Batgirl's political thoughts - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

BarbaraGordon · 05-18-2007, 03:08 AM

Okay, so I'll post my thoughts on the GOPs.

I'm trying to figure out, pragmatically speaking, which of the three main contenders the party should go with as a nominee. (I consider the chances <10%, at best, that it would be anybody other than Giuliani, Romney, or McCain.)

As you know, I'm not working right now, so I've spent more time than is technically prudent reading about these guys, and I've found out all kinds of neat stuff. So, here we go...

BarbaraGordon · 05-18-2007, 03:10 AM

I'm going to try not to get personal, here. I'm sure you're aware that Giuliani has been married three times. You may even have heard that his own son is not supporting the campaign. But let's set aside personal problems.

GOPs should consider going with Giuliani because of his:

Fiscal conservatism: Giuliani took a city with a multi-million dollar deficit and reformed it into a fiscally solvent entity. He lowered taxes and moved citizens off of entitlement programs into employment.

National defense appeal: Because Giuliani led New York into recovery after 9/11, Americans trust Giuliani with the war on terrorism. He pledges to continue to fight terrorism and to win the war in Iraq.

Popularity: Rudy’s favorability index from Gallup is unmatched. No candidate from either party even comes close.

GOPs might not want to go with Giuliani because of his:

Social liberalism: Giuliani has a history of supporting abortion rights and gun control. He sometimes says that these policies were necessary in New York but would not be appropriate on a federal level. Either way, his history defending socially liberal policies in New York will alienate the religious conservative base of the Republican party.

Fiscal irresponsibility: Although Giuliani likes to cite (as noted above) his history of fiscal conservatism, critics like to point out what happened after he left office. Here’s an analysis by George Marlin:

...In Rudy's second term, when the economy was booming, he abandoned fiscal restraint and became a big-spending liberal. City budget expenditures jumped 25 percent – twice the inflation rate – and Giuliani left his successor a projected operating deficit of $4.5 billion and New York's citizens with the highest tax burden in any major municipality in America.

Potential for scandal: Giuliani has a former business partner, Kerik, who is fraught with legal problems. There is concern this could cast a shadow over Giuliani. In addition, Giuliani’s firm is tied closely to the federal government and there is concern over possible conflict of interest.

What bothers me, personally:

What really bothers me about Giuliani is his performance in the debates. I want a candidate with a firm notion of himself and his platform. I want him to articulate it clearly and consistently. In the debates, Giuliani seems to backtrack and speak in circles. I'm not sure even he has his platform sorted out quite yet.

BarbaraGordon · 05-18-2007, 03:12 AM

GOPs should consider going with Romney because of his:

Family / Faith-based approach: Romney is the only among the three major candidates who can claim he’s kept a marriage and a family together all these years. And unlike Giuliani’s, Romney’s family actually supports his bid for presidency. His conservative religious approach will appeal to the religious-right base that’s been pulling the party along for the last decade.

Articulate intelligence: Right now he’s the only of the three main GOPs that is handling the debates well.

Proven fiscal leadership: Romney managed to balance the budget and maintain fiscal discipline in the bluest of states. The Beacon Hill Institute gives Romney an A- on his fiscal record.

GOPs should be concerned about going with Romney because of his:

Echoes of “Compassionate Conservatives”: With McCain and Giuliani positioning themselves as moderates, Romney is left carrying the banner of the religious conservatives. That may still work with the Republicans, but I think it will alienate too many swing voters to carry the general election.

Position on the war: Romney currently insists we should stay in Iraq “so long as there is a reasonable prospect of success.” Well, how long is that? How do we know? Yesterday he commented that we should double the size of Guantanamo detainee facility, drawing criticism from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. With Bush’s approval ratings as low as they are, I don’t think Americans want a president who will continue to take the U.S. down this embarrassing road Bush has paved.

Gaffes: Romney is a talking gaffe machine. He says bizarre things and then has to talk his way out of them.

Flip-flopping: Romney has changed his story on so many issues that he may have trouble instilling trust in some voters. I will post specifics on this later.

Wealth: All the candidates are affluent or wealthy. Romney puts them all to shame, and he’s not exactly a self-made man. Romney is expected to file a net worth of 200m plus. He may find it difficult to connect with many working class Americans, who will be put off by his wealth.

The bottom line for me, personally:

I just don’t see him winning the general election. I could see him getting the nomination perhaps. But with him carrying the banner of the neoconservative religious right, I don’t see Romney pulling the swing votes necessary to win the general election.

Archaea · 05-18-2007, 04:13 AM

Not bad thoughts but I believe you overestimate Romney's true desire to carry the Religious banner. I believe he's intelligent enough to carry throughout the primary and then to drift more to his natural center.

From what I know, he's really never emphasized the faith-based agenda in Mass.

