Rick Perry?

#51
#51
He has positives and negatives. There are some ethics issues, some state finances issues and he's preaching social conservative messages - might scare off "I's" in the general. Still think Mitt has the best chance to win the general and while he's not my top choice for the primary, I'd rather win the war (presidency) than the battle (primary).

Bush versions 1 and 2 have caused me to foreswear voting for the lesser of two evils again. Romney will not get my vote. I do not believe his election would be anything akin to "winning the war". He is not a conservative nor would he govern that way.
 
#52
#52
Perry will obliterate Mitt in the primary and has a much better chance of winning election. I do agree Mitt is the only other candidate that is viable. Once this guy's record is known and he has been heard by all he will dominate Republican Polls. Obama will have to pull a rabbit out of his hat either through War or Economic news to beat Perry. I say this because the christian right will pick Perry 10 out of 10 times over Mitt. The fiscal conservatives will likely prefer Perry IMO but it will be close. Unfortunately, many of them believe running a company has a correlation with running governemnt and it does not.
 
#53
#53
Bush versions 1 and 2 have caused me to foreswear voting for the lesser of two evils again. Romney will not get my vote. I do not believe his election would be anything akin to "winning the war". He is not a conservative nor would he govern that way.

My #1 objective is to see Obama pushed out.

Given the potential for maintaining the House and evening up the Senate - I'll take a Mitt presidency all day long vs an Obama one.
 
#54
#54
Unfortunately, many of them believe running a company has a correlation with running governemnt and it does not.

There is far more correlation than anything on Obama's resume. The skill sets for being effective are also similar. Strong leadership ability is prerequisite for both.
 
#55
#55
My #1 objective is to see Obama pushed out.

Given the potential for maintaining the House and evening up the Senate - I'll take a Mitt presidency all day long vs an Obama one.

Not me. In retrospect, conservatism was better served when Clinton had to deal with an idealistic Congress than when Bush and the GOP in Congress were trying to prove to the media that they weren't da debil.

Obama compared to real conservative idealism for four more years would net about as much as four years of Romney plus set the stage for a real conservative in '16. I think Romney could potentially be worse than either Bush for the GOP and conservative movement.

FWIW, I don't think Romney would beat Obama. I could be wrong but the line against Obama is "Look, that guy spent money like a drunken sailor and made a bad situation worse"... Romney can only say, "Well, I wouldn't have spent as much as him."
 
#56
#56
My #1 objective is to see Obama pushed out.

Given the potential for maintaining the House and evening up the Senate - I'll take a Mitt presidency all day long vs an Obama one.

I personally think half the planet is just hoping the Republicans will nominate someone, anyone, who they feel is a better choice than Obama. if that happens, we will see a new Prez.
 
#57
#57
I personally think half the planet is just hoping the Republicans will nominate someone, anyone, who they feel is a better choice than Obama. if that happens, we will see a new Prez.

There is a lot of truth to this. The only downside I see of going Republican is that the Republicans could have the Presidency and both houses of Congress. I don't like that outcome. If the Dems can hold onto the Senate and the R's the House - then a R presidency could work. I am no fan of large pendulum swings.

That is, unless the R is as ridiculous as Palin and makes me want to claw my eyes out.
 
#58
#58
I'm not a big fan of pendulum swings either but the last swing was so freaking big it would take a huge swing back to just get us normal again.
 
#60
#60
I don't want all 3 of one party. If that means slower adjustment, so be it.

With the exception of Reagan and the GOP revolution of 94 to about '00... Progressives under both party labels have held power for the last 100 years.

I would like to see a real conservative/libertarian majority that would actually undo some of the damage. Having Dems in control of any of the bodies at this point guarantees that won't be the case. Having the GOP in charge of all three won't guarantee that it will be the case.

The GOP establishment is not conservative much less libertarian. They believe in big gov't... just not quite as big or growing as fast as Dems.

Divided gov't tends to force the GOP to behave more like conservatives. The ideal would be a conservative majority.
 
#61
#61
With the exception of Reagan and the GOP revolution of 94 to about '00... Progressives under both party labels have held power for the last 100 years.

I would like to see a real conservative/libertarian majority that would actually undo some of the damage. Having Dems in control of any of the bodies at this point guarantees that won't be the case. Having the GOP in charge of all three won't guarantee that it will be the case.

The GOP establishment is not conservative much less libertarian. They believe in big gov't... just not quite as big or growing as fast as Dems.

Divided gov't tends to force the GOP to behave more like conservatives. The ideal would be a conservative majority.

I am not surprised that you would like to see conservative hold both houses and the Presidency. I think you are clearly looking for a final destination that is a long way away from the one I have in mind as we swing back with the pendulum.
 
#63
#63
What do you fear would happen if all 3 were republican held?

Rapid policy with no chance for digestion. Social inertia exists and I feel all 3 belonging to any one party ends up leading to worse policy. If you want a large swing to a much more conservative country, then I can see why you might want it. But, I'm not sure the policies would be as great as you would like, and it would likely just lead to a more violent swing in the other direction.
 
#64
#64
I am not surprised that you would like to see conservative hold both houses and the Presidency. I think you are clearly looking for a final destination that is a long way away from the one I have in mind as we swing back with the pendulum.

I hope not but maybe so. I am looking for a return to freedom and individual rights.... and the peace and prosperity they fostered.
 
#66
#66
Rapid policy with no chance for digestion. Social inertia exists and I feel all 3 belonging to any one party ends up leading to worse policy. If you want a large swing to a much more conservative country, then I can see why you might want it. But, I'm not sure the policies would be as great as you would like, and it would likely just lead to a more violent swing in the other direction.

