A Question from a Webb Supporter

The Washington Post ^ | November 14, 2006 | John Whitesides

[outofsalt]

You could be the kind of democrat I would enjoy drinking a beer with. I'm in the tidewater area of VA and I wouldn't rule out voting for Rudy but he would not be my ideal choice.
I tend to prefer small government conservatives (which George Allen was not, though I supported him over Webb, I would not have picked him for president) and States Rights over Federal Government.
Freep mail me if the beer offer interests you, I do get up to NOVA on occasion.

[darkangel82]

ibtz

[ggekko60506]

I personally would love to regain the support of someone who (reluctantly, I assume) voted for Webb.

Having said that, however, I am wondering how you have arrived at the conclusion that is implicit in this question that somehow Religiously-motivated Conservatives are responsible for "Big Government" and a lack of fiscal restraint.

Religious Conservatives have had nothing to do with expansion of Government that has occurred over the last several years and many leaders in this community actively opposed it.

What has driven this group into to the Public Square is activist Judges that have virtually staged a a coup d'etat against our Federalist System. Most Religious Conservatives would gladly support, and have supported, a de minimus Federal System. Most of them don't even like politics.

Your aversion to this part of our coalition seems to rely on
a hysterical left-wing caricature of Religious Conservatives rather than anything factual.

It is the Religious Left in America that has prostituted our Courts and forced their will on the rest of the electorate.

[hirn_man]

I was willing to put up with you till you started spouting this nanny state liberal crap.

You have a problem with people making money and people who pay most of the taxes getting a tax cut.

You have no problem giving other peoples money to people who didn't earn it.

Its ok to kill unborn babies because that is a choice.

You're a hard line lefty. Nothing moderate about you.

[snowrip]

Economic populism, otherwise known as soaking the rich, is why you are not really a moderate.

When you give a tax cut to the "investment class", where do you think it goes? What group invests in their businesses, hires empoyees, and uses the economic expansion of their business to drive the economy? Who creates wealth for others... the poor, or the wealthy?

As far as the concept of executive power is concerned, take a look at the last administration and the new House and Senate majorities. There is more protected corruption, more bribes and kickbacks, and more executive privilege than Bush could ever dream of.

Please provide ONE concrete example of executive power being pushed "past the breaking point" with this administration. The typical liberal bumper-sticker arguments you are offering up fail miserably.

[muir_redwoods]

Form me, Rudy is a great guy who doesn't understand that 2nd amendment rights are just that, rights.

That's poison for me

[spunkets]

"reasonably pro-gun"

The 2nd Amend states that the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I does not say, "may reasonably be infringed."

[conservativeharleyguy]

First of all, welcome.

However, if you're going to swim in our pool be prepared to get soaked with our water.

How can one be VERY moderate? It's akin to being "very average". Sooner or later, you'll have to take a stance on something. Then we'll be getting somewhere.

Anything else is, for lack of a better term at the moment, "wishy-washy", and that does not make for good politics (nor for a good lifestyle, IMO).

It's too elastic to be considered a guiding principle for anything other than restaurant choices and video selections on Friday night. It's also shallow.

Please tell me where "reasonable" gun rights begin and end. Again that's too amorphous to be labeled a political stance. The constitution is pretty clear, as are the papers of our founding fathers, as to the rights of free Americans to keep and bear (i.e. use) arms. They never mentioned reasonable. That's a "weasely" 20th century politician/lawyer term meant to invoke the illusion of fairness.

I think most conservatives who have problems w/Mr. Guliani do so less for "religious" reasons than they do with the fact that he screwed around on his wife, then lied about it. That's not religion, that's ethics. Not a lot of room for elasticity there. I recognize that conservatives have had some "challenges" in the ethics department, but the difference is that when we catch 'em, we usually off-load 'em. We don't lionize them, make rock-stars of them, and elect their wives out of sympathy. We just dump 'em. That's the difference between principles and ideology. Principles are set, ideologies aren't.

You cannot escape the "legislation" of social issues. It's the very fabric of our society. All issues are social, and all society is political.

Speaking for myself, Ive found that there are far more truly wonderful and tolerant inside of church, than outside. Next time you need help, or when your house burns down, see if the atheists will help you. They won't, because their religion is narcissism. As much as the left loves to bitch about Katrina, where were they? Aside from a few celebrities, they were no-shows.

Meanwhile, just about every church parking lot (black, brown, white or otherwise) within 200 miles was turned into a relief center overnight. I travel throughout the south, and that's what I saw. Real people, who just happen to pray to Jesus, making a big difference.

It has always seemed to me that the only people who raise a fuss about religion in America are those who have no religion, and in some nascent guilt, become defensive at the mere mention of it (and would ban it altogether if given the chance, Elton John comes to mind). Not really too tolerant, is it?.

Remember, the concept of "separation of church and state" was intended to protect religion from government not government from religion.

I'm curious, and I'm not mocking you, I want to know, what do you believe in? (actually, I just want you to know)

Please tell me, were you personally, or this nation in general really harmed somehow by the "religious right"? I think if you really dig deep for the answer, and get beyond the DNC bumper stickers, it could surprise you.

Again, welcome. Keep your head and arms in the boat.

BTW, I'd rather have the "hand of the religious right" holding the bible, than the hand of religious radicals holding the head of Daniel Pearl.

