First of all, I am not personally endorsing Rudy, but he is a major candidate and has just made probably the most substantive and detailed proposal for the 2008 campaign by either party to date (I know that the Paul supporters will dispute this, so I will nod to that). Rudy announced yesterday, Tuesday 6/12/07, his broad outline of 12 promises to America that I expect he plans to shape his campaign around. I guess that these things if done would please some and displease others or some may be acceptable while others unacceptable. I will look forward to how he expands these concepts to clarify just what they mean. There are some that I am interested in, some that I need clarity on. Off hand pending further detail I like 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9. Although I don’t necessarily dislike 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 I’d like to know what he means by them. I don’t believe that Rudy will find many if any of these items exclusive to his campaign.
-
I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
-
I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
-
I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
-
I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
-
I will impose accountability on Washington.
-
I will lead America towards energy independence.
-
I will give Americans more control over and access to healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
-
I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
-
I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
-
I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
-
I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
-
I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world
Next Stop Lauderdale 
Relatively broad (9 maybe 10 of the 12 will be part of every candidates battle cry) while at the same time very ambitious…
& funny in a way. Reminds me of the middle school stump I did running for 8th grade class president.
Does the list seem a bit sophomoric to you?
I guess it makes sense to start broad brush & then dig in…
Steve, would you say Rudy is in your top 3 (current candidates)?
MDBL, Thats why I said that most or all these points will not be exclusive. On the basic level they do seem sophmoric, but like MZ says, what I like about the approach is that it is clear, ordered and unambiguous. Something you can really cross examine and hold feet to fire. I am not suggesting that they are properly amplified or detailed, but it gives the voters and the press something to nail down in this age of squirmy politicians. I suspect this list will not be used just in the evaluation of Giuliani, but now that it is on the table it will become the gauntlet that they must all answer (D&R) and the race will center around how unequivocally they are able to answer these questions.
Is Rudy in my top 3. No, why, because I really don’t have a top 3. If I were king there are some things I would do. McCain would get his ticket pulled altogether. I would only vote for him against most of the apparent Democratic candidates. I will undoubtedly vote for the Republican candidate under most any circumstances because I wouldn’t want to deliver the trifecta to the Democrats. I certanially don’t want another Ginzberg and I suspect we’d have 2-3 retirements practically in November (08) if you have a Democrat President and Senate. They’ll die in office before they retire with a Republican in office (or should I say someone that would appoint judges that apply the Constitution as it was written and not to accomodate the popular (liberal) view of society.
Back to being King. I am not really ready to say this yet but I might appoint someone like Hunter as President. I really don’t know as much about him as I would want, but he seems like the type that would be in my top 3 if I were King. The problem is in getting elected. I am not a very good handicapper of that, but it seems that what I might divine as an ideal candidate would be hard to get elected, not because I think those policies would be unelectable, but more from the marketing angle of name recognition.
Jim comments here and he says that voting for someone other than your true beliefs (i.e Paul in his case) is a sell out. Don’t see it that way. Actually I think that is a suckers perspective. You can only effect change to a point then you must choose between your practical options unless you want to go down with the ship. Otherwise the only change you affect is that your worst nightmare comes true. I’m not saying that his view isn’t valid, I am saying it is naive in Presidential Politics. I think that sometimes elections are a defensive game not an offensive game.
In the case of Paul. As far as I am concerned he is a nice enough guy. I don’t believe that of all countries the USA can remain on the sideline as much as he (or apparently you) would like. There are some other problems with Paul that I have previously addressed Jim about which he hasn’t responded to. It has to do with Pauls seeming cover up of some of his writings in the early ninties that suggest he is a racist and/or anti-semetic.>
I’m allowing room for change or moderation, but since Paul will not release the remaining copies of previous writings and people Jim have yet to address it, I have to consider it a potential problem. I’m sure the press isn’t to concerned about it, but only because he is a distant dark horse. I have access to one of those new letter as does everyone else, but the rest seem to be generally unavailable anywhere (at this point), except from Paul himself, but we’re not going to get them from him. Here is the one I know of in print.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
Here are some excerpts:
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That’s what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn’t ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
Dad,
While I think some of these are quite lofty and somewhat unattainable as “promises”, I like the idea of clearly outlining objectives b/c people can be held accountable to them. I agree that this is quite broad (mdbl) but I suppose a good starting point, not good ending point. If this causes others to clearly write objectives out clearly- then many kudos for that, and great demonstartion of leadership from Rudy.
2 & 11 strike me as great goals, but unattainable as a completely fulfilled promise.
