Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Rudy's to lose

Re: Rudy's to lose

colson — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:49:09 -0000

{cartman} screw you guys, I'm starting my own country {/cartman}

seriously. debating he merits of politicians is akin to choosing between chlamydia or gonorrhea. Unfortunately, you contract either every four years and no matter how many pills you take, you just can't stop it from happening. Even abstinence won't save you from the politician.

Re: Rudy's to lose

save_the_rustbelt — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 06:26:34 -0000

The GOP needs Ohio to win the presidency, however....

"Christian activist puts Republicans on notice

Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:00 AM

By Darrel Rowland

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Conservative Christians are ready to abandon the Republican Party if the GOP nominee supports abortion rights -- even if that means Hillary Clinton becomes president.

So says the head of the Ohio Christian Alliance (formerly the Christian Coalition), who will be questioning a trio of presidential candidates tonight in an Internet radio forum.

"If (former New York City Mayor Rudy) Giuliani is the nominee, there will be a lot of values voters that won't vote," said Chris Long, president of the Christian group in Ohio. "Some people are going to vote their conscience, regardless of what the outcome is going to be short term."

Long also has a message for GOP leaders attempting to motivate conservatives with the prospect of Clinton occupying the White House: "Beware; do not assume that people of faith, evangelicals, will support the nominee regardless of who they are as long as it's not Hillary Clinton. I think that would be folly."

The question is how many voters across Ohio adhere to such a hard line? It might not take many to swing next year's presidential election......"

Nominating a guy who is abusive to women but publically pro-choice may not be the smartest thing the GOP can do.

But then electing Dubya wasn't all that smart either.

Re: Rudy's to lose

Jason — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 06:24:25 -0000

Bandwagon Smasher wrote that a social liberal law and order type is very appealing to the masses. I don't know if I totally agree with that. People seem to prefer authoritarian candidates. But they want an authoritarian that believes in what they believe. Hillary and Rudy both want to use the power of government to accomplish certain goals. Those goals are different and different people support each candidate. So if one candidate wins the other candidates supporters lose. This does not bode well for freedom. There is only one candidate out there that is not an authoritarian. Unfortunately most people seem to think he is crazy. But, if he won the election even the people who voted against him would win.

Re: Rudy's to lose

John Dewey — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:58:02 -0000

True liberal: "in fairness, as consumers we can all thank Carter for starting us down the deregulation path!"

I agree deregulation was a big accomplishment for Jimmy Carter. But don't forget the work of the Gerald Ford administration:

"Ford proposed economic deregulation of the railroad, aviation, and trucking industries, and created a regulatory reform task force to identify other areas in which deregulation would be economically and socially desirable. Only railroad deregulation had been achieved by the time Ford left office, but the groundwork had been laid for other regulatory reforms later carried out under Carter."

Encyclopedia of the American Presidency

President Ford also deregulated oil prices as he was leaving office, but Carter immediately restored the controls.

Re: Rudy's to lose

roversaurus — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:14:05 -0000

Rudy can not win.

Do you people even know any religious conservatives? Do you know people who go to church and put pro life bumper stickers on their cars? He is not going to get any of those votes. So, 1% to 3% of the vote stays home. Democrat wins.

Re: Rudy's to lose

True_Liberal — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:04:59 -0000

Hillary's problem (as is any Dem candidate's) is that the voter base in the Dem primary is wildly different from the voter base in the general election.

If her portside listing gets her the nomination - which seems likely - that same leftist posture will work against her come November '08, when a much broader slice of the American electorate steps forward.

But -- this reminds me of '75-76 when the two faces of Jimmy C. somehow managed to overcome this very dichotomy. (Although, in fairness, as consumers we can all thank Carter for starting us down the deregulation path!)

Re: Rudy's to lose

Wojtek Grabski — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:09:02 -0000

muirego:

You do realise that NPR is a free-market phenomenon?

We have the CBC here in Canada. Government, and it's awful. I tune into NPR instead -- and I resent the fact that no public station like NPR can compete here since the government has decided to fill the 'educational' niche with sub-standard programming.

Re: Rudy's to lose

LowcountryJoe — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 03:24:19 -0000

Ray G.,

I can sympathize with your fear of Rudi but I think that having someone like Rudi, and his views, in a primary, is actually good for the GOP. Besides, would a social conservative like, say, Huckabee, Hunter, the real Romney, or many of the others, be any less heavy-handed?

Also, why do we forget that it's the congress who legislates...the president can only offer leadership on issues and use a veto.

