Redstate

I have been thinking of a diary that I will probably pen soon called, "Rethinking John McCain."  I have excepted the Known Fact that McCain can't win the primary for a while now, but the more I talk to independents and watch the out of control spending of Bush, McCain's name does have a certain shine to it.

He gets a lot of crap for the whole "maverick" thing.  But really, how bad is he?  If we put aside sometimes personal dislikes and visceral reactions, how many policy positions is he really "bad" on?  Most people I have heard malign McCain have brought up only two - Campaign Finance and Torture.  The third, the Gang of 14 agreement seems to be a moot point in the President unless someone believes the Gang shows he will not nominate conservative judges.  He's been solid on Iraq and the War on Terror.  He's going forward on real conservatism in budgeting.  He's solid on life.  He appears to be with us on border issues.  I'm not sure why a President McCain would be such a disaster.

Yes, we can all have primary preferences - that's the point of a primary - to pick our most preferred candidate.  But it seems many people are in an "anybody but McCain" posture.  I may not vote for McCain in the primaries, but I certainly wouldn't cry in my dish if he won.  I actually think his nomination would be an easy sell to America - especially if the opposition is a "moderate" Hillary Clinton.  McCain could garner over 320 electoral votes I think (you'd take NH, MN, WI, MI, OR, ME, NJ, PA almost without effort it seems).

I'm unwilling to trade the promise of fiscal responsibility on the part of the President for the CERTAINTY that McCain will continue to attack our civil liberties (CFR) and undermine the war on terror (torture amendment).

McCain is the most dangerous man or woman in the Senate and this Arizona resident will do everything legal to see him defeated in the Republican Primary.  If he wins the nomination, I will work against him no matter who the Dem's nominate.

Should be brought on immediately at OMB or as Treasury Secretary.  The next Administration should have him on the short-list for key Cabinet posts in the fiscal policy/budgeting area.

I wouldn't mind Gramm as president, but I think he would be so much more effective if he could dedicate all his energy to domestic budget issues.  As president he'd have to dedicate considerable energy to foreign affairs and foreign activities in the WoT.  

Hell, let's get him back in the Senate to help Coburn and McCain with their earmark efforts.  Having a fiscal conservative in the White House is a start, but if there's no discipline in the Capitol, then even a bare bones budget from the PResident will come out as an obese, bloated monster at the end of the process.

this guy.

.....a torture amendment is so significant that you'd rather trust your security to Hillary Clinton.

I still don't get it.  Seems that you'd be willing to accept a guy that rates a big fat ZERO (Kerry, Biden, Feingold, Hildebeast), in order to avoid a guy who scores an 80, because what you really want is someone that scores 100.

That kind of mentality is why Republicans will never maintain a secure majority in the long term.  We have too many people who will cut off their nose to spite their face.

Think the Kossacks are going to stay home if Hillary wins the nomination (even though they are sour on her now)?  Don't count on it - they're at least smart enough to know that Hillary is better than a Republican.  We seem to think a Democrat is better than a Republican who isn't "pure."

.....we could rehabilitate Newt's image he wouldn't be a bad choice.  But he does carry some baggage from the post-Revolution phase, the government shutdown, and the "family values" issues that came out around when he stepped down from the Speaker's Chair (his abandoning his first wife and kids for a second wife, etc.).

But, he's got a lot of time to do that.

So the new criteria is pro-life and smaller government. As I agree with the two mentioned I would include GWOT.

Let's be honest. Bush is not a straight conservative. After 5 years we should not be surprised. He is not a liberal but he is not a Pence or Flake on the budget.

Lets' be be honest a true conservative budget has no chance of passing congress.

McCain is pro-life and for smaller government, but he may be the weakest GOP candidate on GWOT.

I would take Guilianni even though is is pro choice than McCain, because of his stance on GWOT.        

I doubt many people here would vote for Hillary over McCain but I think the point of this thread is to spur discussion about the best possible candidate, not immediately settle for the "worst of two evils" scenario. As for who that best option is, I am not sure, Shadegg? :-) Since governors have a better chance at winning, who are some good governors?

If it ended up being a McCain vs Hillary contest you may see her in the White House if a solid conservative runs on a third party ticket.

Lets not give up just yet.

And, yes, i think CFR is enought of an affront to liberty for me to currently think "anyone but McCain" for the primaries.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that Social Security reform is controlling spending? If you reform it the way Bush proposed? Seems to me it would dwarf anyone elses "cuts" in spending, and just how many "conservatives" fought hard for that one?

I'm dissapointed in the upcomming costs from perscription drugs benifits, but all of us who critize its costs, have to be honest and atleast give the Prez some credit for attempting to reign in the size of goverment with Social Security reform.

I received my RNC renewal form.  I sent it back with a letter saying that I would not give any more money to the RNC until the powers that be:

1. Secured our borders
   
2. Stopped the brutal spending

McCain may be many things but he is effective.  The Gang of 14 got us two supreme court justices and most of the other judges that were being held up by the dems.  Their agreement definately worked in our favor.  Also as a veteran I can knock a Vietnam Hero for his stand on torture.  My guess is he has more experience with it than almost anyone posting on here.  

Also I live in NYC and my wife, mother in law, aunt, mother and the rest are firm democrats but have all said they would vote for McCain.  He is someone who if he gets past the primaries can win the white house and will have long coat tails if his first 18 months go well.

1. taxes (voted against every one of Bush's tax cuts -- the onle other GOP Sen to do so was Chaffee)
   
2. Government solving American's problems -- voted with 30 Dem Senators to extend unemployment benefits
   
3. Gun control - gets an F from Gun Owners of America and a C from the NRA
   
4. Helping His Party - after his despicable performance in 2004 (speaking at the RNC, then getting on TV the next day and trumpeting John Kerry's praises), I could see him campaigning against conservative candidates in midterm election.  Heck, he did in CA earlier this year.

John McCain is not a small government politician.  He just wants to control spending in some areas so he can put it into other areas that he likes more -- not so he can give it back to the American people and reduce the federal budget.  Don't kid yourself.  McCain's a disaster.

I think 1996 proved that Gramm lacks the personality to be a presidential candidate.  He couldn't compete with the warmth and telegenic qualities of Bob Dole.  Think about that one for a minute.

Gramm is indeed a guy we should want as the next Treasury Secretary (OMB or Chief of Staff would be beneath him).  As for McCain, the old argument continues:  do we want a guy who opposes big-spending government but supports big-regulating government?

To me, pork is bad, but entitlement reform is where the money is.  That's what I'll be watching, after the make-or-break issues of the War and the courts.

He'll need to do more than that.  When he stepped down he had 60%+ negative ratings, and for good reason.

This guy left his first wife when his affair with a staffer was discovered -- then served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital.  When his affair was made public, his mistress was quoted as saying they only had oral sex, and that Newt preferred it that way because then he could tell his wife he never slept with her.  Sound familiar?

Then he jumps all over Bill Clinton for doing the same thing -- while he is still having another affair!  Talk about hypocrite.

Then he leaves his second wife because, he pointed out, she didn't look like a President's wife should look.

If this is the best we've got to offer America, we're pathetic.  Give me Romney or Pawlenty.  Heck, I'd vote for Lincoln Caffee before I'd vote Newt Gingrich.

I've been as sicked as most here about the growing abominations of earmark spending, Farm Bill(ADM giveaway), energy bill and transporktation bill.

But there was an interesting article in the WSJ on Friday that illustrated that all of the "discretionary" stuff is pretty much a drop in the bucket against the entitlement costs of social security, medicare and medicaid. Defense and Homeland security make up a good chunk, but we can't really ax that stuff- or I guess I should say I don't think we can live with the consequences of axing that stuff.

But we could cut the rest of the discretionary spending off tomorrow and we would still have basically the same mountain of debt towering over us as we look into the future. It would have been nice if someone like Gramm or McCain could have done something different with the Prescription Drug bill that dropped a couple more TRILLION $$ on top of the debt pile, but what's done is done with that and if anyone thinks its getting repealed, good luck.

Bush did try reforming Social Security, I'm not convinced he had the best plan, but it went nowhere anyway.

Bottom line, whether its McCain, Gramm, Gingrich or someone else, unless they are coming to the table with a creative and dramatic way to address the budget entitlement payments, no one is going to do anything that really makes a difference in the bigger picture.

I don't believe that the 'Gang of 14' got us two Supreme Court justices.

Having 55 Republicans in the Senate and one in the White House got us two Supreme Court justices.

And its the secure borders part that makes me leery about mccain.  he seems to be a pro-amnesty guy.

The McCain anti-torture amendment in no way whatsover undermines the war on terror. Anyone who thinks so is indeed of a refresher course on basic morality (see especially: End does not justify means). The McCain amendment actually helps our position by cleansing a serious blemish  on our national reputation and making it more likely others (governments and individuals) will be willing to cooperate with us.

I didn't ask you.  I asked the author of the comment - who seems to assert that he would work to defeat McCain in the general if he won the nomination.

As for Shadegg, history is not with him.  Only one President has gone directly from the House to the White House - James A. Garfield in 1880.  And then, Garfield was not an official candidate - he was a "dark horse" on the 36th ballot that came up only after the more public candidates couldn't pull together the necessary delegates.

