Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 27, 2016, 02:05:31 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 14
51  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Obama is first Dem ever to win without MO. on: November 07, 2008, 08:27:23 pm
We ought to make a list of these things other than the obvious "first black president", "oldest presidential candidate", etc.  I like the whole senator vs. senator thing.
52  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Potential female presidents in today's politics on: November 07, 2008, 08:25:53 pm
Piper Palin!
53  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Wait, so who on the board won the prediction game? on: November 07, 2008, 08:22:04 pm
Did anyone nail the final e-vote tally in their forecast maps?
54  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Bobby jindals of to Iowa this weekend. what an opportunist. on: November 07, 2008, 08:19:16 pm
From what I've heard he's getting his name out but he's running for VP.  Gotta be veep in 2012 before he can aspire for 2016.
55  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Bobby Jindal - what's the big deal? on: November 07, 2008, 08:16:08 pm
Well, to be fair, are there any other young people in the GOP who are inspiring?  Sure Jindal has his race, but his background story is almost as interesting as Obama's, he has a good resume, and he speaks quite well.  Palin, in retrospect, looked good on paper but in reality she's not all who she's cracked up to be.

Is there anyone else young in the GOP?  Paul Ryan?  Cantor?  Pawlenty?
56  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Would McCain/Huckabee have fared better? on: November 06, 2008, 07:02:54 pm
I'm sensing a war within the GOP pretty soon, against the economic conservatives and the populists, much like the Ford v. Reagan war in 1976.

The GOP is a headless, thrashing beast, lashing out in all directions.  The conservative movement in America is a shambles, at a time in which most Americans are conservative.  Figure that one out.

There's that theory that Republicans work best in the opposition, but once they get to power, they can't govern.

Same principle applies here I guess.
57  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Analogies for the 2012 presidential election on: October 25, 2008, 01:24:57 am
Hillary was the juggernaut who Obama had to beat, though.  Would Ridge be a juggernaut against Jindal and Palin?

And remember that this is just a thought exercise, not supposed to be realistic in the least.
58  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: If Obama loses to Jindal in 2012..... on: October 25, 2008, 01:23:12 am
Guessing that Jindal will be the nominee in 2012 is chancy enough, speculating on how'd he do in Obama is ridiculous considering the fast speed of American politics in our time of crisis.
59  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Who will you vote for in '12? on: October 24, 2008, 12:39:57 pm
I'm pretty certain that spending beyond your means is a universal politician trait that transcends ideology or party.  Everybody's got to at least butter up their constituencies with pork.
60  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Who will you vote for in '12? on: October 24, 2008, 03:52:43 am
Just because "populism" in the political matrix term means social conservative/fiscal liberal doesn't mean Bush is one just because he spends a lot.  Bush spends liberally, but not in what a populist would (ideally) spend in.  He's into deregulation of schools and the health system, not to mention privatizing social security.  A big deficit spender is by no means a populist, at least not necessarily.  Don't Republican presidents tend to spend and not slash enough programs to cover it anyways?
61  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: If Palin wants it, and she does, who could stop her from the Iowa Caucus in on: October 24, 2008, 03:44:27 am
Jindal in 2012 would have more experience than Palin had this year- surely that at least qualifies him to be a veep candidate in the eyes of the Republicans (especially if they get desperate).  As far as a presidential candidate, well- look at Obama!

I think if anything 2008 taught us it's that image beats experience in terms of party selection any day.  Of course, if Obama's presidency turns out to be bad, then maybe we'll all be wiser in four years.
62  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / If Jindal clinches it, who could/should be his veep in '12? on: October 24, 2008, 03:40:53 am
I like the idea of Jindal/Huckabee ticket to show that the GOP is truly moving in different directions.  Huckabee is more of an economic populist, but Jindal's wonkish bureaucratic presence will temper any proposals for FairTax.  However, they would both lack foreign policy credentials.

(Best case scenario for Jindal- he does a good job in LA, passes ethics reforms, keeps himself out of trouble unlike Palin, and slowly moves towards the center as far as his social stances are concerned.)

