Posted on 10/11/2005 1:30:16 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt
Having previously examined a total of 10 candidates for president, we turn to some of the more Conservative candidates for president.
One popular name has been Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Co.) who is ardent proponent of immigration reform. Tancredo has helped bring the issue of illegal immigration to the national forefront and for that he should be applauded. He's been talking about this since 1999 and its quickly becoming a front-burner issue.
While I have no doubts about Tancredo's stance on immigration, I question his ability to appeal to the whole Republican party. Tancredo has been in the news about one issue and one issue alone and has shown no ability to speak to the concerns of other issues that concern Republicans.
Tancredo is generally Conservative with a strong 98% ACU career rating and having been on the National Taxpayers Union's "Friend of the Taxpayers" list ever year since he came to Congress in 1999. However, Tancredo has not taken sufficient steps to avoid racializing the immigration debate which hurts the immigration reform cause and would hurt Republicans in the general election. Given that he, himself concedes that a campaign is unlikely to go anywhere, I see little point wasting time on a campaign where the candidate doesn't think he could win.
Senator Sam Brownback (R-Ks.) is a great social conservative leader. He's been a force on culture of life issues as well as the marriage amendment. Brownback's fiscal record has been mixed, as he voted for the Medicare Prescription drug package which has been the bane of economic conservatives, however, his record since arriving in Congress has been relatively strong, never garnering a grade of less than B- from the National Taxpayers Union. Brownback has been involved another of international humanitarian issues such as the suffering in Sudan.
My concern with Brownback are two-fold. First, is whether he has the potential to win the presidency. I've got to tell you that I've got doubts. Although, it is somewhat pleasing to see the American left go into fits of epilepsy at the words "President Brownback" as they believe his campaign to be a plot by the Catholic organization Opus Dei to take over the country. Aside from secret money coming in from the Vatican (as the left reverts to pre-JFK fear-mongering on Catholics) I'm not certain that means he's capable of winning given his lack of charisma, and whether he'll be able to inspire enough people to make his campaign work. His stand on immigration will be anathema to those who advocate immigration reform. He has received a career "D" grade for Americans for Better Immigration.
Next is Governor Haley Barbour (R-Ms.) who did a fantastic job in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. He's began efforts in Mississippi to reduce the number of abortions by changing hearts one at a time. Barbour has resisted the urge to raise taxes even under pressure from local media. Also, as a former RNC chairman, Barbour would have the contacts necessary to raise funds for a presidential campaign.
The negatives of Barbour are found in two things. First is his Washington insider status. Barbour founded one of the most powerful lobbying firms in Washington. Already, some groups have connected Barbour to his firm's lobbying efforts on behalf of the Mexican government. In addition, Barbour was investigated in the 1996 campaign finance scandal. He also would face some questions from social conservatives on his support for on-shore Casino gambling in Mississippi.
In addition, Barbour faces a daunting challenge if he wishes to run for President and re-election as Mississippi Governor. Mississippi is one of three states that will elect a Governor in 2007. Any serious presidential campaign has to start in early, 2007. In effect, he would have to run two campaigns at once. Alternately, he could announce he wouldn't seek a second term as governor but that could bring into question his electability.
Senator George Allen (R-Va.) is one of the best potential candidates for President. He is a man who after a term in the Senate knows Washington well, but also has the benefit of executive experience that a man like Senator Brownback or Congressman Tancredo lacks. He was a key player in Republican gains in the Senate last term as leader of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee.
Allen has two real problems. First, his record on fiscal issues while not terrible has been mediocre at best. He backed the prescription drug benefit for Medicare which creates a huge new entitlement. Allen has also issued ambiguous statements on abortion. Professor Ed Lynch writes:
"Allen has to clarify his position on abortion. During his run for the Senate in 2000, I twice heard Allen attempt to explain his stand on this issue. Neither attempt was very successful. Allen said that he would not restrict abortion during the first trimester, since at that early point in the pregnancy, it is not certain that there is another person involved."
