As republican as my financial beliefs may be, is there a republican candidate in the group that I could actually vote for that would represent my interests in not changing the current abortion laws and pulling out of the war?

Well, Ron Paul calls himself a libertarian so he shouldn't be for government restrictions on abortion and he's certainly for getting the troops out of Iraq.

That should not be read as an endorsement of Ron Paul, with whom I disagree much more than I agree.

Ron Paul is an OB/GYN and claims to be rigidly against abortion. However, his voting record at NARAL shows him to have the most favorable pro-Abortion voting record of all of the former congressmen running for the GOP nomination (although they still classify him as "anti-Choice").

need more Ron Paul pics?

A lot of it comes down to judges, and one would imagine that Ron Paul's judicial nominees would be rather unlikely to read into penumbras or whatever the heck they're called. I think he'd be very likely to nominate people who'd overturn Roe v. Wade without blinking.

If you're looking for a candidate who will cut taxes, keep abortion legal and withdraw from Iraq, I don't think anyone who is running fits that description.

of course the Paul nuts are already paranoid about certain voting machines...

VoxOrion wrote:Ron Paul is an OB/GYN and claims to be rigidly against abortion. However, his voting record at NARAL shows him to have the most favorable pro-Abortion voting record of all of the former congressmen running for the GOP nomination (although they still classify him as "anti-Choice").

so, is he against abortion or against having laws preventing abortion?

The Red Tornado wrote:of course the Paul nuts are already paranoid about certain voting machines...

How do they determine who gets put where? Do they put the names in a hat?

so, is he against abortion or against having laws preventing abortion?

He voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003. And he would appoint judges who are really strict in their reading of the constitution.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:He calls the Club for Growth the Club for Greed.

What, you mean the millionaires who'd rather see bridges collapse than pay a couple thousand more in taxes?

I detest those people, and insomuch as Huckabee weakens them, I wish him all the success in the world.

They do good work on trying to get solid economic conservatives elected to congress. They're for cutting taxes and cutting spending. If that isn't your cup of tea, that's fine, but they're an important part of the Republican base, and Huckabee has decided to respond to their criticism of him by mocking them.

Their criticism of him was pretty mocking in the first place ("Tax Hike Mike"). If you condemn him on tactical grounds, it seems strange not to have an issue with them for using the same tactics.

That he mocked them isn't the problem. It's that he mocked them over something where they're right. He did raise taxes. He takes a decidedly state centered approach to solving economic problems. Then he responds using Democratic class warfare type rhetoric to rebut the conservative group. He's an economic populist. It's fine if you like that, and I'm sure it has some appeal with GOP voters too, but in general it's not what the party stands for, and I hope it's not what the party becomes.

I don't claim to know the ins and outs of Huckabee's fiscal record in Arkansas, though I think I remember reading that he raised taxes a couple times to address very specific needs. As he said again last night and has repeated at other times, he evidently also cut a lot of taxes.

Huckabee's fiscal record overall is quite good. That is, when he left office, the state's finances were in very good shape, enough that his Democratic successor was able to cut some regressive taxes. Basically, the state budget is in good shape, and the state has relatively low debt levels.

To fully evaluate Huckabee's record on fiscal management, you need to appreciate some things about Arkansas. First, it's a poor state. There are real needs here. Huckabee took real political risks in addressing those needs, including health care, education, and transportation. Anyone who lives here knows that spending in these areas is not extravagant. Of course, to an extent, federal budget cuts in these areas have increased the strain on the all states, but especially poor ones.

Huckabee did raise taxes on occasion--one was a temporary income tax surcharge to make up for a revenue shortfall. It was eliminated when the state fiscal picture improved. A second tax increase was in response to court mandated improvements in education.

In addition to the low income levels of this state, there are other political challenges to fiscal state management. Raising any tax other than the sales tax requires a 3/4 majority in the legislature. Widening the tax base is a political non-starter. For instance, for all intents and purposes, property taxes are basically non-existent, and don't even try to think about raising them. Our severance taxes (taxes on oil, gas, and timber) are the same as they were in the 1950s--they are based not on the value of the resource, but on how much you pull out of the ground. Again, politically very difficult to raise. The sales tax is high, but attempts to tax services have met with a lot of opposition.

Despite all that, Huckabee managed the state's finances without resorting to gimmicks like borrowing against tobacco settlement money or buying out state workers--we will not be facing issues like NJ is currently facing, and that Texas will be facing soon enough dealing with state worker pensions etc.

jerseyhoya wrote:The 10 wealthiest congressional districts are Virginia-11, Davis; New Jersey-11, Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R); California-14, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D); Georgia-6, Rep. Tom Price (R); California-15, Rep. Mike Honda (D); New Jersey-7, Rep. Michael Ferguson (R); Colorado-6, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R); New Jersey-5, Rep. Scott Garrett (R); Virginia-10, Wolf; and Illinois-13, Rep. Judy Biggert (R).