Are there any good Republican senators out there who may be retiring in 2012?
63  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: What if Ron Paul and Ross Perot had run together in 2008? on: October 13, 2008, 11:28:17 pm
Both pint-sized Texans with different approaches from politics as usual.
64  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Analogies for the 2012 presidential election on: October 13, 2008, 11:27:18 pm
Assuming Obama/Biden wins,

Sarah Palin is John Edwards, the young populist ex-vice presidential candidate.

Bobby Jindal is Obama, the last great non-white young hope for a defeated party.

Who is Hillary in this scenario?  I would guess Romney, seeing as both are slick establishmentarians with experience but ultimately not all that likable.
65  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Who Will The Republicans Look to in 2012 on: October 11, 2008, 02:26:40 pm
I think Jindal has strong potential, but he has to do far better that he has already as governor.  He needs to seriously reform and reconstruct Louisiana and turn the state around to make any significant distinction in the next four to eight years.  I think if he runs in 2012 it would basically be a GOP "Hail Mary," but hey it's working for the Dems right now.  He would also have to back off a little from his hard social conservative views.

Also Obama is pretty liberal but how is he a hard core partisan?
66  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Jindal missing the RNC a plus for him? on: September 03, 2008, 02:28:37 pm
It seems to be that Gov. Jindal is going to end up looking better after all of the events in the last few weeks.  First off, he wasn't picked as VP, so the focus of criticisms against the young rising-stars of the GOP have been taken off of him by default.  Second, he's missing the GOP Convention to show off his competence in handling the disaster efforts in Louisiana, and looks more focused on governance than ceremony showiness.  Finally, all of this dirt on Palin makes his zealous Catholic days of youth seem tepid- exorcisms and college papers aside, it's not as if he attends a suspect church.

I'm only disappointed because by missing the keynote address of the RNC we don't to get to see what the Republican Indian clone of Obama will sound like.
67  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Name one VP for McCain and one VP for Obama and see who gets both right on: August 31, 2008, 05:55:56 pm
Yes!  I was the only one who picked Palin prior to Biden.

Shame that Obama didn't consider Clark, though.
68  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Fictional Crossover: Santos/McGarry vs. Vinick/Allen on: August 29, 2008, 07:28:34 pm
Take The West Wing and merge it with Commander-in-Chief.  Arnold Vinick's running mate is one Mackenzie Allen.  How does the election differ?
69  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: President John McCain (2001-2009) on: August 20, 2008, 08:19:32 pm
The Administration’s predilection for comprehensive, systematic treatment of domestic issues had mixed results. The new strategy of replacing employer-provided health insurance with privately owned policies had the primary effect of imposing a paperwork burden on the population comparable to that imposed by the (unreformed) federal tax code. There might have been a political crisis, had not the legalization of pharmaceutical imports caused a temporary but noticeable decrease in costs.

President’s McCain’s chief domestic accomplishment was technical and procedural: the Tax Efficiency and Reform Act of 2005. This comprehensive tax-code reform lowered the top marginal individual tax rate to 28%, as well as abolishing the Alternative Minimum Tax; the reform paid for these features by abolishing almost all the deductions in the existing code. The reform was revenue neutral. Small federal budget surpluses had begun to reappear in 2004, the maintenance of which became the Administration’s chief fiscal priority. The reform of the Social Security system disappeared as an issue during the McCain Administration: experience showed that the projected insolvency point for the system retreated by a year for every year the budget balanced or showed a surplus.

Other enthusiasms of President McCain proved less happy. His insistence on a complicated campaign-finance scheme alienated the ad hoc majority in Congress on which he relied for support. The measure was of doubtful constitutionality, and the Administration was probably saved an embarrassment when it failed.

The Administration was not so lucky with an immigration measure that, in effect, granted provisional legal status to everyone in the United States, and this without first ensuring that the federal government had physical control of the borders. The immigration enforcement agencies had to stand down at the borders (including airports) and internally; the chance of apprehending someone whom it might have been proper to detain under the new rules was too small to justify the expense of acting. The immigration bureaucracy was deluged with millions of applications in the space of a few weeks and soon ceased functioning at all. Visas to the United States became unobtainable. Meanwhile, television images showed a steady passage of persons crossing the borders, as well as the appearance of new, impromptu municipalities at the edges of cities and sometimes in public parks. For the most part, these settlements were not, as was incorrectly reported at the time, “colonies” of new immigrants, but associations of longterm undocumented persons who took advantage of the relaxed enforcement regime to move from cramped and often dangerous accommodations. There were notable outbreaks of civil disorder in several places.

