Say What?

The name of Governor Sonny “Purdue” [sic] has popped up in a Freeper discussion about Republicans and — you guessed it — the 2008 Presidential race.

The original post lists Perdue’s achievements over the past four years, and then, next to a photograph of the Governor, says, “Never mind the fact that he looks like Ed Asner. Here’s your real conservative.”

So … now that the 2006 election is four days old, thoughts on ’08 — and a potential spot for Sonny on the national stage?

h/t Political Insider

78 comments

  1. SpaceyG says:

    Oh say it ain’t so! What part of the national puzzle is any person who puts Sonny on a list of potential candidates for Pres in ’08 not seeing? All Sonny could possibly represent, at a national level, is that of a quintessential fat-cat Southern politico enriching himself at the expense of the middle class.

    Anyone who would run a fat Southern fat-cat is just NOT getting it. No one outside of this backwater state WANTS politicians like we still elect. They want smart, savy, urban-minded leadership from Yankees like Rudy G. They want conservatives who won’t pander to the religious right, hypocrites, fundamentalist creeps and snake-oil salesmen like Ted Haggard.

    Sonny in ’08? What a delusion of utter absurdity.

  2. Maurice Atkinson says:

    Spacey, anything can happen. Who would of thought American would have a Bush political dynasty? You just never know.

    Sonny has really polished his imagine and communication skills. Georgia also happens to be one of the fasted growing states both by population and economy. This isn’t a backwater state. Flanked with this legislature and key governmental offices run by competent pro-active Republicans, sure anything is possible.

    Consider all the technological advances that people said were not possible. If people simply listen to the naysayers……

  3. You guys are smoking crack if you think all the land dealings and conflicts of interest can withstand national press scrutiny, and I suspect Sonny knows the same, considering his refusal to directly answer any questions about it and his willingness to flub the truth (“I don’t even know who the Oaky Woods buyers were”) during the last debate.

  4. David says:

    Even as a hard core Republican, I think someone is smoking some serious crack to think that Sonny could be a national anything. I’m sure he appreciates the compliment but Sonny is the prime example of the Peter Principle. He’s risen to his level of incompetence. An accidental governor the first time around, he’s not going anywhere after this next term except to the local barbeque joint to hang around with the other Good ‘Ol Boys.

  5. Mad Dog says:

    I heard that Shady Perdue has already made a trip to California to work on his 2008 Presidential bid.

    Arnold wouldn’t even give him an, “Hasta la vista, Baby.”

    Check his disclosures. He was planning his 2008 run before Cagle outed him and his abuse of public office.

    The 100,000 dollars one.

  6. conservativecore says:

    The crack is being smoke by anyone who refers to Sonny as a conservative. What tax cut did he initiate or even suggest. In fact I know first hand that he fought every conservative agenda item, the few the legislative leaders had the stones to move, and only took credit when it was going to be forced down his throat.

  7. mercergirl says:

    I love Sonny but… President? I dunno, I’d like to wait on that judgement until after his second term.

  8. RandyMiller says:

    Both parties always throw a group of names out there that are called maybe’s, but it always comes down to just a few. My thoughts? For the dems look to Clinton and Edwards in the primaries. For the reps look to McCain and Guiliani for our primaries.

  9. pvsys says:

    Well… there is definately a void right now with no potential candidate who is ALL THREE:

    (1) convincingly pro-life/pro-family values
    …AND…
    (2) a pro-growth “supply-sider”. Someone who actually believes that lower taxes leads to growth. (and since the emperical data proves this, it is kind of rediculous that this is so hard to find this the Republican party these days!)
    …AND…
    (3) strong on national security/defense

    In other words, there are no “Reagan” conservative candidate out there! George Allen was the closest thing we had to all three… but I suppose his presidential asperations died with his election loss.

    Condi and Rudy have the national security locked up…. but little to offer in the other two areas.

    McCain would be all three, but his vote AGAINST the Bush tax cut demonstrates that he doesn’t have a clue about economics. His Campaign Finance law was also a joke and demonstrates serious issues about his McCain’s concept of freedom and liberty.

    (But I wish that other Republicans had McCain’s commitment to lower spending!)

    Just about all other Republican hopefuls are seriously deficient on the pro-life/family values front.

