I'm going to be offline most of Sunday, so here's a rare Sound Politics open thread for those interested in weighing in on the topic of the Republican debate, before, during, and after it unfolds.
Regrettably, Fred Thompson won't be there. Again.
Personally, I'm hoping one of the 2nd tier candidates goes after Sam Brownback, whose is seemingly attacking every opponent in sight. He's hit Mitt Romney and Tom Tancredo, prompting the rare occurrence of two different candidates simultaneously calling for an apology because of inaccurate attacks. Brownback and Mike Huckabee have also been going at it something fierce this week leading up to the debate.
For someone supposedly running as a candidate representing true conservative Christians, he's running a campaign this man of faith wouldn't be very proud to have been a part of when everything is settled.
So, let's see if that testiness before the Ames straw poll spills over into the debate. In the meantime, there's also this latest poll in Iowa from ABC & the Washington Post for the Republican field. Note it was done in conjunction with a reputable Iowa pollster, Selzer & Company, so the full data is worth a look (and if you're really interested, here's a poll from the same polling combo for the Democratic field in Iowa).
Posted by Eric Earling at August 04, 2007 10:22 PM | Email ThisWell of course not. There isn't an ethanol shill like Barrack Obama to keep their subsidies rolling in.
2008, with its stepped up primaries, may be one of the first elections in recent times that focuses on the massive popular votes in the two places where large numbers of citizens live -- California and New York -- and downplays the rotten boroughs.
Have to love the polling. 4% margin of error, but polls conducted the same time by two different companies show completely different results. American Research Group has Rudy at 22%, Romney at 21%, McCain at 17% and Thompson at 13%.
Inside the data it shows that the Republican faithful of Iowa prefer Romney and the likely independent caucus goers prefer McCain, then Guiliani. That's a nightmare situation for Romney, if Thompson is allowed to get in, he's going to split the Republican conservate vote with Romney and Rudy or McCain is going to slide into first. Romney has to be awake at nights trying to figure out how to keep Thompson out of the race.
Posted by: Doug on August 5, 2007 01:12 AMIn the recent Newsweek poll, the attitudes of independents leaning R are worthy of note. Among Independents who lean Republican, Fred Thompson led with 25%, Rudy Giuliani, statistically tied Thompson at 24%, John McCain garnered a surprisingly low 12%, and Mitt Romney came in with a barely registerable 2 percent.
Rare -- that's the key word. Open threads, for people to discuss what's important to them, are, admittedly, rare here.
Here is a place for Stefan, et. al. to talk about what they think is important....not what folks in general think is important.
This is a direct parallel to the administration who cares about what they think...not what folks think. It's like the rare President Bush press conference -- it's also a large part of the reason for approval ratings int he 25% area.
As for President Bush's approval rating -- it's still almost twice that of Congress.
Posted by: RadioMattM on August 5, 2007 08:21 AM"It's like the rare President Bush press conference -- it's also a large part of the reason for approval ratings int he 25% area."
I'm afraid it wouldn't do him much good to hold more press conferences. His numbers would only go lower.
I'm a long time Texas resident (voted for Bush as Govenor and subsequently as President). In his political career, GWB had the good luck (some would say bad luck) to run against very weak candidates (Ann Richards, Al Gore, John Kerry). He never really had to defend his positions against strong competition (can you imagine how GWB would perform against the present Republican hopefuls in a spirited debate?)
GWB is inarticulate under pressurized conditions. That's an unfortunate readily observable fact. He is also a big spending social liberal, a underlying characteristic that has destroyed all his credibility with the conservative wing of his party. Under his terms in office, we have seen a free for all in the legislative branch, along with the corruption that always seems to follow the money.
The country badly needs a leader.
Ken
Dallas
I suppose that would be OK if the presidency were just about this one side issue, BUT IT'S NOT. The fact of th matter is that no matter HOW a Presidents feel about pro-life issues there is really very little they can do about them... other than judges.
I tried to explain to my pal that she may be attempting to win the battle but in doing so she will lose the war. She, of course rialed back that Rudy is pro-choice, pro-homosexual to which I replied SO IS HILLARY.. ONLY MORE SO!!!
Also I think Brownback has said some pretty odd things in regards to illegals and he's joined the libs on some legislation that surprised me.
Top Tier my choice is still Newt.
Bottom Tier my choice id Huckabee.
In the real world I'll be glad to have Rudy.
