Maybe I Shouldn’t be so Jolly about Giuliani

Ree,

I concur. Let\'s have the debate in \'08 without the social issues weighing as heavily as foreign policy, international relations, and domestic policies.

My major problem with Rudy is his lack of support for the 2nd Amendment. Even if you take the social issues off of the table, Rudy will not have the support of those concerned with their Constitutional rights.

Social issues or no social issues, Rudy has a major problem on his hands.

Shrader

Ree,

I concur. Let’s have the debate in ‘08 without the social issues weighing as heavily as foreign policy, international relations, and domestic policies.

My major problem with Rudy is his lack of support for the 2nd Amendment. Even if you take the social issues off of the table, Rudy will not have the support of those concerned with their Constitutional rights.

Social issues or no social issues, Rudy has a major problem on his hands.

Shrader

Great question…

I think that taking Gay Marriage, Stem-Cell and Abortion out of the race would be great for both America and Democracy. These issues have drastically influenced races that weren\'t even electing folks that were in a position to do alot about them. I.E Abortion, if the Republicans had wanted to over-turn Roe V. Wade with legislation, they would have done so when they controlled all three branches of Government. They\'d rather have it as an election issue though, so they sat on it.

I doubt the \"Latte Liberals\" would bail on the party sans these issues. I see Global Warming and the Energy debate to be a huge motivator for this base, and those issues will dominate at least some significant portion the upcoming election\'s landscape.

But I agree with Nathan yet again, this country could use people going to the polls with Foreign Policy, International Relations and Domestic stability in mind!

Or we could take it the other way and let the Democrats nominate someone who is pro-2nd Amendment, pro-life, and anti-gay marriage. That would also take the values issues out of the picture.

The good thing about Rudy making this race is that it shows that the Republicans are much more tolerant of diverse opinions on social issues that Democrats. Do you know what would happen if a pro-gun, pro-life Democrat wanted to be on the national ticket? Let\'s just say that he/she wouldn\'t have 30% in any polls right now!

Rudy is a consumate politician. His views were progressive enough for NYC and his policy implementation was tough enough to clean the city up.

All polls show him surging, perhaps too early, in GOP preferences. With McCain\'s campaign struggling and Romney having a real problem with identifying with the base, Rudy has a phenomenal opportunity to be the GOP candidate.

The last comment with regard to the Democrats recent nominees, and of their own House and Senate Caucas speak volumes. While the GOP Right is trying to shrink the tent, the Democrats offer little but Progressive to Hard Left social and National Defense issues, and may find that voters will not accept them posturing as moderates as happened in the 06 Congressional Elections. The other problem is the flank from the Left of the DNC.

Both poles are threatening the Party\'s, but in all honesty, Giuliani seems to have more hold on the middle than any of the Democratic Party\'s Candidates.

Great question…

I think that taking Gay Marriage, Stem-Cell and Abortion out of the race would be great for both America and Democracy. These issues have drastically influenced races that weren’t even electing folks that were in a position to do alot about them. I.E Abortion, if the Republicans had wanted to over-turn Roe V. Wade with legislation, they would have done so when they controlled all three branches of Government. They’d rather have it as an election issue though, so they sat on it.

I doubt the “Latte Liberals” would bail on the party sans these issues. I see Global Warming and the Energy debate to be a huge motivator for this base, and those issues will dominate at least some significant portion the upcoming election’s landscape.

But I agree with Nathan yet again, this country could use people going to the polls with Foreign Policy, International Relations and Domestic stability in mind!

Or we could take it the other way and let the Democrats nominate someone who is pro-2nd Amendment, pro-life, and anti-gay marriage. That would also take the values issues out of the picture.

The good thing about Rudy making this race is that it shows that the Republicans are much more tolerant of diverse opinions on social issues that Democrats. Do you know what would happen if a pro-gun, pro-life Democrat wanted to be on the national ticket? Let’s just say that he/she wouldn’t have 30% in any polls right now!

AVoiceofReason,

I think that the Democratic tent is smaller than at any point in the party\'s history. Anti-war at all costs, dogmatic on abortion, pro-affirmative action, and wedded completely and totally to big government.

On the flip side, I think that the Republican Party has a major problem: a tent that is too wide. The Republican Party shouldn\'t have room in the tent for anti-gun candidates, anti-free speech candidates, or presidential candidates who refuse to sign the pledge promising no tax increases.

