Who is “Mr. Conservative” for 2008?
January 15th, 2008 at 09:04am Mark Noonan
The argument goes on - Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson and Huckabee all claming the mantle of Reagan. But who really has it? Do any of them really qualify as “Reagan Republicans”?
Last year Matt and I were honored with a tour of the Reagan ranch outside Santa Barbara. I still get feeling of awe just to think that I was able to be in such a place. I love writing and I hope that it will eventually become the major activity of my professional life - but if all I ever get out if it is that trip to the ranch, then I feel that I’ve done very well out of it.
Ronald Reagan was, by the time he purchased that ranch in the mid-70’s, a very rich man - not gazillionaire rich like some people are today, but very well off. I don’t know how much Reagan paid for that ranch, but given its size and magnificence, it couldn’t have come cheap. But perched atop a gorgeous California mountain in sight of the Pacific ocean was the life of just any, old American. I remember, especially, looking over Reagan’s tool bench - and its just like any other middle-class American husband’s tool bench. The pegboard holding screwdrivers and wrenches, the vise attached to the edge of the bench…the soap and bandaids by the garage sink. While my father was a bit of a do-it-yourselfer, the person who really came to mind as I went over these mundane things was my father-in-law - a superlative do-it-yourselfer, as Reagan apparantly was. I could easily imagine my father-in-law and Ronald Reagan, far away from politics, discussing the best way to erect a fence, or lay down a floor (both things Reagan did, himself, at the ranch). Ronald Reagan, leader of the free world - my father-in-law, ironworker by trade, small businessman of decades experience…but each of them the other’s equal, and no fawning from the one or condescension from the other.
Who is “Mr. Conservative”? I don’t know - but it will end up being the man who could, without changing a thing, head down to the local hardware store and chew the fat with whatever average Joes and Janes happened to be there at the moment. You see, we can argue - if we wish - over issues of who is better at tax cutting, or who is better at spending control, or who is better at fighting the terrorists, but the true conservative is the true American - they are interchangable at the fundamental level. Sure enough, two true Americans can argue over the best way to tax and/or how much to tax, but any two true Americans also know what needs to be done - be honest; be courageous, keep faith in God and your fellow Americans, protect your family, help your neighbors. Do that, and the rest of the issues will tend to take care of themselves.
We now await the rise of “Mr. Conservative” in 2008 - we’ll see if any of them have in them that core Americanism which is the most conservative thing of all.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans
58 Comments
1. sam | January 15th, 2008 at 9:30 am
mark,
its official, you are a weirdo. wow.
2. Kahn | January 15th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Mark, I was watching Rassmusen being interviewed this morning and listening to them speak about momentum and trends and so on. But the truth is, WE choose who the candidate is.
I still don’t know who to vote for.
3. Eric T | January 15th, 2008 at 9:35 am
1. Must be a social conservative committed to pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, and pro-gun issues.
2. Must have strong moral character and good judgment exhibited by executive experience.
3. Must have excellent communication skills and ability to cast a vision.
Mike Huckabee
4. Retired Spook | January 15th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Since Ronald Reagan narrowly lost the GOP nomination to Gerald Ford in 1976, I have, and probably always will consider myself a Reagan Conservative (Republican). I put “Republican” in parentheses because I’m a Conservative first and a Republican second. The GOP found a moment of brilliance with the Contract with America in 1994, long after Reagan left office, but except for that, Republicans have, as a party, largely lost their way since January, 1989. It’s about time someone came along to lead them back out of the wilderness. Like you, I’m not sure if one of the current candidates is “Mr. Conservative”. We’ll just have to wait and see.
The fact that the Dems haven’t been able to capitalize on GOP weaknesses would indicate that, either the underlying strength of the Republican Party is still solid, or the Democrat Party has no underlying strength on which to build. I suspect it’s a combination of the two.
The one thing that sticks out in this campaign, and is most evident on this blog is that Conservatives are debating over which of the GOP candidates would best represent GOP principles. There is very little of that coming from the Lefties here. They’re mostly chiding Republican candidates for perceived (or real) faults or weaknesses, but advancing very little in any perceived (or real) strengths of their own candidates. We get statements from the Libs here like “I don’t like Hillary, but I would vote for her over ANY of the Republican candidates.” I may have simply missed it, but I don’t recall any of our resident Dems saying I like (insert Dem candidate name) because of (blank). For one thing, the Dems that have already exited the race (Dodd, Biden & Richardson) were all eminently more qualified that those that remain. The three that remain have no significant accomplishments between them, no legislative record, no management experience, no foreign policy experience — zip, zero, nada.
5. Alex M | January 15th, 2008 at 9:45 am
I think Ron Paul is the real conservative out of all of them. Too bad conservatives have abandoned what they really believe in and consistently trash this good man simply because he believes that Bush’s foreign policy is immoral and illegal.
