Category: National

GOP Meltdown

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I have written previously about my views on social conservatives abandoning the party in 2008 if the Republican nominee is Rudy Giuliani. I have been interested in the various articles about why they would, or wouldn’t go through with that threat. Some of the people suggesting that this is a bluff, or a poor choice, show that they do not really understand the people who are set against Giuliani. I have read some columnists who think that this is just a childish stunt. Others believe that the social conservatives have been given short-shrift in the GOP coalition and are not surprised by their desire to flex their muscles.

I argued that the social conservatives needed to support a single candidate rather than just opposing a single candidate. It has been nice to see others who feel the same way. Another convincing suggestion for social conservatives is that they need to work harder at winning the hearts and minds of other factions of the GOP coalition.

Based on what I am hearing I would bet on one of four candidates getting the Republican nomination: Rudy Giuliani – if the social conservatives don’t coalesce around another candidate, Mitt Romney – if they are really afraid of Rudy, Mike Huckabee – if they just can’t bring themselves to back a Latter Day Saint, or Ron Paul – if his extremely committed and growing core of followers can break through to mainstream voters (meaning those who are more laid back about their politics and thus are less likely to go seeking a candidate who is not at the top of the MSM listing of candidates).

Because I don’t believe that social conservative leaders are bluffing about Giuliani, I predict that all of the other Republicans have a better shot in the general election that Rudy does.

Tags 2008, issues, national candidates, parties

National

Build Your Own Cage

Thinking about the idea of a split in the GOP makes me wonder about how we got where we are. Why is the leading candidate for the party unpalatable for a large segment of the party base? I am reminded that “parties are simply alliances of groups that can put aside their differences sufficiently to focus on a few areas where they mostly agree.” Considering that it is not so surprising that the fiscal conservatives are ready to back Giuliani after years of being out-shouted within the party by the social conservatives.

The real dynamic of the nomination process is that the Democrats are united in their desire for a large government that will protect us from negative consequences with social programs to help us go to school, pay for necessities when we lose jobs, ensure access to health care services, legislating social tolerance, and promote international good will by throwing money at the problems plaguing poor nations. Social conservatives have been content – even excited – with a large government that will protect us from change by spending money to wage war against radical Islam around the world, building fences at our borders, listening in to our private conversations in case someone expresses an idea they deem dangerous, and regulating our public conversation against indecency. There is a third group who wants less government and more personal responsibility – including the possibility of suffering the consequences of poor social or financial choices. This group is so tired of being pushed to the side that they are willing to settle on any candidate who will at least promise to keep the growth to a minimum.

The ability of this third group to make Giuliani the frontrunner is what has lead to the warning by social conservatives that they might not support Giuliani. After so long in power they seem to forget that this was a coalition. They don’t seem to care that Big Government is the Enemy of Freedom. They want to coerce the nation in to following their vision of what this nation should be and forget that their coercive tactics would lead them into this very trap.

Tags 2008, parties

National

Could Giuliani Split the GOP?

Post author By David
Post date October 1, 2007
9 Comments on Could Giuliani Split the GOP?

I found the idea interesting that Christian leaders threaten to abandon Republicans if Giuliani is the nominee. John Hinderaker at Power Line doesn’t think so. I can’t claim to have more information than John, but I would not be so quick to dismiss the possibility. I know that I can’t vote for Giuliani though I can only speak for myself. (Whether I am at all representative of GOP voters at large is highly debatable.) I am not always a fan of James Dobson and for me the Giuliani issue is not a simple matter of his position on abortion. The fact is that I could name three candidates among the Democratic hopefuls this year who I could vote for over Giuliani.

When I consider candidates I essentially rate them on a personal scale – I don’t try to press my criteria on other people, but I imagine that some other people do a similar thing in deciding who to support. This places candidates on a scale ranking who I would be more likely to support out of any given set of candidates. On that scale there is a line which I have decided to call the Write-In Line. Candidates falling below that line can’t get my vote no matter who they are running against. (I considered calling it the Orrin Hatch Line since I think I could vote for Orrin if he were running against Giuliani – but he’s pretty well lost my vote otherwise.) If I am voting in a contest with no candidates above that line I write in a candidate who I could vote for. Who knows how many people there are like me who just could not vote for Giuliani.

If the goal of this group in raising the option of a GOP split is to keep Giuliani from getting the nomination then their best chance would be to go one step further and choose a candidate now that they could support – I have a short list if they’re interested. I would say that they have to back someone no later than the day after the Iowa caucuses if they want to have any impact in the nomination. If they are really like me and could not vote for Giuliani then I would say that the possibility of a split is real and a Giuliani nomination could change the face of American politics.