I don't feel like I know much about most of the GOP Governors around the country.  I'm recently departed from NY, so I know some of the Northeastern Republicans.  And I can honestly say, I would prefer McCain to any of them.  They're good governors, they have tried to do good things in very liberal states, but they are "conservative" only by the standards of their states, and sometimes not even that.

Any RedStaters want to opine on their own GOP Govs?

Re: McCain is pro-life and for smaller government, but he may be the weakest GOP candidate on GWOT. I would take Guilianni even though is is pchoice than McCain, because of his stance on GWOT.

Huh? McCain has been solidly supportive of the War on Terror. He is a foreign policy hawkand neo-con of the first magnitude and the Kossite leftists hate him. He may have criticized specific tactics, but why shouldn't counterproductive or immoral actions be criticized? If something is hurting the war effort it MUST be brought out into the open for public debate!

...since the day the entire "outrage" over earmarks and the like started to reach public attention (caveat - no one cares - moving on) that it was all a bipartisan effort to distract us all from the real problem - that is, entitlement spending.

The GOP wants to distract us because they've done nothing to fix the problems and, in fact, have made them far worse with Bush's "Viagra for Geezers" program.

The Dems want to distract us because, let's be frank, they've got nothing.  If anything, they want to see these programs (and therefore their natural base of voters) expand, eternally.

That's probably not an original thought on the subject, but I will tie it into the current thread like so: until McCain demonstrates willingness to take-on entitlement spending I can never consider voting in a primary for him - there is just far too much (campaign-finance, "torture" legislation, "no new tax cuts", his willingness to throw his entire caucus under the bus for an easy interview on MTP and a headline in the NT Times) for me to overlook with precious little to recommend him over any other candidate or possible candidate out there.

Disclaimer: I'd like to mention up front that, while I don't align with either political party, I've had a much more favorable attitude toward the Democrats of late (last year or so).

Anyway, why does Newt's personal life matter to you? Why should it matter to me? Why should the public in general be concerned with anything he does that doesn't impair his ability to legislate (or, as president, lead the executive branch)? I see Thomas Jefferson as one of the greatest presidents in this country's history regardless of his sexual indiscretions. Do you find that his infidelty makes him less worthy of respect?

Indeed......generally, non-defense, non-security discretionary spending (i.e. the stuff that isn't entitlement and dictated by statute and formula) only makes up about 25% of federal spending.  I think (i don't have the opportunity to do a search to find a link), the last time I looked at numbers, defense/security spending may have been another 25% and then the other 50% is debt service (interest) and entitlement payments.  Even massive cuts in defense spending wouldn't fix the situation.

And a little off topic - if the government could be trusted (I'm playing the utopian here) to dedicate the money to debt reduction, I would be willing to pay slightly higher tax rates.  Paying down debt would be good in and of itself, but it would also free up money in the future as the amount necessary to pay interest on Treasury securities would decrease.  I feel like that would be a worthwhile investment of my taxes - however, the money would never go to the debt, it would get put in a "trust fund" that would eventually be reappropriated to some new flashy government program that will ultimately fail.

I'm not convinced that McCain is the answer to our woes.  The National Taxpayers Union only gives him a 77 percent on their scorecard.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul of Texas and Jeff Flake of Arizona continue to set the mark on fiscal responsibility, ranking 1 and 2 nearly every year.  I think we might be better served drafting one of them.

Besides, that whole "Straight Talk Express" thing got a little old, didn't it?

I like McCain, actually. You're free not to, of course, but in what way is he attacking civil liberties? And I'm not sure that fighting for a torture amendment equates to undermining the war on terror, so much as keeping us an ethical level above terrorists.

It opens the door wide open to the claim of hypocrisy.  It also would make any talk of values issues seem hollow and give the opposition clear sight lines to attack him.  Should we call foul they would simply point to the "witch hunt" that we conducted against President Clinton.

The problem is not in our personal beliefs about Newt, or even our personal beliefs about his conduct.  This can be placed squarely in a practical nuts and bolts political calculus.  

It's hard to lower a politician's negatives.  It's always easier to run a guy that has low negatives and lots of people with no opinion - you get to form the image people get of the candidate.  Newt already has an image, and for most people, it's not a good one.  He would be our version of Hillary - everybody knows him and lots of people already don't like him.  That doesn't make for a good electoral recipe.

I realize that many conservatives are pro-life, but many are also pro-choice. Conservatism/Republicanism is about smaller government, State power, fiscal responsibility, and keeping the gov't out of people's lives -- isn't it?

McCain is a zero in my book, not an 80. He would be on par with Hillary in an executive role. He is on the wrong side of just about everything.

The NTU site linked above also notes that the average for Republican Senators is only 71.

Also of note, the highest score acheived was only an 89.

And the letter grade assigned to McCain's 77 was a B+.  In fact once you hit 78, according to the report, you get an A (there is apparently no A- grade here).

McCain's score is higher than Sam Brownback (71), and John Cornyn (74).  Rick Santorum only got an 83.  Shadegg got an 81 on the House side.

So a simple declaration that McCain only got a 77 is somewhat misleading.  This isn't the ACU where you know there are at least a few guys in the high 90s if not at 100.  

Now entitlements alone are over half. Medicare/Medicaid is projected to consume as much as 22% of GDP by 2050. Right now the entire federal government collects about 18% of GDP in taxes.

You could eliminate every piece of pork in the budget and it would account for less than 1% of total spending.

Cutting entitlements would leave a lot of people out in the cold. My grandmother had surgery recently that amounted to $60,000. My grandpa just had some, too, that will be at least the same amount. Medicare/-caid helped them pay for it, as it does for many others. Without it, they and my family would have been horked.

Rather than just cutting entitlements, I think it might be better to start with an examination of the healthcare, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries -- the high consumer costs of which create much of the need for entitlement spending. Reform should start there.

Just my two cents.

Old school conservatism might have been.  But in today's political climate, values issues must be included in the issue mix when positioning candidates on the Left/Right spectrum.  Thus, pro-life is now part of the conservative base tenet.

Of course, we're still living in the world of Roe, which leads to a sometimes all-or-nothing view.  If Roe went away we'd have to see what people are comfortable with.  I think in that case conservatism will find a balance near the Right, but maybe not all the way - I think many states will leave some abortion legal, with a great deal of restriction - and conservative may be willing to accept a candidate at that point in the spectrum.

But right now, "pro-choice" is conflated with "pro-Roe" and/or "pro-abortion on demand."  And that's not where any conservatives should be.

the US far more than Hillary.  So, while I won't vote for HRC, I will not vote for McCain.  And given a choice between the two, I will swallow hard and take HRC.

I'm not interested in their "score".  I'm interested in leadership.  I will enthusiastically support Rudy or Condi.  I don't know lots about Allen, but I suspect I would happily support him as well.  McCain is the only Republican candidate on the horizon who I will work against.

I have no confidence in his commitment to the war on terror, to smaller government, or to his commitment to to anything but get "nice" face time on TV.  John McCain is absolutely not to be trusted with the future of the US.  McCain as Pres would have a R Congress that he would likely successfully badger into more outrages like CFR and the TA.  Taxes WILL go up.  That will hurt the economy.  That's just for starters.

HRC would likely face a R Congress as well.  If she could get elected, big "could", she would have minimal to no coattails.  She would not get much of her liberal "want list" through Congress.  Her Presidency would be very unsuccessful at getting legislation enacted, it would likely be a non-starter.

Again, I have no interest in "purity".  I am, however, interested in "sanity" and for that reason I won't support McCain.

I refer you below to mbecker's reponse.  He indeed would prefer Hillary to McCain.

tossed several qualified candidates under the bus.  Were it not for the Go14, Frist would have had to find some manhood and get the filibuster killed.  Then we would have gotten all of the nominees and the silliness would have subsided.

Go14 is just another reason for me to oppose McCain.

How do your D relatives feel about Rudy?  I'd support him in a heartbeat, he's my #1 choice.

you think Reagan was a conservative. He ran, twice, on a platform of overturning Roe. It seems to me that your idea of conservatism is more akin to libertarianism than conservatism.

McCain is not right on embryonic stem cell research if I remember right.  I think it's a misnomer to call him pro-life.  Would probably support him if it weren't for this (and I think I'm far from alone here).

I didnt realize I only was allowed to speak when spoken to!

As for Shadegg, the reason I said that with a smile is that I agree that, being from the House, his chances are pretty slim. Even Senators dont fare too well, that is why I asked about governors. I too do not know much about the available republican governors, which, you can find here, BTW:

http://www.rga.org/Governors/Default.aspx

Working in NY and living in CT I can say, as you probably know, Pataki isnt super conservative and I have to say I dont know much about Rell as she just stepped in for Rowland.

Perhaps it is just that kind of anonimity that allows governors to win the Presidency. That and they can show they have lead as a sole leader of something instead of 1 person out of a group of 100.

That makes sense. So, the general problem people have with his personal behavior stems from its impact on his electability. While you may agree with his policies and legislative judgment, the reality is, in today's electoral environment, he's doomed for failure. You recognize that a large number of voters are concerned with a candidate's personal life and that concern will pose an insurmountable hurdle to Newt's candidacy.

