Election 2008: Health Care and Marriage Hot Button Issues

My recent quest to find a Republican candidate for President that I can support, has ended in anger and frustration. I’ve never been one to vote Democrat, being a Catholic conservative, but lately I feel as though not a single cadidate on either side of the party lines, is worthy of the Presidency. Senator Barack Obama not included. I actually like him, yet I have issues with his issues on abortion.

While John Edwards is busy campaigning for President (and wife Elizabeth battles cancer), Rudy Giuliani welcomes the idea of his wife, Judith, sitting in on White House Cabinet meetings and other policy discussions should he be elected President.

The Washington Post reports that Giuliani, former New York City mayor, told Barbara Walters during the 20/20 interview if Judith wanted to, and the meetings "were relevant to something she was interested in" he would be very comfortable with the idea.

Guiliani is currently leading the Republican party very early in polling. He said his wife is very important to him and one of his most important advisers. Judith Giuliani is a nurse and she said she may play a role in creating and developing a health care plan in the Giuliani administration.

I'm having an episode of deja vu. The "Hillary Care" fiasco of 1993 springs to mind, as well as many questions.

In a campaign where candidates John Edwards and Mitt Romney willingly explain their families' health issues (and it almost seems to work for their political agendas), is it okay to allow a president to bring in his wife to create policy in government? Will "Judy Care" be any better than Hillary Clinton's attempt, which was well received by liberal politicians and many Americans who said health care was the most important issue facing the country?

Health care is potentially the number one problem and concern in our country. Millions of families and children and elderly, are without basic health insurance.

The plan created by Hillary Clinton in 1993 seemed like a sure thing, able to pass through the Democratic-controlled Congress, but conservatives and libertarians, and the insurance industry criticzed Clinton's "Health Security" plan, claiming it was overly bureaucratic and restricted patient choice.

One would think Judith Giuliani working in the health care field would bring a certain advantage to Giuliani's campaign. She looks good on paper, but can she walk the talk?

With the recent tabloid release of her marital history, will Americans be able to trust her? Both Rudy and Judith have been married three times and divorced twice. While a marriage "rap sheet" shouldn't be used as a bias, conservative Americans may be quick to write off any serious campaign efforts, claiming the Giulianis have no family values.

Rudy Giuliani admits he's not perfect and makes mistakes. Honesty is always the best policy, but in a presidential election, admissions such as these tend to create skeptic voters. If we look back on recent history, marital discourse in the White House isn't something Americans take lightly.

Giuliani isn't the only Republican candidate to be married three times. New Gingrich has also had marital troubles and has been accused of having an affair with a woman during the time of the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. Only recently, during a conservative talk radio interview did Gingrich respond bluntly, "Well the fact is that the honest answer is yes."

Getting my ducks in a row, Arizona Senator John McCain is the third candidate with a record of marital troubles. During his first run for the White House he stated, "Let me say that I am responsible for the breakup of my first marriage."

As a conservative myself, I find it hypocritical the way certain Republican, conservative politicians (Gingrich), are playing with fire.

Like health care, the "sanctity of marriage" is a hot button issue with Americans, mainly on the conservative right.

Many Republicans and conservatives are against gay marriage (Giuiliani and McCain being the exceptions in this race) and yet these same politicians participate in extra-marital affairs and head quickly to divorce court.

I feel like my values are bing mocked. It's okay to cheat on your husband or wife, but it's not okay to allow gay marriage? Hypocrisy.

Former President Bill Clinton is looking like a saint now, in comparison. Sure, he cheated, but he stayed married! The irony...

2008 may be the first year I do not vote at all and that, my friends, is another issue.

Posted by Dana J. Tuszke at April 2, 2007 11:49 AM
Comments
Comment #214706
I feel as though not a single cadidate on either side of the party lines, is worthy of the Presidency.