6. Alex M | January 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Ronald Reagan is the most overrated president in history. He presided over one of the biggest military jokes in history in Grenada just so he could look tough on defense. He then turns the other cheek when 200 plus marines get blown to smitherines in Beruit…he ran up huge deficits spending untold amounts of money on unproven missile defense systems and STAR wars related garbage…he funded and supported the likes of Saddam Hussein during their decade long war with Iran…he made illegal arms deals with Iran to help support another bunch of facists in Central America where thousands of innocent people died…he DIDN’T bring down the Soviet Empire…the Soviets brought themselves down getting bogged down in military conflict they could never win…(sound familiary to us in Iraq?)…what a legacy. go ahead put him on Mt. Rushmore and watch it crumble to the ground .
7. Adrian | January 15th, 2008 at 10:07 am
We’re probably up the creek then, becasue I don’t think any of them have that.
8. Sunny | January 15th, 2008 at 11:10 am
I have never understood the total love fest with Ronald Reagan. A lovely man, very personable, very likable, but honestly, the “trickle down” theory never worked, he was strongly influenced by Nancy, who was into palm readers, had a very rocky relationship with all of his children, was a divorced man married to a divorced woman, certainly had his share of scandals while in the White House and was in the early stages of alzheimers before his term ended. But exactly what did he do that was do amazing? He did NOTHING after the bombing in Beruit that killed so many American military men except meet with the families of those killed. It was one of the most touching events I ever witnessed and he was obviously deeply saddened by deaths of these Marines. He was a typical Hollywood actor, and Republicans love to slam Hollywood - unless the Hollywood candidate is a Republican, then you seem to love them. Fred Thompson is another example, and exactly what did he accomplish while in the Senate? No one has been able to explain the love affair with Ronald Reagan, other than he did give Americans hope - which is what is needed at this time - but only if it a Republican giving that hope. And the only one I can see doing that in the Republican Party is Mike Huckabee.
9. Kahn | January 15th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Ron Paul is rambling and incoherent.
10. LiberalMind | January 15th, 2008 at 11:43 am
This peverse worship of Ronald Reagan is creepy, extremely creepy.
His administration was marked with notable scandals involving secret little wars, arms deals to dictators and lying to the American public.
Nor was he a “conservative,” having pushed the largest tax increase on the middle class and an increase in the size of the federal government.
The real crime of the Reagan “era” was casting government as the enemy, demonizing the press, villifying people with different opinions and birthing divisive politics that we suffer with to this day.
No, Reagan is no hero, no idol, no great leader.
He was a small man with small ideas. These smallm ideas were “greed is good” and selfishness is the highest virtue.
It’s sad that he has been remade into an American folk hero when he should be an example of how not to lead a great nation.
He was a liar, a puppet of well healed interests and phony.
11. LiberalMind | January 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Short version:
Reagan is the top five list of the worst American presidents.
12. Eric T | January 15th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Libs
You forget that he inherited a wrecked economy from Jimmy Carter. Lines at gas stations ect..
13. Bigfoot | January 15th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
he DIDN’T bring down the Soviet Empire…the Soviets brought themselves down getting bogged down in military conflict they could never win…(sound familiary to us in Iraq?)…
During the 80’s, Reagan was saying that the Soviet Union and communism would be confined to the “ashheap of history”. There were people from both right and left who disagreed, believing the Soviet Union was here to stay, differing (with each other) only on what to do about it. Then around 1990, the USSR collapsed. Even though Reagan was just about the only one who foresaw that collapse, so many who did not foresee the collapse would not, and will not, give him any credit.
Of course, Reagan is by no means the only person who deserves credit for the fall of the Soviet Union. Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, among others, all deserve some credit as well.
As for the idea that we could never win in Iraq, the only way we will lose is if we give up.
Nor was he a “conservative,” having pushed the largest tax increase on the middle class
This idea is divorced from reality. Reagan not only cut marginal tax rates, but tax rates across the board. In his 1986 tax package, the brackets became indexed to inflation. Previously, the middle class were often afflicted with “bracket creep”, where an increase in salary would result in a decrease in take-home pay, due to the higher rate of withholding. (This was especially nasty during the double-digit inflation of Reagan’s predecessor Jimmy Carter.) If Reagan had really screwed over the middle class, there’s no way he would have been re-elected by a landslide in 1984. Remember, the rich (who according to the leftwing fairy tale are the only people who benefitted from Reagan’s policies) are relatively few in number, and could not have re-elected Reagan on their own.
villifying people with different opinions
Coming from the left, this may be the most hypocritical comment I have ever read here at B4V or B4B. Disagree with the left on affirmative action, the left accuses you of racism. If you’re a non-white person, the left accuses you of being “Uncle Tom” or a “race traitor”. Disagree with the left on gay rights or “gay marriage”, the left accuses you of hate or homophobia. Disagree with the “open borders” crowd (which I will admit is not entirely on the left) and they accuse you of racism, xenophobia and/or nativism. Disagree with Al Gore, and you’re a “global warming denier”. What about all that villification, LT? Yet, the left also preaches about the right to “dissent”, wherever they wish their opinions to be heard.