I fell off my chair. It is true, none of the Democrats want to face the reality that there are jihadists that want to kill us and want to destroy, conquer and covert America.
This was true before W was elected. We must have a President who acknowledges this fact and will face it head-on.
Posted by: Apollo on August 5, 2007 11:05 AMUsing polling data that doesn't show any independents as part of the results chaps my hide a bit. The poll Eric shows infers that for 24% of the respondents, this would be their first caucus. Historically, actual voting data from Iowa shows that 45 to 55% of the caucus attendees are first timers, only about half are regulars. Who will be the other ones that will account for a lion's share of the vote difference? They will more than likely be more moderate or independent voters than they are likely to be Romney supporters. Paul and Rudy are the most likely to benefit from the unpolled, then Thompson and McCain.
I think you need to extrapolate from other polls that show likely caucus goers who are independents, after all the early states of Iowa and NH usually show about 40% of the turnout coming from those who consider themselves Independents.
If the polling companies keep counting less than that number, trying to shoot for just base republicans, then the polling data will be pretty flawed.
Posted by: Doug on August 5, 2007 11:13 AMTravis
Posted by: Travis on August 5, 2007 04:17 PMIf Republicans are concerned with politics, then getting out of Iraq should be our top priority. That so many don't seem so concerned with the polls is not ignorance of the public will. It's courage.
Posted by: AD on August 5, 2007 06:18 PMAt least she'll come right out and say she wants to register guns and give homosexuals everything else.
Posted by: Independent Voter on August 5, 2007 06:41 PMIt's simple, Travis, and yet you don't even bother to address the facts. Why is that? People care a lot more about the FDA than they care about Iraq, and he wants to abolish it. He cannot win a general election.
Posted by: pudge on August 5, 2007 06:47 PMAt this particular time with the way Iraq is going the only way to beat Hillary/Obama is to take a couple blue states. Ohio would be gone, possibly Missouri and Florida and New Mexico and VA would be a nailbiter. Thompson/Powell could hold MO and FL but unless world events dramatically change they still lose NM and OH and I don't see them making any gains in blue states, maybe Minnesota with Wisconsin a possibility. I would venture to guess that a Powell/Thompson ticket wouldn't be better either.
In a few months at the end of the year we could check again and we'll know then if Thompson plays well with the independents. Rudy, of course, plays the best right now against a Hillary/Obama ticket, if only because he puts NJ, PA, and NY in possible red territory and keeps FL. He holds most of the other red states just because they aren't voting for Hillary. Then again all that can change by the end of this year. McCain is another one that could possibly change the normal complexion of red/blue states, just not as much.
This is the Dem's greatest flaw. They have over the last 3 years fooled themselves into thinking Al Queda is a fantasy of Bush. They, or at least the supports who I work with, have this truly bizzare notion that we have lost in Iraq.
My thoughts on who is offered to us at this point?
Romney is the coiffed Republican equivalent of Edwards.
Guiliani - well he's interesting, but a little too mainstream on a lot of social issues, which could hurt on election day by not motivating the core.
The rest of the declared pack hasn't a snowball's chance.
Which brings us to the two UN-declared candidates. They both hail from the South (Georgia and Tennessee), which will help enormously on election day, and, to my mind at least, have brilliantly waited until the pack expended itself.
If the two Southern gentlemen don't get in, I will likely vote for whoever is put up - not because I believe they are the best or even because they can win (which I doubt), but because I truly believe the Dem's will abandon our allies and our national honor by choosing defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A person who is willing to say or do anything so that they get to be President of the United States is not doing so for the benefit of his/her fellow citizens, they are doing it for their own self interest. There is nothing noble in that.
A true patriot will even step aside for the better candidate. On that level it is not the will of the people the Patriot is looking at, it is what is best for the country as he see's it.
Too many times we have had to hold our noses as we go to the polls. I hope that we have better choices this time around.
Posted by: REBEL on August 6, 2007 06:37 AMIf you want to lead, then you have to lead. Do I like the politics of smear? No, but unfortunately, it looks like you have to. It is a question of how subtle you can be and stay on message.
We are relying on the Presidential candidates to lead us and thankfully, every now and then, they help set the national dialogue and not allow it to be lost to the D challengers. That is easy to do since the Ds control the media.
But, I don't see why Brownback, et al, have to attack each other. There certainly is red meat on the other side, isn't there?
