@JamesMorrison,
And as I promised to James, finally got back to this:
JamesMorrison wrote:
Foxfyre asked:
Quote:QUESTION FOR ANYBODY:
If a third party emulating MAC virtues/principles could be raised up--maybe something akin to Ross Perot's group prior to and during the Clinton years--would you be interested? There are a few being tentatively promoted out there.
For instance here is the basic core principles of the "Constitution Party". Would something like this or something along these lines--maybe without the religious overtones--be appealing to you? If you could be convinced such a group was viable would you consider it?
Quote:
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.
Yes I would be interested and join hoping that the movement would be significant enough to raise Republican Party interest. We then could form a coalition that would emphasize (almost exclusively) Planks 4 thru 7 while marginalizing those radicals Re abortion, Gay Marriage, and immigration. I would prefer this arrangement to running against Repub nominees to avoid a Naderization of the vote which would lower election possibilities for both. Getting MAC's elected to Congress would be the most important goal but a MAC executive would be additional gravey on that meat.
Okay, good points, and focusing in:
Quote:The abortion issue we claim is settled law and if pressed claim it a states rights issue which we defer to the people of those individual states. Gay marriage seems an issue, again, for individual states. More and more people just don't seem to care and when Republicans strive to regain control of Congress (and, hopefully, the Executive) this is a battle that makes Conservatives seem stodgy and old fashioned and, IMO, is not worth the negative PR (Reminds me of Bismarck's description of the Balkans RE Germany's foreign policy interests there: "...not worth the healthy bones of a single Pomeranian Grenadier”). Therefore both of these issues can properly fall under both planks 2 and 6.
I would like to think that whatever party is designed, it would not marginalize people purely on their opinion on these sticky wicket social issues. I would like to think there could be healthy debate, and all points of view could be heard. Again I do not want a litmus test re abortion, gay marriage, etc. as I think these issues should be left to the individual states and communities to decide. Where individual rights are concerned, Roe v Wade as it was originally intended adequately dealt with that allowing for self determination by the mother but also allowing consideration for the life she allowed to be created.
Marriage must be a federal matter re federal recognition and benefits extended, but if Ican's point of view on that prevails, even that will be moot as there will be no extended benefits from the Federal level.
Quote:My thought on immigration will probably be distasteful to you but I really think Conservatives can regain a major part of the population by proposing a one time Fair Immigration Act or Progressive Immigration Act that would acknowledge those 12 million immigrants already here, give them a fair chance at citizenship given robust standards. This shortly will only follow a robust effort to secure our borders demonstrated by honest metrics and a system that tracts all foreigners with visa's or even a workers program. The borders must be secure before any amnesty type situation is enacted. However, the public emphasis should be on the former (12 million) (rather than the latter (secure borders).
Yes we probably do disagree on immigration. I feel no antipathy toward those 12 million already here other than 1) they snubbed our laws and that should not go without consequence, and 2) there are some truly unsavory and unacceptable people among them that should be be tolerated by anybody. But my argument is based on history we have lived. Both Carter and Reagan extended amnesty to those illegals already here on condition that we then enforce the immigration laws. Extra regulations were imposed to ensure that illegals could not be employed. After Carter's initiative, the number of illegals swelled to 3 million by 1986 when Reagan's version went into effect. Now we
are dealing with at least 12 to 20 million illegals, and to simply do the very same thing all over again will almost certainly result in fourfold more within the next 10 to 20 years.
I want a system to make it most unattractive and unprofitable for illegals to be here coupled with the most humane and practical policy possible to allow people to be here legally whether to become Americans or temporarily to work.
This and many other diverse observations and opinions have been discussed thoroughly on the long running Immigration thread as much as the numbnuts will allow the subject to be discussed.