Eight Republicans represent the 10 richest districts. New Jersey is the most represented state, with three districts in the top 10. Virginia and California both have two districts in the top 10. - http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/washington-area-tops-list-for-income-2006-02-28.html

Some of these are in trending Democratic areas though. VA-11 and NJ-07 are going to be competitive races this cycle.

As I suspected. Vox, any comment on this with respect to the Democrats being the party of the rich?

Warning, bad language
http://www.johnnygoodtimes.com/archives/003929.shtml

Disco Stu wrote:As I suspected. Vox, any comment on this with respect to the Democrats being the party of the rich?

What comment is there to make? Jersyhoya restricted his results to the top ten districts, that doesn't change the results of the Heritage Foundation's study, which was of all congressional districts.

VoxOrion wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:As I suspected. Vox, any comment on this with respect to the Democrats being the party of the rich?

What comment is there to make? Jersyhoya restricted his results to the top ten districts, that doesn't change the results of the Heritage Foundation's study, which was of all congressional districts.

The problem with drawing conclusions from either study is the heterogeneity of congressional districts.

TenuredVulture wrote:The problem with drawing conclusions from either study is the heterogeneity of congressional districts.

I agree and disagree. It think the numbers are meaningful, but not earth-shattering.

From your perspective, does this mean it's better to leave comparisons of income and elected representation out of the argument, or do you know of a more meaningful way of measuring this?

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The problem with drawing conclusions from either study is the heterogeneity of congressional districts.

I agree and disagree. It think the numbers are meaningful, but not earth-shattering.

From your perspective, does this mean it's better to leave comparisons of income and elected representation out of the argument, or do you know of a more meaningful way of measuring this?

The most meaningful way to measure is to look at how individual socio-economic status correlates with the individual vote. There's no doubt been a shift making the correlation weaker, leading to the post-materialist thesis--that people aren't voting according to their material interests, but according to some other set of interests.

I didn't mean to step on Vox's point, because I think he's largely right. I think the rich are more Democratic today than they were in the past. Some of it is probably because Clinton was a more business friendly type Democrat than the national faces of the party were before him. Another part is because a lot are probably more socially liberal and that element of the Republican party has dwindled.

It's silly to say the ultra rich are either Hollywood liberals or Republicans. Trial lawyers are one of the most Democratic groups in the country, and they do pretty well for themselves. George Soros, Warren Buffet, Jon Corzine, plenty of big Wall Street names are Democrats. I would wager most of the people making tons of money in Silicon Valley are liberals.

By the way, this elite/non-elite issue is, in my opinion exactly what Huckabee has tapped into. I've been following much of the Huckabee debate over on Redstate, and few of those people seem to get his appeal.

I think part of the reason the Club for Growth has gone after Huckabee (and they went after him when he was barely an asterisk in the polls) is because he scares establishment and elite Republicans shitless.

VoxOrion wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:As I suspected. Vox, any comment on this with respect to the Democrats being the party of the rich?

What comment is there to make? Jersyhoya restricted his results to the top ten districts, that doesn't change the results of the Heritage Foundation's study, which was of all congressional districts.

The point I was making is that the top 33% includes a HUGE disparity in incomes. That disparity lessens as you cut out the bottom group which will likely be much closer to average than the top. They don't post all the average incomes, but they show the highest (11th District of Virginia, $80,397) and the 9th highest (10th District of Virginia, $71,560).

The difference between the 1st and 9th is an 11% difference. That is absolutely huge when there are 435 districts. Considering that the median American household is around 38,000, most of the income easily lies in the top 10 and probably more like the top 5. When 8 of these 10 disctricts are represented by republicans, you are showing extreme statistical bias in saying that 58% of the top 1/3 districs being democratic means that is becoming the party of the rich. Being 10% above the national average is not rich. Being 100% above the national average is considered rich.

If it were an equal distribution, then you would have somewhat of a leg to stand on. It isn't. It is an extreme bellcurve with most disctricts close to the national median. You comviently ignore this and post EXEMELY fuzzy math.

jerseyhoya wrote:I didn't mean to step on Vox's point, because I think he's largely right. I think the rich are more Democratic today than they were in the past. Some of it is probably because Clinton was a more business friendly type Democrat than the national faces of the party were before him. Another part is because a lot are probably more socially liberal and that element of the Republican party has dwindled.

It's silly to say the ultra rich are either Hollywood liberals or Republicans. Trial lawyers are one of the most Democratic groups in the country, and they do pretty well for themselves. George Soros, Warren Buffet, Jon Corzine, plenty of big Wall Street names are Democrats. I would wager most of the people making tons of money in Silicon Valley are liberals.

I disagree. The upper middle class may be more liberal today than in the past, but the rich are CLEARLY republican.

I was making a joke about Hollywood and republicans. I mean, do I really have to explain it. Of course there are plenty of ultra wealthy liberals. But the overwhelming majority of the rich is republican. 8 of the top 10 districts are republican and that is on the far end of the bell curve.