Personally, I find that highlights a troubling fact about the state of today's political discourse. I think the criteria people should use when deciding whether to cast their vote for Newt (or anyone else, for that matter) is whether he is a sound and ethical legislator. I know my attitude will likely be regarded as naive, but why does it have to be? Doesn't the country pride itself as being a meritocracy?! If Newt is the most qualified for his position, why shouldn't the American people elect him!

Just my two cents.

I see every abortion, if not performed to save the life of the mother, as a murder.

I am supporting Rudy for President.

Why is Rudy your number 1 choice?  Why is he so superior to the other people out there being talked about?

Why a guy who twice ran with the endorsement of the Liberal Party of New York (the Conservative Party actually ran someone else in his 1993 race)?

I was merely saying that I hadn't accused you of prefering Hill to McCain.  My question was directed to the author.  I actually think most people would be behind McCain if he won.  But it doesn't take many mbeckers in too many places to change a result.

Ok. I can see his logic, dont know if I agree, or maybe I am just really hoping I wont be faced with that choice!

So mbecker and possibly zuiko are a Hillary vote. You and Oz are a McCain vote. Even so far.

on your support for Rudy, given your position on abortion? Because frankly I'm confused, and genuinely curious.

I think a pro-life attitude is generally associated with being a conservative. However, I don't think it's necessarily a tenet. My impression is that an outspoken minority -- a large minority, but still a minority -- have made it a central issue, causing the association. I don't share their beliefs, but I'm not making a jab at anyone with those views at all. I just don't think that pro-life and conservatism go (or should be seen as going) hand-in-hand. At the least, I don't think it should be seen as the top issue under consideration, one for which everything else can be sacrified in order to satisfy.

Again, no jabs meant.

anyone has actually advocated "cutting" entitlements. Bush wanted to means test Social Security payments, but supposedly the personal accounts would have allowed people to get an equivalant amount in total- not sure I'm that confident it would have worked out that way, but that waas the theory.

Entitlement spending will grow no matter what, the best hope is managing the rate of growth. I haven't seen much in the way of ideas to reduce medical costs. The only thing I have heard is the HSA program, and while I see a lot of merit with HSAs, I'm not sure how it really would slow Medicare/Medicaid spending growth. HSA's I think, would hopefully have a positive impact on the medical costs of people that now have other insurance or would like to have high deductible insurance.

The few positive moves I have seen have been things along the lines of ending the ability for Seniors to shield assets, move into nursing homes and have Medicaid pickup the tab. But this stuff is just nibbling around the margins. Maybe the best hope is that if enough of these smaller opportunities for savings can be indentified, the future entitlement cuts will merely be very painful rather than outright disasterous.

Do you have a link to stats?  I'd be interested in knowing where the percent of budget numbers can readily be found.  Didn't realize entitlements were over 50% (does your source define entitlements because some places I've seen lump debt interest in as an "entitlement" because there is nothing other than default that Congress can do to change the number).

and i thank you for the obscure Garfield reference info that will come in useful when I am on Jeopardy.

I've been trying to figure out why some conservatives hate McCain so much.  All I can come up w/ is that he believes in using the media to his advantage rather then the usual conservative method of whining about how biased the MSM is (and I'm not saying it isn't).

Of course campaign-finance was bad, but Bush signed it into law.  If anything he should get worse gardes for that b/c he knew it was wrong and did it anyway, whereas McCain at least truly believed in what he was doing.  If people are going to start raging about the torture amendment, how about spreading the hate to people like Allen, Santorum, and Brownback who signed on?

I probably won't vote for McCain in the primary (unless it were to get down to a McCain v. Rudy or McCain v. Condi race), but I'd be happy to vote for him in November if he wins.  He'd probably be a better president then Bush has been.

You're obviously extremely pro-life, yet, if I'm reading your post correctly, you support Rudy because he supports traditionally conservative values, correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Their site is subscriber only. It was broken out as:

• Medicare/Medicaid $582bln
  
• Social Security $550bln
  
• Other Entitlements (like federal pensions) $300bln
  
• Debt Service $217bln
  
• Defense/DHS $529bln
  
• Discretionary (everything else) $470bln.

(Projected FY2006)

I can live with McCain's record on guns and his vote to extend unemployment benefits (a compassionate society helps those who are in need).  I dont like the McCain-Feingold, but i do like his stance on Life and faith issues.  About him not supporting the Tax cuts? We need to stop runaway spending before we go back to tax cuts. How about we start cutting oil, airlines and farms subsidizes?

I'm a McCain vote if he is the Republican candidate (unless Zell Miller somehow manages to slip past onto the Democrat ticket).

I'm really at a loss for who to vote for in the primaries though.  I lived in New York City under Mayor Guiliani.  I thought he was a fantastic mayor.  I thought he handled the 9/11 crisis brilliantly.  But I am not convinced that any of it will translate into a solid presidency.  

Rudy is a Liberal.  He did not receive Conservative Party support in his mayoral elections - he did however receive Liberal Party support.  He is for law and order - good, but that's a local thing - are we sure that wiull translate into sealing the borders?  I'm not.  He is for more efficient government - also good, but let's not mistake that for smaller government.  I think Rudy is very much inclined to the welfare state programs - now as a Mayor that's okay - I'm not anti-social program.  I am anti-federal social programs - that kind of activity is best left to be constructed at the city level to best meet local needs.

And biggest of all, he's pro-choice.  Now I'm not really a big "abortion issue guy" and I really could care less.  But, when the chips are down, are we going to wind up getting judicial nominees who are like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito?  Or are we going to populate the courts with O'Connors and Kennedys and Souters?  I just cannot see a President who in his heart is pro-choice appointing judges that even have the potential to overturn Roe.  

At least I know that McCain isn't going to chicken out on judges just because they might reverse some of the travesties that have been inflicted on us by the Imperial Judiciary.

Judges may be the single most important issue - a President can be removed after 4 years.  He can screw up a lot in that time, but most of it can be repaired (hell, we're even managing to undo all of the awful things Clinton did to our security in 8 years) by the next guy.  On the other hand, that President's judges will be affecting our lives for decades after he's gone and could do far worse damage to the basic precepts the country was founded on.

Hence, I will take McCain over Rudy any day of the week.  But, I know there has to be someone solid on judges who doesn't have McCain's baggage.  Somebody tell me where he is!

Does anyone know where she stands on issues?

I know she is obviously very marketable, very intelligent and besides national security I do know she is pro 2nd Amendment, but other than that, anyone know?

At least I know that McCain isn't going to chicken out on judges just because they might reverse some of the travesties that have been inflicted on us by the Imperial Judiciary.

You mean like appointing judges that will support his restrictions on political speech? I don't trust either McCain or Rudy on judges. I don't expect it to come down to that anyway.

While I can see the logic of voting in Hillary as a catalyst for gridlock I dont necessarily think Rudy is the best choice either. Actually, if I went into it I would just be repeating what you said. I live in the area too, saw what Dinkens did to the city and thought Rudy was amazing. I think he fit well in NYC and you have to be somewhat liberal if you ever want to be elected there. I agree it wont cross over well nationally, well, in a primary. He wont make it past that. Being a former DA he is a good law and order guy. But, yes, otherwise pretty moderate. Now, if he DID make it past the primaries I know a lot of Ds that would vote for him in a heartbeat.

Of course this all is based on who would oppose him. As for Zell, funny I was thinking of him but he would never make it on the D ticket. I think his appearance at the R convention has blacklisted him from the D house. too bad.

you have a great point about the court. I want a scalia there, and my views of Roe are a states rights view, not the subject matter itself. but i just fear a man who sees no problem in CFR and what unreversible things he may do in his tenure. Look at the unreversible things Bush has done: signing CFR, pushing the Prescription Program, etc. Ugh!

I join you in asking "Someone tell me where he is?"

You are right of course so far as that goes.

But for some of us who came late to the party, pro-life is one of, if not, THE top issue as a Republican and as conservatives.

You don't have to feel that way and there are a few people who might let Rudy slide on his issues, but a lot of us are going to include this.

in '08, but the 1996 Gramm campaign was hardly fiscally responsible....  blew 25+M in record time.

I think Phil is great, but made for a fiscally irresponsbile candidate (many of his consultant robbed him blind, but buck stops with the guy running)

I disagree with the premise.  

My main problem with "personal issues" is that negative ones generally mean the person is a scumb bag.  These elected officials are role models, whether we like it or not.  We should be able to put them up on a pedestal and not having to worry about hypocrisy.  

according to comments she has made in the past.

Personally, I'm not sure she would be up for the campaigning and I'd feel very nervous voting for her in a primary when she's never campaigned for anything (see Elizabeth Dole's presidential campaign for details).

1. Fiscally conservative
   
   
2. Strong on GWOT
   
   
3. Conservative judges (implied pro-life/pro-traditional marriage)
   
   
4. Stong on stopping illegal immigration

So far, there doesn't seem to be a single candidate that covers all of these .. other than Mark Sanford .... and he's not running.