Join the club Dana. There’s a whole heap of folks that think the same way.
Fact is neither party has run a candidate worth voting for the last 50 years.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 2, 2007 5:23 PM
Comment #214711

It’s still real early yet, the season got off to a very early start this time, Myself i am hoping some dark horse comes up from the outfield.. once its closer to season and less time to smear his or her name, for most rational persons i, myself would not want to be out in the running so early the flash in the pan wears off and too long to fend off attacks from either side.

Posted by: Rhancheck at April 2, 2007 6:04 PM
Comment #214713

Congratulatiions! You now know that the Republican Party is not in favor of family values. As you say, they are against gay marriage but in favor of cheating on their wives. The whole family values thing was just a way to get religious people to vote Republican.

Some Democrats are religious and some are not. But we all believe in helping the poor and the unfortunate. This is why healthcare is a big thing with us. This is also why we fought Bush on his attempt to get rid of Social Security.

Obama is a fresh face. He disagrees with you on abortion, but I believe he and you agree on many other moral issues. Obama wants to unite the country, not divide it. Why not check him out?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at April 2, 2007 6:15 PM
Comment #214717

Dana,

The two best candidates running today are Richardson on the left and Huckabee on the right. I believe either of those two would be willing to compromise enough to move the nation forward.

Others that don’t scare the hell out of me include Biden, Thompson, Dodd, and Hunter. While they may hold strong personal-political opinions they all know moderation is a necessity and I think they’d all put America ahead of their political party.

Any one of those six would be an immense improvement over what we’ve seen the past six-plus years. Hells bells, a trained monkey would be better than Bush & Cheney!

Posted by: KansasDem at April 2, 2007 7:07 PM
Comment #214724

paul

“Some Democrats are religious and some are not. But we all believe in helping the poor and the unfortunate. This is why healthcare is a big thing with us. This is also why we fought Bush on his attempt to get rid of Social Security.”

i would have to say a hand up is better than a handout.a handout seems to be the way you folks try to solve the problem of poverty. this only creates more and more people addicted to gov’t programs.

how about letting people put put money into savings acounts tax free, that can only be used to pay for health care. the last thing we need is another gov’t beaurocracy running health care. look how they waste all the tax money we give them already. thats what they need, more money to piss away. incase you haven’t noticed the most inefficient way to run anything is to let the gov’t do it.

ah, social security. so bush wanted to rid of it ehh. i don’t think so. all he tried to do was let younger workers use a small portion to invest’ in order to give them a chance to earn a better return on it then they get through soc. sec. of course that would have taken some of the money out of the control of the politicians in washington, and we can’t possibly have that.

Posted by: dbs at April 2, 2007 8:17 PM
Comment #214728

Dana,

A presidential candidtate is not your Uber Pastor for the US.

If you are a true conservative you are probably for things like smaller government and less spending. Fiscal Responsibility and balanced budgets. You most likely want a FIX for social security and Medicare which are in a huge mess and badly broken. You may want to see the boarders secured so some terrorist doesn’t just stroll across the boarder to attack us and millions of Illegals stop just walking in and taking jobs US citizens should be able to have. You most likely are pro-business and for a free market economy that raises our standards of living rather than for the socialist society the left wants to turn us into and which has failed the world over. Sweden is cutting benfits, so it can cut taxes and try to revive it’s socialist economy.

Yet despite that, you focused in your post on a divorce and possible mential health of a mans wife. They kind of crap that liberals are tossing at Republicans day in and out. Funny coincidence you, too, are doing the same thing.

Unfortunately, the democrats who have been in office for 1/4 year now have made no movement to shrink government, no movement to cut spending, no movement to fix social security, no movement to fix medicare, no movement to secure the boarder. No movement to support our free market, business economy.

Democrats are clearly failing just as the Republicans failed. So what’s a conservative to do? What they always do, vote for candidates that most closely align themselves with our agenda. Or vote for the candiate we feel will do the least damage.