[concerned about politics]

I believe that you can't fund a war on a tax cut

The stock market is hitting record highs. 401K's are soring. The national debt has been cut in half due to the economic tax revenue.
I don't see where funding the war is a problem. Even if we had a glitch, there's plenty of wasteful social programs I'd love to see ended. Let the democrat base get off their lazy butts and get their own jobs for a change.

[beckysueb]

Good post! I agree.

[CommerceComet]

>>The fact that you, an open Democrat, speak positively of Rudy is the same reason he will not make it through the primary.

In 1980 and 1984, we had a candidate about whom many open Democrats spoke positively and he won two landslides. It is awfully hard to win an election without some cross-over appeal.

[Paleo Conservative]

There are others. For example, I believe in a message of economic populism. I believe wholeheartedly that the gap between high income and middle-income is getting wider.

The Democrats can always find someone poorer than you to import into the country. Unrestricted immigration of extremely poor unskilled people creates a large mass of poor people who can't take advantage of our advanced economy, but they make a natural constituency for those who preach the politics of envy. The states with the highest economic stratification are those that have the highest vote proportion for the Democrats.

[misterrob]

Actually, a religious conservative did oversee the largest expansion of the federal government in a long, long time.

He's living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

[george76]

Shhhhh. Don't tell anyone :

[dashing doofus]

"I believe that the investment class should NOT get a tax cut. I believe that the Republican party in the White House is by FAR too in bed with Corporations to the detriment of the average American."

Ah, the stripes on the Zebra (aka Moderate Democrat) become apparent now.

Now, besides defining "resonably pro gun," please define the "investment class." Do you mean "The Rich?" Are you referring to the economically regressive capital gains tax, which should rightly be zero???

If I bought a stock in 1900 for a dollar, and I sold it today for $2, I should have to pay tax on the $1???? Even though I lost money on the investment (if you follow...).

Do you think the Dems are "in bed" with special interests, including the NEA? If so, what are the economic/tax ramifications?

[JCEccles]

I believe wholeheartedly that the gap between high income and middle-income is getting wider.

Take it up with John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi. Between the two of them they're worth a fair fraction of a billion dollars. They don't have to wait to be taxed to give up their money to worthies such as yourself. Nothing prevents them from writing you a check or sending an eight figure check to the IRS for deposit into the federal treasury.

But they won't do that. They want the tax man to hit you up. Does that make sense to you? It makes sense to me. Wealthy people--even wealthy Democrats that I detest--tend to be wealthy because they wisely manage their excess money or place it in the hands of wise managers. That benefits everyone.

Placing it in your greedy, shortsighted, uneducated hands seems downright foolish by comparison. How many jobs have you created for other people in your lifetime?

The smart thing to do is to leave the money with the people who earned it. That way it is reinvested to create more jobs and more wealth. That in turn keeps unemployment low, productivity high, and shrinks the budget deficit--which is EXACTLY what has been happening over the past six years.

Start your own business and quit complaining that everyone else owes you a cut of their pie, parasite.

[Dems_R_Losers]

I look for Giuliani to make a major speech sometime soon laying out his "national" positions on many issues. It could very well be that he knows his positions as mayor of a large, liberal city will not fly on a national level and he could move away from them. Banning gun ownership might have been important years ago in New York City but not as a national policy, for example. Or he could talk about how his general crime policy was more important in actually reducing crime in New York than the gun ban. If he can find ways of moving toward the right in a plausible way on many of these issues without looking like he is blatantly pandering to the religious right, I think he will have a very good chance of winning the GOP nomination. He will damn sure get more support around here than John McCain.

Giuliani is a lot more liberal than me socially, and before last week I probably would not have supported him for President. But he has two qualities that I think are now essential in a nominee: absolute moral authority on terrorism issues, and competence in governing. The first will inoculate him from Democrat attacks, and the second will attract moderate voters who left the GOP this year because they saw Republicans governing corruptly and incompetently.

I also think Giuliani beats any current Democratic hopeful on these issues. Hillary Clinton's only experience in management was her health-care debacle in the 1990s. She has no credibility on national security issues at all. In a choice between a real New Yorker and a faux New Yorker, I think even New Yorkers will vote for the real thing. Giuliani beats John Kerry even worse. Kerry is a showhorse and his vote in 2004 was as much anti-Bush as pro-him. Bush isn't on the ballot this time and the BDS sufferers will have to vote FOR someone.

[Sam Cree]

Post number 88 brands you as a socialist, which is not moderat, and certainly not a traditional Virginian position. It is, however, the position associated with the modern Democratic party.

[DCBandita]

Hm... Not really. I think he panders to them, however. Overall, Macaca incident notwithstanding, I found Allen to be undistinguished on every level. Just kind of... blah.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Personally, and I consider myself a Reagan Conservative, I think Rudy is the best candidate in the field. On the social issues, I hope he takes the path of "leave it to the states" -- that's where so many of our social issues belong. Roe v. Wade should have been relegated back to the states and not established as a Constitutionally protected RIGHT.

If Rudy embraces tax-cuts, fiscal discipline, originalist justices, pro-growth economics, pro-capitalist entitlement reforms, free trade... along with his superior leadership and communications ability: I think he'll be embraced by most in our party. I hope so.