The Republicans are in a similar boat to the Democrats from 2004: lots of mediocre candidates without any particularly strong ones.
Giuliani is only popular among two groups: non-Republicans, and Republicans who don't actually know his stances on the issues.
Who actually has a chance? At least the 2004 Democrats had Howard Dean until the media crucified him.
I couldn't agree with you more Rym. I come at all of this from the perspective of a conservative that is more or less completely disgusted with what the Republicans have become. I really don't feel who the GOP trots out matters. The hang over from the guy I voted for is going to be too hard for anyone to overcome. I voted for Bush but find myself becoming completely disgusted by what he has become. His social platform has become part and parcel of the evangelical far right and his fiscal policy is about as far left.
Once upon a time Republicans were smaller government and lower taxes. Not so much anymore.
My deepest hope is that this will be the crucible where a new leaner and less invasive Republican party will be formed. A sweeping defeat for the current Republican establishment is the best that more libertarian conservatives, such as my self, can hope for.
Now for my 50 cent prediction...
Romney vs. Clinton in 2008
Who will win...nobody that I can think of with those two as candidates.
1st Jason 3:16 -- And the heavens opened forth, the lion lay with the lamb, and lo they did not consume each other. Then appeared Scrym on a white pony, and opened they forth their mouths and did issue forth twin golden swords shining bright as the sun. The whole of teh earth was encased in darkness, the rivers ran as blood, and the seas boiled. The FRC donned sack cloth and gnashed their teeth. There was great wailing and rending of hair. And the beasts of the field and the flocks of the air cried for mercy.
And the heavens parted and lo, I beheld a beast having seven heads and ten horns. And upon his horns were ten crowns and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. Three heads were that of Orcs, two heads were that of Elves, and two were Rym and Scott.
And the beast which I saw was like unto a liger and his feet were the feet of a dainty princess and his arms were the burly arms made of gamer thumb muscles. And lo he was given mouths with which to speak blasphemies. And he opened his mouths to blaspheme against Jason, and those that lived in JasonLand, saying, "Out of the east comes the Joe, wuth great mirth and great melacholies. Who is like unto the Joe? Who is able to make war with him?"
And the Jasonites were sore afraid, and murmured among themselves, saying, "Were is our Jason now?" For verily, verily, I say unto you, he lies shivering in his tent, fearful lest he should meet the statement upon which the Joe and the Steve could agree.
Here is wisdom. If any man have an ear, let him hear.
I could give my opinion here, but it only really matters as it related to the Democratic candidates; there's no Republican running that I would ever consider voting for. People earlier in this thread have stated that the two primary contenders for the Democratic nomination are going to be Obama and Clinton.
Given the way that the coverage is shaping up around this race, I can't disagree with that assessment. Our current democracy has become twisted by changes to the political landscape that our founders never conceived of, and one of those is the overwhelming power of the media to control the perceptions of reality. Given this, there are not really any other candidates for President then Obama and Clinton, with Edwards coming in a weak third.
Between the two, I think I have to lean towards hoping Obama gets the nomination. Rym's right in his point of Hillary being a temporary stopping point of the pendulum before it swings back to the right again. But also her problems with not backpedaling and admitting that the war was a mistake color my perceptions of her.
My deepest hope is that this will be the crucible where a new leaner and less invasive Republican party will be formed.
Why not just form a new party. I personally would never back a candidate who threw in with the Republicans regardless of their stances. I just have so little trust for the party, I can't begin to trust someone who nonetheless joins it.
Are you serious? Ron Paul supports a return to the gold standard? I didn't realize anyone thought that was a good idea.
My only prediction is that I really don't think Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. She has a lot of endorsements, but I don't know that she has the popular support to go all the way. I also think people are being a little too quick to dismiss dark horse candidates - it's totally possible that none of Clinton, Obama, McCain, and Giuliani will be running for President come 2008.
I liked Paul at the debate. Here is a transcript of what he said.
This is the part I liked:
*snip*
Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?
REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.
Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.
Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.
And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. [Emphasis mine] (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.
MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?
REP. PAUL: What changed?
MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.
REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.) And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Congressman?
REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. [Emphasis mine] I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?
REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.) And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Congressman?
REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
*applauds Rep. Paul* It's good to see that someone is finally taking a stand and telling America that we brought this on our self.
I personally would never back a candidate who threw in with the Republicans regardless of their stances. I just have so little trust for the party, I can't begin to trust someone who nonetheless joins it.
This statement has really been bothering me since I first read it this morning. You trust me, right? Regardless, it's the widely-discriminating nature of the statement that has me hot under the collar. What if Obama was somehow ousted from the Democratic Primary and decided to run as a Republican just to get on a ticket? Would you still vote for him?
