Thursday, July 7, 2011

2012 Contender: Thaddeus McCotter

Today we look at Thaddeus McCotter, who just jumped into the race. McCotter is an early booster of Big Hollywood and appears regularly on Fox, though he’s not well known by the public yet. I knew little about his views before my research for this article and what I’ve found is. . . well, you be the judge.

1. Background: McCotter has a solid political background. He got his start on the Wayne County Commission in 1992 (think Detroit). In that position, he helped change the county charter to require a 2/3 approval of the commission and the approval of 60% of the voters to increase taxes. Between 1998 and 2002, he was a Michigan State Senator, where he was elected to become Assistant Majority Floor Leader. In 1999, he led the Senate Law Revision Task Force, which repealed scores of unneeded Michigan laws.

In 2002, he entered Congress. By 2006, he was elected Chairman of the Republican House Policy Committee, a position he held until 2010.

As an aside, McCotter is Catholic and is married to a first generation Mexican American, something which in these cynical days of identity politics will play very well.

2. Economics: I’ve criticized several of the other candidates for not having any economic plans (Bachmann, Santorum) or having just platitudes (Newt) or being Democrat-lite (Romney, Huntsman). McCotter has a plan:

● “Dismantling destructive concentrations of power -- in banking, in government and in education.” Oh, that makes me happy! On banks, he mentions (1) requiring banks to recapitalize, (2) applying anti-trust laws to limit bank size, and (3) ending taxpayer support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All good.

● Shrinking government spending by (1) passing a balanced budget amendment, (2) giving the President a line item veto, (3) capping growth of federal spending at the level of household income growth, and (4) ending ineffective federal programs through sunset reviews. One and four are gimmicky, but two and three are good.

● Reforming the tax code to (1) make personal taxes flatter, (2) cut corporate tax rates, and (3) eliminate tax loopholes. He doesn’t say what he considers loopholes, but this is all pointed in the right direction.

● “Ending the Social Security Ponzi Scheme,” by allowing workers to choose personal savings and investment accounts. Another good idea, though he doesn't mention how to fund the system for those already in it if this is done.

● “Ending Chinese mercantilist trade policy,” to encourage American manufacturing. Again no details, but this makes sense.
This plan is like the good parts of Ron Paul without the crazy. And McCotter’s record is generally consistent with his plan, though he has made some missteps. McCotter earned Tea Party “cred” in September 2008, when he became the first Republican to oppose the TARP, calling it “American socialism.” He also opposed the first stimulus ($825 billion). BUT he did vote for the second ($192 billion) stimulus and he voted for the GM bailout. In 2003, he also voted to create the Medicare prescription drug benefit and to oppose importation of cheaper prescription drugs. Those are bad.

But he also voted to regulate the subprime industry in 2007, opposed Obama’s mortgage foreclosure plan, and tried to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment in 2009. He has voted to restrict lawsuits against gun makers and food providers, voted to limit attorneys fees in class action lawsuits, voted to cap damages in medical malpractice cases, and voted to restrict frivolous lawsuits. He opposes Congressional pay raises and voted to require Congress to cite Constitutional authority for all laws they pass. These are good.

3. Social Conservatism: McCotter is definitely a social conservative.
Abortion: McCotter has a 100% pro-life record and has voted to criminalize the interstate transportation of a minor to get an abortion, the harming of a fetus, and partial-birth abortions. He also favors granting fetuses legal rights under the 14th Amendment -- which would be a royal mess.

Stem Cells/Cloning: He opposes stem cell research and human cloning.

Gays: McCotter voted against including homosexuality in hate-crime laws and he favors a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, but he did vote to prohibit discrimination against gays in employment.
4. Foreign Policy: McCotter talks about winning the war against terror and expanding liberty at home and abroad. He seems intent on staying in Afghanistan and says we must support “grassroots movements that seek to give birth to liberty and freedom” around the world. He names China, North Korea and Iran as our enemies and wants “constructive containment” against China.

5. ObamaCare: McCotter opposed ObamaCare. He advocates the generic Republican plan of increased individual savings accounts, a national insurance market and litigation reform. But he breaks from the standard Republican plan by favoring a safety net for those who cannot afford a basic level of catastrophic coverage and he wants pre-existing conditions covered. He also wants to give doctors incentives to work at federal clinics, wants to prevent any decrease in Medicare benefits for anyone over 55, and wants to give veterans control of their health care benefits.