Now Professor Lynch is confident that with some study, Allen will come to the conclusion that life begins at conception and provide a clear position on the issue. As he has yet to do so, its not at certain that he will be able to unite Conservatives, or whether when he faces closer scrutiny, he will in fact, divide Conservatives.
I've covered all the potential Republican candidates I'm aware of in these past three columns, save one, the candidate I will recommend. However, understanding that my pick may not run, in my next piece, I'll turn to the topic of what candidates I've discussed can do to improve their standing among conservatives come 2008.
He could just stand there and utter.."The Presidents main job is to protect the sovereignty of the U.S." and "I am the most conservative candidate in the race"...and peel off 40-60% of the votes.
There were four candidates mentioned, which "he" are you talking about?
Thanks for the series - I think the more conservative candidates are at the whim of events outside their control. More important will be abortion and the War on Terrorism. Who even knows who the VP will be in 2 years. Look for Tancredo's stock to rise if Gilchrist beats the establishment GOP candidate on that one issue out here - more so if the next terrorist attack came across the Mexican border - still I don't see a U.S. Rep advancing to the highest office in the land. Perhaps Governor first?
Tancredo....Im not saying he can win...just that maybe its time to send a message.
Mike Pence. He's Ronald Reagan with a little Tancredo thrown in for good measure.
Bump.
I'm more than a bit worried looking at the GOP field as it currently stands. Does anyone have the lowdown on Bill Owens of Colorado? First of all, he's a Governor, which helps immensely in the race for the Presidency. And I understand that he's patched up things with his wife - which if true, and not just a PR charade, speaks well enough of the man.
We really need to form a breakaway group in the GOP, like a "Teddy Roosevelt" brigade, to 1) educate the public of the benefits of conservatism, and 2) hunt down the RINOs in our midst. Right now the party seems clogged full of 'em, and they impede the way to true progress & simpler government.
Well, Governor Owens has disclaimed interest in a Presidential run. He's had some marriage problems caused in part by his governorship which have been happily resolved, but I doubt he has any interest at this point.
Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota
See Part One. He signed on to a tax incease in Minnesota.
Pawlenty already split the base, Tax increase, ethenol increases, lite-rail, land grabs. J.D. Hayworth is my pick.
I think we have to be willing to be non-traditional in our choice for President. Certainly, governors are preferred. The main Governor I'd have a preference for as President is Governor Sanford of South Carolina who has disclaimed interest in a presidential run.
House members, Senators, etc. have been elected President. Its just been a little while since its happen. The big challenge for Senators is the flip flop issues and the compromises that go on. If someone has been consistently Conservative and focused on doing the people's business, they can get around it.
Oh for Pete sake. He's cut spending and only compromised on a tiny tax increase when the Democrats shut down the state government to force him to break his pledge.
Pawlenty has a great record on spending and taxes, guns and abortion.
The last Representative elected President was, what, 150 years ago?!
still I don't see a U.S. Rep advancing to the highest office in the land.
Maybe not, who knows.
Tancredo is a dyed in wool conservative, but he is not a one horse candidate at all. Subscribe to his newsletter and see what I mean.
http://tancredo.house.gov/
In the top right corner it says "Capitol Updates" and you can subscribe there. His ideas are brilliant.
-Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota-
Gubnor Tim is too busy increasing taxes (er, um, FEES), teaching sports teams to hold taxpayers hostage and building casinos instead of a decent business climate. One of his first official acts in office was to grant benefits to same-sex "couples". He simply couldn't wait to do it.
No, 128 years ago. James Garfield was a Congressman from Ohio who'd been designated Senator-elect by his state when he won the presidency.
You just beat me to it - obviously, Mr. Garfield did not work out so well at all ; )
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jg20.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/gessing200506070908.asp
The Democrats had him over a barrel and got a 75-cent cigarette tax increase out of him. The guy has laid it on the line for Minnesotans and ended up losing seats in the MN senate as a result. The Rats wanted to torpedo his presidential aspirations and knew they had nothing to lose by demanding billions in spending that the public wanted. You can play into their hands if you want to, but you're straining at the gnat.
