Posted on 03/29/2006 11:02:37 AM PST by Sonny M
Senator George Allen (R-VA), the third subject in Townhall.com’s series on potential 2008 presidential contenders, visited South Carolina this past Friday. As keynote speaker, Allen drew in the crowds to a fundraiser for Ralph Norman, Republican candidate for South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District. After his speech, Allen sat down with Townhall.com to discuss his thoughts on today’s issues and what the future holds for conservative politics. Included here are excerpts from both the speech and exclusive interview.
COLUMBIA, SC -- George Allen is a serious contender for the Republican nomination for president. A former governor, he wears cowboy boots and can often be found outside with his can of dip. Consequently, some Republicans like Allen, because he seems the most like George W. Bush—a charge Allen can’t quite understand, and frankly, rejects. "I don’t know why people say that," he said. "My two role models are Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan. Most people who know me think I’m most like Ronald Reagan." At the start of his speech, Allen proclaimed himself a "common sense, Jeffersonian conservative" and later quoted Patrick Henry. In fact, his talking points on government were so similar to Reagan’s that it seemed as if he had just read a few of the Gipper’s speeches on the way down to South Carolina.
Allen passionately emphasized his Reagenesque fiscal conservatism and Jeffersonian ideals on limited government. Most of his speech focused on lessening government and lowering the burdens placed on businesses. It is business, he said, that really drives the American economy: "Free people should be able to make free decisions."
He added, "Government doesn’t create jobs […] but government should get the field ready." In other words, government should get out of the way.
One way for government to get out of the way is to lower taxes. "Washington doesn’t have a revenue problem; Washington has a spending problem," he said. "The taxpayers are the owners of the government. That’s who we [Congress] work for."
When asked if the Senate would take up tax reform in the near future, he replied, "Nothing has been proposed as far as legislation goes. Our focus right now needs to be on extending the tax cuts: the capital gains cut, the dividend cut, and the elimination of the death tax, which sunsets in 2010." Tax cuts equate to economic growth. He added, "The tax cuts since 2001 have created 5 million new jobs in the private sector."
Allen went on to argue that Congress should view the taxpayers’ money as its own and spend it frugally, just as members would spend their own paychecks. "We need to look at things and see if it is absolutely necessary to spend the taxpayers’ money," Allen argued.
Allen not only identified the problems with the government, but he offered some innovative solutions. He suggested a federal line-item veto. "I had it as governor of Virginia, and the president should have it as well.”
Allen is also an advocate of a federal balance budget amendment. "We need a balanced budget amendment in Congress." He added, "49 states required balanced budgets, so why doesn’t the federal government?" Ultimately, he has decided, "We need to focus on what’s essential: national defense and the military […] then we need to bind down Congress with the Constitution."
Perhaps his most innovative suggestion is the "Paycheck Penalty." Congress often doesn’t pass the appropriations bills in time and adds millions of dollars worth of pork spending at the last minute. "If Congress does not pass the appropriations bill by October 1, the start of the new fiscal year, [congressmen’s] paychecks will be withheld. It’s their job; they need to get it done."
"Of course," he added laughingly, "that didn’t get a lot of support."
Allen also touched on immigration. He replied, "First and foremost, we need to secure our borders. They have been neglected." He highlighted the need for more personnel, more fences (both real and virtual), and more detention centers. "I don’t think we should reward illegal behavior […] you must punish illegal behavior, or you’ll get more illegal behavior." He also replied, "I’m not for amnesty […] I’m for immigration, but it must be legal immigration."
Of course, Allen couldn’t visit South Carolina and not field tough questions on social issues. When asked about abortion, he stated, "That should be decided by the states." He seemed to think the South Dakota ban is too strict and added, "I personally would add an exemption for rape and incest." If the Nebraska ban on partial birth abortion—which will soon be before the Supreme Court—is upheld, Allen foresees the Senate passing a ban again. "We did once, and it was held up."
Allen also defended the 2nd Amendment. "The 2nd Amendment is part of our Bill of Rights." "Law abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves and their property," he stated.
