like John Kerry than the candidate we want in 2008.

Dunkin Donuts has given me an addiction to iced coffee-I am heartbroken when we head south to visit family, and all you have are Krispy Kremes.

I actually think Rudy can appeal in the South better than Mit, Rudy just seems to have the other Bonafides for conservatism and he isn't from Massachussettes.

I also agree that the key at least is who the base latches onto and I can't help but think ignoring Newt is a bad idea in this thread.

He has what appeals to the GOP base, and if the DNC elects hillary I don't think his baggage matters-if they don't his baggage could hurt him, but the DNC will look hypocritical hauling it out, but then the DNC doesn't generally care about hypocrisy.

the difference between McCain and Rudy is that McCain has been too busy playing the maverick for the media the last 5 years, and has distanced himself from the social conservatives, and distanced himself from almost every conservatie group at some point.

I think he would do better if he rebuilt some bridges he's burned rather than continuously playing the maverick for the media attention.

I also think Rudy is a little more personable-and in small states-especially Iowa and NH that may make a difference (although in NH McCain is well liked, so he is likely to take the state anyway, unless he does something really stupid).

But basically Rudy doesn't have to repair bridges he's already burned, although he has to reach out and assure some portions of the base, McCain has got to rebuild bridges, reach out, make some overtures, and stop playing the maverick (or at least when he does play the maverick, he needs to avoid the media).

Where are you in the NE? Is access to DD worth being surrounded by idiot libs, or do you see it as a witness opportunity? Teach-ins? And have you contacted the underground in case you need to come in from the cold? If not try THE DOG (DAWG if to jawja) or I-95, to va, nc, sc or northern cuber.

 By the way, there are a lot of Dunkin Donuts here in Atlanta, the birthplace of Krispy Kreme! I love Starbucks Frappucino. But actually, call me simple...but I love McDonalds coffee - great spillproof large cups as well - with french vanilla creamer and sugar, granular (and salivular, when we can get it! sorry. kinda makes a kiss sound gross eh?)

Honestly, I don't fear Hillary at all. People are too smart with new media clips of her moveon.org screeches for that move to middle makeover and her already high negatives. Plus, ALLLLL the clinton dirt that was suppressed by the msm during impeachment and by trent lott, will all come out and the actions against willy and other women will be devastating. Plus, there is one prejudice that I think does exist, against a woman, more so by southern dem women, and to the dems in general in war.

I don't see that Newt is any better positioned against Hillary than anyone else. In fact, I think she is one of the worst candidates they could nominate.

I agreee with you on the base latch. I just think a gov or former gov has the better chance.

I respect the heck out of Newt's mind and his ideas on health care reform are probably the best. He is also great on the  cultural issues and the war.

BUTTT, I also remember the arrogance that didn't deal with power and victory very well and the daily meetings with the press. arghhh And then the story of his treatment of his wife while in the hospital. He seems best suited to a cabinet post. And I don't even think he will run actually. I live and work in his Cobb county here.

On Rudy, there's just something about him that I can't put my finger on. He doesn't seem to wear well over time maybe? Plus, the deal with his wife. Now, if the war heats up, his stock goes up bigtime.

Bottom line, I don't think Mitt or Rudy will win the nomination.. I think it will be a southerner or a westerner if I had to bet. But I respect Mitt so much for his stand after the mass sup ct gay marriage ruling. (Although I wish he had pulled an andrew jackson!!)

bottom-bottom line: the gop candidate will win in 2008

3x bottom line - i have no idea!!!

we are up here because my husband is a pastor of a church.  Funny thing about NH is it is really a redstate (the '04 election aside) more than it is a blue state.  It is just more of a fiscal conservative/libertarian type state than social conservative-but we are sort of the odd state in the midst of true blue (although parts of Maine are very conservative as well-you just need to move away from the coast).

I tend to not like hot coffees very much (unless it is Jan) and while I like a frap, it is more like icecream than coffee.

I hail from KY and my in laws are in South Alabama-not too many DD's where they are.  Once we get out of NE you can hardly find them at all off the I.

As for Newt, Rudy, and Mit-I think they are all super duper long shots, I would also toss McCain into that mix.  They could all make the case, and they could all pick up the base, if somebody way above my pay grade in the party decides to stir the base up for them-I just don't see it happening.  

In the end I think the GOP will go for what works and works well, which is a governor or former governor, the problem is right now our best bets don't deem all that interested, and I admit I am not all that into Allen although he can maybe convince me.

I figure once the '06 midterm elections are over, NH will be teeming with possible candidates from both parties, and I will get a better feel for who I like, right now there isn't anyone who super interests me-for the most part at this point both parties seem to have pretty weak fields.

My brother pastors a church and is a theology professor in KC, married to a kentuckian.  Both were missionaries to Thailand. He has book being published in Nov on Bonhoeffer. We are from upsate SC, but granparents moved there in the 1930's from North Alabama.

(I'm working on a  book about my conservative epiphany and bolt from the dem party.

Love NH redness!

We do need to get the grin off Allen's face a bit. maybe he could bite his lip and feel pain

great conversation

By the way. saw  a great husband-wife acting team do skits of 3 christiam married couples as wellas Fannie Crosby the blind hymn writer this past weekend. the couples were Luther, Elliot and Wesley.

Good night

movie to watch

The Brothers karamazov (yul brenner)

Social Security, Tax reform, medicare, pork in that order only because Bush pushed for SS reform first. I would have gone tax reform first. And I haven't read Newt's ideas yet, but I guess it's time to read them :)

A balanced budget is secondary to those 4 items, meaning I don't mind running deficits short term in order to fix things.

No maverick is gonna win the base. The base is big and it rules. No MTP star need apply.

McCain came from nowhere and went nowhere. Go look at the vote totals. Loser.

Jeb could win

But i love your Kyl suggestion. He is perfect!!!!!!!!!

bye

in my diary...

22nd paragraph

I'll help ya out:

"Now I'd like to mention a Senator like Ensign, Kyl, Allard, or Sununu... but these guys wouldn't ever run for President.  So given what I have to work with, there's still one candidate that has a respectable fiscal record and everyone know's his social record:

Senator Brownback; He's been a leader in tax reform, and is the strongest fiscal conservative among Senators mentioned as Presidential candidates.  Sure he may have the image of the "candidate of the religious right," but that'll probably open a lot of doors to him for fundraising."

I'd be interested in seeing Pawlenty's positions on important social issues. If he is sufficiently socially conservative, I would also expect him to be up towards the top of the list based on his tough talk and real action in the Minnesota budget situation. He's a pretty darn good fiscal conservative, and he's a good pick to end up somewhere on the 2008 ticket.

Tim, I live in Minnesota and worked on Pawlenty's campaign.  Here are a few that I know off-hand:

Signed the 24-hour waiting period for abortion into law.  Opposed to it except in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother.

Signed the Minnesota Personal Protection Act ("shall issue" concealed carry reform) into law.

Asked our legislature to look at bringing back the death penalty for some of the more henious murders.

Supported a constitutional amendment in Minnesota to define civil marriage as between a man and a woman (wouldn't get through the DFL Senate though).

Solidly defended and lead a "support our troops" rally when we into Iraq.

Let me know if there are other issues, that I can provide info on.

My taxes are higher than they ever were.  Pawlenty has been fiscally conservative to a fault.  His refusal to pay for mandated or much needed schooling improvements have sent local taxes up every year he has been in office.

But MN also has a strange dynamic.  It is like two different states, the Twin Cities, and everywhere else.  He has sacrifieced the rest of the state to lower taxes for just those in the Twin Cities.  Me being in the everywhere else, I am not fond of him at all.

I also don't like the fact that he is willing to break long standing treaties with the native Americans just to save money.  I just don't like people that go back on their word.

His #1 social cause has been to legalize gambling.  Which I don't really care if he does or not other than the fact we have to go back on our word and break treaties to do so.

Brownback would be great as well. The msm may use the term religious right as a pejoritive, but when one gets into the details of what the religious right believes, it turns out that its pretty much mainstream conservative and constitutes 40-50% of the electorate most of which will vote republican.

MANY southern DEMOCRATS would vote for Brownback.

Thanks for the help StevenK!

I agree with all that. I wish Bush had made tax reform and making the tax cuts permanent the first order of priority, but now that the deficit is coming down, he will have more ammo to do this at some point.

Newt sepcializes in medical reform and in his own ego, but he probably learned from his excesses.

I would bet he won't run though.

Owens "helped craft" Referendum C (i.e. suspend TBOR  limits for 5-years) according to the Rocky Mountain News. Apparently he thinks that the CO government is in a better position to spend the "surplus" than the people from whom the money was taken.  That doesn't sound like a fiscal conservative to me.  

Expel the thugs, buy some paddles, forget the pc multicultural equivalence crap, fire "administrators, and you'll have enough money to raise teacher pay and standards and have a tax cut, even repealing that special tax on casualobservations.

There is nothing fiscally conservative to a fault about spending more on education and raising state or local taxes.

Under that definition, one could raise govt spending so high as to tax someone 99% and be a "conservative"?

We spend enough on education in EVERY state. Its not the lack of money. Its top heavy administration and lack of discipline, etc.

Once the single moms living next to each other have to babysit 16 yr old jr in the 6th grade, incurring the derision of their next door neighbor, you might see more sexual restraint, more dad's in the hime and hynnies spanked. Shame goes a long way!!