These smallm ideas were “greed is good” and selfishness is the highest virtue.
Reagan, to my recollection, never espoused these things.
birthing divisive politics that we suffer with to this day.
Things were harmonious before Reagan took office? Yeah, right! Calling politics “divisive” is a perfect example of redundancy.
He was a typical Hollywood actor, and Republicans love to slam Hollywood - unless the Hollywood candidate is a Republican, then you seem to love them.
Reagan’s acting career took place during a very different time, before Hollywood became to left oriented. The Hollywood we righties love to slam didn’t yet exist in Reagan’s (acting) time.
14. Eric T | January 15th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Libs take the Retired Spook Challenge in #4
We get statements from the Libs here like “I don’t like Hillary, but I would vote for her over ANY of the Republican candidates.” I may have simply missed it, but I don’t recall any of our resident Dems saying I like (insert Dem candidate name) because of (blank). For one thing, the Dems that have already exited the race (Dodd, Biden & Richardson) were all eminently more qualified that those that remain. The three that remain have no significant accomplishments between them, no legislative record, no management experience, no foreign policy experience — zip, zero, nada.
15. SteaM | January 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Might this be attributed to groups who identify themselves with the party and use it’s political power to sway opinions and change legislation to attempt to change the nation to conform with their views?
Groups like the Southern Baptist Convention. The Project for a New American Century. The Isreal Lobby.
I’ve been curious about this. How many of the “conservatives” and/or “republicans” on this site would consider themselves of “southern” heritage?
16. Rana Quijotesca | January 15th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
EricT-
I don’t support any of the Democratic Nominees because they all suck. I kind of hope that Bloomberg does something with a third party later this year, but I think that the thing with many of the people who think like me (independents) typically hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. On the Republican side, I could see myself voting for McCain; I don’t really like the Democrats, hence my hope for a viable third party.
The funny thing about the recession that Reagan “inherited from Carter” was that Carter, in turn, inherited that recession from the Nixon and Ford Administrations. The main issue with stagflation wasn’t fiscal policy; it was monetary policy, which is largely out of the hands of the President.
17. Sunny | January 15th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Rana, I agree with you - there is not a Democratic candidate that I could support. I did like Joe Biden, but he is gone. Don’t care much for most of the Republicans either. At one time I would have supported McCain, but when he allowed Karol Rove et al to get buy with the cut throat campaigning in 2000 by insinuating that his adopted daughter was his via an affair and thus the child was his out of wedlock. What kind of man allows someone to disparage his family like that? I kind of like Huckabee - but having a Baptist minister as president is troubling to me. I could never support Rudy - just way too slick and do not like his illegal immigration policy. And his wife is a phony - we do not need someone like her in the White House. So, I am competely undecided at this time - just know it will not be a Democrat.
18. Eric T | January 15th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Steam you said
I’ve been curious about this. How many of the “conservatives” and/or “republicans” on this site would consider themselves of “southern” heritage?
I’m from Michigan, I like some of the local democrats. In fact I think the democrats we got here, could do a better job the Hillary, Obama or Edwards.
I’d vote for my Governor Jennifer Gramholm before I’d vote Hillary.
I’d vote Carl Levin(Senate Armed Services) before Edwards, and John Dingell or Bart Stupak before Obama.( Better NRA supporters)
19. SteaM | January 15th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Carl Levin is a good guy.
Back to my question though.. I’s just wonder how many people who consider themselves Republicans are from the South. Furthurmore, how many of those are Southern Baptist. And even futher, how many of the rest are athiest and do not attend church ever.
20. Sunny | January 15th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I did consider myself a southern Republican (Oklahoma) up until 2004. Voted Republican most of the time until 2004. Just could not vote for Bush a second time. I think I would now consider myself a Red Dog Democrat - consertative in most areas, but cannot go the neo-consertative route. They are as radical as the far left wing liberals.
21. Sunny | January 15th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Oh - and I am not Southern Baptist - a little too evangelistic for me. Raised and have always been Methodist.
22. Ricorun | January 15th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
My dad was one heck of a handyman. He was good at a lot of things. For example, he built a dual purpose table that was a train/car racing set on one side and a ping pong table on the other. He hooked it up to a winch so even us kids could flip the thing around in a few minutes, or raise it up to the ceiling to fit a car underneath. Pretty cool. He’d buy old TV sets at “tag” sales (the ancient equivalent of “garage” sales) and either cannibalize them for parts or recondition them. We had a TV set in almost every room. He made a pencil sharpener out of an electric razor, lol! He was always tinkering.
One thing he was particularly good at was auto repair. It was just an avocation for my dad (he was a mechanical engineer by trade), but for his dad it was a vocation. And apparently my dad learned a lot from his. There wasn’t anything he couldn’t do to a car — much to my mother’s dismay, lol! He’d buy these incredible clunkers way past their prime, make them driveable, and give them to my mom. The trouble was, they only stayed driveable so long. There were many times when us kids and my mom would end up walking all or part of the way home from the store, laden with groceries, because the car wouldn’t start. Ah, those were the days.
