Posted on 11/05/2004 11:25:12 AM PST by maineman
George Allen on Abortion # Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004) # Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003) # Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
George Allen on Budget & Economy Authored Balanced Budget Amendment plus lower taxes. (Apr 2000)
George Allen on Civil Rights # Support VA beliefs & pass flag-burning ban amendment. (Apr 2000) # Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002) # Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001) # Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001) # Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
George Allen on Corporations # Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001) # Rated 100% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
George Allen on Crime # Abolished parole; instituted Three Strikes laws. (Sep 2000) # Try juvenile felons as adults. (Sep 2000)
George Allen on Drugs Tougher sentencing for drug crimes. (Sep 2000)
George Allen on Education # Testing has brought accountability. (Sep 2000) # Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001) # Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001) # Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001) # Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
George Allen on Energy & Oil # Roll back federal gas tax to lower gas price. (Apr 2000) # Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003) # Voted NO on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003) # Voted NO on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003) # Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002) # Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
George Allen on Environment # Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001) # Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
George Allen on Families & Children Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
George Allen on Foreign Policy Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002)
George Allen on Free Trade # Voted YES on establishing a free trade agreement between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003) # Voted YES on establishing a free trade agreement between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003) # Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002) # Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001) # Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001) # Rated 67% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
George Allen on Government Reform # oted NO on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002) # Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002) # Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions and corporations. (Apr 2001)
George Allen on Gun Control Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
George Allen on Health Care # Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003) # Voted YES on allowing importation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002) # Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001) # Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001) # Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
George Allen on Homeland Security # Build SDI; pay soldiers more. (Sep 2000) # Small business in developing homeland security technologies. (Jul 2002) # Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record. (Dec 2003)
George Allen on Jobs # Voted YES on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001) # Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-labor voting record. (Dec 2003)
George Allen on Principles & Values Calls himself “Common sense” conservative populist. (Apr 2000)
George Allen on Tax Reform # End death tax & marriage penalty; more deductions. (Apr 2000) # Voted YES on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003) # Voted YES on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years. (May 2001) # Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001) # Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001) # Rated 76% by NTU, indicating a "Taxpayer's Friend" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
George Allen on Technology # Voted NO on disallowing FCC approval of larger media conglomerates. (Sep 2003) # Fund nanotechnology research & development. (Dec 2003)
George Allen on War & Peace # Voted YES on $86.5 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003) # Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002) # Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
George Allen on Welfare & Poverty * Minor mothers must live at home & identify fathers. (Sep 2000) * Tax credits to promite home ownership in distressed areas. (Apr 2003)
well if Hillary is the nominee and we send Allen then there WILL be a Senator elected one way or the other
"Did he serve as gov of VA too? (executive experience) "
yes indeedy he did
He was great Gov.
Allen vs. Hitlery 2008
Allen in a LANDSLIDE!
For what it's worth, Mark Warner has always seemed to have a replicant kind of quality to me. I think he looks like David Duke in a plastic surgery kind of way. I don't know how he will play to a national audience. I don't see any warmth there (but I never understood what people saw in Bill Clinton, either, so what do I know). I'm probably too influenced by my opinions to give a worthy assessment on charisma issues. Allen's down home optimism is, I think, somewhat reminiscent of Ronald Reagan, plus I think his experience in the Senate as point man on Republican races is a big plus.
I think that is unnecessarily harsh. I just don't see the Governor vs. Senator issue as the huge controlling factor that so many cite. The fact that Warren G. Harding was the last Republican Senator elected President is interesting, but it doesn't convince me of the futility of Allen's running. Given the scope of international issues today, I think a Governor's lack of foreign policy experience might give some voters pause as well.
There also is the fact that Senators generally have higher recognition outside their home states than do Governors in today's media climate (that can cut either way). I think there is a lot of risk in putting too much stock in the "Senators don't win, we need a Governor" theory. It seems to me that every thread I read about Allen running, about the third or fourth post is "he won't win because he's a Senator, we need to run a Governor." Then about ten posts later comes the "he was governor of Virginia" part. I think to the extent that Governors have sometimes fared better than Senators, you have to look at the underlying reasons and try to apply them to current situations.
As an interesting trivia sidebar to your Harding comment... his was the first presidential election in which women voted. Some historians believe the race was affected by his personal good looks and his wife influencing women voters. So maybe the comparison to 2008 is the fight for women voters? It amazes me how some women will vote for Hillary because she is a woman and she "cares" so much. Ugh.
Man what a trophy wife!
It's not just that he's a Senator, he's a Senator from a rock-solid GOP, Inc. state on the east coast and yet polls show he might even carry his home state if he went up against the RAT governor of Virigina. George Allen is doing a fine job for Virigina but he's not presidential material. We ridicule the Dems for running D.C. insiders from reliable blue states who don't even poll high in their own state, yet a bunch of people on this board want to try the SAME stragedy on OUR side and their ONLY argument on how we'll "win" swing states like New Mexico, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc., is that we MUST ASSUME the Dem nominee will be "Hillary". That is not an argument based on facts or reason. Certainly George Allen could win in THEORY but given how close we came to "President Gore" I don't want to risk that theory on the premise we will waltz into the white house against "Hillary".
>> It seems to me that every thread I read about Allen running, about the third or fourth post is "he won't win because he's a Senator, we need to run a Governor." Then about ten posts later comes the "he was governor of Virginia" part. <<
Yeah, they keep repeating that line over and over, as if Lurch faired any better in 2004 by citing the fact he used to be Dukakis right hand guy in Mass. before he was Senator.