These are fundamental principles that a party simply cannot tip-toe around and I would hope that the party does not abandon these values.

Rudy should run as an independent in November 2008. This is where he could make the most significant gains…

Shrader,
Let\'s look at some of the issues that you feel the tent isn\'t big enough for:

Gun Legislation - Here\'s a valid question Do you or does ANYONE need an assault weapon? I seriously doubt that Mr. Mayor will be confiscating guns. Candidly I support bans on certain weapons. I don\'t need an assault rifle, nor does anyone. Where does it end? LAW anti tank weapons in a gun rack?

No New Tax Pledge - What if a serious calamity broke out, such as a horrible war, and resources were needed for such an emergency. Why not go with the record that these people have and see if they cut or raise taxes as a guiding principal.

Free Speech - I agree fully, but do you qualify flag burning as free speech? That is the law, whether it is liked or not. A good many Conservatives would ban that type of free speech.

I think that there is a place that these issues can be discussed within the GOP. I also honestly feel that if the GOP puts one of the \"Hard Right\" Favorites a la Tancredo, Hunter, even Gov. Huckabee the result will be a Dem landslide. Right now all the major candidates have their \"Republican bona fides\" doubted by the hard base.

Rudy is a consumate politician. His views were progressive enough for NYC and his policy implementation was tough enough to clean the city up.

All polls show him surging, perhaps too early, in GOP preferences. With McCain’s campaign struggling and Romney having a real problem with identifying with the base, Rudy has a phenomenal opportunity to be the GOP candidate.

The last comment with regard to the Democrats recent nominees, and of their own House and Senate Caucas speak volumes. While the GOP Right is trying to shrink the tent, the Democrats offer little but Progressive to Hard Left social and National Defense issues, and may find that voters will not accept them posturing as moderates as happened in the 06 Congressional Elections. The other problem is the flank from the Left of the DNC.

Both poles are threatening the Party’s, but in all honesty, Giuliani seems to have more hold on the middle than any of the Democratic Party’s Candidates.

AVoiceofReason,

I think that the Democratic tent is smaller than at any point in the party’s history. Anti-war at all costs, dogmatic on abortion, pro-affirmative action, and wedded completely and totally to big government.

On the flip side, I think that the Republican Party has a major problem: a tent that is too wide. The Republican Party shouldn’t have room in the tent for anti-gun candidates, anti-free speech candidates, or presidential candidates who refuse to sign the pledge promising no tax increases.

These are fundamental principles that a party simply cannot tip-toe around and I would hope that the party does not abandon these values.

Rudy should run as an independent in November 2008. This is where he could make the most significant gains…

Shrader,
Let’s look at some of the issues that you feel the tent isn’t big enough for:

Gun Legislation - Here’s a valid question Do you or does ANYONE need an assault weapon? I seriously doubt that Mr. Mayor will be confiscating guns. Candidly I support bans on certain weapons. I don’t need an assault rifle, nor does anyone. Where does it end? LAW anti tank weapons in a gun rack?

No New Tax Pledge - What if a serious calamity broke out, such as a horrible war, and resources were needed for such an emergency. Why not go with the record that these people have and see if they cut or raise taxes as a guiding principal.

Free Speech - I agree fully, but do you qualify flag burning as free speech? That is the law, whether it is liked or not. A good many Conservatives would ban that type of free speech.

I think that there is a place that these issues can be discussed within the GOP. I also honestly feel that if the GOP puts one of the “Hard Right” Favorites a la Tancredo, Hunter, even Gov. Huckabee the result will be a Dem landslide. Right now all the major candidates have their “Republican bona fides” doubted by the hard base.

Believe it or not, knowing my feelings on progressive taxes, I would actually clap my hands for a candidate that would sign a pledge to never raise taxes…..on the bottom 80% of income earners. We can agree that the middle 40% of income earners are currently overtaxed. My simple mind bases these types of things on the economic principle of the marginal value of a dollar. Taxes should be based on the ability to pay.
The only wedge that should be driven into the electorate is between the income elite and the rest of us. Agree or disagree on principle, shifting the tax burden back to inherited wealth class will give us the funds to solve the ever growing problems that the GOP refuses to admit even exist.

Right on Ree!

