0
   

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 11:52 am
OK so wait, is there a cap on private contributions? My understanding is that if you accept public financing, you get a chunk of change (about $150M) and then can also get private contributions up to a point -- but just up to a point. And that most candidates are eschewing public financing for that reason, because they can raise a bunch more than that privately.

I don't remember seeing anything about a cap on how much candidates can raise privately, if they've eschewed public financing.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 11:59 am
sozobe wrote:
OK so wait, is there a cap on private contributions? My understanding is that if you accept public financing, you get a chunk of change (about $150M) and then can also get private contributions up to a point -- but just up to a point. And that most candidates are eschewing public financing for that reason, because they can raise a bunch more than that privately.

I don't remember seeing anything about a cap on how much candidates can raise privately, if they've eschewed public financing.
Precisely Soz. My suggestion is that they stop at that same cap, but utilize only Private donations since they're obviously pretty easy to come by.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 12:02 pm
What's wrong with public financing, though? It's voluntary -- you check a little box on your tax return (we always do). And there are no strings attached. That's what I really like about it. The big donors always want something.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 12:10 pm
sozobe wrote:
What's wrong with public financing, though? It's voluntary -- you check a little box on your tax return (we always do). And there are no strings attached. That's what I really like about it. The big donors always want something.
I've had an issue with it since the Democrats and the Republicans teamed up to exclude Ross Perot from the Debates during his second attempt... while knowing he had doubled his support there 4 years earlier when he received almost half as much of the popular vote as the winner. I think the Two-Party system has enough advantages and I won't be happy with the public financing of campaigns until they find a way to make it fair for viable alternatives (don't see that day coming any time soon). I like teamwork between the two parties; but only when they team up on my behalf, not when they team up against me.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 12:11 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
sozobe wrote:
OK so wait, is there a cap on private contributions? My understanding is that if you accept public financing, you get a chunk of change (about $150M) and then can also get private contributions up to a point -- but just up to a point. And that most candidates are eschewing public financing for that reason, because they can raise a bunch more than that privately.

I don't remember seeing anything about a cap on how much candidates can raise privately, if they've eschewed public financing.
Precisely Soz. My suggestion is that they stop at that same cap, but utilize only Private donations since they're obviously pretty easy to come by.


The problem with that however is in interpretation of free speech rights and the courts (and Congress) have both interpreted campaign contributions to be a form of speech. There are even rules governing the media to ensure that all candidates have equal access to that means of campaigning. Nobody has any problems barring foreign contributions or limiting the amount any individual source can give to prevent undue influence, but any candidate can get around any such rules by simply having private groups do the campaigning for them. And I think even a brief cursory bit of research will show that ALL of them do that.

So sure McCain and Obama can look like terrific guys by saying they'll limit their spending to X amount. In truth, however, they both can cut all kinds of deals with Moveon.org, unions, trade groups, AARP, etc. etc. etc. who can still put out unlimited advertising on their behalf so that spending caps are essentially meaningless.

And even giving lip service to it will probably be scrapped early on too in practice if not in policy. Can you imagine either McCain or Obama sending back Aunt Minnie's $100 just because they've reached a predetermined but unmandatory contribution limit?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 12:13 pm
Yes.

OK, I see what you're saying, O'Bill. From within the two-party framework I think public financing is much, much better than private -- but I see what you're saying about muscling out third parties.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 12:18 pm
From the American Prospect, talking about health care and polling -

Quote:
AS THE POLL TURNS...

It's good, every once in awhile, to dig through a comprehensive poll and see where the country's at. For instance, I wasn't aware that only 20 out of every 100 people approved of George W. Bush's job performance. I thought he'd have at least, oh, four more supporters in there. And I am surprised that only 23% of the country thinks the country is on the right track. That matches the low from May 2006, and the two are lower than at any point in the past 25 years. Bush's foreign policy and Iraq ratings have cratered, of course, but support for his handling of terrorism has also drifted downward, hitting a new low of 40% (53% disapprove). And only 24% approve his handling of health care, despite the fact that he used much of the State of the union to announce a new initiative on the subject.

Indeed, health care appears to be rising in salience, as 55% name "health insurance for all" as more important than reducing taxes, strengthening immigration laws, or even promoting traditional values. Further, 62% say the Democrats are the likeliest to improve the health care system, while only 19% name the Republicans. As it is, 54% of the country wants fundamental changes to the system, while 36% want to completely rebuild it. That's the highest number since 1993 -- and it's notable that it's not coming amidst a recession. This is an enduring trend, not a temporary squeeze. Indeed, 57% are dissatisfied with the quality of health care in the country, even as 77% are generally satisfied with the quality of care they receive. The unhappiness manifests in the next question, wherein 60% are dissatisfied with the overall cost of care, 52% are upset about what they personally pay.

