2008 GOP Presidential Possibilities
by Bill Simon
Here is the list as I know it, and my probabilities of them winning the primaries:
George Allen (0% to NFW*)
Bill Frist (0% to NFW)
Duncan Hunter (25%)
Rudy Giulani (20%)
John McCain (20%)
Mitt Romney (20%)
*NFW stands for No F***ing Way!
Who is on your Presidential-Do List and why?
Sphere: Related Content
November 11th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Duncan Hunter over McCain and Romney? LOL…
There is NO FREAKING WAY!
November 11th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
I’ll disagree with Duncan Hunter’s 25%. A good guy, but no name recognition outside of California. Congressmen don’t go anywhere in presidential elections. It will be an entertaining dogfight between Rudy, McCain and Romney, though. As for the Dems, I don’t see anyone who can stop Hillary and that’s a damn shame. Gore? – nope.
Edwards? – nope. Kerry? – Hell no. Feingold? – doubt it. Obama? Real huge threat for the Dems in 2012 if Hillary loses, but isn’t ready for the top prize yet. He’ll be their VP, though.
November 11th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Alright, Ann, tell me about Mr. Romney. I honestly know nothing about him.
November 11th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Ok…Here ya go!
First off, he’s not a career politician. He is a self made man who has brilliant business acumen. He’s on the ball, he’s the king of turning around failing businesses and turning them into profitable enterprises.
Continuing that, he turned around a failing and scandal ridden 2002 Olympics. He made our country shine just a few short months after 911, and showed that we wouldn’t be forced into a corner with our tails between our legs. That Olympics was beautiful and spectacular.
He balanced the Massachusetts budget that was in deficits when he took office without raising one single tax.
He formulated a universal health care plan for all the citizens of Massachusetts using “shared social responsibility”, meaning you have to pay what you can afford and it’s required just like automobile insurance.
He is an excellent communicator, and rarely gives a speech with notes or a teleprompter. He has a keen knowledge of the english language.
He also is a great delegator, he brings the best minds in the fields of their expertise together and gets the best ideas possible and then uses that knowledge to come up with the best solutions possible.
He’s squeaky clean. He’s been married to his wife for 37 yrs, he has five successful sons, and 9 grand children. And despite all the “polygamy” inuendo because of his LDS faith, of the top 3 candidates for the nomination he’s the only one that’s only had one wife.
If you want more information visit my site http://blog.electromneyin2008.com , but that’s a pretty good primer.
Best,
Ann Marie Curling
November 11th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Rudy & McCain – 10%. Rudy has to much baggage. McCain – has pandered to much
November 11th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
I would say I agree w/r/t Allen and Frist. Allen will be an ambassador to somewhere preferably somewhere he won’t be in danger with his love of lynching nooses and confederate flags. Frist should be locked in a room for years requiring him to making medical diagnosis via video.
Mitt Romney? Well, I would think that huge swaths of the GOP base would have a problem with him being a mormon. The fundamentalists believe that Mormonism is a cult.
Don’t know about the others. Aren’t there more than is on this list?
November 11th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Tom Tancredo. His only downfall is he isn’t a Governor. When he gets some more air time people will be impressed.
November 11th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
There are plenty of Fundamentalist Christians that support Romney, check out http://www.evangelicalsformitt.com.
He also has a army of internet followers. You can get a list off of my site http://blog.electromneyin2008.com, and a lot of them are evangelical christians too.
November 11th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
If there is one thing I know about GOP Presidential primaries, it is that the winner of the South Carolina primary will go all the way (Bush, Jr. in 2000, Dole in 1996, Bush, Sr. in 1988, Reagan in 1980).
Now, who really sees a pro-choice Northeasterner winning in the Palmetto State? Strike both Giuliani and Romney. Allen is finished, courtesy of James Webb and 7,000 Virginia voters. Hunter is going to need a LOT of money to overcome his current lack of name ID. Tancredo is in the same boat to a slightly lesser degree. I don’t know that Frist is the total nonentity that some suggest, but he’s got BIG problems. Are they as big as supporting “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, however? The McCain-Kennedy legislation is the political albatross around the Arizona senator’s neck.
Factoring in ideological purity, fundraising, name ID, and attractiveness of resume, my frontrunner for the GOP nomination is…..
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
November 11th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Re: Romney’s mandatory medical insurance, does anybody else have a problem with the government requiring citizens to purchase health insurance?
November 11th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
I would vote for myself but there is no real good candidate who stands out in the forest of trees.
November 11th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Re:
Now, who really sees a pro-choice Northeasterner winning in the Palmetto State? Strike both Giuliani and Romney.
Romney is NOT PRO-CHOICE!
Re: Re: Romney’s mandatory medical insurance, does anybody else have a problem with the government requiring citizens to purchase health insurance?
I for one (and I will say I AM conservative) say yes. It’s people who go to hospital emergency rooms and pay nothing after their care that raise the health care costs through the roof through increased insurance premiums on those that do pay for it. It’s just like car insurance, it’s protection for us all. Plus, it increases health care for all because people will get preventative care and not let their health concerns reach crisis levels and require higher levels of care (that once again that they’ll get through ER’s and not pay for).
Romney is THE candidate…and he WILL win SC!
November 11th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
I stopped by one of them thar blogs around the corner, and they was a talkin bout some Sonny Perdue running fer President.
I tole em, I said, “Shooo-nuffff?”
They was sayin something bout he was gonna have this ole mess straightened out in a couple years, and just jump right on it.
That ole Sonny Do, he be highly motivated.
November 11th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Good choice of words, Ann. Romney IS not pro-choice, now that he is running for President. But he WAS pro-choice so he could win in Massachusetts; I don’t have a link, but I’ve heard it often enough. Care to disprove?
November 11th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
What are the penalties for failing to purchase health insurance? It’s NOT like car insurance because people can opt out of that by riding a bicycle, walking or taking the bus to work. What alternatives do people have to opt out of health insurance, which runs 500% more than car insurance every month?
And with you being a conservative, I’m very surprised you’re dictating to insurance companies who they have to cover. What happens when my $500 health insurance premiums don’t get me any significant coverage at all because of insurance company refusal to pay for the services the doctor prescribes?
And, how many people do you know have an extra 4-500 cash just laying around the house that they can throw into a kitty that doesn’t guarantee them anything in return, nor any kind of refund should services never be required?
November 11th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
RE: preventive care, I’d much rather spend $100-150 every six months on a doctor’s visit than $500/month to an insurance company who is protected by law against consumer litigation for failing to provide adequate coverage.
November 12th, 2006 at 1:09 am
Chris, that’s not quite a fair comparison. We don’t pay hundreds of $$ a month in insurance simply to cover preventive care. Just as we don’t pay big bucks in car insurance to cover our routine maintenance.
The cost to insure the full range of health care (not simply preventive) to an individual or family is not cheap. But to have gaps in the safety net as we do nationwide is far costlier.
Yes, we all wish that the rest of society were responsible to pay the bills themselves. That Romney engineered a coverage plan that provides access to all of his consituents without across-the-board taxes deserves much more commendation than criticism.
November 12th, 2006 at 1:40 am
Regarding the question of Romney’s Mormon faith being a downside to evangelicals: On the contrary, they are rallying around him. See http://www.evangelicalsformitt.com/
The fact of the matter is, that as a man of faith who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk, he is the only true conservative on social issues — and the evangelical leaders recognize that. While there are some theological differences between Mormon doctrine and evangelical beliefs, there are really no two groups in America today that are any closer to each other in the important moral issues of the day.
Regarding Romney’s stance on abortion, yes, it has evolved somewhat. But so did the views of a certain California governor with the initials of RR, who subsequently became president…
Mitt Romney is the real deal. He looks presidential. He acts presidential. He is smart and articulate. He has an unrivalled track record in the private and public sectors.
As one of the top three contenders for the GOP nomination, he will have the opportunity to be heard by many, many voters and party activists–and most who hear him will quickly recognize his electability in 2008 and make him the GOP nominee.
November 12th, 2006 at 1:59 am
Romney is not pro-choice. When he was running for governor, Romney said that he would up-hold the law, which in MA, abortion is legal. That does not mean that he is pro-choice. His religion states that abortion is wrong, except under the circumstances or rape or incest, and even then to be taken very seriously, and only after much prayer and reflection. Romney did not say that he wouldn’t try to change the law, or amend it as much as he could. From what I know of the man, I am a big fan, but I’m not so sure that our country, in particular the “open minded” liberals, would be willing to accept a Mormon President.
November 12th, 2006 at 9:01 am
Chris has it exactly right. Where is the true-conservative limited government in Romney? Universal health care and mandatory requirements are NOT limited government. For those worrying about Romney’s LDS faith, don’t. His politics have diverted far, far afield from mormon teachings, especially those of it’s late President, Ezra Benson (also ex-Secretary Of Agriculture).
November 12th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Romney is for health care. Strike one. He’s from Massachusetts strike two (with alot of people) But what’s his stance on gun control? Of course there are conservative states in the Northeast like New Hampshire and others I’m sure. What are Republicans doing wrong to make this area solid blue? Or if I put on my tinfoil hat for a minute maybe that’s part of the evil plan.
November 12th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Are there any more good conservative Governors? Somebody mentioned Sonny but haven’t people had a belly full of Georgia politicians?
November 12th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Re: Romney IS not pro-choice, now that he is running for President. But he WAS pro-choice so he could win in Massachusetts
When he ran for governor of Massachusetts, Romney unequivocally promised he would maintain the laws as they exist in Massachusetts. He said that he his political philosophy was he opposed abortion, but being a Republican running in a Democratic State, he’s way too out numbered in the legislature on that issue. And Massachusetts’ majority of people are for abortion.
As far as I have info, Romney has always had the same position on Abortion, essentially saying the same things in 94 and 02. His position on Abortion seems like his mother’s in the 1970′s (she ran for US Senate). He said, he is personally pro-life but not willing to change the laws on Abortion. (However, while in office would be only for policies that were pro-life. As while in office, he vetoed a stem cell research cloning bill.)
But most might of heard came from the Boston News;
Michael Murphy, was quoted saying that Romney has been “a prolife Mormon faking it as prochoice friendly.”
Romney “While I’ve said time and again that I oppose abortion, I’ve also indicated that I would not change in any way the abortion laws of Massachusetts, and I’ve honored my promises,”
Later “Mike Murphy and I chatted, and he clarified what he had meant to communicate, he’s a great friend, and I accept his clarification.”
Michael Murphy says he was “discussing a characterization the governor’s critics use” in saying Romney was “faking it.”
November 12th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Bloggers and e-mail trees might change the equation as far as getting people recognized.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:28 am
I’ll be honest, I am not sure that it matters anymore who gets elected. I’m not sure it has for decades. I am refering to the spending habits of the nation. Those of us who identify ourselves as conservatives, republicans, whatever, are against runaway gov’t spending, yet with Bush we got much more spending that we had under Clinton. Despite all of the blather about cutting spending, no president OR congress has submitted a budget that was less than the previous year’s total. It is vote buying pure and simple. There is a famous quote and I don’t know who said it, but it goes something like this: “No democracy can survive once people realize that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.” Both parties are going to increase program after program to “buy” as many votes as they can. The prescription drug benefit is only the latest great example. I guess what I’m going to do is find the candidate who best agrees with my moral values and vote for them because NONE of them will agree with my fiscal values. For those of you (us) who are actual societal producers who plan for your futures, save money and act responsibly, you are gonna be fiscally raped more and more by the next congress to provide for those that don’t. You don’t deserve it. Sorry for the rambling, but I am worried about our future and the future of our kids.
November 12th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
If as a conservative you have reservations about what you have heard about Governor Mitt Romney’s Universal Health Plan that recently passed in Massachussets, please consider the following:
With health care costs skyrocketing and people growing frustrated and companies struggling to keep with employee coverage costs, our system is not going to stay the same for long before political forces mandate changes. That can go essentially one of two directions: toward more government ownership and control of the industry, or toward more private control.
Hillary Clinton in times past offered a solution of government takeover, ala Canada style. That was fortunately rejected. This is not that. This is a mandate which states that if you reside in the state of Massachussetts you have a legal obligation to provide for your own health care by owning PRIVATE medical insurance for you and your dependents. Mandating the medical insurance is expected to have a similar effect as to when the Federal Government mandated auto insurance, namely it brought the individual policy price down by ensuring a dynamically larger pool of paying participants. Granted this is a state mandate that I am contrasting with a federal one so the effect will not be to the same degree, but it will make a difference in the same way.
There are several private health insurance companies that are already offering products to citizens of Massachussetts that are slightly lower in price and slightly mor eflwxible than what the were able to previously offer there, and over what they can offer elsewhere.
Despite this innovation, there are still projected to be a percentage of the population who cannot afford any of the policies offered. In this circumstance the state has redirected its monies that it has previously spent on welfare health costs. The state varies its subsidies on low-income persons health plans from total subsidy through a graduated scale of less subsidy as the affected persons rise in income level.
The beauty of this will be apparent to anyone who considers themselves fiscally conservative. Whereas the state was paying about a BILLION dollars annually before this legislation to cover the costs of welfare health costs, by channeling the money this way they expect to subsidize insuarnce policies to the tune of about $600 MILLION, for a rough annual state savings of $400 MILLION!
So with a single piece of health care legislation, Mitt Romney has found a way to extend health care to all residents of his state, while keeping the health care a private sector industry, without adding any new governemt programs or raising any new taxes, and in fact cutting the state expenditure on welfare services by $400 MILLION.
Costs may go down further in the future for the state as well, as low income citizens will now be able to go and get preventative care as opposed to only going in after something is seriously wrong. The preventative care should be cheaper that aftermnath type of care, remember the state is subsidizing a private insurance policy, not the treatment costs directly.
How is this not brilliant? Skeptical conservatives ought to really look closer at the genius of this plan before rejecting it just because it deals with health care. This is compassionate conservatism at its finest!
November 12th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
I apologize for the mis-spellings. Next time I will scan my post for errors before submission.
November 12th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Re: medical insurance, insurance companies have already won the right to deny coverage to consumers for a whole slew of reasons, from genetic predisposition to disease to ambiguous pre-existing conditions, and they exercise this discretion every minute of every day. Requiring everyone in the population to pay hundreds per month nonetheless for coverage that is neither defined or mandated is flat out robbery.
What happens when someone’s kidney failure puts them in the emergency room and his insurance company denies payment due to pre-existing conditions that were exempt from coverage. Who pays then?
Are you willing to force insurance companies to pay all medical charges incurred by the people with no exceptions? If you’re not, then requiring people to pay for coverage they simply will not get is ridiculous.
November 12th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
The way I understand the Massachussetts program to work is that there is a tax deduction available to those who provide proof of insurance, so if an individual does not want medical insurance they do not get the deduction. There is no jail time or anything seriously punitive like that, just a missed opportunity to pay less taxes.
Chris said,”Are you willing to force insurance companies to pay all medical charges incurred by the people with no exceptions?”
I do not know the in’s and out’s of every concievable circumstance with respect to insurance coverage, and there may likely be exceptions to every standard as there always are, but if this bill is able to insure a great deal many more people than are covered now, while at the same time reducing government welfare dollar expendiure, that is certainly a lot of steps in the right direction, would you not agree?
Chris you said that requiring people to pay for coverage they will not get is ridiculous. I think forcing taxpayers to pay for the medical costs incurred by state hospitals by people who choose not to have insurance is ridiculous. Or forcing taxpayers to subsidize exaggerated medical welfare costs from low-income folk who use state hospitals for emergencies is ridiculous, when subsidizing private insurance for them would cost much less, easing up on the state budget.
I do not have every answer about this, I live in Washington State, not Massachussetts. I have read up quite a bit on this because I think it is a phenomenal solution.
No government solution to anything is perfect, that is why we as conservatives want to limit the size and scope of government. A program that shaves $400 million of a state welfare budget without a new beaurocracy or tax increase certainly fits that perameter.
The fact is if this new policy is successful in the next couple years for the majority of people in MA, and in saving millions of dollars and stimulating a greater variety of insurance products, then we will know of its merit or lack thereof.
As conservatives we have got to own this issue of health care, as with the Dems in power in congress right now, they will inevitably move this issue in a direction you REALLY dont like in due time if we do not. They will not stress a market based solution, as we all know. They will push toward nationalizing an industry that in aggregate makes up about 1/7th of our economy.
State and federal government agencies right now pay hospitals for the costs they accrue treating low-income people who cannot afford to pay. As a conservative, would you like to leave this situation exactly as it is, or change it? And if you want to change it, then how? Eliminating the coverage on these people’s expenses will never pass. The political climate will never allow it, even the political climate of
when the GOP controlled both congressional houses and the white house would not allow for it.So what then? I submit that this is the way to ensure coverage to the lower financial eschalons of our society while applying at least three conservative principles:
1- reducing the amount of government welfare spending
2- keeping industries in the private sector, rather than government takeover.