Notice the clever way, Giuliani went after the Ds lack of experience, and in the way he did it, he showed differences within the R field also. Perfecto!!
Posted by: swatter on August 6, 2007 08:33 AMHence Thompson's brilliant strategy. Don't bother with the partisan bickering in the preliminary rounds where you have Ron P, Tom T, and John M, they're going to bow out anyway. Why waste the money.
All he has to do is keep his mouth shut, pop up with huge fanfare around Labor Day and sweep the important primary battleground states. Fox News will back him all the way to the finish line.
I hope you are right, but I am not mortgaging the farm just yet. I want to see how he handles the scrutiny of "being in the race".
Posted by: swatter on August 6, 2007 10:24 AMI think Fred Thompson would be pretty good. I like his positions on alot of topics.
I once knew a guy who asked me who I was voting for in the election that got us Bill Clinton. I told him Ross Perot. He said I was nuts because he would not be able to win. I said, so your guy wins and that does what for you? Are you going to get a raise? Is he going to do some great thing for you personally because you chose the winner? What a lousy reason for voting for someone. Do you really like the guy? Then vote for him, but don't do it because you think that it benefits you to be able to say you voted for the winner.
Posted by: REBEL on August 6, 2007 10:33 AMBloomberg could wait until after February simply because the deadlines for filing aren't until May or thereafter. He could pick and choose and only run campaigns in NY, NJ and PA. This would cost him very little yet have a devastating effect on Rudy in those three states. He'd probably try to get on the ballot in all the states, then try to get away with giving the Clinton campaign about $15 million (which individuals can't do directly) by using his money only to campaign in a handful of key states.
Posted by: Doug on August 6, 2007 11:07 AMIt's already happening, Fox News has chosen Giuliani & Thompson for the front runners. Romney is still a top tier candidate in third place.
LOL and SWATTER does a nice smack down on dinesh.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 7, 2007 08:34 AM1. It won't be Hillary/Obama as many assume. Hillary doesn't like Obama because he is actually calling her to task. Hillary has given Obama the cold shoulder ever since he announce his exploratory committee. It won't be Hillary/Edwards neither even though they are a little more corgiual (sp?). Edwards doesn't want second fiddle again. It is either the top or not at all. So, even though Dodd would be the best VP candidate, she can't afford two senators on the ticket. Look for a Clinton/Richardson ticket.
2. On the Republican side, look for Roomey and Guilliani to fight it out. Everyone else is too late. Huckabee waited too long to get rolling. F. Thompson will wither under scrutiny of his actual record and would be a disaster against the Clinton machine. Roomey has the business experience to counter Hillary's political experience. If Guiliani would accept the number two spot, it would be a good ticket, but I doubt he will. Look for a Roomey/Newt ticket, or a Roomey + some bright, young congressional or senatorial star who isn't in the race, especially from the South. Roomey needs to beef up his southern base and evangelical base.
3. Look for Bloomberg not to get into it at the end, even though he would desperately want to.
4. Look for Republicans, if Roomey stands his own, to pick back a few seats they lost last election, but not gain back majority in both the Senate and House. They may get one, but not the other.
Those are my "seat-of-the-pants" observations at this point, it all could change in six to nine months. How I wish Edwards or Obama would knock off the Clinton machine. We don't need 4-8 more years of them in the Whitehouse.
Posted by: tc on August 7, 2007 11:44 AMThink about it, people...August is the time for summer vacations, having fun outside, and is when the lowest in TV ratings generally happens. Labor Day is considered the bellwether time for anyone who wants to get into the race, because parents of kids will start actually paying attention.
And, my guess for the final ticket: Fred Thompson/Tim Pawlenty
Posted by: Sakaki on August 7, 2007 12:07 PMUnlikely, Obama won't take VP because he has more to gain in the Senate than he would from being saddled as a VP. Hillary on the other hand is way too powerful a figure for a Obama/Hillary ticket. If Hillary looses expect her to be Senate Majority/Minority Leader by the time 2012 rolls around.
You are correct that Hillary wouldn't accept the VP job. She thinks she is above everyone else and the job would be beneath her.
Hillary's problem is Obama is the best VP candidate for her to have, but she has ticked him off too much. Dodd or Biden would be perfect VP's if the top of the ticket wasn't another senator. They don't add to the ticket, if Hillary is on top.