If Mark Sanford WAS running, then I think he'd be a cinch for me to follow/give money to.

One of the reasons I like conservatism, though, is it's focus on individual rights, and on keeping the government out of people's lives. I had originally attributed that tenet to the Democratic party, because it seemed to me as if the Republicans in power were trying to get gov't to enforce a particular way of thinking regarding things such as abortion, gay rights, and the like.

Hence, I was surprised to learn that such things were not characteristic of fundamental conservatism, but had rather come recently, likely from the rise of the evangelical conservatives (starting back with the Moral Majority, I believe). I find it somewhat inconsistent with the focus of conservatism on keeping the gov't out of people's lives, though.

I'm not saying that there's not a rationale that can reconcile the two views. I just haven't found it yet -- which is not meant as an offense to those who have.

.....let's dump number 4 for the moment as immigration seems to be the place where lots of Republicans get weak in the knees.

Are there any known candidates who are good on the other three points?  Everybody that is generally talked about is either bad at one of them, or is too much of an unknown as to issues to get a good idea about it.

I reconcile the ideas by distinguishing between levels of government.

Honestly, I'm against most efforts by Congress or the federal government to enforce or impose laws or policies that seem a little bit too heavily based in morality arguments.  My thinking is that the country is very big and is supposed to allow for differences of opinion and even of social mores.  To impose "one size fits all" legislation is absurd - and many conservatives routinely decry such rules when they are economic in nature, or lead to rigidity in traditionally local spheres (like education policy).  So we should be no more keen on seeing such rules imposed by Congress in other areas.

"Morality legislation" like abortion and marriage are best left to states (and even better local governments) so that people can pick and choose what kind of "government intervention" they're willing to live with.

State and local government know better what is best for the people they live near (and most local lawmakers live much more closely amongst their constituents).  And sometimes the public thinks some "interference" by the government isn't so bad.  I'm willing to allow them that.

Part of the problem is that federal rules have been created in order to head off federal judges who wish to turn most "values issues" into constitutional case law.  If Congress could feel comfortable that federal judges weren't going to wipe out the efforts of localities to govern, then maybe they wouldn't feel the need to muck around in many of these areas.  So in a way judicial overreaching has caused tension in conservative principles in order to preserve self-government (as opposed to the oligarchy of the black robes).

What about Mitt Romney? He turned around a $600 million deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus without raising taxes in Taxachussetts. He has governed from a neutral stance on abortion in a blue state, but he has fought back on gay marriage and cloning. He is head of the NGA. He turned around the 2002 Olympics from disgrace and financial ruin into a $100 million profit and a secure first Olympics after 9/11. He serves on the Homeland Security task force. His Mormon religion may be an issue with some people, but he is on the same side as conservatives and evangelicals in the culture wars. Why not Mitt?

is certainly a possiblity for the points you raise.  I also think he has the potential to be very solid on life issues.  People not from the northeast don't realize what a feat it is to get elected to statewide office without promising abortion on demand for everyone.  

The issues I see here are on foreign policy, where he's basically a blank slate, and on immigration, where his pro-business tilt makes me worried he's a supporter of guest worker amnesty.

He isn't bad on #4 either.

a (D) spending $5.4T?

I have noticed during the past 5 years that the President takes very much heat for not being fiscally conservative enough.  However, no one mentions how fiscally conservative the alternatives to President Bush are.

Hasnt the President (and Congress) been spending a lot more compared to when Clinton was in office?

I'm talking domestically, taking Defense spending out of the equation.

Romney has been on the Homeland Security Advisory Council since 2003. While this may not be a very public role, it certainly means he understands the world stage.

He's electable. He's a Governor. He's the closest thing to a true Conservative that we have so far in this race (check out his health care plan for Massachussets). He's got charisma. He's a retail politician. He may not be perfect, but we just can't take any chances this time around. Someone like Mitt Romney who's been effective in business, in the non-profit sector, in elective politics and in governance is just what we need.

To the poster saying that they would support Giuliani despite being pro-life himor herself:  I'm curious as to how this isn't THE overriding issue for you.  1.5-2 million (I think that's the number) of abortions per year, every year.  That number of people killed far outweighs any other issue.  If you think of it as a major metropolitan area being nuked every year, with no survivors, the issue is put in perspective a bit.

As for the poster who says that the federal government shouldn't be making overriding moral decisions with the law, I ask, what is the reason we have laws, then?  Moral relativism doesn't work!  You have to have laws against things that are wrong or human nature, as the Founders well knew, will seek the lowest point.

I am all for decentralizing the power of government, but there are some things that, apparently, need to be spelled out at a national level.  The reason this is true is that people try to invent rights that never existed and to twist the Constitution.

To use your example:  The Founders never would have thought that 2 dudes would want to get married, otherwise I'm sure they would have put a prohibition in the Constitution.  But now we have people acting like that is something realistic (and a right no less!) and not something just created out of whole cloth.  The Netherlands has just discovered the right of THREE people to get married.  Ridiculous you say?  I'm sure the Founders would have felt the same about gay "marriage."

We need overarching national laws in some cases because of the lunacy out there.

These all sound like great points, conservative points. There's got to be something else about him that hasnt been mentioned, I mean, how did he bamboozle the comrades in Massachussetes SSR to vote for him?

I would never have believed that you would support Rudy over McCain.

I love Rudy, and I believe that his shot at the GOP nom is much better than people think. This is due to the fact that I believe a brand new

"Conservative Rudy" will be unveiled around 12/2006 or 1/2007.

But as it stands right now, Rudy is not close to being as conservative as John McCain.

Gramm 96 was ugly.  Phil, like Dick Cheney, is a dream candidate for our true believers but has no ability to win the republican nomination.  I don't think he won 3% of any primary.  Steve Forbes got off to a great start as a flat tax magazine cover boy and then Bob Dole grinded him down.  Pat Buchanon and Lamar Alexander got on the radar screen.  Gramm was a complete non-entity.  And if anything, the timing should have been great, just a year after we took over congress.  

But Treasury secretary....now that would be wonderful!

1. He discovered that he was Pro-Life about 15 minutes ago
   
2. He's a Mormon, which wouldn't prevent me from supporting him, but other prople feel it would cost him votes in the general election.
   
3. He would not win his home state and brings no region of the country with him in the general election. There is no part of the US that is "in the bag" if we nominate Romney.

He is very photogenic/charismatic. He has some great ideas. But many people feel he's DOA in a general election.

I wasn't too fond of Phil when he was in office. Toward the end of his political career he was sounding like the Party line enforcer goons that he so rightfully despised when he was a freshman congressman.  However he was a true fiscal conservative, something that is truly rare these days.  Just about every congressman you talk to will tell you he fiscally responsible, But if you look at their actions, you either have Republican Spend and Borrow or Democratic spend and tax.

                       Michael Greb

Is no matter who the POTUS is, we have entitlement spending on autopilot, growing much faster than either inflation or the economy. Fixes here will be extremely painful. The prescription drug bill may easily end up being the biggest mistake of his presidency because it escalates this.

He's good on #1 and #2.  (Disagrees with the way Bush sold the Iraq War, but not with the war itself.)

On #3, while he talks a soft line, I think his actions in the Mass. Gay marriage fiasco shows that when it comes to it, we can count on him to be on the side of the angels. (He is definately against activist judges).

#4- I don't really know what Mitt's position on this is.  (Which might be a political plus).  However, I do know he has made efforts to replace this bilingual education (a misnomer for teaching kids in Spanish only classes) with accelerated English courses followed by mainstreaming.  What his position on immigration itself I don't know, but he seems commited to actually assimilating the immigrants who are here.

He was a lame-duck from the moment he got elected (the Democrats have complete control of the state house and senate) - while I'm sure he'd claim the MA recovery was all his doing, he just doesn't have the power to push much of anything that the Dems don't already agree with.  He's wishy-washy on life issues - he was a loonnnggg way from hard pro-life during the election.  He spent an awful lot of time badmouthing the commonwealth while out of state campaigning for W... I know, just politics, but that isn't the behavior I want to see in a leader.

And BTW, what's with that oh-so-stale "taxachusetts" moniker? ;-) Was (very) apt for a while but nowadays we've got a flat tax in the middle of the pack.

Too bad.  I wonder how many good people don't run because they can't bring themselves to bow to their parties litmus test issues.

If anything McCain is more of a Hawk on the GWOT than Dubya. When it comes to the actual prosecution of the war, McCain's criticisms are more along the lines of him wishing we where more aggressive in our tactics. His comments on what we should do in the "Sunni Triangle" are a great example of this. It mostly stems from his Vietnam experience and him not wanting us to wage a battle where we fight not to lose instead of fighting to win.  

I'm not going to argue whether abortion is right or wrong. Whether someone thinks it's murder or not is that person's choice; you do, so go ahead and oppose it if you want. All I'm saying is that pro-life is not originally a conservative issue, as I see it. It's a religious issue that has become attached to the political and fiscal tenets of traditional conservatism.

If you want to make it the single most-important issue for you, feel free. I don't think that's good for the party as a whole, though, because it makes for a pretty single-minded platform and it limits your political options.