6. Immigration: On immigration, McCotter takes the Commentarama line! He does not want to “stigmatize illegal immigrants, the vast majority of whom are honest, industrious people,” but he says he (1) will not support amnesty, (2) wants no taxpayer money spent on illegals, (3) wants to secure the borders, and (4) wants to punish business that hire illegals, unions that won’t report them, and local/state governments that establish sanctuary cities. He also proposes ending “birthright citizenship” for anchor babies and wants English declared the official language. And he says something I am thrilled to hear a Republican say: “Big government, business and others have combined to entice illegal immigrants to come to America and then exploit them.”

7. Energy Policy/Global Warming: McCotter contends that global warming is a myth and opposes cap and trade as a violation of property rights! He proposes an energy policy “based on making all domestic options available.” He has opposed tax incentives for renewable energy production and conservation, but has voted to maintain oil and gas exploration subsidies. BUT, he voted against ethanol! He also voted to allow offshore drilling and to authorize new refineries.
As I say above, McCotter is like Ron Paul without the crazy. What's more, he has a deep and nuanced understanding of the world. For example, he gets that big business does not equate to capitalism. He gets that it's counterproductive to verbally attack illegal aliens, when there are better methods for dealing with the problem. His thinking on encouraging grassroots democracy overseas is the real key to winning the war on terror and long term stability. And his opposition to cap and trade as a violation of property rights, rather than just because he disagrees with global warming, demonstrates solid principles. Would he make a good President? Absolutely. Would he make a good conservative President? Without a doubt.

Now the catch. He has no name recognition. I don't see this as a problem vis-à-vis Obama because our nominee will get name recognition automatically. But it will hurt his chances of winning the nomination. Also, sadly, with many conservatives (especially in the media) looking for venom rather than substance, he may not be angry enough to get noticed. But he should be noticed.


patti said...

#1: i'm tweeting this as soon as i exit. #2: i think we should spread his name near and far. #3: bloggers have tremendous power in establishing name-recognition. #4: swoon. #5: as you know, i've loved thad for some time. he's what we're looking for. i'm in. #6: can you imagine if west would run with him?!

great piece, andrew. and not just because i agree with it ;)

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Patti! I have to say that I didn't know what I would find with him -- in all honesty. And I am very impressed. He's not perfect, but then none of them are. But I do genuinely think that conservatives would be very, very happy with 8 years of a McCotter presidency and our country would be a lot better off.

(P.S. Allen West is great too.)

Unknown said...

Let me start with one of my favorite truisms: “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” McCotter seems to have a lot more pluses than minuses.

On shrinking government spending, I agree that the balanced budget amendment is show, and would never get passed anyway, but it does show a commitment to fiscal sanity. I like the idea of a line-item veto, but frankly I think the Supreme Court will continue to nix it without a constitutional amendment. The others are indeed “gimmicky,” but then I like gimmicks.

I loved your description of his views on Chinese mercantilist trade policy as “Ron Paul, without the crazy.” Accurate, and very funny. I also agree that he misstepped voting for the second TARP and the GM bailout, but those were heady times, and I remember advice I was given by a successful business executive about dealing with crises: “Do something, even if it’s wrong.” He did, and he was wrong.

McCotter’s social views are apparently even more conservative than mine, but I think he can finesse most of it. Besides, I think that we all agree that this election is going to be about the economy, the economy, the economy, and so long as he doesn’t make his social conservatism a major part of his platform, he’s probably safe holding those views privately, and publicly only if directly questioned about it.

I think that his proposal to require that all acts of Congress must include a citation of where in the Constitution that power is to be found is gimmicky—but as I said, I like gimmicks, particularly gimmicks you can beat the other side over the head with. I’m still not sure where I come down on when or how we should disengage in Afghanistan, but his view is certainly a common one for the middle and right. He’s not going to get the votes of the left anyway.

Based on what I knew, and what you filled in, I could support McCotter enthusiastically. That puts him in my top five, since I am unenthusiastic about most of the field so far. But I also agree that he has a very hard row to hoe to get to the nomination. His dry wit alone would make him a formidable opponent to our current president, who is only half-witted.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I agree. First, he's not perfect. BUT, what I see is a man whose thought processes and principles are pointed in the right direction. Others talk about cuts, but he actually thinks about how to achieve them (though I think Pawlenty has a better plan in the debt reduction area). What's more, I am VERY impressed that he's drawing a line between big business and capitalism. That to me is key to avoiding another Republican administration that just opens the treasury and crony-regulatory door to big banks and big business. Big business hides behind the word capitalism, but is really a socialist system for rich people using taxpayer money to secure their bets. That has to stop.