3- requiring citizens to be accountable to provide for their own neccessities, and finally providing assistance only after they have done all they were able.
Once again, with respect to certain individual cases of non-coverage, I cannot answer every concievable issue, but I believe Mitt is onto something phenomenal here.
November 12th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
I just scroll right on past all this socialism.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Yea, he’s on to a handout to insurance companies on the backs of the low income people. The coverage most needed is the coverage typically denied: pre-existing conditions that put more people in emergency care situations does any other healthcare crisis. When you allow insurance companies to abdicate their responsibilities to pay for the care the entire population has pooled their money into precisely to cover, you’re allowing the insurance companies to continue shirking the costs of onto the state. And when you require the lower incomes to start paying hundreds of dollars a month into a plan that will not cover their pre-existing emergency situations, then you have severely weakened his ability to pay for the actual care afterwards by redirecting that money into insurance company pockets instead of into preventive care and savings that the patient can no longer afford. The state STILL pays, regardless of whether the patient pays into it or not.
If you don’t require insurance companies to pay for all emergency care, pre-existing conditions or not, then you cannot require all citizens to pay into a pool that doesn’t do what it’s supposed to.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
If a patient is expected to pay $400/month in insurance coverage, and finds himself in the emergency room under pre-existing conditions that are not covered, then why not require the patient to pay that $400/month directly into escrow to pay his bill? I would MUCH prefer that route than forcing thousands of dollars in low income monthly insurance payments down the drain.
November 12th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Clearly this health care initiative has been planned brilliantly, but there is still a small amount of uncertainty as to the effectiveness of it in action. Of course there are unknowns, and they will only become known as the health care plan works itself out. I’m just glad someone had the courage to do something. Health care has been a problem for a long time, and nothing significant has been done. Mitt Romney is showing me that he’s not scared of touching hot issues and moving forward. Even if it doesn’t work (which I doubt) at least we can learn from it. There is way too much stagnation in government these days, we need more people like Romney.
November 12th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Forgive me please, but do tell me what is the health care platform that you feel is going to be the best one to campaign on in 2008?
Any viable candidate will not be able to survive simply being quiet on this issue as it is too important to too many people, it will have to be addressed as to where a candidate stands.
Bill says he just scrolls past all this “socialism”. With all do respect that answer is a cop out and does not really engage with any substance.
If you want to drive a car the law says you MUST have auto insurance. Does that qualify as Socialism? The Mass. law is not even that strict, it says if you WANT a tax break, then you MUST have health insurance, although you could still choose not to have it, whereas a driver cannot legally be on the highway without auto insurance.
Is it socialism? Well technically yes, since we really can have no such thing as pure capitalism. But neither can there be pure Socialism. One the one hand such simple things as common roads, courts, police, currency, etc.. represent fundametal levels of socialism. We cannot function as a society without SOME socialism. But w cannot survive without giving individuals private property and intellectual choice either, that is where capitalism comes in.
The reality is that all socities lie somewhere in the middle between the two absolute ideals. One assumes pure population utilitarianism and the other that individuals live in a vacuum. Neither are fully attainable since they both defy human nature and reality.
So enough with the philosophy diatribe, it just bothers me when people throw stuff out there like saying “I scroll past the socialism”. That really adds nothing to the dialogue about what should be the Republican platform on how best health care ought to be provided in America.
With the concerns raised about insurance companies not provding coverage on certain pre-existing or other conditions, I admit that I can’t speak with any knowledge on that issue. Perhaps forcing insurance companies to cover all conditions is something the GOP ought to campaign on in the 08 race. Perhaps not. I am not really sure.
That to me is a sideline issue on whether or not Mitt’s legislation will meet its goals of increasing healthcare coverage while at the same time decreasing tax dollar subsidy to medical welfare expenses and keeping medicine a private sector industry.Time will tell.
Oh, and by the way, Governor Romney has said that his Mass. healthcare plan is not something he would necessarily try to implement on a national level were he to become president, as that plan was specifically tailored to the state of Massachussetts. He has however said that parts of it that are successfull could serve as a model for designing legislation that could be used on a national level. So again, time will tell on what parts of the plan are successfull.
I find the Governors plan much more pro-active and engaging than simple ignoring the issue and hoping the other political side does not address health care problems with the people. That is a plan which is not only destined to fail, but will likely give you Hillary-Care, a socialism which is too eggregious for ANY conservative thinker! A socialism in the form of a mandate for personal responsibility is one I can accept however. We already have that in various other forms if you really think about it.
November 12th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Insurance is supposed to be private companies that are free to choose their own clientele based on risk factors chosen by the companies themselves. They don’t owe society one red cent.
November 12th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
I think I agree with what you say about insrance companies having a right to refuse service to whom they want. So maybe that is not a health care issue the GOP should campaign on.
But what about restructuring medical welfare payments to simply cover all or graduated portions of insurance premiums if it can cut tax dollar costs
significantly? Especially when this puts emphasis on the fact that medicine IS and OUGHT TO REMAIN, a private business.
The GOP is going to need to get specific on health care issues, you can bet your proverbial farm on the fact that the other side will, and their solutions will NOT be market based. So we are going to need a single platform on this issue in short order. What do you feel it should be? And who is doing a better job on our side than Mitt Romney on articulating it?
November 12th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
As far as the healthcare debacle I’m with Ron Paul and against the F.D.A. http://www.newstarget.com/019382.html
November 12th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Casey I am glad you see this issue as I do. Mitt is showing vision where others on our side are showing none. As I see it, this is welfare reform and a bold proclamation of the role of the private sector in medicine and a call for inividual accountability all rolled up into one.
And of course there will be bugs to be worked out, this is complex stuff. What program ever is perfect in its infancy and never needs tweaking as time goes by? Not even our Constitution can measure up to that standard.
And also it may not ever help EVERYONE. Those whom Bill and Chris say may not be helped by this are likely not being helped by our current system either. If we can greatly shrink the pool of those outside of the realm of medical coverage while at the same time reducing taxpayer costs to do so, how is that not substantial progress, despite the fact that it may not be bulletproof enough to apply to every single last person? This is still a move in the right direction as the number of people getting health care is increased and the bite on the government treasury diminishes over our traditional style of medical welfare.
Call it “socialist” or “capitalist” or whatever term strikes your vocabularistic fancy. I think it is a brilliant idea and I am excited to see how it turns out there in Massachussetts!
November 12th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Bill,
Thanks for sharing the article about Rep. Ron Paul’s speech before the House of Representatives regarding consumer choice and free speech reagrding dietary supplements and the role of the FDA.
If I missed where in that article it talks about the position he takes on the funding of health care in this country and how that plays out in the public versus private debate, please enlighten me. Thanks.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Insurance is the art (or foolishness, depending on your perspective) of putting your healthcare decisions directly in the hands of accountants.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Nivek, Insurance coverage =! health care. As most everyone here agrees, insurance companies can deny coverage on any service they choose without consequence to them. So with 40million people in the country lacking medical insurance, with that number growing daily, how many were DROPPED from their policies due to pre-existing conditions or other health issues? Requiring these people to start paying insurers who’ve already denied them coverage is handing insurance companies free money without increasing their access to adequate health CARE. The insurance companies would gladly accept these additional premiums, all the while having zero intentions of paying for services acquired by these people in the healthcare industry.
I think Romney’s plan is a boneheaded insurance enrichment program that creates an illusion of free market solutions while stripping the poor and the unhealthy of what little remaining resources they have.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Mitt Romney On The Issues: “Gay Marriage”
Mitt Romney On The Issues: “Illegal Immigration”
November 13th, 2006 at 12:07 am
Nivek
The premise of your question is healthcare should be funded or we should even have healthcare. All the inflationary pressures that exist now are due to a departure from free market conditions. Doctors, patients, insurance companies, lawyers, are all victims as well a perpetrators in this unnatural “system”.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:13 am
I actually don’t know the answer to your question re: Ron Paul. I would assume he’s opposed to any further draconian measures to “fix” the “system”. As far as the health freedom movement goes, it’s not a catch-all solution but well informed healthy consumers of dietary suppliments would tend to ease the burden on the “system” somewhat. Yet it’s the “system” that’s trying to outlaw health freedom. don’t you find that disturbing?
November 13th, 2006 at 12:22 am
Chris,
Bill doesnt think that insurance companies should have to cover anyone or any condition they dont want to, because they are a private business. Do you agree with his statement?
What do you propose we do? This question goes out to all. If not Romney’s solution, what would yours be? It needs to fit into these parameters to meet or exceed Mitt’s plan:
1- Greatly increase the percentage of people who will have access to affordable health care.
2- Significantly reduce the amount of total tax dollars spent on medical welfare.
3- Not create any new government agency.
4- Keep the medical industry in the private sector.
I am interested to hear what better ideas are out there that fit within these parameters. After all, much as I love Mitt, the best idea should be the one that the GOP campaigns on in 08, regardless of who the party sends. Until I see better however, my money is on Mitt.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:28 am
I don’t have the answers either, but increasing insurance coverage without increasing the reach of benefits is not a viable option. I would like to see solutions proposed that reduce COSTS of care and treatment, cutting the insurance middlemen out of the process as much as possible.
I ran across this announcement for an upcoming seminar hosted by Lew Rockwell that will feature Rep. Ron Paul and many others and will focus on problems with the current state of health care. I think this would be a good place to start to formulate real solutions to what some call a healthcare crisis. Link to details of the seminar:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/blumert117.html
November 13th, 2006 at 12:29 am
And yes, I believe insurance companies should be free to make their own decisions. Just as we should be free to patronize them or not.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:30 am
Bill,
Did you ever nod your head in agreement with Bush during his 2000 campaign or first 4 years in office when he mentioned the phrase “compassionate conservative?”
November 13th, 2006 at 12:44 am
Bill S.
No not really. I figured it was B.S. His dad used that one. The most compassionate conservatives are the ones fighting tooth and nail for everyone elses freedom.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:46 am
Bill said:
“The premise of your question is healthcare should be funded or we should even have healthcare. All the inflationary pressures that exist now are due to a departure from free market conditions. Doctors, patients, insurance companies, lawyers, are all victims as well a perpetrators in this unnatural “system”. ”
Bill whether or not we agree on what the source of the problem of the rising costs of health care is, and I tend to largely agree with you actually, the reality is that the only way to undo it will be to introduce market-based priciples into the mess.
A mandate for people to participate in the market is far less of a distortion than we have now with medical welfare going to subsidize costs in every direction.
I also figure that when you said that I assume that we should even have health care you meant health care welfare.
The fact is we do and as conservatives when we see the costs skyrocketing we can ignore it or try to fix it. In fixing it we can either do away with welfare altogether or try something else. Now while many of you may have fantasies about eliminating welfare altogether, you know this is not politically possible. I will not even debate that because it is absurd to do so. So what is the next step? Drive down the cost and scope of the welfare. Chip away at it through reform.
As you know, in politics we rarely get all of what we want at any given time, sowe compromise. We practice incrementalism. We want to move the ball across the football field, but we often cant do it in only one play. We have got to gain by yards over many plays.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:55 am
It should be obvious to all pragmatic thinkers out there that the Democrats will make plays to bring their state-run nationalized health care into existence either soon or in a campaign of Hillary Clinton for 2008.
We have got to have a specific and clear message on where Republicans stand in respect to these issues, as this is a HUGE issue for Democratic voters. Convincing them of the merits of market-based health care and contrasting that with the mega-beurocracy their own party would like to set up may be a winning strategy to bring many of then over into seeing the light and not voting for that garbage. But we have got to have a clear plan that enlarges health care options for middle to low income Americans, not leaves them in the dust with respect to preventative medicine, leaving them to only visit emergency rooms to fix health care aftermath. This is the current political reality, and it is not going to change, despite however much you might like it to.
So, what you got? Lets lay down the ideas on the table for all of us to see! My prediction is that this will be THE domestic national issue of 08.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:11 am
When my grandmother died at the age of 92 (in 1985), there was not a single prescription drug in her medicine cabinet. Just a jar of mentholated vaseline. Her diet was one of daily bacon, eggs, butter, coffee, lots of pork, lots of grease, and two scoops of snuff. Yet her cardiovascular system was clean as a whistle. Why?
My mother is now 78 and has 8 different prescriptions to take daily to regulate everything from heartbeat to cholesterol to triglycerides to blood pressure. Is all this medicine REALLY necessary? What’s happened over the last 20 years to cause this huge surge in the consumption of pharmaceutical products?
I recently read an article about a 65 year old man’s discovery of the medical bill of his actual birth. A two-WEEK stay in the hospital for him and his mother cost his family $73. That’s it: $73. Including any drugs administered during their stay. Today’s cost to deliver a child, with a two-DAY hospital stay, averages nearly $8,000. Extend it to a full two weeks and you’re looking at $21,000 minimum.
A good place to start at the basic level is to determine what happened over the last 65 years that resulted in that kind of excessive inflation of the cost of care.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:24 am
I think the entire country was turned off to Hillary’s previous foray into healthcare solutions, and I doubt many will come around to see it in a better light this time around. However, I don’t think Hillary will be the Democratic nominee. None of the liberals I know would dare vote for her. They’d vote for Bill again in a heartbeat, but Hillary does nothing for most of them.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:00 am
OK, I am going to drop the discussion on the Massachussetts health care plan because only time time will tell if it is a grand idea or not, our pontifications here will not bear that out. Mitt has also said that the plan for masachessetts health car eis not necessarily suitable for the country as it stands anyhow. So let us let the labratory experiment in Mass. alone for awhile, let it brew and see what the flavor of it is in ayear or so.
I hope it is apparent that Mitt is one who is not afraid to tackle difficult problems however, a trait none too common in todays politcal spectrum.
So among the big three, McCain, Guiliani and Romney, which one tickles your fancy and why?
November 13th, 2006 at 7:30 am
Nivek
I hope you click on the Lewrockwell link. (I’m somewhat libertarian on this issue) each bullet point is just the tip of the iceberg. Also I’ll introduce a new word to you: “Codex Alimentarius” This is a big issue with many Democrats and Republicans. As far as I know Ron Paul is the only person with notoriety who is fighting this. So he’s the only one I would support at this time. So guess what? The whole health issue is very important to me.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:57 am
Where I’m not a libertarian: Flouride in municipal water. I hope they outlaw it one day. Which begs the question. Is there something in the water in Massachusetts?
And aspartame. It’s no good.
innoculations and immunizations that contain mercury and squaline. When veterans find out about this which side do you want to be on? Mitt Romney is a good looking guy but I’d rather vote for the elephant man if he fights the good fight.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:17 am
I’m jumping in as someone with my eggs in Mitt’s basket. I’m a longlife Republican who’s grown up believing that being Republican is the best for me because I have strong rooted social conservative beliefs that have a home within the Republican party yet I’m starting to wonder if it’ll have a home if we don’t start making the RIGHT decisions. By no means does this mean that the Democratic party shares my beliefs. It certainly doesn’t.
My values are family based (Mother, Father, children). I believe that a woman’s most sacred and important responsibility is to create a home for children to grow in love and knowledge of how to be a grown up. She is the spirit, the foundation of the hearts and minds of the children. This doesn’t mean that there’s nothing for the Man to do. His role of course is to be a provider creating a strong temporal foundation for the home being a support and strength to his wife, and children. This of course requires a Man and Woman to have grown up and learned how best to do that. It has to start somewhere. I believe that this VALUE is being lost and is one of many that we’re losing sight of unless we make the RIGHT choices.
My point is while there are many Republican candidates out there with good ideas on this and that, I have a fear that what makes this country the greatest and the worst is where the hearts and minds of the people are and unfortunately were headed toward the worst and we need to take notice.
What’s being taught at home for me is what is motivating me to look for someone to lead us. But being taught they have be a living example of it.
All of us came from somewhere. In terms of politics, if the minds of our politicians are focused on only what policies are going to keep us a SUPERPOWER then we’re going to lose as a country and people. We’re going to be no different than what’s out there.
The POTUS has to not only be intelligent, and a great leader. He has to be a leader that comes from a place where the home was built on a foundation of VALUES similar to that of the above. He has to live it himself. If those values and example are focused on what strengthens us individually and strives to make each of us better as people, we will be better for each other as citizens and this country will continue will move in the RIGHT direction. Values and example is what is important to me. If the candidate has this then the policies to problems and issues we face in the future will be taken care of because the decisions made were based on values and example. This is what I believe Mitt Romney has and until the others can show me otherwise then this is my direction.