If Gilchrist wins the 48th District here in California (Chris Cox's seat), and if Cheney stays VP but doesn't run, Tancredo might have a shot. He has got a lot to overcome jumping from House to (White) House - Governors in general, have a much better appeal at running the federal executive branch - those are some pretty BIG "ifs" ; )
http://www.rga.org/
P.S. Now, if the next 9/11 terrorists sneak across the Mexican border, Tancredo might be the ONLY remaining Republican the voters will trust again.
What I've read says the exact opposite:
http://www.gfn.com/archives/story.phtml?sid=13073
Over the objections of Republican legislators two years ago, then-Gov. Jesse Ventura included the health coverage and bereavement leave in most state union contracts for this year and last. Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty wants the benefits removed; he led House opposition to domestic-partners' benefits last year.
As far as I know, Pawlenty was successful in revoking gay benefits by the time the final contract was signed.
"Pawlenty" just doesn't roll off the tongue smoothly - sorry - sort of like "Perot" ; )
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/politics/8305906.htm
Elderly volunteers, anti-tax suburbanites, artsy thespians, education naysayers and gun-friendly citizens got their messages through.
Advocates for the poor, abortion-rights stalwarts, big-city pooh-bahs, small town burghers and students in maroon and gold didn't.
Pawlenty killed the plan of his predecessor, former Gov. Jesse Ventura, to offer health insurance and other benefits to the gay and lesbian partners of state employees.
Nearly a decade of contentious debate culminated when Pawlenty, again in his hurry-up signing mode, inked a bill requiring women to wait 24 hours before having an abortion, and specifying the information doctors must give women before the procedure. It was the top priority of activists opposing abortion, and was a major defeat for abortion-rights supporters.
Tancredo - sanity is not an option ROFLMAO
Just pulling your chain, JohnnyZ - in fact, I like Pawlenty better than Tancredo, all other things being equal - you were just being so adamant against the other criticisms, I thought I'd throw you a curve ball ; )
"Career:
Governor Tim Pawlenty was first elected to the state House in 1992. As the majority leader, he served as chairman of the Committee for Rules and Legislative Administration. Pawlenty has provided valuable leadership to several commissions, including the Legislative Commission on Planning and Fiscal Policy, the Legislative Coordinating Commission, and the Salary and Budget Review Subcommittee. Before taking office in 1992, Pawlenty had served as a member of the Eagan City Council, served as chairman of the Eagan Planning Commission, and as prosecutor in Minnesota's largest county.
Election History:
Governor Pawlenty became Minnesota's Republican governor after emerging victorious from the November 2002 general election -- winning the three-way contest with 45 percent.
Accomplishments:
Keeping his promise to work towards rigorous standards for Minnesota schools by increasing accountability and ensuring that children have safe classrooms in which to learn, Governor Pawlenty has made dramatic improvements to Minnesota's education system. He created the Minnesota Academic Standards, new graduation requirements, and reorganized, renamed, and refocused the Department of Education to its core mission of educating children. Despite the necessity of deep budget cuts throughout state government, Pawlenty preserved funding for Minnesota classrooms, and developed a funding formula for online learning, another school choice option for Minnesota public and non-public students. By appointing a Director for the Higher Education Services Office, Pawlenty has ensured more accountability in higher education. He has also provided an additional $40 million for Minnesota State Grants, a program that helps students pay for higher education.
With the Department of Trade and Economic Development and the Department of Economic Security merger complete, the new Department of Employment and Economic Development has become a one-stop shop for workforce development. Governor Pawlenty has gone further to protect workers by enacting historic reform to ensure the long-term solvency of the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. He has also created Job Opportunity Building Zones (JOB), to spur development and job growth in depressed areas of Minnesota.
Governor Pawlenty provided the largest infusion of dollars into Minnesota's transportation infrastructure by restructuring and reforming the Minnesota Department of Transportation. He also created funds to put 50 more state troopers on Minnesota's roads. He has improved the preparedness of first responders by funding interoperable radios that enable law enforcement, EMS, and other emergency response personnel to communicate.