We need to fail some students and fire some teachers.

$$$$ aint the answer

would back your Minn Gov down here any day. Sounds like a winner.

By the way, Thorley. I spent a week up there in one of the biggest cases I ever tried. made CNN and USA TodAY BACK WHEN YOUR ATTY GEN IN THE LATE 80'S WAS falsely charging a lot of divorced males with child abuse in acses where the ex-wife and child service libs were trumping up charges.

And I won and was treated wonderfully in the cleanest city in America, Minneapolis.

After each day's trial, i used to drink cocktails in downtown bars and argue about who had the accent: me or them!!

Loved you guys...

McCain and Rudy will eat up the blue state primaries, and some of them are big, and some have tons of delegates.  New Jersey.  California.  Michigan.  New York.  Illinois

Michigan may go to a caucus system for 08. That changes things dramaticly as the democrats can't cross vote. Currently, there's an open primary for Republicans and a closed Caucus for Democrats.

That said, Michigan is a fiscally liberal(pro-union) and socially conservative (Pro-life, pro-2a) state. It's also very anti-establishment. When McCain won here in 2000, he was pro-life(still is), pro-gun(not anymore), and ran as a right-populist to some degree. If I didn't hate his campaign finance reform bill, I could have backed him at that time. Bush was viewed as an establishment guy, and the democrat crossover votes also helped cause Governor Engler to have egg on his face.

I don't know what's going to happen for 08 here. I'll probably know more at the Mackinac Leadership Conference this fall. I believe George Allen is going to be up here for that. McCain might be as well.

Lastly, anything can happen here primarywise. This is the same state that voted for Jesse Jackson AND George Wallace in primary elections.

From the Best of Craigslist here in 'ol San Francisco.

"Dear Red States...

We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and

we're taking the other Blue States with us.

In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon,Washington,

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We

believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially

to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.

We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot

Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood.

We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.

We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.

We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You

get Alabama.

We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states

pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the

Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a

bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and

anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at

once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have

kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no

purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their

children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and

hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our

resources in Bush's Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent

of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple

and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of

America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners)

90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most

of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and

condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale,

Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88

percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care

costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the

tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern

Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh,

Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was

actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred

unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say

that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved

in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy b***ds believe you are people

with higher morals then we lefties.

By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt

weed they grow in Mexico.

Peace out,

Blue States"

www.vicioustwist.com

for the entire region, I think that's out of the question.  They had your idea a while ago.  Our local school has a leaky roof and no money to fix it.  Yet the state gave them $1M to redo the bathrooms that didn't really need it.  And the grant cannot be used for any other purpose.  And yes I hate to say it, but money is the answer to many building problems.  Spanking the kids will not put a new boiler room in the building, and wedding all those single mothers will not patch the roof.

Pawlenty will pony up for a highway bill, but not for needed school repairs?  Kids and schooling is very important to me, and failing to fund them while he pours money into twin cities development and recreation is a big mistake by Pawlenty in my book.

Enjoy permanent political minority status, and please fill and old tradition and diary this on dKos.

"We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share."

We would be rid of most of the tax consumers as well, and would cheerfully export our tax consumers to the blue states.

"Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families."

Since your aggregate divorce rate reflects your extremely low marriage rate, you won't have many families. You'll also have an extremely low birth rate, with the exception of illegal immigrants in California. Get used to eventually being governed from Mexico City.

"Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once."

Trust me, you do not want those folks to come home. They'd make Billy Sherman's March to the Sea look like an afternoon tea party.

"With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT."

The Red States would control 100% of the United States nuclear arsenal, as well as the facilities that manufacture special nuclear materials and nuclear weapons. (Hint: read up on the history of West Virginia, and note how the counties surrounding Hanford, Washington voted.)

Give us the water, pineapples, lettuce, wine, cheese, high-tech goodies, and the coal, and we won't give you the nukes. You can keep the schools.

"We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you."

You can have Hollyweird--and the inevitable Islamist terror attacks that will ensue from your insistence on exporting Hollyweird's viler products to the Islamic world. I wish you luck in your pacifist approach to handling terrorism. (Suggested vocabulary-building word for the day: "dhimmitude.")

We're keeping Yosemite. (Hint: again, read up on the history of West Virginia, and note how the counties surrounding Yosemite voted.)

Other than what I noted above, don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.

Buh-bye,

The Red States

Could he be a dark horse candidate?    His state is in surplus, and he'll probably propose some tax cuts soon.   Straight talker.   Good sense of humor.   I have no idea if he's entertaining the idea.    Or does someone from a small eastern state not stand a chance?

but I just have to throw in my two cents on Pawlenty.