Think about it. Everyone’s trying to find the best solutions to economic problems, to policy issues. A lot of this is blended with issues that only pertain TO THEMSELVES and their selfish ambitions. That mixed with the former will always lead to the deterioration and continued ignorance of our own hearts and minds. If you want to find a platform that will compete with the Democrats. I believe that the best platform is to not apologize or ignore the SOCIAL VALUES of CONSERVATISM. I don’t believe that we have the right to choose ANYTHING we want to do. Too many times in our society we’ve come to the point where we feel that there are no consequences for our actions. Those consequences are being hidden from us in the form of “rationalism” and looking the other way. Selling ourselves “OUT”. What makes any person a great person is their ability to choose what’s right above anything else. This is where our hearts and minds should be. This is how President Bush won in 2004 and why so many lost in 2006.
Anyone can choose to do something stupid and wrong but it’s our ability to choose what’s right that makes us different and that needs to come to the forefront. This is where we are getting beat. Democrats have no agenda and won with no agenda. Republicans lost because they didn’t base their decisions on values and even worse were terrible examples. Where the Democrats beat the Republican party is they put a light on the GOP as a group of people that are no different than them socially. They may have pulled the wool over a majority by not saying anything and trying to look like they’re a little right in terms of policy will continue to be their weakness. However you want to look at it — it’s a trap and always will be a trap of half truths and polarizing tactics. I’m afraid that if we don’t put the RIGHT people in place then the door in that trap will close and our hearts and minds will be lost for a long time if not for good.
Values and example…this is where to look.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
To Chris and Bill,
I understand to a point some of what you are saying reagarding issues such as the fact that we ought to seek to isolate what has caused the astronomical increase in the price tag of health care in recent decades, so that we can work to reverse it. I also understand that there are issues of what the government regulates with regard to nutrition and medicine.
I see those issues as distinct from the fact that right now government at all levels is subsidizing health care costs for the poor, and their costs are primarily emergency room types, not preventative care. Those other issues are worth tackling, and I know that everything is eventually inter-related, but what do you feel that the GOP should propose to reduce government medical welfare spending while at the same time making health care more affordable to the poor? WHat should the platform be to give to the genral public?
Proposing nothing and being silent on the issue is akin to writing a blank check to the democrats to do whatever they want with this issue.
Inaction is still an action. I see Mitt Romney as taking action in the right direction, even if it is not the ideal of going all the way toward what you might want.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
I have clicked the above said link, and while some of it seems interesting, I dont see it as directly addressing the issue of what we are talking about here with respect to the merit or lack thereof of Mitt Romney’s plan to restructure medical welfare in MA to channel the monies spent into insurance premiums.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
I believe that McCain has negatives against him because he comes from Congress. He has no idea how to lead. He only knows how to make people like him.
If anyone disagrees, please let me know of any legislation that he’s brought to the table that will have a long lasting positive effect on America now and in the future?
The US Congress is a haven of people who sought to do right by the people only to find full-time jobs with perks that they don’t want to let go of. Their job now is to look for ways to keep their job and that’s what drives most of them, after all the Democratic Party is in the majority.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Please, LDS is not a cult. Kennedy, JFK, was first elected Catholic. So, it’s worked for Massechusetts, why wouldn’t it work for the country?
November 13th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
http://www.thecommonwealthpac.com/romney/
here you go, all about Mitt…
November 13th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
I’m interested to see McCain’s juggling act between Conservatives and Liberals. He knows that he has to go right to win. I think that he’s too prideful to accept it and believes that he will need to continue to juggle both sides to win. This sadly is the thought of a lot of people in the Republican party nowadays.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Nivek, Bill, and Chris:
Healthcare’s back for Hillary…read the link: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/13/D8LCB6GO0.html
Read toward the end of the story.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Thanks Afu,
That linked story lends credibility to what I am trying to say regarding the fact the Mitt Romney is the only GOP frontruner to clearly articulate a health care solution that is a viable alternative to what the Dems want, that embraces free-market and other conservative priciples.
I am not saying he has a perfect potion to solve everything health care related, but I am saying that we better statr articulating positions and solutions quickly, or Hillary care will be back on the table.
Wishing this were not the case will not change the ugly truth of the situation. This is THE defining domestic issue for 08.
Lets own it please!
November 13th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
I think if you want to improve access to health care, you should increase competition by deregulating the heck out of the industry, rather than shifting welfare subsidies from the individuals to the insurance corporations.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Chris I like what you say about deregulating the industry. I suppose along with that we need some real tort reform as well, since medical lawsuits are largely what I understand to bring about regulation in the first place.
What though of current medical welfare payments?
I suppose our position can be to leave it as it is. But that doesnt make any kind of move to cut the spending, and if we leave it the spending is guaranteed to increase. Doesnt sound like a winning conservative strategy to me.
Perhaps we could just just reduce the money spent or eliminate the welfare programs altogether. Idealistic maybe. But this does not improve the medical care for any of the current welfare recipients, which is why this idea is politically dead in the water. This fact is really beyond debate. Such policy would NEVER pass in our current political climate.
Is there a third way between keeping the status quo, which is an affront to conservatism, and slashing or eliminatingthe programs all at once, which is not even politically possible if provision is not made to ensure medical care to those who are low-income or otherwise unable to provide for themselves?
I believe Mitt’s solution falls into that third way category. Maybe there are even better solutions, please tell if you think you have it.
Or maybe consider that Mitt is onto something brilliant here.
Not that it is perfect, it is after all, a restructuring of welfare.
But it is 10 steps in the right direction.
Can you almost hear the socialized medicine redcoats riding into the edge of town? What shall be our weapon to stop them?
November 13th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
I honestly don’t know of any realistic solutions to the healthcare problem. I’m not qualified to make realistic suggestions because I have little knowledge about all the issues surrounding health care because it’s not my field of expertise.
From a layman’s perspective I can see that there are numerous layers to the problem that are not entirely related to the healthcare industry.
For example, why do people give themselves freely over to strangers to take care of them when something goes wrong with their health? What happened to the strong patient-doctor relationships we used to have where it was preferred that our well known, respected doctor would know what to do in such a crisis? Why have these relationships eroded so much recently to cause an influx of patients to emergency rooms for non-emergency care?
Another issue that contributes to people hitting the emergency room is the demand for instant attention to whatever malady is causing their discomfort. We didn’t go to the doctor every time we had the flu or a cold or a muscle spasm in our legs. Emergency rooms are for genuine emergencies, such as car accidents and heart attacks, not for common everyday sniffles. Where does this programming come from that people are compelled seek immediate attention for minor ailments that in most cases are already on the mend after a good night’s sleep? How can we reverse this kind of attitude toward emergency care? Or can we?
I don’t think the answer lies solely in deciding where to get and direct the money for healthcare for the poor.
We need to teach people to toughen up and not expect immediate attention unless their situation is a genuine emergency. We need to allow people to self medicate when they can, with a good strong awareness campaign from the marketplace to educate people on their options, making a trip to the emergency room the least attractive of those options.
We need to relearn the importance of a strong doctor-patient relationship. And one of the things we could do in re: deregulation, encourage doctors and patients to work together to come up with creative solutions to ensure their care is affordable and accessible. That means forcing the patient to relieve the doctor of liability except in the most egregious or grossly negligent cases.
That brings us back to personal responsibility, and accepting the fact that accidents happen and people are not perfect, and if we can’t restore trust in each other, we’re doomed on any other attempts to fix the problems.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Chris, you are so right. Personal responsibility? What’s that? It’s something that alot of lack these days. I love my doctor, I have a special patient/doctor relationship with him. The last thing I want is my government telling me who I can and connot see. I have yet to hear a perfect plan…I certainly do not have the answers; but I agree with your statement.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Been researching Romney and I am impressed!
November 14th, 2006 at 9:09 am
John McCain will not be getting my vote. Too much of a panderer.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Sonny Perdue
November 14th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Sonny Perdue – I went to the Georgia website. I’ve only seen a little of him. While I’m certain that he’s a great Republican governor. I don’t see enough to know that he’s a true conservative and at this point, I don’t think that he has enough to be a formidable candidate in the national scene.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Any thoughts on Rudy? Me personally? I think that while Rudy may be a good looking candidate to moderates, he doesn’t have a lot to offer conservatives. He may offer a lot regarding conservative policy but socially? Background? Too much baggage. Again this is where I believe values are a problem for him and he’s not a really great example of core conservative values.
Values and Example…for me important.
November 14th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Romney, McCain. and Giuliani deserve the highest numbers. Duncan Hunter will be unlikely to even get off of the ground (and I am a fan of his from tv and from living near him in Southern California).
November 14th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Just saw on Fox news tonight that Hillary Clinton is saying that with time her style of national health care will be back on the table.
With current momentum in the Dems direction, the masses are going to buy into this financial(and medical)trainwreck unless we on the GOP side bring clearly better market based solutions to the table, and articulate it!
Masses, please meet Mitt Romney.
November 15th, 2006 at 8:58 am
There’s a lot of buzz now with Mitt. The great thing now is that there isn’t a conversation about Presidential hopefuls without his name being mentioned. I truly agree with his stance of not putting his hat into the ring yet. Let the others suck up the air.
As to his plan for Healthcare in Mass. Brilliant political strategy even if by accident, which I doubt was the case. I believe that he truly wanted to find a solution to healthcare for his state that was a model that as he put it “was founded on conservative principles” of private enterprise. But he also saw an opening considering all the buzz about Hillary (I’ll get to this later).
Sure there are aspects of what he put in place that seem social but in the end everyone wins – taxpayers, patients, private insurance companies, and the government. But if you look at it in the context of who are the true winners, it’s the taxpayers and patients. Sure you can say that the insurance companies come away pretty good as well but everything is still in the private sector which is a stark contrast to Hillarycare.
As for the opening and Hillary. I believe that you have to plan for the best and the worst. The worst is that you decide not to run because there isn’t much buzz going on for you and you never get to be the candidate for President. The best situation is that you are the candidate. Once there, it’s a showdown between 2 people grounded in core beliefs – one conservative and the other liberal. Mitt on one side and Hillary on the other. We will truly see the contrast between values and example. Even with the media, public universities, and hollywood behind her, in the end conservative principles based on core values will win hands down — values and example will win hands down.
Don’t think that they (Democrats or Clintonites) will turn every stone and pebble to find anything to use against their opponent. In 2004 the focus was on Bush. He was too clean to find anything to bludgeon him with. Go to 2006. Too many with compromised values and of course bad examples. In ’04 they made things up for goodness sakes but in the end if you lie you will get caught. The teflon media will only get worse because of their affiliation and admiration of everything left and many times far left. This will be brought out even more if you put someone on the other side that you can see without a shadow of doubt that is different. They will always be exposed. If you put someone against them that looks similar in terms of social values and what they do in their private lives (example) then things begin to get hazy.
Please consider Mitt Romney…until someone on the left finds anything on him that puts a chink in what I believe to be an armor of values and example then he should be your candidate.
November 15th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Nivek – I saw a discussion during the “all-stars” portion on Special Report w/Brit Hume (who by the way is my favorite in the news today) about Rudy Giuliani and his commission. In it they discussed him but the telling thing for me is that it ended with them talking about Mitt Romney.
I apologize to no one for putting my hat there. Again it’s about values and example. He’s the one with it.
November 15th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Bill S.
We should call this thread “Invasion of the Romneyites”
November 15th, 2006 at 9:55 am
I think it’s telling. I believe that this is only the beginning.
November 15th, 2006 at 9:56 am
By the way Mel Martinez is wrong for the chairmanship of RNC.
November 15th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Do I even have to ask Mitt’s stance on gun control? Here’s my favorite version: http://youtube.com/watch?v=3ez6THh4YgA
November 15th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Bill,
That was funny…lol. I like how it looked like a scene from a middle east uprising at the end.
November 15th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Gun control=law abiding citizens pointing and clicking.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Bill,
“We should call this thread Invasion of the Romneyites”
Next thread, I’ll do it!
November 15th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Bill Simon,
Apparently the Romney campaign is taking a page from the Dean campaign. Back in 2003/2004 if you went on a blog and made a criticism of Howard Dean, a whole patrol of bloggers who had never been on that particular site before showed up to defend Dean.
November 16th, 2006 at 1:41 am
For you Romney bashers here,
Who do you feel has a better chance to beat Hillary in 08?
I am not asking who you like better, I am asking who you think can more effectively win in 08.
November 16th, 2006 at 1:57 am
Since you call this the “invasion of the Romneyites” I have to ask,
would you prefer to only blog with those who already agree with you on every issue? on this blogsite this particular thread is about possible 2008 contenders. Would you rahter those of us who have decided we like Romney pretend otherewise? Personally, if it really bothers you to have Romney fans here, you could ask us to just leave this blogsite, we are a pretty polite bunch and will not feel the need need to “infest” a site if honest discourse about what a person feels about an issue is not what you are after.
November 16th, 2006 at 8:03 am
Nivek,
PLEASE, before 2008 rolls around, please develop a sense of humor.
It wasn’t a criticism, it was an observation.
And, I welcome the input. BUT, this is a blog site where humor is encouraged.
November 16th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Nivek
I love blogs where I disagree with people. Don’t you? It’s fun. http://youtube.com/watch?v=60oiOT2i6mg
November 16th, 2006 at 10:30 am
President Sonny Perdue?
Clinton, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Obama, Frist, Gingrich, Gore, Kerry, Rice, Edwards, Pataki, Biden… Like it or not, the 2008 presidential race is officially underway. What’s missing is a clear front-runner for the Republican nomination.
Georgia governor Sonny Perdue is, perhaps, the GOP’s best hope of maintaining control of the White House.
Republicans are Mad about Spending and Immigration
Perdue balanced the budget in Georgia, which insulates him from the criticisms that face any candidate that comes from our irresponsible, deficit-swelling congress.
Perdue passed the toughest immigration legislation in the country, while Washington did nothing.
Independents are Mad about the Iraq and Trade
Since Perdue wasn’t in Washington during the vote to authorize the Iraq war, he can approach it with an open mind and no political baggage.
Regarding trade reform, Perdue can reach out to natural allies like Gingrey, Norwood, Deal, and Westmorland, all of whom have been outspoken about cracking down on Chinese trade abuses (especially regarding child and slave labor).
Perdue was the GOP’s Only Bright Light in the Mid-Term Election
With Perdue at the top of the ticket, Georgia Republicans picked up both the Lt. Governor and Sectary of State offices and expanded the Republican majority in the statehouse. Republicans in the rest of the country took a “thumpin.”
And there’s plenty for the media to like too. Perdue is a veteran, a veterinarian, father of four, foster parent of eight, and was a walk-on quarterback at the University of Georgia. He also has a small role in the upcoming Matthew McConaughey football movie “We Are Marshall”.
I challenge anyone looking at the current list of GOP hopefuls to name a stronger candidate than Governor Sonny Perdue.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Bill S.
Those people were like locusts. They were all over the place then they were gone all the sudden.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Still here…Romney ’08!
November 17th, 2006 at 10:55 am
I think I can get my mind around the “carrot stick” approach with insurance companies. The carrot tastes good, the stick hurts alot but the real problem is all those strings.
November 17th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Afu
Where is Romney on trade and immigration?
November 17th, 2006 at 11:49 am
I’m not sure what you’re saying by “carrot stick” so I’ll try and give you a couple of explanations for what I think you mean.
Nivek sounds like he has a better grasp of the particulars of the healthcare program Romney put together in Mass. For me the most important and glaring thing is that the government has no control over us or the insurance companies. My thoughts are that the private sector will correct itself with regard to competition. It always does. This is what will continue to drive costs down even further from what’s been asked and when it’s gone down as far as it can you’ll start to see incentified programs to further the competition.
If you’re referring to this as being a “carrot stick” in that it has lead me and perhaps others to consider Romney as a clear opponent to Hillary, for me it isn’t. Hillary is more than just the healthcare issue. She to me represents what is wrong with our political system particularly the Democrats and their machine (liberal news media, hollywood, Clintoncrats, and the liberal intellectual elite).
They are driven by nothing more than power and status. They have no values as it stands other than trying to be the smartest people in the world.
This kind of thinking gets nobody anywhere and what’s worse is that no matter what they do they will always think they’re right. They’re quick to judge others but the last to judge that maybe their actions are as hurtful to us as a people. I know this from firsthand experience. They don’t even think the War on Terror is a war at all but a situation where somehow they can trick the terrorists into peace because they’re so intellectually superior to anyone.
They are blinded by their pride and will eventually need to be brought down by us peacefully here winning the hearts of the people through elections, sharing values and being examples of those values or we will all be brought down by continually giving in to the world as it stands.
November 17th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
AFU
TRADE AND IMMIGRATION NO ANSWER?
November 17th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Immigration:
“O’REILLY: Would you build a wall between Mexico and the United States and would you put the National Guard on the border?