Minnesota is where Tim Pawlenty has grown up, gone to school, worked and served the state for the past 20 years. Sworn in on January 6, 2003, Governor Pawlenty challenged Minnesotans to "turn problems into progress" by balancing the budget through bold, historic reform. By using the skills and knowledge he has acquired over his career, he is effectively addressing the needs of the state and its people."
http://www.rga.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page&page_id=18
Oh yeah, I agree with you, Tancredo is a real long shot here. His stated purpose in running is to get the immigration problem in the mainstream. Thing is it's there now with a whole bunch of people emotionally bent on stopping illegal immigration.
BTW, I got his newsletter during my posting here.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) noted the front page Washington Times article this morning, which alleges widespread mismanagement at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service including CIS officials who exchanged sexual favors for green cards, were bribed and who granted green cards to persons with terrorist ties.
“If the allegations prove true, this is one of the most serious breaches of national security that I have ever seen,” said Tancredo. “Each charge should be investigated expeditiously and thoroughly. Bribery and corruption cannot be tolerated in the frontline of the War on Terror.”
What politician even utters the words bribery and corruption? He's straight up and doesn't waffle. From my perspective I am so sick of politians who speak like politicians and I think Americans are too. He'll cream a moderate or a RINO.
What we NEED is for a bunch of military veterans, all across the country, in every district, to communicate with each other and offer themselves up, without a professional organization, as the National Party of the US, so that they are on the ballot for Congress and local offices as well as for POTUS, with a retired Marine or Army General or Navy Admiral standing for that office.
The argument is simple:
We have integrity. We're all honorably discharged and have served. The Republicans and Democrats cannot match us for integrity.
We are not lawyers or businessmen by training, but military professionals. We understand war and national security better than the Republicans do. And we will do what is needed to win. Including demanding that Congress declare war, as the Constitution demands. No more police actions.
We will close the border to illegal immigration here, and use whatever force is necessary to close the borders between Iraq and Syria and Iran over there. And then we will deport the illegals here and kill the insurgents there. The illegals here will not flow back in, because the border will be closed. And the insurgents there will not resupply and refill their ranks with new arrivals, because the borders will be closed.
We are not nagging moralist busybodies. We don't all agree on abortion, but we think it's a matter for the states to decide themselves, and that means that a Constitutional Amendment needs to be passed that, just like the amendment ending Prohibition, leaves abortion regulation to the states. This doesn't require waiting 50 years to capture the Court and hoping that the President doesn't nominate a stealth bozo, and it also does not require that Congress vote to ban abortion. It respects democracy, by handing the issue to the states, where it belongs. In the states, representatives will vote their consciousness. The National Party will GET IT to the states. Once it's there, it will have to be fought out politically on a state by state level. Amend the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is removed from the issue and can't get back in, and matters less.
And so on.
That's what we REALLY need. A fresh group of people who can more or less instantly organize without the egotistical collective action problem (military vets), who have more integrity than businessmen and politicians (military vets), who are middle-class (military vets), who have all served with honor (military vets), who are the most competent on national security (military vets), and who are not nagging moralists (military vets).
It would be a breath of fresh air.
And they would develop one hell of a head of steam.
A handful of military vets sunk the Kerry presidency.
And an army of them linking hands could win the Presidency and take a big chunk out of Congress.
Just a thought.
I like "thinking outside the box" as much as the next guy, but then what - a full-scale military take-over? Look, I have nothing wrong with one vet running for office, but some kind of "organized campaign" (even without a professional organization) sounds a bit scary to me. I think the country got over that kind of obsession 200+ years ago ; )
"I like "thinking outside the box" as much as the next guy, but then what - a full-scale military take-over? Look, I have nothing wrong with one vet running for office, but some kind of "organized campaign" (even without a professional organization) sounds a bit scary to me. I think the country got over that kind of obsession 200+ years ago ; )"
It's not a military takeover.
They're veterans. They're not military anymore.