I also like his nuance on immigration. His plan would work and would work without the negative publicity of sounding xenophobic. Compare that with others who want to pound the table about those dirty illegals, but have no actual plan to do anything.

I think his take on supporting overseas democratic movements should not be underestimated. If he's talking about what I think he's talking about, then he's talking about undermining the very premise of the kinds of extremism we've faced down for the last century. And that wouldn't even require US troops -- which is the best part. I think that is a very smart plan.

The Ron Paul with the crazy really applies to his whole approach.

On social issues, I don't agree with some of the stuff he advocates, but that seems to be all you're going to get in the GOP right now. Some of this would in fact be a disaster -- like the 14th Amendment thing. But I never got the sense from McCotter that he intends this to be his focus. I do get that from Bachmann and definitely from Santorum. That's the long way of saying, I agree.

Finally, the real problem will be can people who are screaming that our candidates aren't covered in blood going to listen to McCotter, whose views are not just slogans meant to excite the crowd? I don't know.

BevfromNYC said...

I love Thaddeus McCotter - even his name would be a refreshing change of pace - Thaddeus. Of all the candidates so far, he the one that makes my leg tingle.

Even though I was and still am furious about the Auto bailout, I can forgive him for voting for it. The auto industry IS Michigan and he had a vested interest in the economic health of his state.

Ooh, Patti - McCotter/West ticket. I would love to see McCotter debate Obama. He has a style that he can zing his opposition and they don't realize they've been zinged until a few beats later.

Tennessee Jed said...

Kind of makes me wish we could meld Romney's "presidential" looks with McCotter's brain. Your right though, unless he were to get very lucky through the debates, or has a boatload of money I don't know about, it seems unlikely his candidacy will gain traction.
I have not really heard him speak, so I don't know what kind of fire he could engender. As you say, it's too bad, because he might come the closest, intellectually, of any you have thus far profiled.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Each candidate has made mistakes. It's hard to have any sort of political career and not vote for something people won't like. For me, the question is, is there a pattern of making the wrong kinds of decisions and does the person show the right kind of thought processes. I think with both questions, McCotter comes across well despite his mistakes.

I also think the GM thing is forgivable because it's not part of a larger pattern of him routinely giving in to corporate interests or government bailouts. In fact, his record is decidedly against that.

For my money, he and Cain are the only genuine Tea Party thinkers in the race so far (at least that I've reviewed).

In terms of debating Obama, he would slice Obama to shreds and I would love to see that. Not only is he witty and clever, but he's also very knowledgeable. Obama just can't match that in any way. And he's probably the only candidate that I've seen so far that I think would absolutely crush Obama.

But the question is, can he get noticed when people like National Review just want our nominees to start pounding tables and screaming the word "socialist" over and over? I hope so, because even if he isn't the nominee, people should be listening to his views.

Anonymous said...

I'm so glad you're doing this Andrew, it really helps. Thanks!

"His dry wit alone would make him a formidable opponent to our current president, who is only half-witted."


"I would love to see McCotter debate Obama. He has a style that he can zing his opposition and they don't realize they've been zinged until a few beats later."

Lawhawk and Bev - I second those comments!


AndrewPrice said...

Jed, He has a chance if he can wow people during the debates. He's a clever guy with a dry wit and is very capable of crushing people without seeming like a jerk. But he will need to attack a lot to get noticed. So hopefully, he's planning to be aggressive.

I'm not sure how he's doing moneywise, but he should have enough to run long enough to either get noticed or fail.

As an aside, I can't tell you how much it bothers me that the "conservative MSM" is blindly throwing their lot behind people without looking into what they actually stand for. Conservatives are literally destroying their own cause. And to me, nothing is more likely to result in Romney than just blindly jumping from one candidate to another based on whoever screamed loudest last.

AndrewPrice said...

TJ, You're welcome! I'm glad you're finding the series helpful. I've frankly been amazed to discover how different some of these people are from my first impressions.