ROMNEY: Absolutely. We’d put the National Guard there because we don’t have the wall yet. You have to have a wall or a fence or electronic surveillance. And you have to have a tamper-proof document to make sure that people who are here are aliens are identified and registered, and people can not hire them unless they’re here legally.”
“Immigration has been an important part of our nation’s success. The current system, however, puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America.”
He said the federal government should issue a biometric employment card to every noncitizen in the country, deport criminals who are illegal residents, and give welfare and Medicaid timetables for noncitizens to get off those programs or face deportation. And for those law-abiding, tax-paying illegal immigrants who have been here for years, he wants to see them go to the back of the line to apply for legal status.
“We have to secure our borders and have a policy we can control,” he said.
November 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
AFU
I read nothing about cracking down on employers?
And how about TRADE.
November 17th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
•Raising the bar on education: Romney said, “It’s time to raise the bar on education by making teaching a true profession, measuring progress, providing a focus on math and science, and involving parents from the beginning of a child’s school career.”
• Extending health insurance to all Americans: Romney, who helped fashion a bipartisan health-insurance plan for Massachusetts, said, “The health of our nation can be improved by extending health insurance to all Americans, not through a government program or new taxes, but through market reforms.”
• Stopping runaway spending: A good idea and one Republicans used to practice. Romney says the problem goes “beyond pork-barrel spending. We must address entitlement programs.” (We await the controversial details of just how he’ll do that.)
• Getting immigration right: Romney said, “The current system puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically-enabled and tamper-proof documentation and employment-verification system, and increase legal immigration into America.”
•Achieving energy independence: “This will mean a combination of efforts related to conservation and efficiency measures, developing alternative sources of energy like biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear, and coal gasification, and finding more domestic sources of oil such as in ANWR or the outer continental shelf,” he said.
• Simplifying the tax system: Again, Romney doesn’t wade into thorny details. Should it be a national sales tax, a flat tax or a reconfiguration of the current system?
•Investing in technology: “Corporations today spend more on tort liability than they do on research and development,” he said. “While the government already invests heavily in defense, space and health technologies, it is time to invest substantially in technologies related to power generation, nanotechnology, and materials science.”
•Defeating the jihadists: “The defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims,” he said. “An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations….America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights.”
•Competing with Asia: “This means ensuring our children are educated to compete in this new market, our trade laws are fair and balanced, and our economy and tax laws welcome new investment. If America acts boldly and swiftly, the emergence of Asia will be an opportunity,” said Romney “Trade and commerce with these huge new economies can further strengthen our economy and propel our growth. If America fails to act, we will be eclipsed.”
• Affirming America’s culture and values “American values are at the heart of America’s historic rise to world leadership. These include, among others, respect for hard work, sacrifice, civility, love of family, respect for life, education and love of freedom,” he said.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
John,
I’m not going to get into the minutae of policies because I believe we have what need to know so far…as I get more I’ll be more than happy to give you more.
My thought on your question about immigration and employers is if you believe that there should be a wall built, wouldn’t you think that there would be a tough stance regarding employers hiring illegals?
I’ll find more stuff on trade and send it to you as well.
Enlighten me on Sonny Perdue and where he stands on issues…I’m sure that you’re ready to give it a shot…
November 17th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
This is from the runmittrun.org website.
Our Shared Values
1) Peace Through Strength.
The world changed on September 11, 2001. For the first time ever, an outside enemy launched a major attack on the continental U.S., killing more people and wreaking greater havoc than the attack of Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Pearl Harbor led our nation into World War II. 9/11 led us into the Global War On Terror. Romney understands we are a nation at war and that we cannot expect any other country to care about America’s well-being as much as we care about it.
“We face not a local enemy, but an enemy to civilization, and therefore our response must be global and must be sustained and committed. The enemy is emboldened by anything other than the strength of America.”
2) Strength Through Secure Borders.
While Homeland Security experts sound the alarm that America’s porous borders are allowing the infiltration of enemy combatants, health and education leaders warn that our schools and hospitals simply cannot keep up with the unprecedented influx of illegal immigrants.
Romney’s solution? 1) Secure the border. 2) Enforce existing immigration laws. 3) Modify the laws as needed once the existing laws and border are properly enforced.
Until we restore integrity to the existing laws, we should not expect anyone on either side of the border to pay attention to any new laws we might enact.
3) Traditional Families First.
As the conservative governor of the most liberal state in the U.S., Mitt led the charge opposing same sex marriage. He relentlessly stressed the need to protect the institution of marriage, at the same time denouncing the discrimination of gays and lesbians.
In a letter to each member of the U.S. Senate, Romney wrote that, “…marriage is [not] principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.”
4) Pro-Life.
Romney opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or serious threat to the health of the mother. He supports stem cell research using surplus embryos but opposes the use of cloning to create new embryos.
“It is very conceivable that scientific advances will allow an embryo to be grown for a substantial period of time outside the uterus. To say that it is not life at one month or two months or four months or full term, just because it has never been in a uterus, would be absurd.”
5) Proactive Fiscal Conservatism.
It is one thing to know how to cut back on spending, quite another to make the money you have work for you. Mitt Romney is a master of both fiscal skills.
As a businessman, he never met a company he couldn’t turn around. As emergency CEO, he rescued the floundering 2002 Olympics and turned them into the most profitable Winter Games ever held. As governor of Massachusetts, he reversed a $3 billion deficit into a $1 billion surplus and found a way to provide healthcare for 500,000 previously uninsured people at the same time.
6) Compassionate Conservatism.
The vision of “a kinder, gentler nation” is a vision that inspires everyone, regardless of political persuasion. But the practical realities of imposing order on society invariably threaten the realization of that vision. Unless you have a leader like Mitt Romney.
In Massachusetts, Romney found a way to provide healthcare for 500,000 uninsured people without casting their burdens on the state. He found a way to defend the role of traditional families at the same time he denounced the discrimination of gays and lesbians. And he advanced education in the inner cities by rewarding teachers rather than threatening them.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Afu
I see nothing on trade?
November 17th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
AFU
From Romney,
1. •Competing with Asia: “This means ensuring our children are educated to compete in this new market, our trade laws are fair and balanced, and our economy and tax laws welcome new investment. If America acts boldly and swiftly, the emergence of Asia will be an opportunity,” said Romney “Trade and commerce with these huge new economies can further strengthen our economy and propel our growth. If America fails to act, we will be eclipsed.”
My Questions?
How does this stop child and slave labor in China?How does this stop China from stealing Intellectual Property 90% of the time according to the Hyde report? How does this stop China using their Country as an industrial wasteland to steal industries? How will any of Romney ideas stop out of control debt?
November 17th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
AFU
BTW, I have nothing to do with Sonny Perdue. I have a radio show and a blog. I am asking you questions to find out more about Romney.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
To Bill and Bill S.,
My home computer is in the shop and so I am using the computer at work to check back here.
I will try to develop a sense of humor.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
That Romney plan screams deficit spending to me.
His plan is to spend more money on borders and border enforcement, increase handouts to insurance companies, spend more money on renewable energy research and technologies, spend more money on nanotech, spend more money on materials science, in addition to all the other military, research and education expenditures currently underway.
I see very little motivation or intention to cut spending anywhere.
And that whole “emergence of Asia” thing is saying that we’ve done all we can here, the only opportunities left in the world are in Asia. What that means is our standards of living fall as Asia’s rises, until an equilibrium is reached. And once it’s reached, corporations have hit a brick wall to continue their profit-driven growth as there will be few places left in the world to find cheap labor and materials to keep their profits on projected growth targets.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Perdue is too self-serving to have a shot at the national scene, with his blatant land deals and refusal to put his investments in a blind trust while in office.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Chris your open border math does not work! Try again
November 17th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Nivek,
You said you like debate, and when I ask you guys about trade and Romney you hide?
November 18th, 2006 at 1:32 am
John, explain your claims about border math.
November 18th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Chris
This is from a conservative economist
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/bush-administration-dying-at-the-border
This is from the biggest open border economist Krugman, he even said illegal immigrants are driving wages down.
Take your pick, and split it down the middle and you will see illegal immigration is not good for our economy.
Krugman’s Notes on Immigration
Paul Krugman follows up on his column on immigration:
Notes on Immigration, by Paul Krugman, Money Talks, NY Times: Immigration is an intensely painful topic for a liberal like myself, because it places basic principles in conflict. Should migration from Mexico to the United States be celebrated, because it helps very poor people find a better life? Or should it be condemned, because it drives down the wages of working Americans and threatens to undermine the welfare state? I suspect that my March 27 column will anger people on all sides; I wish the economic research on immigration were more favorable than it is.
Finally, the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear. Mr. Hanson uses some estimates from the National Research Council to get a specific number, around 0.25 percent of G.D.P. Again, I think that you’d be hard pressed to find any set of assumptions under which Mexican immigrants are a net fiscal plus, but equally hard pressed to make the burden more than a fraction of a percent of G.D.P.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/03/krugmans_notes_.html
November 18th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
I do not know where Romney stands yet on trade. I will find out. Do you happen to know?
November 18th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Nivek
No only what you guys posted.This will be a big issue in 08.
November 18th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
John,
Sorry I was away in a couple of meetings over the past day and a half.
What’s your radio show? I use to sell and produce advertising for a national radio/tv show that focused on natural and alternative health.
I’ll get you additional info on Mitt Romney’s stance on trade when I get a little more time. Right now from what I know he’s okay with the administration’s current stand but that he wants us to be more competitive in the math and science fields for the future. I also saw him on O’Reilly and he was very adamant about China working with us and that we have every right to refuse to help them as they choose not to with us. I believe that the conversation was under a different context (I may be right though) with regard to their discussion about China but what I got from him was that he won’t back down.
I’m confident that he’ll get some things done and he’ll always try to find a better way. What that way is again I’ll find out and get you info.
November 18th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
AFU
If he supports the Bush adminstration on trade I will make sure all my readers and listners know he has sold out America.
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/how-bad-trade-deals-are-destroying-the-middle-class
November 18th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
AFU
What you are saying is Romney is another NEOCON sell-out?
November 18th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
I don’t know all the particulars but Ron Paul for example makes a big distinction between trade with China and this new stuff with SPP, NAU, CAFTA, ect…and the immigration issue. (And I have no idea if he’s a viable candidate)
November 18th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Bill
BTW did you read this?
From Romney,
1. •Competing with Asia: “This means ensuring our children are educated to compete in this new market, our trade laws are fair and balanced, and our economy and tax laws welcome new investment. If America acts boldly and swiftly, the emergence of Asia will be an opportunity,” said Romney “Trade and commerce with these huge new economies can further strengthen our economy and propel our growth. If America fails to act, we will be eclipsed.”
My Questions?
How does this stop child and slave labor in China?How does this stop China from stealing Intellectual Property 90% of the time according to the Hyde report? How does this stop China using their Country as an industrial wasteland to steal industries? How will any of Romney ideas stop out of control debt?
November 19th, 2006 at 9:03 am
John
I think most people would oppose any additional treaties with China any time soon. Let’s let the market adjust to what we have, right? And we need to protect American ideas. That’s our ace in the hole. “Boldly and swiftly”? that sounds like talking points from some globalist think tank.
November 19th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Romney might be bad news. Hey, AFU and his club where big on debate until they got tough questions.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
OK John I read that from Krugman, but here’s what you’re overlooking in the equation.
Let’s use a simple example: medical care. Let’s say the medical establishment in one community (hospital, private doctor, pharmacy) treats 100 illegals per month, and the government pays for it all. Those companies are receiving their normal profits just as if they were treating Americans. When you remove those patients, you remove those profits from those companies. In order for those companies to remain on projected targets with a reduced patient load, prices will go up on somebody to compensate. Who is going to absorb the higher costs? Both the government and consumers.
Simply removing the illegals from the equation is not going to fix the problems.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Chris,
The problem is we are using illegal immigrants to compete with oversea salve labor, the reason this is a race to the bottom is wages are falling faster than prices. That is why the saving rate post NAFTA went from11% to NEGATIVE 1%.
The jobs that are being created are at low wages in general. This is why we will keep falling behind in infrastructure cost (schools, roads…), if we create low wage jobs at the expense of middle class jobs. Wages drive tax revenue.
Also by focusing on cheap labor due to flooding the market with immigrants, we slow down investment into technology. Why upgrade if you can outsource to overseas slaves or hire illegal immigrants.
Would you rather have less people making more money? Or do you want to import poverty?
The fix is a combination of trade and immigration reform.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
John Konop said:
“Romney might be bad news. Hey, AFU and his club where big on debate until they got tough questions.”
I dont even know Afu but since both him and myself are representing ourselves as Romney fans on this blogsite I suppose that puts us in the same club.
I apologize for not writing in more frequently the past few days, but my computer has been in the repair shop and so I have to do this from work, which cuts my luxury time here substantially.
John, please refresh me as to what you r tough question is for Mitt Romney about trade. That is a big subject, and so if I do some research maybe you could help me narrow the scope slightly.
Thanks.
Also, when you answer this, would you mind also stating where you stand on that same issue? I think this will give us good fuel for further dialogue.
November 19th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
John what is your proposed solution? A simple “close the borders” answer will result in market chaos and higher prices for Americans to compensate for the losses in revenue driven by the higher wages paid to Americans and the profits made from servicing illegals. So what exactly is your approach, in simple step by step terms?
November 19th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
We want lower costs, and lower taxes. Corporations will not accept a policy that results in a decline in profits, therefore the “market corrections” from the removal of this segment of the population from play will force prices up substantially, having the exact opposite effect of what we the people want.
November 19th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Chris
I don’t think you need to worry about 11 million illegal aliens vanishing overnight. But I’ve got my backpack blower ready just in case.
November 19th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Bill S.
The best way to respond to your deep thought probably has something to do with cockpits, joysticks, raising the fuselage and a sexy stewardess using both hands.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Chris
We need to renegotiate trade deals and change our immigration policy that includes the following;
Livable wage standards
All immigrants must have health insurance
Immigration based on need of employees
Use the current Visa/ Mc system to track immigrants
Enforce current immigration laws
IP laws in all trade deals
Environmental, human rights and work safety standards on all trade deals with real enforcement.
No trade deals should allow foreign countries not to fellow U.S. laws in our Country.
Enforce currency manipulation standards in trade deals.
Secure the borders and ports
This is good start.
BTW do not let economist and politicians confuse you. The real figure to focus on is wages verse inflation, bottom line real wages.
You should read this article and thread.
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/economists-are-destroying-america
November 20th, 2006 at 7:32 am
AfU
If you read my comment to Chris you will see my position on trade.
What is Romney solution to the out of control trade debt? Does Romney support stopping child and slave labor, enviorment, IP……. in trade deals with Countries like China, Mexico. Oman……
I will give you a few more links to educate yourself.
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/bush-trades-jobs-wages-for-peace
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/how-bad-trade-deals-are-destroying-the-middle-class
November 20th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
My question is do you have a candidate that falls in line with your thoughts on trade?
My thoughts are to look at the trade-deficit and trade itself as two different things. Now of course one is the cause of the other. There are some things that you’ve stated about immigration that will curb the debt and raise or hold the wage bottom for the lower income wage earners but I don’t see where that would help them to move into the middle class. The middle class bottom I believe is actually rising not falling. There’s also an article discussing wages rising over the cost of living for the past 12 months at a rate not seen since the 90′s. Here’s the link http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p01s03-usec.html. There are other things that you’ve stated that will help the middle-class but I don’t believe that all of it as a whole will help us with trade and the trade deficit.
As for Romney’s stance with regard to trade, again there isn’t enough there for me to elaborate on his stance further than what he’s put out there.
I’m sure that he’s against slave labor, environment, and other issues that you bring up. I’m sure that we can put policies together and ideas that for us sound good but in the end hurt our relations with other countries.
What I’m getting at is that in order to compete we need to make ourselves available. It’s great to look inward to our country to provide the standard and the only means by which we work but whose going to pay extra money for labor that should only cost minimum wage? And in terms of those jobs, who in this country will do those once you get illegal immigration under control. Democrats are pushing for a minimum wage increase which will probably pass and be great for those who are doing those jobs anyway.
I believe that there are policies that need to be put in place that say to other governments that also allow free trade, deal with us fairly and do better for your people – please. The please part is important because these countries need to open up. Once we’ve determined that, we work with one another to reach a level in our relationships that allow us to say deal with your labor, and environmental issues or we can’t work or we’ll go somewhere else…it’s the government from where those issues stems from that has to deal with it internally. Free trade allows for governments and countries to compete and grow. This growth can only go so far before it requires change. This change will happen if our influence is fostered and leveraged with a mutual interest.
November 20th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
READ THIS AND THENTELL ME ABOUT HOW WELL THE TRADE DEALS ARE WORKING!