Don't laugh -- it's possible. Lieberman set a dangerous precedent in that arena.
Generally, people who say they will never do -something- or think a certain way lose 6 JRPs*. What worries me most about your statement is that you're putting more stock in what Kurt Vonnegut (RIP) called granfaloons -- meaningless man-made organizations such as political parties -- than you are putting stock in individual planks and platforms and decisions and votes.
It was you, Rym, who mentioned the pendulum swings, and I think this is a strange example of just such a thing. It used to be that the Republican Party was the one that was entrenched in its stances on issues, and now I see that same thing happening en masse in the Democratic Party. In days gone by, Democrats were more willing to cross the aisle, to be reflective about their stances, and to be swing voters; now that attitude (at least in my anecdotal experience) is more common among Republicans.
I think Gulliani would make a good president but I just think he's too liberal to make it through the primary. Now McCain, I think I've expressed here before that I like him. He's concerned me recently, seems like he's swinging further to the right which I hope is for the primary and in the general will move back to the centre.
First of all, other than his stance on abortion, Giuliani is not liberal. From foreign policy, to education, to finance, to the majority of social policy - he is a neo-conservative through and through.
Secondly, McCain was never a centrist. He backed campaign reform and said that he would never throw his hat in with the Falwell crowd (which he ended up doing), but that was about it. Again, in almost every respect, he is a neo-con and always has been.
While Giuliani and McCain may utilize their media attention and news blurbs to appear more liberal, or even moderate, look at their political histories, and you will see the true story.
First of all, other than his stance on abortion, Giuliani is not liberal. From foreign policy, to education, to finance, to the majority of social policy - he is a neo-conservative through and through.
He is also Pro-Gay rights and pushes for Anti-Gun legislation. Giuliani is more socially liberal than you might think.
I actually like Giuliani very much. I realize that is not a popular statement in this forum, but his stances are very much in line with my own:
IN LINE WITH MY VIEWS - Pro-choice - Oppose gay marriage ban - Proven reduction in crime - Fiscal conservative - Privatization of failing schools - Supports voucher systems - Pro-immigration - Tax reductions fuel the economy - He believes the welfare state perpetuates poverty and crime - Anti-affirmative action - Opposes prayer in school - Pro-free trade/open markets - Believes health care can be improved without coming under government control
NOT IN LINE WITH MINE - He does not support nuclear energy - Against signing Kyoto Treaty - His gun control agenda is too expansive - Unwavering support for Bush - He remains pro-war, despite the obvious - He still clings to drug policy mumbo-jumbo - Pro-Patriot Act - Believes terrorism can "end"
IN LINE WITH MY VIEWS - Pro-choice - Voted against the flag-burning ban - Include sexual orientation in anti-descrimination laws - Supports charter schools and privatization - Invest in alternative energy research - Insists on placing human rights mandates on China to continue trade - Recognizes morality is the issue with gun violence - Made several smart Medicare expansion votes - Voted against extending Patriot Act's wire-tapping provision - Supports better equipment for troops - Anti-war
NOT IN LINE WITH MINE - Opposes federal spending reductions - Supports affirmative action - Voted against CAFTA - Supports strong gun control measures - Pro-universal health care - Voted to re-authorize Patriot Act - Pro-minimum wage increases - Chrisian; pro-religion; supports "call to evangalize in politics" - Voted for giving illegal aliens health and social security coverage (without citizenship) - Voted against repealing death tax - Wants to expand welfare state
IN THE MIDDLE - Opposes gay marriage, but supports civil unions - Sympathy for drug use - Free public college for B-average students and above
I'm learning whilst doing this, so I'm going to continue. Here's a breakdown for McCain:
IN LINE WITH MY VIEWS - Supports federal funding of stem cell research - Supports reducing congressional spending - Supports vetos for pork - Overall, pro-states rights - Anti-government lottery - Voted for bankruptcy reform - Against unfunded mandates - Pro-charter schools, vouchers, has made several smart education votes - Pro-campaign finance reform - Has voted for several free-trade initiatives - Has voted for several smart, surgical firearms limitations - Supports reduction in pork-ish military spending - Pro-immigration - Anti-ethanol - Supports fixing social security - Supports middle-class tax reform - Supports permanent ban on Internet taxation - Increase government services/access online - Pro-welfare-to-work programs - Criticizes Bush's War on Terror