Unfortunate for Allen’s presidential prospect tour, the senator has an opponent for re-election. James Webb, former Secretary of the Navy running as the opposing Democrat. However, with the right effort and the same message on which Allen has delivered for Virginia since being in Congress, he should emerge victorious. "We’ll keep doing what we’re doing. He [Webb] is very formidable, but if we work hard and keep doing what we’re doing, we should be fine."
Allen is clearly the secret presidential frontrunner in the minds of many political types in South Carolina. These political types see two spots for contenders in the Republican primary: Senator John McCain and someone else. A lot of South Carolinians think Allen is that someone else. While McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Bill Frist all have made trips to South Carolina in the past year, the consultants and strategists have all been hesitant to back anyone. Everyone is waiting for Allen to jump in.
The question remains though: Is America ready for another George wearing cowboy boots?
Eliot Peace is a Townhall.com political reporter and a Project Manager for Starboard Communications, a conservative political marketing and strategy firm in Lexington, South Carolina.
McCain, on the other hand, would probably be seconding most of them. Not really that great an alternative. We need someone like Pence.
Don't count on it.
He is downright combatitive when it comes to his social views, he has gay friends, he is a rabid gun grabber (further to the left on that issue) then most of the democrats in the senate are.
He is also unique in that he may be the only candiate who Bill Clinton can envy as a womanizer.
His affairs and past marrages are common knowledge (he was very open about it, to the point of bring several mistresses to dinner at various restaurants).
But underestimating HIllary is to easy, contrarie to popular belief, she does not appeal to moderates, centerists or independents, or any swing voters, if anything, she repels them, she seems to have more appeal to the crowd that thinks she is invincible.
To put it in perspective, the only boards where she gets ripped on MORE then free republic are the daily kos and D.U. If they hate her, while it doesn't mean they won't vote for her, it does mean her appeal is strictly "anybody but a republican", she has nothing more then that.
As for swing state, she could take New Mexico, but she won't take Ohio or Iowa (in fact, she may not get iowa in the primaries).
There is one really weird thing, last year several of my friends went to a fundraiser where she was speaking (they're liberal and they were representing the teachers union), she did take a few questions, and made absolutly no sense, she took a shot at Kerry which puzzeled everyone, about him spending to much time with Ohio which was never in play and not enough trying to win other swing states (I do not know what she meant), and she took a few shots at Iowa.
2 of my friends who were guys thought she was implying that the Iowa is to beholden to special interests or extremists, 2 of my friends who were girls there thought she was calling the whole state sexist.
I don't know what her campaign strategy will be, but if her remarks about Iowa are on tape, and ever get out, that state will loathe her.
Keep in mind, that Bill Clinton, who is more popular then she ever was, never got 50% of the vote, and him and Carville to this day thank Ross Perot for their victories.
If HIllary gets more then 45% of the vote without a 3rd party candidate, I'd be stunned.
I think she is going to lose an additional 5 blue states single handedly....especially if she doesn't start firing some of the incompetant staffers she has now.
If Rudy ever got the nomination, this conservative and a whole host of others would simply stay home (I wouldn't even waste my time voting 3rd party).
If I wanted Hillary's policies on social issues, I'd vote for her, whats the point of voting for someone who agrees with Hillary on about 50% to 60% of the issues?
I can't even see conservatives voting for McCain (I sure as hell wouldn't).
If the recipe for Hillary losing is electing a liberal, then there is no point in voting in the first place.
I'd "waste" my time doing so. It's vital that the political class be shown the reason why they're being abandoned, as well as to encourage the rise of a movement that can turn things around.
That has to be one criterion, but it certainly can't be the only one. We don't just need someone who'll fight, but who'll fight for the right things.
Or have I missed the comments of others who agree with you? Could be since I haven't read all the posts so far on this thread.
"I don't think we have much reason to trust him."
Bingo.
Drafting Tom Coburn, who has been equally waffling on immigration, is just as questionable.
Who is gonna run that's worth a damn on immigration? WHO?
The Stupid and Evil parties are poised to continue their lock on power, cashing their globochecks and selling the country, while Americans get el shafto grande.
Please do not stay home. Please do not let other conservatives stay home.
I'm not asking you to vote for Rudy or the LP. I won't vote for a Rudy, either, and the only time I've ever voted LP is when the choice has been nil (an unopposed GOP candidate in the general election) or worse than nil (a proven RINO up against a proven Rat).