    So… like I said… there is a VERY large void right now and its too bad that George Allen lost and its too bad someone like Pete Dupont, Jack Kemp, or Bill Bennett (but without the gambling problems!) isn’t waiting in the wings… Anyone know of anyone else today of this calibre… and with these positions?

    Regarding Sonny’s ethics problems… I do find them at the least creating a cloud of questions about Sonny’s integrity… But I also find this to be minor compared to how Bill and Hillary used to scam Savings and Loan institutions while Bill was governor of Arkansas… or Hillary’s cattle futures investment… but of course, liberals don’t care about ethics when their own guys are in the hotseat.

    –Rob McEwen

  10. Jeff says:

    Sonny is not even a mediocre governor, he is below average…far below. Yes he got reelected, but the people of Georgia seem to be satisfied with being below average…just look at our graduation rate and test scores. Sonny as Pres…the only person that wants this is Nick Ayers. PVSYS…you know nothing about economics. McCain’s concept of freedom and liberty…come on. How much did you donate in 2004, 2006, how about before that? Was it over a million? No! There is a point where money ceases to represent political speech. Tom Ridge has a better shot than Sonny, and Rudy G. Morons and 9/11 commericials will not fly in the ’08 election campaign.

  11. hankreardan says:

    There is a greater chance Garrett Hayes could run for Prez or vice than Sonny. Garrett has been mentioned as a possible Libertarian Candidate. He had twice the vote of any other Libertarian running for Gov.

  12. pvsys says:

    Jeff,

    McCain/Feingold is a joke. For one, there are now many “issue advocacy groups” which claim to be “non-biased” and to which McCain/Feingold doesn’t apply. Yet many of these supposedly “non-biased” organizations are backed with partison extremists who have an agenda.

    Secondly, McCain/Feingold actually **overly** protects incumbants. (Which, IMHO, is bad for freedom and democracy. Don’t we have enough “inertia” for incumbants already!)
    SEE:
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-393es.html

    A better idea than McCain/Feingold was something floated a while back by Newt Gingrich. He suggested that we pass a law not allowing a candidate to raise more than 50% of their total campaign funds from people outside the district that the candidate seeks to represent. I think that this would have been much better than McCain/Feingold.

    Mad Dog:

    (1) The Reagan Tax Cut of 1981 was passed in 1981, went into effect in 1982… and took about 12-18 months to significantly impact the economy… Therefore, by 1984, it had improved our economy so much that Reagan was able to campaign on the slogan “are you better off now than you were 4 years ago.” In fact, that tax cut was largely responsible for VERY good economic conditions for SEVERAL years starting from about late ’82 or early ’83.

    (2) We’ve had 9/11, Katrina, a recession inheirited from Clinton, the “dot com” bust just before Bush took office, and major financial scandals (Enron, worldcom) just prior to Bush taking office… Definately, the Bush tax cuts have made a major difference in lifting our economy above and away from these problems. But because the Bush tax cuts were phased in so slowly, the evidence isn’t quite as “emperical” as the Reagan or Kennedy tax cuts… but there is no mistake that we’ve come a long way from problems that were inherited from the Clinton years and from other problems like Katrina.

    –Rob McEwen

  13. northside elephant says:

    This has nothing to do with how conservative Perdue is or possible ethics problems. It has everything to do with the fact that Sonny is simply not presidential material.

  14. Jeff says:

    For one, McCain/Feingold did not create 527s, that section of the Internal Revenue Code has been around for a long time. Newt is a dick, and as far as I see it…if a person has a vested interest in the outcome of an election (say they have property in the district, or a business or a franchise, etc., but do not live there themselves) they should be allowed to contribute, and if were not allowed to then I am certain they would just open a P.O. Box in the district and mail their contribution from it. Of course you would pull something from CATO, they aren’t even a real thinktank. You just want me to mention section 527 so you can complain that the tax could is too complex…get over it. The economy Clinton helped shape was far superior to W’s. Do you remember the day when the middle class and lower class had lower taxes? How about when our tax revenue surpassed spending? It was when Clinton was in office, not Bush or Reagan.

  15. David says:

    John, I hope that Sonny isn’t the best we can do. If he is then God help us. I know it is unfair but Sonny looks like a caricature of the stereotipical Southern politician. As Andre Agassi used to say, “Image is everything.” I simply don’t think he would sell on the national stage. Every time he steps up to the microphone I expect to hear the voice of Foghorn Legghorn come booming through! Not to disparage your choice but I just can’t see it.

  16. pvsys says:

    Jeff:

    >For one, McCain/Feingold did not create 527s

    That is besides the point. By all measures, 527s were overempowered as a direct result of McCain/Feingold.

    >Newt is a dick

    And what does that have to do with the merits of his idea?

    >if a person has a vested interest

    Like a true liberal, you are confusing issues. Perhaps different people will have different ideas about exactly HOW to implement Newt’s idea… and some will be wiser than others… but attacking the idea based on a bull-headed application of this idea that I never specified in the first place is a “strawman argument”. And yet the fact remains that candidates receive funding all the time from people or organizations who do NOT reside or own property or own business in their district.

    Why is limiting such contributions such a bad idea? What are you afraid of? (I suspect that if you heard Clinton say this, you’d probably say it was a great idea! No?) Also, this cuts all different ways… it would limit outside influence from ALL special interest groups across the political spectrum.

    >Of course you would pull
    >something from CATO

    Again, more personal attacks… but little substance from you. Do you always avoid the actual issues and attack the person. Are you having a bad day? (I’m just trying to figure out the source of your anger and mean-spiritedness.)

    >The economy Clinton helped
    >shape was far superior

    To a point… but not due to anything that Clinton did. For one, we were well on our way out of the ’91 recession during Bush I’s last year in office (but the data wasn’t available to prove that until after Clinton was elected). Secondly, Congressional Republican’s fiscal discipline starting in ’94 (but which we haven’t seen in years) had much to do with the 90s economy. But the rise of the Internet, e-commerce, hand-held mobile phone, and inexpensive computers, easy to use and stable operating systems (from windows 95+) ALL hit wide spread maturity very early in Clinton’s tenure. There changed the EVERYONE’s way of life and the way business was conducted. Together, these coming together ALL at about the same time provided a HUGE boost to the economy. Clinton rode this wave… but, if anything, the Clinton tax increase of ’93 eventually dragged this down somewhat.

    >Do you remember the day
    >when the middle class and lower class
    >had lower taxes

    I’m not sure the lower class has ever had lower taxes. The middle class had lower taxes during the mid-to-late 80s when the top marginal rates was something like 28 percent.

    >How about when our tax revenue
    >surpassed spending?

    Well… tax revenues are UP right now… and we can thank a robust economy and Bush’s tax cuts for this.

    But over spending has mucked up the works and we can blame “establishment” and/or “liberal” Republicans in congress for messing this up in recent years.

    BTW – some of the worst Republican spenders lost their seats in this last election. (And good riddance!) Bob Novak details this in his latest column:

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/132306,CST-EDT-novak12.article

    Here is the excerpt:

    Three of the powerful Republican ”Cardinals,” the House Appropriations subcommittee chairmen who dispense federal pork, were defeated in the midterm elections.

    The losing Cardinals were Representatives Don Sherwood of Pennsylvania (Foreign Operations subcommittee), John Sweeney of New York (Treasury-Transportation-HUD) and Charles Taylor of North Carolina (Interior). Rep. Anne Northup of Kentucky, another senior pork-dispensing appropriator, also lost.

    Senators Mike DeWine of Ohio and Conrad Burns of Montana, both Senate appropriators who favored pork, were defeated (after Burns attacked his victorious Democratic opponent for opposing earmarks). Two other defeated Republican senators, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Jim Talent of Missouri, voted for notorious pork projects: the ”Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska and the ”Railroad to Nowhere” in Mississippi.

    Maybe this will lead to more fiscally responsible Republicans the next time around? I hope so.

    BTW – Do you really think that Democrats will spend less? (I’d really love for you to go on record on this!)

    –Rob McEwen

  17. pvsys says:

    >Who do you think is the
    >best candidate for the GOP in 08?

    That is my problem. I was very excited about George Allen. Now I don’t know who to support.

    I like the idea of Condi or Rudy… for Vice-President!

    If I could have some kind of better reassurance that Condi was more conservative on social issues and a “supply-sider”, I’d be pushing for Condi as president in a heartbeat.

    I’m open to suggestions!

    Rob McEwen

  18. pvsys says:

    Come to think of it, I’d love to see a:

    Tom Coburn/Condi Rice

    ticket!

    But I can’t imagine that happening anytime soon. Still, Coburn could be a rising star because he represents everything opposite of what Republicans have been doing wrong lately.