Clearly liberals are gloating over the posibility that there may be no truly conservative Republican candiates running and that they might be able to discourage the right and defeat them….sound familiar…to you?? ;-)

Posted by: Stephen at April 2, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #214734

Welcome to my world. I am a moderate, (fiscal conservative/social liberal) I look at candidates on both sides and am depressed. They all suck (I am being nice).
No one wants to acknowledge the problems let alone deal with them. We don’t need sound bites, and that is all we seem to get. The liberals do not want to work on the problems due to the fact they don’t find them that big of a deal or they think they are not problems. The conservatives want to shove their point of view down my throat. Guess I will be voting 3rd party again this year.
To be honest with you I could vote for a conservative (fiscal kind, social kind if they don’t try to legistrate it) if they actually practiced what they preached. If conservatives would have cut government when they cut taxes you would not have lost the last election. If your president could have found his veto pen people might have actually supported him.
Right now we have hiporcrites on both sides of the isle.
Not voting is your option but a beter option is to take your vote and cast it in favor of a third party. This will make your party start paying attention to you again. The I don’t come free, you have to back your clames up. Vote for the liberatarian, the green or just any other third party. A good idea is to vote for the 3rd party you don’t believe in to get them enough support that it will pull support off of the Dems and make them compete for the very liberals. If enough of us do this then we will end up with a viable 3rd party. One that is for the liberals, one for the conservative and one for the middle of the road. Enough of my rambling my kids want me to pay attention to them.

Posted by: timesend at April 2, 2007 9:33 PM
Comment #214739

Wow Stephen, a whole 1/4 year and all the problems arent fixed! what a shock! Who would have thought that it would be like this a whole 1/4 year into a small dems margin in the house and senate. Gosh It just .. what can ya say..

Posted by: j2t2 at April 2, 2007 10:12 PM
Comment #214740

“ah, social security. so bush wanted to rid of it ehh. i don’t think so. all he tried to do was let younger workers use a small portion to invest’ in order to give them a chance to earn a better return on it”

dbs,

You’re clueless! It would only bankrupt Social Security faster. Check out EPI’s guide to Social Security:

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguide_socialsecurity

Of course you won’t bother to read for several hours and look at the truth.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 2, 2007 10:13 PM
Comment #214742

“the democrats who have been in office for 1/4 year now have made no movement to shrink government, no movement to cut spending, no movement to fix social security, no movement to fix medicare, no movement to secure the boarder. No movement to support our free market, business economy.”

Stephen, take out the freaking /!

The Republican’ts took over the house in 1994. They took over the Senate in 2002. How damn long do you want to bankrupt the freakin’ nation?

You sound like a silly-ass shrill little school girl crying about having her pig-tails dunked in ink! Ohhhhh, ohhhhhh! Those nasty Democrats have had a whole four months to straighten out the world, ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, my pee-pee might leak!

Posted by: KansasDem at April 2, 2007 10:28 PM
Comment #214747

I think the big problem here is that since Reagan got into office many Republicans have convinced themselves of the dangerously erroneous idea that most Americans do not need conservativism sold to them, that it’s simply self-evident.

The republicans have butchered and hamstrung their moderate appeal. The values conservatives argue over the personal lives of candidates, the fiscal conservatives insist on tax most Americans have the feeling are either unnecessary or even excessive in our fiscal envirornment, and the free market libertarians are failing to realize just how much people are crying out for the Government to start breaking heads in the business world.

The Republicans cannot get back to winning, if they do not know who they must appeal to, and are not willing to make the compromises or sales jobs necessary to convince the moderates of their policies.

More than that, though, no amount of ideological sales jobs will work if they cannot lived down and put behind them the mistakes and corrupt behavior that lost them the last election.

They can continue to tell themselves they lost because they weren’t conservative enough, or they can realize that it was moderation they lacked.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 2, 2007 11:02 PM
Comment #214748

KansasDem

who was it that originaly took social security out of its own fund so they could use it for other things.

http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=25127

if you want to blame someone for the shape social security is in look at your own party.

Posted by: dbs at April 2, 2007 11:19 PM
Comment #214762
yet I have issues with his issues on abortion.

That’s because you don’t understand that Democrats are trying to abolish abortion by making it unnecessary, rather than just pass a feel-good law making it a crime, sweeping it under the rug and never dealing with the root causes.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2007 2:09 AM
Comment #214775

“That’s because you don’t understand that Democrats are trying to abolish abortion by making it unnecessary”

I don’t understand that either. Would you explain how they are doing that?

Posted by: insensitive at April 3, 2007 8:00 AM
Comment #214782

insensitive, I think AP is talking about the comprehensive sex ed and safe sex programs the Democratic Party supports implenting.

Posted by: Warren P at April 3, 2007 9:07 AM
Comment #214792

“insensitive, I think AP is talking about the comprehensive sex ed and safe sex programs the Democratic Party supports implenting.

Posted by: Warren P at April 3, 2007 09:07 AM”

If that is what he is talking about, he is blowing smoke. We all know sex education and safe sex programs won’t stop unwanted pregnancys nor abortions.

Posted by: insensitive at April 3, 2007 9:57 AM
Comment #214828
Health Care and Marriage Hot Button Issues
My opinion is that those will be the issues in the Republican primary race, Only. The majority of Americans couldn’t give a crap anymore about who slept with or screwed over who. They (we?) are more interested in reparing the damage of the last 6 years, getting out of Iraq, stabilizing the housing market/sub-prime mortgage fiasco, reducing the deficits (trade and budget), etc… You know, real issues of substance.
We all know sex education and safe sex programs won’t stop unwanted pregnancys nor abortions…Posted by: insensitive at April 3, 2007 09:57 AM
Actually, those programs do exactly that. They don’t stop sex however. You must be thinking of Abstinence programs. Those have shown to be completely useless, in all categories. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 3, 2007 1:35 PM
Comment #214831

Dana:

I’ve never been one to vote Democrat, being a Catholic conservative…

Perhaps you should be voting for a Democratic candidates if you actually support the FULL RANGE of Catholic social teaching, not just the extremely limited portion affirmed by so-called Republicans; there’s a lot more to Catholic social teaching than just abortion and same-sex marriage…how about worker’s rights, living wage, primary option for the poor???:

CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING AND THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES 2004

Posted by: Rachel at April 3, 2007 1:49 PM
Comment #214833

insenstive: The “we all know…” line of your post is pure unChristian fundamentalist ideology and has no basis in empirical fact.

In 1950, the year of my birth, 3.5 of every 5 first pregnancies were unwanted and half of those unwanted pregnancies were medically terminated (assuming your consider kitchen table abortions a medical procedure). In 2005 (the last year for which stats are available), only 1 out of every 4 first pregnacies was unwanted and less that 10% of those pregnancies were terminated. Sounds to me that knowledge has beaten the “ignorance is bliss” school of thought. Also, of note, is the rate of abortion to live births has continually decreased since 1973. While data from the pre-Roe, coat hanger abortion period is difficult to to measure, the data is clear that the rate of abortions has continued to decline from its heights in the the late 1940s.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at April 3, 2007 2:05 PM
Comment #214841

It’s worthwhile to note the two broad backgrounds from which presidential candidates typically emerge: a legislative career or an administrative career. Candidates coming out of the national legislature have long histories of votes, speeches, records that reveal conciliation and compromise. These histories provide easy material to the opposition (“I voted for funding before I voted against it” (another version of the bill)). Candidates coming out of an administrative career typically were governers running as “outsiders” with a much smaller public record of votes and speeches. It all works heavily against candidates coming out of the Senate or House.
It’s a shame, really, as there are many fine candidates running this year out of the disadvantaged group: Hagel (probable), McCain, Biden, Clinton, Tancredo, and, I guess Obama. All of these would be immeasurably better then the disaster we have had over the last seven years.

Posted by: Charles Ross at April 3, 2007 2:29 PM
Comment #214845

Even without these issues this election is a joke. I’m sick of social issues and religious issues driving national politics. This is not a theocracy and religious views should stay in church. Rather than marital status isn’t a plan for Iraq, health care, social security, etc… more important? These candidates are so busy pandering to interest groups that they say nothing, and likely will do less in office. The family value discussion doesn’t distinguish candidates, it just lines Jim Dobson’s pockets. Give me a candidate who will ignore gay marriage and give me a health care plan that works.

Posted by: Kylan King at April 3, 2007 2:44 PM
Comment #214850

“Give me a candidate who will ignore gay marriage”

Then Obama isn’t your man, he doesn’t favor gay marriage. Damn right wing nut he is.

“and give me a health care plan that works”

Why not find one yourself? Myself and millions of others have.
Or are you of the crowd who believes “free” health care is a Constitutional right so you don’t have to do it, govt does?

Posted by: kctim at April 3, 2007 3:06 PM
Comment #214853

“We all know sex education and safe sex programs won’t stop unwanted pregnancys nor abortions…Posted by: insensitive at April 3, 2007 09:57 AM

Actually, those programs do exactly that. They don’t stop sex however. You must be thinking of Abstinence programs. Those have shown to be completely useless, in all categories. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 3, 2007 01:35 PM”

I’m not dumb enough to say that sex education don’t work, or that safe sex programs don’t work. If you followed the posts you could put what I said in the proper context. What I said was that these programs would NOT make abortion unnecessary. Are you saying that the democratic policies will make abortions unnecessary?


Posted by: insensitive at April 3, 2007 3:22 PM
Comment #214857

kctim, the term “health insurance” is really misleading. There is nothing on this earth that can insure your health. More accurate would be to call it “asset insurance”. If you have no health insurance and scant assets you will receive as good of care as you demand either by signing up with one of the government sponsored plans or walking into an emergency room and demanding care. So for instance all those hundreds of thousands of walmart employees who turn down the “health” insurance that is offered, they are making a rational economic decision. They are being offered something that they have to pay a substantial amount for that offers very little to them as they have little in the way of assets and net worth.
Look at what is going on here with the debate over market competition Vs single payer, healthy low-risk Vs Sick, high-risk, even young Vs. old: Medicare is an entity that is not in competition with private health care insurers but a supplement to them; Simply put, Medicare takes all the insurees that private insurers don’t want!!! The elderly and the disabled.
All a proposal to have a single payer is going to do is to bring healthy, young people (and their money) into the system that supports not only them but the elderly and the disabled too.
What is going on now is just a very large privatize-the-benefits (seek out only healthy people to insure) Vs. socialize-the-cost (dump/avoid high risk and the elderly by dumping them into either Medicare or state-funded programs.)
I was recently turned down for health insurance because my total cholesterol was 220, 20 points above desirable. It was suggested to me by them that I apply for a state managed health care policy. (the real reason of course was that 20+ years ago I had a cancer that was very expensive to treat, but it would have been illegal for them to use health history that old so they just jumped on any anomaly they could find in my recent history)

kctim, do you get the picture?

Posted by: charles Ross at April 3, 2007 3:44 PM
Comment #214861

insensitive;

I don’t know where you’re going with that one.

If you avoid a pregnancy, then there is no abortion, it’s unnecessary. Are you looking for 100% effective? Banning abortions was never remortely effective, it only killed mothers as well as embryos. The only way to end abortion is to remove the stigma and 100% support the mothers to be and the babies or stop unwanted pregnancy.

At least the programs the democrats are aligned with are demonstrably effective, unlike abstinence and legislated morality, which are demonstrably not effective.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 3, 2007 4:15 PM
Comment #214862

“I don’t know where you’re going with that one.

If you avoid a pregnancy, then there is no abortion, it’s unnecessary. Are you looking for 100% effective? Banning abortions was never remortely effective,”

Where I was going was to tone down AP’s remark which seemed to imply that the dem’s plans would make abortion unnecessary. Do you think the dems have such a plan? Will the current sex education and safe sex programs do it? I don’t think so.

Being insensitive as I am, I don’t give a rat’s ass who gets an abortion. I am looking for a little honesty in the comments from all sides.

Posted by: insensitive at April 3, 2007 4:38 PM
Comment #214967

Charles Ross
I don’t think you see where my disagreement with “universal healthcare” comes from. I am against it not because of fair competition, but for our freedom of choice and our individual rights.