How Bad Trade Deals are Destroying the Middle Class
This is from “Skeptical Economist”.
So far, our global economic failures show up mainly as discontented workers in areas hard hit by import competition. However, the real problems (and the worker problems are quite real) are considerably worse
The United States as a nation is far from self-sufficient or anything close. Back in Kennedy era, imports and exports were in the range of 4 to 5% of GDP. The US economy was closes to autarkic. These days comparable numbers are imports are 16.22% of GDP and exports are 10.46% of GDP. Per se, there is nothing wrong with trade growing as a percent of GDP. However, the brutal reality is that our nation can no longer pay its bills. Imports of goods are almost double exports of goods. We enjoy a small (and shrinking) surplus on services and are now in deficit for payments (profits received from overseas US investments versus profit earned by foreign investment in the US).
If you could only pay half of your bills, would you think you were doing well? Would that be OK? Might some question of economic failure arise? Wouldn’t virtually every American see it that way? Yet, when it comes to our country, it is somehow OK. Of course, it is not.
If you could only pay half of your bills, your debts would be soaring. Guess what? So are the debts of the United States. Of course, the national debt is growing and more than 50% owned by foreigners. However, the debts of ordinary Americans are rising as well and a growing percentage are owned by foreigners as well.
The trade debate is usually depicted in terms of “cramped, narrow minded, locally oriented protectionists” versus “visionary, open minded, free trading globalists”. This caricature is largely correct. However, that doesn’t mean the protectionists are wrong. With America going broke, they are at least on the right side of the issue..
Thomas Friedman demonstrated again the cluelessness of our elites on trade today. His piece “China: Scapegoat or Sputnik” repeated the usual mantra about education solving our problems. His actual words were “health care, portability of pensions, entitlements, and lifelong learning”. Nice ideas, but will they really help middle aged workers without jobs? No, of course not, but the deeper problem is they won’t fix our trade problems either. We will simply go broke faster. What words were missing? How about “overvalued currency”, “RMB versus the dollar”, “China’s lack of currency flexibility”, etc. All notably missing
November 20th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
This entire trade / imigration discussion is essentially about geo-political arbitrage, or in other words, one entity [country] trying to make a net gain over another entity [country] by exploiting inneficiencies in the global economy such as differences in imigration policies, exchange rates, standard of living, etc.
Financial arbitrage (ok, this is simplistic, I know) in the financial markets is something that exploits differences in the prices of stocks, etc., due to inneficiencies in the financial markets.
So, where I am going with this analogy, is that in order to really play this game, and optimize the trade / immigration situation for the US without losing our shirts, it will take someone with a keen business sense who understands the analogous priciples in the financial markets –namely Governor Romney.
November 20th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
John,
The Kennedy era is a lot different than the era we’re in now. You can no longer ignore Amerca’s need to influence the world. Countries and people are looking to us as an example. Other countries look at us with animosity and disdain because of it. It’s either us or someone with far less standards for life and freedom that leads. This may sound hokey but in the end it’s the reality.
Countries that are closed off with serious money have no influence because they don’t have anything more to offer than money. Look at middle eastern countries. They sit back and allow people to have animosity toward them because they live in their rich homes and do nothing to help them. They use religion to hold themselves and the poor down and then tell the poor through their religion that we’re the problem not them.
I lived in the Philippines for two years and interacted with people who worked for major US clothing companies making as little as 500 pesos per week (21 US dollars at that time). They loved that this opportunity was there for them. They would do anything for a steady job that gave them a steady income.
We in America offer more than just money. We have people and enterprise. We have the best and the brightest. We create hope. We create concepts that no one thinks of. Or we take concepts and make them better. I don’t think that the policies of our government regarding trade are the problem.
Look at the industries that are struggling…the companies that are dependent or affected by trade. What is the common strain? Labor groups. Another greedy companies with people who don’t think about anything but their bottom line. Don’t get me wrong labor groups can really help employees get what they need but now it’s all about what they want and look at the companies that they compete with in the US only. If their competition is succeeding and they aren’t it’s because the labor union doesn’t dictate to them what they can provide to their employees. Don’t you think that a US company wants to hire American employees if they can? Employers need to pay fair labor wages and if they can’t they need to survive so they’ll go somewhere else plain and simple. Again those that are greedy aren’t usually doing things right anyway and get fettered out. There are other factors that aren’t looked at but look at unemployment as another indicator for trade. We are at 4.6% nationwide. Now look at states where it’s high and you’ll find that the companies within that state are trying to find ways to get around payroll. Cutting jobs and wages and other things to get by. Illegal immigration is another huget problem and we’ve already addressed that.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Economists Are Destroying America
Economists, politicians, and executives from both parties have promised American families that “free” trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO/CHINA would accomplish three things:
• Increase wages
• Create trade surpluses (for the US)
• Reduce illegal immigration
Well, their trade policies have been in effect for about 15 years. Let’s review the results:
• Declining real wages for 80% of working Americans (while healthcare, education, and childcare costs skyrocket)
• A record-high 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance (due in part to declining wages and benefits)
• Illegal immigration out of control
• Soaring trade deficits, much with countries that use slave and child labor
• Personal and national debt both out-of-control
• Global environments threatened by lax trade deal enforcement
Economists Keep Advocating Policies That Aren’t Working
Upon seeing incontrovertible evidence of these negative trade agreement results, economists continue with Pollyannish blather. Some say, “Cheer up! GDP is up and the stock market’s doing fine.” Others say, “Be patient. Stay the course. Free trade will raise all ships.”
Even those economists who acknowledge problems with trade agreements offer us only half-measures—adjusting exchange rates, improving safety nets, and providing better job retraining. None of these will close the wage gap in America—and economists know it.
Why Aren’t American Economists Shouting From Street Corners?
America needs trade deals that support American families and businesses in terms of wage, environmental, and intellectual property abuses. Why aren’t economists demanding renegotiation of our trade deals? There are three primary reasons:
• Economists are too beholden to corporations and special interests that provide them with research grants.
• Economists believe—but refuse to admit—that sacrificing the American middle class is necessary and appropriate to generate gains in third world economies.
• Economists refuse to admit they make mistakes.
Economic Ambulance Chasers
Now more than ever, Americans need their economists to speak truth and stand up to their big business clients. Instead, economists sound like lawyers caught chasing ambulances: they claim they’re “doing it for our benefit”.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
AFU
From the LA TIMES
The factories have engaged in the worst kinds of human rights and worker abuses, including 48-hour shifts without sleep, violent physical and psychological abuse and workers brought from foreign countries with their passports held by employers, often receiving no pay for their work. Wal-Mart also is a member of the U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Coalition.
American companies seeking cheap, easy labor are not likely to meet much opposition from the Omani government. The State Department has reported Oman for human trafficking and forced labor abuses. Eighty-five percent of the private-sector workforce in Oman is made up of foreign “guest workers” who are granted limited rights. And the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement does not even include the meager labor standards of the Jordan agreement.
At a moment when people across the Middle East reveal in poll after poll a deep distrust of the United States, and particularly of its actions in the region, it seems ill-advised to advance trade agreements that provide clear rewards to a handful of U.S. corporations but few discernible benefits to either the people of the Middle East or the people of the United States.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
AFU
Nuking the Economy
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics re-benchmarked the payroll jobs data back to 2000. Thanks to Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services, I have the adjusted data from January 2001 through January 2006. If you are worried about terrorists, you don’t know what worry is.
Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. That’s one good reason for controlling immigration. An economy that cannot keep up with population growth should not be boosting population with heavy rates of legal and illegal immigration.
Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities–primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.
US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.
The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy that is “the envy of the world.” Communications equipment lost 43% of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its workforce. The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30%. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees. The workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%. Furniture and related products lost 17% of its jobs. Apparel manufacturers lost almost half of the work force. Employment in textile mills declined 43%. Paper and paper products lost one-fifth of its jobs. The work force in plastics and rubber products declined by 15%. Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.
The knowledge jobs that were supposed to take the place of lost manufacturing jobs in the globalized “new economy” never appeared. The information sector lost 17% of its jobs, with the telecommunications work force declining by 25%. Even wholesale and retail trade lost jobs. Despite massive new accounting burdens imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley, accounting and bookkeeping employment shrank by 4%. Computer systems design and related lost 9% of its jobs. Today there are 209,000 fewer managerial and supervisory jobs than 5 years ago.
In five years the US economy only created 70,000 jobs in architecture and engineering, many of which are clerical. Little wonder engineering enrollments are shrinking. There are no jobs for graduates. The talk about engineering shortages is absolute ignorance. There are several hundred thousand American engineers who are unemployed and have been for years. No student wants a degree that is nothing but a ticket to a soup line. Many engineers have written to me that they cannot even get Wal-Mart jobs because their education makes them over-qualified.
Offshore outsourcing and offshore production have left the US awash with unemployment among the highly educated. The low measured rate of unemployment does not include discouraged workers. Labor arbitrage has made the unemployment rate less and less a meaningful indicator. In the past unemployment resulted mainly from turnover in the labor force and recession. Recoveries pulled people back into jobs.
Unemployment benefits were intended to help people over the down time in the cycle when workers were laid off. Today the unemployment is permanent as entire occupations and industries are wiped out by labor arbitrage as corporations replace their American employees with foreign ones.
Economists who look beyond political press releases estimate the US unemployment rate to be between 7% and 8.5%. There are now hundreds of thousands of Americans who will never recover their investment in their university education.
Unless the BLS is falsifying the data or businesses are reporting the opposite of the facts, the US is experiencing a job depression. Most economists refuse to acknowledge the facts, because they endorsed globalization. It was a win-win situation, they said.
They were wrong.
At a time when America desperately needs the voices of educated people as a counterweight to the disinformation that emanates from the Bush administration and its supporters, economists have discredited themselves. This is especially true for “free market economists” who foolishly assumed that international labor arbitrage was an example of free trade that was benefitting Americans. Where is the benefit when employment in US export industries and import-competitive industries is shrinking? After decades of struggle to regain credibility, free market economics is on the verge of another wipeout.
No sane economist can possibly maintain that a deplorable record of merely 1,054,000 net new private sector jobs over five years is an indication of a healthy economy. The total number of private sector jobs created over the five year period is 500,000 jobs less than one year’s legal and illegal immigration! (In a December 2005 Center for Immigration Studies report based on the Census Bureau’s March 2005 Current Population Survey, Steven Camarota writes that there were 7,9 million new immigrants between January 2000 and March 2005.)
The economics profession has failed America. It touts a meaningless number while joblessness soars. Lazy journalists at the New York Times simply rewrite the Bush administration’s press releases.
On February 10 the Commerce Department released a record US trade deficit in goods and services for 2005–$726 billion. The US deficit in Advanced Technology Products reached a new high. Offshore production for home markets and jobs outsourcing has made the US highly dependent on foreign provided goods and services, while simultaneously reducing the export capability of the US economy. It is possible that there might be no exchange rate at which the US can balance its trade.
Polls indicate that the Bush administration is succeeding in whipping up fear and hysteria about Iran. The secretary of defense is promising Americans decades-long war. Is death in battle Bush’s solution to the job depression? Will Asians finance a decades-long war for a bankrupt country?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
November 21st, 2006 at 10:02 am
In the spirit of throwing out varying points of view from different sources, I’ll add a recent one from CNN [who I don't care for] that talks about unemployment and average wage percentage increases.
Unemployment sinks to 5-year low
Rate posts unexpected drop to lowest since May 2001; job growth revised higher.
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
November 3 2006: 2:42 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The unemployment rate fell to the lowest level in more than five years in October, the government reported Friday, a sign of unexpected strength in the job market.
The jobless rate sank to 4.4 percent from 4.6 percent in September, the Labor Department said. It was the lowest since May 2001. Economists had forecast the rate would hold steady.
More job market news
Worried about outsourcing? Cheer insourcing.
It’s a tactic that actually creates more, and better-paying U.S. jobs. Plus, more on which college majors are most in demand now. (more)
Most lucrative degrees for college grads
Survey finds best job market in 4 years, with most college majors seeing salary growth and some students receiving multiple job offers.
The department also said that employers added 92,000 jobs in October, down from a revised 148,000 in September, and short of Wall Street forecasts for a gain of 125,000.
But the September reading was revised up from the originally reported 51,000, and the increase, together with a revision to the August reading as well, had employment up 139,000 above earlier estimates heading into October. Those revisions and the modest October gain mean that 1.5 million jobs have been added so far this year, which is above forecast by most private economists, and blunts the effect of the modest October gain.
The Bush administration hailed the report, but one political analyst said it wasn’t likely to help Republicans facing tough elections battles on Tuesday. Polls indicate the economy isn’t the top issue in the midterm elections.
State-by-state unemployment rates
The tighter job market is apparently helping to lift wages, according to the Labor Department report, which showed that average wages rose 6 cents to $16.91 an hour last month, a shade above what economists had forecast.
Average wages are now up 3.9 percent over the last 12 months while the Consumer Price Index, the government’s main inflation gauge, is up 2.1 percent for the 12 months ending in September, partly due to the recent sharp decline in oil prices. The spike in gas prices in September 2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, also blunted the year-over-year gain in the price measure.
Economists generally agreed that the report showed a strong labor market, and not the weakening economy portrayed in some other recent economic readings, such as the third quarter gross domestic product report a week ago that showed the weakest economic growth in more than three years.
“All this points to a very robust labor market,” said Steven Wieting, senior economist at Citigroup. “Almost all the data this week have been weak. It’s possible that the cuts in production will clear the deck and set us up for strong growth in 2007.”
Rich Yamarone, director of economic research at Argus Research, said he thinks the return to strong growth could come as soon as the fourth quarter.
“Never bet against a fully-employed American work force,” he said. “With full employment and wages on the rise, you can forget any talk of recession.”
The unemployment rate is based on a survey of households, rather than the survey of employers used to calculate the payroll number. The household survey showed a 437,000 gain in jobs, and a 238,000 decline in the number of people who are unemployed.
Most economists consider the department’s household survey as less reliable than the employer survey. But Yamarone believes the household survey is more accurately capturing the increase in the number of people who are self-employed or working as independent contractors and therefore not showing up on the survey of traditional employers.
Yamarone also believes the Federal Reserve will have to abandon any thought of rate cuts to spur economic activity and may soon have to start raising rates again. But Wieting thinks rate cuts are still the most likely move for the central bank when it decides to end the pause in rate changes seen at the last three meetings.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:09 am
By the way here are the most current views of Paul Craig Roberts, who by the way who only uses his past position with President Reagan to lend some credibility to where he is now.
The US government is capable of a lot of things but to me to continue to believe and suggest that something happened beyond what happened on 9/11 is flat out CRAZY. I would suggest discounting using this source in the future.
[edit] Recent views
[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks
Of the 9/11 Commission Report he wrote in 2006, “One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations.” (see Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report). He has reported what he says are findings by experts that conclude there is a large energy deficit in the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings and, says that this deficit remains unexplained.
Roberts, a supply-side economist, comments on the “scientific impossibility” of the official explanation for the events on 9/11 and says those engineers and physicists, who accept this theory are wrong. On August 18, 2006, he wrote:
I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false… Since the damning incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and “conspiracy theories” have filled the void. Some of the speculation is based on circumstantial evidence and is plausible. Other of the speculation is untenable, and it is used to protect the official explanation by branding all skeptics “conspiracy theorists.” . The Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary are obviously false since they both endorse the official explanation that the WTC buildings “pancaked” at free fall speed, an obvious scientific impossibility. [4]
On September 14, 2006, he wrote:
The explanation that the three WTC buildings collapsed as a result of damage and fire is a mere assertion. The assertion is not backed up with scientific calculation to demonstrate that the energy from the airliners, fire, and gravity were sufficient to collapse the buildings. A number of independent authorities believe that there is a very large energy deficit in the official account of the collapse of the buildings. Until this issue is resolved, the official explanation is merely an assertion no matter who believes it. [4]
On September 7, 2006,he wrote:
I do not know what happened on 9/11, and I don’t expect to ever find out. Neither government nor media show any interest in providing us with anything except a political commission’s report. [4]
[edit] Mainstream media
“Anyone who depends on print, TV, or right-wing talk radio media is totally misinformed. The Bush administration has achieved a de facto Ministry of Propaganda.” [5]
“The uniformity of the US media has become much more complete since the days of the cold war. During the 1990s, the US government permitted an unconscionable concentration of print and broadcast media that terminated the independence of the media. Today the US media is owned by 5 giant companies in which pro-Zionist Jews have disproportionate influence. More importantly, the values of the conglomerates reside in the broadcast licenses, which are granted by the government, and the corporations are run by corporate executives—not by journalists—whose eyes are on advertising revenues and the avoidance of controversy that might produce boycotts or upset advertisers and subscribers. Americans who rely on the totally corrupt corporate media have no idea what is happening anywhere on earth, much less at home.”[6]
[edit] Society
“In their hatred of “the rich,” the left-wing overlooks that in the 20th century the rich were the class most persecuted by government. The class genocide [in communist societies] of the 20th century is the greatest genocide in history.” [7]
[edit] Jobs
Dr. Roberts has testified before the US-China Commission and written many articles pointing out that the offshoring of high productivity, high value-added jobs in manufacturing and professional services is dismantling the ladders of upward mobility that made the U.S. an opportunity society.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:14 am
Here’s another article from Paul Craig Roberts and his “Shame of Being an American”:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07222006.html
Independent thinker? Yeah a way out there Independent thinker.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:30 am
AFU
At the end of the day Americans are not falling for the economy is going great. Since NAFTA the saving rate went from 11% to negative 1.