    –Rob McEwen

  19. pvsys says:

    Oh yeah… I’m seeing interesting rumblings about Congressman Duncan Hunter… but I don’t know much about him.

    I forgot to add that I think that Chris Cox would be a steller candidate who would fulfull ALL of the criteria I mentioned earlier and whose wide range and depth of experience and knowledge would rise well above other contenders. But I think he started his SEC Chairmenship job not that long ago so it is hard to conceive of him running at this point in time. (But he could have easily been by far the best candidate.)

    –Rob McEwen

  20. John Konop says:

    Rob

    You are on of the smartest guys posting on this blog. And you made my point. No one you mention was a better candidate than Sonny Perdue. In fact I could argue all have more baggage.

    Am I wrong?

  21. buzzbrockway says:

    Many Republicans, myself included, are desperate for an alternative to McCain. Allen’s self-destruction takes him out of the picture and leaves the McCain alternative list rather short. If the nomination were decided today, I’d go with Mitt Romney, but I’m not giddy about it. We (the GOP) need someone to step up.

    Since Kennedy, the best path to the Presidency has been the Governor’s office and Georgia was about the only bright spot for the Republicans so I’m not surprised Sonny’s name pops into some people’s mind for ’08.

  22. David says:

    John, fair question. And I agree that it will likely come from a governor’s chair.

    I guess, at this moment, Romney. I don’t see Colin Powell or even Condi coming in, despite Dick Morris’ theory on her.

    McCain has the most press and national ID.

    I don’t see alot of stars on the horizon, that much I do know.

  23. John Konop says:

    Sonny Perdue demonstrated allot of class as to how he handled the Nick situation. The easy thing to do would be to give some self righteous speech and throw him under a bus.

    Also with Mark Taylor he never took personal swipes about his family issues. You have to admit, he showed character. After all the scandals in Washington, I think he would play well nationally.

    The reason another, unknown Governor got elected in 1980 from Georgia was because people where tired of Madison Avenue big time high profile politicians.

  24. David says:

    Could be, John. Stranger things have happened. Although the unknown was actually elected in ’76 and defeated in ’80 because he was, arguably, the most incompetent man ever to hold the office. I guess we’ll wait and see what fate has in store for Sonny.

  25. conservativecore says:

    Sonny found himself the recipient of the worst run challenger campaign. He is the best, John you must be kidding. What GOP candidate best Sonny well lets see, Romney certainly jumps light years ahead, McCain while some conservatives will whine at least has the decency to kiss you before he, well you know th rest, and he will openly disagree with you. Sonny is a snake he has now political stamina and the first time some real campaign starts to poke he will burst like the cheap hollow suit he is.

  26. John Konop says:

    David,

    I am sorry you are right he lost in 80.

    Bill,

    The last name will kill Jeb Bush. Would you want to run if you brother was President with a 31% approval rating?

  27. David says:

    If he weren’t so old, I’d say Zell on the Dem side. I think he’s a strong old SOB who would give Hillary fits! His keynote speech for Bush in 2004 was one of the finest I’ve ever heard. Common sense kind of guy who could appeal to conservative voters. Both of his books are good reads.

  28. John Konop says:

    conservativecore,

    McCain is dead because immigration, end of story. And I do agree Romney from what I know is a good guy. But I do not see him selling to the base. I could be wrong. You can say what you want, the base loves Sonny. Why do you not think that would not happen across the Country?

    I do want to make it clear, Sonny and I do not know each any better than a hello and a handshake.

    And Buzz will verify, when I said he would make a great Party Chairman, I never said a word to him in advance. I am only making statements from observations and looking at the landscape.

    I look at Buzz like Sonny, we may not agree on everything, but I give a big thumps up for class and character.

  29. RandyMiller says:

    Here’s the good about McCain. He has the capability of drawing in independants, conservative democrats, and undecideds when he runs. While I don’t think he’s a strict social conservative, this says to me he is conservative in the sense that government should stay out of our personal lives.

    In 2008 I think Americans want to hear about how Washington will maintain a climate friendly to existing and new businesses (small business too,) keeping taxes low and maintain a strong defense. If the GOP gets up there and pulls another 1991 convention where the biggest problem facing America is abortion & gay marriage, we might as well hang it up.

    We’re in the 21st century. We need to focus on new forms of alternative energy, affordable healthcare, the environment, keeping U.S. companies that compete on the world stage competitive (thus creating more jobs). These along with the GOP mantra of low taxes, strong defense, making it easier for someone to start their own business and grow, these are issues that have appeal to many voters.