“All a proposal to have a single payer is going to do is to bring healthy, young people (and their money) into the system that supports not only them but the elderly and the disabled too”

It will bring them in even if they do not wish to come in, correct? Just like social security.
In both cases, people should be allowed to decide for themselves which path they wish to take. Let govt do it for them or do it themselves.
We should not be punished for being responsible.

Posted by: kctim at April 4, 2007 9:06 AM
Comment #215127

“legislated morality”

Oh my god.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 5, 2007 5:40 AM
Comment #215128
We should not be punished for being responsible.

Cross your fingers you’ll never have a genetic decease, then. You’re responsible for you gens, right?
Cross yours fingers you’ll never be hurt by someone else, then. You’re responsible for other people irresponsability, right?

What you call “punishement” used to be called mutual solidarity. I know that in your individualist world, it’s a weird concept. Cross your fingers you’ll never be forced to leave it, my determinist lover.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 5, 2007 5:49 AM
Comment #215135

You may have more issues than you think when you are forced to wear a burka and lose your rights to sharia law.

He is the wolf in sheeps clothing and many voters are being lead slobbering to their slaughter.

The real danger is in the fact that each elected offical today think they have all power and do their own thing to the peril of our security.

This war against Radical Islam is one we did not choose or can we quit. There is only victory for one side or the other and with Americas microwave oven instant gratification mentality, we may be heading into the history books. Americans are a ‘week’ minded people who have no resolve to sustain their freedoms and way of life.

Our DIM leaders get into office because Conservatives stayed home and it may well have sealed our coffins.

Posted by: im at April 5, 2007 8:25 AM
Comment #215150

Too bad there’s no ‘imgnore’ button on blogs…Ever hear of ativan?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 5, 2007 9:35 AM
Comment #215152
You may have more issues than you think when you are forced to wear a burka and lose your rights to sharia law.

So, until this charming days comes, let’s continue to turn your eyes the other side to not see that one million of people have no healthcare at all?

Doomed days are coming, no need to worry about healthcare issue anymore, problem solved.
Thanks, it was so obvious I’m amashed I didn’t find *the* solution alone.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 5, 2007 9:55 AM
Comment #215174

PH

“You’re responsible for you gens, right?”

Um, yes. I am responsible for my own well being.

“You’re responsible for other people irresponsability, right?”

Not at all, which is why national healthcare is wrong and unfair in a free country.
Now, if anothers irresponsibility harms me through an accident, then I guess I had better be ready for that chance huh. Good thing I do plan, unlike most who figure govt will for them, and I do have a very nice sum saved up for such emergency.

“What you call “punishement” used to be called mutual solidarity”

Not in this country my friend.

Posted by: kctim at April 5, 2007 11:10 AM
Comment #215279

The reason we such wishy washy candidates is because they all feel the need to inclusive to the point where they really don’t believe in anything. Its all about not offending as many people as possible. As a result they don’t stand for anything.

As for those who are so uptight about keeping social and religious issues out of politics wheat you really mean is that we should keep social and religious issues that you happen to not like out of politics. For example thou shalt not steal and thou shall not kill are right out of the 10 commandments but I suspect you would still want those issue addressed by our politicians.

While I am less than thrilled with the choices at hand I suspect that if the election were held today I would vote Giuliani. I disagree with many of his positions but he seems to be able to get things done and I like the idea of Steve forbes being in his corner.

Posted by: Carnak at April 5, 2007 8:31 PM
Comment #215338
For example thou shalt not steal and thou shall not kill are right out of the 10 commandments
You do know that those “commandments” are in nearly every religion there has ever been, right? That those “commandments” have been around before there were thocratic religions. There remains no need for religion in politics. There remains no need for religion to solely define morality. There remains many reasons to not have gov’t define or be involved in either. As for Giuliani, at least he’s above Sharpton as a Democratic candidate. (Which is better than w was in ‘04) Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 6, 2007 11:01 AM
Post a comment