My dad wasn’t only a good handyman either. He was into politics, too. For as far back as I can remember, he was the chairman of our town’s Republican party. He served many years on the town committee and was First Selectman (the small town New England equivalent of mayor) for a couple of terms. I remember meeting Chris Dodd when I was a kid, back when his dad (Tom) was a US Senator. They were in my parents’ house. My dad also loved baseball, and was heavy into Little League. For most of my lifetime he was both a team manager and the president of the league in our town. He never managed a “major league” team though. He preferred to manage farm league teams, so he could teach little kids the basics of how to play. He did that for years and years, well after both his sons were too old to play. And I served the role as his coach for many of them. Many of my fondest memories of my dad are of him on the Little League field. I’m a member of my high school’s web site, which has served to get me back in touch with some of the people I knew way back when. And a handful of them have mentioned my dad and how he affected their lives through baseball. A couple of them are particularly touching, and that’s pretty cool.
There was one kid on one of his later teams (I was his coach at the time) with a sister who wanted to play. So my dad let her practice with the team. Nobody took much notice until the time came when we couldn’t field nine players for a game. It was a forfeit of course, but we still played the game — with that girl filling in at shortstop. That seemed perfectly fine to me, because for her age (she was 11 at the time) she was BY FAR the best fielder of anyone we had available. In fact I’d go so far as to say that for her age, she was the best fielder I’ve ever seen. She was a freakin’ vacuum. But oh, what flak my dad got for that stunt. A girl playing Little League? The NERVE! Parents came up to him after the game castigating him for letting a girl play. And in the next league meeting (which was held in our dining room) he caught even more — even from guys I thought were pretty reasonable. I remember thinking… what’s the big deal? Haven’t they noticed that she’s really, really good? She should be in the majors for crying out loud. What difference does it make if she’s a girl rather than a boy? She wants to play, and she’s GOOD! Anyway, my dad stood his ground. He continued to let her practice, and he continued to let her play in games when we couldn’t field nine players. IMO (as well as my dad’s), she should have been able to play Little League legitimately. But she couldn’t — because she was a girl. How ridiculous. Ultimately, she ended up playing softball for the Raybestos Robins, the farm team for the legendary Raybestos Brakettes. After that I don’t know.
My dad was an incredible guy. And I am proud to be his son. In some respects I haven’t lived up to his legacy, but in others maybe I have. At any rate, I hope he’s proud of me too. This comment may be a bit off-topic, but I’m glad I got to talk about my dad. He was one heck of a guy.
Back on topic, I am also curious how the Dems in the crowd will respond to Spook’s challenge — if in fact they can.
23. bagni | January 15th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
markative:
mccain will be your man
24. liberalT | January 15th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
what is it with Republicans and actors:
(1) Reagan
(2) Govenator
(3) Thompson
I think the GOP 2008 nomination should be Brittany Spears…
25. neocon | January 15th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Spook,
Obamas and Clintons policies are virtually identical. Very little difference exists on how either one would govern, hence the racial and gender cards being played (which is shameful). Rather than arguing policy differences, the debate in the Dem primary is who has the experience and/or who can inspire.
While the GOP is debating what different policies each candidate offers will best move America forward, the Dems are debating on which window dressing is best.
26. MikeB | January 15th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Going back to the original topic….
I initially supported Mike Huckabee. I liked his steadfastness on social issues.
But the more I learned about him the more it came to light that he has very little knowledge of how the economy works. In fact, his fiscal ideas frankly scare me to death.
But the reality is the most meaningful way a President is to appointment conservative judges. Other than that there really is not much more a president can do.
So with the above being said, the only candidate who has both a fiscal and social conservative record “without any flip flopping” is Fred Thompson.
This is not a ding on Romney or Guliani…I pray that their promise to appoint conservative judges (Romney’s conversion to support life) is in fact true. But I would prefer to vote for someone who has consistently been a social conservative rather than hope that someones conversion is in fact true.
So bottom line….there is only one candidate
FRED THOMPSON
27. Eric T | January 15th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Rana- on #16
Rana I know you like Ron Paul, I gotta tell ya, I see more Ron Paul signs here in Michigan than anyone else.
Letting Bloomberg in at this late in the game. Is like handing the keys of the White house to Wall St. I have had my head handed to me on a platter, Playing with stocks, many times. The country needs real leadership. Many of the Wall St. traders may have great insight to the economy and can help shape the future for many industries. But like the current mortgage crisis. Wall St created the problem. And ran their stocks up, the Ceo’s and then everyone in the company sells, make a killing. The stock falls thru the floor everyone busy at work who don’t see the movement takes huge losses. The companies I held seemed like good stocks with decent dividends. But took huge % losses.