What surprised me is that 61% say providing care to the uninsured is more important than keeping costs down for average Americans. 95% think the uninsured are a serious problem, and 63% think the government should guarantee care for all Americans. This drops, however, to 48% if it means individual costs will rise. That said, 76% say access to insurance is more important than retaining Bush's tax cut,s suggesting that John Edwards' formulation of using the cuts to pay for care may resonate. Indeed, 60% are willing to pay more in taxes to guarantee care and 49% remained willing when the pollsters specified an extra $500 in taxes per year.

These anxieties may be part of the reason the Republican Party is in such an image crisis, with only 34% rating them favorably, as compared to 48% approving of the Democrats. That's a moderately low number for the Dems, but an atypical pit for the Republicans. All this suggests health reformers have a real opportunity. But these numbers that existed in early 90s -- and reformers failed. The difference, though, is that the early 90s was a serious recession. The current anxiety comes from enduring trends in the system, and so may prove a more stable base for change.

--Ezra Klein


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 12:20 pm
Ross intended to enact serious finance reform, btw, way back in 92 and was probably the biggest factor in making it an issue at all. Damn it. Dude was the bomb.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 12:31 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Ross intended to enact serious finance reform, btw, way back in 92 and was probably the biggest factor in making it an issue at all. Damn it. Dude was the bomb.


In retrospect, thinking of the trends then and the lack of enthusiasm for either of his opponents, I think Ross had a really good chance to have won that first election if he just hadn't wigged out on us. The second one, he had already shot himself in the foot and I don't think enough people were willing to take a chance on him.

But agreed, it really sucks when the system doesn't permit any new blood or fresh ideas outside the two established parties.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 12:39 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Ross intended to enact serious finance reform, btw, way back in 92 and was probably the biggest factor in making it an issue at all. Damn it. Dude was the bomb.


In retrospect, thinking of the trends then and the lack of enthusiasm for either of his opponents, I think Ross had a really good chance to have won that first election if he just hadn't wigged out on us. The second one, he had already shot himself in the foot and I don't think enough people were willing to take a chance on him.

But agreed, it really sucks when the system doesn't permit any new blood or fresh ideas outside the two established parties.
He was in roughly the same position poll-wise pre-debates as he had been 4 years earlier. The second time around he had the historic 19% of the popular vote to quell the cries of "don't waste your vote, he doesn't have a chance" BS. We'll never know because they cheated him out of the chance when they barred him from the debates where he had shredded Bush and Clinton. Barring another wig-out; I think he had an even better chance, because of his proven viability and the fact that nothing had changed despite all the promises. Dole and Clinton knew it, and that's precisely why the teamed up to screw him.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 12:53 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Ross intended to enact serious finance reform, btw, way back in 92 and was probably the biggest factor in making it an issue at all. Damn it. Dude was the bomb.


In retrospect, thinking of the trends then and the lack of enthusiasm for either of his opponents, I think Ross had a really good chance to have won that first election if he just hadn't wigged out on us. The second one, he had already shot himself in the foot and I don't think enough people were willing to take a chance on him.

But agreed, it really sucks when the system doesn't permit any new blood or fresh ideas outside the two established parties.
He was in roughly the same position poll-wise pre-debates as he had been 4 years earlier. The second time around he had the historic 19% of the popular vote to quell the cries of "don't waste your vote, he doesn't have a chance" BS. We'll never know because they cheated him out of the chance when they barred him from the debates where he had shredded Bush and Clinton. Barring another wig-out; I think he had an even better chance, because of his proven viability and the fact that nothing had changed despite all the promises. Dole and Clinton knew it, and that's precisely why the teamed up to screw him.


I know you like him Bill and I did too. Had he not wigged out, I would have voted for him in 1992. But remember his somewhat frenzied and hand wringing speech during the Democratic Convention? He was essentially quitting because the "Democrats had revitalized themselves". He lost a huge chunk of his campaign workers who felt thoroughly betrayed by that. (My boss at that time was one of his team leaders here in Albuquerque and was ready to murder him.)

Then there was that stuff about George 41 threatening to disrupt his daughter's wedding. And the story about the foreign mercenaries who were invading his property and threatening his life. That wasn't hype. That was him talking. And it made him look like a nut. So he didn't have near the support when he switched again and got back in it some weeks later. But he still got 19% of the vote. Without all that, I think he would have received far more than 19% and I do think he had a shot to win. And in retrospect, even if he was nuts (I don't think he was) I think he would have done pretty well. It sure would have been fun.

