Comments on: Caucus talk http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/01/26/caucus-talk/ news and views from uc berkeley Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:45:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: patr http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/01/26/caucus-talk/#comment-19008 patr Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:21:09 +0000 http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/01/26/caucus-talk/#comment-19008 1. Ron Paul 2. Chuck Hagel Paul stands for about 90-95% of what I believe in, so it'll be wonderful to campaign and vote for someone that will actually represent me. He will be a breath of fresh air during the debates. Hagel is the only other Republican running that I respect. Before Paul jumped in, I was dead set on supporting Hagel in the primaries. Though I would prefer he be way more libertarian, I think Hagel represents what an honest Republican Party would look like. Fiscally conservative, socially conservative but not extremely so, and realistic on foreign policy. It's unfortunate that the base dislikes him so much because of their litmus tests on either Iraq or immigration. My prediction: 2008 will be about Iraq, Iran, and the larger War on Terror. If we're still bleeding troops, which is likely to be the case unfortunately, then the Democrats will win, no matter who they run. The Democrats will win, unless the Republicans run a legitimately anti-war candidate that can appeal to moderates. That's either Hagel or Paul, who will split the anti-war vote in the early primaries, then consolidate support for the one who chooses to stay in all the way. If Democrats nominate pro-war Hillary Clinton, then the GOP's chances to win are even greater with an anti-war candidate. This is shaping up to be an exciting two years of politics. The Democrats are largely concerned with celebrity *cough* Obama *cough*, but the Republican primaries will be the stage for a huge ideological battle that hasn't been seen for decades. The GOP has a chance to repair the damage that Bush and the neocons have inflicted on the party and, more importantly, the country. Let's see if they take it. 1. Ron Paul
2. Chuck Hagel

Paul stands for about 90-95% of what I believe in, so it’ll be wonderful to campaign and vote for someone that will actually represent me. He will be a breath of fresh air during the debates.

Hagel is the only other Republican running that I respect. Before Paul jumped in, I was dead set on supporting Hagel in the primaries. Though I would prefer he be way more libertarian, I think Hagel represents what an honest Republican Party would look like. Fiscally conservative, socially conservative but not extremely so, and realistic on foreign policy. It’s unfortunate that the base dislikes him so much because of their litmus tests on either Iraq or immigration.

My prediction: 2008 will be about Iraq, Iran, and the larger War on Terror. If we’re still bleeding troops, which is likely to be the case unfortunately, then the Democrats will win, no matter who they run. The Democrats will win, unless the Republicans run a legitimately anti-war candidate that can appeal to moderates. That’s either Hagel or Paul, who will split the anti-war vote in the early primaries, then consolidate support for the one who chooses to stay in all the way. If Democrats nominate pro-war Hillary Clinton, then the GOP’s chances to win are even greater with an anti-war candidate.

This is shaping up to be an exciting two years of politics. The Democrats are largely concerned with celebrity *cough* Obama *cough*, but the Republican primaries will be the stage for a huge ideological battle that hasn’t been seen for decades. The GOP has a chance to repair the damage that Bush and the neocons have inflicted on the party and, more importantly, the country. Let’s see if they take it.

]]> By: Ghost of Clark Kerr http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/01/26/caucus-talk/#comment-19007 Ghost of Clark Kerr Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:14:11 +0000 http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/01/26/caucus-talk/#comment-19007 For one it's an empty term. It tries to create an emotional knee-jerk reaction stemming from the bad things done by Hitler. And whose fault is it that those people hate the US? Would a war in Iraq under false pretenses help or hurt the anti-American cause? After tens of thousands of Iraqis are killed or injured and millions in dire straits and the removal of one of the few secular leaders in the region you want to tell me that we are somehow helping God-fearing Muslims and fighting theocracy? After the shameful execution of the war on the Lebanese people by Israel? That country had just started to get back on its feet and had some pretenses for democracy and it was all ruined. Instead of fighting Hizbolla, Israel gave them a sea of recruits from the grieving, unemployed and idle. Was it necessary to bomb Beirut airport? Was it necessary to create an environmental disaster by bombing oil storage facilities that spilled into the sea? You have nothing but hate and fear for the Arab world and it's clouding your judgment. (Enough to cheer sending missiles at Tehran. <i>People</i> live there!!) For one it’s an empty term. It tries to create an emotional knee-jerk reaction stemming from the bad things done by Hitler.

And whose fault is it that those people hate the US?

Would a war in Iraq under false pretenses help or hurt the anti-American cause? After tens of thousands of Iraqis are killed or injured and millions in dire straits and the removal of one of the few secular leaders in the region you want to tell me that we are somehow helping God-fearing Muslims and fighting theocracy?

After the shameful execution of the war on the Lebanese people by Israel? That country had just started to get back on its feet and had some pretenses for democracy and it was all ruined. Instead of fighting Hizbolla, Israel gave them a sea of recruits from the grieving, unemployed and idle. Was it necessary to bomb Beirut airport? Was it necessary to create an environmental disaster by bombing oil storage facilities that spilled into the sea?

You have nothing but hate and fear for the Arab world and it’s clouding your judgment.

(Enough to cheer sending missiles at Tehran. People live there!!)