I like the free market and all, but the same way, people like government and church to not become completely entangled. Wall St. and the government need to be seperate as well, Is Wall St. going to address issues like unemployment, health benifits, peoples rights. defense, FDA,
Or are their interests, acheiving the max profit regardless of the damage to the public. To impress the shareholders. 100% of the time.
Bloomberg may have been #1 pick of everyone.
but this race started months ago. Too late in the game.
Had bloomberg had a vision he could of shared with everyone months ago like Huck, Mitt and the rest of the crew, giving us the ideas of where energy, immigration, military, taxes, manufacturing, health care, and many other issues are spelled out well. Wall st. needs to look at that as the map and steer towards that. Not coming in the game late with no plans. It would be like taking are countries assets and treasures cashing them out and going on marathon at the casino Mitt and Huck’s plans are very similar on many issues. I think Wall St should follow not lead.
28. neocon | January 15th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
MikeB,
Romney has successful, proven, private sector experience coupled with successful public sector experience making him eminently qualified to put our economy back on solid footing and to effectively govern.
We need a businessman in office this time. It is past time we ran this country like a business and not some bloated, be-all, feel good, do everything agency. It’s time to cut spending, cut the waste, streamline, innovate and develop policies that will help America compete against the emerging markets of China and India. In order for America to remain the “shining city on the hill” offering hope to everyone, we must lead the world economically.
Romney is the only one with the private sector experience to do it.
29. neocon | January 15th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
>>Or are their interests, acheiving the max profit regardless of the damage to the public.<<<
What a crock. Have you ever ran a business? You don’t become successful by screwing over your customers or employees. This line is straight from the liberal playbook because THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND CAPITALISM, and evidently you have challenges with it as well.
Government will never end poverty, will never be able to administer efficient healthcare at an affordable cost, will never improve anyones life, and will never be the answer to anything.
Only individuals can improve their lives and the less that government is in the way, the easier that is too accomplish. If the healthcare industry was less regulated and operated in a free competitive market, costs would begin to come in line with what customers are willing to pay. That’s how you make healthcare affordable. The more lawyers, legislators and insurance execs get in the way, the more the costs go up.
30. Eric T | January 15th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Neacon
I’m sitting here preparing my info for my accountant to process my taxes for my wife and my small business that did not turn out quite as well as planned. Do you run a business?. If so, I hope it did well and returned tons of cash to you. I can’t blame my businesses failure on one particular thing. I understand capitalism real well. I doesn’t always go as planned.
Less government and lower taxes would be nice but since it is food we deal with, I can understand why the health dept. a form of government wants to perform inspections (for peoples saftey) yeah the fees for the inspections are a drag.
Not every business is a smashing success with stocks it is the same, sometimes you get in at the wrong time. The company is not as good as the competition. Your product is not as good, your help is unrelible, You purchased to much or not enough stock, I have run a business and understand capitalism. It doesn’t work for every person all the time. If you can say a sixty year old lady with no skills, needs to go start her own business and provide for herself when her husband has passed on. Or she should take the money she has and buy stock in a corp. that may drop 65% over the course of a few days. I can’t agree with ya. I seen plenty of scams and stuff with business and stocks to know that oversight is critical. Would you buy food from our company if the health dept was abolished?
31. Jonathan | January 15th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I seriously don’t understand the obsession with conservatives and Reagan. You guys talk about him like he was the Second Coming of Christ.
Plus this was the same person who funded the Taliban, and we all know how that deal turned out.
32. neocon | January 15th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
EricT,
Did I mention abolishing the government? And capitalism isn’t meant to work for everyone, nothing is. Life is NOT FAIR and no regulatory agency can make it that way. So just because some people have been scammed (caveat emptor), and just because some business’s fails, hardly suggests that capitalism is a failure. In fact America, freedom and capitalism is responsible for the automobile, the computer, the telephone, electricity, etc.
Our system works best when we let individuals innovate.
33. Eric T | January 15th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Neacon
I know government won’t end poverty.
The elderly and even people in there 50’s aren’t going to let go of social security. Bush couldn’t make changes with a REpublican house and Senate. The republicans hopefully took notes on that if they want to win elections.
I Like what Mitt says with Healthcare. everyone needs affordable coverage.
Our state is moving towards statewide health care. I don’t know how it will turn out, probably higher taxes. I haven’t kept up with it in the news
34. MikeB | January 15th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
To Eric T…all I can say is that the reason you had your head handed to you on a platter is bc you have no clue how Wall St works.
Spouting rhetoric like, “But like the current mortgage crisis. Wall St created the problem. And ran their stocks up, the Ceo’s and then everyone in the company sells, make a killing. The stock falls thru the floor everyone busy at work who don’t see the movement takes huge losses,” shows your ignorance of how Wall St works.
All I can say is go get an MBA, a masters in finance, or complete the CFA and then go work on Wall St. Then you will understand how the street works.