The episode lasted a month. The emergency was ended when the president was prevailed upon to invoke the emergency power granted to him in the immigration bill to regulate immigration in extraordinary circumstances. No permanent harm was done, but the country was badly shaken. The president’s speech of apology, in which he took responsibility for the bill and pledged to restore order, was almost unprecedented and highly effective.

One of the ironies of the McCain Administration was that a man so interested in bureaucratic order enhanced his reputation chiefly through his ability to handle unpredictable disasters. The submersion of New Orleans may not, perhaps, quite count as “unpredictable”: few such events have ever been foretold with so much expert specificity so long beforehand. Nonetheless, the event occurred on McCain’s watch, and he understood the importance of what was happening as soon as it was certain the hurricane would make landfall near the city. He ordered his disaster managers and, more important, the Secretary of Defense to the city to monitor events. Before the lower parts of the city were completely flooded, he had invoked questionable but legally colorable authority to use the federal military as rescue forces and police. Perhaps the most famous scene of his presidency occurred the next day when he visited the city, personally “fired” the mayor, and ordered the detention of the entire city police force. His later refusal to sign any reconstruction legislation that applied outside the highland areas of the city remains controversial.

President McCain is remembered for many other things, from his directive to NASA after the Columbia disaster to build an Earth-to-LEO manned spacecraft within a year to the creation of the League of Democracies. He is not always remembered with universal fondness. Nonetheless, his paradoxical presidency did not have the dispiriting effect that several other administrations of the past 50 years had had. His many opponents loved to hate him; his even more numerous admirers were frequently exasperated but never bored. A rare national consensus prevailed as he left office: the Republic had not been altogether badly served.

He's answered a few questions about the timeline in this thread.  There's also  this entry from last year on his blog that explains some of his rationale re: McCain.

Would happy birds now be chirping in every tree if McCain had been elected in 2000? Perhaps not. McCain, like Colin Powell, belong to the conciliatory generation that lies between the Babyboomers and Gen-xers. They are given to compromise through the elaboration of new procedures: a fine instinct, most of the time, but they are less likely than Babyboomers to see when discontinuity with the past is necessary. The McCain Administration would have invaded Iraq after 911. We should recall that McCain was the neocon favorite, the apple of the eye of The Weekly Standard; George Bush was the anti-interventionist alternative. Nonetheless, I suspect that the McCain occupation policy would not have been as Wilsonian as Bush's. Rather, there would have been a rapid installation of a neo-Baathist regime. The US, withdrawing quickly to a few small bases, would have turned a blind eye to how that regime secured its position. Iran and the human-rights industry would have been outraged. By now, the American electorate would be asking if the war had been worth the effort.

Would some things have been different? Yes. We can be certain that the McCain Administration would not have confined its case for the war to a monotone repetition of the "weapons of mass destruction" talking-point. The federal budget would be balanced again by now. However, the collapse of immigration control would have been even worse. Similarly with the healthcare system: McCain's instinct would have been to bolster a system that should be dismantled. In a way, the Bush Administration's neglect has been better than that.

And what about 2008? McCain is my default candidate. However, I don't see how anyone now running could be elected.

What do you think?
70  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / President John McCain (2001-2009) on: August 20, 2008, 08:18:47 pm
By the esteemed John Reilly.

President John McCain
January 2001 to January 2009

The presidency of John McCain is likely to prove as great a favorite of popular historians as that of Theodore Roosevelt. Like Roosevelt, his presidency was prefaced by a heroic earlier life. Like Roosevelt, McCain was renowned, if not precisely for his wit, then for a reliably dramatic and articulate temper. Both presidents, throughout their careers, were keenly interested in administrative structures per se. However, while these presidents were unusually knowledgeable about foreign and military issues, the circumstances of McCain’s administration gave him far greater opportunity to work in these areas; indeed, McCain has been called “Theodore Roosevelt with Woodrow Wilson’s problems.”