8 is simply rederict. i feel about the same as that as I feel about making abortions “safe legal rare”. Sounds good on paper, but unrealistic. A compromise on this issue does not work. briget has written good material on this, 4 simpsons as well i believe.
5 i pose the question- more accountability on what? sexual dealings? money taken? adhereing to promises made while campaigning? this is far to broad of a statement.
1 3 4 6 & 9 are no doubt attainable with the right leadership
7 this is a complicated one, would be interested in seeing you you can ensure this in a free market. THOUGH I WOULD TAKE IT OVER NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
11 hm. would be interested in hearing how this will be done as well.
10 every community? we’ll see. at least he didn’t say protect every community against terrorism, that would be unattainable… but maybe it is possible to ensure infrastructure and readiness to communities to deal with these things.
12 not sure you can promise to change peoples opinions. some will have them not matter what. but a good goal as long as it doesn’t become the top priority… and in that sense i like that it is #12. I have never been one for popularity contests. Popularity isn’t bad, its forsaking what is right for the sake of it that is wrong. So as long as this is kept in balance I think it is great.
Watch out for number 2! He says he wants to identify every non-citizen. Notice he doesn’t say what he will do with them. Will he deport illegals? Probably not. How will they be identified? Is this a way to introduce national ID cards and national database. First non-citizens, then citizens perhaps. We need to very leery of politicians who claim they want to secure the borders. They say this and then like Bush, come up with “reform” bills that have all kinds of loopholes in them. Even though the latest Bush-Kennedy bill was defeated in the Senate, he says he will be back to push it through. We need to keep fighting these guys on immigration because they keep trying to ram it down our throats and they keep getting more clever and sneaky about it.
Watch out for number 10 too. I’m sure he would prepare us, with internment camps to round up people. Which are being built by the way. Welcome to the police state, bye bye Bill of Rights, Constitution and personal freedom. As Ben Franklin said, “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”
Number 12 is code for globalism. He will promote more “free trade” agreements with the rest of the world to enable Corporations more free reign to leave the US if they want. Boeing, Haliburton, etc.
Jim, You had a couple of comments tied up in my Spam Filter with about 8 actual spam comments. I restored it. Re: Kennedy, I fully expect them to attach it (in Conference which can’t be amended) to a bill that is near and dear to Republicans. This time Bush won’t have the motivation to complain that he wants a clean bill since he supports the underling legislation……….steve
A great response Steve thanks… & another great reply Zabs (definitely makes sense to think of his twelve promises as objectives)…
I actually do believe Paul is both anti-semetic & racist. For this & a few random other reasons I think he’s not very electable at all. I do obviously like his middle east banter & think it’s important in todays political dialogue.
The fact that we’re actually a few debates in & something this broad from a candidate indicates leadership (which I supose it does?) is ridiculous to me. I will say that the D’s all have pretty clear outlines on the websites & until now, the R’s (& notably Rudy) do not. Not sure why, or if it just simply speaks to the earlier discussion we all had about internet inefficiency among R’s?
Maybe has something to do with waiting on RNC marching orders & figuring how far to distance themselves from Bush?
Whereas the D’s are trying to play offense (I think they are? Who ever knows?)?
I’m babbling & maybe not even making any sense?… In any event, I’m currently puzzled & disappointed with the current crop of wannabe’s (no matter the party). I don’t really find any of them “Presidential”.
But with that said, I do definitely agree with your view on how to pragmatically choose a candidate, so it’s gonna get more & more interesting…
MDBL,
“Maybe has something to do with waiting on RNC marching orders & figuring how far to distance themselves from Bush?”
Maybe a little in the 2006 election cycle, but not now. He is a Lame Duck to the Republicans and this “immigration reform” is a clear message to him from the Congress on this point. They feel (and I agree) that Bush single handedly cost them the Congress on the Rumsfeld termination alone.
I don’t think there are too many taking or following administration “marching orders.”
MDBL:
I forgot to amplify my own point in my response to you above. It was related to this quote from my response:
“You can only effect change to a point then you must choose between your practical options unless you want to go down with the ship. Otherwise the only change you affect is that your worst nightmare comes true.”
My add to this is: Take the example of the Green party in 2000.
Although, I believe that this scorched earth worst nightmare scenario may be the very strategy of some of the 3rd party movements.
Agreed…
Completely
& I was thinking more RNC marching orders & not the administrations.
The RNC will continue to distance themselves & get the parties platform sorted out.
hiya Steve..I’ve met him several times…we could use a strong patriotic leader bout now eh!