    Bill, re: Jeb. I think he’s over politics. ANd I also agree with David about the Bush-fatigue. We need some new ideas!

  30. JasonW says:

    Sonny?!? Thats laughable, and I don’t think anybody considers him a real contender, or even a contender period.

    I do not see what anybody sees in Allen. He was almost a Bush clone, a big spender, and not terribly big on Tax Reform. Nobody who is so close to the president could ever win again.

    My current picks for a GOP Ticket would be a Romney/Coburn ticket, a Rudy/Rice ticket, and a Romney/Rice ticket (although i’m not sure the latter could win, with a mormon and a minority woman), I’d also be open to a Newt candidacy as well.

  31. Brian from Ellijay says:

    Was not this the same group who touted how bad Sonny ran his campaign and half expected him not to win re-election?

    With National prospects as they are, we need a Southerner. A Governor or former Governor. And a Conservfative who can ensure that the base, both Economic and Social turns out. Who fits that bill? No one in the race as of now. Sure can tell you that.

    Also, I would support Newt despite not being a Governor. A stronger, renewed CWA might be just what we need to propel us back into power.

  32. DougieFresh says:

    Brian, it sounds like you might be in somewhat of an echo chamber. Believe it or not, people in the Midwest and West do not view the South as positively as the South views the South. A Southern Social Conservative will doom the party to a huge defeat, but he will win the south by a huge margin.

    Social Conservative Socialism is not going to get the WH back. It’s time to stop the growth of government and get an Econ Conservative with some backbone into office. I just don’t see Rudy being a fiscal conservative, and McCain is just a lunatic.

    Sadly, Bush has destroyed the party, and I am not so sure the Republicans have anyone ready to move into the Oval Office.

    It might be time to get used to the idea of President Hillary.

  33. Brian from Ellijay says:

    Doug, that is why I said that we need a guy who is both a Social and Fiscal Conservative. Someone who is going to cut taxes but at the same time cutting government.

    My southern statement was a matter of historical reference. No other region puts so many residents into that office on Pennsylvania avenue. In fact no President that I can think of has ever won the Presidency without 90% of the South (minus the reconstruction years, and Lincolns VP was still a Tennesseeian.) Not saying it can not be done, just really hard to do it.

  34. Dorabill says:

    Bill S.
    Can we please stop this Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, juggernaut? I’ll tell you right now stopping Hillary will make me become an Obama Democrat if need be.

  35. Dorabill says:

    Or stopping Jeb or whatever. I don’t think people need to be tripping over themselves to find decent candidates yet. No telling what might happen in the next 6 months.

  36. northside elephant says:

    Practically any Senator or Governor can usually be considered a serious, potential presidential candidate. In fact I have no doubt whatsoever that had Barnes defeated Perdue in ’02 Barnes would be heavily involved in the “invisible primary” right now.

  37. northside elephant says:

    By the way for those throwing out Rudy’s name I am going to step out on a limb and predict that there will not be a Republican presidential nominee any time soon that:

    A) is pro-abortion
    B) has been photographed in drag

    Rudy has both strikes against him. I am not kidding either, see the National Review cover story.

  38. DougieFresh says:

    BfE,

    Having giving it some thought, I think a Southerner that does not scare away the Midwesterners by appearing too Southern might do the trick (say Newt).

    People like Judge Roy Moore have given Southern Conservatives a bad name in the rest of the country. On a personal level, religion is a good thing, but government and religion should never mix. Otherwise we are no different than the those middle-eastern theocracies.

    But, both sides of the religion in government argument are a bit extreme (much like the abortion debate, hey what do you know its the same group of people). Putting the 10 commandments in a public school on the public dime is wrong. Making a moment of silence illegal is lunacy. Closing bars on Sunday is Puritanical and demanding the word God be stricken from every public document is insane.

    We would be better served if we dealt more with practical items that actually have an effect on our day to day lives (read as lower taxes, smaller government, more freedom), instead of obsessing over triffles. Is there a Republican leader who will take the reigns and lead us there?

  39. pvsys says:

    DougieFresh:

    Your comment reminds me of Neal Boortz this morning… yet again, Boortz was trying to say that the Republican party was ruining itself by focusing too much on the Christian Right.