On Bev and Lawhawk's quotes, let me second that as well. I would love to see McCotter debate Obama. I would literally pay a pay-per-view fee to see that one! :-)

rlaWTX said...

he sounds promising... maybe since there is a field of "barely knowns", he'll get traction.

this election cycle is starting to scare me. I'm afraid that conservatives (read talk show hosts) will jump from yeller to screamer to hollerer and right into an Obama 2nd term...

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I'm getting concerned about that too. So far, they've jumped on and off several bandwagons and they never once bothered to ask what the candidate really stood for. I'm worried that they are letting Romney run away with this because they aren't taking the time to make an informed decision and then stick with it. Or even worse, they're just going to grab whoever is loudest and then watch them implode in the general election.

We cannot afford another four years of Obama... but we shouldn't settle for a bad candidate either. Indeed, this is the kind of important decision that demands that we take the time to do the research rather than just taking to the airways and starting to beat one drum after another. It bothers me that so few of conservative talking heads are taking this seriously.

Fortunately, this is a long process, so there is still time to sort things out.

On McCotter, I think he has an uphill climb, but one solid debate could change that. So he's got a chance. And at this point, large numbers of Republican rank and file are still undecided, so it's still anybody's game.

T-Rav said...

Okay Andrew, I'll explain why I was so guarded when this came up earlier. Basically, I had come across the bit about him supporting the GM bailout and so on, which I hadn't known about and seemed kinda out of character, so I was just certain that when you posted your analysis, there would be a lot of other dirt I didn't know about and he wouldn't look good at all. (Wouldn't be the first time.)

So, with all that said, I do genuinely like McCotter and I find this post very reassuring about him. I could see his lack of emotion hurting him; on the other hand, my mind is already picturing the pyrotechnic potential if he got into a debate with Obama. Just standing there with his sardonic wit, dryly cutting the Teleprompter-in-Chief to pieces...okay, to repeat Patti, "swoon."

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I can definitely see where you would be concerned. A lot of these people have been painting themselves as fiscal hawks or Tea Party people and their record is anything but. So it would not have surprised me to find a lot of other dirt -- but there isn't much.

And in truth, he does not always toe the conservative line. But I don't have problems with most of the times he's done that, and the times that I have not liked the positions he took (like the GM bailout) aren't enough to undo the good stuff about his record. That my opinion at least, people can differ, but I don't have a problem with his record -- even the parts I don't agree with.

As I mention above, for me, the real question is getting at the underlying beliefs and thought processes. I want someone who generally "thinks the right way," even if they don't always live up to that. What I see here gives me a great deal of confidence that he "thinks right" and that I would agree with 90% of everything he does once he's in office and that the other 10% wouldn't be enough to bother me.

What's more, he's displaying the kind of complex/deep thinking that I want to see in a President. I want someone who thinks beyond slogans, who grasps that the best answer is not always the easiest answer, and who has an intellectual framework that can be trusted to remain consistent. I see that here.

So I guess, that's the long way to say that I'm glad this post gives you comfort about him because it does for me too. And I hope he gains traction. Because even if he doesn't get the nomination, he is someone we should be listening to as a party.

The lack of emotion is a problem, but it can be overcome with an aggressive debate performance (particularly taking down Romney on a matter of principle) and if enough people start talking about him. Talk radio will follow.

On the debates, could you imagine him tearing Obama apart?! I think those could be the best debates since Reagan took down Mondale.

CrispyRice said...

Wow, he does sound really promising, Andrew. How do we get his name out? And why is it that I've never heard of him before he announced the other day??

T-Rav said...

Andrew, another way of looking at it is to say that if McCotter hasn't been 100% conservative--frankly, neither has anyone else. What matters is whether or not you can get a sense that the man is, essentially, a conservative; and I do get that sense from him, as do most others.

On another note, someone mentioned that if he makes a go of it, he'll be the first official "Red Eye" presidential candidate. Now that would be an interesting boost for the show.

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, Good question. I guess we just tell people and send e-mails to whatever blogs we read or talk radio we listen to?

If you visited BH a lot, you'd have heard of him. Beyond that, the problem is that he's not a guy who's going to go on television and start screaming "I'm surrounded by dirty socialists!" So he doesn't tend to get the headlines.

Hopefully though, he will start getting more attention!

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I think that's right. You will never find anyone you agree with all the time (except Commentarama of course!), so what you're looking for is just a comfort level that the person generally believes what you believe, i.e. that his instincts and beliefs are truly conservative and that he will act on those rather than political expediency.

Let me give you two examples by comparison. Trump managed to say a lot of the right things.... but it's obvious that he's not a conservative, that he doesn't understand or believe in conservative policies, and that there isn't a principle he wouldn't sacrifice for publicity. So even if he said all the right things, you know you can't trust him. Hence, he's out.

Or look at Newt. Newt has done a lot of very good conservative things. And you know he's a conservative by instinct and intellect. BUT, you also know that Newt wants to be loved and will easily sacrifice his beliefs if he thinks it will get him positive attention from someone like Pelosi.

Thus, while Newt is mentally correct, he can't be trusted. And while Trump is orally correct, he's mentally wrong and can't be trusted. I get the sense from McCotter that he is both mentally correct and trustworthy that he will walk the walk. So even if I disagree with some of what he's done, I still get a huge comfort factor that I can trust him to do the right thing most of he time and all of the time when it's truly important.

That to me, is the real key in picking a candidate. If you can't get that feeling from the person, then don't trust them with the keys to the White House.

On Red Eye, that would be funny if it became a springboard for higher office! LOL! Seriously though, I think its format will be excellent training for the kind of wit that can devastate an opponent in a debate -- a wit that Obama just doesn't have.

DUQ said...

Andrew, Excellent analysis. I definitely like what I see, I hope he catches on.

One question: what would be a mess about the 14th Amendment?

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks DUQ. Let's hope.

On the 14th Amendment, the problem is that rights don't exist in a vaccum, i.e. they aren't just theoretical. So imagine a lawsuit by an unborn black child arguing that a state hospital has discriminated against the child on the basis of race because white birth survival rates are higher and calling for "equal" treatment.

Or even worse, if you declare an unborn child/fetus a person with equal rights under the 14th Amendment, then suddenly the child would theoretically have rights to refuse medication, right to sue to stop mistreatment (e.g. a mother who smokes or drinks), etc. Could you imagine having to appoint a guardian just to see a doctor?

This one is just too problematic.

Ed said...

Ron Paul without the crazy! Lol! I'm there!

Seriously, nice review and thanks for filling us in. I like most of what I see here and I can forgive the parts I don't. This makes me very happy.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I'm glad you approve!

I think that description is very apt. McCotter and Paul's economic theories have a lot in common, though McCotter doesn't jump into the conspiratorial stuff, which is where the crazies hang out.

AndrewPrice said...

Also, Ed, McCotter clearly is not an isolationist, which is another of Paul's issues. Isolationism does seem to fit with limited government, except that this is not an ideal world. And if we don't try to improve the world to be more compatible with Democracy and freedom, then we will end up losing our Democracy to a never-ending string of wars. You have to face bullies down before they decide they can take you.

Anonymous said...

You did not come near his votes on unions. He is not conservative when it comes to unions and seems as though he buckles to their pressure.

AndrewPrice said...

Anon, Yeah, I forgot to cover that. Sorry.

First, as I note, he's not conservative on all issues, nor do I agree with him on all issues. I do like the overall McCotter. But let me also stress that we're not endorsing anyone at this point, we're just looking everybody over.

Secondly, he is from the Detroit area and does seem to be a pro-union Republican.

Third, he still only gets a lifetime 36 rating from the AFL-CIO, which isn't a ringing pro-union endorsement.

That said, he did vote for card check before repudiating his vote. And he has opposed repeal of the Davis Bacon Act -- something I would love to see repealed.

So add that to the list for your consideration.

Writer X said...

I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

Thanks, Andrew.

AndrewPrice said...

You're welcome Writer X!

Ed said...

Andrew, I agree with you about Paul v. McCotter and I think this will turn into an interesting question whether Paul's fans are more crazies or more Libertarians? I really like the way McCotter is pushing small business and the individual rather than large business.

Ed said...

Also, I think isolationism is a horrible, short-sighted policy. If you don't shape the world, it shapes you.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I'm not sure you can make a direct comparison in that manner. Paul and McCotter overlap in some areas, but not in others. And it's hard to say what attracts people to one or the other. In other words, I don't think we can take support (or lack of support) for McCotter as evidence of anything related to Paul. But it's an interesting thought.

On the isolationism, yeah, it's always better to control your own destiny than to hope other people get it right. I think the history of isolationism has been that it leads to military action to correct things that could have been nipped in the bud.