>> I think to the extent that Governors have sometimes fared better than Senators, you have to look at the underlying reasons and try to apply them to current situations. <<
The current situtation is that we have held the White House for two terms not because President Bush is a particularly brillant campaigner like the Gipper, but because the Dems managed to come up with horrific losers named Gore and Kerry. Compare that to how the GOP did in 1980-1988 with a California Governor that was raised in Illinois and a longtime Washington official who lived in Texas and was raised in New England; followed by a Vice-President from Texas with a running mate who was Senator from the heartland state of Indiana.
I'm not ruling out that we could run a Senator and win some swing states, I'm saying the Senator who would accomplish that ain't George Allen. Allen would be far better at rallying the party's base if he was a V.P. candidate paired with someone like Governor Pawlenty. And I'm getting really tired of Virgina freepers gloating about how great their state is and everytime some RATs win in Virigina to disprove that theory, it's all the fault of "yankee transplants" in Northern VA.
I assume you meant to say he might not carry Virginia? I just don't put much stock in polls, especially at this point in the process. I think if we've learned anything in recent years, it is that polls must be taken with a shaker, not a grain, of salt. I still don't understand your assumption that Senator Allen can't win swing states, if that is what you are saying. I do think his experience in the U.S. Senate, to the extent it has led to him increasing his familiarity with other state issues and networks, will help him in that arena.
I guess I just don't see the impact of the regional issues the way some do. I think the Senator/Governor issue, as well as the regional issues, are instructive but not controlling. I agree with you as to the danger of assuming an easy win over Hillary Clinton. In that regard, I am always reminded of George Allen's victory in the gubernatorial race over Mary Sue Terry, the Democratic candidate who was, if I remember right, the incumbent Lt. Governor. I seem to recall she had something like a forty point lead at one point. I do think George Allen's victory in that race bodes well for him as a campaigner, particularly when paired with his experience in the U.S. Senate.
... as if Lurch faired (sic) any better in 2004 by citing the fact he used to be Dukakis right hand guy in Mass. before he was Senator.
I don't recall Kerry ever citing that fact; indeed, I thought he kept his past association with Dukakis pretty well hidden! I don't think you can compare the position of Lt. Governor with Governor anyway. And even if you could, doesn't your comment underscore that guberatorial level experience isn't necessarily helpful? If I read your post correctly, it seems to me that you do not necessarily think having been Governor is helpful, but you think having been a U.S. Senator is detrimental. It seems to me that you are arguing that a Senator is automatically disadvantaged, and I just can't agree with that premise.
Compare that to how the GOP did in 1980-1988 with a California Governor that was raised in Illinois and a longtime Washington official who lived in Texas and was raised in New England; followed by a Vice-President from Texas with a running mate who was Senator from the heartland state of Indiana.
I guess this is the heart of our disagreement. I just don't see President Reagan's having been from California and Illinois as a controlling factor; nor do I think President G.H.W. Bush's background from Texas and New England was a major issue, either. The state handicapping thing always seems to me to be of limited value, particularly given the nature of media coverage today vs. even twenty years ago. One could argue, for instance, that one of the things that helped President Reagan was that his acting career had helped him to have national recognition even before he held national office. I think most people would not even have remembered that Pres. Bush 41 came from Texas; his New England upbringing seemed much more noticeable to the average viewer, I'd say.
And I'm getting really tired of Virgina freepers gloating about how great their state is and everytime some RATs win in Virigina to disprove that theory, it's all the fault of "yankee transplants" in Northern VA.
Now, now, no need to get catty! By and large, Virginia is, I think, pretty fortunate. Don't forget, however, that Virginia voters are stuck with John Warner as well as Mark Warner, so they too have their cross to bear! It also might be worth noting that Virginia does have a fairly broad cross section of voters: everything from liberal northern Virginia to the Kentucky border areas. Certainly most states have those types of variables nowadays, but I think Virginia may have them even slightly more so: everything from D.C. commuters to coal miners, military installations to academia. So having campaigned statewide in Virginia might be useful on a national level.
And how does that change the fact he is a Senator now?
He got no facts incorrect. You are just adding details which doesn't, in any way, change the facts that were cited - Allen is a Senator, and Senators have a very poor track record of winning presidential electors.
I would call that an "anti-tree-hugger vote," not "anti-environment." Supporting the environment does not mean capitulating to every whim of the tree-huggers...
well, I meant to say "elections", not "electors", but I guess that's still correct...
"I'm very surprised by your post. I had the impression that Santorum was facing a much tougher battle with Casey, Jr., than Allen would face with Warner."
I'll have lunch with him tomorrow. (A "few" others will be there too.)
Any questions you want answered?
Lucky You!!! Tell him I admire his values, and his Father was a great man.
I will campaign my rear off for him..."RUN GEORGE, RUN"
Enjoy the lunch my friend!
It sounds like George Allen in the clear conservative choice. What do we have to do in order to overcome the clear name recognition problem? Time to get to work.
Since Oct 19, 2005
Well, go back in time like you did when you signed up here tomorrow (it's only 10-18 in the USA)... Go back in time and make George Allen famous five years ago so people will recognize him. If you can't do that, he doesn't have a chance of winning the presidency in '08.
I think we will need a 'superstar' to win in 2008.
Did you hear Rush with Hannity last night? He mentioned George Allen.
We have our 'SUPERSTAR'.....GEORGE ALLEN!
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.