When the Great Class War begins I\'ll gladly be your deputy in Command!

I don’t get why the 2nd Amendment should be a litmus test for any candidate. But then, I don’t get the abortion thing either.

People need to understand the differences in approaches and viewpoints vis-a-vis the 2nd Amendment when it comes to urban vs. rural situations. The right to have a deer rifle in Perry County is not the same as that in NYC. What the hell is anyone going to do with a deer rifle in the Bronx? Okay, okay, so there’s that nasty drug dealer down on the corner. But isn’t taking him out the responsibility of the local PD?

The same with abortion. Neither issue should be stuck on absolutes. That type of stance is counter-productive.

RG needs to be evaluated on his efforts and results as a person and a public manager. He gets high marks in my book for his work as a prosecuting attorney, good to high marks for his work as a mayor, and low marks for his personal habits. As a politician, he’s similar to Bill Clinton. Although I do not believe he would ever allow a teenager to give him a monica in the oval office.

The Democrats have a serious problem on the class war issue. Most Americans do not want a class war or believe that one needs to be fought (except maybe John Edwards). Ree, you know it, that I am opposed to raising anyones tax rates, regardless of how much they make. More taxes equal less productivity regardless of who the tax is being levied upon.

The real problems are 1) the tax code penalizes hard work. It should be replaced with a consumption tax like the one advocated by Congressman John Linder called \"The Fair Tax.\" 2) Federally imposed taxes like federal gas taxes mix with state taxes on the same items. All of these taxes (fed, state, local) add up to create a loss of wealth in all Americans who pay them. Thus, taxes, at all levels, across the board, must be lowered. Finally, 3) If our leaders had the political courage to cut federal spending at all levels in all departments, we could save the working man a great deal of money.

Basically, if we cut all federal spending, trim down on taxes, and eliminate the income tax and replace with a consumption tax, we could also eliminate the debate over whether or not we have a class problem in the country.

AVoiceof Reason, to answer your earlier questions:

1) Gun legislation. We don\'t need more… we need less. In fact, I think that we ought to consider revising the 2nd Amendment to more closely reflect the Pennsylvania Constitution\'s language on this issue: \"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned.\" I have no reason to question why someone would want an assault rifle, handgun, hunting rifle, etc. and hence have no reason to ask them. It is their business… not mine.

2) Tax Pledge. Easy one. If a \"crisis\" breaks out, government should tighten the belt in other areas, cut programs, subsidies, etc. There is never a \"shortage\" of money for government to throw around.

3) Free speech is free speech. McCain-like efforts to squash it shouldn\'t be tolerated.

Right on Ree!

When the Great Class War begins I’ll gladly be your deputy in Command!

Taking the social issues out of the mix and focusing strictly on foreign policy, international relations, energy policy, and domestic issues would do this country wonders in terms of the common good. Instead of the wedge issues that prevent the dialogue America needs, itwould be better served discussing issues that focus on the challenges ahead for America.

One other quick point, I\'ve been pondering lately where my views lie in terms of government involvement in people\'s lives, thus bringing me to Nathan\'s point on guns when he asks \"Do you or does ANYONE need an assault weapon?\" Then Nathan goes onto say \"Candidly I support bans on certain weapons. I don’t need an assault rifle, nor does anyone. Where does it end? LAW anti tank weapons in a gun rack?\" I agree, we don\'t need assault weapons and we shouldn\'t be banning the use of iPods either(Nathan I know your disdain of them). Some things are best left to the states, not the federal government.

Jeremy–

I didn\'t say those things about banning certain types of weapons. In fact, I disagree with banning weapons and wish that everyone else would respect the decisions of those who choose to own weapons, carry concealed weapons, hunt, collect, or enjoy firearms.

Protecting the 2nd Amendment is up to the federal government because the Bill of Rights tells us so. I can\'t stand it when states or cities try to make their own laws to undermine the 2nd Amendment… something clearly out of their reach.

NRS

The Democrats have a serious problem on the class war issue. Most Americans do not want a class war or believe that one needs to be fought (except maybe John Edwards). Ree, you know it, that I am opposed to raising anyones tax rates, regardless of how much they make. More taxes equal less productivity regardless of who the tax is being levied upon.