    I happen to disagree. I think that the Christian Right is yet another group disappointed with Republicans and, most of all, the Republicans tried their hardest to throw a few bones to the Christian Right and then sweep things like the Marriage Amendment, School choice, etc. under the carpet.

    Regardless, MANY people abandoned the Republican Party this time around over issues like border control and over spending.

    But what is also very interesting is that State-level marriage amendment and abortion bills did VERY well and won in many, many states. In many places, the win was a landslide… wasn’t even close. And in the one or two places where these issues lost, the vote was very close.

    So be careful about throwing “values voters” overboard… they are critical to achieving a majority and, contrary to some people’s opinion, they have only received the crumbs from the table from the Republican party in recent years.

    When you said:
    “Putting the 10 commandments in a public school on the public dime is wrong”

    Do you mean morally wrong, or illegal, or both?

    If so, please explain why? (Not that I lose sleep over them not being there… but I just don’t think very many people who make such statements can back up such statements with facts and reason and law… most are just regurgitating their own public school and mainstream news “brainwashing”… so I thought I’d give you the chance to explain this!)

    Rob McEwen

  40. DougieFresh says:

    I think it is illegal to push ones religion, no matter how mainstream with tax payer dollars. I think the 10 commandments as a whole are good and decent things, but posting them as written endorses (i.e. ordains) Judeo-Christian religious dogma. see footnote:

    What if instead it was similar, but different Buddhist dogma instead? That is the test one should use when determining if it breaches the establish or ordain clause. Substitute the Christian view with one from another religion and if it is suddenly offensive, then it fails, and does not need to be paid for or supported by public institutions.

    As for School choice. I am all for that. However, I would go further and remove public schools entirely. If a state then wants to give grants to individuals to attend a private institution of their choice, it may. This can then include any religious affiliated school. For those who do not believe in the free market, there could be a state accredidation test that students must pass to obtain a diploma. In any event, competition breeds better schools. This is why we have the best colleges in the world and the worst primary and secondary schools in the western world.

    Footnote:
    I would argue that the 10 commandments aren’t really Christian, as it Jesus who said in Matthew 22:37-40 “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

    Notice he said on these two commandments hang all law, not these and the other 10.

  41. pvsys says:

    CLAIRIFICATION:

    When I said “Regardless, MANY people abandoned the Republican Party this time around over issues like border control and over spending.”

    My point was that it is rediculous that some are using this time to blame the Christian Right on Republican’s loss of power. They had enough problems which had little to do with “social conservatism”… but, if anything, they lost votes for being too moderate on “social conservatism” issues.

    Nevertheless, over spending and lack of border control would have “done them in” regardless of stances on social issues.

    Rob McEwen

  42. Dorabill says:

    pvsys
    I don’t think most social moderate conservatives will vote for or against somebody based on their view on abortion. But it sure seems like other important issues are thrown under the bus for this single issue.

  43. DougieFresh says:

    I reread the first admentment, and realized that I had misremembered the name of the clause. It only uses the term Establish, for some reason the word ordain popped in. (Maybe from the Preamble?)

  44. pvsys says:

    DougieFresh:

    You said a lot of interesting things… and I think we are in total agreement on school choice.

    But all I saw that was any kind of answer to my question was when you said:

    “it breaches the establish or ordain clause”

    But consider that the following is the entire 1st amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

    For about 150 years, everyone in government and law understood that “Congress shall” specifically meant the U.S. congress.

    It was only until the 1930 and later that judges took it upon themselves to broaden this definition to includes States and local governments. But even this is on rather shaky ground.

    Prior to that time, States and local governments had much more leeway to do what the local citizens desired.

    And this made a lot of sense! Schools in heavily Mormon areas could teach that Joseph Smith was a pretty good guy. Schools in quaker areas could teach the evils of industrialization. Schools in the the bible belt could teach Bible history. Schools in heavily jewish areas could focus more on Chanukah and less on Christmas.

  45. DougieFresh says:

    My understanding of the Constitution is that teh 14th amendment extended the protections from Congress guaranteed in the Constitution to the states as well.

    I may be wrong.

    Anyway, as far as Christmas and Hanukah are concerned. I always thought that Yom Kippur and Easter were “The Big” holidays for Jews and Christians. Why is it it is always about Christmas and Hanukah?