Tags 2008, national candidates

National

Political Conundrum

I have been evaluating my position with regards to the presidential candidates – specifically those in the Republican party. Right now there is a front runner that I don’t think I could be compelled to vote for in the general election no matter who his opponent was. I could give up all hope except that I really do think that Mitt would make a good president and despite any of the early questions about whether he could get the nomination he has shown that he has a legitimate shot to win the primaries.

My conundrum is that I really like Mike Huckabee as well. In fact I wish that he were in the top tier on par with Mitt (unless that would split the votes and pave the way for Giuliani to get the nomination). I think that Mike would make a much better president than McCain or Thompson. So my challenge is deciding how much to support Mike Huckabee without inadvertently helping Rudy Giuliani.

I have talked to Laura about this and also sought input from some other family and friends. Does anyone have any suggestions about how they might face this conflict of hopes?

Tags 2008, choices, national candidates

National

Fiscal Realism

I keep returning to the sentiments of Reality Check – that we need to realize that on tough issues we will not be able to satisfy everyone and that the decisions we make must be based on what is best and not merely based on what offends the fewest people. This comes up again as I read the platform for Divided We Fail. This is an initiative of the AARP. I do not wish to accuse the AARP of not caring for the future, but I think it is fair to note that when push comes to shove the best solution for the next 5 years is going to be more favorable to the AARP than the best solution for 30 years from now.

Their platform consists of 6 points – 3 on social security and 3 on health care:

All Americans should have access to affordable health care, including prescription drugs, and these costs should not burden future generations.
- This sounds like a noble and universal sentiment.
- We can deduce from their other points that the path they envision is one of government backed health care which is not possible without being a burden on future generations so this goal is unattainable in its fullness – one part has to give.
- For more insights here go read No Free Lunch.
Wellness and prevention efforts, including changes in personal behavior such as diet and exercise, should be top national priorities.
- Absolutely. This is the one undeniable truth, and the single most influential factor in the rising costs of our current health care system. How do we go about doing this?
Americans should have choices when it comes to long-term care – allowing them to maintain their independence at home or in their communities with expanded and affordable financing options.
- Agreed. Only, what “affordable financing options” do they have in mind?
Our children and grandchildren should have an adequate quality of life when they retire. Social Security must be strengthened without burdening future generations.
- Everyone (the AARP as well as their children and grandchildren) deserves an adequate quality of life when they retire. We might need to define “adequate quality of life” because what that seems to be today may well be unsustainable.
- On the other hand, there is no possible way to strengthen social security without increasing the burden on future generations. Some generation is going to have to take the fall on this one. The program needs to receive its sunset – Sadly, I feel compelled to volunteer my generation. I don’t expect to receive social security benefits. Even if social security benefits are still available I hope not to avail myself of that benefit. (Why should I be a burden to my posterity?)
Workers should be provided with financial incentives to save, should have access to effective retirement plans, and should be able to keep working and contributing to society regardless of age.
- I agree.
Americans of all ages should have access to tools to help manage their finances, and save for the future and better, easy to understand information to help them increase their financial literacy and manage their money wisely.
- This is another point that sounds good but the pessimist in me is skeptical that we will ever really educate the majority of our population on money matters.
- I also believe that managing money more wisely requires more than financial literacy – it requires a new attitude about the value and nature of wealth. So long as we are driven to keep up with the Joneses financial literacy won’t make us wise managers of our money.

Tags economics, health care, issues, social security

National

An American DREAM

When I first heard about the DREAM Act it seemed reasonable to me. When I saw it called Backdoor Amnesty I was not really surprised, but I thought that I should look into it more closely. That meant going to see the actual text of the bill. The last time I talked about immigration I said that we needed to decide what we believe on the issue before we run around legislating a position. My own position, the more I consider it, would have us be much more open for immigration than we are now (on the books).

As I look at the text of this bill I believe that it is fundamentally sound. The purpose is to allow a path to citizenship for those who came to the US as children (under 16) and who have lived lives in the U.S. that are worthy of citizens (no run-ins with the law, no orders for deportation, completing their educations) and contributed or prepared to make positive contributions to our country (complete degrees at institutions of higher education without federal grants or served two years in the armed services without an other than honorable discharge). Not only that but they must have lived as residents for at least 5 years – no hopping back and forth across the border (limitations against 90 days at one time or an aggregate of 180 days outside the US in the last five years).

The one potential problem that we should guard against is having this used as a back door for children to get legal status and then use that as a lever to gain legal status for their parents. This law should only be applied to those who came as minors and have since completed their secondary education and followed the path to continued contribution to this country. Those who have done so should not be held liable for being brought here illegally. They should not have any special opportunity to help parents (who are accountable for coming here illegally) gain priority access to legal residence. Those parents should be required to seek legal status through existing means. Children who have not yet completed their secondary education should be returning to their country of origin with their parents and if they choose to return to America legally we should welcome them.