This is why Tom Tancredo is pulling well in places like Ohio and Michigan, because he gets it. You can spin your Kool-aid numbers all day, but when people are going backwards they will not buy it.
Trade and immigration reform candidates did well in the mid terms. Immigration only candidates with pro unfair trade support got hurt like Hayworth in the mid term. BTW it will get tougher by 08.
If you look at the Democrats who won in Conservative districts ( Blue Dogs) They where tough on spending, immigration and trade. They sounded like Tom Tancredo.
From David Brooks on NPR
I think you see a couple of Senate candidates, in Virginia, here in Tennessee, in Missouri, who are pretty conservative, sort of hawkish on the war to some extent, mention the Dubai ports deal quite a lot, sort of suspicious of trade, surprisingly nationalist on immigration, and very much against gay marriage. So you see sort of a series of Democrats sort of in the upper south running this sort of campaign. And so far, it seems to be working.
If Romney does not get it he will not be our next President. This is also why Clinton will have problems in here Party.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:35 am
John,
All I can say at this point is that I believe that there’s a President in 2008 for me that will be able to address the issues that are most important to me.
You’ve helped me to be more aware of trade and what it entails. I need to do a lot more studying. This much I do know. I thank you for that.
I’m not going to put all my eggs in that basket though I realize that it’s something that’s very important to you. When you find a candidate that you feel comes closest to your beliefs and others, let me know and I’ll take a look at if they offer me the same.
I believe that I’ve found someone so far that comes closest to my points of view regarding true conservative values and being an example that we can follow because he lives it and fights for it and that is Mitt Romney.
Unless he does something to change my mind between now and the beginning of 2008 he’s who I’ll be hoping is the candidate for President. If he’s done nothing to change my view by that time, I’ll do what I can to help make him President.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:52 am
I do like Tancredo…I saw him fight very hard for immigration reform. I haven’t seen him put his hat in the ring yet though.
I’m a little skeptical about his being in congress. I want to know where his stance is on social issues as well. I’ll look him up.
Those kool-aid numbers by the way are from CNN. Not really a place to go looking for numbers if you’re a kool-aid drinker. I don’t mind that label anyway. I think everyone’s a kool-aid drinker to some extent. If they say they aren’t they’re trying to say that they’re true independent thinkers.
Everyone gets their information from somewhere. You take that information and form an opinion that closely matches your views and what you see with me is what you get…
I particularly think it’s funny when right-wing talk radio hosts always have to defend themselves by pointing out that they took an opposing view to show that they aren’t. You are who you are.
I think that my Dad can do nothing wrong by the way.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:00 am
AFU,
All I am saying is the GOP will not do well if they are not honest about why they lost the Mid-Terms.I will tell you the betlway, pro-Bush lobbyist first plan is not working. If you read blogs you will see the grassroots Republicans are not happy.I have a radio show with over 100,00o people on my e-news letter. I will tell you after the war, trade, spending, healthcare and immigration are the big topics.
I will give you a link you should read the comments. I get about 10 times that at least in letters, you will see what people are thinking.
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/president-sonny-perdue
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/why-conservatives-are-so-angry
November 21st, 2006 at 12:18 pm
I know that they aren’t happy. I’m not happy. I like to think of myself as a Blueblood Republican. I run around in circles of others like me. Conservative, family first people whose values are based on those principles of Mom, Dad, kids. Teaching responsibility, learning responsibility, hard work, determination, a love and faith in God, caring and loving for your family, friends, and neighbors, and etc. I also have friends that don’t think that way who struggle with what, I see it firsthand.
They want or believe in taking a stance one day and then doing nothing the next or they end up doing what’s POPULAR only because it is. I try not to judge and when I do I try not to judge harshly because I know I’m being judged, but I’m determined to do what I believe is right according to what I was taught. I make no apologies that I’m a conservative.
All of the topics that you mention are important to me as well. As a conservative however those things for me are part of a whole regarding the Republican party. You’ll find that my views on those topics are not too different than yours.
The Republican party to me has 3 parts – political, social and economic. To me the first and most important is social. Our social views are our soul. This is where our values shine or don’t. The future of our country depends on what our collective values are as a people. I believe the Democrat Party had a soul but now it doesn’t. It does whatever it wants and that’s dangerous. In the Republican Party this is what’s taking the hardest hit and it’s being ignored by many of us. Before too long it won’t have a soul either.
I believe that if our hearts and minds are in the right place then those topics that you mentioned will be taken care of. I truly believe that because I know that decisions will be made based on what is BEST for the country and us as a people. We will have chosen people with the same values we have.
The person who is to become POTUS will need to be the standard bearer. The example of what is right with this country. President Bush I believe still has two years to do that but again, he is who he is and in the end he had his chance. We try again.
November 21st, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Whaaa?
Okay, time for me to weigh-in here, Afu.
You stated that you think the most important leg of the Republican Party triumverate is our “social values.”
Really? Funny, I don’t recall Barry Goldwater OR Abraham Lincoln espousing too much (if any) about the guiding principles of “social conservatism.”
Nothing personal, Afu, but I think you are as confused on what the Republican Party is all about as George W. himself.
Granted, there is a LOT of confusion and mis-appropriated ideas and principles that Bush & Company have stolen and reconfigured, but, the tenets of the Republican Party are NOT concerned with what/who one worships as a god, what one does with his/her own penis or vagina, or whom they marry.
November 21st, 2006 at 1:29 pm
AFU
People want answer about issues like the war, spending, healthcare, immigration and trade now. You cannot win a general election in this enviorment on social issue.
November 21st, 2006 at 1:34 pm
I think what’s funny is that people look to history to compare what our country’s going through now, socially. What’s worse is that you didn’t think that slavery wasn’t a social problem in Lincoln’s day.
Oh, that’s right Lincoln…Didn’t he make the Lincoln Navigator – the Rappers car of choice who came up from the projects where his songs tell our young people about the life he learned where he gets to sell drugs, treat women like trash, shoot other kids, and act like animals. Yeah I said it, animals. Forgive me for thinking that we can be better than that.
Come on man…don’t be ignorant. If you think our society and the things that are going on in our world today aren’t a direct link to our values, then I feel sorry for you man.
If yours is the thinking of the Republican party then I can’t do anything for you man.
November 21st, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Afu
Do You think that Lincoln would support U.S. companies using child and slave labor from Countries like Oman, China….?
November 21st, 2006 at 2:22 pm
People want answers I agree and there are plenty of educated people that can and will look for and find thirty different solutions to any one problem.
Ours is the responsibility to choose the one that closely matches our values and views. If you don’t believe that what we think and know are connected to what we were taught at home or are based on right and wrong then I’m afraid that we’re going down a slippery slope.
Come back to me in five years and tell me if America and its values are any different than any of the other countries that doesn’t have a moral compass. A country That marrs itself with gray areas – that doesn’t have a soul. Better yet we could become a country that’s overtaken by Militants that take us over and makes us do what they want.
I know you didn’t say this but I wish people would stop telling me that our society is opening up. Opening up from what? If this is the case tell me the other country where their society is better? Why aren’t they there? Granted there are corrections that were made in this country and corrections still are being made. This is what makes us different. We correct what needs to be corrected based on what we know is right or wrong from our hearts.
What makes this country better than any other is that we as a people know in our hearts what’s right and what’s wrong – as a whole. The more you make things gray or middle then the more we no longer are US and what you get is chaos and a 50/50 society.
Just make a choice between right and wrong and live with it. If you chose wrong then stop trying to justify yourself and live with it. If you need to correct – put your pride down and correct it. That’s the great thing about this country is you’re REQUIRED to live with it – right or wrong and if it’s wrong then most people will correct it. We’re now living in a society where we say ACCEPTABLE when it’s not. Where we justify when we shouldn’t. Where we don’t take responsibility for our actions.
I’m tired of people telling me that we need to accept this or that because this is their right in this country. What’s my right? I can’t have an opposing view and live with it? Or is it that they need to justify themselves until I accept it so that they can live with it? Who am I at that point then. The great thing about the freedom in this country is that we aren’t 100% free. We are still required to do what’s right and follow the law. Otherwise we should just pack up our things leave them at our homes strip ourselves naked and go live in the wilderness. I’d like to think that we’re more than that.
Again ours is the responsibility to find the answers out of many to come on the topics of the day. The right ones are the ones that closely match our values. Question is what are those?
November 21st, 2006 at 2:29 pm
I’m not sure, again that was his time this is ours. From what I can judge of him and what’s been written he understands that men need to be free.
Maybe he would’ve just attacked China and those other countries in order to try and free them as a people. We see where this type of thinking is getting President Bush.
November 21st, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Life in our day is hard. Material things are easier to come by and may make daily life easy. For me it only makes our future more hazy.
So many people have opinions about right and wrong. A lot of people aren’t sure what is right and what isn’t anymore and again we’re going down that slippery slope.
I apologize if I offended anyone.
November 21st, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Afu
f.y.i. there’s alot of loyal Republicans who a few months ago took alot of heat here in GA for criticizing Ralph Reed. And this wound up helping Republicans in the end. Just keep in mind that now’s the time to hash out the differences with respect to potential Presidential candidates. Alot of people are wary of falling in line or using the logic of playing “follow the leader” too early simply because this or that person is “the only person who can beat Hillary”.
November 21st, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Afu
Bush has promoted Child and slave labor via trade deals with China, Central America, Oman……
At the end of the day Romney better have answers not fluff! We are seeing a slow down, as I predicted more than a year ago.
White House cuts economic growth forecast
Council of Economic Advisers says GDP to slow for remainder of year and in 2007, blaming weakness on housing.
November 21 2006: 3:03 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The U.S. economy should experience slower growth than originally anticipated for the remainder of the year and in 2007, the White House said Tuesday.
The President’s Council of Economic Advisers projected that economic growth would be slower than forecasted last June, with real gross domestic product growing 3.1 percent for all of 2006, down from June projections of 3.6 percent pace.
In 2007, the White House expects the economy to expand at a pace of 2.9 percent, lower than earlier predictions of 3.3 percent.
“The economic forecast clearly reflects the fact that the U.S. economy is moderating to more sustainable growth levels, firmer labor markets and steady inflation rates,” Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in accompanying remarks
November 21st, 2006 at 3:17 pm
I’m familiar with Ralph Reed and from what I know he carries a lot of baggage. He wasn’t always a staunch Christian follower. To think that he represents Social Conservative Values is interesting. He’s one of the last people that I would think of. I really can’t think of many. They’re always missing something. Either by way of values or as an example of those values that are important to me.
In GA I’m sure that he carries tons more baggage. I’ve heard his name mentioned with Abramoff’s, and my thoughts are if there’s smoke there’s fire.
I understand what you’re saying but that’s not the only reason why I will vote for Mitt Romney as it stands.
Again I’m going to vote for someone based on values and example. I feel at this point he represents that. I put the post in there somewhere regarding that.
November 21st, 2006 at 3:27 pm
John,
I wouldn’t go so far as to say Bush promotes child labor. He doesn’t do anything to stop it is probably more appropriate because of his backing of free-trade with country that are allowing it.
I will be more aware in the days to come to see first of all if Romney does put his name in the hat and whether he has a stance on child labor and trade.
I’ll let you know when I hear something…please do the same.
November 21st, 2006 at 3:35 pm
AFU
This was just posted on my websit paging AFU!!!!!
State psychiatric hospitals to stop admitting new patients
State psychiatric hospitals will begin turning away new patients on Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving, in response to emergency budget cuts issued earlier this month by Gov. Mitt Romney. The cuts will force the elimination of 170 Department of Mental Health staff positions, including staffers who provide care to hundreds of emotionally disturbed children and teens.
Representatives of the Massachusetts Hospital Association and the Massachusetts Association of Behavioral Health Systems said they were informed of the moratorium on new patients by Mental Health Commissioner Beth Childs on Friday. “These are the unkindest cuts imaginable, and their timing is hard to fathom,” Massachusetts Hospital Association President Ron Hollander said in a written statement. “We implore the governor to restore these essential services to the people who depend on DMH.” David Matteodo, head of the Massachusetts Association of Behavioral Health Systems, said the chronically and severely disabled will be denied the critical care they need.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:25 pm
AFU,
You just said that morals are more important than anything else. And now you say it is ok set up trade deals with SLAVE and CHILD labor as long as they do not work for you direct.
This was a Poem found on a Concentrate camp wall after WW2
Fear not your friends for they can only betray you
Fear not your enemy for they can only kill you
Yet fear the indifferent who let killers and betrayers walk safely upon this earth
So you advocate indifference to child and slave labor is ok?
November 21st, 2006 at 4:55 pm
John,
Come on man…I never said that. Free Trade is necessary. Don’t fall into the idea that free trade deals happening between good and bad counries without us leading the charge is good. It’s not. That is my opinion. We need to set the standard. The only way is to engage and build relationships that allow us to continue to influence the infrastructure.
Never at any time did I say that SLAVE and CHILD labor is okay as long as they don’t work for me direct.
It is WRONG. Who am I to know what they the worker in China or whatever other country you spoke about thinks?
I do know in the Philippines from the people that I spoke and worked with both young and old and in many cases very young that they loved the opportunity for steady work particularly from US companies. They felt secure. They also had hope. Something that their government is not doing.
Do you think that they’re going to look for you and shake your hand to thank you for stopping that steady income in their country? Again we aren’t the problem, the governments that don’t give people hope or oppress or don’t have laws to govern child labor and slavery in their countries are to blame.
There’s a smarter way to stop it then to put together veiled threats that get you nowhere and in most cases make things worse. I don’t think that blatently calling someone they’re not works either.
November 21st, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Do you not think people in the Middle East would be less likly to want to blow us up if we did not help in slave them?
From the LA TIMES
The factories have engaged in the worst kinds of human rights and worker abuses, including 48-hour shifts without sleep, violent physical and psychological abuse and workers brought from foreign countries with their passports held by employers, often receiving no pay for their work. Wal-Mart also is a member of the U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Coalition.
American companies seeking cheap, easy labor are not likely to meet much opposition from the Omani government. The State Department has reported Oman for human trafficking and forced labor abuses. Eighty-five percent of the private-sector workforce in Oman is made up of foreign “guest workers” who are granted limited rights. And the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement does not even include the meager labor standards of the Jordan agreement.
At a moment when people across the Middle East reveal in poll after poll a deep distrust of the United States, and particularly of its actions in the region, it seems ill-advised to advance trade agreements that provide clear rewards to a handful of U.S. corporations but few discernible benefits to either the people of the Middle East or the people of the United States
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:30 am
John,
Do you really think that the reason why Islamo Fascist Middle Eastern Countries want to blow us up is because of child slave labor? They wrap children up in bombs in the name of Allah, remember? Some people have this mixed up view that somehow we are the cause of these problems. Again where is the outcry toward the governments that continue to allow it to happen. I’m sure the US has made it clear that it doesn’t condone it, and I’m sure that the US companies that are in these countries do not condone it as well.
What does this mean? “Wal-Mart also is a member of the U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Coalition.” Gives us a complete list of the companies that are being discussed here.
Are they trying to implicate Wal-Mart as part of these abuses? Why isn’t it part of the first paragraph? If they are part of the problem then put together a petition, contact your local congressman, and make hay about it until it gets resolved.
There are plenty of Democrats out there willing to make Wal-Mart their ’cause for anything but. Call for a boycott do all that you can to assemble and stop it. For me it stops short of saying that they are engaged in it. But you know what? If they aren’t part of this problem that you are pointing out, I’m telling you that the people of Oman who don’t experience what this report says are not going to be happy about it if there’s no more work for them.
“The factories have engaged in the worst kinds of human rights and worker abuses, including 48-hour shifts without sleep, violent physical and psychological abuse and workers brought from foreign countries with their passports held by employers, often receiving no pay for their work.”
Who runs the factories? Please lets get to the bottom of this so that we can move on…
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:42 am
John,
My question to you is if these countries, factories, US companies, whoever’s involved, clean up their act are you going to be okay with Free Trade? Or this only part of a bigger problem that you have with it?
