Race 4 2008 Early Morning Essential Reads

6 Responses to “Race 4 2008 Early Morning Essential Reads”

1. WiseGuy Says:
   October 19th, 2007 at 12:31 am

   Aron,

   Why the Neaderthal article??

   (Creationists *own* that issue btw).

2. Joe Says:
   October 19th, 2007 at 2:18 am

   My thoughts exactly. What was with that? =P

   But seriously, some pretty awesome articles on Huckabee from Brooks and Barnett. Those are pretty, darn glowing.

3. econ grad stud Says:
   October 19th, 2007 at 2:53 am

   Aron I see you made a mistake and put an article about Neanderthal speech under Huckabee’s section.

   I’m assuming you’re not rude or petty enough to do that on purpose.

4. Joe M Says:
   October 19th, 2007 at 9:46 am

   Regarding FDT (above) What’s with his remark about gay rights?? “Real conservatives do not support gay rights”.

   Is THAT the kind of person we want to nominate? Or, would we rather have one who has the talent of bringing people together? I think not. This kind of statement is an excellent example of why he would be absolutely emolished by Hillary in the general election.

5. Joe M Says:
   October 19th, 2007 at 9:46 am

   typo: Demolished

6. Chris L. Says:
   October 19th, 2007 at 11:33 am

   This week’s addition of The Economist contains the following short article about ‘08 GOP Presidential race:

   FRACTURED ALLIANCE
   Oct 18th 2007

   American conservatives need to rediscover the charm of small government

   ONE thing the Republican Party has usually been able to depend on is
   the support of well-off capitalists: from Calvin Coolidge’s declaration
   that “the chief business of the American people is business” to George
   Bush’s generous tax cuts, it has always been pretty clear to
   wealth-creators which side their bread is buttered on. No longer. With
   all polls predicting a Democratic sweep of House, Senate and presidency
   in 2008, the smart money is flowing the Democrats’ way.

   A WALL STREET JOURNAL poll last month showed that only 37% of
   professionals and managers identify themselves as Republicans or
   leaning that way. A YouGov/Polimetrix poll for THE ECONOMIST finds that
   only 44% of those earning more than $150,000 plan to vote Republican.
   So it is no surprise–though historically astonishing–that the
   Democrats’ presidential candidates have raised substantially more than
   Republican ones.

   There are several obvious reasons for this. The shrill voices of
   religious conservatives have driven away many pragmatic Republicans who
   feel that banning abortion and gay marriage are not the most pressing
   issues confronting America. The Bush administration’s incompetence,
   evident from Iraq to Louisiana, alienates people who know about
   management.

   But the most damaging factor has been the Republicans’ inability to
   control the federal budget. By slashing taxes without cutting spending,
   Mr Bush turned the budget surplus of $240 billion he inherited from
   Bill Clinton into a deficit that bottomed out at over $400 billion, and
   is still running at $160 billion. Mr Clinton’s free-trade record was
   better as well. The current crop of Democrats are less angelic: they
   are a protectionist bunch and they show few signs of wanting to curb
   big entitlement programmes. But, for the moment at least, they look
   better than the Republicans on spending. For instance, they have
   instituted “pay-go” rules, which mean that any new spending must be
   fully funded; and they have stuck to them.

   Belatedly (to put it mildly), the administration has realised that it
   has lost the mantle of sound economic management to the Democrats. On
   October 3rd Mr Bush picked up his dusty veto pen, using it to cut back
   spending for the first time in his presidency. Astonishingly, he chose
   the wrong issue to wield it on: a proposal to expand a highly popular
   scheme that subsidised health insurance for poorer children. This from
   a man who had let Republican pork through by the sty-load.

   TRY MAIN STREET, NOT CHURCH STREET
   In truth, given his record, Mr Bush’s chances of looking a convincing
   small-government conservative are close to zero. The presidential
   candidates are different. Both Rudy Giuliani, the current front-runner,
   and John McCain have proposed promising market-oriented proposals on
   health care (see article[1]). They also talk much more favourably than
   Democrats do about free trade and fiscal control. What is needed from
   them–and Mitt Romney as well–is more detail.

   Taxes, trade, health care: these are subjects Main Street wants to know
   more about. But the religious right does not. Rather than building a
   pragmatic centre-right alternative to Hillary Clinton, the conservative
   movement is stuck with God, gays and guns. The immensely powerful
   “family” movement is gathering this weekend in Washington–and all
   Republican candidates are dutifully attending. As long as the business
   of the Republican Party seems not to be business, it can hardly
   complain if businesspeople look elsewhere.