Angel, We as conservatives need in my opinion to triangularate on him with this judge thing so he is in a box to do otherwise. In that case his opinion on the abortion issue is moot. He would be a good bull horn for ralling around at this time………steve
<i>8 is simply rederict. i feel about the same as that as I feel about making abortions “safe legal rare”. Sounds good on paper, but unrealistic. A compromise on this issue does not work. briget has written good material on this, 4 simpsons as well i believe.</i>
My big issue with “safe, legal, and rare,” is that it can’t be done. Basic economics: if it’s safe, legal, and accessible, it’s not going to be rare. I also take HUGE issue with the idea of abortion as “safe, legal, and rare.” If it’s a bad thing, why should it be legal? If it’s not a bad thing, why should it be rare? Why not allow women to abort every single month if they so desire?
I can’t help but see Guiliani as inconsistent in this regard. He hasn’t thought through the positions on his own. Moreover, most people – conservative and liberal – who read <i>Roe v. Wade</i> know that it’s a crappy decision. Every strict constructionist judge in America hates it.
theo………I agree with all you have to say on this matter here, on your blog and elswhere. As we have discussed before, to the extent that I support Guiliani at all, I am relying on his point 9 about constructionist judges. We can only hope that the ones he appoints have the stamina to stay with the program……steve
“Jim comments here and he says that voting for someone other than your true beliefs (i.e Paul in his case) is a sell out. Don’t see it that way. Actually I think that is a suckers perspective. You can only effect change to a point then you must choose between your practical options unless you want to go down with the ship.”
Steve, for my entire voting career, I have absolutely held the belief that you shouldn’t waste your vote on someone who doesn’t have a chance to get in office. To vote otherwise would be ridiculous. I held that belief in the last election and stood for over four hours in the rain to cast my vote for Bush as I firmly believed to vote for anyone else would be paving the way for Kerry to take office. I wasn’t crazy about some of Bush’s decisions, such as not securing our borders, spending, and the handling of illegal aliens, I felt it was the best possible decision considering the alternative. While I still firmly believe that Kerry wasn’t the man for the job, not a day goes by where I wish I would have voted my conscious. I am embarrassed as to how things have evolved since the election and, while I am so thankful I get to participate in the voting process, I now believe that a wasted vote is the one you make only to keep the other guy out or because you are settling on a candidate you don’t actually believe in. In essence, I mocked people who held Jim’s belief thinking it was a cop-out, but I now believe there is much to be said for someone who not only votes, but doesn’t compromise his conscious in the process. I wish I could say the same of myself after the last election.
TVV………Don’t be so hard on yourself. You participated in blocking Kerry from office. There is (in my opinion) no way to run the numbers and come up with the results that Kerry would have been better than a disappointing Bush. I am sure the left feels the same way with the way the Green party contributed to Bush’s election in 2000. In that sense, they are so right, but I’ll take the win anyway they want to deliver it…………steve
Where is my first post on numbers 2, 10 and 12?
I must have missed or forgotten about you asking about these Ron Paul statements so let me reply.
First some Ron Paul quotes on racism:
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.”
Just what did Paul say regarding the false accusations?
From an interview with Texas Monthly.
” In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a “fraud” and a “half-educated victimologist.” In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” And under the headline “Terrorist Update,” he wrote: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” Paul says that item ended up there because “we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”
When it comes to these allegations, is it any wonder Daily Kos and others don’t like his limited government stance. Let’s look at things like his voting record. Let’s debate the issues Paul brings forth, like limited government, less taxation, non-interventionism and more freedom. We should try to steer clear of ad hominem attacks.
Jim,
I am not sure which of your comments you refer to when you ask where they are concerning Giuliani items nos. 2, 10 &12. I can assure you that they are somewhere on the blog, I’ll try and find them soon (just got home).
Good Point on Liberty being antidote to Racism.
Concerning Paul’s position on being accused of Racism. [note: You should be able to note that I didn’t automatically join that chorus]. You do quote him however stating that the statements he made about Jordan, DC Black Males and Affirmative Action were not offered in any way with the intent of Racism. Then he goes on to claim that they were the words of his staff or “helpers” not him. One would fairly assume that if he didn’t write his own newsletter that he would have at least read it before it went out. If he didn’t fine, but that sort of transfers the burden of proof of his denials to him. So if he didn’t write it I think it is fair to ask did he identify the person(s) that wrote the offensive language, did he take disciplinary action with that person, did he offer an apology repudiating such statements before the issue became an matter of Presidential Politics? Still a point of confusion is perpetuated because he also qualifies the statement by saying his accusations of Jordan as a Fraud and the Criminal Rates among D.C. Black Males is within the context of the time and a matter of statistical fact (sort of like the Bell Curve I presume). What I am saying here is which is it? Was it written inappropriately by the staff or alternatively are we taking it out of context.