That said, I don't think adventuring is a good policy either. That's why I like the idea of supporting democracy movements to get these countries on the right course rather than sending in US troops to pick up the pieces later.

Anonymous said...

Nice work! I'm glad to see Thad get a little love from other people. Vote for Thad!

AndrewPrice said...

Anon, Thanks. For the record, we're not endorsing anyone at this point. Our goal is just to inform people about the pros/cons of each candidate.

T-Rav said...

To address Ed's question, I've met Paul fans before. I'm going to go with crazy over libertarian. Without a doubt, McCotter's the more lucid one.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I've argued with my share too. It took about two minutes before I was accused of being on the Fed payroll or working secretly for the Bildberger Group. Heck, I wish. I could use the cash!

So while I won't say that all of Paul's fans are crazies, because they aren't -- he makes some great points and has some smart supporters, I will say that a large chunk of them are not great with reality.

And if you're one of these people, then yes, I am under your bed typing this right now. You should vacuum more. . . it's dusty down here.

911 Operator said...

Mr. Ron Paul Supporter, we've traced Price's IP address and the posts are coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!!

AndrewPrice said...

Oh T_Rav, You make it very hard for me to maintain my neutrality when you get me poking fun at crazies. . . must. . . not. . . add. . . to attacks. . . . on crazies. . . . must be good. . .

Anyway, my IP is untraceable, I'm using a CIA line that goes directly through dental work snuck into people's teeth while they sleep so that I can implant my comments directly in people's heads! :-)

Seriously though, if anyone thinks I'm under their bed.... then I probably am.

Koshcat said...

You're not under my bed cause I looked. Thanks for your work. I didn't know much about Thaddeus but now I'll keep my eyes and ears out. Just because one is a republican doesn't make you automatically anti-union. I don't have a problem with the average union guy. He is just using tools available to him (collective bargaining) to improve his negotiating position. I do have a problem with ALL government unions and they should be eliminated. I also have a problem with some of Unions themselves and their fascist ways of supporting only one party, especially when their members are often split.

Will Michigan's problems hang like an albatross around his neck even if he had nothing to do with them? Certainly the deems will try.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, Glad to hear I'm not under your bed! LOL!

You're welcome on the article.

I agree about unions. Being Republican does not necessarily mean being anti-union. Indeed, I have nothing against individual union members and I think unions once served a valuable purpose in this country.

That said, I do think they pushed that too far and they've become corrupt organizations that neither care about their membership, the community, the companies or the country. And I think their choosing to support only Democrats also makes then viable political targets who should be treated as partisans.

And while I certainly support the right of workers to form unions if they have the power, I absolutely oppose (1) the government picking a winner between unions and companies and (2) any government-employee unions.

On McCotter, keeping an eye/ear out is good. As I've said several times in this series, my goal is to present information to let people make informed decisions -- not to make a decision for you. So everyone should just consider these articles as starting points and keep looking and listening.

On Michigan, I'm sure the Democrats will try to blame the near-collapse on him, but I doubt anyone will buy it. I have never heard anyone who thinks of Michigan as a Republican bastion.

I actually think he'll have a harder time winning the nomination than he would winning the Presidency if he won the nomination. I think the Democrats would struggle against him and Obama would look like a rank amateur by comparison. The trouble is going to be in the nomination, where he's short of money and name recognition and where his record does contain things you can attack. In fact, I've already seen people at other sites saying things like "he supported the GM bailout, I want no part of him." I don't accept that rational, but I recognize that it is a problem he faces which some of the others don't.

Ironically, that kind of thinking will lead to the selection of someone who basically has no record -- which is taking a huge gamble as to how they would react when issues arise.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Thanks for the skinny on McCotter, Andrew!

I sure wouldn't be upset if he gets the GOP nomination.

"Stem Cells/Cloning: He opposes stem cell research and human cloning."

Question: does that include adult stem cell research? Which, despite what lefties were saying, has proven far more beneficial (and without bad side effects) than fetal stem cell research.
There is a distinction.

Man, I'm glad he's against the ethanol bamboozle!

And I'm always happy when a candidate doesn't use the idiotic phrase: "compassionate" conservative.

For one thing, conservativism IS already compassionate. It doesn't need to be qualified, as if it wasn't compassionate in the past.

And we definitely don't need to start copying lefties and making up new jingoistic phrases that are, at best, meaningless and misleading.

