 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Rudy 2008?I've not said much on this subject here, but those fretting about Giulliani being too liberal on key issues to support should click here. My argument is that in an election for President of the United States, it's more important that a candidate accepts and understands that a lot of the controversial social issues are reserved by the Constitution to the States, and as long as Giulliani understands that -- the indications are that he does -- and will appoint judges and justices who will so rule, his substantive views on what individual states should do with that freedom are less important. I will probably leave the presidential portion of my ballot blank in the November 2008 election, while otherwise voting a straight Republican ticket. Here's why.... A co-habitation of Republican president and a Democrat Congress (I'll refer to this as "RP/DC" from now on) is bad for the country and bad for the Republican party. (Let me say up front that I don't believe that the Republicans are likely to regain control over either chamber of Congress, certainly not the US Senate where the Republicans are going to be defending 21 seats to the Democrats 12.) The reason why this RR/DC is bad for the country is that it encourages the Democrats to be even more irresponsible demagogues than they normally are. The result is what I call a "punching bag presidency." Example: The Democrat Congress passes legislation increasing the national minimum wage. If the bill becomes law, jobs will be legislatively eliminated. But because the President is a Republican, any unemployment problem will be blamed on "the failed economic policy of the (insert name here) administation." If the bill is vetoed by the president, the Democrats demogogue the issue while Republicans in less than safe seats consider voting to override the president's veto. This should sound familiar because this is how the RP/DC worked when the original Bush was president from Jan 1989 through Jan 1993. Power and responsibility were divided: The Republican president was responsible for the sagging economy. The Democrat Congress had the power to change tax law, regulations and laws concerning litigation that could impact the economy. But the public blamed the most visible person around: The Republican president (which meant the Republican party). But it's even worse than I describe. The Bush tax cuts are due to expire in 2010. So, whoever gets elected president next year will be presiding over a large increase in taxation on capital formation while the Democrat Congress is clearly going to do nothing about it. Have you noticed that a President's chances of winning reelection is much higher if he serves with a Congress in which at least one chamber is controlled by the Republicans? The Republicans controlled the US Senate during Reagan's entire first term. Reagan was reelected in 1984. The Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress in Bill Clinton's 3rd and 4th years in office. Clinton was reelected in 1996. The Republicans controlled the US House during the first four years of George W. Bush's presidency. The GOP controlled the US Senate for the 3rd and 4th years of Bush's presidency. George W. Bush was reelected in 2004. Gerarld Ford, Jimmy Carter and George Herbert Walker Bush were defeated in their reelection bids. What a coincidence that the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress throughout all of their years in the White House. To be an effective president you need a supporting cast. Given that the Democrats aren't going to cough up Congress in 2008, I'm voting a straight GOP ticket, with the presidential portion left blank. Timestamp: 5/11/2007 12:04:00 AM | Cite as: #1 |
    
|