On a different note, why is everyone so enamored with F. Thompson. The quote today from Nixon is classic and it fits Thompson to a "T". Don't think for a minute that fellow Watergate staffer, Hillary won't dig up all the Nixon stuff on Thompson, in addition to his lightweight senatorial career. Thompson's only hope is as a VP candidate to add southern base and appeal to the conservatives (assuming Newt would even consider the second banana job). Someone like Guiliani could really use a Thompson as a running mate and it wouldn't pit him directly opposite of Hillary, who would eat him alive. Whereas, both Mitt and Rudy could easily go toe-to-toe with Hillary. The same could be said of Huckalbee, who is the conservative, religious right should be getting on the bandwagon for. Who better to bring out Hillary's skeletons than a fellow Arkansonian.
Posted by: tc on August 7, 2007 12:55 PM".....said Terry O'Sullivan, general president of the 500,000-member Laborer's International Union of North America. "In 2008 we have a second-term Senator, a one-term Senator and a first-term Senator as the top-tier candidates. We don't have any top-tier candidate..."
It is not courage to stay the course in Iraq. Sure Iraqis will die when we leave just as vietnemese died when we left there. THe point however is that the American military exists to protect americans, not iraqis or vietnemese.
Posted by: Travis on August 7, 2007 08:51 PMVoters care more about the FDA than iraq? That is odd every poll i have seen has shown the iraq war and terrorism as the top priority. In fact most do not even include the FDA because it is such a low priority.
Also since when did the republicans start protecting federal agencies with no constitutional authority?
Posted by: Travis on August 7, 2007 08:54 PMYou bring up a good point. Ron Paul beleives in smaller government. Is there ANY other candidate running for president in the GOP that is proposing a smaller government? No. Are the republicans posting here for smaller government? If yes, then why are you not supporting the ONLY candidate running that shares your views?
Posted by: Travis Pahl on August 7, 2007 08:57 PMOkay, let's say I agree with everything the guy says and says he stands for, he still isn't allowed to lace up. He doesn't meet the standards. He would be a disaster as President. Move on. Please!!!
Posted by: swatter on August 8, 2007 07:03 AMWhy would he be a disaster as president? How do you define as a successful president?
Posted by: Travis on August 8, 2007 12:18 PMCause no one would listen to him, much like they're doing now. Ron Paul is the Lyndon LaRouche of the Internet Generation. All hype, no bite.
It looks like Fred 'the chosen one' Thompson is having trouble, he keeps shuffling his campaign staff.
As for the 're-shuffling' of Mr. Thompson't campaign staff, from what I understand this is quite normal for most any campaign. While it's true that Mr. Thompson is on his third campaign manager, the man he hired(Bill Lacy) is the very same man who helped Fred win his senate seat back in '94 by reclaiming his momentum despite being 20 points behind in the polls. Who better for the job?
Also, Mr. Thompson's decision to hold off an announcement is concurrent with nearly every other presidenial campaign up until recent times. It used to be that candidates would announce late in the fall so as to concentrate on their immediate responsibilites in the House and Senate. I can't wait for Mr. Thompson's stinging rebuke of those who announced their candidacy early thus resulting in less time being spent in their chambers passing legislation!!Not a bad choice Fred, go get 'em!
Something else that's very attractive about Mr. Thompson is that so far, no one has been able to dig up any dirt regarding favors he owes to big business or certain nefarious politicians, the trilateral commission. If anything, they are the ones who owe him, and in this I feel that we, the American people win.
Face it, all the other Republicans would have to do an "about face" on the Iraq war in order to win in November.
Not only is this hypocrisy unecessary for Ron Paul, but unlike Hillary (ugh) Clinton, Ron Paul has actually voted against the war from the start!
The war is the biggest issue for the voters.
Ron Paul is the only R with a chance.
Plus, he's by far the most fiscally conservative of the bunch!!!
Go, Ron Paul!
But when Ron Paul loses the R nomination, I'll be voting Libertarian...
R's aren't smart enough to nominate him.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on August 8, 2007 10:05 PMYou say that in this day and age an idealist can not win. How then do you explain Ron Paul winning his district so many times. In fact he is the only candidate to win not as an incumbenant 3 times! Rather than say why he can not win, why not tell us why you do not want him to win since all it takes to win is for all the republicans that want smaller government to back their beliefs up with a vote.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on August 9, 2007 05:23 AMWhen I said that Ron Paul could not win, I meant that in regards to the presidency only. Certainly there is plenty of support for idealists on the lower levels and of course the hope will always be that these lower levels can eventually become the norm. I've seen many extraordinary Third Party candidates gain more support than I ever thought possible at the time(Bernie Sanders, Jason West, Matt Gonzalez and although he was a Dem. less face it Paul Wellstone). I DO want these candidates to gain support, but I must look at the facts. Outside candidates will nearly always win debates, but in doing so they feed the big dogs what to say and in doing so become less noticeable as contenders. Without a strong showing in this election, I fear the GOP may be headed towards a much less effective political position, and so I really feel they'll go for the strongest candidates while not taking chances on the promises of what 'might be'.
As for me and what 'might be', I think Fred could be our man. I support F. Thompson for many reasons, a few of which are his record in support of State's Rights, gun ownership, and immigration. In many ways, I see Mr. Thompson as a more successful Barry Goldwater for a new era, and I believe that with these principals he will go far in courting many undecided voters as well as those regular voters who feel disenfrachised with the current choices and now seek more rights for the individual, Dems and the GOP alike. Again just my opinion.
The one good thing from a Paul presidency is that there wouldn't be any laws passed, gridlock.
Posted by: Doug on August 9, 2007 09:14 AMMcDermott has won his Dist. nine times (going for 10) and voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. How do you explain that?
Of course the GOP needs to come out stron gin this election. Explain how they will do it with a man that is in favor of the war and the patriot act when that is the #1 and #2 issues for most americans right now and the are opposed to both?
If the GOP wants to come close to winning, they will have to either choose ron paul or convince one of the other 8 to change their views on those two issues. OTherwise it will be a big D sweep.
Travis
Are you not familiar with Ron Paul or are you deliberatly misleading people?
Paul is anti drug war, not pro drug. Being opposed to an intrusive government is what the GOP is supposed to stand for.
Ron Paul is pro first amendment, not anti church. IN fact he nearly decided to be a minister, but instead decided to become a OBGYN. I find it hard to beleive a man who was nearly a minister is anti church. His support for the seperation of church and state should not garner him being anti church from fellow Republicans!
He is not anti-military, he is just anti-iraq war. He is actually in favor of a strong military and a strong national defense. Is that not what the GOP wants? Can't a man disagree with the policy and still be in favor of the military?
He is by far not anti free trade! He is in fact the strongest supporter of free trade in congress! He is just opposed to giant treaties that try to 'regulate' free trade. If he had his way there would be zero barriers to trade. It is VERY dishonest to say he is opposed to free trade.
Even more dishonest is to say he is pro government health care. Paul has voted against government health care every chance he has. He was opposed to the prescription drug plan that Bush pushed on us (how republican of Bush!) He has opposed Medicare and Medicaid every chance he can both in congress and at his private practice. If someone can not afford his services he offers them for free or discounted rather than accept medicare or medicaid. Dr Paul is again one of the loudest critics of government healthcare and one of the only members of congress that would elliminate government entirely from health care if given an oppurtunity!
As for being pro-sexual deviancy, I am not sure what you mean here. Do you have anything to cite proving this statement? I am assuming you mean he would not make it illegal to do kinky things behind closed doors. This seems reasonable to me. Government should be out of our bedrooms and wallets! REpublicans used to beleive that anyway!
Travis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on August 9, 2007 09:15 PMDr Paul has broad support in his district which is by no means a republican stronghold. He wins by huge margins despite the number of democrats in the area and despite his own party working against him. It often looks impossible but he comes out on top each time.
The same can be said for his campaign for presidency so far. It looks impossible, his own party has been attacking him from the get go, and yet he now has more grassroots and internet support than any other candidate from either party, millions of dollars in the bank, and on track to surprise everyone this weekend in Iowa!
Travis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on August 9, 2007 09:19 PMDr Paul has broad support in his district which is by no means a republican stronghold. He wins by huge margins despite the number of democrats in the area and despite his own party working against him. It often looks impossible but he comes out on top each time.
The same can be said for his campaign for presidency so far. It looks impossible, his own party has been attacking him from the get go, and yet he now has more grassroots and internet support than any other candidate from either party, millions of dollars in the bank, and on track to surprise everyone this weekend in Iowa!
Travis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on August 9, 2007 09:19 PMThe R's aren't smart enough to nominate Ron Paul.