NOT IN LINE WITH MINE - Supports repeal of Roe v. Wade - Voted against contraception education for teens - Pro-religion - Pro-Ten Commandments in school - Supports flag-burning ban - Supports limited affirmative action - Pro-Patriot Act - Pro-Wiretapping - Supports limiting the rights of the accused - Pro-War on Drugs - Voted against Kyoto Treaty - Wants more controls on Internet content - Media (TV, games, etc.) causes violence - Rated 83% by Christian Coalition - Supports overthrowing governments of rogue nations (pre-emptive strikes) - Pro-protectionism - Supports wacky-assed troop surge
IN THE MIDDLE - Leave gay marriage to states (voted for federal marriage ban) - Extremely pro-death penalty (I fall in the middle) - Mixed energy votes - Mixed Iraq policy support
IN LINE WITH MY VIEWS - Pro-choice - Supports stem cell research - Calls for tax cuts and balanced budget - Pushing for Privacy Bill of Rights - Voted against flag-burning ban - Voted to expand cell phone wiretapping - Supports requiring DNA testing for all federal executions - Pro-charter schools - Pro-Kyoto Treaty - Pro-campaign finance reform - Opposes e-mail tax - Criticizes Iraq war management; supports phased withdrawal
NOT IN LINE WITH MINE - Anti-school vouchers - Media causes violence - Anti-privatization - Calls for increasing strength and size of government - Pro-universal health care - Voted against medical lawsuit reform - Voted to renew the Patriot Act - Wants to give illegal alients social security benefits - Supports minimum wage increases - Tax-and-spend mentality - Opposes tax reform
IN THE MIDDLE - Supports creation of special "drug courts" - Force oil companies to fund energy research - While very pro-human rights, vague on how it relates to foreign policy (really, quite vague on all foreign policy stances) - Wishy-washy on gun control - Supports Star Wars-esque missile defense - Still refuses to apologize for Iraq vote, but admitted in April that it was a mistake - Touts values-based welfare entitlements
I am sorry, but if you consider his record, and not his lip service, you can see that he has done little to back up many of is supposedly liberal stances, and is now back peddling on many of them. Not to metnion his willingness to put Supreme Court Judges on the bench that would completely annihilate any real push or defense of his "socially liberal" views. He also openly states "They [Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito] share the kind of overall judicial philosophy that I have."
Furthermore he recently stated, “Gun control was right for New York, but I wouldn’t impose it everywhere.†Could this be anything other than a back peddle, or worse, thinly veiled racism. (It is ok for the survivalist KKK nuts to have their guns, but not the black gangsters? Why? Just because the crackers are republican?) Let alone that his handlers have convinced him that it is now a positive to be labeled a racist. Add into this his "boot-strap" attitude, yet he continually denies educational groups and schools the money they need to provide any kind of quality education.
Combine this with his terrifying ideas about the war.
Anyone who calls this man a liberal in any sense of the word is so far to the right that their perspective is highly skewed.
BTW, people often talk about Obama having such limited national experience, but no one ever points our that Guiliani has never been a member of the Senate or House. He has only ever been a Mayor. (Also, Jason, you mention Guiliani admitting that Iraq vote was a mistake, yet he still backs continuation of the war and he never took part in any "Iraq Vote" as he was not and is not a member of the Congress.)
Furthermore he recently stated, “Gun control was right for New York, but I wouldn’t impose it everywhere.†Could this be anything other than a back peddle, or worse, thinly veiled racism. (It is ok for the survivalist KKK nuts to have their guns, but not the black gangsters? Why? Just because the crackers are republican?)>
This seems to me a rather bizzare and unfounded extrapolation. Secondly, alot of his perceived back peddling is just pandering to the conservative base of the republican party, you need a nomination before you can be elected afterall.
Secondly, alot of his perceived back peddling is just pandering to the conservative base of the republican party, you need a nomination before you can be elected afterall.
SO you simply brush under the rug his obvious and blatant insencerity? So when he is working for liberal NYC, he appears more liberal and when he is pandoring for a Neo-Con vote he is more of a Neo-Con... but what kind of President will he be?
SO you simply brush under the rug his obvious and blatant insencerity? So when you are working for liberal NYC, you appear more liberal and when you are pandoring for a Neo-Con vote you are more of a Neo-Con... but what kind of President will you be?
This is pretty much common practice when it comes to primaries. Candidates appeal to the fringe of the parties because only the hardcore constituency of each side vote in the primaries. However, the majority of the voters are more moderate. So you have this almost rubber band effect in which candidates strech out to the fringe voters and then after the primaries they rush to the middle to gain independant and opposite party votes.
SO you simply brush under the rug his obvious and blatant insencerity? So when he is working for liberal NYC, he appears more liberal and when he is pandoring for a Neo-Con vote he is more of a Neo-Con... but what kind of President will he be?