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:24 am
Afu
Yes I am for free trade if they clean up their act. I am also for immigration as long as everyone follows ethical laws.
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:30 am
Afu
I would suggest, you read more about the Midlle East. If you listen to the recruiting pitch from Islamic extremist it is all about America and exploitation. The same mantra is used in Mexico and Central America.
The truth is the leaders of the Middle East function like ruthless dictators. That is why we should become energy independent and use the oil purchases to promote Democracy. If the ruthless dictators do not change they will kill them not us.
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:00 pm
John – I will read more. From what I know now, remember that in the Middle East we are considered infidels – sinners. It is a religion based hate that they have for us. Anyone not a Muslim is an infidel.
The US as exploiters is only part of why they hate us and is a tool for the rich and the insane in those middle Eastern countries to add to the hate, deflecting any scrutiny about them and why they need to drive around in a Mercedes Benz while the poor suffers. They, the rich muslims are the ones who help to fund terrorism and these Muslim groups (which are more closely connected to the mainstream of the Muslim religion and its leaders than anyone wants to understand).
If exploitation was a motivating factor for the middle-Eastern poor wouldn’t you think that they would go after the rich in their own countries? They don’t because of their religion. It’s a blind faith. A blind faith deeply rooted in Muslims can do no wrong. The leaders then get them to do anything that they want. Slave labor, Child labor it doesn’t matter. It’s anyone but the Muslim leaders that are doing this to them. Why do you think it’s so easy for them to take their own lives or the lives of innocent people?
They’re taught and are allowed to be taught to hate anyone non-muslim in their schools. They’re taught to hate in church. Their religion is taught to despise anyone that doesn’t agree with them – period. It’s a religion that says that if they aren’t one of you they must be destroyed if they choose not to. I’m not sure if I can make it any clearer than that.
The most dangerous place for anyone non-Muslim in the Philippines is down South where it’s predominantly Muslim. They kill if for only that reason. The only reasons for why they aren’t a completely Muslim state are because the majority are still Christian to the North, this teaching of hate is not taught in many of their schools, and the tentacles of the Muslim faith haven’t reached the infrastructure of the government. This is a war between non-Muslims and Muslims.
Why do you think that Muslims in this country aren’t vocal enough about their faith being “hijacked”? Their faith isn’t being hijacked, it’s what they believe only on a watered down level and slight tolerance. The only reason why they don’t say anything is because they have families back home that they fear will be killed or tortured until they retract their statements or if they don’t tow the line. So they give us token “oh no’s” here and a few there but believe me when I say that their hatred for us is far deeply rooted than exploitation.
Mexico and Central America have their own issues that are hypocritical at best.
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:35 pm
John,
Thanks for the debate. For me a lot was learned and I also know that I need to go out and learn more. I’ll come through here from time to time and I’ll look at your blog as well.
We’ll blog from time to time I’m sure.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
Afu
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Afu
Happy Thanksgiving
November 23rd, 2006 at 8:13 am
test
November 24th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Can one of the romneyites here tell me what’s the deal with the mormon underwear?
November 27th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Caroline – I think it best that we stick to issues when it comes to Presidential politics. If Mitt Romney’s faith is an issue for you then why don’t you go to lds.org and see whether the religion itself is something more than just the underwear he wears.
His background as a person matters only to the extent that he believes that Jesus Christ is his Savior and if he exemplifies that in his actions it is good enough for me.
Would Romney get this treatment if he were a Jehovah’s Witness? They’re a little extreme in their views in not celebrating holidays and believing that only 144,000 will live with God, right? I think tolerance for anyone’s beliefs is required. Be careful not to fall into any stereotypes yourself as one who’s intolerant of other peoples religious beliefs.
Again, I believe that values and example are important and you have to look at their background as a PERSON to see what THEY are about. Their religion is part of that and the RELIGION should be looked at carefully as well. Be we should be careful to discern between the two and not get caught up in insignificant things like what you mentioned.
I’ve seen a lot of nasty things being said about the Mormon religion from other sites but again I think it’s best to go to their main site which is lds.org.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Here’s the problem: the gop has a religious litmus test. I don’t really care about this stuff but people like you are talking about how his “faith” is a positive while trying to prevent people from asking about his “faith.” Live by the fundamentalist litums test, die by the fundamentalist litmus test.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
The litmus test isn’t about religion or faith, it’s about values and more times than not those values stem from religion. A GOP candidate doesn’t have to believe in God to still be a candidate. His values only need to mirror those values that are important to the party. For me he also needs to walk the talk by being an example of those values. The problem today is not that the candidate has religion, the problem is the religion connected to the candidate. This is a bad precedent for anyone to follow. It shows a lack for tolerance and draws a line regarding acceptance of religious freedom. You also overlook the candidate and whether or not he has those values you want and can lead by example.
Faith in the GOP can be a positive or a negative for the person more than anything. In this last election, the “culture of corruption” is what lost it for the GOP. If it was Iraq Dems would’ve had our troop levels at half by now.
November 27th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
AFU
Do you think Americans are happy about how President Bush has handled the Iraq war?
November 27th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Hey John, No I don’t think the American people are happy about President Bush’s handling of the war. I think that we need to go a little more in depth as to why they aren’t happy about it. I think that if you do that you’ll find that the reasons are more directed at the war itself as opposed to President Bush rather than President Bush is the direct problem of the war.
I think that you’ll find that most Americans aren’t happy about the war because they just don’t like war and many are being affected by it knowing someone in the military and not wanting them to get hurt. Many will lay blame on the President of course for any problem. If you’re a friend of a genuine Bush-hater you could probably add another 15% of the population to this.
But to ask about Bush’s handling of it. He’s spoken about victory and I think that this has resonated pretty well amongst Americans. He’s change his using of the words “stay the course” which I think is funny because people didn’t connect that with stay to win. I think the “throw the stuff against the wall and see what sticks” attitude of the media’s worn down now that their people are in. Now that the Dems are in I don’t hear them talking about redeployment (cut and run) and all this other stuff as much. I think that they’re taking cover behind this Baker commission which is probably the right thing for them to do.
Make no mistake, above whether the Amercan people believe President Bush’s done a good job or not they want victory above anything else and if there’s anything discussed that’s less than that then you can count that the majority won’t be on board.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Mitt Romney and the Sorcerer’s Stones
Would it matter to you if the next President of the United States believed that God lives on a planet near a star named Kolob? Massachusetts governor and potential presidential candidate Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and that’s what Mormon’s believe.
Jesus’ General has kicked-off a weekly series of articles highlighting Mormon beliefs. Here’s a couple more:
• One day on Kolob equals 1000 days on earth. That time difference explains how God was able to create everything in just six days.
• The prophet Abraham first observed Kolob by peering through the “Urim and Thummim,” magical seer stones which were later used by Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon from “Reformed Egyptian” into English.
Granted, all religions have their absurdities (burning bushes, virgin births), but Mormons give Scientologists a run for their money. I’m envisioning some pretty lively press conferences. Romney’s tactic so far has been to dodge the questions completely: “I believe that Jesus Christ is my savior,” he said. “But then as you get into the details of doctrines, I’d probably say, ‘Look, time out. Let’s focus on the values that we share.’”
His supporters also call questions about Mormon doctrine “religious bigotry”. Good luck with that strategy. Shining a light on Romney’s Mormonism is almost certainly going to sink his presidential ship.
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/mitt-romney-and-the-sorcerer%e2%80%99s-stones
November 28th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Mr Longwinded Johnny,
What is your stance on the war in Iraq? You sound like a parrot for the Michael Savage Show. Let’s get this little debate started.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
John,
I want to hear it from you mouth (your solutions for the war, trade, health care, religious litmus tests). All the reports you have thrown out in an your attempt to sound informed and fill space are not cutting it. Give me a straight answer from the gut.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Boy Left Hook,
You sure sound informed. I suppose you’ll be expecting a pat on the back now for this “cutting edge information” you cut and pasted from some misinformed hate group. Perhaps you expect the world to be your mom. Well, not me! Show me a more prepared presidential candidate. I am not speaking about prepared to win the election either. Hell, I could win the election if I spun and spewed enough. I am speaking of a candidate prepared to lead this country. To give us all a sense of unity and purpose. John speaks of the many, many problems we face: kids working like slaves in China, immigration out of control, jobs and wages losing value, the war in Iraq and his answer is to blame America or american economists. You want to sit here and condemn a man because of his religion when his religion actually in many studies has been shown to develop a: 1. more healthy, 2. more happy, 3. more educated, 4. more influencial population. What have you offered to the country? No, here is a man of great capacity and for anyone to dispute this is only looking through eyes of discouragement, misinformation and ill conditioning.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:20 am
To add to what Will said…
Left Hook is who I’m telling you to be careful about. Caroline asked about underwear and now Left Hook is making a ruckus about stones. These are two people judging the religion first then the candidate.
If this is how you approach deciding who your next President will be don’t let the intolerant bigot label hit you where the good Lord split you.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Afu,
You have a very good talent for expressing yourself.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Thanks…appreciate the compliment.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Will
Iraq
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/a-conservative-plan-for-iraq
November 29th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Wiil
We can talk trade and immigration, Speding……after Iraq it is up to you.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Will
Spending
From my “gut”
NO MORE EARMARKS
PAY AS YOU GO
ZERO BASE BUDGET PROCCESS
November 29th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Will & afu: You two can scream and shout at me all you want, but I’m not Mitt’s problem — Christian conservatives, the media, and rational voters are. Here’s just a couple of recent articles:
Evangelicals have sought to discredit the Mormon Church as a cult since its founding. Can Mitt Romney convince people to vote across the aisle?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-mormons_26edi.ART.State.Edition1.3e6c0da.html
Can a Mormon be President?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1562941,00.html
Your frantic name calling betrays the fact that you KNOW Mormonism is a tough sell because of its “kooky factor”.
But hey, you may be right. Mitt Romney may be an outstanding president despite the fact that he believes in baptizing the dead, that
Indians are Jews who ride tapirs, and that there are important differences between sunpeople and moonpeople.
Godspeed.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
John,
I actually follow your thinking on the war in Iraq. Terrorism in that region is or has become a “career” for many- short lived in a lot of cases but still their families are compensated. I would not make such a distinction between the three religious groups as you do. It is more secular verses radical jihadists (as Mitt Romney has accurately put it). I know this because I speak to a wonderful source there in Iraq on at least a weekly basis. This sets up a very distinct opposition to your theory that American involvement in the region greatly revolves around oil. I will not disagree with you about the White House’s desperate plight to ward off an economic disaster back here but my scepticism ends there and I absolutely don’t blame them. In fact I want to know that our next President sees it this way. By blaming ourselves we take the road of pandering to our would be destroyers. By taking a “kill all” approach, which I hear more and more now, we never actually stabilize that area. So, as luck would have it(for those who believe Bush to be an idiot) the president has it right when he says – when the Iraqi government stands up we stand down. What he really means is when certain screeching factions in america quits emboldening the jihadists(creating a demand for killing by giving the democrats fuel) Iraq will stabilize itself and we will come home. Now, do you think I am wrong about this? Here’s a question – Ahmadinijad, Al Quaeda, chavez, and every other death profiteer why do they keep coming to us with their case? They know we will whine and make it impossible for the White House to do their job.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Will, LeftHook, et al.
If you are wondering why some of your posts get held for moderator approval, it is because I have a filter on posts to stop any that have more than one hyperlink within the post.
This is due to the massive amount of attempted spam entries I get on this site every day, every hour, every minute.
And, when it seems as though there is a real long delay before you get approved, it is because I have a separate life that requires me to expend energy to generate revenue, and I don’t visit this site or my e-mail every single second.
Thanks for posting, and thanks for understanding the parameters of this blog.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Will
We all have to be honest about the situation. First we are in a civil war. If you do not think I am right read what Colin Powel said. Colin Powell says Iraq in a ‘civil war’ http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/29/powell.iraq/index.html
Sunnis and Shiites have been killing each other longer than we have been a Country. Unless you separate them and the oil money fairly you will not see a containable situation.
The only advantage we have is the leaders of the Middle East do not want to see a full scale regional civil war. That is why if we separate the groups and get corporation from neighbors of Iraq. We could go back to tension between groups yet containable ie welcome to the Middle East.
We should be at the same time figuring how to get away from needing Middle Eastern oil.
This NEOCON/LIBCON foreign policy plan is not working. BTW I am Jewish, so please do not call me anti-Semitic.
I am an old time Goldwater conservative. Big government conservatives or liberals is not what I believe in.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:36 am
John,
You are right about sunnis and shiites killing each other for longer then we have been a country and they may always do so, hopefully increasingly on a smaller scale. Big money from jihadists also understands this! Guess what? So does the educated population. So there lies your problem and your solution.
Embolden the secular population and take from the jihadists.
The Jihadists have it going their way right now because folks like you (and I understand that your division with the White House comes mostly from immigration and spending – being a Goldwater concervative)are under the Jihadist spell. They are pleading with you to divide and you happily do.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Once again, Can Mitt Romney bring us back together in this area? Just look at his history on spending and his stance on immigration. I think so. No one else shows signs like this.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:44 am
Left Hook,
You would do well by yourself to apply for a job with the National Equirer.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Lefthook – I’m two seconds from calling you an intolerant bigot. You again are judging the religion before the candidate. I don’t care who or what different stories you put in front of me about someone’s religion. IT’S THEIR FREEDOM TO WORSHIP in this country.
Anyone Christian or not who points out a person’s religion as their weakness or strength has a problem with me because what should matter is whether that person has strong values and is an example of those values. Don’t forget to boycott that next Tom Cruise movie by the way.
Maybe we should start voting by religion first then find a candidate within that religion. Oh yeah that’s how they do it in the Middle East. What a model! Let’s have a Holy War soon after.
How many religions are in the US? In my extended family alone I can think of 5 different denominations represented. We can sit down and go through all of the weird things that go on in each of those but in the end we realize that we’re people with the same sets of values. If anyone has a problem with that, they aren’t invited to the next family reunion.
Come on man…give me something that deals with whether a candidate can be President not. Whether he wears weird underwear while reading stones and baptizes dead people or not is irrevelvant to me. Sounds like we need Janet Reno to come to the rescue. Take your case there.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Will
As far as immigration goes it also trade. Candidates that understood the issue did very well in the mid-terms. Read this article.If Romney spent more time on this issue and less on trying to get to the right on social issues of the other hopefulls.
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2006/11/27/middle_class_will_look_for_a_friend_in_either_party
November 30th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Will & afu: So, just to clarify, you aren’t claiming that I’m misrepresenting Mormonism. You’re saying that religion shouldn’t matter.
And you can’t think of ANY exceptions to that declaration? I’m sure you’re too pure to admit you’d look closely and cautiously at a Muslim candidate. What about a Scientologist? Or what if a member of cult that thinks aliens are coming to save (or destroy) humanity was running? No problem, or too kooky for you? Too kooky you say? All that alien planet stuff sending up some red flags? Now we’re full circle back to Mormonism.
To be honest, all the Mormons I’ve known were truly fine people. Model citizens. That’s not my point. It’s just that when one reads the details about Mormonism (and we will in a presidential campaign, no amount of shouting or calling people religious bigots will avoid that), well, let’s just say it doesn’t make for an ideal campaign press release.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Sorry John,
I can’t agree with you on this. 1. Barry’s son Don, in my state, didn’t even make it past the primaries, I watched nearly all old-time conservative candidates try to run with closed borders. They simply did not do well and turned in over to the far leftists. This was the case in every state which the republicans lost. The old-time conservatives basically said we do not need you neocons and they gave their votes over to the liberals.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Once again we need UNITY John; unity amongst the conservative groups be they old-timers or neocons. Each vote from both groups are needed. I know what the conservatives are looking for and they are not going to get it from John McCain or Rudy Juliani. They most certainly won’t get it from Clinton, Obama, or any other democratic candidate. I first took interest in Mitt about two months ago. Prior to that I only saw him on news channels and knew him as Massachusett’s Governor. I had no idea what an absolute anomoly this was. Then I looked into voting record, his stances against liberal issues in the belly of the beast, his spending habits, his record of innovative problem solving, his understanding about the war and our relationship to other countries. I have to say I was impressed.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Will
The key is tough on trade and immigration reform together, that is why the GOP lost the Senate. The Blue Dogs that won in Red State and districts all won on that issue. Webb, Tester and McCaskill. The same is true in Congress Barrow, Marshal……
Anyone who understands the issue knows trade and immigration are one topic not two.
Immigration
Our first priority must be to secure ports and borders to keep out terror threats, illegal drugs and illegal immigrants. Jon Tester opposes amnesty for those who are here illegally. People who want to come to America should follow the rules — and we should enforce them. There should be no cuts in line. Moreover, hiring illegal aliens is no joking matter. Tester believes we need to enforce the law on employers who hire illegal immigrants no matter who they are. It’s not just a matter of fairness — it’s a question of national security.
