A question I thought about posting on the NCAAbbs Spin Room, but I thought I'd post it here amongst friendlier Blazer kin first.
Liberals like yours truly would certainly find fault with the last few years of the Bush administration. But there are grievances that I believe have actually reached across political lines (albeit with differing suggested solutions)--the Iraq war, the immigration issues, Social Security and pension solvency, the federal response to and rebuilding efforts after Hurricane Katrina, disparities in health coverage, reducing environmental harm--just to name a few of the big ones.
Given all of that, I'm interested in reading why a conservative candidate should get four more years in the White House, regardless of who the Republican party nominates. (I'm assuming, of course, that no major Libertarian or Constitutional party nominee emerges.)
Nobody likes a flame war, so if you're gonna use rhetoric, at least attempt to make it 'high-minded', opposed to simply sounding
high. (j/k) Ya'll post, I'll read.
(reaches for popcorn and a Red Blitz Vault)
Well, first it helps to actually have a conservative in office. Bush is a social conservative and that's about it.
Bush is an idiot.
There are several conservative candidates I could be happy with. There are some I would shake my head if elected. Same holds true for the Democrats.
I'm really hoping Unity '08 comes through with a truly powerful bipartisan ticket.
There are several conservatives I could live with. Among the current crop of candidates (which is pretty sad) I like Bill Richardson best, but he's got the proverbial snowball's chance.
I personally believe in voting for the man, not the party or philosophy. You should vote for candidates based on their stands on specific issues, not because they stand for "good Alabama family values".
the Iraq war, the immigration issues, Social Security and pension solvency, the federal response to and rebuilding efforts after Hurricane Katrina, disparities in health coverage, reducing environmental harm--just to name a few of the big ones.
Okay. I agree with us being in Iraq. Success has been slow, but we will succeed in the end. I believe our country will be safer in the long run, from terror groups.
Personally, I'm mad at Bush's stand on immigration. Bush has been a wuss. We should close the ENTIRE border yesterday, and send as many illegal Mexicans back to Mexico as we can. Completely shutting down the border will also improve our nation's security.
Social Security, get rid of it NOW. Please, just stop taking money out of my pay checks for Social Security. Then, you don't have to give me anything at 62 1/2. I can/will get a better roi than the gov't can/will for me.
I haven't studied the nation's pension problems well enough yet. My company, Johnson & Johnson, has an excellent pension. However, I'm still saving as much as I can in my 401K in case my pension falls apart. If Social Security and my pension are both alive when I retire, they will both just be extra spending money for me. I'm not counting on either.
Katrina, The New Orleans gov't is a joke (typical mindless dems with lots of plans but no action). I listen to New Orleans radio 1-2 days a week. Ray Nagan, the Mayor, is worthless. If you want to see rebuilding in action, go to the Mississippi coast.
Health coverage, If you don't like the current health coverage that your company provides for you, get a job with a company that does.
Reducing environmental harm, If you're talking about global warming, I think it's a joke. Sorry.
Interesting thoughts so far. I forgot to add in my initial post that you don't have to limit any responses/ideas toward issues I raised. If you'd like to add more, go right ahead.
dfarr, you raised an interesting point--I've long gotten the sense that Bush has not always been 'one of the guys' amongst many conservatives. If a Republican were elected in 2008, what would you like him to continue doing, and what would you like him to do differently than his predicessor?
Grammar-Nazi Wrote:I'm really hoping Unity '08 comes through with a truly powerful bipartisan ticket.
Off topic a lil bit--I wonder how seriously people are taking the Unity '08 effort. You really don't hear about it much, at least I haven't.
BlazerUnit Wrote:dfarr, you raised an interesting point--I've long gotten the sense that Bush has not always been 'one of the guys' amongst many conservatives. If a Republican were elected in 2008, what would you like him to continue doing, and what would you like him to do differently than his predicessor?
I would keep the tax cuts, scrap No Child, scrap the prescription drug stuff, completely change the stance on immigration, and I'm unsure about Iraq. I'd also try to push for a change in social security making it voluntary in some form or fashion. Oh, and use a freaking veto everytime one of those damn pork laden bills comes across the desk.
Is there a "Conservative" candidate? The Cheney/Bush Administration (that's the way it really worked out) has turned the gov't of Conservatives into an administration whose spending would make the "Liberals" blush. By not putting the Iraqi War into the Budget as a line item,(financing it with "supplemental" expenditures instead-a VERY dishonest approach) it has claimed that the budget is not as large as it should rightfully be.
Bush had the support of the nation following 9/11/01 when he went after the terrorists and their supporting cast in Afghanistan. I believe that had we "STAYED" that course, the world might be a more peaceful place since we had a fairly good chance to end the Taliban and its AL Quida proteges. Instead we followed admiditedly false intelligence and administration promoted lies to get sidetracked into an invasion of Iraq, a war we were forced to fight again because the first Bush President and his staff quit in 1992 when we had Hussein by the throat only to quit (CUT & RUN?) leaving him in power. So now we have a civil war all around our forces in Iraq and a resurgent Taliban taking advantage of our draw-down of Afghanistan troops to support the false war in Iraq. We are faced with the real possibility of losing BOTH wars now.
I think there is no believeable conservative option in either party for the election of 2008. Except for the Christian Right which is happy with his persistent "to Hell with stem-cell research" anti-abortion stand, and those who have the highest incomes "because rich people 'give' jobs to the peasant workers" so they must be protected from fair taxes (just like in Alabama), Bush has been the picture of an "in over his head" administrator. I firmly believe the period from 2002 to 2009 will become known as the Cheney Presidency.
Re:Social Security-In hind sight (20/20 as always) SS was faulty in concept. It was based on a "bell-shaped" life curve that crested at 67 yrs and declined sharply after that. In the midthirties, almost as many workers died before 65 as lived more than 2 yrs after. The "Age of Modern Medicine" was still in the future-penicillen was only a few years old. It should have been a straight tax (like other taxes) with no ownership of the money, and should have been on all income, not just the first $90,000 of wages/salary. There should have been NO EXCEPTIONS to being in the plan. With no ownership of the money, the payout could be indexed to your qualifying income parameters just like other social compensation programs so there would be no need to pay out to those who have no need of the income-for whom it is just icing on their cake. Of course, it's probably too late now to do this since you can't undo history.