No, he said that different places have different problems and different solutions -- that certain reforms and limitations that worked in New York City would be ineffective or inappropriate to the root causes in, say, Ohio, or Montana, or Washington, or Delaware.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think you are pulling a straw man with this argument. I also think that this:
(It is ok for the survivalist KKK nuts to have their guns, but not the black gangsters? Why? Just because the crackers are republican?)
is a racist assumption, and that this:
Anyone who calls this man a liberal in any sense of the word is so far to the right that their perspective is highly skewed.
is a "no true Scotsman" shot across the bow.
(Also, Jason, you mention Guiliani admitting that Iraq vote was a mistake, yet he still backs continuation of the war and he never took part in any "Iraq Vote" as he was not and is not a member of the Congress.)
Would you please quote where I said this? I believe that was listed with the profile of Sen. Clinton's stances.
Ah, the "pre-WWW" mentality of today's politicians!
This presidential race should also be interesting as it is the first one (in a long time) where there are no incumbents on either side. Not even a VP from the prior administration is running this time!
A lot of politicians are still not used to the fact that bloggers do not give the "free-pass" that the main stream media often does. If a candidate does something wrong the media often holds the story and saves it for a later day. Bloggers just jump right in and talk about it!
Take the recent John McCain "Bomb Iran" song. No one in the media covered it until a few days after some bloggers started screaming about it. That is how things work in the USA (or did work) simply because the big players in the media know that they have the power of propaganda.
Just look at the recent happening with enGadget posting the Apple rumor and Apple stock dropping several dollars a share within minutes of that news breaking! It's even bigger on the national scale.
The biases inherent in the major media play a role in what gets reported and what does not. As long as a candidate is toeing the line things do not get reported (McCain and Bomb Iran) but once they go astray the media no longer holds back and dumps on them (Howard Dean and the scream). The bloggers though are screwing this up for the major media because they don't "understand" how journalism works. In reality the major media has forgotten what journalism is and instead consider themselves the fourth branch of government.
This same thing happend to a Senator in the early 90's. Senator Packwood anyone? Until Bill Clinton was elected the feminists loved Packwood (in more ways than one) because he was in their corner on woman's issues. Once they no longer needed him all of the sexual misconduct stories came out and he was out. Why did these woman not report him earlier? I believe it was because they felt his votes were more important than their integrity.
While Giuliani and McCain may utilize their media attention and news blurbs to appear more liberal, or even moderate, look at their political histories, and you will see the true story.
I will respectfully disagree with you on this, I believe that both Giuliani is a liberal Republican and McCain a moderate Republican. I would recommend this book. I found it very interesting.
If I could appoint any candidate running to the white house, it would probably be Ron Paul. He has some nuttier ideas, but his policies more closely reflect my beliefs than any other candidate. While I happen to disagree with the idea, returning to the gold standard isn't that far out. It's a tremendously complex subject that I don't want to get in to it here, but I've always thought you to be open minded and inquisitive Rym. Not one who dismisses things out of hand without doing some real research into the subject.
Also, while I happen to be pro-choice, abortion really isn't a subject over which I feel particularly passionate. Although, this could be the result of my inability to become pregnant.
I would like to support Obama, but he's a high tax, high spending, fiscal socialist. I agree with him on most social issues, but economic policy trumps any other consideration in my mind.
Sure, it's great that we're free to burn flags and have abortions, but it's quite low on my list of considerations if we're living in abject poverty.
It's really difficult to be anything but a fiscal conservative, for this is the inevitable conclusion of knowing anything about economics. Unless you're an idiot Marxist, in which case your logical faculties have simply stopped functioning.
McCain gets support from the Council of Conservative Citizens, a look through their website shows just how racist and, lets face it, evil this group is. He has made numerous racist comments in teh past, even using the word 'gook' on more than one occation. This supports my current stance that every neo-con in existance is racist, evil, and power-hungry. I challange any of you to find one good thing neo-cons have done for this country in the last eight years...hell, EVER. Anytime they have control of anything, the gap between classes widens, we go to war, education takes a hit, and politics get dirtier. We're talking about a party that Anne Coulter loves, and we all know what a racist, pandering, hateful sociopath that one is.
Guliani didn't exactly leave NYC in stellar condition and also appointed a guy to a position of power who was an obviious racist. To top it off, both he and McCain love school vouchers. Any teacher or administrator in any public school will tell you that not only are vouchers are stupid and simply another shot at taking apart public education (something the neo-cons want to do, read "Project for a New American Century"), but that the NCLB Act they put into effect has gone severly underfunded and essentially forced teachers to 'teach to the tests' (meaning you educate kids on how to pass a state-mandated test with, in NY's case, inappropriate benchmarks) instead of having the focus on learning.