Re: Rudy's to lose

Ray G — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:39:48 -0000

This is directed more to the subject than to Russel himself, but the social issues problem is not going to go away so easily.

Look at these highlights, and remember that someone without an axe to grind brought this up.

Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun rights, and known to be heavy handed with govt power. If I remember correctly he played a little loose with Rico as a prosecuter, among other things.

He'll not take a stand for life, he'll take any convenient opportunity to chisel away at gun rights, and he is very, very likely to be heavy handed in use of govt power.

But he talks a good game on national defense, and supposedly will nominate another Alito or Thomas.

And so now the Republican base is split, and even intellectuals like Russ Roberts are praising the GOP's best hope because of his salesmanship, and not his ideas or his qualifications.

Or, in short, get used to the idea of another President Clinton.

Is it too late to start a campaign for Lieberman?

Re: Rudy's to lose

Mark — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:22:14 -0000

"The real question is "Will all the troops be home by Jan 2017?""

When you ask this question, what troops are you talking about?

Are you talking about troops that are stationed in Germany that have been there for 63 years? Or troops that are stationed in Korea that have been there for 57 years? Or how about the troops that are stanioned in Bosnia?

Re: Rudy's to lose

TGGP — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:01:19 -0000

muirgeo, the majority of Americans graduate from high school and it's getting to the point where some college is the norm. Doesn't seem sufficient to me. Bryan Caplan has found that IQ is a better predictor of rationality (which he defines as agreeing with the average economist) than education, and getting everyone educated would invariably mean lowering standards if the least intelligent were to get it. As long as education is so dominated by the state which will seek to use it to indoctrinate (ever wonder why literacy is so high in communist countries or why Mussolini had kids chant "Il Duce is always right" at the beginning of class?) I cannot put my hopes in it.

Re: Rudy's to lose

Brad — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:17:20 -0000

For me, the most promising development in Rudy's campaign is that he has brought Steve Forbes in as an enthusiastic advisor. While Forbes is a little fruity on some issues like immigration, he is generally as good as it gets pro-market and pro-trade in respectable Republican circles.

By contrast, Fred Thompson grunts a lot, Mitt Romney is cruel to dogs, and John McCain is nuts. Ron Paul has two first names.

Re: Rudy's to lose

jeff — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:39:14 -0000

Oh, and Ron Paul is a nut job. Romney a cyborg. McCain is a hero, but ignorant (wish interest rates were 0%!!!).

Every one ought to clear the stage except Romney, Guiliani, Thompson, and maybe Huckabee.

Re: Rudy's to lose

jeff — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:37:36 -0000

I was at a Hillary fundraiser the other day. She gave her stump speech, and it was all disheartening to me. Raise taxes, more regulation. It is more of the same. She compartmentalized the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. She is a juggernaut. Her advisor McAuliffe, gave a typical income redistribution speech. There is not one Democrat alive that truly believes in free markets to solve problems. They pick winners and losers, and in the process lose the country.

To her credit, she is looking presidential and talking about big ideas. Rudy needs to do that, and stop attacking her. She has got the republicans right where she wants them, talking about her. To attack her, attack her ideas. You can't attack her personally. What are you going to say, that she made illegal money cattle trading? Her husband is a horn dog? She takes illegal money from the Chinese? No one cares. On ideas, Rudy can win.

Rudy will win the GOP nomination. Who is his running mate? If Hillary puts Obama in as a number two, she will win. It would kill her to do that, kind of like Kennedy naming LBJ, but she will win.

Iraq is a huge issue, but you never know how it will turn. I wouldn't bet the presidency on Iraq.

Re: Rudy's to lose

Python — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:32:59 -0000

I've been away a while and have 3 thoughts. 1) Some posters here still can't read what Russ and Don write. 2) It is October 2007, the election is 13 months away. It is really something when election cycles essentially blur together. 3) Muirgeo is still a complete moron. (I think the last time I used that word was about 2 months ago on this blog referring to him. I guess I reserve it for him/her.)

I predict that the 2008 election will have low voter turnout, result in little enthusiasm about who wins, and will end with the same divisiveness that exists now.

Re: Rudy's to lose

LowcountryJoe — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:17:26 -0000

Jim Webb had eleven years...

I didn't know that that he had that much experience as an elected official. In what capicity did he serve in the legislative branch (and for how long)? If he is said to have "experience" then certainly so does Hillary Clinton -- she has had exposure as the wife of a state governor & two-term president and as a sitting senator.