Contemporary political commentators have sometimes suggested McCain would not have received the Republican nomination in 2000, had it not been for the publication at a critical time in the primary election process of an old scandal involving his principal opponent. (The irony is that the information was Democratic opposition research intended for the general election but apparently leaked early to the press by accident.) Though no serious misbehavior was involved, the issue managed to depress his opponent’s appeal in the early southern primaries. McCain’s bid thus survived until the nominating process moved to the Midwest and Mountain states, where he enjoyed greater natural advantages. Still, the delegate vote at the Republican Convention that year was the closest in living memory. The nomination would have gone differently if a single state delegation had been on the other side. The general election, in contrast, was a popular vote and Electoral College landslide for the Republicans.

Several reasons have been adduced to explain this result. The candidates seemed to differ only in degree except on social issues; these were muted in the election. However, the Democratic nominee was generally regarded as a continuation of the prior Administration, which had fallen under an ethical cloud. In any case, the popular dissatisfaction with the Democrats did not extend to Congress; McCain’s party actually lost control of the Senate by a single seat.

The McCain Administration was the first since that of Richard Nixon to focus from the outset primarily on foreign affairs. These president’s early efforts did not invariably appear to improve matters. In his first meeting in Paris with the heads of the NATO countries, for instance, President McCain publicly engaged in a multilingual shouting match with President Jacques Chirac about who was more serious about controlling carbon emissions. Russian-American relations went from frosty to arctic after the first meeting between President McCain and President Vladimir Putin, when McCain made his notorious “evil ice dwarf” comment to reporters on the flight home.

On some critical issues, the Administration does not seem to have been very well served by the terrorism experts retained from the prior Administration. These officials pushed their own pet projects and gave advice that almost invariably turned out to be misdirections. In any case, though the Administration came into office with a raft of proposed reforms for health care, education, infrastructure, and so on, these were shelved until the second term by the events of September 11: even the small, temporary, stimulative tax reduction that the Congress had enacted to deal with a mild recession was revoked to help pay for the subsequent unplanned military expenditures.

The president was in Washington at the time of the attacks in 2001. He was widely criticized for foolhardiness in rejecting Secret Service advice to leave the city, but his extemporaneous address from the Oval Office that evening has been classed as model of modern rhetoric. His national security team quickly determined that the base for the attacks was in Afghanistan: the existing regime and the terrorist leadership it had been hosting had been removed by the end of the year. This by no means ended the war, since Islamist factions quickly regrouped across the Pakistani border and instituted a cult of the martyrdom of their former leaders. Nonetheless, the speed and the success of the invasion bought the president the prestige to go ahead six months later with a decapitating raid against the Baathist regime in Iraq. There followed a systematic peace-keeping and nation-building program on which the president was accused of lavishing more attention than on the government of the United States.

The president was also criticized for confining the legal justification for the Iraq invasion to the UN resolutions of 1990 and 1991. His public case for the war was a set of sophisticated variations on the theme that the Baathist regime had never complied with the terms of the ceasefire of 1991 and could not be trusted to do so after the UN restrictions were removed. The president coined a phrase, “field of peace,” to describe what he was trying to “generate” in the Middle East. The concept was widely ridiculed, until the post-Iraq-invasion revelation by Libya of its enormous WMD programs and the new willingness of Iran to talk. These developments, and the fact that the nation-building strategy enabled the beginning of substantial troop reductions by the spring of 2004, silenced whatever criticism remained about the justification and conduct of the war.

Emboldened by the personal popularity which these successes accorded him, President McCain made one of the most daring moves in American political history: he ran for reelection as an independent. To some extent, this move was forced on him: the Republican Party had broken up. The president politely accepted the nomination of the convention with the greatest claim to institutional continuity, but he appeared on most ballots as the nominee of the “Rally for the Republic,” essentially a privately organized network of publicists, financial backers, and key constituency groups. The disintegration of the parties at the national level was a foreseeable instance of the general trend toward “disintermediation” between producers and consumers in all areas of life. In 2004, his principal opponent in the general election was still a “Democrat,” though the nature of that group had changed profoundly since 1992. Thereafter, the movement toward increasingly personalized politics seemed irresistible.
71  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: The Direction of the Democratic Party if Obama loses... on: August 14, 2008, 05:17:50 pm
I brought up the South is because I thought that they (along with the Great Plains folks) would be more receptive to populist approaches to health care and other concerns, as opposed to the pseudo-libertarians of the Empty Quarter.
72  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: The Direction of the Democratic Party if Obama loses... on: August 13, 2008, 06:42:24 pm
Don't worry about looking like the GOP-lite.  On one hand, many Blue Dogs already act that way, but their constituents don't care.  On the other, not making any effort towards a direction in the post-2006 victory is what makes you look GOP-lite.  As long as you don't pick up the fetishization of small government, Constitutional fundamentalism, irrational idealization of States' Rights, hawkish foreign policies, and the "screw you, I got mine" attitude of the Republicans, it's all golden. 