Ron Paul is a republican conservative from Texas...hmm...where have we seen that before....OH YEAH, just like our current puppet-in-chief. We all know how well that panned out for us the past seven years now don't we?
School Vouchers are designed to bring competition (privatization) to the education system. If it works for colleges why not grade school?
The teachers (union) does not like vouchers because if it goes through they lose their power. Remember, A union has its own best interest in mind and not necessarily the interest of those it works for. A teachers union is for the benefit of the teachers not for the benefit of the students. I am a union worker and I readily admit to this basic fact.
School Vouchers are designed to bring competition (privatization) to the education system. If it works for colleges why not grade school?
Because every child should have access to basic education, not everyone can afford to go to college, and the same will happen in high schools if vouchers happen. Private schools already exist, and like colleges, there are financing options and scholarships. Please note that taxes do not usually fund private colleges, and that State Colleges do not have to give up any of their budgets for private colleges.
Moreover, not every area has the private schools to support their area's children. This will equal a select few getting a decent education (because they are lucky enough to be in a wealthy family or get a voucher), but deprive the already floundering public education system of much needed funds. This creates WORSE public schools, not better! Therefore, the masses have an even crappier education and widens the class gap. Let's face it, school systems with more money have greater success. The problem here is that we are more than willing as tax payers to put billions into useless wars, sports arenas, etc., but not to schools. I am happy to pay high taxes if it means a better education for all.
School Vouchers are designed to bring competition (privatization) to the education system. If it works for colleges why not grade school?
The teachers (union) does not like vouchers because if it goes through they lose their power. Remember, A union has its own best interest in mind and not necessarily the interest of those it works for. A teachers union is for the benefit of the teachers not for the benefit of the students. I am a union worker and I readily admit to this basic fact.
As a teacher, I can tell you with all honesty that if you believe it's the union, you're out of your fucking mind. I've never seen more people more dedicated to children and their education than the teachers at the many schools I have taught at, not talking about how they can better position their union. In fact, I have been personally involved in situations where the schools and teachers care more about the children then the parents. It's not about unionization, it's about quality education for EVERYONE, not just people who can afford pay the $20k/year private school tuition with government help. Do you really think every person in the entire country will be able to afford private schools even WITH government help? What do we do then? Sorry poor people, you'll jsut have to remain unedeucated. But you don't care do you, since you're obviously not poor, why should you worry, right?
Private schools are also immune from rules of public schools, so it would be very convenient to create private religious schools that, upon the elimination of the public school system, EVERYONE would have to go to regardless of the religious principals behind it. Be pretty convenient for the neo-conservitives since they want religion in school so badly.
Second, privatization has not 'worked' for college. Students are coming out with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt while other people can not afford college at all, period. College tuition and costs have gone up every year and often do not match the rate of inflation. If you think everyone gets the aid you need, you're mistaken. Oh, and did you also miss the news about the student aid scandals? Numerous colleges and loan companies have been brought up on charges of cronyism recently for basically fucking students over at every turn and locking them into debts for longer than necessary. We're talking 40+ years.
So, no, vouchers have been, and will always be just another neo-con scam to kill public education and hurt the middle and lower classes in this country.
Competition always creates better service at lower prices. Right now, the government strangle-hold (read: government monopoly) on education is creating a bureaucratic mess that is not working. Currently, states spend $X per student for public education. Vouchers would allow that cash to be put toward a better education in a private school.
Once again, this is a classic situation where anti-voucher liberals insist that uniformity is synonymous with equality. Frankly, what public schools do is pull everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
As for religious monopoly, that's quite a silly idea. If there is a demand for private schools without religious bias, then some businessperson will open those types of schools. That's why the free market works. If there is a demand, it will be filled.
Comments
Once upon a time Republicans were smaller government and lower taxes. Not so much anymore.
My deepest hope is that this will be the crucible where a new leaner and less invasive Republican party will be formed. A sweeping defeat for the current Republican establishment is the best that more libertarian conservatives, such as my self, can hope for.
Now for my 50 cent prediction...
Romney vs. Clinton in 2008
Who will win...nobody that I can think of with those two as candidates.
And the beast which I saw was like unto a liger and his feet were the feet of a dainty princess and his arms were the burly arms made of gamer thumb muscles. And lo he was given mouths with which to speak blasphemies. And he opened his mouths to blaspheme against Jason, and those that lived in JasonLand, saying, "Out of the east comes the Joe, wuth great mirth and great melacholies. Who is like unto the Joe? Who is able to make war with him?"