  46. pvsys says:

    …continued…
    (I hit the return key accidentially)

    What we have now is a top-down one-sized-fits-all system where big brother federal judges dictate what values local communities might have… even if that means breaking traditions that literally span hundreds of years!

    And the eduation that we end up getting is one which adheres to the religion of philosophical naturalism/humanism.

    If one adhere to that philosophy, then everything is “hunky-dory” and everyone else is a bunch of extremist complainers.

    But given that we are more of a pluralistic nation with people of different faiths more interspersed, the old system is not so workable anymore… which is all the reason more why a full voucher system solves a whole lot of problems in this area.

    Rob McEwen

  47. pvsys says:

    >the 14th amendment extended the protections

    Well… it didn’t do so until 50 years AFTER the 14th amendment was passed when Judges suddenly discovered NEW things that the authors of this amendment never even considered. These later judges made that amendment say what the wanted it to say… and they basically were legislating from the bench.

    Dorabill:

    Specifically, how is the issue of abortion causing other issues to be “thrown under the bus”?

    Rob McEwen

  48. John Konop says:

    Rob,

    I think the Pro – Life with no exception is not a good idea. And this issue is hurting Republicans. I lived in South Dakota and this did not play with my Republican friends.
    I also think Stem cell argument is not playing well, especially from Rush.

    You cannot argue that stem cell is morally wrong and IVI is ok. It makes no logical sense. How do you say it is ok to disregard eggs as long as we are making babies, but not for research to safe people.

    The mean spited gay bashing is also not playing well. I am not for gay marriage, but why should gay people not have legal rights like civil unions. I was shocked as to the mean spirited comments directed at Karen Handel for talking to gay constituents.

    I do not think issues about PC behavior toward using God in Public are wrong and most people agree. Yet, to not say certain Republican even on this web site are crossing the line is not being realistic.

  49. DougieFresh says:

    What you guys have stated is why we need smaller government, and why that should be the rallying cry of the Republicans.

    A smaller government is less likely to offend and generally will either stay out of people’s business, or at least not have the resources to intrude.

  50. DougieFresh says:

    John,

    You posted before my last post and brought up an interesting point. I am neutral in the abortion fight, as I do not think either side has addressed the central issue. However, although people might label me “liberal” for that view, I actually think that the only logically consistant view of abortion is LIFE (not health) of the mother.

    If we all agree that a fetus at some stage of development is human (not just life, as cancer is life, as is a hang nail or a fungus). Then, abortion is murder whether or not it is a product of rape, incest or health of the mother.

    If it is okay to abort because it is rape, incest or health (not life), then there is no moral right to deny it for other reasons, unless we are claiming people born of rape, incest or unhealthy women are less of a person than someone who is not.

    In my mind, the only certainty is that Roe v Wade needs to be struck down, because it is a bad decision by the court. States should have the right to decided abortion just as they can decide whether or not tatoos are legal. (Assuming you agree with tatoo laws). If this is a right ot provacy issue, then so should drugs, self mutilation, suicide, and whether you want to work for less than “minimum” wage.

  51. pvsys says:

    John and Doug:

    Exellent points and excellent posts. I agree just about 100% with everything… except to point out that:

    (1) Of course Doug is right that incest and rape shouldn’t be exceptions if abortion is murder. But we just need to do a better job educating voters that (A) such pregnancies are extremely rare compared to the amount of abortions we have and (B) that if a women reports a rape and gets treatment at a hospital, that potential pregancy is prevented though that treatment.

    Also, I understand the argument about IVI and I have personally struggled with that… VERY difficult moral questions surround that topic!

    But the problem I have with stem cell research is that want to use MY tax dollars for something which (1) we keep finding can be done just about as well without destroying fertilized eggs and (2) something that private corporations (and some States) have already spent billions on with little to show in return, (3) OTHER similar research HAS produced decent results per dollar spent.

    Thereforek, basically, stem cell research is way overrated and generates most of its hype and excitement from liberal democrats looking to use it as an issue to hurt Republicans. But most people who take this “bait” actually don’t know the facts involved.

    I think that Republicans have done a poor job of defending their positions against stem cell research and this is more the problem than the issue itself.

    Rob McEwen

  52. DougieFresh says:

    Rob,

    The advantage to ES or embryonic stem cells is that they are completely undifferentiated and completely able to replace any tissues in the body, and can multiple unchecked an indefinite amount of time.