But please vote, even if as a protest vote, for a third party. Do not let them silence you. Do not give them the satisfaction of having driven your voice from the voting booth. Do not let them take over our country without even yawping, even if the yawp is a small one!
I want the border fixed. And I'm not going to vote for one more nominee that will talk about it and do squat. I don't trust Allen on the issue, as much as I want to. I would be willing to vote for him if he were to stand up and say that he will build a full-border fence, and he will insist on employer sanctions as the top priority of the ICE.
I haven't voted third party for the White House before, but I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take the GOP/Rat sellout on the borders any more. What's the point of scaring me with Hillary when the continuation of our defacto open border policy scares me far worse?
"From our elected officials. I want the Border fixed. Spending cut. Judges who believe in the constitution. I don't think that is too much to ask for"
If we get the last one or the first one, the middle one will fall into place. Crime will drop and social service expenditures will drop. A constitutionalist SCOTUS or a wall and employer enforcement. Either will do.
If you think that then nobody must be any good at debate. Typical of mccain supporters, attack everybody who you expect to support you and then demand they hold their nose and support you. Rush has been one of the greatest advocates for conservatism and for you to attack him like that on this forum shows how much of an idiot you really are.
Last time i remembered you got pretty belligerent on a thread regarding Allen insulting everyone and acting like a complete child. You continually lie about Allen's performance and i did watch that debate and i thought he was fantastic as did many other people. the more times you say Allen cannot debate, or Allen is a dunce the more of an idiot you show yourself to be.
And Allen proposes to do what to cut Medicare and SS spending?? Sorry, but Allen has not proven himself to be anything other than talk. Where is his leadership on spending? Where is his calling both Republicans and Democrats alike on drunken sailor spending and demanding an end to pork??? Easy. It doesn't exist! Allen is just playing it safe to not ruffle any feathers for the GOP nomination. That tells me he wouldn't take any bold stands or show any out-front leadership as president in cutting spending either.
I may not like all of what McCain stands for, but at least he's not afraid to kick a little ass in our party on pork spending. It's more moxy than I see from Bland Allen.
Allen has been pushing for the line item veto and is the principal sponsor of it, as well as the principal sponsor of legislation to keep the internet tax free, as well as voting against the bridge to nowhere. He has plenty of examples and does what he can, but hes only one Senator. If mccain is so powerful, how come he cant ever stop pork? All mccain ever does is 'talk' about it and never proposes any legitimate legislation becuase he doesnt want to ruffle his friends feathers. Coburn is the one who lead the charge on earmark and mccain just attached himself and let coburn do the dirty work.
Your guy is all talk, anti first amendment, pro global warming, anti tax cut, pro amnesty and you try to defend it by calling his principal opposition a dunce. Your no better than a democrat, hell you probably are one.
You'll be the first one to bitch about how terrible a Hillary presidency is.
I would much rather have Hillary than Mccain becuase Hillary = gridlock, mccain = a bunch of bs legislation like campaign finance, and global warming, and amnesty. I am sorry, but i, and many other freepers will NEVER vote for a guy who doesnt take the first amendment seriously. Try and defend that.
Theres no point of arguing with MikeA, he will never stop about allen being an idiot debate and a dimbulb. There was one ALlen thread where he hopped on and got pretty belligerent on there and starting insulting everyone who disagreed with him.
hes nothing more than a mccainiac who is trying to pump his guy up by tearing down his principal opposition.
The fact that MikeA bashed rush in my thread as someone who can't debate liberals should be enough proof to you to show you how objective MikeA is.
He repeats the Mantra, Allen is an idiot, allen is a dimbulb, allen can't debate, allen is an empty suit in hopes some lurker who knows nothing will believe him. Mccainiacs like him will never learn, but we wouldn't vote for mccain in 2000. After 7 years of his shennanigans (CFR, gang of fourteen, Amnesty, Flirting to be Kerrys Veep, slamming swift vets, etc.) do you think we'll vote for him now?'
Mike,
You've got to think before you open your mouth. I'd even wager that quality makes you no Republican.
Read my tagline, and ask yourself why I think George Allen is the most impressive candidate for taking on Carville and company.
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.