The real problems are 1) the tax code penalizes hard work. It should be replaced with a consumption tax like the one advocated by Congressman John Linder called “The Fair Tax.” 2) Federally imposed taxes like federal gas taxes mix with state taxes on the same items. All of these taxes (fed, state, local) add up to create a loss of wealth in all Americans who pay them. Thus, taxes, at all levels, across the board, must be lowered. Finally, 3) If our leaders had the political courage to cut federal spending at all levels in all departments, we could save the working man a great deal of money.

Basically, if we cut all federal spending, trim down on taxes, and eliminate the income tax and replace with a consumption tax, we could also eliminate the debate over whether or not we have a class problem in the country.

AVoiceof Reason, to answer your earlier questions:

1) Gun legislation. We don’t need more… we need less. In fact, I think that we ought to consider revising the 2nd Amendment to more closely reflect the Pennsylvania Constitution’s language on this issue: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned.” I have no reason to question why someone would want an assault rifle, handgun, hunting rifle, etc. and hence have no reason to ask them. It is their business… not mine.

2) Tax Pledge. Easy one. If a “crisis” breaks out, government should tighten the belt in other areas, cut programs, subsidies, etc. There is never a “shortage” of money for government to throw around.

3) Free speech is free speech. McCain-like efforts to squash it shouldn’t be tolerated.

Jeremy… almost forgot in my previous post…

Go Sox!

Taking the social issues out of the mix and focusing strictly on foreign policy, international relations, energy policy, and domestic issues would do this country wonders in terms of the common good. Instead of the wedge issues that prevent the dialogue America needs, itwould be better served discussing issues that focus on the challenges ahead for America.

One other quick point, I’ve been pondering lately where my views lie in terms of government involvement in people’s lives, thus bringing me to Nathan’s point on guns when he asks “Do you or does ANYONE need an assault weapon?” Then Nathan goes onto say “Candidly I support bans on certain weapons. I don’t need an assault rifle, nor does anyone. Where does it end? LAW anti tank weapons in a gun rack?” I agree, we don’t need assault weapons and we shouldn’t be banning the use of iPods either(Nathan I know your disdain of them). Some things are best left to the states, not the federal government.

Jeremy–

I didn’t say those things about banning certain types of weapons. In fact, I disagree with banning weapons and wish that everyone else would respect the decisions of those who choose to own weapons, carry concealed weapons, hunt, collect, or enjoy firearms.

Protecting the 2nd Amendment is up to the federal government because the Bill of Rights tells us so. I can’t stand it when states or cities try to make their own laws to undermine the 2nd Amendment… something clearly out of their reach.

NRS

Jeremy… almost forgot in my previous post…

Go Sox!

I’ve never blogged here before but I find some of these posts sort of confusing. Y’all know that the Republican and Democratic Parties actually have platforms, right?
(and, yes, in contrast to the Republican Party I actually know good GRAMMAR!)

The reason why a Democratic candidate who is pro-assault rifle and anti-choice for women would not be leading the pack right now just might be because he or she doesn’t represent the platform of the Democratic Party.

I have no problem with Republicans embracing Rudy. But they embrace a man who doesn’t represent the Republican platform on most of the issues.

No, Rudy is a Democrat in RINO clothing. And, if Rudy wins, imo, it only signals the end of the Religious Right in politics.

Since that’s why I left the GOP in 1998, I have NO problem with Rudy being the one who takes them down.

I don’t think any Democrats will be voting for Rudy. But, don’t you at least see that if he wins, he basically wins as a Democrat? Does anyone believe that will be a BAD thing for Democrats?

I think the Religious Right are the BAD thing in politics. So, to me, a Rudy win would finally show the Religious Right that NO ONE really supports their agenda, not even the GOP. Can ya say AMEN!

Nathan -

My error since I clearly wasn’t paying attention and I chalk that up to being exhausted my friend from writing a paper last night. However, I do believe we should ban some weapons like automatic assault rifles, although I do believe in the fundamental principle of the 2nd Amendment.

As for Jan’s comments… I agree that the Religious Right is bad for American politics considering how blurred the lines have become over the last decade between state and religion.

One final note about Rudy, I was calling NH voters last weekend for an early ‘08 benchmark poll, and surprisingly the Democrats I spoke with liked Rudy and the Republicans I spoke with like Obama. I am curious to see what the poll will say when the results are released.

Go Sox!