Many of them aren't even smart enough to realize they've lost the Iraq war.
My only quibble with your comment is that while the Iraq war is number one on people's minds these days, the PATRIOT Act is not even on their minds. It should be, but it's not.
The eventual Republican Pres. nominee will do an "about-face" right after being nominated and call for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq. That's the only way to win given public opinion.
And the only Republican who can do this without declaring himself a total hypocrite is Ron Paul.
Oh, the other candidates CLAIM to be waiting to hear the general's report on the surge. This is to cover them long enough to get through the primary while sounding like hawks to the R party base, so that AFTER the report, they can decide based on the new information that withdrawal makes the most sense.
This is my prediction. Anyone want to place any bets?
If I am right, how does that make you feel about Giuliani, McCain, etc?
Oh, and the closest thing to Barry Goldwater is Ron Paul, not Thompson.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on August 9, 2007 09:43 PMI do not feel however, that a Paul presidential candidacy is a realistic expectation at this time, but I completely understand the need for its visibility and what it may mean for the future of the people's voice in this country. I've supported previous Dark Horse candidates for many of the same reasons and I'll be with them all in spirit(and occasional monetary donations) while making a credible well-reasoned choice from the candidates at hand.
Is the Iraq War number 1 for most Americans? I disagree. I believe that when it comes down to it most Americans want integrity in government and a president they can believe in and feel proud to have as their leader. We need to keep America strong, and I don't see any Dem I can believe in to do that in the current coffer while being trustworthy at the same time. Too many scandals and too little time I'm afraid. I'm fed up, I'm tired of the lies and in other elections, this is about the time I might look to a third party candidate, but now, I don't need to. For once in several years someone with integrity and leadership abilities has a serious chance of winning, and that person is F. Thompson.
Posted by: Robert-Allen on August 9, 2007 10:04 PMThat's what the LaRouche supporters say when they set up their table on University Ave. In truth he's just another extremist nut job much like Ron Paul. Only Ron Paul knows how to use the internet.
Ron Paul is so far off base compared to the Republican platform, he's a Republican in name only. When it comes to the party platform dealing with illicit drugs he is against it. He has completely voted against the Republican party position on agriculture issues. In the last ten years he's voted against over 90% of the military expenditure bills - that is pretty much anti-military, more so than John Kerry. He's voted to weaken crime law almost every time including to get rid of the death penalty. On education issues he has parted with republicans as well, voting against accountability and student testing.
You said he is for separation of church and state, well for a supposed 'strict-constitutionalist' I find that liberally frightening as there is no such separation in the first amendment, only in the minds of the secular progressives.
Shall we say then he is an isolationist/protectionisht when it comes to free trade? Pro-free trade within this country and generally opposed to it when it comes to building trading partners globally, I don't think there is an international free-trade agreement he will ever vote for, just continually vote against them no matter what.
I guess what gives him a positive rating by the American Public Health Association must not be his support of public healthcare then, but his rampant disagreement with the republican party on trying to limit malpractice lawsuits and damages.
He wants to keep us at peace unless attacked. He wants to keep the federal government out of your church, schools, and healthcare. He is despite your claim of being an isolationist, is for completly free trade (which you are calling isolationist for some reason). He is for ending agricultural subsidies (even in his own district!).
Is this the description of a Republican? I guess not. Is it someone you would like to see in office instead of Hillary or Guilliani? I sure hope so!
Travis Pahl
Posted by: Travis Pahl on August 10, 2007 07:33 PMPaul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:
As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
The US government should inhibit neither the exportation of US goods and services worldwide, nor the importation of goods and services.
The United States should not be answerable to any governing body outside the United States for its trade policy.
I absolutely DO NOT want a republican or democrat president that will completely and arbritrarily end agricultural subsidies. The ag. dept. needs revamped completely but many (definitely not all) of the subsidies are needed to support economic growth. I can give you specific examples where it would be criminal for the government not to give subsidies if you wish.
In our utopia world of less government and more business, more of the money gets concentrated into the private sector where there is less control by the government over the economy. Monetary policy becomes less effective as a way to level out the ups and downs and slowing and speeding money supply becomes impossible. I've watched the ups and downs of the macroeconomy a long time and you'd be surprised to see that there is an 24-month to 30-month lag between agricultural ups and downs, and the rest of the economy. Ag. is still the foundation of the US economy, nobody wants to believe it though.
It is just plain STUPID for a President or a congress to not supply targeted subsidies in Ag. or any other businesses (such as today's 'subsidy' in a money supply increase to ease the fear of the sub-prime lending market) when it is in the best interest of the country to do so. I think McCain is another one that doesn't get it when it comes to subsidies - they put 'the American consumer' first, saying subsidies hurt the American consumer - just plain short term thinking, they have no foresight and can't see the bigger picture. Unfortunately Ron Paul is a libertarian that just doesn't get that and his voting record shows it. There could be a bill with 20 different items he agrees with but if there is one that he doesn't - it's a big 'Nay'. Just unreasonable. Of course I am one person that believes the federal government should always have debt outstanding so that it would be in a better position to manipulate the money supply if needed. (that doesn't fit in anyone's political spectrum now does it).
No, there should be some sort of candidate in between the Republicans and Ron Paul, someone with reason but far more fiscally conservative - hey where is Steve Forbes anyhow? Oh yeah, he's in the Giuliani camp.
As for international trade, the last statement you put in is pretty much the kicker. The US shouldn't answer to any other country, but the problem is that our businesses have to answer to their regulations and are willing to do so in most cases in order to get the business. That's what's good about the free-trade agreements that Paul keeps voting against. Our businesses want them and don't mind some of the hurdles but Paul remains Protectionist/isolationist. I think Cato has him ranked only at 76, McCain's 100 being completely Free Trade, while say Clinton at 17% being Fair Trade. He voted against McCain's position almost everytime on the major issues, but he talks the talk so Cato ranked him towards Free Trade because they don't rate whether he's psychotic protectionist, or pragmatic protectionist.
Posted by: Doug on August 10, 2007 11:08 PM
"Let's see, Pro-Drugs, anti-Church, anti-military, anti-patriot act, anti-free trade, anti-death penalty, pro- govt. healthcare, pro-sexual deviancy - that's toeing the Republican party line, isn't it?"
- Ron Paul, a devout Christian, is one of the strongest defenders of religious freedom.
- Ron Paul, an Air Force veteran, has done more for veterans than most - and received more donations from servicemen than any candidate April-June '07.
- Ron Paul, a retired OB/GYN, has worked tirelessly against socialized medicine. As a doctor, he gave discounted care to poor families, never accepting Medicare payments.
- Ron Paul, married 50 years, is the very embodiment of family values, and has the endorsement of Barbara Hagan (among others).
I'm just helping you out with some facts, Doug. You seem like a decent conservative, so I know you'll eventually pick a good guy to vote for. If you need more info on Paul, you can find it at http://ronpaul2008.com
Posted by: Kyle Brotherton on August 11, 2007 02:54 AMYou say that it would be criminal to not support ag subsidies. I would disagree and say that in fact the subsidies are criminal (not authorized in the constitution).
But lets ignore that and assume that you are right and we need to keep a few. You do agree we need way less than we have now right? Who is the only candidate that is moving in the right direction of fewer subsidies? Ron Paul. Will he get us all the way where I would like (no subsidies?) no, practically speaking he will not. He will probably not even elliminate as many as you would like, but he is the only candidate that will move us in the direction we both want to move.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on August 11, 2007 08:42 AMOn same-sex domestic partnership benefits Newt is rated as opposes and Paul as favors. On teacher-led prayer in public schools, Newt is rated as strongly favors, Paul as favors. On more federal funding for health coverage, Newt is rated as being inclined to strongly oppose it while Paul's inclination is rated as Favors. School vouchers, Newt Strongly favors while Paul favors.
Death Penalty - Newt strongly favors and Paul opposes. 3-strikes sentencing laws, Newt Favors, Paul opposes. Support & expand free trade, Paul is rated as Opposes and Newt as Strongly Favors. Patriot Act harming civil liberties, Paul strongly favors, Newt Strongly Opposes. Expand the armed forces, Paul Opposes and Newt Strongly Favors.....It goes on and on and on and on.
These are tendencies they are rating based on comments and voting record, it's absolutely amazing how much Paul is completely different than Newt Gingrich on the issues and I would venture to guess that if Newt Gingrich didn't have any baggage he would win the Presidential nomination hands-down because he most closely matches up with what we republicans stand for.