He's charming, well-spoken, good-looking, and you just can't help but like the guy.  I'd probably like him myself if he came over for dinner.  (And also, in the interest of honesty, I can't help but really like his wife, who's a judge.  I appeared before her on several occasions--not on my behalf, thank you--and she struck me as consistently fair, firm, and compassionate.) But.

I used to live in Minneapolis.  I used to be a teacher at a small alternative high school right in the "danger zone" (25th & Morgan, for any of you Mpls. folks).  My students were across the board poor, non-white, and with three notable exceptions, way behind.  They'd been kicked out of "regular" schools, and for a lot of reasons, our school was their last shot.  We did have a few spectacular failures, but for the most part, these kids were making excellent progress.  We were doing the whole accountability thing, passing the standardized tests with good scores, they were succeeding at jobs that we helped them find and prepare for--these kids were preparing for a future that would have involved a higher degree of self-determination than they likely would have had otherwise--a future, too, where they'd be paying taxes rather than subsisting on taxpayer funded programs.

I don't live in Minnesota anymore.  One reason for this is that Pawlenty signed his pledge not to raise taxes (though he's getting some heat lately about the $0.75 he's adding to the cigarette tax, calling it a "user fee," and has declared that he won't be signing any more pledges), and so he reorganized the education budget by changing the funding formula for small schools like ours.  The school couldn't afford to stay open--and we were far from the only one.  Though I really tried, I was unable to find schools to accept the majority of our kids--most, but not all, were over 16 and so nobody had to step up and be responsible for making sure they had access to education.  Mostly, they dropped out.  A few graduated from other places.  A few are in jail.

This was just one incident, admittedly, but the short-sightedness of the approach apalls me.  The recent budget standoff brouhaha also apalled me--and I surely don't lay that all at Pawlenty's feet.  But some of the consequences of that are also going to end up costing Minnesota more than we might realize, both in terms of taxes and in terms of lost human potential.  And I still bear a grudge about the way he refused to handle the transit strike that left poor, working poor, and disabled Minnesotans unable to get to school, work, medical appointments, and the grocery store.

When I think of Minnesota--and I'm homesick every day--I think of a place that's clean, and beautiful, and where the people are pretty kind and they pretty much care about and take care of each other.  I feel very much at odds with the Governor.  To me--just in my opinion--it seems like we're moving toward a state that will be a good place to be if you're making good money.  But not much else.  

be cloned? Is this a poor rural area?

I wonder if there isn't an administration office you don't know about. The reason I ask, for instance in my former home in Spartanburg, SC, with a county population of no more than 300,000, although, admittedly not a poor area at all, there is a large admin office for each of the 7 school districts in the county.

Yes, high standards, paddling the unruly and expeling the thugs, ie zero tolerance for mis-behavior with common sense mid you, and also expeling the moral and cultural relativism won't pay for a boiler, but it will instil pride back in a school system and make taxpayers more willing to pay more.

Now, you may be touching on area I'm not familiar with given my upbringing in a middle class suburb in astate where local property taxes pay most school costs. And the areas I've read about with the top heavy admin are usually inner city where firing admins and using the money for repairs is practical. Plus, much damage in thise schools is done by the thugs.

But, yes, even in my state rural areas do probably have problems of the kind you mention, and quite framkly, I guess I would be amenable to a dare I say, "liberal" solution. These kinds of solutions are sometimes necessary at the state and local level where accountability is best.

I would say that many states have much the same situation as Minnesota that you mention, with the Big city or cities being a different world from the rural areas.

In Georgia though the rural counties still have clout but are starting toi lose it to Atlanta suburbs.

I see your point I think. I'm more used to debates on national politics and the federal government.

I would say that I do usually favor that the feds stay out of it. But the President's NCLB law seems to be working, especially in bringing up  Blacks' test scores.

see recent thomas sowell article on townhall.com

and I guess light a fire under pawlenty!!

Newt has one huge advantage - if he runs, he'd race against a democrat. Sounds silly, but by comparison, his "personal" issues disappear against almost all possible opponents.

His problem will be in the primaries, but he has several lesser advantages there as well.

I don't think his Iraq position will matter since it was very localized, tactical and topical, not isolationist like Buchanan.

He'd be vulnerable against a comparatively new or unknown Dem., but against any Clinton/Gore/Kerry retread he'd be perfect.

He'll also be the survivor of those polling in single digits at this point - and if can get into a 3 or 4 person primary race, watch the old speaker-making skills kick in.