> but there are some things that, apparently, need to be spelled out at a national level

-- No offense, but those "things" are just your personal sense of morality, and at least half the country disagrees with you. So why should the government enforce it? How can you reconcile a policy of limited national government with a national government that interferes in someone's married, sexual, and reproductive rights?

Again, I'm not saying one point of view is right or wrong, I'm just saying that "individual rights" and "limited gov't" are core conservative tenets that seem in conflict with certain social issues.

> "I'm sure the Founders would have felt the same about gay "marriage.""

-- Maybe. I'm not going to speak for the Fathers. Oh, they also thought it was OK to have slaves. Different times.

> "We need overarching national laws in some cases because of the lunacy out there."

-- Again, what you perceive as lunacy appears normal to at least half the population. It's just personal differences and beliefs, dude. Go ahead and believe what you want and fight for it; more power to you. I just don't think it's properly in the conservative "manner" to get government to force others to adopt your lifestyle or set of beliefs.

Is that he would micro-manage it, LBJ style. Not a good idea.

Democrats pretty much control the Mass. Government, so the people of Mass. have a habit of electing Republican Governors to act as speed bumps for their liberal legistlature.

Also, Romney promised a "freeze in place" of abortion laws as an sort of "truce" in the abortion debate.  This sounds pretty bad until you learn that Mass. has a parental notification law (I can't remember if Mass. law requires permission, or only notification), and that Romney's opponent was running on a platform of eliminating the parental notification law.

1. He is personally pro-life, but he governs in a pro-choice state. It's one of the compromises you have to make to get elected in a blue state. None of the top-shelf GOP candidates has a stellar pro-life record. McCain, Giuliani, Allen have all had questionable conservative stands at one point.
   
2. Yeah, and being a Catholic was supposed to cost Kennedy. The evangelicals will realize that while they may not worship with him, he is with them on the social agenda. And he's the only candidate in the race who is a current executive fighting against the libs on social issues. He's earned it.
   
3. He would not win Massachussets, but he has deep support in the Northeast and the Southwest. How can you question the electability of the Republican Governor of Taxachussets?

He would be the anti-Hillary. He's had executive success, business success, non-profit success. He has a health-care plan that is the polar opposite of Hillary Care. I think once he gets some attention, he'll roll. Look at the comparisons between Governor Romney and Governor Reagan.

I've never heard anyone say that Romney is DOA in the general election.  I've heard quite a few arguments that he can't win the primary. Mainly because of suspicions about his pro-life credentials, or because newsmen think evangelicals won't vote for a Mormon.

The 3rd point is fallacious.  One of the more atractive things about Mitt Romney is that the Romney name has a lot of pull in Michigan.  A prennial swing state that Dems can't win without.

His Mormon faith won't hurt him there; in fact, most evangelicals know and would probably acknowledge that Mormons, as a group, are more reliably social conservatives than they themselves are.

His "pro-choice" history is hard to reconcile with with his religion. Even the most liberal elected Mormons (Harry Reid, for instance) at least pay pro-life lip service. It certainly seems true that an open pro-lifer would have had difficulty getting elected in Mass. in the first place -- a pro-lifer (Mitt has always been "personally pro-life", just like Kerry) who seeks public office there has to make some compromises.

I like Mitt, but, given his past friendliness toward abortion, I'd need certain specific assurances before I could support him whole-heartedly:

1. Assurance that he will seek to appoint originalist judges
   
   
2. A pledge to sign a bill banning PBA (should Congress pass one), and to have his DoJ vigorously defend it
   
   
3. A pledge to oppose public funding of abortion, here or abroad.

There are only a few ways the president can effect abortion policy, but they're big ones. If he's willing to give the assurances I need, I could see myself supporting him unreservedly.

P.S.: Rudy would need to give the same assurances.

I think that this may be another lesson that McCain has learned from Vietnam.

So perhaps Romney wins NH and Maine in the Northeast? That's 8 electoral votes total.

I stand by my assessment of him lacking a true regional base.

He would also lose multiple southern states to Mark Warner.  

The so-called anti-torture bill and his continuous second guessing of troop levels are two indications that he might go this way. The lesson he learned from Vietnam is probably that LBJ couldn't do it... not that he couldn't pull it off. Maybe he wouldn't end up being a micro-manager... but I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on it either.

...but perhpas by then we will be arguing about troop levels in Meshed and Tehran instead.

Surely, sir, you must know McCain cannot win the South.

As a Southern Conservative Republican, I will not vote for McCain in the Primary and... should he win the primary, I shall not vote for him in the General Election.  

If A third Party runs a truly conservative canidiate, I would cast my vote for THAT candidate instead.  

This is the best shot Hillary has.  Hillary will win... IF... it is a face off between her and McCain.

YOS,  

Longstreet

Like I said before.  The Romney name still has pull in Michigan.  Michigan is an extremely important state in Presidential elections.

Romney would also solidify Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado.

I don't know if Warner could swing that many Southern states.  I'm pretty sure he could only pick off Virgina, and maybe a few border states like Arkansas. I don't think it will be enough to make up for Michigan.

Warner would be a difficult Democrat for Romney to beat, but that's because it would be difficult for any Republican to beat a popular Southern Governor.  

Romney does have one major advantage against Warner.  I can see the campaign ads now:  "Gov. Warner faced a (exact numbers here) budget deficit in Virgina, he raised taxes to eliminate it.  Gov. Romney faced a (exact number, higher than the Virgina deficit) budget deficit in Mass. he kept his promise to not raise taxes, and balanced the budget by cutting governmnet waste."

That argument will play well all over the country.

That's more than 8 electoral votes (although I won't sneeze at Maine and NH, either).

I'm not convinced that the south won't rally behind Romney if he campaigns as a genuine Republican and supports the whole platform. I guess you're assuming that Warner would be doing his Clinton impression, and you might be right ... but I think the last few decades have seen the importance of regional ties on a declining trend in presidential elections (let's all bow our heads and thank Al Gore for the interwebs) ... and I think Romney can pull it off.

NH, Delaware, South Carolina, Arizona and Michigan are all traditional first-in-the-nation primary states.

If Romney can win NH, followed closely by an affirming win in DE (before you scoff, Bush used DE to bounce back from losing in NH in 2000), finish top 2 in SC, and then top 2 in AZ & win MI, you're looking at the GOP nominee, unless McCain wins AZ & SC, in which you'll have a 2-man race. And I'll take the guy with executive experience over the guy without it any day.  

Also, he'll definitely win Utah. And in the general, he may not deliver MA, but he can deliver AZ & MI.

I once read that a football coach said, for the first part of a season a team can say that they are better or worse than what their record indicates;but by the last quarter or so of the season, the team is reflected by their record.

Wishing for Phil or for the good ole days won't help the fact our president and our majorities in both houses are blunderers.  There have been no meaningful attempt to control spending or the growth of government.   We are five years in to #43 and there hasn't been a veto from the GOP president and the GOP congress has always been willing to spend on a tab.

The only hope may be divided government.

He'll be hard to beat in any state with a large LDS population. Nevada is an iffy proposition for Republicans ever four years. A Romney candidacy would seal it up.

"How can you reconcile a policy of limited national government with a national government that interferes in someone's married, sexual, and reproductive rights?"

First, you are assuming abortion is a right.  You are assuming the right of 2 people of the same sex to "marry" is a right.  Is euthanasia or suicide a right?  My point is that there are certain fundamental things, some of which (as in the case of a marriage definition) may need to be addressed by an amendment, that lay the groundwork for all our other rights.  To argue that you can't have overarching laws for the entire nation while still having limited government is to argue against the Constitution itself.

My point is this, keep those rights that defend life (and don't make up some phony extension of the right to privacy), liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness ensconced on a national level.  Give the rest of the powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the states.

I'll try to keep my response shorter this time to focus the argument.

that the experience of the last thirty years would have ended that sort of foolish talk from republicans.

  You need to rethink this. LOW TAXES are a bird in the hand!, LOWER BUDGETS are just vaporware. Deficits are the only thing that gets them even thinking about spending cuts. No amount of extra tax money will solve the problem because they will JUST SPEND IT ALL!.

   NEVER EVER EVER be against a tax cut.

Toward the end of his political career he was sounding like the Party line enforcer goons that he so rightfully despised when he was a freshman congressman.

Name one example please of Gramm acting the part of Party line goon?  Talk about a comment that is devoid of any truth.

Someone had 2 say it

Abortion will likely be a decided factor by '08.  It will be decided in one of a couple of ways.  Bush appoints another justice, Roe is overturned (I don't think it will be given the current makeup of the court).  In that case, the question of abortion will be returned to the states.  Some states may vote to outlaw the procedure.  Most will simply increase regulation, ie: no partial birth, no late term, parental notification, etc.

If Roe is not overturned, I believe the current court will allow the states significantly more room to regulate.  No partial birth, parental notification, etc.  The result will be close to Roe being overturned.

In NO INSTANCE will abortion be outlawed in the US (unfortunately, IMO).  That would require SCOTUS to declare the procedure unconstitutional and I can't see that happening, even with me filling the next vacancy (I'm not a lawyer or a judge & if nominated I would likely come to my hearing armed.)  There won't be a Constitutional Amendment forbidding abortion either.  Won't pass the States, won't get 2/3 of the House, and the Senate is a non-starter.  So, we're back to increased regulation.  I'll take that because I can get that.