Right now, what do all Democratic politicians have in common? They're all lawyers, and they practically all came out of a network of a few schools.
And what do Republican pols have in common? Why, they're almost all lawyers too! Or MBAs. And they come from a good ol' boy network of schools.
Lawyers and MBAs have certain skills. National security is not their strong suit. Obviously. Neither, as it turns out, is effective legal reform (Hmmmm, I wonder why THAT is...?)
The trouble with anything looking like a third party is the collective action problem. It's practically impossible to organize people who've got nothing in common, or who don't know each other and know they've got anything in common. So, when we've had third party movements or outside candidates, who's it been? A billionaire like Perot. Barely within the party you've had guys like du Pont, or back a few years, people trying to dragoon Lee Iacocca to step up to the plate.
Military folks have integrity.
They have a common set of useful experiences.
And vets have something instantly in common which would make it a lot easier for them to overcome the collective action problem WITHOUT having to have $100 million for communications and propaganda.
Right now, everybody in Washington is from the clique of lawyers. All of them, both parties. That's the club you have to be in. Be a lawyer, and you've got that commonality of origin to be a politician.
Well, I think we need a different guild, a different common source, because I think that lawyers suck at running economies and wars.
What all vets have in common is the military. Which means they all know a common set of rules and law, they're all patriotic, they all know what loyalty is, they all took oaths to the Constitution very young, and they all hung their butts out on the line a hell of a lot more than the clique of lawyers running the country. If we've got to have one profession having a "lock" on power, I say we're better off having veterans than having lawyers!
But anyway, there's two other things. One is that vets are not longer serving active duty folks. If what's in common is their veteran status, which makes them able to easily talk to each other, comprehend each other, and organize without spending a zillion bucks (think of how effective the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth were, with a shoestring budget), what's different about them is that post-military they are in all walks of life.
Right now, Democratic lawyers cavil at Republican lawyers. Just about everybody's a lawyer. The MBA's are the small exception.
Have vets start organizing and getting elected in a National Party, and you'll get salesmen and doctors, ministers and restauranteurs, and yes, some lawyers and MBAs, but what they'll have in common is that they all dedicated at least 8 years of their young lives to serving the country in the most direct and potentially self-sacrificing way possible.
Veterans, as a class, are more qualified to be trusted with positions requiring integrity and defense of country than lawyers are.
The other thing is that all a big vets movement would do would be to introduce competition in politics. Right now, it's a lawyers' monopoly. Not EVERY vet would win. So you'd have a party whose officeholders (initially) were vets, and everybody else would still be a lawyer.
You can bet your sweet bippy that if a National Party started out as a veterans party and started running up electoral seats at all levels, that other people would join it, and then it wouldn't just be vets anymore.
Pawlenty does not have the support of his base.He has also done horrible on Education(too pro NEA)and Transportation(Incompetence all around)If Conservatives in Minnesota do not trust him,how can conservatives nationwide?
Great job Adam!!!!!
Great article from a great conservative!!!!!!!
O.K., calm down - it's going to be just fine - look, I will even recuse myself since I am one of those lawyers too ; )
I'm also a lawyer.
And I know that my colleagues should NOT be running the economy...let alone a war!...but they are.
Which is a bad thing.
Maybe the republican party generally ARE RINOs... The RNC obviously is..
Seems to look like it.. The odds of getting a non Rino to run against Hillary might be undoable.. The Meirs flap is not abour Meirs(IMO) at all, its about Bush..
How we got from small republicans to big government republicans since 1992 I don't know.. After Newt left the place went to hell.. Even here many are not for a free republic they're for a free democracy..
Interesting ideas. What do you know about the politics of Roger Staubach? He is the kind of former military, with the kind of name that could get somewhere - if he's a real conservative.
I think Mr. Tancredo did quite a bit better, @ 70% or thereabouts....&, like always, the very honorable Representative RON PAUL topped the list by a wide margin: 100%. Mr. PAUL always ranks 90% or better, & is the ONLY member of Congress who, day in & day out, consistently supports the Constitution regardless of which way the political winds are blowing @ the time.
