www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3497.html
reddit Republican primary voters need to rally around an authentic conservative presidential candidate before the 2008 nomination is claimed by an ideological imposter, former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore told The Politico Wednesday. The situation is so dire, Gilmore said, that his home state is in danger of falling to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York or another liberal Democrat in the 2008 election if Republicans don't offer a candidate with the proper conservative message. Gilmore spoke to Politico editors and reporters in the first of a series of sessions with Republican candidates in advance of the May 3 GOP Presidential Candidates Debate. Ten candidates have accepted invitations to participate in the debate, the first of the cycle for Republican presidential candidates.
The Politico Presidential Interview On Iraq policy, abortion, tax cuts, immigration and many other issues, Gilmore tried to portray himself as the true conservative in the race, and sought to distinguish himself from a series of better-funded and well-known rivals for the GOP nod. "I believe that the people who are getting all the media attention are not real conservatives," Gilmore said. John McCain of Arizona, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani are all, to varying degrees, pale imitations of traditional conservatism who would not reflect the ideals of small government, lower taxes and muscular foreign policy. And the lack of a true conservative in the race will soon be apparent to Republican primary voters, Gilmore said. "What they're having to address right now is, do we have to settle" for a something less than a true conservative champion, Gilmore said. Gilmore, Virginia's governor from 1998 to 2002, is also seeking to separate himself from the cluster of other lesser-known candidates trying to break out of the crowded Republican primary pack. Sam Brownback of Kansas, who is best known for his opposition to abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research, along with former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson and Rep. Gilmore suggested he is more qualified for the presidency than Brownback, based on his executive experience compared with the senator's focus on "theoretical issues" in Washington. Gilmore, a former state attorney general and prosecutor in Richmond-based Henrico County, also outlined his views on a series of public policy issues: -- He defended the enactment of a significant cut in Virginia's car tax during his time in office, a move critics contend has led to deep budget deficits and less money to fix clogged roads. The tax cut properly put more money back in Virginia taxpayers' pockets, Gilmore said. "The Democrats are wrong with what they're offering," in proposing near-complete troop withdrawal by mid-2008, which would be a "recipe for chaos," he said. "I don't believe there should be a path to citizenship automatically," he said. Gilmore also suggested that criminal penalties be imposed for corporations found guilty of hiring illegal aliens, saying: "I think everybody in this country, including the business community," is expected to obey the law.
Highlights From Gilmore Interview Like several Republican candidates, Gilmore walked a fine line between supporting Bush, a popular figure with the Republican base, and distancing himself from policies that polls show a majority of Americans find distasteful. The 2003 invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein may not have been wise, Gilmore suggested. "I don't know whether we should have done this invasion or not, but we're there now," he said. "It looks to me like other policies might have been followed." Gilmore is staking his presidential campaign's success on Internet outreach, which he said has the potential to equal the political playing field with the likes of Romney, Giuliani and McCain. "We're speaking to people right now over the Internet in a very significant way." Gilmore, 57, served as chairman of the Republican National Committee during the first year of Bush's presidency. He departed amid squabbling with White House political aide Karl Rove and others. Gilmore said of his departure that he was simply used to acting in an executive capacity rather than a subordinate role, and he was ready to face other professional challenges. "I think it was time to move on at the end of a year," he said. Gilmore officially joined the crowded presidential field in January and has lagged far behind in fundraising. His campaign has not yet released his fundraising totals for the first quarter of 2007 but did say recently it expected to raise $200,000 from a single fundraising event. Gilmore doesn't have a natural constituency, an identifiable issue to build a successful campaign around or a particularly notable record of achievement as governor of Virginia, Mayer said. "Jim Gilmore's presidential campaign is one of the longer shots from an established politician," Mayer said. "I don't expect Gilmore to do well, but one other thing he has going for him is that there is no front-runner right now in the Republican race."
But most are struggling small business men, and are the commercial engine which is poor peoples best hope for economic vitality. Now certainly a case could be made welfare as instituted by LBJ and the great society programs have not always help the people whom it was meant to aid. The story line of welfare mothers having babies to get more aid has traction because a glimmer of truth is there. The truth is if they got a job or got married benefits would be cut. No matter how rich a person is let us give him thirty dollars a week to spend on healthy food. Then one can go get a job without fear of being cut off from food.
crain Even if all transfer payments land back in the pockets of the wealthy, at best there is no net increase/decrease in the income. Well if you follow ownership of the wealthy have been steadily owning more and more of the country. So while simple math might lead you to the conclusion there is no "net gain" reality says otherwise. Ask a typical "wealthy" person if they want lower taxes and the answer will always be yes. Because the wealthy receive less benefit per tax dollar than the poor. The more benefits, the more government spending, the more they receive. If your argument were true, then the wealthy would eagerly pay higher taxes since they know they are going to get this money back when welfare mothers go shopping. If my argument is true, and it is, we'd see exactly what we are seeing under the republicans. Lower taxes on the wealthy, massive increases in government spending, greater wealth of the wealthy, more corruption, more cronyism, more criminality, more greed, more avarice, and massive deficits to pay for it.
crain First, your argument that the "wealthy" are enriched by the poor using welfare is patently incorrect. Good, we are now over the first hurdle, the fact that "middle class entitlements" have two parts, a substance benefit and an economic benefit. First off, I'm not ready to accept your assumption that food chains like Kroger and Farmer Jacks aren't at least 50% owned by the wealthy. The wealthy, and for purposes of this discussion I'm using the top 10%, own about 62% of the country, but just to play it safe, let's call it 50%. That means not only luxury items like art and jewelry but every business, farm and source of natural resources. So at least 50% of every dollar taken in by the mom and pop store eventually ends up their pockets. Next, the weakest part of your argument is the fact that you ignore where the funding for food stamps and welfare originates: taxes. since when are massive budget deficits considered "taxes?" If you followed "ownership" in America you'd know that in 1980 the top 1% owned about 32% of the country. This is only to say that between the massive increases in spending and borrowing of the Reagan administration they seem to do alright. Taxes are a way to adjust the inequities of our economic system. They are also, although this seems to be poorly executed under the conservatives, are a way for paying for the maintenance of the system.
First, your argument...
|
http://csua.com/feed/