Tags government, immigration, issues

National

Suggestions on Health Care

Post author By David
Post date September 20, 2007
3 Comments on Suggestions on Health Care

I have noticed a pattern lately in the articles that I have been linking to (and displaying in my sidebar) – many of them (4 out of 10 currently) deal with the issue of health care. I would like to post on all four eventually but for now I would like to discuss my thoughts on some of the general principles that I am seeing in the health care discussion.

The idea of a single payer system spells economic disaster to me.

The idea of forcing everyone to purchase insurance seems fine on the surface with the typical caveats that we subsidize that cost for low income people. On the other hand, I think that people should be able to choose to not purchase insurance if they have enough personal wealth – with the understanding that they will be fully financially liable for any care they receive. This may sound backwards since the wealthy would be the most able to purchase insurance, but imagine that I am a very healthy millionaire (I am healthy, but I do not have even a fraction of a million dollars in net worth) – there is no reason to force me to purchase an insurance policy if I am willing and able to assume the costs of my health care. Perhaps I have to sign away any right to declare bankruptcy in the face of medical bills.

There are two major things that any attempt to fix our health care system must address if they are to have any hope of success.

The first is to make people sensitive to the costs of health care. Right now most of us are only sensitive to the costs of health insurance. Once we have insurance (whether our own, through an employer, or Medicaid/Medicare) we cease to be cost-conscious because most of the cost is already paid. (High deductible plans have the advantage of keeping the consumer cost conscious.)

The second crucial change that must be made is to find ways to encourage healthy lifestyles and preventive care.

If we address these two changes the entire problem would become more manageable because we would have better health and less being spent on elective procedures. We might even hope to have fewer lawsuits driving up the cost of health care as people become more involved in making their decisions of what procedures they undergo.

Tags economics, government, health care, issues

National State

Near-Sighted Legislation

The senate is scheduled to vote today on whether to debate the bill to make two new seats in the House of Representatives and give them to give Utah and D.C. My opinion on this can be found in an editorial at National Review Online (no, I didn’t write it, but it expresses the same position I hold). The one new thing I learned from that article was that the bill does not specify that Utah gets the second seat, but that it would go to "the state that stands next in line to receive a seat through the normal process of apportionment. " (currently Utah) I guess I did know that, but I did not realize the wording.

When I wrote about this issue in July I made much the same argument as NRO and stated that Utah had nothing to gain by pushing for a new representative with so little time before the next census. Representative Chris Cannon (R-Ut) points out that we do have something to gain – money. Sending a new representative earlier gives earlier seniority and allows for more pork money to be sent home from Washington. Unfortunately sending pork money home is exactly the way to buy votes for re-election.

I’m sure this sounds un-American of me but if the purpose of a representative is to send more pork home then we should reduce the size of the house to 250 or less rather than increase its size by 2. What we need in this country is not more money being passed around after filtering through the capitol. This only ties us to greater dependence on the federal government and gives more power to what was supposed to be a relatively weak central governing body.

UPDATE: The bill failed. But Senator Hatch promises to keep pushing for it until we pass his flag burning amendment. If we got him a recording contract in Nashville would he retire from the Senate?

Tags Constitution, fourth seat, government, legislation, money

National

Bowling for Primaries

I have been thinking about the comments by Bradley when I wrote about the primary election power struggle between the states and the parties. Last night the thought occurred to me that the parties could simply pick a new way of awarding delegates. They could set three dates on the primary calendar. Whatever states held primaries or caucuses on or before the first date would have 10% of all delegates allocated among them. States who held their primaries after the first date but before the second date would have 20% of the delegates split among them. States between the second and third dates would would split 30% of the delegates and states holding primaries after the third date would split the remaining 40% of delegates.

The parties could then invite states to participate in a given window based on population and/or a lottery but the states would then be allowed to set their primary dates wherever they chose. If we imagine that the first date for 2008 was February 4th then “Super Duper Tuesday” (or whatever it’s being called now) states would be competing for 20% of the delegates in choosing the party nominees. When states choose when to have their primaries they have to balance the value of being influential in the early stages against the larger pool of delegates to by split by those who come later.

Questions? Comments? Rebuttals?

Tags democracy, elections, parties

National State

New Attorney General

I guess this means that I should abandon that thin sliver of hope that some post-hypnotic suggestion would cause Bush to name Senator Hatch as the new Attorney General and give us an easy way to put him out to pasture.

Tags Orrin Hatch, reactions, wishful thinking