]]> By: Mickey Klein http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/01/26/caucus-talk/#comment-19006 Mickey Klein Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:22:07 +0000 http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/01/26/caucus-talk/#comment-19006 Islomofascists are our enemey. Its an excellent term because it differentiates the war between God fearing Muslims and totalitarian theocrats. Beyond the civil war in Iraq there is a broader front of terrorist organizations who have a goal no less than destroying free civilizations. On their policy list is the establishment of religious dictatorship throughout the Middle East, the abolition of personal liberty under mideval laws and a cultural turn back thousands of years. Its not fearmongering to exort Americans to fight this war. Islomofascists are our enemey. Its an excellent term because it differentiates the war between God fearing Muslims and totalitarian theocrats. Beyond the civil war in Iraq there is a broader front of terrorist organizations who have a goal no less than destroying free civilizations.

On their policy list is the establishment of religious dictatorship throughout the Middle East, the abolition of personal liberty under mideval laws and a cultural turn back thousands of years. Its not fearmongering to exort Americans to fight this war.

]]> By: Ghost of Clark Kerr http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/01/26/caucus-talk/#comment-19004 Ghost of Clark Kerr Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:32:58 +0000 http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/01/26/caucus-talk/#comment-19004 "War against Islamofascism" So he's a fearmonger? Haven't you heard, no one wants to hear about that shit. “War against Islamofascism”

So he’s a fearmonger? Haven’t you heard, no one wants to hear about that shit.

]]> By: jfullmer http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/01/26/caucus-talk/#comment-19003 jfullmer Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:55:14 +0000 http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/01/26/caucus-talk/#comment-19003 See, I think that to call Tancredo "culturally conservative" because he opposes "amnesty for illegal aliens" is a bit of a logical leap - not that you are by any means alone in making that leap. I personally support what might be called "amnesty" for reasons that I think are very culturally conservative. Again, this is something I'll be expanding on in another post. Also, Tancredo's pro-life credentials are something I'd question a bit. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10880 Not a huge deal. But still something to give pause. See, I think that to call Tancredo “culturally conservative” because he opposes “amnesty for illegal aliens” is a bit of a logical leap - not that you are by any means alone in making that leap. I personally support what might be called “amnesty” for reasons that I think are very culturally conservative. Again, this is something I’ll be expanding on in another post.

Also, Tancredo’s pro-life credentials are something I’d question a bit.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10880

Not a huge deal. But still something to give pause.

]]> By: Rohit J http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/01/26/caucus-talk/#comment-19002 Rohit J Sat, 27 Jan 2007 06:49:05 +0000 http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/01/26/caucus-talk/#comment-19002 One additional point I would like to make about Tancredo that I wasn't able to in yesterday's crossfire is that he offers something for everyone in the Republican coalition. He is economically conservative, having received "A" grades from the National Taxpayer Union every year he has been in Congress (which is more than most of these candidates can say), voted against NCLB and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and has supported tax cuts and switching to a flat or national sales tax. He is also socially conservative, having consistently opposed abortion and homosexual "rights" and culturally conservative, opposing amnesty for illegal aliens and supporting full assimilation of legal immigrants. Finally, he is conservative on foreign policy, skeptical of international organizations such as the UN and the WTO and supportive of the War against Islamofascism. Most of the other candidates, on the other hand, are not as conservative in at least one of these areas. As a result may have trouble garnering support from a significant portion of the Republican base. One last note: What is disappointing to me about this election is none of the top contenders is truly a traditional conservative Republican, whereas in the past we've had the likes of Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, and Alan Keyes finish in the top two or three (and in Buchanan's case, beating Bush and Dole in New Hampshire). One additional point I would like to make about Tancredo that I wasn’t able to in yesterday’s crossfire is that he offers something for everyone in the Republican coalition. He is economically conservative, having received “A” grades from the National Taxpayer Union every year he has been in Congress (which is more than most of these candidates can say), voted against NCLB and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and has supported tax cuts and switching to a flat or national sales tax. He is also socially conservative, having consistently opposed abortion and homosexual “rights” and culturally conservative, opposing amnesty for illegal aliens and supporting full assimilation of legal immigrants. Finally, he is conservative on foreign policy, skeptical of international organizations such as the UN and the WTO and supportive of the War against Islamofascism.

Most of the other candidates, on the other hand, are not as conservative in at least one of these areas. As a result may have trouble garnering support from a significant portion of the Republican base.

One last note: What is disappointing to me about this election is none of the top contenders is truly a traditional conservative Republican, whereas in the past we’ve had the likes of Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, and Alan Keyes finish in the top two or three (and in Buchanan’s case, beating Bush and Dole in New Hampshire).

]]> By: Rohit J http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/01/26/caucus-talk/#comment-19001 Rohit J Sat, 27 Jan 2007 06:34:05 +0000 http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/01/26/caucus-talk/#comment-19001 My picks: Most desirable: 1)Tom Tancredo 2)Ron Paul 3)Duncan Hunter 4)Jim Gilmore 5)Sam Brownback Least Desirable: 1)Rudy Giuliani 2)John McCain 3)Condi Rice 4)Tommy Thompson 5)Chuck Hagel As you can probably tell, my preferences are based on my views on each candiate's moral character and political positions, without regard to how much chance they have of winning. Out of the ones that are likely to be the top performers in the GOP primary, Mitt Romney would be my pick. My picks:

Most desirable:
1)Tom Tancredo
2)Ron Paul
3)Duncan Hunter
4)Jim Gilmore
5)Sam Brownback

Least Desirable:
1)Rudy Giuliani
2)John McCain
3)Condi Rice
4)Tommy Thompson
5)Chuck Hagel

As you can probably tell, my preferences are based on my views on each candiate’s moral character and political positions, without regard to how much chance they have of winning. Out of the ones that are likely to be the top performers in the GOP primary, Mitt Romney would be my pick.

]]>