JohnnyLingo · 05-18-2007, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Not bad thoughts but I believe you overestimate Romney's true desire to carry the Religious banner. I believe he's intelligent enough to carry throughout the primary and then to drift more to his natural center.

From what I know, he's really never emphasized the faith-based agenda in Mass.

I believe that's something people forget. He got elected as Governor of Massachusetts. As a Republican. You can't do that unless you somehow got that swing vote. And convinced a lot of people from the left to vote for you as well.

MikeWaters · 05-18-2007, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

I believe that's something people forget. He got elected as Governor of Massachusetts. As a Republican. You can't do that unless you somehow got that swing vote. And convinced a lot of people from the left to vote for you as well.

Yes, because he was pretty dang liberal. He was Arnold Schwarzeneggar-lite.

And now he has renounced all those moderate views.

JohnnyLingo · 05-18-2007, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Yes, because he was pretty dang liberal. He was Arnold Schwarzeneggar-lite.

And now he has renounced all those moderate views.

Can't win. Get the votes of both liberals and republicans and you're just a flip-flopper.

Don't get the votes of both sides and you're a partisan hack.

Venkman · 05-18-2007, 04:03 PM

On Romney's wealth. I realize he comes from a priviledged background, and those connections have definitely helped him in life, but didn't he earn the vast majority of his wealth?

His phenomenal success in the business world is one of the things that draws me to him, as we've never really had a successful businessman of his ilk in the White House (at least not that I'm aware of). Could be a good change of pace.

Insensitive PAP · 05-18-2007, 05:36 PM

It's interesting to me that one of Romney's gaffes is the "Battlefield Earth" comment. I say this because a couple years ago, I was talking to a friend who is an avid science fiction reader. I asked him what his favorite book was, and he said Battlefield Earth, by far.

FWIW, this is a guy worth has earned a net worth of over $100 million in about an 8 year period, from scratch, and I expect he'll clear $1 billion before he's done. He's one of the few people in my life that I'd actually qualify as a "genius".

Which gets me to the reason I find the "Battlefield Earth" gaffe as interesting. Without having had my conversation with my friend a couple years ago, Mitt's response would have been weird to me and caused me to think less of him, but because I had that conversation, it actually made me think more of Mitt.

The situation was a good lesson that reminded me how important it is to seek the meaning of what people are saying, rather than parse words to fit others into how what I think they should be saying based on my preconceived notions.

BarbaraGordon · 05-18-2007, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Not bad thoughts but I believe you overestimate Romney's true desire to carry the Religious banner. I believe he's intelligent enough to carry throughout the primary and then to drift more to his natural center.

I think I phrased it better yesterday when I said that Giuliani's move toward the middle makes Romney ~appear~ to represent the religious right. I don't know that that's really who Romney is, it certainly doesn't jive with his past. He's gone out of his way to redefine himself to meet the standards the religious right expect. But you may be right, he may be savvy enough to reinvent himself again in a general election. I still think he'll have a tough time defending his stances on the war.

On flip-flopping, I don't know why Romney's getting the reputation he is, there's a great site that's focussing on the issue changes of all the candidates: http://realitycheck08.org/
McCain is at least as much of a reinvention.

I think it's a rough time to be a GOP voter. With the mess Bush has created, the GOPs would have trouble winning the White House with even an ideal candidate. I think Giuliani may have the best shot, but even he's gonna have a rough time with some of the stuff in his past.

05-18-2007, 03:08 AM	#1
BarbaraGordon Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Gotham City Posts: 7,157	Batgirl's political thoughts Okay, so I'll post my thoughts on the GOPs. I'm trying to figure out, pragmatically speaking, which of the three main contenders the party should go with as a nominee. (I consider the chances <10%, at best, that it would be anybody other than Giuliani, Romney, or McCain.) As you know, I'm not working right now, so I've spent more time than is technically prudent reading about these guys, and I've found out all kinds of neat stuff. So, here we go...

