I'm not sure what you mean in your post. No, I don't
vote a straight ticket. But when you look at the folks
running for President, how can you say anything but
I will vote for the Republican running. Both Hillary and
Obama and so far left if is pathetic.
I think you are saying I am full of crap, which is
your privileged, but I could care less about how you
feel about me.
Hillary and Obama are not far left but then you wouldnt' believe that if it hit you in the face. Oh, and I know you don't give a rat's ass how I feel about you just like I could care less about how you feel about me.
And when you look at the republicans they are so far too the right it is pathetic. Guiliani and McCain don't have a chance because they are NOT far too the right like you are.
I agree. Even my last choice for republican is better than any of the demonrats.
Middle left is to far left for us conservative.
Even the worst Republican will be better on judges than the best Democrat... at least I hope.
The potential troubles might be that a President Giuliani would steer toward the Consuelo Callahans of the world, or that a President Huckabee would steer towards the Roy Moores of the world, as opposed to the stacked lineup of excellent Federalist Society judges and their allies already on the federal bench.
The Republicans may not be likely to win in 2008, but they need to avoid nominating Giuliani or Huckabee, because not only would those nominees lose, they also would destroy the GOP coalition.
RG is finished. The Repug elite will work to promote someone instead of Huckabee.
Edwards polls as most electable and to beat every Repug
I can see that happening.
Edwards won't get the nomination but he's pimping himself for the VP slot. He's good.
That little doesn't have a chance.
Until Airforce One is fueled by rainbows and lollipops, he can keep his carbon footprint tax away from me.
LA TimesPolitical suicide? Quite the opposite for the GOP White House hopeful -- so far. But many call the plan for a national levy 'crackpot' (even if it would shut down the IRS).
Mike Huckabee, one of the most conservative Republicans in the 2008 presidential race, has embraced one of the most radical ideas on the campaign trail: a plan to abolish all federal income and payroll taxes and replace them with a single 23% national sales tax.
The idea -- dubbed the "fair tax" by proponents -- has been a political asset for Huckabee; its well-organized backers have helped catapult him from the back of the presidential pack to its top tier.
Sales tax proponents have tapped into seething voter hostility toward the Internal Revenue Service to become a below-the-radar political force, popping up at campaign events and candidate forums in Iowa and elsewhere.
The efforts on Huckabee's behalf by sales tax advocates helped spur his surprise second-place showing in an August Iowa straw poll -- the breakthrough that marked the beginning of his rise in the state and nationwide.
Eliminate the income tax, of which little is paid by low income people and those on welfare, and then hike their subsistence costs by 23%. It's comforting to know that Paris Hilton would pay an extra 23% for her next Mercedes, but to the person that is barely able to pay the rent and keep the family fed, a flat tax stinks. European countries have had Value Added Taxes for decades, in addition to their income taxes, and they have been like heroin--they are addicted to them, needing ever more to satiate their spending needs. They keep raising the levels of their VAT and never seem to get enough out of their citizenry, even though they tax them way more heavily than the U.S.. In Germany, they recently put the 19% VAT onto gas sold at the pump, whose price already contained over80% in taxes, which means Germans now pay a 19% tax on the fuel tax.
VAT is a clever idea, but extremely unwieldy in practice, and grossly weighed
to disadvantage those with low or no incomes. Then like heroin, the dosage keeps getting raised and raised and raised just to maintain a level of addiction, and the patient never gets cured. The lobbyists get into the act, getting politicians to reduce or eliminate the VAT on their clients' products, and you can guess how much of a lobby the lower income people have in any country...
This is way off topic, but I heard someone call him "Mike Mother abee"! If he gets elected, that's what I'll call him just cuz it sounds funny!
"their subsistence costs by 23%."
One way to make a national value added tax less regressive is to give the low income people much higher deductions. paying less income tax.
Huckabee's radical tax plan calls for lower-income families to receive a monthly "prebate" check to cover their sales taxes.
There's really not that much difference between either Clinton or Obama and most of the GOP field. Especially when an acceptable conservative Republican position is the largest expansion of an en lement program since the '60s.
Are there some differences on social policy? Sure, but they're fairly trivial. Mindnumbing blather about prayer in school, abortion, the death penalty, sexual marriage, etc...doesn't really cons ute much substance. About the only issue where there may be any difference is on the view of the US in the world circa 2008. But I don't see a President Clinton or Obama withdrawing from Iraq anytime soon.
All of these candidates suck up to the same business interests. Perhaps one party is a little easier to deal with, but those who think that a Democrat administration will be akin to the return of Stalin need to lay off the sauce.
Does a fiscally conservative Republican politician even exist at the federal level today?Huckabee's radical tax plan calls for lower-income families to receive a monthly "prebate" check to cover their sales taxes.
It's odd how conservatism has boiled down today to making sure lesbians can't marry, adopt, or have abortions.
Thompson and Romney at least give lip service to fiscal conservatism.
Huckabee and his supporters are the socially-conservative Southern wing of the pre-1968 Democratic Party, the wing which was wooed into the GOP starting with Nixon, and whose integration was made complete under Reagan. They never have been truly conservative in the fiscal or economic sense. With no strong unifying candidate to keep the coalition together, the various interest groups are splintering apart.
Social issues define our politics today. That's how we've ended up with working class Republicans and upper middle class Democrats nationwide as a norm, rather than exceptions due to familial connections dating back to the Civil War.
Looking back over the current administration and its predecessor, there were two broad attempts to change fiscal policy significantly: the Clinton health care plan and Bush's attempt to overhaul Social Security. Both failed despite their respective parties holding control of the Congress. Plus, other than the prospect of another handout with the Clinton proposal, fiscal policy hasn't been a significant issue for the electorate and that includes Bush's tax cuts.
Perhaps the credit market mess will have a large enough impact by next spring when a large number of ARMs reset to make fiscal and economic policy relevant again, but even then all it will take is some proposal to abolish the death penalty or prohibit gay dudes from marrying to push that to the back burner.
People don't vote their pocketbook today. They vote their faith, biases, tastes, and image.
Remember when the federal budget deficit actually mattered?
About the only way fiscal/economic policy will be a major issue today will be in the form of debate over illegal immigration, but the differences on that issue stem more from cultural biases than from anything else.
I doubt it. Too many people will avoid voting for him because he's Mormon. Mormonism triggers thoughts of polygamy and cultism, and many people will vote against him just because of it.
Not just cultism, but a heresy. Not even Big Love can save him.
If Romney was Methodist he'd have the nomination almost locked up by now.
That is a shame. I don't care about his religion....it is his republicanism views that bother me.
I agree.
But right now, I don't have any idea who will win it.
Out of the GOP field, the one candidate who I think will end up being the least undesirable for the primary voters will be McCain. He's also probably the one who would attract the most support from independents in the general election.
A lot of people will think he's too old.
I think the GOP vote is going to very split because most of the candidates have a major "strike" against them - Romney (Mormon), McCain (old), Guiliani (immoral), etc.
Perhaps. I think age will prove to be the least undesirable characteristic.
Of course, Huckabee could tickle the fancy of the evangelicals.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote