Conservatives and Republicans
Does the endorsement of Mitt Romney by National Review (long time publication founded by William Buckley ) mean anything to you ? Will it have any influence on who you support ?
|
Conservatives and Republicans
Does the endorsement of Mitt Romney by National Review (long time publication founded by William Buckley ) mean anything to you ? Will it have any influence on who you support ?
Nope -- just like Oprah's endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
I make my own decisions based on thorough research and observation.
I second that opinion. I don't need someone else making up my mind. I will educate myself and make what I feel is the best decision for me and my family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
It seems like a strange endorsement to me .
The Editors on National Review Online
I look at Romney and conclude that he could be a competent President based on his executive and business accomplishments .But he is hardly what you would call a conservative .Not only that;but with many of his conservative positions ,he is a Johnny come lately... or as Fred Thompson said last night (paraphrase ) "he's wearing out that road to Damascus".
National Review wrote in the endorsement.In my opinion they were more concerned with "viable" .Quote:
Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate
They should have endorsed Huckabee.
Hello tom:
I think you point out the primary problem with the Republicans. Which is - they don't have a candidate.
Romney is a flip flopper, Huckabee is a big government guy, Giuliani is a philanderer, McCain is too old, Fred is boring, and I can't even remember the names of the rest. Oh, Tancredo... Yeah, the Republicans like him... Bwa, ha ha.
excon
PS> You always got that Keys guy...
Hoesntly, it does.
I don't have previous news about any candidates since I wasn't raised here.
All the news and reviews I have read now is what helps me determine who is my favourite.
He is one of my favourite anyway, unless he is not a truly social conservative... how do I find out then?
[Edited]
Plus he ran a large enterprise, I have always believed that we need a President that has a strong business background and is well rounded.
nicespringgirl
I'd say his social conservative positions are what he is a rather recent convert. However ;he has led to my knowledge a very socially conservative life.
Other problems as Excon pointed out is that he is a product of Massachusetts politics .That means that to be successful he had to at a minimum straddle moderate positions . The state medical insurance plan he instituted was very close to plans proposed by Democrats . So there is the spectre of "flip flop "that he will have to live with if he is the nominee.
I agree with you that a successful business man would be a good President but not if it was his sole accomplishment.
Wondergirl
I posted about Huckabee and it got buried in the Current Events forum https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...se-161536.html
I think Romney and Huckabee are two heads of the same horse. They are both vying for the anti-Rudy alternative vote. The advantage that Huckabee has gained is because the values voters (who were declared irrelevant on this board not too long ago) are standing up to be heard.
But I do not think that Huckabee is the answer . He suffers from different conversions than Romney . He was until recently less than a fiscal conservative.
Of all the candidates , Fred Thompson is perhaps the most consistent conservative. I am really surprised that National Review did not choose him.
National Review gave the standard media rational about Thompson. That he has not displayed that he wants the job. (that is basically excon's critique also )
But if you got a chance to see the debate in Iowa yesterday you would see that he is getting into mid-season form. There is still a good 3 weeks before the Iowa Caucus and 2 months before Super Tuesday . I think he has plenty of time to convince primary voters he is the real deal. Huckabee's rise shows that momentum can turn quickly .
Thompson himself got a major endorsement this week . Morton Blackwell Endorses Fred Thompson for President - Standard Newswire
Among conservative circles Morton Blackwell's support is a very big plus . He carries great organizational muscle both as Republican National Committeeman and as head of the Leadership Institute, which has trained tens of thousands of conservative acvitists through the years.
I tend to do my own research. Very rarely do I look at endorsements to make up my mind on who I support. Though endorsements tend to be good bellweathers for how a PARTY LEADERSHIP might be leaning. But I've never made decisions based on who the PARTY happens to like.
I do look at who is endorsing a particular Democratic candidate because that tends to give me an idea of which Democrat I will dislike more. For instance, if Michael Moore and George Sorros start backing Obama (and assuming he accepts such endorsements), I think that would make me dislike Obama even more than Clinton. Which would actually be fairly hard to do.
Elliot
Wondy,
Nah... you're cool.Quote:
If I endorse Obama, would that make a difference? (You know me as someone else from someplace else.)
Elliot
ET, blame tomder for inviting me here from that other place. I brought along my openmindedness, but Obama already stole my heart when he was hanging out only in Illinois government. (After all, how could such a cute, charismatic guy not get elected somewhere for something?? )
Tomder, Obama is getting his seasoning during this campaign! His "lack of experience" doesn't bother me, especially when I recall what "experience" has done to (not for) our country.
Back to Mitt -- how could his religious preference impact negatively on his being President? It seems like it would be a good thing. The Mormons are very family oriented (a positive thing) and operate within set parameters (another positive). Like the NR said, "Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest."