Interesting. According to another site, American Conservative Union (www.acuratings.com):
For the year 2004:
Mike Pence - 100
Tom Tancredo - 100
Ron Paul - 78(!)
No way Pence is that low. Tancredo's a good guy but I think from a charisma, visionary, and electability standpoint Pence beats him hands-down.
On top of that, "The Conservative Index" explains how a certain vote violates or is supported by the Constitution by going to the text of the Constitution itself...I doubt if the ACU & other ratings are doing the same.
Political philosophy vs. the Constitution....which one do you pick?
I don't know much about Staubach.
My thought was less personality-oriented and more organizational.
Military people all have a common background. Veterans all have a common reference point steeped in service, law and tradition. They already know how to form an organization, practically by instinct. Now, Veterans are perfectly well aware, when they end up in a room together somewhere, that they're all civilians and all equal. But they are also keenly aware of what rank each of them once had, and where each stood in the military pecking order. And, if you've got some high-ranking former officer in the room, while Vets are not going to grovel or subordinate themselves to him, they are likely to accord him an initial respect, the "benefit of the doubt". They expect that he'll have certain qualities and capacities, and if he doesn't disappoint them by doing anything particularly odd, they will defer to him - a wee bit - until he shows himself a moron. Ditto for senior enlisted. Former Master Chief Petty Officers and Master Sergeants have an immediate "street cred" among former military folks of whatever rank. Every Veteran knows that these folks already proved their capacity, in some sense anyway, in one hard profession. That doesn't mean instant obedience, but it does mean a presumption of capacity.
There already exists a Veterans Party. It's only been around for a couple of years, and seems to be keyed on Veterans' issues (SOMEBODY needs to be - we treat our disabled veterans like shit in this country. We treat criminals and welfare queens better than we treat the poor guys whose bodies were shattered in Vietnam and got in a little personal trouble with drugs. It's appalling).
I don't know much about them.
But the CONCEPT seems smart to me anyway. Don't run some heroic candidate to try and pull the third party stunt. Instead, have Veterans use their various Veterans contact groups to set up an ad hoc party which runs for office at all levels on a simple set of principles.
National security would be one, and that would include wars abroad and immigration control at home.
Another would be basic law and order.
I don't know that Veterans as a group are particularly socially conservative. Some are, others aren't. What I'd expect they mostly all are is constitutionalists. They all took an oath to the Constitution when they were 17 or 18 or 19 years old, and most of them believe in the Constitution. So, I don't know that a Veteran's party would perforce stand up there and say "We will ban abortion." I'm not sure Veteran's agree on that.
But I am certain they would say something like: there's nothing in the Constitution that says abortion is a constitutional right. And they might propose a constitutional amendment that would not ban abortion, or authorize abortion, but rather, just like the amendment that abolished Prohibition, would - as a constitutional matter - make it clear that abortion was an issue to be decided, not by the national government, but by the several states.
I would expect that Veterans would be pro-2nd Amendment, but not ridiculous. These folks would say that you've got the right to have a gun. But you don't have the right to set up a missile battery in your backyard on short final to LaGuardia.
And so on.
I think that they could simply EMERGE as a party, by organizing among themselves and asking their colleagues and acquaintances to take a slot, without playing the usual professional spinmeister game. A bunch of Veterans stand up and run on a platform, and ask you to trust them because they're Veterans, and trust them on national security.
And when the Republican and Democrat attack machines go after them personally, instead of wilting and melting, they're likely to respond with a profane riposte something like this: "Yeah, I slept with her. And Bush is a drunk. SO WHAT? We're not promising to be the Baptist Mission Camp. And we aren't the morals police. We will win the war, close the border, and make taxes fairer to working people."
I'd expect that more than a few Veterans would distinguish between marijuana and other drugs, and would take a moderate approach to marijuana decriminalization, while hammering hard drugs.