Now, as to Rudy.  He understands Leadership 101.  He knows how to work the Moonbats, NYC is awash in them.  He has no qualms about putting on the brass knuckles and kicking tail if necessary (Bush hasn't and won't).  He understands the role of government probably better than any of the other names frequently mentioned (certainly McCain) because he's been a local official.

As for some quick points:

• He will vigorously prosecute the war on terror, Rudy will take NO prisoners.  
• He will be better on the budget than Bush because the House Republicans seem to be getting the message.  
• He has phenomenal credibility pretty much everywhere because he is viewed as "America's Mayor".  He's got at least 10 more years to ride that horse.
• He knows how to choose good people who will work with him and work together.
• He knows how to delegate.
• He won't take guff from the mayors and governors (Nagin/Blanco).
• He has a better shot than anyone at getting the Senate into line.
• He's a known quantity and is very well respected by international leaders.

There are two issues that McCain possibly is better than Rudy, spending and pro-life.  And realistically, the President won't likely be able to make all that much difference on spending and I see Roe as a non-issue.  Given McCain's knowns on issues like CFR, etc it's a no-brainer for me.

The other open question is judicial appointments.  If Bush makes one more, it's a moot point.  Conservatives will have a 5-4 edge on virtually every issue that matters.  If he doesn't, I expect the Senate will remain in Republican control and Rudy won't be nominating Ginsgerg2.  As far as McCain's possible appointments, I can't see how anyone can draw a reasonable assumption of what they might look like.  

I simply do not trust McCain's judgement on important issues.  I do trust Rudy.

We've won.  See my post above for more detail that I won't repeat here, but the bottom line is that abortion will NOT be nationally outlawed.  It will be heavily regulated by the various states.  Abortion will cease to be a federal issue for pro-life voters, it may become THE issue for pro-abortion voters who demand NO regulation at all.  They will lose.

I can support Rudy with a clear conscious because of the above.  With abortion as settled as it's going to get, Rudy is the best LEADER of the bunch.

The McCain amendment opens the US military up to nuisance lawsuits from the ACLU.

While the whole thing is vain and unnecessary, the serious problem is with its flippant use of the word "degrading", which opens up all sorts of bad legal avenues.

Getting Republicans to govern like Republicans is what we need.

www.clubforgrowth.org

Newt's not good for the top of the ticket.

He'd make an excellent VEEP though, esp. if the opponent is Hillary Clinton and the subject is Health Care.

Considering there's yet no concrete reason to be confident that there are any more votes to overturn Roe on this year's court than there were on last year's court, you have descended into rose-colored-glasses territory with that pronouncement.

There is still a "living constitutionalist" majority on the court, and the next presidential race takes on an extra quantum of importance because of it.

To me, and many others, abortion and marriage are personal choices, as is the right to die with dignity. I can understand and even empathize but not agree with the abortion arguments I've heard, but I can't possibly conceive of a reason why the government should be able to tell someone whom they can marry and when they can die. That's a private thing and no else's business -- especially the gov't's.

Now, you don't agree with any of that, and that's fine. You have strong opinions and are free to express them. My concern arises when people with strong opinions think that those opinions are the absolute and only right way to do things -- and then, rather than sway others to their point of view with the strength of their arguments, they try to get the government to enforce their opinions on the entire population. (I'm talking in general here, not about you in particular.)

Liberals are guilty of that kind of thing, too. The point (of my original posting, anyway) is that conservatism is supposed to be about the sanctity of individual rights and privacy. You may argue that there are fundamental things that are NOT individual rights and which the national government needs to enforce. However, I argue that those things are fundamental only to your particular set of beliefs (as evidenced by the fact that a large number of people don't share your views), and as such, are not something in which the gov't needs to interfere.

will allow states to regulate abortion.  The difference between that and overturning Roe is on the margins.

Overturning Roe will NOT outlaw abortion.  That will require a federal law, a SCOTUS decision declaring abortion to be murder or a Constitutional Amendment.  Federal law will never get thru the Senate, I'm not sure about the House, but it would be DOA in the Senate.  SCOTUS declaration isn't going to happen.  That law would be every bit as bad as Roe, even though I like the outcome.  As a side note, SCOTUS wouldn't do it with 4 more Alitos.  Constitutional Amendment would not get 2/3 (or is it 3/4) of the States, of the House or the Senate.  It's a non-starter.

We are left with nibbling at the edges through regulation.

What makes you so confident he'll be a reliable fifth vote to uphold restrictions?

Yes, reportedly he felt betrayed by the majority in Stenberg v. Carhart, and some think he may be disposed to accept further restrictions as a result, but his history speaks otherwise.

Both Roberts and Alito have shown a propensity to rule very narrowly, so, although we're not likely to see them vote for facial challenges to abortion restrictions to be upheld (as in Ayotte), this doesn't mean the "undue burden" standard is dead, either ... and, don't forget, Kennedy was one of the authors of this onerous test.

The struggle to return to state legislative control of abortion will be a difficult and a long one, and we've barely taken the first step.

The government is going to grow anyway. The lack of available funds does constrain growth, even if the current conventional wisdom says it doesn't. Does anyone think we would be talking about entitlement cuts right now if there was a surplus? Or if the budget was balanced? No way. We would be looking for fun and exciting new entitlements to roll out. Or more places to build bridges to nowhere. There's plenty of places to spend money. Even with the deficit as it is, we will be lucky if we see any meaningful cuts on the entitlement side.

is that Roe is moot.

Is to get someone in the WH that doesn't try to triangulate on the Democratic issues. That's how we end up with prescription drugs and CFR. With the exception of the tax cuts, he might as well be a clone of his dad on domestic issues... that is not a compliment.

and the current court is not going to moot them.

have a track record as persuaders.  Roberts has spent his career as a litigator before the Court and understands better than any of the Justices the need to craft decisions that will assemble a majority.

Alito's career on the Circuit appears to be one of a judge who could craft an argument that the other judges could find points of agreement with.  Obviously, we need to see how that carries over to the SCOTUS but his record is very encouraging to me.  Especially, when paired with Roberts.

I believe this is a huge change in the Court because up until now, "conservative" opinions were generally crafted by Scalia and Thomas.  Neither of them appear to me to be bridge builders to a consensus.  

I believe that Kennedy can be swayed by Roberts and Alito where he would be put off by S&T.

With my personal right to shoot anybody that is disrespectin' me. It's a private thing and nobody else's business -- unless they also want to get capped. Don't be giving me any of that "murder is wrong and the government needs to interfere in my business" stuff. That isn't the only right way to do things in my 'hood.

If you believe a unborn child qualifies as a human life at some point before birth (I draw the line at viability), there is no personal right at stake at that point.

Or I'm misunderstanding you. Either way, my argument is that even if Roe is overturned, it's legality will just become a state issue, and many states will opt to keep it legal. Ending Roe won't end abortion, because abortion is not illegal under the constitution.

It also assumes that some kind of real decision comes out of the court on the issue before too long. Too many of their decisions seem to be non-decisions that don't make a whole lot of sense and don't do much to clarify the issue. Especially on more controversial issues. At least O'Conner is gone which might help in that department.

but ... but ... you've already popped the cork on the celebratory champagne!

I sincerely hope you're right, and that the next challenge to a state's PBA or parental notification statute will be forcefully rebuffed by a majority of the court. But what about statutes that are more restrictive? Do you have confidence that this court would uphold a state's statute limiting abortions after the first trimester? Or a federal law outlawing transport over state lines of a minor for the purpose of obtaining an abortion?

Are you sincerely suggesting that the whole battle has been won? Is it Miller time?

Shooting someone is not a "private" or "personal" thing, because it involves a party who presumably did not consent to be shot. Hence, it most assuredly IS someone else's business.

will not outlaw abortion, and that if control is returned to state legislatures, that some states will not impose any restrictions.

But Roe, Casey, and Stenberg are still the law of the land, and control hasn't been returned to state legislatives.

So what's with all the popping of corks?

Random Joe,

Glad we can at least be respectful on this board though we disagree.  To counter your last post, I would say that you have to have a moral right and wrong (or "one way of doing things" as I believe you put it), or you end up with society based on moral relativism.  Others I'm sure would argue that drugs and prostitution should be legal as well.

I would also argue that "we" are not the ones trying to force beliefs on anyone.  "You" are the ones trying to force your beliefs on everyone else (i.e. abortion IS an option, it IS an option to kill someone off when their "quality of life" is deemed "unacceptable," etc.).

I'll give you the last word since I'm sure we could go back and forth about this for a long time.  I will add this: In you opinion is a severely handicapped child's quality of life too poor to keep going?  Some people think so, and it's frightening.

Last year seeing Pope John Paul II demonstrate how someone can positively affect others even in the way they approach death was a lesson for me.  Human life has value from beginning til end!  I guarantee you that all of us can learn a lot from people that are not as physically and mentally gifted as we are.  I'm also sure that people more physically and mentally gifted than we are have thought the same thing about us.