Quote:As a subsection of 5 I would really insist on a plank that would work towards National standards RE proficiency in English Comprehension, Writing in English, Mathematics, and the Sciences in grades 1 thru 12. Forget pre-school, studies have shown that its only value is that of a glorified, at best, daycare service, and therefore a waste of resources. I would also try to eliminate many state requirements now needed for teacher certification. Most of the courses involved merely serve to keep qualified teachers out of service thereby restricting the supply. You and I seemed to have done fine by teachers in the past who most certainly did not meet today's increasingly stricter standards. All that is needed is a background check and the relative proficiency test RE the subject being taught. Obama and the Dems have dropped the ball here because of their debts to the Teacher's Union (
http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/teachers-file-fec-complaint-against-nea-illeg ) manifest in Dick Durbin's efforts at canceling the charter school scholarship program for poor Wash DC kids. Think of it. Conservatives pushing school reform to (especially Black) parents in poor districts. This could be another rich source of votes. We could co-pt Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to work in this area along with other notable Blacks like Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, and maybe even Justice Thomas! (Later, we could remove the albatross of Affirmative Action from around the collective necks of all Americans and greatly increase equal opportunities for all Americans.) Education as a function of government falls under The General Welfare. Just as important, I feel, is that there must be some accomendation for those students that truly want to learn as opposed to those who merely disrupt class in any way--a policy of
Nuns and Rulers ,if you will. We must make a very serious attempt to put both parents and students on notice that
disruptive behavior of any kind will not be tolerated.
This can and must be done. Kids do not want to be different than their peers, if the bad apples are ostracized they will beg to come back under the correct conditions. Those that don't, won't. If the argument is that education is a right of every American child then those that would deny it to others should be treated as those that steal property or take livelyhoods. If it is a priviledge then those that demonstrate, through their actions, a disintrest should be removed from those who do hold such interests.
This one deserves a discussion all by itself. Some fascinating concepts here. Unless you object, I will repost it later and hope to generate some discussion on the various points.
Quote:Health care as an issue is trickier because, well, so are our Democratic opponents. Market based health care is desired but that implies that the consumer must pay for what he consumes. This in combination with competition lowers costs, but probably not low enough, so, the government can tax those who now enjoy Federal Tax exemption from that part of their income that pays for Health insurance and offer John McCain's tax credit of 7G's or so. If you can find or settle for less insurance (like a smaller or less expensive vehicle) you keep the rest of the tax credit. But this can be dishonestly attacked as Joe Biden's "...largest increase on middle-class taxpayers in American history" but Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus reports that the above tax to, Obama, is "... on the table. It's an option" Further Obama's 1.5 percentage point reduction in health care costs each year turns out to be 1.5 percentage points
after 10 years. (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/04/AR2009060402745.html ) So perhaps the conservatives can wedge themselves in here.
I haven't given a lot of thought to 'universal health care' or health care reform just yet or to what degree the Federal government can be constructively invovled. Certainly there is value in the FDA and general policy to protect the food supply and provide information on the safety and effectiveness of various drugs and treatments. But my personal experience and observation is that otherwise Federal involvement in the health care system has done nothing but erode its quality and increase its costs.
Quote:Of course, if needed, added revenue can be obtained by assessing those that have benefited from the American situation more than others, but since Obama and Biden have already proposed tapping those that benefited financially above 200K or 250K (or whatever the arbitrarily reached current estimation) we must look elsewhere. Surely those of higher education would agree they have benefited from that American system via education. Why not tax them just a little extra for the privilege? BA's 1%, BSc 1.2%, MA 2%, MSc 2.12% and PhD's 3%/3.1%. We could call it the "nasty tax" or NASYET (for: No Alternative Screw Your Educated Ass Tax)Those with such degrees that are paid from the revenues of entities (private) that do not receive any federal funding or TARP, etc) are exempt since they already pay such taxes and their income does not consist of taxpayer monies. Hell, why not tax those on welfare since we already tax those monies received from unemployment and social security compensation? How about an
excise tax on Union wages? Why not? Seriously, why the hell not? What's wrong with a little change? Isn’t that what we voted for? Dare we so hope? The Beast must be fed! It’s the BEAST, THE BEAST! Look out...!
I think I'll just let this one stand on its own as the satire it is. I would hope most of us MACs are in 100% agreement that everybody who benefits from living in America should contribute something to its upkeep and maintenance no matter how modest such contribution must be based on circumstances. Those who do not contribute and therefore bear no consequences for their vote should not be able to vote on issues that requires contributions from others.