Posted by: Doug on August 11, 2007 08:48 AMIf you honestly believe that Ron Paul is not in favor of Free Trade then you must not have honestly looked at him or have a warped sense of what free trade is. Free trade is not giant agreements between governments. Free trade is not the US government telling other governments what they can and can not do with US exports. Free trade is elliminating US trade barriers which no treaty is needed to do. Ron Paul is in favor of elliminating US trade barriers. IF other nations want to impose high tariffs, that is not ideal but it is not our problem. OF course american businesses would want our government to try and stop it, but US business is not who defines what free trade is.
Ron Paul is for free trade in the truest sense of the word.
If you favor the heavy handed government that Newt Gingrich wants, by all means vote for Newt or someone like him. He had his chance and failed to reduce government in any measureable way. Looking at what you listed as things he supports I can see why!
Travis
Posted by: Travis on August 11, 2007 10:39 AMhttp://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst060605.htm
Posted by: Travis PAhl on August 11, 2007 10:57 AMDoug, I'm not sure we're talking about the same "Ron Paul."
The one I'm talking about is the ten-term Representative who never voted for a tax increase, never voted for an unbalanced budget, always voted pro-life, always opposed socialism in every form, and always stands by his conservative convictions.
At this point, there's only three people who keep checking this thread, so I'm moving on.
But, if anyone wants to see Ron Paul's actual voting record, it's here: http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
Posted by: Kyle Brotherton on August 11, 2007 02:11 PMI said there are some specific subsidies it would be criminal not to support. There are countless instances where the fed changed regulation after someone put there life in debt to acquire a farm. The new regs basically required the farms to put an additional half of the value of the farm into environmental improvements or else they couldn't farm. The feds so kindly have created many a subsidy dealing with situation so that instead of the farmers losing their farms to an illegal siezure of property value, they only lose half or a third, or whatever their portion of the cost-share subsidy is. We could debate ag. subsidies but the main fact is that if you want to convince a political party to vote for a candidate against ag. subsidies you need to look to the urban liberal democrats...the republicans are pro-farm.
I didn't say we needed less subsidies, the subsidies whether they are direct payments or tax breaks, should be targeted to where they are needed at a specific point in time. Maybe we need more subsidies, maybe we need less, at different times either maybe the case. But to say no subsidies are needed as a blank position while the govt. artificially takes away the value of the farm, well, that is going too far.
Newt Gingrich succeeded where Ron Paul failed, he produced a balanced budget. Of course he did it by doing what the Dem. congress under Reagan was supposed to do but failed at and that is just lightly reducing the rate of growth of low multiplier fed. spending. But then again, I don't believe a balanced budget is necessary and should not be required. Some years it may make sense and others it wouldn't, depends on what sort of 'subsidies' the economy needs in order to maximize GDP while keeping inflation in check and people working.
That is not 'heavy handed' government, that is government using gentle pushes here and there, something fiscal conservatives would agree with, but something anarchists or libertarians fail to grasp as being something useful.
His positions on international 'free-trade' is obvious. He is so much opposed to free-trade that he uses silly excuses like giving up sovereignty as a way to oppose it when the true reason he opposes the treaties is simply because the big bad government was the engineer of it. Sometimes in order to support 'free trade' you have to be willing to say that one trading partner is dampening the free excercise and therefore a treaty put in place is okay because it sets the groundwork to prevent that from happening.
Kyle, was it pro-life when he voted against making it a crime to harm a fetus while committing another crime? Or voted against making it a crime to transport a minor across state line for the purpose of obtaining an abortion? If the man never voted for an unbalanced budget then he most heineously failed in his duty to the country. The budgets following 9/11 should have been unbalanced to keep the country from falling into a depression.
Additionally if Paul has never voted for a tax increase then once again he has failed in his job. Taxes should be raised or decreased frequently. Whenever there is a new public need, the taxes to pay for it should come from those who get the benefit, that would require raising a new tax in many situations (which should also allow for a lowering of taxes elsewhere.) It was very much a belief of our founding fathers that those who pay the taxes should be those who benefitted from them.
Posted by: Doug on August 11, 2007 03:18 PMI apologize. I thought you were for less government. Now I realize that you think the government can and should fine tune the economy through regulations, subsidies, and taxes and that if it does it just right everything will be great. Oh and if you have to ignore the consititution to promote your social agenda, that is fine to.
Ron Paul is not your man. I hope you vote for him, but I am sure you will be disappointed with what he does.
Travis
Posted by: Travis on August 11, 2007 09:24 PM