The things above that I ask if he “did” seems to be reasonably expected remedial actions if he was unfairly associated with these statements. Further, I understand from KOS (I share your feelings concerning them) that he has refused to release other copies of other issues his newsletter that would corroborate his denials or refute them. If it is true that he refuses to release these other writings it doesn’t help to pass the smell test. If they indeed corroborate his denials I would think he would want to get them out as soon as possible.
As I said I don’t think much of Daily KOS myself, but it is not a matter of their ulterior motives when the only thing I am using them for is a source for Paul’s own document. This discussion stands or falls on Paul’s writings, not their possession of a single copy of his newsletter and even their analysis.
Jim, I think if you re-read my comments seeking clarification on this matter about Paul you will see that they are not ad hominem.
Steve, this is totally off topic but thought you might like this interview with Michael Crichton.
Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion
Jim, the video wouldn’t load for me. According to the comments it wouldn’t load for some others either. Is this available at any other YouTube address? …..steve
“Don’t be so hard on yourself”
For me, voting is not just a privelege, but a tremendous responsibility. I mishandled a responsibility. Regardless of whether I agree with him or not, I am responsible to the knowledge that I condoned certain things by voting to have President Bush serve another term….even if I loathed the idea of Kerry holding the office even more. Because I view voting as such an awesome privelege and responsibility, I want to be able to look myself in the mirrow and know I did the right thing. I do not believe I can say that, but I believe I learned a great deal from my choices. I only get one vote and, for me, that vote really weighs heavy on my conscious. I pray I make better ones the next round.
TVV…… Like I told MDBL, I think this is as valid perspective, but I am an accountant and I lean in favor of the statistical probabilities approach……..steve
<blockquote>You can only effect change to a point then you must choose between your practical options unless you want to go down with the ship. Otherwise the only change you affect is that your worst nightmare comes true. I’m not saying that his view isn’t valid, I am saying it is naive in Presidential Politics. I think that sometimes elections are a defensive game not an offensive game</blockquote>
The lesser of two Weevils? 🙂
I agree with mommyzabs points on rudy’s 12 step program for the most part.
I like that reference “12 STEP program” …….. steve
Try a google search for “Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion”.
I like the phrase
“you are for us or against us”
We do pick betewen the least of evils.. but i think it is importnat to do so. A non-vote is a vote for the person you would lease prefer. I hope to not have to vote for juliani- really. but I will if he is up agains hilderbeast or hussein obama. Or gore for that matter.
Zabs… Is that really you?
Using terms like Hilderbeast & Hussein Obama?
& with the spelling issues… No way that was mommyzabs!
Somebody jacked your daughters identity…
So whoever this is, explain why Rudy would get your vote?
Because he’s “stay the course” in Iraq? Taxes (which will be a neat trick)? Judicial appointments? Or because he claims the Republican party?
Steve do you feel at points Rudy is a Republican in name only?
I think the rug will soon get pulled from under him.
Another R will find his way to the parties nomination. Surely Rudy is not the guy? I mean, I know he’s “Americas Mayor” & all but c’mon.
MDBL, Do I feel that “at points” Rudy is a RINO? Of course I feel that many are so “at points” which I disagree with them as to specifics on. And likewise some would likely so consider me, just ask Jim W. It is a matter of who’s ox is being gored. (no pun on Gore) But few reek like Bloomberg and McCain (for goodness sakes, Kerry wanted him on his ticket) for example. I believe that Rudy could get the nomination and would be supported by the religious right (though holding their noses). I don’t believe it is a probability though. …….steve
Yeah exactly…
Hmmm… I’d hate to see the religious right have to hold their noses. It’s everything they’ve preached against in previous presidential elections (say that three times quickly).
MDBL……….You have to dance with the person that brung you sometimes…….steve
Michael Crichton – is he the one that wrote that thriller about Congress, Jurassic Pork?”
Ok, Ok – I know – donqwitcherdayjob.
I’m going to go check for gas leaks now.
Hello to all, the contents existing at this website are actually
remarkable for people knowledge, well, keep up the good work fellows.
Its like you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it
or something. I think that you could do with a few pics to
drive the message home a bit, but instead of that,
this is fantastic blog. An excellent read. I’ll definitely be back.