Re: Rudy's to lose

Bandwagon Smasher — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:57:32 -0000

The public is sorely disappointed in the Democratic Congress' acquiescence to the Bush Administration thus far, and they only have another year to look less potent and more beholden to special interests. America will also be turned off by Hillary's anti-free trade turn (if she maintains it).

A social liberal, law and order republican is very appealing to the electorate. Guliani emulates the median voter, not Hillary.

Re: Rudy's to lose

chico sajovic — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:29:39 -0000

ron paul is a nut job.

he wants to abolish the fed and go back to the gold standard. The fed over the past 25 years has proved itself very adept at managing the nations money supply. Many have blamed the fed for the current real estate bubble that is now deflating but without a massive run up in the money supply the fed cannot be solely responsible. What the fed has done is convince everyone that they can keep inflation in check which has reduced the risk premium that lenders can charge in a competitive market. The systematic lowering of interest rates has then cuased a increase in the value of real estate because interest payments typically represent a larger cost then the purchase price. In addition many other factors are at work on the price of real estate includeing 1) a shift over the past 50 years to two income households 2) The continued growth of cities 3) the increase in productivity per worker allows more income to be spent on housing.

as for me I am voting for hillary (both times). yeah I am not happy about it but the republicans suck, they're no better then the democrats when it comes to trade and immigration (i.e. racist, xenophobic, nationalistic a-holes). Plus they (GWB and for 6 years congress and senate) have overseen an incredible increase in the federal budget

hell i am moving to england so I can sign up with the New Party

Re: Rudy's to lose

T L Holaday — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:26:49 -0000

In the spirit of Popper, Russ, how about adding a tiny bit more detail so that your prediction is testable? That is, specify what you mean by the economy "tanking," so that, if the economy does not tank, and Rudy does not win, you may consider your theory disconfirmed.

Re: Rudy's to lose

T L Holaday — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:23:13 -0000

LowcountryJoe,

Jim Webb had eleven years in the federal government in both the legislative and executive branches, with his last post being Secretary of the Navy. Is that what you mean by "little experience"?

Re: Rudy's to lose

LowcountryJoe — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:19:32 -0000

Did anyone else conjure up memories of Bryan Caplan's book during Sam Brownback's answer to the biggest problem facing America?

Re: Rudy's to lose

LowcountryJoe — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:07:20 -0000

Jeffrey,

Most of the influence and persuasiveness on the Left today is from people who have their roots in activism. The candidates of the activist wing on the Left has been sucessful in running political campaigns of late even when those candidates have little experience (Jim Webb and guy who forced Liebermann into running as a third party candidate). Hillary does have the Democrat NOMINATION sewn up, in part, because she has an activist background and is appreciated by the New Left because of it.

Re: Rudy's to lose

Jeffrey Rae — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:27:55 -0000

As an Australian who obviously does not know anything about the minutiae of US politics, I am amazed that you all seem to think that Mrs Clinton has the Democratic nomination all sewed up.

She has been in the Senate for a mere seven years and that as the Junior Senator from NY. Prior to that she had not held elective office. She has never held executive office. She has little experience of working in the private sector. Most of her work experience has been in political activism. Her one serious go at significant policy development was an abject failure.

Surely the Democrats cannot be so besotted with winning at all costs that they will turn a blind eye to her complete lack of experience. The risks to them in 2010 and 2012 are enormous. Presumably they are hoping Bill will keeping her on the straight and narrow. Very big assumption.

The US people and the Rest of the World deserve much better. I can think of no candidate for President/Prime Minister from a major party in a major economy who has a worse CV.

Re: Rudy's to lose

Rob Dawg — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:12:43 -0000

All these posts and the Republican leading in all the early states gets no mention whatsoever. Last weekend while at David Murdochs estate Mitt was telling us his exact road to the White House. He even predicted that he would be near invisible in the national conciousness until after New Hampshire. He didn't mention it but the game plan is identical to Bill Clinton's and Clinton didn't even win NH.

Guilliani is probably the only Rep who can loose to Hilly. The moment "family values" comes up she'll quip that her daughter still talks to her and she is still on her first spouse.

In contrast Romney leads the life of... well you know. Her past financial dealings are dirty, his beyond reproach. Repeat on any number of issues.

Barring missteps the only mystery is how Mitt will "balance" the ticket.

Re: Rudy's to lose

Geech — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:56:03 -0000

Don't you know that Libertarian/Libertarian-leaning politicians have been running the government for the past 30 years and are solely responsible for all of the country's problems, johngaltline?