Yes, you are correct.  Our average home price is less than $60,000 while statewide is over $80,000  Our taxes are more than double those of of the richest areas of the cities.  The school distirct I grew up in has a span of about 40 miles or more.  Pretty much a 20 mile diameter.  And my graduating class had only 105 kids in it.  All the other schools in the area are in about the same water.  To save money, all offices for all the districts in the area  were combined.  And districts are just barely hanging on by referendum after referendum, cut jobs, abandoned buildings, and increased class sizes.  We are close to having a school district with a span of 100 miles if all the entire area is forced to completely consolidate.  The area bus garages, administration and maintenence have already combined.  All non-staff sports employees have been fired.

Pawlenty's policies look good to those who live in the cities, which is all he needs to be elected I'm sure, but he is driving the rest of our taxes sky high.  Of course this is the legislature as well.  Coming from an area with alot of Native Americans (near Red Lake, where the shooting occurred)  I can tell you that if there ever was a race discriminated against and disenfranchised, it is them.  I also don't like the fact that he continues to try to screw them over further to pay for his rather poor spending decisions.

But perhaps another part of the equasion has been the loss of Paul Wellstone.  At least we used to have someone in Washington fighting for our areas interests as well as having sway at home.  Coleman and Dayton are largely worthless tools to their party.  I guess I'm not really happy with any politicians in MN.  We suffered through Jesse, we lost most of our manufacturing jobs, several large corporations have filed for bankruptsy, taken thousands of workers' pensions with them, and then opened doors back up six months later, and meth is out of control.  Four wheelers have been banned on public land, and my four wheeler was taken from my garage by someone looking to make money for meth.

I would hardly reccomend anyone from this state to be re-elected, let alone promoted.  However, talk to someone in the cities, and you will likely get an opposite story.  I guess thats the price paid for rural living.  At least we have broadband internet now.

about Ehrlich's possible candidacy.

Young articulate governor from a consistent blue state?  Doesnt sound bad, but it isn't that great either.

He was elected to the House in '94 with the Contract with America deal.  He was a strong fiscal conservative in the House and when he ran for governor he ran as one.  However, its the usual case of the conservative governor trying to fix a state with a terribly liberal legislature.

He's been fighting a losing battle and really.. he lost a while ago, and is now responsible for a nearly 200 million increase in property taxes, reinstating the estate tax, and the creation of a "flush" (sewage) tax.

Not a very strong platform to run on, and hes in danger of losing his re-election bid in '06 (48-45 approval rating).

I live far far away from Colorado, but I try to stay up to date as much as I can... but its hard.

Really its these kinds of comments which was why I made this diary... for education on the candidates.

However, I strongly believe in this next statement: Owens can do whatever he wants, and he'll still be one of the most fiscally conservative governors this country has had in a long time.

But about TABOR, I believe its Ammendment 25 that requires education spending to rise above the population plus inflation cap.  I assume Owens had his back against the wall and had to choose between cutting education or to increase spending.  Either way, it's not like hes raising taxes.

for if not uniform, then at least a statewide floor of suport per pupil. I thought this growing up in the burbs of SC when I compared my lot with that of the "black belt" (Which is the name of the poor rural areas of NC, SC, GA, AL and MS between the coasts and the midlands of the southeast) portion between Columbia and Charleston. I do believe that local areas should ahve the right to spend more per pupil, but your situation drives home a funding problem.

I would ask this: I bet the students in your area receive a comparatively better education despite the building maintenance problem?

Or do they?

I happen to know that many of the even segregated black schools in the 50's and 60's got better educations before the pc 60's college grads took over and made it a crime to maintain discipline.

I guess the question I'm asking and the assertion I'm making is that building plant is not too terribly related to educational excellence except on the margins?

As to the Indian tribes, while I can't really relate to a man of any nation with the opportunity to raise his family in the greatest nation on earth, to turn his back on that, and choose to stay on a reservation as a defeated nation?

While the situations are not analogous, I agree, the defeated confederacy, did eventually, after a brutal reconstruction, become fully american and disproportionally patriotic and enlisters in the armed services. In fact, Hitler would not ahve been defeated without the progeny of confederates!

But I do agree that we simply must live up to the treaties and do respect, even if I don't understand the plight and mindset of the native peoples.

I do somewhat understand the desire to mainrtain their culture, becasue I do fear that the changes in the american culture relating to personal morals and respect for the church is causing us to lose a part of ours that made us the great country we are.

But I can't help but relate the native americans to say, those nations conquered by Rome and how so mnay were proud to be roman citizens and that I would be like that, much as the Apostle Paul was proud to be a Roman citizen and yet also a jew and then a christian.

even though he was killed in the city of rome....

oh well, All this about rural Minnesota sure does drive home the fact thta some of the southern self pity  about poverty is shared up north.

well I mean RELATIVE poverty

i have a hard time calling most any life in america poverty when one looks at the rest of the world

I posted this comment after someone else mentioned Newt longer down into the comments... but since we're into the 60's now and not everyone is reading all the comments AND because  I had a very very good reason for not including Newt in my report, I'll re-post my comment here:

"Newt is an excellent fiscal conservative, one of the few who I think would fight farm subsidies (among all other subsidies).  He led the conservative revolution... but he made a big mistake in my book...