-MB
35. Eric T | January 15th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Mitt’s plan for coal to oil technology is the same as Huck’s and a great idea. capitalism will set us free from foreign oil. Exxon, Valero, Marathon, should lead the way. The auto companies too. Biofuels and other industry needs to focus on the plan. I understand they need to make some money while doing it. I just think The government should be able to step in when the shit gets funky and people start dying from bad or unsafe products ect ect… Or con men scamming people out of their life savings.
36. Eric T | January 15th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
MikeB
So everyone needs to get the MBA, but if I can’t afford to put myself thru college and all that stuff right now. What do I do. Bonds or mutual funds don’t have that explosive growth that you want to capture. I gotta get back to the taxes I talk with you all later.
37. MikeB | January 15th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Neocon,
Hey…I can’t argue with anything you stated. Mitt has had a tremendously successful career and has a solid grasp on the economy. I love to counter guys like Huckabee who says, Mitt would go in and restructure and company, pay a fat bonus to the executives who got let go, and sent the real works home with nothing. It was this type of talk that really turned me off on Huckabee.
With the above I just have more confidence in Thompson’s social conservativeness than Romney’s. And while Thompson may not have the business background like Romney, he does have a solid understanding of how the economy works…and great leaders will surround themselves with people smarter than themselves. Whatever Thompson may lack on the fiscal side will more than likely be filled with extremely intelligent economist and businessmen.
And my last point is I believe Thompson by far has the best plan for dealing with illegal immigration. Romney stating that he is going to attempt to send 12M illegals back across the border only to then have them enter the process is just not reality.
If you get a chance take a look at Thompson webpage and read his plan for illegal immigration. In all seriousness, I would like to get your thoughts on Thompson plan compared to Romney.
BTW…congratulations to Romney on a solid showing tonight. I hope I will be congratulating Thompson in SC.
As long as it is not McCain or Huckabee…I will feel good about my vote. But any of the Republican candidates will be better than Hillary, Obama or Edwards.
-MB
38. MikeB | January 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Eric T,
Not everyone needs an MBA, CFA, etc. But, if you are going to make comments like “Wall St. has created the mortgage crisis” you should at least have a grasp of how Wall St. works.
As far as “I can’t afford to get an MBA,” that is total hogwash. After I had my fun in the Marine Corps I went to B-school full time with a stay home mom and three kids. I did it the old fashion way…DEBT DEBT DEBT. All my loans where loans that anyone could get. I had no scholarships, no money from my parents, etc. So yes…I accumulated over $150K in two years. All to pay for school and to take care of my family. Does the debt suck…of course. Was it worth it…absolutely.
My wife continued to be a stay home mom in order to look after our three kids. And I was allowed to focus totally on school.
So please don’t tell you can’t afford it.
-MB
39. Retired Spook | January 15th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Back on topic, I am also curious how the Dems in the crowd will respond to Spook’s challenge — if in fact they can.
Well, Rico, it wasn’t really a challenge so much as an observation, but I guess you got your answer — or NOT.
I remember how much the Left hated Reagan back in the 80’s; I guess they still do. Sad.
40. Mark Noonan | January 16th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Sunny,
Between 1975 and 1981, when Reagan took office, the following nations fell into the communist orbit:
South Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola, Eithiopia and Nicaragua.
In El Salvador, the communists opened a brutal civil war with the aim of communising the entirety of central America.
Iran went from ally to sworn enemy.
America was humiliated for 444 days by the mullahs in Iran.
Inflation was 13.5% and rising.
Unemployment was 7.62% and rising.
The Prime Rate was 20%.
In the military jets could not fly and ships could not leave port for lack of necessary parts and personnel.
The USSR had more than 10,000 nuclear warheads aimed at us.
All of that, each thing, was vastly improved when Reagan left office in 1989…he’s the third greatest President in American history, right after Washington and Lincoln.
41. keefer | January 16th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Too bad conservatives have abandoned what they really believe in and consistently trash this good man simply because he believes that Bush’s foreign policy is immoral and illegal.
Yeah, Alwx, we pretty much trash anyone who sounds like a kook, a “truther.” Are you a “truther?” If so, we’ll be glad to trash you…
Plus this was the same person who funded the Taliban, and we all know how that deal turned out.
You’re far too young to remember the 1980’s, Jonnie, so you rely on lies and talking points. No need to even debate this with you, son…
I think the GOP 2008 nomination should be Brittany Spears…
Who’s “Brittany” Spears?
They are as radical as the far left wing liberals.
IOW, they’re just like you, only 180 degrees in the other direction…
42. keefer | January 16th, 2008 at 4:46 am
The only real conservative, Fred, can’t even poll higher than Ron Paul, a loon. Me thinks Fred blew it.
As for the Donkaroaches: GObama!!!
43. Eric T | January 16th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Mike B
There was a thread a way back and someone was posting about the boneheads at the lending companies, loaning money to people with 500 pt credit ratings as long as they could make that 32% apr, and their is some truth to it.