To be frank, you don't need to have a McGovern coalition to get fiscal liberal initiatives passed.  Ditch the academic idealogues and urban cosmopolitans- they'll vote for you anyways, and focus on winning the people in the Heartland and the South.  As long as Nader continues to eff up things for the third parties, not a single social liberal will vote for the Greens or stay at home when all they have to vote for are the Democrats.
73  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Third Party Look: Modern Whigs on: August 12, 2008, 05:40:57 pm
The Modern Whig Party supports the two-state solution to this conflict. However, we refuse to support the creation of a terrorist state of Palestine. Israel is a stable democracy and should be treated and respected accordingly. Israel is very important to not only Jewish members of the party, but also our evangelical members and those who see the situation for what it truly is. We support Israel's right to defend itself from its enemies just as we support the US and our right to defend ourselves. True compromise from both sides is key, although Israel should be permitted to keep its major settlement blocks such as Gush Etzion and Ariel.

I think they're alluding to the fact that they don't like the current PA, or maybe the Hamas government.  In other words they would be in favor of a two-state solution but the Palestinian Arab state would be composed of people who do not exist in reality.  You probably want to check the actual Issues page on their website, not just the shorter blurb I quoted.

Am I the only one who thinks that their Iraq policy makes sense, and is probably a good coldly pragmatic solution?

Many of our members have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and have unique and practical qualifications to express the Modern Whig viewpoint. Iraq obviously was planned and managed very poorly and it is time for drastic but realistic change. We propose pulling our forces out of Iraq except for a relatively small base in the Kurdish area of the country. Our troops will tell you that unlike the rest of Iraq, the Kurds are prone to democracy and in fact do treat American forces as liberators. To this end, the Kurds deserve our continued protection and in turn, we maintain a base to act upon any contingencies emanating from within Iraq, Syria or Iran. Moreover, the oil industry from Kirkuk can take care of the bills. We then can put real effort and resources into fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Finally, we would continue dialogue and contact with the Pakistani government in hopes that they would finally end this defacto terrorist safe-haven in their country, but in the end, if they fail to act then we will.

I think they're wildly overestimating Kirkuk's oil industry, though.  Not to mention the fact that the Kurds are engaged in (albeit nonviolent) ethnic cleansing.
74  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Third Party Look: Modern Whigs on: August 09, 2008, 10:03:02 pm
Well, the thing about Libertarians, even Ron Paul 'libertarians', is that they favor policies that require radical restructuring of American government as we know it.  On the other hand, there are economic conservative/social liberals such as Schwarzenegger out there, or perhaps Giuliani (other than every national security) who kind of fit the libertarian configuration without having necessarily the wacky ideology or policies of actual libertarians.  (I am guessing that's what Ross Perot's Reform Party was all about, though even today I don't understand if his ideology was leftist or rightist.)  All of this is rather "centrist", but I'd argue that it's still heading towards the libertarian config.

This Modern Whig Party, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have the same fetish for small government that Libertarians, libertarians, and people in the libertarianish configuration have.  They seem to stand for moderate, prudent, pragmatic actions, and I like that.  While I believe that big government can certainly be a bad thing, if adequate controls are put in place it needn't necessarily be.
75  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Third Party Look: Modern Whigs on: August 09, 2008, 09:00:12 pm
These guys.


The Modern Whig Party relies on common sense. We see the value of independent thinking and the danger of being limited to one distinct ideology. Since 1833, we have carried the mantle of America's middle-of-the-road party.

To get involved or add to our list of issues, send us an email.