Trade
Recent trade agreements put our jobs and the viability of family farms and ranches across Montana in jeopardy by handing off trade advantage to foreign interests. Jon Tester will fight for Montana priorities in the U.S. Senate by standing firmly opposed to unfair trade agreements that hurt our communities and way of life. While Sen. Burns voted for tax giveaways to companies that outsource American jobs, Tester will protect American jobs in the U.S. Senate.
http://www.testerforsenate.com/issues
November 30th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Lefthook,
What’s the title of the press release? “A vote for Mitt is a vote for Mormon’s”? How about, “Mitt is Mormon and they wear weird underwear”?.
My point is in a national election any fair-minded American will see through the garbage because they’ll look at it as garbage. This religion stuff may work in liberal locations or extreme evengelical locations within the Bible belt of the country but it won’t have much effect nationally.
People will make a decision on who their next President will be. They will look through the prism of he/she is the leader of the country. If in the process they overlook the candidate and their body of work in the private sector or public life by delving into the religion of that person, pointing out every “kooky” thing in the RELIGION as a way to discredit or not vote for THEM is selling themselves short and will then be an intolerant bigot. I believe that the American people are smarter than that. There are some though who don’t think so. They think that this is a political liability. It won’t stick. You can take that to the bank.
What’s funny to me is that the Democrat Machine’s propaganda arm called the mainstream media will lead the cause of intolerant bigotry all in the name of trying to “discover” what Mormons think. They’ll send out articles and specials here and there to show the “kookiness” of it but I’m telling you I think that they already understand this about not trying to look like bigots so they’ll push more for McCain or Guiliani from the GOP. They know that they’re not as much a threat to them than Romney is socially. You don’t think that they see what he’s done in Mass. with the same-sex marriage issue? He’s fighting it tooth and nail. They don’t want that on a National level.
This religion mormonism by the way has been around for a long time and there are still people in this country who don’t know what a Mormon’s all about? That’s not Mitt Romney’s problem.
It doesn’t matter what religion they are. It does matter if they’re talking about spaceships and jihad or telling me that I need to wear underwear to be saved. How far would they get doing that? Don’t you think that the Democrat machine would weed that out anyways?
If the candidate has appeal Nationally obviously he/she’s doing something right. Loving and caring for your family, believing in marriage between a man and a woman, tax-cuts, less government in our lives, and etc. Religion doesn’t own social values they only teach and encourage it. Most people may learn these values from church but others know it from common sense. It’s those who know it based on common sense that appeal to me. The way to tell is if it’s in their actions, if they’re an example of it.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
afu: That most American’s don’t know much about Mormonism is Romney’s single greatest liability. Because if Mitt runs, they’re gonna find out… and their not gonna dig it.
But hey, maybe you’re right and I’m wrong. At this point, only God (who lives on a planet Kolob system) knows.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
afu: That most American’s don’t know much about Mormonism is Romney’s single greatest liability. Because if Mitt runs, they’re gonna find out… and their not gonna dig it.
But hey, maybe you’re right and I’m wrong. At this point, only God (who lives on a planet in the Kolob system) knows.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Afu
I posted this story on my blog. Do you and Romney agree with the Christian Coalition a crusade against gay marriage is more important that helping the poor?
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/leader-quits-christian-coalition-over-reducing-poverty
November 30th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
That was a question. Who in this nation doesn’t know a Mormon? You just told me that the ones you know are model citizens.
You don’t think that if a person who doesn’t know what mormonism is will ask that mormon about it? Have you ever asked your acquaintances about their being a Mormon? If no, why? Well now you have a reason to. You make it sound like they’re trying to hide something from you.
Is this Kolob comment that you made a dig at the religion or Romney? I’m not sure that I get it.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Will
Bottom line many grass roots conservative are sick of vote for us because we are not as bad as the other guy. The reason Webb switch Parties because he did not want to hear it anymore. The question to me is will the real conservatives in the GOP be able to work with Blue Dog Democrats? Also are the Blue Dogs just all talk?
Big Government conservatives and liberals are the problem end of story!
November 30th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Here is how Mitt will approach the Mormon question: Beware of trying to dig too deep into this religion (pro or anti), you may end up joining or at least intellecually sympathizing with. That will speak for itself and it has for millions already. Yes there are boys througout world riding bikes, wearing helmets and suits, going door to door and ulitmately getting some real lessons in life but most people join by doing the research and coming approaching boys. Mitt isn’t scared of the research. Why should he be? Neither is the LDS church. They love it. They have devoted entire schools, foundations and have written literally thousands of books on those subjects.
There are mormon hate groups that won’t soften their stance about the Mormons no matter what you give them. Well then I say to them – vote for McCain or Juliani have a hay day. You may as well vote for Hillary.
I am still interested in the issues though. Let’s get back to putting a conservative agenda in play. Who believes this is possible? I do.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:15 pm
John,
I am not sure you really understand what a challenge it is to keep government small especially during a war and with increasing liberal momentum. Cutting conservatives down the center and calling on side “big governemt conservatives” and the other side “old-time conservatives” is not the answer my friend. As a matter of fact it is the key problem for all conservatives and the opportunity for the liberal cause.
If I were a far left strategist I would act the part of the far right and criticize the middle right thereby splitting the two and taking the far right vote. One area where the far right and the far left come together is keeping “government out of our bedrooms”. That, to me, is a strong partnership. I think you understand that if the old-time conservatives turn from the republicans they find themselves in bed with the far lefties. That’s it.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Given a chance and with full support from the old-time conservatives strong republicans can whittle away at big government. I understand that the argument to this is, “Oh they had the past eight years or so to do this and they let us down.” I hear good old Michael Savage ringing in my ears once again. He’s good at what he does and I love listening to his show but he helped split us like firewood. This would be fine if he and others like him would have brought to the table a candidate to beat all candidates but where is this great conservative leader. I await the entry. Oh and then enters Mitt. No, he couldn’t possibly be the one. He’s a Mormon for crying out loud. So, now we’ve got to find traces of big goverment tendancies to go along with the helping of religious defamation to get him behind us while on our quest for the “great one.” All the while The liberals lick their chops and spin their statistics in order to sway the margin, the doubtfuls. They move strategically to the center and watch us implode on our own bigotry. Hows that for an analysis.
The thing is, I believe Mitt Romney will rise to this challenge as he has done so on many, many occasions before. We will recognize our dire need for for his leadership. No, he’s not the “next best” conservative candidate; he is “the conservative candidate”.
Now, if conservatives get behind Mitt then the liberals are left to attack his religion. Perfect, let them show their true colors. They’re not very pretty in the light.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Will
lets get real and not blame Democrats.
The Highway, Energy, No Child Left Behind, Drug……. What does any of that have to do with liberal Democrats?
What does bills with 6,000 earmaks on them have to do with Democrats?
What does President Bush never using a veto on the pork bills have to do with Democrats?
BTW do you and Romney agree with the Christian Coalition a crusade against gay marriage is more important that helping the poor?
December 1st, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Let the attacks on conservatism begin:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/01/D8LO75AG0.html
December 1st, 2006 at 3:33 pm
John,
You asked me that question. I want to ask you if you think that the Christian Coalition is a political or a religious group first?
If you think it’s a religious group first you’re mistaken. It’s a group that’s on the decline as well. I wouldn’t put much importance to this group. Not sure if you saw there influence in the last two elections. There wasn’t much if at all.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Ok Mitt fans I put a call into his office to end the back and forth on his ideas. I asked Sam a member of his staff to look at the web page and have Mitt take part in some dialouge or staff member. So this is my point if he does take part or one of his staff members steps up then the debate should go foward. If 3 people support Mitt but can not step up and answer to the platform or issues then reload and come back.
To the part of being a mormon so what atleast he does not take bribes from Casino’s.
To the part of the Christian Coalition they are a dead issue who needs to keep out of peoples life the same as Moveon.org. Those two groups with the title stripped and on the radio would sound the same and sound like the cast from The View.
The challange for Mitt to respond has been made lets sit back and wait.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:45 pm
By the way this guy Hunter changing his mind tells me he didn’t want to get on a ship going nowhere. That he as the chairman couldn’t get what he wanted going where Reed could tells me that either he isn’t very effective or again the prior.
Pat Robertson hasn’t helped it much either in the recent past with some of the things that he’s done and said.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:59 pm
John,
Your point about blaming the Democrats is right…you can’t blame them. The only thing that they did was spotlight the problems, and in a lot of cases the smoke within the GOP. The problems and smoke only got worse because they (GOP) decided not to fight back (always thinking their on the high road even when it’s the low road) and backing up what the conservative wing (the winning wing) of the GOP stands for.
The GOP thought that they could get away with whatever they were doing, i.e., Duke Cunningham et al. Others just hid behind GW. GW had his own problems with conservatives and could only take them so far before the spotlight started to shine on them and with the Democrat machine glaring you would’ve thought that the GOP was on fire, literally.
December 1st, 2006 at 6:49 pm
John,
Who’s blaming Democrats?
Although you sound more and more like one. When you speak of “earmarks” I assume you mean “non-bids”. Funny you should mention this and I know there are a lot of so called conservatives hitting on this point and have been for some time.
I nearly took a job about a year ago as an estimator for missles at let’s just say a “Large Corporation”. Ooooooooh I’m the bad guy right. Well, let me tell you a little about the process of landing a one of these non-bids.
It aint easy!
Usually the contract comes in a little less then if it were to open up competitively. The government requires a stack of paperwork that would make your head spin. They require a very technical analysis (on every component) based on historical data from the previous projects then moving the price forward. If the trend is down well then you must come in lower at the estimated rate. Would you like to talk more on this subject John?? I have much to offer here.
Blaming GW and big corporations is not the answer either.
Where do you want to go with energy?? Blame our own again??
Oh, by the way I happen to an economist and American, ooooooooh now I’m really evil right??
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Just had another Dem hopeful cross my mind…General Wesley Clark. With the opposition to the Iraq war at an all time high and gaining popularity, here is a guy who had serious reservations about its’ conduct way back. Smart enough guy and with military credentials that may set him apart from the other Dem doves and pacifist appeasers. There is some question about his “retirement” from the service, though. Unsure what it is but there were some ethical questions there.
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Will
Guys like you are pushing people out of the GOP. If I sound like a Democrat for wanting to control spending, immigration and re-negotiate poor trade deals than you are right I am in the wrong PARTY. My Country, Family, friends and neighbors come before any Party bottom line.
At the end of the day enablers or NEOCONS like you left the conservative movement. The way I look at it, if my views are not welcomed by people in the leadership position at the GOP, than the Party left me. BTW 08 will look worse than the 06 mid-terms with your tax and spend fiscal policy and support and the outsourcing of our Country.You should read about Barry Goldwater and get a clue what a real conservative support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Will
Adam Smith is the father of free market economics. His book Wealth of Nations is taught in most schools. You might want to read this before getting into a debate about economics.
Monopoly:-
§ “A monopoly granted either to an individual or to a trading company has the same effect as a secret in trade or manufactures. The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate.” (vol. I, bk. I, ch. 7.)
§ “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice.” (vol. I, bk. I, ch. 10.)
Nature of Man:-
§ “The propensity to truck, barter and exchange one thing for another is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals.”
Politicians:-
§ “It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers [read politicians] to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense. They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs.” (vol. I, bk. II, ch. 3.)
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Smith.htm
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:48 pm
BTW does Phyllis Schlafly sound like a Democrat?
The Race to the Middle for 2008
TCV-by Phyllis Schlafly
This was great article I read by the President of the Eagle Forum a well respected conservative think tank.
The biggest electoral bloc of the “they” who are seeking friends is the middle class, which includes people variously labeled blue-collar workers, skilled workers, or Reagan Democrats. They are the swing voters, often called the moveables. President Ronald Reagan’s victories absolutely depended on their support. But Presidents Bush I and II kicked them away from the Republican Party, particularly on the issue of jobs.
Almost every one of the Republican Members of Congress who bit the dust in the 2006 election had been an enthusiastic booster of the globalists’ agenda: NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO (World Trade Organization), Fast Track, PNTR (Permanent Normal Trading Relations), and Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with countries most Americans never heard of. Republicans were badly on the defensive in the face of Democrat ads touting the issue of jobs
Will Republicans continue to follow George W. Bush in his post-election travels to solicit even more Asian products made by cheap labor and subsidized by their governments? Or will Republicans get smart on the jobs issue and reestablish their friendship with the Reagan Democrats?
December 3rd, 2006 at 8:46 am
Will
For someone who wants to talk about issues, it is interesting how you hide and avoid real questions!
December 4th, 2006 at 10:41 am
John,
Your points about Adam Smith are well taken.
Do you really believe you’ll get your spending cuts from Democrats? Hows you taxes gonna look here in the next year? The core belief, the binding factor for democrats is MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING.
Yes, I feel as betrayed as you about the republican’s spend thrift ways. I look into the spending and am still upset by it. But I take the amount that would have been spent by democrats and think wow we’re better off. Have you ever run those numbers. You should. We actually agree on spending.
You’re position of separation from the GOP is self destruction. Although, you have an increasingly stronger following. You just don’t have any candidates. So, your out building up a movement without candidates. What candidate would want to run with a seperatist agenda? You need the GOP as the GOP needs you because democrats have all the weaklings of the country, wrapped around their middle finger. They have the media, the music, movies and schools behind them. What a beautiful propoganda machine. Even you have fallen into it, a, “Staunch Reagan Conservative.”
December 4th, 2006 at 11:07 am
John,
What are your thoughts on a flat tax? How about privatizing social security? I don’t think creating a more competative environment for schools is a bad idea. Do you? By the way are you sure your not a Liberatian? Man these guys are the Liberal’s best friend.
December 4th, 2006 at 11:38 am
I support a hybrid between the flat tax and fair tax. This would help create jobs, and stop lobbying for corporate welfare. You should read a book by Joe scarborough former Republican Congressman called “Rome is Burning”
As far as Social Security I would let people over contribute tax free. I would than let Americans buy down foreign debt and earn interest with that money until we balanced the budget and started paying down our debt.
This would force Americans to think twice about Congressman who bring home pork. After we got debt under control them we could then let people invest in diverse investment accounts.BTW this would lower interest rates and fuel the economy.
As far Schools unless we get rid of No Child Left Behind schools will keep going down. We need to have a two tier system for college bound kids and Vocational kids. As gar as Charter schools, they could play a big roll teaming up with business especially for vocational and high tec.
The father of the conservative movement was an economic libertarian Barry Goldwater. As far as social issues, I do not favor federal government making rules for the State. I do not think Georgia should make social laws for Massachusetts and the other way around. If you think you can win without Goldwater Republicans in a general election good luck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
That is why Blue Dog Democrats are picking up steam. The big question is will they have any voice in the Democrat party? Why do you think George Allan was more conservative than Webb?
Spending NO
Immigration NO
Trade NO
Education NO
The above is why the GOP is lost. If you are not honest you cannot fix a problem. Listen to my radio show, this is what people are saying.
December 4th, 2006 at 11:55 am
John,
So are you a libertarian? I mean if you are I’m not criticizing, just saying that you might as well come out say your democrat. You should have heard the debates here in my state during senate 2006. It was republican verses democrat/libertarian. I am amazed the republicans got away with any wins. You can’t possibly believe in legalizing drugs can you?
December 4th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Will
I am a businessman who supports free market Adam Smith economic principals. The concept of less government and local control I agree with. That is a libertarian conservative economic principal.
As far as social issues I tend to debate with Libertarian on my website about issue like drugs and limits on free speech. A good example is a story I put on blog about a kid getting suspending for promoting drugs in school. As a parent a have no tolerance for that behavior and this is where split with my libertarian friends libertarians.
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/court-hears-bong-hits-4-jesus-free-speech-case
Yet I also split with my Christian Coalition friends on pro-life with no exceptions. I was told I am told I am not pro-life because I will not force a woman to have a baby due to rape, incest…….
BTW it is good Romney is cracking down on immigration but without trade reform it is an empty promise. If Romney only is for enforcing immigration and not trade reform., he will end up like Hayworth
December 4th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
BTW Will I will let you post why vote for Romney on my site. I would also interview you are him on my show.
December 4th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
John,
I’d be happy to give my reasoning on your site (where?).
I have no connection to Mitt Romney except that if he runs, I will support him for the above reasons and others.
You’ll have to contact his folks.
Given a chance I believe he’d win you over. Or at least ease your mind about another big government, big spender, elitist with his eyes on the presidency.
December 4th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
http://www.controlcongress.com
john@johnkonop.com
I will post it!