Why is one a private matter and the other not?

I'm just sayin'... don't force your beliefs on me and don't try to tell me that "that [your] opinions are the absolute and only right way to do things."

Abortion involes a party who presumably did not consent to being poisoned or having his skull crushed and brains sucked out. It most assuredly IS someone else's business.

That may have been a purposeful compromise position, given O'Connor's imminent departure and the inordinate delay in confirming Alito.

The next challenge will likely tell us more about the direction this court intends to travel.

It's just debatable whether a fetus is a human or a life.

I figured someone would make that argument.

See my previous post. The difference is whether you consider a fetus a life or not.

I fear this is now going to turn into a philosophical argument about the basis of life. This thread might not be the appropriate place for that.

I was just trying to clarify what I thought might have been a misinterpretation of someone else's post. Probably shouldn't have stuck my nose in that particular case, though...

I'm pretty confident that the reproductive issue of two humans will be human. I'd love to hear what you think the alternative might be.

If it weren't life, I don't think there'd be such eagerness to kill it. I think if you heard its heartbeat and watched it move and grow within the womb you'd have a difficult time arguing that the fetus isn't a life.

What part of its personhood do you deny? If it doesn't possess this quality in the womb, when does it gain it?

I know you're an abortion advocate, so I'm guessing you'd like the state of the law to remain pretty much as is. No corks involved.

I believe the simple case is that you misunderstood the basis of my objection to mbecker's statement.

I'm never going to be convinced that a baby is not human 5 minutes before it's born, but is fully human 5 minutes after it's born. Or that a baby that can survive outside of the mother's womb is not human. It just does not make any logical sense to me. For me to believe that I would have to want to believe it. Say, to justify a pro-choice position.

Once you get before viability, it is much more questionable... and I don't know where I'd draw the line there. But 20+ weeks is a nobrainer to me.

As such, we sometimes erroneously assume it's alive.

It's also a virus of type cephus. Again, we science illiterates tend to forget that.

Good on you for reminding us.

I guess Bernard Kerik is an example of his "knowing how to choose good people?"

How are you able to aver that abortion "will be a decided factor by 08?"  It won't be a decided factor anytime soon.

It's just as likely that no more judges will retire and that whoever the next president is will appoint Stevens and Ginsburg's replacements (and probably Scalia's if the next pres serves 8 years).  Even if one of them does retire, it is an issue that will continously be brought before the court in the ensuing years and we need as many votes as we can get on it.

Maybe you think it's more important that the next POTUS pick an anti CFR judge than a pro-life one.  Personally, I think all of our rights, including freedom of speech, are meaningless without the right to life.

Rudy would be disasterous for the Republican party.  There's no reason social conservatives should stick by a party that nominates a pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem-cell research, pro same-sex marriage candidate.  Many others would bolt along with me.  

 

Maybe you think it's more important that the next POTUS pick an anti CFR judge than a pro-life one.  Personally, I think all of our rights, including freedom of speech, are meaningless without the right to life.

They should be the same judge so it shouldn't really matter. The problem is that I wouldn't trust Rudy to pick an anti-CFR judge either.

I've been talking about what I expect.  Fortunately, I think the window is pretty close to see how much of my expectations will be realized.

The bottom line, for me, is that abortion will not be outlawed on a national basis.  Hopefully, the Court will allow aggressive restriction at the state level, but even if it takes a while we won't be at the "all abortion, all the time" level that NARAL & Co would like.  And I absolutely believe that the road won't turn back.  

All good points you make. My (rhetorical) question would be: Whose moral rights and wrongs do we adopt? We live in a society full of people with different beliefs. Is it the government's job to enforce one morality over another, rather than to facilitate and smooth the interaction between people holding those different beliefs?

Personally, I believe the strength of the argument should be enough to sway someone to adopt a set of beliefs -- if the argument is strong enough for the populace to find it meaningful, then resorting to government intervention should not be necessary.

And yes, that goes for those on the pro-choice side, too. The difference, I think, is that (to my knowledge) the constitution doesn't outlaw abortion, so I THINK the burden is on the pro-lifers to sway the pro-choicers to their cause (sans gov't intervention).

To answer your question about the handicapped child -- that depends on the child. Is it conscious and aware? Can it support itself on its own? Those questions point to the kid's dignity and quality of life. Keeping someone alive as a vegetable is not dignifying to them, in my opinion, and they have no quality of life. They're being kept alive mostly because other people can't let them go. Similarly, if someone WANTS to die peacefully, rather than struggle with an increasingly debilitating and painful disease, give them that dignity. Yes, the Pope died as he wanted to, and that was good. Not everyone can go in that manner, though, and it's not up to the gov't to play god by keeping them alive.

Sorry. Got on a bit of a rant with that last issue. It's a whole 'nother can of worms...

I probably did misunderstand.

with Kerick.  He was an excellent police commissioner.

And I'm far more concerned about McCain than I am replacing Ginsberg with Ginsberg.

I can actually support the viability criterion, except in cases that endanger the mother.

I think it's a potential human. That's about it. Some might call it human, some might call it a mass of cells. Some might say that mass of cells is alive, some might ask what, then, constitutes life? A heartbeat and movement might indicate life for some, but others would argue that houseflies and worms and venus flytraps provide similar indications, and most people have no problem stepping on those.

Again, it's just a philosophical argument about the definition of life that isn't going to be answered here.

Your post is all conjecture.  Here's more.  If Hillary gets elected, the MSM will still be controlled by supportive liberals.  Maybe the Republican congress will get booted out in 10, and Hillary will be able to raise taxes, increase spending, appoint very liberal judges who are pro-choice and pro-CFR, and undermine the WOT.  Myabe she'll be a little Nixonian and use the increased presidential powers Bush is fighting for for who knows what.

McCain is a man of integrity and a patriot.  When Hillary was protesting the Vietnam war at Weslyan, McCain was being tortured by the Viet-Cong.

I have policy disagreements w/ probably just about every Republican politician.  And each have their personal flaws, one of McCain's is tht he loves attention.

Overall though, I'll conjecture that McCain would make a good president.  

It's interesting, but I think one of the biggest, and most incorrect, assumptions being made is that candidates for president come to the race with the positions they've held all of their adult lives.  This couldn't be farther from the truth.  Ronald Reagan, arguably the first truly pro-life GOP POTUS, signed a pro-abortion bill while CA governor.  Bush 41 was pro-choice before he was pro-life.  Al Gore was pro-life before he was pro-choice.  And yet does anyone doubt Gore's SCOTUS nominees would have been to the right of Breyer?  And Reagan and Bush 41 collectively gave us Thomas and Scalia and would've given us Edith Jones and Robert Bork had the Republicans held onto the Senate in the late '80s.

The point is, politicians are politicians, and they often make strategic decisions regarding how to govern in order to operate in what is basically a two-party coalition system.  Bush 41 may, in his heart of hearts, believe that abortion should be legal.  But he still put Clarence Thomas on SCOTUS.  He did so because he knew he couldn't get reelected without the pro-life bloc of the center-right coalition.  And I would imagine any Republican POTUS except for Lincoln Chafee or Christine Whitman would realize the same thing.

As a previous commenter pointed out, we'll soon see a new "Conservative Rudy" revealed to the nation, one that will emphasize his fiscal and law and order conservative governance in NYC while triangulating to the right on social matters.

Giuliani enacted annual budgets that held the rate of growth of government in NYC to around 3 percent.  That puts most GOP POTUSes to shame.  He did so by reorganizing gov't, making it work more efficiently, actually firing gov't employees who were useless, cutting waste, and privatizing services.  He's the kind of guy who would reform the entitlements in a way that made sense.

Giuliani also cut taxes while Mayor.  Not exactly a RINO move.  This included a big supply-side cut of the top rate.  And did so while eliminating the deficit.

The law and order stuff translates easily to a guy who'd be tough as nails on the GWOT.  Really his only deficiency are the social issues, but I remain convinced that Rudy understands he has to play ball on those and will run as a social federalist whose personal views are irrelevant because of his belief that the federal gov't shouldn't be making decisions regarding cultural matters.  This will, of course, necessitate both the veto of any socially liberal legislation that comes out of Congress (abortion funding, etc) and will also lead to the appointment of conservative judges who will allow social decisions to remain in the political process at the state and local level, where social conservatives win.

And then of course there's the electoral college.  Millions of working-class guys in the electoral-rich Rust Belt who voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry would identify with Rudy far, far better than with Hillary Rodham Clinton.  He'd sweep MI, PA, WI, MN, etc, and Hillary couldn't win.  She just couldn't.

In a field without a perfect candidate, a Conservative Rudy ready to take on the Clintons and the terrorists would be a good, solid choice for continued policy victories and electoral expansion in 2008 and beyond.

trying to say all night.  Excellent analysis & great post.

Please all you Rudy doubters, read "The Future Once Happened Here" and "The Prince of the City" both by Fred Siegel to understand why some conservatives are so excited by a Rudy presidency.

OK, besides the questionable Constitutionality of it, when the cost estimates for the drug program doubled right after it was voted in, were you surprised?

Neither was I.