    Adult stem cells are partially differentiated and can replicate any of a class of tissues. For example, there are blood stem cells in your bones that can make any type of blood cell, but not say a nerve cell.

    However, there is a third type of stem cell derived from cord blood that has been demonstrated to possess the same ability as ES cells to differentiate and multiply. This type of stem cell does not require the destruction of a fetus, as it comes from the blood of the umbilical cord.

    I think the Democratis interest in ES cells is to create and artificial wedge issue for voters to use to vote out Republicans. It is a complicated issue and ignorant folks will vote thinking Republicans want to make sick people suffer. Yet another example of the Dems taking the high ground.

  53. John Konop says:

    Doug and Rob

    Both of you are right and from what I read the cord is the right solution. Yet Rush making fun of Mr. Fox killed any real debate on the issue.

  54. northside elephant says:

    Mr. Fox and Mrs. Reagan are putting the cart before the horse. So much of this debate is hypothetical at this point. This is like debating the morality of time travel!

    Look at the most current research involving stem cells. There are massive problems and complications involved. In several areas stem cell research has fallen far short of what was hoped.

  55. northside elephant says:

    John and Dora,

    You miss the point entirely. If we are talking about the presidential nomination then being pro-abortion in the GOP field will kill you.

    It doesn’t matter what middle America thinks. It matters what party activists and primary voters in Iowa, New Hamphshire and South Carolina think. As well as the top private donors like Bush’s Ranger fundraisers.

  56. John Konop says:

    elephant

    I am Pro – Life with exception, I think most people agree with that position. If you tell people like me we are not real Republicans, o8 will look like 06.

  57. John Konop says:

    conservativecore

    One I am not an isolationist; I am against slave labor and lawlessness. I do want foreign countries having more rights than American Citizens in our Country.

    Once again, this will be a bad 08 with that attitude. And there are 40 to 50 Conservative GOP house members who back my position.

    In fact the majority of the GOPGeorgia House members voted not to renew trade status with China in the WTO in 05.

    I have a few questions for anyone on the blog.

    Do you think we should bring back the slave trade to compete with child and slave labor in China?

    Do you think child and slave labor is morally right?

    Do you think we can keep buying more products than we sell ie trade debt?

    Read this and you might learn something about trade.

    http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/how-bad-trade-deals-are-destroying-the-middle-class

  58. northside elephant says:

    John, you might as well fight the laws of gravity.

    Globalization is an inevetible and powerful force that is sweeping even you and Pat Buchanan into the global economy.

    This is not the John Konop thread, it is about 2008!

  59. DougieFresh says:

    There are more than two positions to the abortion debate, and the hunker down in the bunker types on the issue who have that us versus them mentality will hand the Presidency to Hillary.

    I am against Federal intervention with abortion laws, but I am not pro-abortion. The only federal stand I will take is the overturning of the Roe v Wade fiat. Then I say let the states make the laws they are supposed to make.

    If we decide out candidates on the abortion issue in 2008, we deserve to get slaughtered again. I guess the True Believers already have their Nike sneakers picked out and are ready for the mother ship.

    Can we have one election where we run a candidate who’s first priority is smaller government, instead of a pro-life socialist?

  60. northside elephant says:

    Dougie I made a very simple statement: Rudy has no chance because he is pro-choice and has pictures of himself in drag.

    This is not a debate about abortion itself I am only stating what should be an obvious fact:

    A left-of-center mayor from New York City will not win Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina.

  61. DougieFresh says:

    John,

    Thanks for your support.

    North E,

    You may indeed be right about Rudy. To be honest I do not know his stance on economics and the size and power of the federal government. You cannot take what he did as mayor as in indication, as I believe that a mayor has the right to be as powerful as the citizenry want, you can always move out of town.

    Until I hear what he has to say on Federal issue, I will withold judegment.

    Dressing in drag, is probably a silly thing to judge a candidate on. If he thought he was a woman and made a habit of it, that is one thing. If it was some kind of gag, especially if it was for a charity or some costume related event, it is not anything to get worked up over. I don’t think that kids dressed as ghosts for Halloween want to kill themselves.

    If Republicans want to continue to select national candidates on the issue of making abortion illegal, I say we deserve to lose, and badly. Abortion is not and never should be a national issue. Any national republican trying to force legislation to make abortion illegal is just as ignorant of the Constitution as those whacky liberal justices they complain about.

    Fight Roe v Wade in Congress, not abortion.

Comments are closed.