Captain's Quarters -

With Iran building nuclear weapons, the Democrats turning Iraq into a Vietnam, and the MSM blaming Republicans for everything, I strongly believe that Rudy is the only candidate that can save the GOP and our Country in 2008.

Free-market philosophy aside, how can a social liberal who supports publically funded abortion square with fiscal conservative policy?

I just hope Rudy isn't another conservative Terminator.

Any candidate who doesn't know the Amendments to our Constitution will never get my vote.

Syn:

what does Abortion have to do with fiscal policy?

nothin.

I just read the link from Drudge. All I can say is "WOW". The thought never occurred to me that Forbes would even consider the Rudester...ever! Ever.
However as it is so early in the race what Forbes endorsement portends or achieves is open to wide spread speculation. That being said, the B. "Hussein" Obama factor has sparked Mrs. Bill Clinton to try to accelerate the process.
I wonder if there is any such a thing as "mitigating political market forces" that will bring the process back down to earth and reality?

gaffo

Are you saying that social welfare entitlement programs are worthly of fiscal conservatism?

I thought fiscal conservatives advocated personal responsibility.

cost benefit analysis.

maybe the cost of providing pubically funded abortions is less than the cost of emergency room care for those unfortunate enough to bleed out on some back ally illegal abortion?

who knows - I don't claim to. calculate the costs on a societal level (not a personal level). Seems common sense to think that the option that provides the lower costs to the US population as a whole is the fiscal conservative position/solution.

which MAY in fact be prioviding public funding for abortion.

I'm all for saving money (nationally and personally), balencing the budget and paying taxes to do just that.

Sorry - neglected your second assurtion.

I see no link - though hear the claim a million times.

I see the "personal responsiblity" as an ideology - not a policy.

To me a Fiscal Conservative is about SAVING MONEY - not advancing an ideology (that is the Social Conservative goal). Whatever saves money is what "works" and what "Works" should be what a Social conservative supports.

Me? I'm a flaming LIBERAL LIBERTARIAN - that means that I support the dems in civil liberies and the republicans on fiscal matters (though the last 6 yrs truth be known I've LOATHED the Republicans because of Iraqnam and the PATRIOT ACT.....and the repubs are no long fiscally conservative to boot).

So if publically funded abortions does (not that i know if it does) indeed save money - then I and other Fiscal Conservatives should support it.

as for personal responsibility. I'm a full beleiver and believe me I've fallen short SO MANY TIMES........but it is an ideal I PERSONALLY strive for.

I do not beleive that my personal ideals should be forced upon the national stage and made a national policy. Maybe encouraged - but not implimented upon high with self-rightous hypocracy and without heart.

Life is tough - "trying" is good enough for me, and if socialized healthcare is actually cheaper on a National scale and yet more expensive for me on a personal level - then as a Patriot I shall take the dollar hit and support my nation's fiscal solevency.

peace. (after Iraqnam is a bad memory)

Socialised healthcare is not, in the end, cheaper on a national scale, since it dilutes the available resources and impedes in great measure the innovations in healthcare that can make it cheaper. That's just simple economics. Certainly, the poor have difficulty getting adequate healthcare, and there are programs for that. There is also a large segment of the public who say they cannot afford health care, but don't take on the personal responsibility required to forego cable /satellite TV, high-speed cable, widescreen television, a new car, two cars in the driveway, Xbox/Playstation/Nintendo, snowmobile/ATV - any number of luxury items (I know of situations like this personally). Take away any number of these items and you got yourself a health insurance payment.

The thing that unsettles me about Rudy, is the 2nd amendment issue.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well - As I said i don't know the costs/benefits of socialized healthcare - do you? care to provide an objective link?
I DO KNOW that each year healthcare costs go up 17-pecent. I've heard it on NPR and I see in on my paycheck! I also know that within the last 15 yrs personal physician chioces have changed to HMOs!! again - personal experience and common public knowledge.
I don't know about you but sitting on my arse and thinking 17-percent increase in costs per year for the current system is "working" and "a-ok" is dumb.
the system is BROKE, and I have no intention of remaining in denail over it. If there is a solution - ANY solution THAT WORKS - including SOCIALIZED healthcare - I shall support it. the status quo is NOT SUSTAINABLE.

As for the 2nd amendment - any candidate that does'nt know his 1st from his 2nd knows nothing about our Constitution and probably never even read it!! - and thus has no regard for it IMO.

No way in Hell will I vote for a man who thinks the 2nd is the 1st.

How long does it take to read our Constitution? - 45 minutes? Rudy's had 40 YEARS to do so.

Well - As I said i don't know the costs/benefits of socialized healthcare - do you? care to provide an objective link?

I don't know of one that will support the argument as I presented it. Sorry if I was unclear, there. But try to get a MRI in Canada. What's the cost of waiting 2 1/2 years to get one?

The cost of your healthcare didn't necessarily rise 17%, the cost of your health insurance premium did. That's something to be taken up with your Human Resources department. Companies have to negotiate rates with provider groups. Clinics and hospitals recover their costs for providing health care - for everyone they treat, regardless of payment. The only way they've figured out how to do that is through the premiums they negotiate as provider groups through HMOs. There are plenty of people in this country who either can't, won't or don't pay for health insurance, but are from time to time consumers of those goods and services. If the provider groups tried to absorb those costs on their own, they'd go bankrupt in short order. Therefore, you and I get to pay for that through our premiums.

My health care was scheduled to go up dramatically this year. I switched my plan to a lower cost group. I'm now actually saving money on my health insurance premiums.