President Bush addressed some of the issues making the mortgage lending crisis more difficult than it should be, at the end of that Iran NIE speech about a month ago.
I’d like to go back to college some day. Right now I’m buried in debt.
As far as Fred, he has some anti-gun past in the Senate, that, don’t qualify him for true conservative. Also he says he don’t attend church. Issues that Methodists, Catholics, Baptists or most of the other churches find important are the issues of conservatives. I think Mitt has some well polished plans for the economy. But Huckabee is right for conservative issues,
44. Rana Quijotesca | January 16th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Eric T-
I actually stopped supporting Ron Paul a couple of month’s ago… It turns out that the guy isn’t actually a libertarian after all; he’s more of a States’ Rights nut. For example, he believes that Lawrence v. Texas (a case that struck down unenforcible sodomy laws) was wrongly decided, and said that there is no right to privacy simply because it is not explicitly enumerated in the constitution, despite the fact that the 9th Amendment (one that people tend to forget) specifically states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Since a Right to Privacy has been accepted by the judiciary (those who interpret laws) since the late 1800s (drawing on Common Law, the 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments), and that juris prudence makes up our current legal thought, Dr. Paul is wrong on this one.
Long story short, he’s not the guy for me.
45. anarchist | January 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Rana, that’s because Ron Paul is a Rothbardian. You could be able to achieve privacy due to your private property rights. But under a Rothbardian system of natural rights, you’re right to privacy only comes from your right to defend yourself and your property from invasion. Same with your right to free speach. You have no free speach right on someone elses property. A “right” to privacy extended to all property not even your own, implies you can control someones actions and thoughts, this is completely un-libertarian.
Common law isn’t libertarian law.
For a better explanation from Rothbard himself.
Chapter 16 in The Ethics of Liberty.
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf
46. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I don’t know who “Mr Conservative 2008″ is, but I think we have a top candidate for “Mr Crazy 2008″ right here….
Yikes.
47. anarchist | January 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
lol, 10 minutes after I post that, I read an article about the ACLU defending Larry Craig’s bathroom sex thing, saying that arresting him violated his “rights” to privacy and free speach.
Perfect example.
48. SEW | January 16th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Joe,
I think Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich should be in the hunt. In fact I rank them
1) Kucinich 2) Paul 3) Huckabee.
49. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I agree those two are up there and I probably had them ranked as you do… but after reading that comment, I think Huck just jumped to the front of the pack.
50. Bull | January 16th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Huckabee may have “jumped the shark” with that comment.
i was a supporter of his from the beginning, but more and more he is losing me.
right now i’m with fred.
besides, if fred got in i could look at the first lady for the next 8 years, no problem. she is a babe!
51. Mark Noonan | January 17th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Joe,
It was, perhaps, an unfortuante way of phrasing it - but I do believe that Huckabee was speaking to the necessity of amending the constitution to protect life (ban abortion) and the family (ban gay marriage). Christians do have a moral obligation to do all they can to make the laws they live under be in accord with the commands of God, as best we can understand them. And, in a narrow sense, Huckabee is right - it is easier to amend the constitution than to do the actually impossible of changing God’s laws.
That said - to grant Huckabee as much slack as possible - there is still the fundamental fact of there being two cities - the City of God, and the City of Man. The fact that Our Lord instructed us to render unto Ceasar indicates that at least on this side of the return of Our Lord, there will be secular authorities not entirely under Christian control, or at least not fully in accord with Christian teaching. Given the distinct separation implied, Huckabee would have been better advised to say something along the following lines:
My Evangelical brothers and sisters have become ever more politically sophisticated over the past 10-20 years - but Huckabee’s statement shows that they still haven’t entirely been able to separate the sort of rhetoric you use when making a sermon from that which you use making a poltical speech.
52. Eric T | January 17th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Joe
Just yesterday Rush was talking about how the Evangelical’s should just leave the party. And join the left. Hearing that kinda anti-Christian stuff, makes me wonder, who will be left. Aside from rich guys worried about taxes.
I thought the Republican party was about God, guns, and the guts. Rush and others in the party see the need for a fiscal conservative, which I understand as well. I think a social conservative is just as important, that why I consistantly refer to Huck and Mitt for the best 2 choices. When you look at some of these threads, some are about religious issues. others economic issues.
With your above post, I can see where political correctness, electibility from non Christians, and some other ideas maybe driving that comment.
To me, alot of what these politicans say, may not get passed if they are elected. Flat tax, gay marraige ban. Mike is in the lead (some polls) because there are alot of Christians in this country. And Many of us would like to see those laws passed if we are successful in bringing all the elements of the Republican Party together, and taking back the house. senate. A ways back, me and ricorun or AAR were playing around with figures on abortion economics. The country is shooting itself in the foot by destorying all those children.