And which candidate denies supporting those things too?:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Giulinani.
... "moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest."
How does one go about preserving marriage? That seems like a more personal thing to me. I am going to work hard to preserve my marriage, but why am I worrying about anyone else's marriage?
“Preservation of marriage” is sometimes a code phrase for being against gay marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Then this is where I politely bow out of this discussion.
The religion question is being overplayed . Huckabee denies it is coming from him . But he was also quoted in the NY Slimes Magazine questioning some of the tenets of LDS ;specifically if Mormons think that Jesus and Satan are brothers . That is inflamatory any way you look at it.
Huckabee has also been questioned rather extensively about issues of faith by the press and by so called independent questioners at these town forum like debates . ( " do you think every word in this book (bible)is the literal truth" or something similar to that ).
Amazingly and not unsurprisingly candidates on the Democrat side are not subject to the same scrutiny by the press with the possible exception of Obama's affiliation with Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ ;and issues about race ,not religion.
Trinity United Church of ChristQuote:
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
Then why do they so often campaign in church or about their faith ? BarackObama.com | Obama Campaign Announces Iowa Faith Steering CommitteeQuote:
excon agrees: The Dems don't use their religion as a political position. The Republicans do. Can't have it both ways
Quote:
But Mr. Obama said that religion has a rightful role to play in American politics, and he praised people of faith who he said are now using their influence to try to unite Americans against problems like poverty, AIDS, the health care crisis and the violence in Darfur.
"My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work," he said, speaking before more than 9,000 people at the Hartford Civic Center in front of a red and black backdrop with the church's marketing slogan: "God is still speaking."
Hillary ClintonQuote:
"I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought,"
If Tootsie Pops were an important issue, like religion has become in recent campaigns, the candidates and their campaign people would be handing them out on street corners.
Which tells me that their real priority is holding onto power, not promoting the principles of good governance.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And they wonder why so many of us don't take them seriously.
Yes, and the Republican Party whose mouthpiece they are. The conservative principles that matter most to me--Limited but Accountable Government Institutions and Services, Fiscal Responsibility, Individual Liberties Protected From Infringement by the State--have all been systematically trashed by the Republican Party whenever it has been in power ever since 1980. As soon as they came to power, they promptly abandoned the principles of good governance they used to stand for. That's why I don't take them seriously anymore.Quote:
tomder55 agrees:Who?? National Review ?
You said it all right there OG. I don't give a damn what they say they stand for since only time will tell what they really stand for... usually when it is too late we find out. Rudy can run New York. Hillary can run her mouth. What a difficult choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
I think what we're seeing right now is a serious rift in the coalition opening wide for all to see. People I would describe as Bible Christians are embracing Huckabee, who doesn't have the flip-flop history of Romney or the personal baggage of Rudy. The conservative media is uncomfortable with Huckabee because of his heterodox positions on everything but life and family issues, and conservative Catholics are uncomfortable with a new-Earth biblical fundamentalist being the nominee of our party. I fall into the latter group, and am very wary of a candidate who claims a Christian mandate for governance. That strikes me as just as dangerously messianic as the rhetoric Oprah speaks about Obama being "the Truth."
I hate primary politics for exactly this reason: it exposes the discontinuities and conflicts between normally cordial members of the conservative coalition and magnifies them to the point of caricature. Hopefully we come out of this with a candidate that can expand the coalition, not divide it.
EDIT: I didn't mean to categorize Huck's positions as inconsistent. I don't know enough about them to say that. I can say they are heterodox to the conservative media's line on tax policy, national defense and foreign policy &c.
Even Charles Krauthammer sees through the Romney-Huckabee slap fight.
Charles Krauthammer - An Overdose of Public Piety
Quote:
It's two centuries since the passage of the First Amendment, and our presidential candidates still cannot distinguish establishment from free exercise.
"Does the endorsement of Mitt Romney by National Review (long time publication founded by William Buckley ) mean anything to you ? Will it have any influence on who you support ?"
Nope. But will Lieberman's endorsement of McCain make a difference?
Hello, Steve:
You mean Republican Lieberman?? Nahh. It doesn't matter. You've got a 5 way tie for second.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I must say that I've always liked Joe Lieberman. I've found it difficult in the past to put my own support behind McCain, but considering this particular election and the other candidates in the running, I like him as well as any.