And the Jasonites were sore afraid, and murmured among themselves, saying, "Were is our Jason now?" For verily, verily, I say unto you, he lies shivering in his tent, fearful lest he should meet the statement upon which the Joe and the Steve could agree.
Here is wisdom. If any man have an ear, let him hear.
Given the way that the coverage is shaping up around this race, I can't disagree with that assessment. Our current democracy has become twisted by changes to the political landscape that our founders never conceived of, and one of those is the overwhelming power of the media to control the perceptions of reality. Given this, there are not really any other candidates for President then Obama and Clinton, with Edwards coming in a weak third.
Between the two, I think I have to lean towards hoping Obama gets the nomination. Rym's right in his point of Hillary being a temporary stopping point of the pendulum before it swings back to the right again. But also her problems with not backpedaling and admitting that the war was a mistake color my perceptions of her.
My only prediction is that I really don't think Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. She has a lot of endorsements, but I don't know that she has the popular support to go all the way. I also think people are being a little too quick to dismiss dark horse candidates - it's totally possible that none of Clinton, Obama, McCain, and Giuliani will be running for President come 2008.
This is the part I liked:
*snip*
Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?
REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.
Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.
Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.
And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. [Emphasis mine] (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.
MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?
REP. PAUL: What changed?
MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.
REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.) And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Congressman?
REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. [Emphasis mine] I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?
*snip*
Don't laugh -- it's possible. Lieberman set a dangerous precedent in that arena.
Generally, people who say they will never do -something- or think a certain way lose 6 JRPs*. What worries me most about your statement is that you're putting more stock in what Kurt Vonnegut (RIP) called granfaloons -- meaningless man-made organizations such as political parties -- than you are putting stock in individual planks and platforms and decisions and votes.
It was you, Rym, who mentioned the pendulum swings, and I think this is a strange example of just such a thing. It used to be that the Republican Party was the one that was entrenched in its stances on issues, and now I see that same thing happening en masse in the Democratic Party. In days gone by, Democrats were more willing to cross the aisle, to be reflective about their stances, and to be swing voters; now that attitude (at least in my anecdotal experience) is more common among Republicans.
*Jason Respect Points.
Secondly, McCain was never a centrist. He backed campaign reform and said that he would never throw his hat in with the Falwell crowd (which he ended up doing), but that was about it. Again, in almost every respect, he is a neo-con and always has been.
While Giuliani and McCain may utilize their media attention and news blurbs to appear more liberal, or even moderate, look at their political histories, and you will see the true story.
IN LINE WITH MY VIEWS
- Pro-choice
- Oppose gay marriage ban
- Proven reduction in crime
- Fiscal conservative
- Privatization of failing schools
- Supports voucher systems
- Pro-immigration
- Tax reductions fuel the economy
- He believes the welfare state perpetuates poverty and crime
- Anti-affirmative action
- Opposes prayer in school
- Pro-free trade/open markets
- Believes health care can be improved without coming under government control
NOT IN LINE WITH MINE
- He does not support nuclear energy
- Against signing Kyoto Treaty
- His gun control agenda is too expansive
- Unwavering support for Bush
- He remains pro-war, despite the obvious
- He still clings to drug policy mumbo-jumbo
- Pro-Patriot Act
- Believes terrorism can "end"
IN LINE WITH MY VIEWS
- Pro-choice
- Voted against the flag-burning ban
- Include sexual orientation in anti-descrimination laws
- Supports charter schools and privatization
- Invest in alternative energy research
- Insists on placing human rights mandates on China to continue trade
- Recognizes morality is the issue with gun violence
- Made several smart Medicare expansion votes
- Voted against extending Patriot Act's wire-tapping provision
- Supports better equipment for troops
- Anti-war
NOT IN LINE WITH MINE
- Opposes federal spending reductions
- Supports affirmative action
- Voted against CAFTA
- Supports strong gun control measures
- Pro-universal health care
- Voted to re-authorize Patriot Act
- Pro-minimum wage increases
- Chrisian; pro-religion; supports "call to evangalize in politics"
- Voted for giving illegal aliens health and social security coverage (without citizenship)
- Voted against repealing death tax
- Wants to expand welfare state
IN THE MIDDLE