There has been no pendulum swing. The "swing" has been between huge gov't growth and slightly less huge gov't growth except for the six years following 94. Even during that period, liberals were calling cuts in spending growth from 7% to 4% "draconian" and claimed it would starve children and put granny on the street.
 
#67
#67
Rapid policy with no chance for digestion. Social inertia exists and I feel all 3 belonging to any one party ends up leading to worse policy. If you want a large swing to a much more conservative country, then I can see why you might want it. But, I'm not sure the policies would be as great as you would like, and it would likely just lead to a more violent swing in the other direction.

Define which policies.

Not trying to start a fight, I just want to know what policies they would over-turn.
 
#68
#68
There has been no pendulum swing. The "swing" has been between huge gov't growth and slightly less huge gov't growth except for the six years following 94. Even during that period, liberals were calling cuts in spending growth from 7% to 4% "draconian" and claimed it would starve children and put granny on the street.

Those cuts are a swing, it just never made it back across the equilibrium point. I will agree that progressives have set most of the agenda for some time. Having a lot of that reversed would not (necessarily) be a bad thing. I'm of the opinion that doing so with aggressive policy would lead to a backlash that would undo it and set the course back in the other direction.

But, I am also for a larger government than most of you, as well. So, my ideal equilibrium point is shifted compared to you, for example. I believe in government should play a role in R&D funding, directing energy policy, setting environmental regulation. I think that many here would not.
 
#69
#69
Those cuts are a swing, it just never made it back across the equilibrium point. I will agree that progressives have set most of the agenda for some time. Having a lot of that reversed would not (necessarily) be a bad thing. I'm of the opinion that doing so with aggressive policy would lead to a backlash that would undo it and set the course back in the other direction.
That wouldn't happen even under my most ideal circumstances. Such aggression would be too easily demagogued causing the backlash you mention.

But, I am also for a larger government than most of you, as well. So, my ideal equilibrium point is shifted compared to you, for example. I believe in government should play a role in R&D funding, directing energy policy, setting environmental regulation. I think that many here would not.

I am less supportive of R&D funding because it invites massive corruption.

I think energy is a national strategic resource. Due to infrastructure economies, I believe that electricity distribution should be gov't run like the interstate system. It is so heavily regulated that it might as well be now. Electricity production should probably remain private. Fuel is a more complex issue but is also strategic requiring some gov't role.

I believe gov't should have a strong environmental role... just not regulatory. IMO, we need to drop the volumes of confusing and conflicting regulations and the agencies they've spawned. Environmental quality should be a matter of laws, enforcement, and criminal punishment. Companies should not be fined... their mgt should be fined or imprisoned. Make it personal... see it change.

The biggest things I have problems with are programs that subsidize counter-productive behaviors from the poorest individual up to corporate welfare and Wall Street bail outs. I believe in rule of Law... you cannot have that without gov't. I just believe that gov't should be the referee and not a player.
 
Last edited:
#70
#70
Define which policies.

Not trying to start a fight, I just want to know what policies they would over-turn.

It's not even a matter of over-turning policies. I think that setting off in any direction in that manner leads to poor decision making. It is something I generally hope to avoid.
 
#72
#72
That wouldn't happen even under my most ideal circumstances. Such aggression would be too easily demagogued causing the backlash you mention.



I am less supportive of R&D funding because it invites massive corruption.

I think energy is a national strategic resource. Due to infrastructure economies, I believe that electricity distribution should be gov't run like the interstate system. It is so heavily regulated that it might as well be now. Electricity production should probably remain private. Fuel is a more complex issue but is also strategic requiring some gov't role.

I believe gov't should have a strong environmental role... just not regulatory. IMO, we need to drop the volumes of confusing and conflicting regulations and the agencies they've spawned. Environmental quality should be a matter of laws, enforcement, and criminal punishment. Companies should not be fined... their mgt should be fined or imprisoned. Make it personal... see it change.

The biggest things I have problems with are programs that subsidize counter-productive behaviors from the poorest individual up to corporate welfare and Wall Street bail outs. I believe in rule of Law... you cannot have that without gov't. I just believe that gov't should be the referee and not a player.

I can agree with a lot of that. So, let me ask, what are your top 5 changes to reduce the size / playing influence of government? Maybe that will help me get a better picture of your views.

I am also interested in hearing more about how you see R&D funding leading to massive corruption. I don't see how translational research can effectively be carried out without it. Maybe today's corporate culture toward R&D has been created by the role the government has played - but I don't see how publicly traded companies can work in the pure/basic research areas. Without that, translational research is nil as well. That basically leaves late-stage R&D. Care to expand on your thoughts in this area?
 
#73
#73
But, I am also for a larger government than most of you, as well. So, my ideal equilibrium point is shifted compared to you, for example. I believe in government should play a role in R&D funding, directing energy policy, setting environmental regulation. I think that many here would not.

I'm a proponent of basic research funding - in general I think the government should support public goods and greatly minimize direct transfer payments and individualized (e.g. industry) subsidies.

I also support energy and environmental regulation but as part of a larger sustainable economic/public program. I think our current EPA is too isolated and focuses too much on environmental concerns only. This was pointed out recently when they had to admit their policy analysis completely omitted the impact on the economy and jobs. Likewise with energy. Nothing wrong with encouraging a move towards renewables. However, the use of market distorting incentives at the point of use is counterproductive. Stick to DoE basic research and possibly designate outcomes as US licensable only. Also, we can't ignore all sources of energy.
 

VN Store



Back
Top