05-18-2007, 03:10 AM	#2
BarbaraGordon Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Gotham City Posts: 7,157	1. Giuliani I'm going to try not to get personal, here. I'm sure you're aware that Giuliani has been married three times. You may even have heard that his own son is not supporting the campaign. But let's set aside personal problems. GOPs should consider going with Giuliani because of his: Fiscal conservatism: Giuliani took a city with a multi-million dollar deficit and reformed it into a fiscally solvent entity. He lowered taxes and moved citizens off of entitlement programs into employment. National defense appeal: Because Giuliani led New York into recovery after 9/11, Americans trust Giuliani with the war on terrorism. He pledges to continue to fight terrorism and to win the war in Iraq. Popularity: Rudy’s favorability index from Gallup is unmatched. No candidate from either party even comes close. GOPs might not want to go with Giuliani because of his: Social liberalism: Giuliani has a history of supporting abortion rights and gun control. He sometimes says that these policies were necessary in New York but would not be appropriate on a federal level. Either way, his history defending socially liberal policies in New York will alienate the religious conservative base of the Republican party. Fiscal irresponsibility: Although Giuliani likes to cite (as noted above) his history of fiscal conservatism, critics like to point out what happened after he left office. Here’s an analysis by George Marlin: ...In Rudy's second term, when the economy was booming, he abandoned fiscal restraint and became a big-spending liberal. City budget expenditures jumped 25 percent – twice the inflation rate – and Giuliani left his successor a projected operating deficit of $4.5 billion and New York's citizens with the highest tax burden in any major municipality in America. Potential for scandal: Giuliani has a former business partner, Kerik, who is fraught with legal problems. There is concern this could cast a shadow over Giuliani. In addition, Giuliani’s firm is tied closely to the federal government and there is concern over possible conflict of interest. What bothers me, personally: What really bothers me about Giuliani is his performance in the debates. I want a candidate with a firm notion of himself and his platform. I want him to articulate it clearly and consistently. In the debates, Giuliani seems to backtrack and speak in circles. I'm not sure even he has his platform sorted out quite yet. Last edited by BarbaraGordon; 05-18-2007 at 03:13 AM.

05-18-2007, 03:12 AM	#3
BarbaraGordon Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Gotham City Posts: 7,157	2. Romney GOPs should consider going with Romney because of his: Family / Faith-based approach: Romney is the only among the three major candidates who can claim he’s kept a marriage and a family together all these years. And unlike Giuliani’s, Romney’s family actually supports his bid for presidency. His conservative religious approach will appeal to the religious-right base that’s been pulling the party along for the last decade. Articulate intelligence: Right now he’s the only of the three main GOPs that is handling the debates well. Proven fiscal leadership: Romney managed to balance the budget and maintain fiscal discipline in the bluest of states. The Beacon Hill Institute gives Romney an A- on his fiscal record. GOPs should be concerned about going with Romney because of his: Echoes of “Compassionate Conservatives”: With McCain and Giuliani positioning themselves as moderates, Romney is left carrying the banner of the religious conservatives. That may still work with the Republicans, but I think it will alienate too many swing voters to carry the general election. Position on the war: Romney currently insists we should stay in Iraq “so long as there is a reasonable prospect of success.” Well, how long is that? How do we know? Yesterday he commented that we should double the size of Guantanamo detainee facility, drawing criticism from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. With Bush’s approval ratings as low as they are, I don’t think Americans want a president who will continue to take the U.S. down this embarrassing road Bush has paved. Gaffes: Romney is a talking gaffe machine. He says bizarre things and then has to talk his way out of them. Flip-flopping: Romney has changed his story on so many issues that he may have trouble instilling trust in some voters. I will post specifics on this later. Wealth: All the candidates are affluent or wealthy. Romney puts them all to shame, and he’s not exactly a self-made man. Romney is expected to file a net worth of 200m plus. He may find it difficult to connect with many working class Americans, who will be put off by his wealth. The bottom line for me, personally: I just don’t see him winning the general election. I could see him getting the nomination perhaps. But with him carrying the banner of the neoconservative religious right, I don’t see Romney pulling the swing votes necessary to win the general election.

05-18-2007, 04:13 AM	#4
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Not bad thoughts but I believe you overestimate Romney's true desire to carry the Religious banner. I believe he's intelligent enough to carry throughout the primary and then to drift more to his natural center. From what I know, he's really never emphasized the faith-based agenda in Mass. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

05-18-2007, 04:03 PM	#8
Venkman Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: South Jordan, UT Posts: 1,799	On Romney's wealth. I realize he comes from a priviledged background, and those connections have definitely helped him in life, but didn't he earn the vast majority of his wealth? His phenomenal success in the business world is one of the things that draws me to him, as we've never really had a successful businessman of his ilk in the White House (at least not that I'm aware of). Could be a good change of pace.

05-18-2007, 05:36 PM	#9
Insensitive PAP Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 293	It's interesting to me that one of Romney's gaffes is the "Battlefield Earth" comment. I say this because a couple years ago, I was talking to a friend who is an avid science fiction reader. I asked him what his favorite book was, and he said Battlefield Earth, by far. FWIW, this is a guy worth has earned a net worth of over $100 million in about an 8 year period, from scratch, and I expect he'll clear $1 billion before he's done. He's one of the few people in my life that I'd actually qualify as a "genius". Which gets me to the reason I find the "Battlefield Earth" gaffe as interesting. Without having had my conversation with my friend a couple years ago, Mitt's response would have been weird to me and caused me to think less of him, but because I had that conversation, it actually made me think more of Mitt. The situation was a good lesson that reminded me how important it is to seek the meaning of what people are saying, rather than parse words to fit others into how what I think they should be saying based on my preconceived notions.