Posted on 02/10/2008 12:44:36 PM PST by beejaa
So, with Tsunami Tuesday now history, where do things stand in the Republican nomination race?
At this point we can't know the winner absolutely but -- far more than in the Democratic race -- we can see clearly the shape of things to come. The Republican nominee is going to be John McCain.
I can't vote for him. He's just so, you know, liberal.
Liberal? In this party?
James Dobson can't stand him. Sean Hannity wanted Romney. Huckabee is solid. Strict libertarian "Reason" mag has run an article headlined: "Be Afraid of President McCain: The Frightening Mind of an Authoritarian Maverick." Ann Coulter says if McCain wins the nomination she'll campaign for Hillary. Rush --
article continues
(Excerpt) Read more at inrich.com ...
IMO, a John McCain term in office would be the death of conservatism. I also recognize that if John McCain becomes president he will have no opposition whatsoever in our government.
Republicans will support him because he is a Republican. Democrats will support because he will reach across the isle on almost every issue. He has proven his proclivity to do so.
This presents an opportunity for this nation to be damaged in ways leftist have only dreamed about prior to this. And as the damage takes affect, CONSERVATIVES will get the blame
The media will explain that McCain is after all a Republican, a Conservative. The media won’t care that he’s not a Conservative. They make all the mileage off of it that they can.
Conservatives who disagree with McCain will marginalized. You here are trying to make the case that folks will be crazy to oppose McCain openly even now.
After McCain becomes president, he will eviscerate Republican who dare oppose him on any issue. And who will oppose him the most? Conservatives.
Oh yes, there will be hundreds if not thousands of reasons why we must be silenced. Even our own will talk of what a necessary strategy it will be.
Count me as far out of that idea as you can get.
This man will do incredible damage to this nation from the White House, and I won’t be silent on the issue.
Sorry we can't agree on this. I do appreciate you asking what I think of the idea.
Should we not vote until he is reeincarnated? Should we sit out until a conservative shows the initiative to win the nomination?
I am not asking you to stop what you are doing.
I respect it.
I am asking you to make it your business to drive up the opposition to him.
The more conservative republicans who know that they can count on you, the less power the top of the ticket can gain from them.
And in the unexpected event that McCain wins?
They have damn good reason to be beholden to you more than him.
November 5 is the day after the election. The last time the Republicans have lost a Presidential election which fell on November 4 was in 1884, and voter fraud in New York City may have cost them that election (the margin was only 1,000 votes or so, and that tipped the electoral vote majority to Grover Cleveland).
1986 Amnesty Bill
Raised Taxes 6 out of 8 years as president
1983 retreat from Lebanon
Who did all this? Was it Bill Clinton? No, Jimmy Carter? No,
It was Ronald Reagan.
Are you one of these guys who counts tax simplification as a tax increase? And oh, by the way, how many tax cuts did Ronald Reagan vote against during his career as a politician?
If the “Tax Simplification” results in the government taking more of my money then, it’s a tax increase.
I don’t how many times did Reagan vote against tax cuts?
Is that what happened to you? Did Reagan's Tax Code Revisions in 1986 result in you paying more tax? And before you answer, you might want to take a look at the following discussion of the 1986 Tax Act.
The 1986 Act did what most observers thought was impossible: reduce the complexity of the federal tax code. Originally, discussions for reform of the tax code focused on a flat tax system. This system has one tax rate, irrespective of income, and only limited deductions. However, going directly to a single—rate tax structure was not politically feasible, so a compromise emerged from Congress.
Prior to this reform there were eleven income tax brackets with marginal rates ranging from 11% to 50%. In addition, the code was filled with a myriad of deductions and shelters which motivated business and individuals to enter into arrangements not on their economic merits, but rather for the tax consequences. With the passage of the Act, the number of brackets was reduced to three with marginal rates of 15%, 28%, and 33%. In addition, many deductions were eliminated, which reduced many of the economic distortions caused by the previous tax complexity. The end result was a flatter and simpler tax structure.
With the Act's passage, the United States had the lowest marginal tax rates of any major economy. This reform extended the economic expansion brought on by the Reagan tax cuts of 1981 and was one of the foundations that fueled the 1990s boom.
Finally, I don't believe Ronald Reagan (either as Governor of California or as President of the United States) ever opposed a tax cut. That just wasn't his style.
The 1986 Tax “reform” increased tax revenue, it was a bait and switch on the taxpayer. Sure we’ll reduce your taxes by 10% but we’re increasing the stuff we tax by 20%. But because we are in the Season of Lent, I’ll give that to you. Now you only have to rationalize the other 5 Reagan Tax increases.
And you still haven’t accounted for Reagan’s Amnesty.
Could you actually point me to the tax code changes that you say constituted repeated tax increases under Ronald Reagan? Some source material would be appreciated. Aside from that, I am confused as to the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that because Reagan passed a tax increase, we shouldn’t be upset at McCain for (twice) opposing Bush’s tax cuts. If that’s the argument, I have to say it is a pretty lame one.
Yeah, that's called supply-side economics. You reduce marginal rates and thereby increase tax revenue.
"Here is John McCain, on the night of the South Carolina primary:
"We want government to do its job, not your job; to do it better and to do it with less of your money; to defend our nation's security wisely and effectively, because the cost of our defense is so dear to us; to respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; to enforce the rule of law that is the first defense of freedom; to keep the promises it makes to us and not make promises it will not keep."
This is not a true conservative?"
You got me there. Reagan supported amnesty - which brings to mind the old Smothers Brothers joke.
When Dick asked Tom why he had done something particularly stupid, Tom said it was because so-and-so had told him to do it.
Dick then said 'Hey Tom, if someone told you to jump off a bridge, what would you say?'
'Never again!' was Tom's response.
Thank you for that clarification. I will do my best to support every conservative that stands for election in November. I would be more than happy to support that.
I appologize if I misinterpreted your thoughts. It appears I may have.
I frequently address the fifth more than the fourth, because that’s the day we’ll find out what we are saddled with.
The election is on my brother’s birthday this year, and I expect to get the election results about 1:00 am my time.
Thanks for that bit of electoral context. It was interesting.
I frequently address the fifth more than the fourth, because that’s the day we’ll find out what we are saddled with.
The election is on my brother’s birthday this year, and I expect to get the election results about 1:00 am my time.
Thanks for that bit of electoral context. It was interesting.
LOL! No. Some would be happy to drag out his corpse.
I don't know how many times he voted against tax cuts either. I do know he raised them as governor of California. He didn't really have a choice.
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.