In short, were a real Veteran's movement to stand up a party, I think it would be extremely disorienting to the professional political class. They would be able to organize fast, they'd be able to stick to a party line as a group without being a bunch of grandstanders. They'd bring all walks of life into government, instead of just lawyers. They'd be solidly middle class people in power - no wealth scions of East Coast and Texas nobility, and their taxation and spending policies would reflect that middle class orientation. They'd be constitutionalists, and relatively conservative, without, however, being beholden to the religious right.
And they would be very plain talking.
They would not blow sunshine up the public's ass, and they'd say they werent'. And probably in those very words.
It would be bracing.
It would be disorienting.
And I believe it would be very, very effective.
And one other thing: these people really are trained leaders and followers. They KNOW how to run a large organization, much better than lawyers do.
LOL.
Well, I certainly have convinced MYSELF anyway!
"A party of one!"
LOL again.
I'm not so sure if Teddy Roosevelt would be the best Republican to use as a role model here: he was a progressive, the size of the federal government expanded by leaps & bounds under his leadership, & instead of looking @ the Constitution as a way of LIMITING governmental power, he believed that he had the authority to do those things that the Constitution didn't PROHIBIT him from doing (which wpould basically give him the excuse to do anything he wanted to do). The federal government took control of millions of acres of land under his watch, via the National Forest & Park systems, all of which are unconstitutional--those powers were left to the states as the 10th Amendment requires, but is completely ignored today.
I'm not so sure if Teddy Roosevelt would be the best Republican to use as a role model here: he was a progressive, the size of the federal government expanded by leaps & bounds under his leadership, & instead of looking @ the Constitution as a way of LIMITING governmental power, he believed that he had the authority to do those things that the Constitution didn't PROHIBIT him from doing (which wpould basically give him the excuse to do anything he wanted to do). The federal government took control of millions of acres of land under his watch, via the National Forest & Park systems, all of which are unconstitutional--those powers were left to the states as the 10th Amendment requires, but is completely ignored today.
The federal govenment owns most of Alaska(where I live).. Don't control; but OWNS.. Teddy Roosevelt was not my call but another poster that I was reponding too.. The federal government OWNING literally ANYTHING stands the constitution on its head.. They/iT Should not even OWN Washington D.C.
The teachers Unions aborting the proper teaching of civics has dumbed america down to the point we don't know who we are anymore.. We've become socialist ANIMALS.. and not human at all.. and Washington D.C. is the sty that we writhe in.. Farm animals to be sheared and slaughted.. And thats NOT hyperbole..
Harriet Meirs and George Bush are merely the mud to cool the political flesh of socialist animals. just mud.. that is hyperbole.. Will take more than mud to cool this republican pig down though..
I see.. SOoo they wouldnt organize just to get more and more money from the teasury like the teachers unions and old peoples unions(AARP) do.. basically black holes always needing to be filled..
AND they(the veterans party) would reach stasis at some point and say.. WE DON'T NEED ANYMORE MONEY...
If you believe THAT you must be a democrat.. LOL..
I would expect that any Veterans party would, indeed, make sure that Veterans programs were fully funded, and that Veterans had full benefits. I do not doubt that a Veterans' party would be sure to look out for the interests of their original constituency, just like Republicans look out for the interests of business, and Democrats look out for the interests of trial lawyers. I personally find it altogether less troubling to have robust and generous health care and pensions for men and women who put in their 8 years (minimum) or more in service to the country. Indeed, this seems altogether a better use of money than the various boondoggles the Republicans just voted through the Congress.
But perhaps you have a different view of the relative deservingness of Veterans?
Anyway, beyond Veteran's affairs, which I expect would only be a sliver of any budget, no matter how generous, I think that Veterans would bring a better set of management, discipline, loyalty and honesty skills to government than the current monopoly of lawyers does. I'd also expect that they would actually be competent at running wars and national security issues, and would be unsympathetic to the criminal element in society. I'd expect that their natural constituency would be the middle class and the working class, from which virtually all soldiers and sailors come, and that their party would be a different alliance from the trial lawyer-ethnic racial alliance of the Democrats, or the big business-Christian conservative alliance of the Republicans.