I don't disagree that he was screwed four years later and it was wrong to shut him out of the process. But I honestly don't think he had much of a chance in 1996.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 03:20 am
Giuliani was drawing nearly as much applause but not the repeated standing ovations Romney received.

http://i12.tinypic.com/2unwv1z.jpg

(source) Washington Times: Romancing the conservatives
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 04:37 am
That photo leaves itself open to the obvious photoshop alteration.

Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-adna-timespoll4mar04,0,1270897.story?coll=la-home-headlines
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 04:47 am
hope folks don't mind if entire piece pasted...
Quote:
Rudy can't fail ... can he?

New York knight has made an astounding start in the polls but now faces a year on more difficult ground

Ed Pilkington in New York
Saturday March 3, 2007
The Guardian

There are moments in the febrile atmosphere of US politics when you have to pinch yourself to remind yourself what date it is. The pack of at least 14 contestants for the 2008 presidential race are campaigning with the kind of fury associated with the closing stages of an election. Do they know there are still 611 days to go?
One such moment occurred this week when the latest polling intelligence was released to gasps of astonishment. The figures showed that Rudolph Giuliani had pulled ahead of his main rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, by 23%, and is in front of the leading Democrat contender, Hillary Clinton, confounding critics who portray the former mayor of New York as unelectable.

Mr Giuliani sought to capitalise on this good news yesterday when he addressed the people he most needs to convince if he is to secure the Republican nomination early next year - members of the socially conservative wing of the party, holding its annual get-together in Washington.
That he was invited to address the meeting at all is in itself a sign of how far his star has risen. Two years ago the Conservative Political Action Conference, as the gathering is called, rebuffed this pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and pro-homosexuality New Yorker.

The simple explanation for his success is his image as the nation's hero of 9/11. He did not mention his role on September 11 directly in his speech yesterday, but it was the unspoken theme. "What we all need to do, is to understand that America has the right ideas. We should not be embarrassed about ourselves," he said. "We shouldn't have our heads down. Every single one of our problems has to be solved from our strengths. And we have great strength. We are the luckiest people in the world. We have freedom."

The story of what Mr Giuliani did on September 11 is the stuff of legend: how he was told of the first plane hitting the Twin Towers while at breakfast and hurried to the site; how he made a harrowing march through the dust and raining ash of the stricken buildings; and how he addressed the people of New York with a message of hope while George Bush was nowhere to be seen.

That day, famously, turned him into America's mayor, earned him an honorary British knighthood and the title of Time person of the year, and elicited comparisons to Winston Churchill. The glow has sustained him ever since.

After he left City Hall less than four months after the attacks on New York, he become a mainstay of the speaker circuit. In 146 trips to various parts of the US he has built up a fan base, as well as earning the loyalty of at least 170 Republican politicians for whom he has campaigned - two valuable weapons in his would-be presidential armoury.

But the closer he gets to formally announcing his intention to run for the White House, the louder the questions become about his fitness for office. There are the questions about his health as a survivor of prostate cancer, though he is fully recovered, and his relative lack of experience. There have only been two former mayors who went on to become president (Grover Cleveland, Buffalo, 1885; Calvin Coolidge, Northampton, 1923) and both had wider exposure to elected office than Mr Giuliani.

"Right now he's basking in the glow of his 9/11 image," said Thomas Mann, a senior fellow of the Brookings Institution in Washington. "But he faces six months of intense scrutiny in which Republicans are going to become much more familiar with his record."

That process has begun, with two books and a documentary raking over his leadership - debunking his record as mayor, and even doubting his image as the hero of 9/11. His achievements during his two terms as mayor were impressive, notably the "zero tolerance" reduction in crime by 57%, and the cut in the murder rate, which fell by 65%. But, according to these critiques, the headlines obscured the backbiting that went on within City Hall under Mr Giuliani.

Flawed or Flawless?, a biography by Deborah and Gerald Strober compiled through interviews with people who knew and worked with him, contains several scathing references. Carol Bellamy, a New York state senator and former law school classmate of Mr Giuliani, told the authors: "There's quite a difference between being strong and fighting all the time. It seemed that, if you could pick a fight or not pick a fight, he picked a fight."