- Opposes gay marriage, but supports civil unions
- Sympathy for drug use
- Free public college for B-average students and above
IN LINE WITH MY VIEWS
- Supports federal funding of stem cell research
- Supports reducing congressional spending
- Supports vetos for pork
- Overall, pro-states rights
- Anti-government lottery
- Voted for bankruptcy reform
- Against unfunded mandates
- Pro-charter schools, vouchers, has made several smart education votes
- Pro-campaign finance reform
- Has voted for several free-trade initiatives
- Has voted for several smart, surgical firearms limitations
- Supports reduction in pork-ish military spending
- Pro-immigration
- Anti-ethanol
- Supports fixing social security
- Supports middle-class tax reform
- Supports permanent ban on Internet taxation
- Increase government services/access online
- Pro-welfare-to-work programs
- Criticizes Bush's War on Terror
NOT IN LINE WITH MINE
- Supports repeal of Roe v. Wade
- Voted against contraception education for teens
- Pro-religion
- Pro-Ten Commandments in school
- Supports flag-burning ban
- Supports limited affirmative action
- Pro-Patriot Act
- Pro-Wiretapping
- Supports limiting the rights of the accused
- Pro-War on Drugs
- Voted against Kyoto Treaty
- Wants more controls on Internet content
- Media (TV, games, etc.) causes violence
- Rated 83% by Christian Coalition
- Supports overthrowing governments of rogue nations (pre-emptive strikes)
- Pro-protectionism
- Supports wacky-assed troop surge
IN THE MIDDLE
- Leave gay marriage to states (voted for federal marriage ban)
- Extremely pro-death penalty (I fall in the middle)
- Mixed energy votes
- Mixed Iraq policy support
IN LINE WITH MY VIEWS
- Pro-choice
- Supports stem cell research
- Calls for tax cuts and balanced budget
- Pushing for Privacy Bill of Rights
- Voted against flag-burning ban
- Voted to expand cell phone wiretapping
- Supports requiring DNA testing for all federal executions
- Pro-charter schools
- Pro-Kyoto Treaty
- Pro-campaign finance reform
- Opposes e-mail tax
- Criticizes Iraq war management; supports phased withdrawal
NOT IN LINE WITH MINE
- Anti-school vouchers
- Media causes violence
- Anti-privatization
- Calls for increasing strength and size of government
- Pro-universal health care
- Voted against medical lawsuit reform
- Voted to renew the Patriot Act
- Wants to give illegal alients social security benefits
- Supports minimum wage increases
- Tax-and-spend mentality
- Opposes tax reform
IN THE MIDDLE
- Supports creation of special "drug courts"
- Force oil companies to fund energy research
- While very pro-human rights, vague on how it relates to foreign policy (really, quite vague on all foreign policy stances)
- Wishy-washy on gun control
- Supports Star Wars-esque missile defense
- Still refuses to apologize for Iraq vote, but admitted in April that it was a mistake
- Touts values-based welfare entitlements
Furthermore he recently stated, “Gun control was right for New York, but I wouldn’t impose it everywhere.†Could this be anything other than a back peddle, or worse, thinly veiled racism. (It is ok for the survivalist KKK nuts to have their guns, but not the black gangsters? Why? Just because the crackers are republican?) Let alone that his handlers have convinced him that it is now a positive to be labeled a racist. Add into this his "boot-strap" attitude, yet he continually denies educational groups and schools the money they need to provide any kind of quality education.
Combine this with his terrifying ideas about the
war.
Anyone who calls this man a liberal in any sense of the word is so far to the right that their perspective is highly skewed.
BTW, people often talk about Obama having such limited national experience, but no one ever points our that Guiliani has never been a member of the Senate or House. He has only ever been a Mayor. (Also, Jason, you mention Guiliani admitting that Iraq vote was a mistake, yet he still backs continuation of the war and he never took part in any "Iraq Vote" as he was not and is not a member of the Congress.)
He was the mayor of New York City! A City with budgets the size of many countries!
I understand where you're coming from, but I think you are pulling a straw man with this argument. I also think that this: is a racist assumption, and that this: is a "no true Scotsman" shot across the bow. Would you please quote where I said this? I believe that was listed with the profile of Sen. Clinton's stances.
This presidential race should also be interesting as it is the first one (in a long time) where there are no incumbents on either side. Not even a VP from the prior administration is running this time!
A lot of politicians are still not used to the fact that bloggers do not give the "free-pass" that the main stream media often does. If a candidate does something wrong the media often holds the story and saves it for a later day. Bloggers just jump right in and talk about it!
Take the recent John McCain "Bomb Iran" song. No one in the media covered it until a few days after some bloggers started screaming about it. That is how things work in the USA (or did work) simply because the big players in the media know that they have the power of propaganda.
Just look at the recent happening with enGadget posting the Apple rumor and Apple stock dropping several dollars a share within minutes of that news breaking! It's even bigger on the national scale.