I'd expect they'd be more like Republicans than Democrats, but that their tax policies would favor wage earners as opposed to capital investors. I'd expect they'd be more competent in handling wars, but considerably more reticent about getting into them.
I also expect that they would carve the middle out of both political parties and become the dominant party in the USA in a decade.
But I am, no doubt, being carried away here by my own visions, and so will leave if off.
I am a veteran(navy).. and an anti-socialist veteran...
UN-LIKE ALL DEMOCRATS and most all REPUBLICANS...
Is being a veteran a public service or a public parasite.?..
Socialism is slavery by government always; first, to the bees that work in the hive and second, to the ones they prey on.. the public..
Are "veterans" the tail wagging the dog or the teeth of the dog biting the tail wagging the dog.. or simply a citizen providing a service to their country.. The same could be said for any federal government employee..
Federal government is the problem not the answer to 95 percent of all veterans.. and other federal government employees.. The same for state employees but not as stongly.. for we are all citizens of states not citizens of the United States.. The United States(i.e. federal government) have/has zero citizens.. People living in D.C. are not citizens they are wards of the federal govenment..
Course we could be a democracy and not a free republic at all.. and the states are merely lost in the paperwork.. and a vestige of what they once were..
Veterans are in a different cadre, and the law recognizes them as such.
For one thing, the job that Veterans did for the country got many of them crippled and disabled. So, gut check: should the government treat those disabilities, with the highest quality medical care, for the rest of those Veterans' lives?
Yes or no?
Right now, the law says "yes", but the reality is "Not even close!"
What do YOU say?
I would say that if the government is NOT willing to provide the highest quality medical coverage to men and women crippled in combat, that young people should be told this LOUD AND CLEAR, in the recruiting publications, before they sign on that line. "You're a salaried employee on the hook for 8 years. We may send you into combat zones, and you can't quit. If you get crippled for life in combat, you can expect to be treated during the remainder of your 8 year obligation, but after that, the US government will not owe you any special obligations. If crippled in the line of duty and unable to work, you will be entitled to welfare and Medicaid coverage, if available."
Should that be the deal?
Are war cripples just a burden, who have no right to expect (as a matter of RIGHT, not as a matter of welfare) lifetime medical coverage and a disability pension for their war wounds?
Or is that just welfare, which should be discouraged?
I referred to that in my post.. I said 95 percent..
You not recognizing that, could say something about you..
I know he's a Republican, but I don't know how conservative.
I suspect that he's at least reasonably conservative, however. I'll tell a funny story.
You may remember the last debate of the 1980 campaign, a week before the election, the debate Reagan won with "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" and Carter lost with his story that he was talking to his daughter Amy and asked her the biggest problem facing the country. She supposedly responded, "Nuclear proliferation, Daddy."
Well, that Sunday (between the debate and the election), Staubach was the color man for CBS on a game between the Cowboys and Cardinals. At one point, the Cards are deep within their own territory and losing ground. So the play-by-ply guy asked Staubach, "What woudl you do in this situation, Roger?"
"Well," said Staubach, "I was talking to my daughter Amy the other day and she counsels the bomb."
Needless to say, the phone rand and CBS executives ordered Staubach to be in their office on Monday. Well, he went home, got two tickets, took one o his daughters with him, and went to his meeting at Black Rock.
Staubach reportedly went into the meeting with his daughter in tow. Then he introduced her to the CBS Sports honchos. Her name was Amy.
"What woudl you have done in that situation, Amy?" Staubach is supposed to have asked his daughter.
"Well, I'd go for the bomb," she said.
"Well, er, ah, OK," said the CBS suits, "but don't do that again."
I believe that Staubach has told this story himself. I've read it in more than one paper.
Two more ex-NFLers who are known to be on our side are former Giants receivers Mark Bavaro (who is a pro-life activist) and Phil McConkey (who almost ran in the primary gainst Pataki, whom he dubs "Patakifeller.")
I'd like to see all these guys make a run.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.