Like you, I wish it was easier for everyone. Part of the problem is that because there is health insurance, more people are likely to consumer the product. So, there are economic forces at work as well. Because the product is more in demand, doctors make more money. Because doctors make more money, more people wish to pursue it as a profession. Because demand on medical schools rise, tuition rises. Because doctors spend a large amount of dough on their education, their fees increase. It's an over-simplification, I'll agree, but that's the jist of it. And I didn't even get into medical research.

And if you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait 'til the government starts paying for it.

-P.J. O'Rourke

Forbes doesn't attract centrists to the GOP, does he?

Sure, the Teve Torbes thing on SNL so many years ago was funny, but Forbes seems to me to be a solid righty to the majority of people who know he is; which, by the way, most people in the country who will vote in the next elections probably don't.

Rudy has nonetheless stuck to his public policy stands -- and has been rewarded with broad, if not deep, support from the GOP.

Rudi is always "fabulous" during the "courting stage" - just ask EACH of his THREE WIVES.

The GOP that spurns the Conservatives to try to make us vote for RINOS will get exactly what they deserve - a Gerald Ford and Robert Dole-style candidacy - whether it is RUDI, McCain, Mitt, Newt, Thompson, Huckabee, or Brownback - or Kind.

Savor it.

Dah Ahnold Man is laughin' atcha.

I ain't amused.

I ain't votin' RINO.

BTW, we didn't vote for Forbes when he ran, himself, why would his support garner more support for Rudi than it did for HIMSELF!

gaffo

Very soon about 77 million entitlement baby-boomers retirees will come to know the 'cost-benefit' of having exterminated their off-spring over the last fourty years.

How will an over-populated society of eldery weened on the idea that government will deliver all the goodies demanded benefit from an under-populated workforce?

When that day comes will you as a flaming Liberal Libertarian advocate extermination of helpess, fragile elderly incapable of caring for themselves as a cost-benefit to society?

Cost-benefit aside there is no such thing as a Libertarian who supports government funded anything.

Universa/ socialized healthcare? We don't have a big enough workforce (see extermination of offspring for 40 years) to financially support socialized coverage much less enough to support 77 million old people on healthcare welfare.

That said, fiscal Conservatism isn't about 'saving money', it is about taking individual responsiblity for one's own actions in life.

I believe the Republican big spenders were punished in the last election by their very own constituents of pork busters; something Liberal Democrat Libertarians would never consider doing to their own.

Instead, Liberals Democrats tack on 20 billion dollars worth of blood money spinach pork on a bill designed to fund our military which receives only 3.9% of GNP while the useful idiots rejoice.

Syn

All i hear here is "stay the course" on healthare. lump it or leave it. NO SOLUTION is proposed here to lower costs to the american people. If this is all conservatvie have to win votes GOOD LUCK.

Baby boomers - f&%k ya that is and will become a HUGH problem - and yet you offer on solution! just "lump it and expect to pay 17-percent more each year".

not good enough if you want to win elections.

as for why the Republicans lost in 2006. two reasons - Iraqnam was 3/4 of the reason, and foley-corruption was 1/4 of it.

big spending you folks turned a blind eye to YEARS AGO - as long as it was one of your guys blowing the bucks!

BTW dems are now the more fiscal conservative party with the new Blue dogs.

and yes FISCAL conservatism IS about saving money - the personal responsibility stick is all idealogy and not pragmatism and belongs in the Social Conservative umbrella

peace.

OK, gaffo, you're just an idiot....let me explain:

"maybe the cost of providing pubically funded abortions is less than the cost of emergency room care for those unfortunate enough to bleed out on some back ally illegal abortion?"

And you have the cajones in a later post to demand a source? Perhaps you would be so kind as to show a link to the last news story about a woman bleeding to death in America due to an illegal back alley abortion. Then again, perhaps you won't.

"All i hear here is "stay the course" on healthare."

Who the hell said that? If all you can do is make up statements no one used in this context, if all you have are arguments based on a fantasy that only you believe, perhaps you should get new arguments. The best way to fix the healthcare industry in America is to get the govt back out of the business, not get them further into it. Competition is the ONLY thing that will reduce the price of your healthcare, but that idea never even entered your mind, did it?

"BTW dems are now the more fiscal conservative party with the new Blue dogs."

And this is the dumbest statement I've ever heard on this blog. You might want to notice that the dems have just demanded the biggest tax increase in history, and that's REALLY saying something. Not one of them has proposed a spending decrease, not even on the war. In fact, they just proposed spending about 24 BILLION MORE than Bush asked for in ONE BILL. They just proved, beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt, that they are even MORE fiscally irresponsible than republicans, and again, that's REALLY saying something. Anyone who is dumb enough to make the claim about being, in any way, libertarian, as you did, and who also makes the above statements, cannot be taken seriously on any subject....ever.

I don't understand why liberals won't just simply admit they're liberal. They always have to be "Libertarian" or Voted for Reagan highly decorated miltary veterans who voted Reoublican in every election until George Bush.

Anyone that claims to be "libertarian" and is in favor of, even backhandedly, socialized medicine, is either a liar, or doesn't understand what one or both terms mean.

Rudy has gone and done a nomination killer....he will allow his Judy to sit in on cabinet meetings.

There can be only one President leading the nation, RudyJudy is not a candidate I can support. If Judy wants to sit in on cabinet meetings then she needs to begin her own campaign for the nomination.

Beware the Social Liberal, they are ultimately Terminators of Conservatism.