The biases inherent in the major media play a role in what gets reported and what does not. As long as a candidate is toeing the line things do not get reported (McCain and Bomb Iran) but once they go astray the media no longer holds back and dumps on them (Howard Dean and the scream). The bloggers though are screwing this up for the major media because they don't "understand" how journalism works. In reality the major media has forgotten what journalism is and instead consider themselves the fourth branch of government.
This same thing happend to a Senator in the early 90's. Senator Packwood anyone? Until Bill Clinton was elected the feminists loved Packwood (in more ways than one) because he was in their corner on woman's issues. Once they no longer needed him all of the sexual misconduct stories came out and he was out. Why did these woman not report him earlier? I believe it was because they felt his votes were more important than their integrity.
This clip discusses Obama, but there are a crap ton of other youtube video of Red state update and most are at least amusing ^_^
Also, while I happen to be pro-choice, abortion really isn't a subject over which I feel particularly passionate. Although, this could be the result of my inability to become pregnant.
I would like to support Obama, but he's a high tax, high spending, fiscal socialist. I agree with him on most social issues, but economic policy trumps any other consideration in my mind.
Sure, it's great that we're free to burn flags and have abortions, but it's quite low on my list of considerations if we're living in abject poverty.
It's really difficult to be anything but a fiscal conservative, for this is the inevitable conclusion of knowing anything about economics. Unless you're an idiot Marxist, in which case your logical faculties have simply stopped functioning.
McCain gets support from the Council of Conservative Citizens, a look through their website shows just how racist and, lets face it, evil this group is. He has made numerous racist comments in teh past, even using the word 'gook' on more than one occation. This supports my current stance that every neo-con in existance is racist, evil, and power-hungry. I challange any of you to find one good thing neo-cons have done for this country in the last eight years...hell, EVER. Anytime they have control of anything, the gap between classes widens, we go to war, education takes a hit, and politics get dirtier. We're talking about a party that Anne Coulter loves, and we all know what a racist, pandering, hateful sociopath that one is.
Guliani didn't exactly leave NYC in stellar condition and also appointed a guy to a position of power who was an obviious racist. To top it off, both he and McCain love school vouchers. Any teacher or administrator in any public school will tell you that not only are vouchers are stupid and simply another shot at taking apart public education (something the neo-cons want to do, read "Project for a New American Century"), but that the NCLB Act they put into effect has gone severly underfunded and essentially forced teachers to 'teach to the tests' (meaning you educate kids on how to pass a state-mandated test with, in NY's case, inappropriate benchmarks) instead of having the focus on learning.
Ron Paul is a republican conservative from Texas...hmm...where have we seen that before....OH YEAH, just like our current puppet-in-chief. We all know how well that panned out for us the past seven years now don't we?
The teachers (union) does not like vouchers because if it goes through they lose their power. Remember, A union has its own best interest in mind and not necessarily the interest of those it works for. A teachers union is for the benefit of the teachers not for the benefit of the students. I am a union worker and I readily admit to this basic fact.
Moreover, not every area has the private schools to support their area's children. This will equal a select few getting a decent education (because they are lucky enough to be in a wealthy family or get a voucher), but deprive the already floundering public education system of much needed funds. This creates WORSE public schools, not better! Therefore, the masses have an even crappier education and widens the class gap. Let's face it, school systems with more money have greater success. The problem here is that we are more than willing as tax payers to put billions into useless wars, sports arenas, etc., but not to schools. I am happy to pay high taxes if it means a better education for all.
Private schools are also immune from rules of public schools, so it would be very convenient to create private religious schools that, upon the elimination of the public school system, EVERYONE would have to go to regardless of the religious principals behind it. Be pretty convenient for the neo-conservitives since they want religion in school so badly.
Second, privatization has not 'worked' for college. Students are coming out with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt while other people can not afford college at all, period. College tuition and costs have gone up every year and often do not match the rate of inflation. If you think everyone gets the aid you need, you're mistaken. Oh, and did you also miss the news about the student aid scandals? Numerous colleges and loan companies have been brought up on charges of cronyism recently for basically fucking students over at every turn and locking them into debts for longer than necessary. We're talking 40+ years.
So, no, vouchers have been, and will always be just another neo-con scam to kill public education and hurt the middle and lower classes in this country.
Once again, this is a classic situation where anti-voucher liberals insist that uniformity is synonymous with equality. Frankly, what public schools do is pull everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
Read the Mustachioed Champion of Justice's essay about a free-market philosophy for schools.
As for religious monopoly, that's quite a silly idea. If there is a demand for private schools without religious bias, then some businessperson will open those types of schools. That's why the free market works. If there is a demand, it will be filled.