Just plain talk, please. Say whay you mean and mean what you say.

AndrewPrice said...

USS Ben, You're welcome!

On stem cells, I'm not 100% certain, but I believe it was just embrionic stem cells.

I'm happy about the ethanol thing too. Republicans need to start opposing all government subsidies, not just the ones the left likes. There is no reason taxpayers should be paying for the production of ethanol, which is not a clean fuel, is not an efficient fuel, and causes the price of food to skyrocket!

The "compassionate conservative" thing is solid proof that the person claiming the label doesn't understand conservatism and is willing to wrongly throw the rest of us under the bus to gain favor with the left. I don't trust anyone who uses that phrase.

I couldn't agree more about plain talk. We need someone who says what's on their mind and says it openly and honestly without trying to spin or hide their opinions. One thing that is driving me nuts with talk radio (as you've seen in prior articles) is that they are falling for whoever screams "socialist" the loudest even if that person has no idea what they are talking about. It's time conservatives wised up and stopped letting themselves be fooled by empty-suit demagogues.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Speaking of Ron Paul, he is also anti-semetic.
Perhaps not "Jimmy Carter anti-semetic and I love the Jordanian/Egyptians who call themselves Palestinians" but he's definitely no friend of Israel.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Paul is a conundrum. He's a brilliant man and we have a lot to thank him for -- specifically getting the Republicans to stop being big-spending Democrat-lite and getting people to see the importance of changing business as usual. But he's got serious problems too.

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. Ben, I'm thinking of doing Paul next -- next week some time.

patti said...

i am becoming hooked up with a LARGE conservative twitter network. this article is getting retweeted! gotta get his name out there.

AndrewPrice said...

Great! Thanks Patti! I encourage everyone to spread the word about any of the candidates they like. Now is the time to look these people over before we go voting for people we don't know! :-)

Ed said...

Andrew, I'm looking forward to the Paul article. I don't know much about him, but I always hear he's crazy. I can't wait to see what you come up with. So far, your entire series has been surprising and has definitely changed my views on several candidates. So, thanks!

Ed said...

Ben, I hate that phrase too. Conservatism is compassionate, it just doesn't steal money from taxpayers to entrap poor people in benefits programs. I hated the phrase the moment Bush said it and I hate it today.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I'll give him a fair shake. I've been doing my best to be fair with all of them, though some of them had made that very difficult. As I say above, there are good and bad things about Paul and I'll try to find them all.

CrispyRice said...

Andrew, Thanks for the advice! I'll e-mail everyone I know about McCotter.

I keep trying get C-rama mentioned on my local radio show, but I haven't succeeded yet. :D

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, You're welcome. And excellent! Keep spreading the word! :-)

Anonymous said...

It is embryonic stem cells only.

AndrewPrice said...

Anon, Thanks for the info. Do you happen to have a link?

AndrewPrice said...

Anon, It is embryonic stem cells only. I found it. Thanks. Here's a link to some of the positions he's taken:

On the Issues

Doc Whoa said...

Andrew, I've been too busy to comment lately, but I did want to say great work on this series. I learned a lot, both good and bad about these candidates and you've done a valuable service. Right now, McCotter is the guy I'm leaning toward, with Pawlenty in second place. Keep up the good work!

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Doc! I'm glad you like the series. Frankly, I've been surprised too. I think it's been a very useful exercise as I'm definitely zeroing in on the candidates I prefer (and on those I don't).

Anonymous said...

Thad represents my district and I love him. He would be an incredible President.

M BAUMAN said...

Far and away the most competent candidate, current or prospective.
As for name recognition, nobody knew who Abraham Lincoln was before Cooper-Union, either.
If this nation isn't rational enough to elect this man president,there's no hope for us.

AndrewPrice said...

Anon, Glad to hear it.

AndrewPrice said...

M Bauman, I think the lack of name recognition is only a problem in the primary. Once a candidate wins the primary, they will automatically get name recognition. I also think the lack of name recognition can be overcome with stellar debate performances. So let's hope he excels in the next couple debates. He should, he's very good at public speaking.

In terms of the country electing him, I'm pretty sure they would elect him over Obama in a landslide. The real question is, are the Republicans smart enough to see that?

Anonymous said...

I love Thad! Woot woot! Thad for President!

AndrewPrice said...

Anon, Thanks for commenting.

Post a Comment