He was openly opposed to the war in Iraq.

December 2003

"(The U.S. has) gone off the cliff in Iraq"

"Americans can't win in Iraq."

Still support Newt?  I know I don't... sounds more like John Kerry than the candidate we want in 2008. "

I have three litmus tests for a presidential candidate:  Is he a true fiscal conservative?

Is he pro-life?

Does he agree with the Bush Administration on foriegn policy?

All three are equally important, and 2 out of 3 doesn't cut it.

quote seems to have been an abberation born of his career move to get invited on more cable talk shows as a prelude to sell his book, becuase I have heard him be very strong most of the time. I even commented at the time on his blatent suckupiness to the msm.

But this is simply a more muted version of Newt's main problem: character and self discipine.

I won't support him either unless he were to be the nominee.

He would make a good cabinet secretary on deomestic policy like reforming health care and fiscal policy in general.

I would ask this: I bet the students in your area receive a comparatively better education despite the building maintenance problem?

Correct.

I thought I got a very good education.  However, I also think this was due to small class sizes and good teachers.  In 1999, parts of the school were still had labs running Apple 2Es and the chemistry labs are still quite a joke.  It's kind of surprising that I ended up in comp sci.  And we actually had many engineers out of my class of 105.  One an electrical engineering graduate from the Air Force Acadamy and now a fighter pilot-in-training.  My friend is a production engineer where I work.  We had a chemical engineer, and several other mechanical and civil engineers.  So the school does do very well.  I think it may just be the atmosphere.  A school with an enrollment of just 4 hundred that has always competed with division 1 schools across the sate.  This is my worry, I see the best strengths of these schools slipping away as classes are consolidated and staff is cut.

As to the Indian tribes, while I can't really relate to a man of any nation with the opportunity to raise his family in the greatest nation on earth, to turn his back on that, and choose to stay on a reservation as a defeated nation?

I guess a good question to ask is how often you see a Native American.  I live next to reservations and some of their largest populations in the country, and it still isn't every day.  It seems to me their race and the very memory of their culture is on the verge of extinction.  

Many people despise those on the reservation.  It is no social step ladder, thats for sure.  Looking at some of the reservations, I wouldn't want to be there.  Some are just there for the freebies.  But some there are truly reverent of their heritage, religion, and culture.  And they are doing what they can to preserve it.  But these numbers have become fewer with each generation.

I guess I think these reservations are also an important national history lesson as well.  I think people all to often look back into the past with an overly rosy view of our country and our values.  Some people argue we are losing our values because there is sex on TV.  I think it is always important to remember we have a past that includes genocide, rape, pillage, murder, and slavery.  Too many people think the world is ending.  When put in perspective, I think it is just beginning.

I just bought a house for $89,000.  Sounds cheap right?  It's a 250x250 corner lot.  It has a large deck, full basement done in tounge and groove paneling, 3 bedrooms,2 bathrooms, new furnace, air conditioning, 2 garages (1 new two-stall), aluminum siding, 5 ft chain link fence enclosed, leather couch and recliner, washer, dryer, and stove all stayed with.  Landscaping all was done with two apple trees and horseshoe pits in the yard.  The same thing in LA would likely be more than $600,000.  And I have trees everywhere and live next to hundreds of lakes.

It's all relative, really.  I only make $40G a year as an experienced programmer.  But up here, that is actually pretty good.  I certainly wouldn't consider myslef poor.  Even during this housing bubble, you can still buy a fixer-upper house for much less than $50G, just to give you an idea of how little housing costs are.  It's almost funny the difference in costs/income that are seen from region to region.

Thanks for your education in these matters casual observations.

1. True, I never see Native Americans and can't remeber ever hving a friend that lived on or was in touch with or visited relatives on a reservation. But then, I guess that's what's to be expected since by definition, if they "live on the reservation, ie sovereign territory," then unless one is on the "border" then one wouldn't especially given the prupose as maintaining their culture.

I would say, that our family does claim a certain fairly high % of Cherokee blood and my grandmother told stories of growing up near them in Sylva, NC. She relates a "scary" incident one winter when a whole family of Cherokee spent the night in their house during a blizzard! No  white person slept that night!!

I'm also told that some of the Cherokee blood corsening thru my veins is a result of an Alabama whiskey siaked evening in the late 1800's!

I guess i look at the situation more in terms of the individuals and not the group dynamic since it seems to me that one could preserve the memory of the culture without sentencing one's self to destruction and depriving one's children of American opportunity.

BUT I PASS no judgment really but if I did have regular contact with a nearby tribe, I do beleive that i would try to persuade men to join America.

Its always been a tough mysterious subject for me i guess because of my triumphal patriotic view of America in terms of progress in trying to live up to our creed, the propsperity oir freedom and judeo-christian culture has wriought and the arsenal of democracy and freedom we have built that is the main reason most of the world doen't live under facism or communism. And the melting pot and the assimilation of so many races.

I do not accept the pc disdain for American whites in "unfairly" defeating the indians and the "taming" of the continent. The stronger people prevailed and must prevail. Before we arrived, the stronger tribes prevailed over weaker tribes.

It does seem that wisdom would dictate accepting defeat. Even as Lee at Appomatox. But again, I know such analogies are not exact at all and I keep it in God's hands. I do think that the question must be a human moral question as to what I would do and what we as a people do. And in that regard, I must say that the historical factor pales in my mind to the human tragedy takling place and I feel compelled to evangelize the remnant to join us!!!

2. I have seen some studies that play down the importance of class size to some extent and exalt as much more important, having  aDad in the home and traditional moral values. And Jefferson argued long ago that these things were better preserved in a rural setting ratheer than in cities where "people eat each other!!" Jefferson said that!

I come away thinking that its folks like you all with the good education and the falling down bulding though that actually have it better in many more important ways and that its you folks that make this country great.

And my fear is that in rying to be more like the cities, which could be the result, if not the goal of the budget fight with Pawlenty, that you may be inviting troubles. I definiently would be concerned with  looking to washington and the strings attcahed.

But again, it does seem that at least Dubya's GOP NCLB way is working.

maybe GOP big goivernment is just a whole lot better than the lib version!

good night

braves lose

boohoo

Yes, that's why I'm always amused at the rankings of states in various areas at times and the gnashing of teeth about it. Because no matter how great each state is, one has to 50th, and one has to be 49th!!!

But no mattter the rank, your a state in the USA!!!!

And not the Sudan!

50th?  That's a disappointment.

Back when I taught in N. Charleston, I believe we were 48th, with Mississippi and one other state behind us.

In all honesty, if we went back to the Charleston area, I'd still probably put my kids in the public schools.  Dorchester County most likely.  Despite the state ranking, there are some good schools and outstanding, dedicated teachers there.

Part of success in school is parents being pro-active.  If you are in there advocating for your kids, their chances for success increase remarkably.

50th in whatI did not say! Now, since you seem so troubled that we could be 50th in some educational ranking, despite my attempt to point out that SOME STATE WOULD ALWAYS HAVE TO BE 50TH, no matter the absolute quality of that state!!!!!!!!

Let us not be trapped by such as thta. 48, 49, 50 blah blah blah

What we do see from down here is that so many of those states ranked higher seem to have populations that choose socilaism and liberalism in the extreme. Its kind of hard to admire the higher rankings when we see the excesses practiced there.

If it makes you feel better though, we have been as high as 39th!! Boy I feel better now!!!

But whover is 50th, ain't the Sudan!!

Actually when I was matriculating thru the puberty grades we were ranked 50th. My parents were tied for FIRST though. And of course, the ....talent on loan from Go...

sorry that's already taken. RUSH RULES!!

I hear Mississippi's ok too! Also not Somalia!!!

sorry, its late

But I mean, for instance, and excuse the male persepctive here: ranking American states is kind of like ranking ice cream flavors.

#50 is still ICE CREAM!!

Now, I don't want to start a fight between you and JUST ME about Bryers and dairry Queen

oh god

i've done it now

Oh heck, forget all that bunk, we all know that

South Carolina is the most beautiful and greatest state in all respects and the rest suck including the crackers here in jawja

kidding

dry humor alert

i was refering to zesta saltines

Lets stay on topic

While this diary was meant to educate, it was meant to educate on the candidates and their records in office, not a debate on the role of government in education or a lesson on real estate prices in Minnesota.

I encourage you to leave more comments, just on the candidates or 2008 in general.

And since I wasn't able to address an earlier point you (gamecock) made, I'll take the opportunity to do so now.

You stated that the GOP field for 2008 is not weak because you believe that a republican will win anyhow.  While this may be true, (I dont think it is, but for the sake of argument) we should look for the best candidate rather than just any candidate.  2008 will be tough because there is no clear complete conservative frontrunner.  Contrary to your perception that George W. Bush was not a great candidate for the presidency, his record as a fiscal and social conservative were unmatched by any potential contender.  The only candidates like this have announced that they do not plan on running, which is cause for discussion on what truly is the next best option.  Hence my 2008 Report to help educate and encourage that discussion.

1. Weak vs. Strong field

Given that we are at war and that the democrat party has moved so far to the kook left fringe, and given that THEIR so-called "clear complete frontrunner" is known as a far left liberal feminist who, thanks to the alternative media will not be able to hide or change her spots, and given that any candidate of the dem party must bow to the kook left thta is now the mainstram of the party,

the fields themselves are dictated as conservatives in the repub party (admittedly of varying degrees) and liberals in the dem party.

I contend that given that we simply do not elect ADMITTED liberals in a time of war (and unlike Der Schliek, Hillary can't hide and there was no war, that we acknowledged when Der Schliek won in 1996.

2. Of course we should get the best candidate though, and yes, it is possible for us to lose. Snowball's in July comes to mind, but..
   
3. But my main contention with your well thought out points, however, is that history does not suggest that having a "clear complete conservative frontrunner"  AT THIS STAGE is necessary at all for GOP prospects.

Can you say Bush41 and Dole?

Our field will be occupied by candidates with whom the majority of Americans agree on most issues and especially on War. They will also be in the party that the american people have continually and increasingly chosen to run congress and the states since 1994, the presidency for 8 years, and even with Der Schleik, he had to run as a conservative to win.

Hillary cannot get away with that.

Now, if the dem party were to choose a candidate that is essentially anti-thetical to all that party has stood for since 1972, then maybe the strength of our field will matter more.

But if they do that, we'll have two repubs to choose from.

4. I love Dubya and his policies, but he is not an aggressive and articulate proponent on a daily basis and in campaigns.

We can do much better, and it would be hard to do worse, as far as a campaigner.

But as far as his character and reliability and leadership, it will be difficult to replace that package.

But I believe most of the major candidates can fill the bill.

5. I think the speculation about the fields feels like buying in to the usual MSM analysis which is nearly always wrong since the alternative media arrived.

The American people are smart when they have the info. They are conservative. They have nbeen awake since 911 and one thing they haven't see that lowers the whole dem party field is:

No prominent democrats denouncing the kooks both those in cngresss and the whoopies.

Our field is thus stronger because of that fact.

I don't base my view of elections on the narratives put forth by the MSM and the "events" driven coverage and the fictions about the editorio-polls they run.

I look at the real polls. And we win.

what you said:

"his record as a fiscal and social conservative were unmatched by any potential contender.  The only candidates like this have announced that they do not plan on running, which is cause for discussion on what truly is the next best option.  Hence my 2008 Report to help educate and encourage that discussion. "

I think the key here is "have announced."

But yes, your broaching of the issue is vital. We do need to flush out the best candidate, not just any.

Not just because he's a solid conservative, but also because of the way he could affect the electoral map.

The GOP has come close in Minnesota and Wisconsin (each with ten electoral votes) in the last two Presidential races.  Pawlenty could tip that balance to the GOP completely.  Minnesota and Wisconsin are a Schwerpunkt that seem vulnerable to switch under the right circumstances - and that could mean the Dems lose big-time in `08.

Pawlenty would flip Minnesota, and would have the best chance out of anyone not named Tommy Thompson to flip Wisconsin.

Throw in the fact he's also the best candidate to flip Michigan and by far the best to maintain support in Iowa and there you have a strong case for Pawlenty '08.

I also wonder if the Irishness in him would appeal to Boston, us Irish like to support other Irish.

But then again, I was saving this sort of electoral speculation for my second report... just have to do more research.

Romney is pro-life.  He made a promise when he ran for governor that he'd not work to restrict abortion but he also won't expand it (thus his veto of the abortion pill).  He's quite a solid pro-lifer and advocates for it.  Read his Boston Globe editorial last week or go to radioblogger.com to read his interview with Hugh Hewitt a day or two ago where he talks indepth about his pro-life views and why he is more experessive about it now.

He's charming, well-spoken, good-looking, and you just can't help but like the guy.  

-- Romney is 4x everything you said.  Nobody is smarter (Harvard Law/MBA), more charismatic than any governor or Senator, experience (Huge business success), a better CEO (Olympics, turned around Bain), proven to win in a Blue state (MA), and more.  

I'm as conservative as they come and I want, like everyone, the most conservative candidate that can win.  So far, it's McCain or Giuliani.  Romney is the only one with charasma, looks, attitude and trackrecord to catch them.

I like Owens too.  CSPAN has a video online of a debate about the Patriot Act with him and Howard Dean at an ACLU conference.  Owens as a governor rarely dealth with the Patriot Act, but he won every single challenge put to him and made everyone (include Dean and all the ACLU lawyers) look foolish.  

Owens is a great debator and speaker, but slightly nerdy in his own way.  He'd make a fine President.

I'd still choose Romney if I had to choose between the two.  Both are similar but Romney is a stronger character, has more charisma, and is just a guy you want running and representing your country.