Giuliani Time, a new film by Kevin Keating, argues that his brand of politics polarised the city on racial lines, and increased the gap between rich and poor. It shows Ed Koch, Mr Giuliani's predecessor but one as mayor, saying of him: "He uses the levers of power to punish any critic ... That's why I have referred to him as Pinochet, Caligula. Maybe it's a combination of the two."

The most excoriating analysis comes from Wayne Barrett, a senior editor at Village Voice, and Dan Collins in their book Grand Illusion. They argue that quite apart from being the hero of 9/11, which they call a myth, Mr Giuliani failed to prepare the city for a major attack, leaving it fatally exposed. They investigate the faulty radio systems which put firefighters' lives at risk, and decry Mr Giuliani's decision to place the city's emergency command post, which should have been where the rescue mission was coordinated, in the worst possible position: 23 floors up the World Trade Centre, which was already known to be a favoured terrorist target.

Barrett believes that unless the other presidential candidates or the media begin seriously to question Mr Giuliani's record on terrorism, nothing will stop him. "In a country that is increasingly devoted to spin, it has become almost unpatriotic to question his image as the 9/11 hero," Barrett told the Guardian.

Mr Giuliani faces an uphill fight to convince the most active members of the Republican party, the social conservatives and religious right who traditionally mobilise much of the turnout in the primaries, that he is worthy of their support. In recent weeks he has been making awkward attempts to reposition himself on key social issues. He has invoked the name of his "hero", Ronald Reagan. He has insisted he hates abortion, and would appoint conservative judges to uphold the fundamentals of the constitution.

He has tried too to shrug off the embarrassment of his three marriages, including the way his second wife Donna Hanover discovered he was leaving her when she heard him say so in a televised press conference (after which he sought refuge in the apartment of a gay couple). He told radio listeners in Iowa: "When voters start comparing people's personal lives and the mistakes they've made, you know, we're all going to come out as human beings."


None of which satisfies the likes of Tim Wildmon, president of the Mississippi-based evangelical group American Family Association. "All America appreciated what Mayor Giuliani did for New York and the spirit of the country. But he is disqualified from receiving the support of social conservatives like me, because he's totally opposed to what we stand for. "

So despite this week's polls Mr Giuliani still has a Catch-22 to overcome. He is undoubtedly hugely popular in the country at large, and may well be the Republicans' best hope of holding on to the White House, partly because he comes across as a moderate. But that will count for nothing unless he can overcome the fundamentalist core of his own party, and convince them that the hero of 9/11 is no New York liberal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2025699,00.html
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 11:50 am
I think we can overcome them.

Rudy knows where his strength is--His people need to start asking Democrats and Independents to go ahead and sign up for GOP primaries.

I'll say this as well. Rudy, of course, may not make it to the nomination--but his thriving candidacy even just at this point--marks a change--the first blip of a positive change in the GOP. It is a victory--and a sign of things to come.

The problem, again, is for the Democrats.

The parties have been moving closer and closer together--

If Rudy and Obama are the nominees--the Republican will be more liberal on social issues than the Democrat.

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 12:20 pm
Oldie article re divorce.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 12:23 pm
lash said
Quote:
I think we can overcome them.

I think so too. But clearly, both of us aren't going to make any large wagers presently.

Quote:
I'll say this as well. Rudy, of course, may not make it to the nomination--but his thriving candidacy even just at this point--marks a change--the first blip of a positive change in the GOP. It is a victory--and a sign of things to come.

Yes. Romney too. But it is premature to get very hopeful that moderation will be new standard mode for the party. Seriously powerful components within the party see moderation as verging on the satanic (Norquist, Kristol and militarist neocons, Falwell, etc). They will not be satisfied with anything but an appearance of moderation or a temporary and deceptive nod to moderation.

It will be a positive thing if citizens turn away from the extremism and divisiveness that has preceded. But those forces who gain from such an environment will work diligenty to re-instate it.

Quote:
The parties have been moving closer and closer together--

If Rudy and Obama are the nominees--the Republican will be more liberal on social issues than the Democrat.

This is a nice notion, lash. I suspect it is less true than either of us likely hope, but no question it helps in the direction of lessening the destructive and stupid cliches.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 12:34 pm
Blatham--
Quote:
I suspect it is less true than either of us likely hope


Rudy is more socially liberal than Obama.

I suspect it is MORE true than at least one of us would like to admit.. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 12:40 pm
Hey Lash:

Quote:


February 5th.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2915659&page=2
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 12:40 pm
lash
I think that any disagreement I have with that statement relates to differences in what we might consider "social policy" refers to.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
mccain begs off - Discussion by dyslexia
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain lies - Discussion by nimh
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 09:47:27