Yes, well almost. He reminds more of the Democratic views I once knew decades ago, more centrist than liberal. But I never vote on party affiliations anymore and I think more and more Americans are less straight party tickets voters as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Bobby
The guy who was The Goracle's running mate, still caucuses with the Democrats and had a 75% liberal voting record according to ADA's last count is really a Republican? Well, if I had been treated by my own party as Joe was in his last campaign I'd have to seriously consider switching myself. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
I like Joe, and I think his endorsement of McCain could have some interesting effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
True. I still don't think he is conservative enough for most Republicans. Although the same could be said of Pres. Bush to a lesser degree, as that was the knock on him that caused some dissension among the base.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Bobby
Necoutous
Heterodox Huckster . I think you hit the nail on him ! Except for a very small parochrial group of social conservatives I do not see how Huckabee has anything in common with any of the Republican base.
I posted on another discussion his disjointed Foreign Affairs essay . It is a diatribe against Bush Administration policies that ,if I didn't know any better,could've been penned by Dennis Kucinich .
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...cy-163146.html
Foreign Affairs - America's Priorities in the War on Terror - Michael D. Huckabee
There are also issues that have been exposed about his governance Arkansas ,and questions about everything from his spending and law enforcement priorities.
But we know he is a good salt of the Earth Christian .
Personally, I wish this suddenly religious campaign would go away, and should the Huckster or Romney win the nomination I bet it does go away in a hurry - except for selective pandering to the evangelical community. After all these years of the alleged "Bush theocracy" the last thing the GOP needs is a holy war.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The Huckster has pulled out a Christmas ad, and in his best Max Lucado impersonation tells us "Are you about worn out of all the television commercials you've been seeing, mostly about politics? I don't blame you. At this time of years sometimes it's nice to pull aside "At this time of year, sometimes it's nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ..."Quote:
But we know he is a good salt of the Earth Christian .
http://www.foxnews.com/images/330994...bee_xmasad.jpg
Steve ; yeah less about Mormonism and more about how Mitt launched Staples, Domino's and Sports Authority, as well as the Salt Lake City Olympics ;and how that business know-how could be utilized as Chief Executive.
Edit
K-Lo nails the Huckster Kathryn Jean Lopez on Mike Huckabee & 2008 on National Review Online
Not just weak, but completely false.Quote:
Comments on this post
Tomder55 agrees: I can only say that indeed they have been guilty as charged to most of your critique;especially regarding good conservative fiscal management . The option the other party offers is far worse is their only defense. Weak indeed.
The deficit was brought under control after the Reagan Binge because the Democratically-controlled Congress adopted and enforced pay-as-you-go budget rules in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. This budget process remained in effect throughout both Clinton Administrations. The most recent five-year extension passed in 1997. By the time it expired in 2002, Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, and could easily have continued it. But they wanted to do a big tax cut without having to reduce spending to offset it, so they let it expire, and predictably, the deficit has ballooned. On the second day of business after the 2006 election (January 4, 2007), the new Democratically controlled Congress re-adopted pay-as-you-go budgeting.
So with regard to budget discipline, it just is not true that "The option the other party offers is far worse". The other party is the only one in the last thirty years to show a shred of fiscal integrity.
Really ? The omnibus budget that Congress just passed added 9000 additional earmarks worth est. 20 billion dollars to the budget . As I recall the Democrats won in 2006 with a promise to reform the earmark process. As far as I can tell all they want to do to fix the budget is to tax us more. You know that with the tax cuts have come record revenue . Yes the Republican record on spending was pretty bad but I see the proposals for government expansion coming from the Democrat campaign ;not the Republican.
It is simply not true that the tax cuts have caused government revenues to be higher than they would have been otherwise. There is no disagreement about this between liberal and conservative economists. Here's a conservative's view: Townhall.com - The LogicizerQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
There follows a very long list of quotes from conservative economic luminaries who reiterate the point.Quote:
Yes, federal revenues have been increasing since 2003, but, needless to say (or one would think), that coincidence hardly establishes causation. While some talk show blowhards, politicians and editorial page / op-ed writers persist in contending that the Bush tax cuts have had a net positive impact on revenues, the strong, broad consensus among economists -- including conservative economists and Bush's own current and former top economists -- is to the contrary: The Bush tax cuts have had a net negative impact on revenues (i.e. revenues would have been higher, and would be higher today, if the Bush tax cuts had not taken place).
Facts are neither conservative nor liberal, and it is a fact that government revenues have been, and are presently, lower than they would have been otherwise. In the absence of spending restraint (not much room for disagreement about that), simple arithmetic leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Federal Government's current budget deficit, and the accumulated debt produced by previous years' deficits, are both significantly larger than they would have been without the tax cuts. So no, tax cuts without spending restraint is not responsible governance. The Supply-Side Dream is dead.
I know what the revenue is . You are countering with theories of how they might have been . I contend that the tax cuts were a stimulous to the economy and that is why the revenue has increased. Would the recovery had been so dramatic (going into it's 6th year of expansion if the housing bubble bust doesn't slow it down ) ) had there not been the tax cuts ?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:42 PM. |