If Huckabee is going to actually do something about it. That is better than him just saying I’m a Christian in talk or writing, but not when it comes to taking action, and following thru with what he believes in. How many of our Republican candidates are on both sides of these issues. I don’t want to cut into them, but Huckabee is just being sincere in what he says. I got to meet him when he came to Michigan. When guys talk pro marraige they gotta live it. pro-life, they must take action, if possible, not just a campaign slogan, pro-gun has to have the clear record. Mr. Social Conservative 2008 and Mr fiscal conservative 2008 are two seperate people this time around. I see the need to unite the Republican base and focus on the American Economy and what is best for the American people because the Iraq war is going well and may not be the big issue in 2008. Jobs, benefits, smaller issues may be what the people will vote on. I vote God, guns everytime, I will put that before taxes, jobs or any of these other issues, because a good tax plan now, may not get approved by the House and Senate. Experience and all these other issues and plans are important too, But sticking with core values and traditions defines conservative.
The dems don’t have values, if they do let me know about it. Joe take the retired spook challenge in post #4
53. Joe | January 17th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Mark,
I would have found “…to bring our laws more in line with the bedrock, Judeo-Christian morality which founded this nation.” less disturbing. I could have at least seen where he was coming from.
The way he put it REALLY puts a lot of people off. I am a christian and I found that to be a rather odd statement to make. I am FIRMLY in the belief that there should be a separation of church and state.
Eric,
“I thought the Republican party was about God, guns, and the guts.” I think you left off gays.
But anyway…….
The Dems that I believe would have been best have all dropped out. Richardson, Dodd, Biden (although a bit kooky).
So I am now pushing for Edwards. Why? He is talking about the things that I find most important and that is the squeezing of the middle class. The topics he brings up are what hits home for me.
As with everyone on both sides, I don’t agree with everything that every one of the Dem candidates say, but I at least like what they are talking about. If Edwards doesn’t make it out of Feb 5, then I will turn to Obama. If Hillary gets the nomination, I’m not sure yet. If it were against any of the Repubs other than McCain, I would have to vote for her. If it were versus McCain, I am about 50-50 right now.
So Spook’s challenge above is not an easy answer because what the Dems are all talking about is what I care to hear.
54. Bob Taft | January 18th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Who is “Mr. Conservative” for 2008 you ask?
After careful scrutinization of the platforms of the best we Republicans have to offer I only see one candidate who stands out as a true conservative in the tradition of our great Party.
Only one who is a true fiscal conservative with a plan to wrest domination of our monetary system from the Federal Reserve system(see the Competition in Currency Act). The one who actually plans to reduce the size of the giant bureaucracy our federal government has become.
We must seriously consider the folly of our foreign policy and give much more weight to the constraints imposed by our Constitution, lest we LOSE it.
Can anyone seriously argue that we ought to be in the business of “nation building”? We are NOT the world’s police force, and our people are certainly more intelligent than to volunteer to be such. The draft bill(HR393) would likely plunge our nation into a very dark era indeed. Borrowing billions from the Communist Chinese to fund our current mess defies any inkling of logic.
I hate to say it, but our Republican Party is going to lose the White House this year, if for no other reason than the only candidate in the Republican field who wants to end the wars will not get the nomination. Better than seventy percent of the voters want out, and we are just not listening. Veterans and current service people alike seem to be supporting our only true conservative candidate more than ANY other.
We must remember as a Party that in order to remain viable, we must respect the influx of younger voters, who will not wish to be drafted.
My worst fear is that as the dollar plummets out of control and the Liberals get into power, we will be dissolved as a nation into the American Union on our way toward a more Globalist agenda. I do not think that these fears are unjustified in light of how we have continually had our national sovereignty whittled away through treaties, which we were so vividly warned by our forefathers to beware of.
There is only one candidate who preaches the Constitution to us like it is the Gospel. He preaches personal liberty and sound monetary policy. Our Constitution should be a model, an example for other nations to follow, but first, we must return it to its stature as the Law of the Land here.
Sure, he is not the most polished politician, he is not an actor,nor even a lawyer. In fact he is more of a statesman than politician, and we NEED diplomacy in these times more than ever.
If we cannot get this truly conservative candidate nominated I do not see that we Republicans have any others in the current field that will offer the change the voters have clearly shown that they will demand.
Who is “Mr. Conservative”? Do you REALLY need to ask?
55. Accounting Financial Fina&hellip | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Accounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
56. Eric&hellip | April 5th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Eric
Ill admit it. i have been to your blog SIX times since your last post looking for a new post.
57. us government housing gra&hellip | April 20th, 2008 at 6:15 am
u s government small business grants
How r u? Cool site! You can see my government grants for minority business webpage when you get a sec.
58. Buy A Car with Bad Credit&hellip | June 6th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Buy A Car with Bad Credit
2. Save some interest. Let’ s say your car loan was initially for 25,000 and you have been making payments on it for a few years. Example: every month you send the car company 495; but only 350 is actually going towards the car… the rest is interes…