I totally agree with you. It was sad to see (considering the autopilot factor) that Bush decided to load us up with another entitlement. it's sickening.

I think this is neck and neck with CFR for the biggest mistake award.

Senator McCain is marching lockstep with Senators Clinton and Lieberman on regulating carbon dioxide emissions as the Kyoto Protocol would have us do.

Why?  "The summers in Arizona seem hotter than they used to," or something like that.

if there were a surplus we might actually be able to reform Social Security and even healthcare. The deficit doesn't seem to constrain small potatoes pork spending at all-- it just prevents us from making big changes that are vital for the future.

but it's a small price to pay for restoring our nation's integrity and its severely damaged reputation abroad. A major reason for our victory in the Cold War was the fact that we were superior to the Soviets on matters of rights and freedoms (especially after the Civil Rights revolution,  which was in part necessitated by the Communist challenge). Abu Ghraib and the rest of that came dangerously close to ditching our country's chiefmost strength: that we are superior to the Islmofascists in these matters too.  If the price of getting that back is a few lawyers bloviating and making some fast bucks, I think that's worth it.

appropriate troop levels is a macro-management decision. And the resolving the torture issue in our country's favor is a major issue as well. Neither qualifies as "micro-managing".

Re:  Give the rest of the powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the states.

And for that very reason I strongly oppose the FMA. Let the states deal with marriage. And, after (please God!) Roe falls, abortion too.

Reform and big changes that are vital for the future you mean increased spending on entitlements, you are right. That is the only kind of "reform" it makes harder.

why does reform always have to do with spending money? sheesh! Its that kind of thinking which has gotten us into this mess.

I've been wondering who I would choose for my write-in vote in 2008.  Gramm seems to be a good choice.

FMA is a federal issue BECAUSE of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution.  Things recognized in my state, driver's licenses, marriage licenses, etc, are recognized in yours because of the FF&C clause.  Making marriage a "state issue" will be an unmanageable nightmare that will end up in the federal courts in a heartbeat.

Abortion, on the other hand, will be left to the states to regulate or outlaw.  The only way to federalize abortion would be: 1-SCOTUS declares abortion to be murder (or some variant that works out to that), 2-Federal law outlawing abortion, 3-Constitutional Amendment.

#1 is just as bad an application of law as Roe.  I would be just as opposed to that as I am to Roe.  Won't happen (not because of my opposition).

#2 and #3 won't happen because a law would be DOA in the Senate and an amendment would be DOA with the states and both houses of Congress.

always requires the expenditure of money. Sorry, but that's life folks, and you've probably noticed that in your personal lives. America's retirement and healthcare systems are antiquated and are becoming serious drags on the economy (healthcare already is!) and a threat to our future prosperity. Reform is absolutely needed and it's not just about dollars and cents. Ever hear the expression "penny wise, pound [or dollar] foolish"? It describes the attitude I'm seeing here to a T. Saving small change now could (will) cost us big in the future. Thank God some of our leaders (Gingrich, McCain, etc.) know this and are interested to fixing what's broken not just scoring rhetorical brownie points with the green-eyeshades wing of the GOP.

How much did welfare reform cost us? How much would it cost us to means test SS? How much did it cost to raise the retirement age and tax SS payments?

The right kind of reforms (cuts) do not cost anything. If it's going to cost a lot of money, then it isn't the right kind of reform.

on both. We obviously should have had more troops in Iraq, I don't even understand why that's controversial, except among those who have Donald Rumsfeld confused with divine authority. If one is going to fight a war, one must fight to win (see: lessons of Vietnam), not to prove some esoteric doctrine in military theory. And the idea that my country, America, is torturing POWs (let alone civilians!) is an evil which causes my blood to boil and it needs to stop, period.

re: Making marriage a "state issue" will be an unmanageable nightmare that will end up in the federal courts in a heartbeat.

This has never been a problem in the past. Why is it suddenly so now? State laws differ, for example, on the degree of blood relationship that forbids a marriage, or on the permissible age of marriage. Some allow first cousin marriages, some do not. Some allow 16 year olds to marry, some do not. We have not seen chaos and anarchy as a result. And past precedent exists whereby "full faith and credit" does NOT apply to marriage.

Do you really think even the current Court (now with the additiosn of judges Alito and Roberts) is about to declare national gay marriage?

Still, I do appreciate the concern and for that reason I could support a proposal like that made by Senator Hatch, an amendment defining mariage laws as purely state-managed and bidding the federal courts to butt out. And nothing more than that is needed.

As long as we don't end up w/ Rudy either.:)

but would take it one step further: to me, to be a good leader requires character and integrity.  Period.  There's no question in my mind about it.  Why?  Because in order to lead effectively you've got to earn people's respect and their trust.  Character issues seriously inhibit a person's ability to lead, and especially when we're talking about the President of the United States, who is someone to look up to whether they want to be or not.

Character and integrity are two of the most important factors I look for in a leader, and Newt's sunk on both accounts.

deregulation of health care so individuals have more choice does not cost money. hsa does not cost money. these two examples would save money.

shutting down a lot of unconstitutional federal agencies do not cost money.

as for my personal life, lets see. I decided I couldnt afford all the HBO, Cinemax, etc packages so I went down to basic cable. That did not cost me money.

So, you're saying that you are better informed as to troop strength that the Generals on the ground in Iraq.  Why not send Rummy your resume, I'm sure he could use quality help.

See Vietnam, there is NOTHING even remotely similar between Iraq and Vietnam.  I won't go into it here, but that is nothing but a tired talking point of tired old men like Murtha.  I will be happy to provide the differences should you need them.

With respect to the "torture" debate, please provide details on the evil that you seem so sure has been taking place at the hands of US troops.  And by the way, don't reference Abu Ghrabe or Gitmo.  Nothing in the wild tales in either of those places is even close to torture.

Your last sentence is precisely why I am so angry with McCain about his amendment.  He did nothing more than give some false aura of credibility to the idea that our troops are torturing people.  If they were, his self-serving, face-promoting amendment did NOTHING, absolutely nothing to insure their prosecution or punishment.  Torture is and has been against both US law and the UCMJ for decades.

I object to giving "marital rights" to either unmarried individuals or to same sex couples who have been "married" in another jurisdiction and have relocated to Arizona.

There are other ways to accomplish the "issues" I hear raised, but marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Legalize same sex marriage and I will guarantee you that there will be a very agressive movement to legalize multiple partner marriages.  It's already a problem in at least Arizona and Utah.

Don't kid yourself about the Hatch proposal.  It will never fly.

Just the fact that McCain has so many liberal defenders, like yourself, is validation of our thoughts about him. If the Democrats like McCain so much, they should run him as their candidate.

And I'm no "liberal defender" but here goes:

I'll give 5:1 odds that McCain will run and 3:1 that he'll be the next POTUS if he does.  McCain is the ultimate middle-of-the road candidate.  He doesn't have to swing in any direction to capture the base before moving back to the middle, becaus he can't!  

And frankly, Abramoff hated the Weekly Standard because, in his words to me, they were the "McCain Journal."  Well, Abramoff is going to Jail and McCain is doing pretty well right now, so you tell me who won?

you can pay me via paypal.

I liked it, it's just that I've had some proximity to it, and so I'm beginning to think....

Thankfully, there's still plenty of time.  I think trying to predict the 2008 elections right now is fun in the way that watching Sea Monkey eggs hatch is fun:  who knows?  McCain will be there with his finger on the pulse of the nation for the foreseeable future, and as creepy as that sounds to some people, he's a formidable contender.  

same sex marriage per se but why the matter neesd to be deal with at all in the federal constitution. That's overkill, and a betrayal of federalist principles. If you're content to have abortion regulated by the states (a far, far more serious matter all in all) then why not marriage? If you don't like same sex marriage then by all means you can petition your state to reject the concept. so far that solution has been working quite well for your side of the debate, after all. why is anything else needed? The FMA is a solution in search of a problem. Or, as the old saying goes: If it ain't broke, don't fix it-- and the Constituition is not broke.

you gave odds.

Back in my "active addiction" days that was a deal.  

because of FF&C.  Abortion is not.

I'm a hard core 10 Amendment guy.  Were it up to me I would strike a red line thru almost every Federal program that doesn't look like the Defense Dept.  I would lose almost every federal crime that is overlapped by a state statute.  

Social Security would be my first victim.  Medicare would be #2.  Then I would rest for the remainder of the day.  The NEA and Dept of Education would be breakfast on day 2.

Anyway, I'm not one who is willing to have federal laws or regulations where they are not mandated by the Constitution.  Marriage, being a FF&C issue is.

Thinking about my first day, I would add FMA right after killing Medicare.  The thought of Ted Kennedy's head exploding is just too much of a good thing to pass on.

What we need is a true conservative for President.  Someone in the mold of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.  Someone so committed to conservatism that he is willing to give up his position as Deputy Majority Whip so that he might pursue honest and effective government.  That man is Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana.  I would ask all conservatives to join with me in not only drafting Mike Pence to run for president, but to embark on a crusade for conservatism all across this great nation.

For more information, please go to www.pence08.com or email me at bcsears@praize.com

Thank you.

Brian.