Economic Distribution

The Modern Whig philosophy is to empower the states with the resources to handle their unique affairs. The logic is that people in Alabama should not always have to flip the bill for earmarks that occur in New York and vice versa. For example, a senator from Oklahoma is currently using his committee powers to stifle an important transportation project in Virginia. The reality is that the more local one gets, the more in tune with the unique and specific needs of that area. This is why we propose that federal tax dollars be provided to each state in a lump sum every fiscal year based on population. This eliminates the need for most earmarks and pork-barrel spending as the onus will then be on state legislators and governors to allocate funding for issues that they see fit. Of course the federal government will still vote on other special projects and traditionally federal items, but these projects will be more manageable to monitor. In addition, the allocations to the states also provides a better opportunity to balance the federal budget while also forcing local voters to pay more attention to state elected officials.

Iraq and Afghanistan

Many of our members have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and have unique and practical qualifications to express the Modern Whig viewpoint. Iraq obviously was planned and managed very poorly and it is time for drastic but realistic change. We propose pulling our forces out of Iraq except for a relatively small base in the Kurdish area of the country...

Environmental Protection and National Security

Why did we lump the environment with national security? Because eliminating our dependency on foreign oil is a national security issue as it takes away a significant amount of cards from our enemies. For example, cartels are illegal in the US but at the same time, we rely on the OPEC cartel for our oil. Expedited funding and research into viable green technology is part of the answer. It also is a major developing industry where we can make lots of money and create tons of jobs. At the same time, we represent a new generation of "Trustbuster." ...


If somebody is in this country illegally, then he or she should be deported if caught. However, it is not realistic in terms of manpower and resources to attempt to hunt illegal immigrants down. We propose the following: Offer illegal immigrants the opportunity for citizenship if they join the military and serve out their initial contractual term honorably. This system already works for green card holders and has been very successful...

In respect to the orderly deportation of other illegal immigrants, we propose the following: A creation of ad-hoc immigration courts. Essentially, highly regarded immigration lawyers in varying parts of the country will be nominated and selected to serve as immigration judges...

China, Foreign Aid and the WTO

The Modern Whig Party proposes offering tiered subsidies and tax breaks to U.S. corporations who remove their manufacturing operations from China. The WTO and international treaty justification is based on well-established health and welfare exemptions of rules that normally forbid this type of government intervention...


The Modern Whig Party supports the two-state solution to this conflict. However, we refuse to support the creation of a terrorist state of Palestine. Israel is a stable democracy and should be treated and respected accordingly...

Church/State Separation

Don't mess with Christmas. While our members range from deeply religious to completely secular, we are realistic. We follow the rule that the government must not fund religious activities. However, the business of forcing Christmas trees and reindeer ornaments off of city hall property is ridiculous. At the same time, government cannot favor one religion over others. So long as all other religions have equal access to display their holiday symbols, we see no problems.

Gay Rights

Each state can determine the extended rights of homosexuals based on their own local values. We do, however, support classifying as a federal hate crime attacks on people based on their perceived sexual orientation. In the end, the sexual orientation of the guy down the street has no bearing on anybody else's life.

Health Care

Recognizing that Viagra is sometimes prescribed to men for other medial reasons such as diabetes and covered by many health plans regardless of the reason, we find it unacceptable that birth control is typically not covered for women. Birth control medication has many other benefits to women besides its primary function. We believe that health insurance companies should include birth control as a regularly covered item and stop forcing millions of women to pay out of pocket


Our members are split on this subject just like the rest of the country. But the bottom line is that this one particular issue should not be the sole basis for which political party people affiliate with... It is time to end the trend of having this one issue become a deal breaker. Each state can determine its course of action like any other public health issue that revolves around medical procedures. The federal government should not get involved or regulate such items as the less involvement by the government in our private lives the better.

Affirmative Action

Race-based affirmative action should be eliminated and replaced with an economic criteria for education benefits.

Science and Technology

Exploration is in our blood. Whether it is the brain, the oceans, the wilderness or space, people have always been fascinated by the unknown. Perhaps more importantly, science has a way of bringing people together in a manner that no politician could ever dream. Science also has a way of transforming the economy. The Modern Whig Party supports the privatization of space and continued exploration of our oceans. Taking away the government monopoly and allowing capitalism into the exploration business will exponentially expand our technology base and further the growth of mankind.

They seem to be really pragmatic centrists to me, unlike Ross Perot/Schwarzenegger-type centrists who are basically small government fiscal conservatives that are sane enough to not be libertarians.  What do you think of their ideas?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 14

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines