On March 26 2012 21:57 Doublemint wrote: Well of course he does - after all he is a politician and can´t please everybody - especially with his foreign policy(and big chunks of his economic policy). But just as an example of how the seeding out of "bad" candidates is done he works rather well.
Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't communicate his ideas very well. Rather than appearing to be on the cutting of edge of many issues (which he is), he more often than not comes off as a crazy old uncle. I'm interested in seeing how Rand Paul does by comparison.
Well, let's hope he inherited the most important Paul trait.... to pander and mean it.
So far, it looks like Rand does.
Just as an interesting tidbit, a lot of people have openly wondered whether Ron Paul's lack of attacking Romney is a sign that there is an agreement in place to have Rand be Romney's VP.
That would actually be a brilliant move to unite the party, as both Pauls are pretty huge figures of the tea party movement. And "conservatives" would have to get behind Romney as well if they want to have a chance against Obama. And common sense might get a chance once again if all this bullshit rhetoric driven by talk radio and the fringes will stop or at least get less attention. Hey, one can dream - right?
I thought you said Paul was of no interest whatsoever? Is that Romneyspeak I detect?
I think we can agree that a Ron Paul Presidency is out of the question, let alone a nomination. The only way he can still make a "difference"(if we still have some idealists here :D ), is that he helps Romney who is the most promising candidate for the Reps - even after all his flip flopping. I would say this potential scenario would make the race for the presidency pretty interesting
Stop me if you’ve heard this attack: There’s a presidential candidate out there who wants high gas prices to force the government to finally increase regulations on cars, persuade Americans to stop driving those beastly SUVs, nudge people toward clean electric cars — all with the goal of combating climate change. And don’t even think about lowering gas taxes to help car owners out at the pump: That’s just a gimmick. Take a moment and guess which politician is behind these positions.
If you guessed Mitt Romney, you are correct. And his long history of enviro-friendly rhetoric during past surges in gas prices is proving awkward as he slams the White House for taking similar positions today.
The best example yet is probably an audio clip dug up by Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, purportedly from a 2007 town hall, that contains in just two minutes just about everything Republicans hate about Democrats on energy.
In it, Romney is asked how he feels about requiring higher fuel-efficiency standards from car companies. He says he would consider them, explaining that the government has not required high enough efficiency standards in recent years and that loopholes encourage people to drive SUVs. Not only that, he’s rooting for high gas prices to help get the job done.
“The CAFE requirements have not worked terribly well over the last 20 years in part because they haven’t applied to trucks, so America has moved more and more to trucks and SUVs,” Romney said. “So the average fuel economy over the last, I think it’s 20 years, has been almost flat. I’m hopeful that with $3 gasoline being charged by Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad and Putin and others that you’re going to see Americans slowly but surely move to vehicles that are far more fuel efficient and you’ll see our manufacturers start competing on the basis of fuel efficiency.”
Today Romney proudly touts his opposition to fuel efficiency standards on his website, telling one conservative radio host that car companies’ woes came after “the government put in place CAFE requirements that were disadvantageous for domestic manufacturers.”
Sources revealing that Romney is a flip-flopper and a manipulative politician are probably redundant now. I don't think there's anyone on either the left or the right who doesn't know what a hypocrite he is. I'd say that awareness accounts for at least 20% of Santorum's popularity.
On March 26 2012 21:57 Doublemint wrote: Well of course he does - after all he is a politician and can´t please everybody - especially with his foreign policy(and big chunks of his economic policy). But just as an example of how the seeding out of "bad" candidates is done he works rather well.
Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't communicate his ideas very well. Rather than appearing to be on the cutting of edge of many issues (which he is), he more often than not comes off as a crazy old uncle. I'm interested in seeing how Rand Paul does by comparison.
Well, let's hope he inherited the most important Paul trait.... to pander and mean it.
So far, it looks like Rand does.
Just as an interesting tidbit, a lot of people have openly wondered whether Ron Paul's lack of attacking Romney is a sign that there is an agreement in place to have Rand be Romney's VP.
That would actually be a brilliant move to unite the party, as both Pauls are pretty huge figures of the tea party movement. And "conservatives" would have to get behind Romney as well if they want to have a chance against Obama. And common sense might get a chance once again if all this bullshit rhetoric driven by talk radio and the fringes will stop or at least get less attention. Hey, one can dream - right?
I thought you said Paul was of no interest whatsoever? Is that Romneyspeak I detect?
I think we can agree that a Ron Paul Presidency is out of the question, let alone a nomination. The only way he can still make a "difference"(if we still have some idealists here :D ), is that he helps Romney who is the most promising candidate for the Reps - even after all his flip flopping. I would say this potential scenario would make the race for the presidency pretty interesting
He's already made a difference, by serving as the lone voice of dissent against many of the modern Republican talking points in televised debates.
On March 26 2012 21:57 Doublemint wrote: Well of course he does - after all he is a politician and can´t please everybody - especially with his foreign policy(and big chunks of his economic policy). But just as an example of how the seeding out of "bad" candidates is done he works rather well.
Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't communicate his ideas very well. Rather than appearing to be on the cutting of edge of many issues (which he is), he more often than not comes off as a crazy old uncle. I'm interested in seeing how Rand Paul does by comparison.
Well, let's hope he inherited the most important Paul trait.... to pander and mean it.
So far, it looks like Rand does.
Just as an interesting tidbit, a lot of people have openly wondered whether Ron Paul's lack of attacking Romney is a sign that there is an agreement in place to have Rand be Romney's VP.
That would actually be a brilliant move to unite the party, as both Pauls are pretty huge figures of the tea party movement. And "conservatives" would have to get behind Romney as well if they want to have a chance against Obama. And common sense might get a chance once again if all this bullshit rhetoric driven by talk radio and the fringes will stop or at least get less attention. Hey, one can dream - right?
Unfortunately for Paul fans, this simply isn't going to happen. There's no way to field a Republican presidential ticket without something to appear to the evangelical wing of the party, which is much larger and more active than the libertatian wing. Even the Tea Party, which is branded as a fiscal conservative/libertarian movement, is primarily populated by religious/social conservatives. No matter what you think of Ron Paul as a politician or even as a potential president, it would be a disasterous political choice. A Romney/Paul ticket is one of the few things that could push southern states to vote democratic for the first time in generations, to say nothing of what it would do in "swing states."
Like it or not, the Republican party is patrially dependent upon religious conservatives. The party has spent the last ~30 years milking them for votes, and now it's stuck with them. I happen to think a Republican party that consists of a coalition between the current business/establishment types and libtertarian members would be a stronger party in the long term (also a much more natural pairing), but that's not what we're looking at today.
On March 26 2012 21:57 Doublemint wrote: Well of course he does - after all he is a politician and can´t please everybody - especially with his foreign policy(and big chunks of his economic policy). But just as an example of how the seeding out of "bad" candidates is done he works rather well.
Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't communicate his ideas very well. Rather than appearing to be on the cutting of edge of many issues (which he is), he more often than not comes off as a crazy old uncle. I'm interested in seeing how Rand Paul does by comparison.
Well, let's hope he inherited the most important Paul trait.... to pander and mean it.
So far, it looks like Rand does.
Just as an interesting tidbit, a lot of people have openly wondered whether Ron Paul's lack of attacking Romney is a sign that there is an agreement in place to have Rand be Romney's VP.
That would actually be a brilliant move to unite the party, as both Pauls are pretty huge figures of the tea party movement. And "conservatives" would have to get behind Romney as well if they want to have a chance against Obama. And common sense might get a chance once again if all this bullshit rhetoric driven by talk radio and the fringes will stop or at least get less attention. Hey, one can dream - right?
Unfortunately for Paul fans, this simply isn't going to happen. There's no way to field a Republican presidential ticket without something to appear to the evangelical wing of the party, which is much larger and more active than the libertatian wing. Even the Tea Party, which is branded as a fiscal conservative/libertarian movement, is primarily populated by religious/social conservatives. No matter what you think of Ron Paul as a politician or even as a potential president, it would be a disasterous political choice. A Romney/Paul ticket is one of the few things that could push southern states to vote democratic for the first time in generations, to say nothing of what it would do in "swing states."
Like it or not, the Republican party is patrially dependent upon religious conservatives. The party has spent the last ~30 years milking them for votes, and now it's stuck with them. I happen to think a Republican party that consists of a coalition between the current business/establishment types and libtertarian members would be a stronger party in the long term (also a much more natural pairing), but that's not what we're looking at today.
You're crazy if you think that southern conservatives and evangelicals would vote for anyone other than the republican ticket, regardless of who Romney picks as his VP. They might stay home depending upon how excited they are to vote Obama out of office, but they aren't voting for Obama.
On March 26 2012 21:57 Doublemint wrote: Well of course he does - after all he is a politician and can´t please everybody - especially with his foreign policy(and big chunks of his economic policy). But just as an example of how the seeding out of "bad" candidates is done he works rather well.
Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't communicate his ideas very well. Rather than appearing to be on the cutting of edge of many issues (which he is), he more often than not comes off as a crazy old uncle. I'm interested in seeing how Rand Paul does by comparison.
Well, let's hope he inherited the most important Paul trait.... to pander and mean it.
So far, it looks like Rand does.
Just as an interesting tidbit, a lot of people have openly wondered whether Ron Paul's lack of attacking Romney is a sign that there is an agreement in place to have Rand be Romney's VP.
That would actually be a brilliant move to unite the party, as both Pauls are pretty huge figures of the tea party movement. And "conservatives" would have to get behind Romney as well if they want to have a chance against Obama. And common sense might get a chance once again if all this bullshit rhetoric driven by talk radio and the fringes will stop or at least get less attention. Hey, one can dream - right?
Unfortunately for Paul fans, this simply isn't going to happen. There's no way to field a Republican presidential ticket without something to appear to the evangelical wing of the party, which is much larger and more active than the libertatian wing. Even the Tea Party, which is branded as a fiscal conservative/libertarian movement, is primarily populated by religious/social conservatives. No matter what you think of Ron Paul as a politician or even as a potential president, it would be a disasterous political choice. A Romney/Paul ticket is one of the few things that could push southern states to vote democratic for the first time in generations, to say nothing of what it would do in "swing states."
Like it or not, the Republican party is patrially dependent upon religious conservatives. The party has spent the last ~30 years milking them for votes, and now it's stuck with them. I happen to think a Republican party that consists of a coalition between the current business/establishment types and libtertarian members would be a stronger party in the long term (also a much more natural pairing), but that's not what we're looking at today.
You're crazy if you think that southern conservatives and evangelicals would vote for anyone other than the republican ticket, regardless of who Romney picks as his VP. They might stay home depending upon how excited they are to vote Obama out of office, but they aren't voting for Obama.
I'm really surprised that you managed to straw man me and call me crazy for a position I never argued and do not hold. I am, of course, kidding. That's exactly what I expected from you.
Southern states "voting democratic" doesn't mean evanglicals will vote for Obama. If I had expected confusion on this point, I would have clarified that I meant almost exactly what you said - that evangelical voters will stay home. This, combined with the fact that many southern states have large Aftican American and Latino populations (both of which vote democratic), means that weak evangelical support for the Republican candiate creates an oppening for Democrats to take southern states.
I could have said all that in my last post, but I can't really take the time to write a book every time I post just because you're going to argue against the worst possible interpretation of whatever I say. I couldn't possibly hope to include enough specificity, clarification, and caveats to force you into honest discussion.
Don't you need them to vote for Republicans in order to win swing states?...
From outside it looks a bit like the current Republican Party is a combination of bit conservatism and a lot of crazy (evangelicals, tea party, libertarians). It's hard to keep such a mixed party together, because honestly I really can't see fitting libertarians together with evangelicals...
btw. a side question, i was always wondering, why ron paul as a libertarian is against abortion (or maybe i did hear it wrong). Is he just a market libertarian and a social conservative?
On March 27 2012 07:37 Szordrin wrote: Don't you need them to vote for Republicans in order to win swing states?...
From outside it looks a bit like the current Republican Party is a combination of bit conservatism and a lot of crazy (evangelicals, tea party, libertarians). It's hard to keep such a mixed party together, because honestly I really can't see fitting libertarians together with evangelicals...
btw. a side question, i was always wondering, why ron paul as a libertarian is against abortion (or maybe i did hear it wrong). Is he just a market libertarian and a social conservative?
He was a doctor who supposedly birthed 4000 babies or some crazy number like that before becoming a Congressman, so I imagine that has something to do with it.
On March 27 2012 07:37 Szordrin wrote: Don't you need them to vote for Republicans in order to win swing states?...
From outside it looks a bit like the current Republican Party is a combination of bit conservatism and a lot of crazy (evangelicals, tea party, libertarians). It's hard to keep such a mixed party together, because honestly I really can't see fitting libertarians together with evangelicals...
btw. a side question, i was always wondering, why ron paul as a libertarian is against abortion (or maybe i did hear it wrong). Is he just a market libertarian and a social conservative?
Republicans need the evangelical vote if they want to win swing states, especially states like Pennsylvania or Ohio.
As far as the your point about holding such a diverse (in opinions/ideology, not really in terms of demographics) party together, you should know that there's a big different between parties in European-style parlimentary systems and something like the electoral system we have. In the American system, having more than 2 parties is unsustainable over the long term. Generally, one or both of the major parties absorb key portions of any major 3rd party's platform, thus making the 3rd party irrelevant and draining it voter/money pool. Some parties are able to exist in the long term, but they're really just there to help set the agenda of a major party. There's no real hope for them to win an election. At least that's the text book answer. It practice it's a little more messy.
This means that American parties are much less ideologically pure than parties in parlimentary systems, and sometimes create awkward coalitions within a party. The libertarian vs. social conservative (evangelical) coalition within the Republican party is one such pairing.
As far as the Ron Paul question goes, he's not really a pure libertarian. Sure, he holds a lot of really libertarian views, but he's more of a strict constitutionalist. This means that a lot of things he thinks the federal government has no business dealing with are perfectly fine for the states to handle. He's personally pro life (anti abortion), thinks the federal government has no business in keeping it legal or illegal, and thinks states should have the right to keep it legal or outlaw it (I believe he'd like states to outlaw it, but I can't think of a specific place where I've seen him say it, so I'm unsure). It's a complicated but consistent postion, and there's historical precedent for this sort of thinking within the Republican party (at least since the 1960s).
On March 27 2012 07:37 Szordrin wrote: From outside it looks a bit like the current Republican Party is a combination of bit conservatism and a lot of crazy (evangelicals, tea party, libertarians). It's hard to keep such a mixed party together, because honestly I really can't see fitting libertarians together with evangelicals...
This combination has won more elections than it's lost since 2000.
From a policy perspective, though, it's tough to be the party of less government spending when a) you lean heavily on senior citizens b) you lean heavily on socially conservative poor parts of the country that are propped up by fiscal transfers c) you believe we need to outspend the rest of the world combined on the military.
But the coalition will hold as long as libertarians are willing to vote for a party that gives lip service to small government. The social conservatives and neocons are getting what they want.
I think libertarians could get something closer to what they want if they could somehow band together with young people (or at this point, people under 40) who are liberal socially and moderate economically, as well as minorities/immigrants who are wary of the police state, and create a platform based on civil libertarianism with reduced-but-not-eliminated state role in the economy (probably a government that provides some services and regulations but has greatly scaled back the direct wealth transfers). It would be a compromise, but less of one than what they're making with the current GOP.
The fact that people could think that he would actually say this is pretty damning. I mean it is hilarious but also disconcerting because he probably does hold similar views. He is a scary scary man and I for one hope he doesn't come close to the nomination.
I've said it before but I swear he sounds like the motivational speaker from Donnie Darko.
On March 27 2012 13:27 Defacer wrote: My hope is that Republicans get absolutely destroyed this election so they have to re-evalutate their entire approach to campaigning.
Not happening, regardless of how much Obama wins by.
The GOP will almost surely gain seats in the Senate in 2012 (enough to claim a majority? that's more questionable) and the House of Representatives distribution so far has been predicted to stay about the same. With the success Republicans had in state legislatures and governors' races 2010, they now have a very favorable set of congressional districts until 2022, enough that I would be surprised if the Democrats retake the House before 2022 regardless of how national trends go in the meantime. Likewise, in 2014 Senate elections will be the same seats that were elected in 2008, which was a strong year for Democrats. Tough to see them making any gains in the Senate until 2016.
Whereas it is widely accepted that Obama is simply a stronger candidate than anyone the GOP is fielding this year even without taking ideology into account. To an extent, a presidential loss can be blamed on the candidates themselves as much as their ideologies.
The worst-case for the GOP for the next 8 years is divided government. That's not incentive to change.
I don't see social conservative pandering surviving much more than 10 years however.
On March 27 2012 13:27 Defacer wrote: I want Santorum to win.
My hope is that Republicans get absolutely destroyed this election so they have to re-evalutate their entire approach to campaigning.
I've been saying that to my friends who are interested in politics for a while now. Santorum's relative success as a candidate is the result of the Republican party's political tactics over the last few decades. They've been appealing to an ever-shrinking base of religious conservatives, playing on their fears and prejudices. It's taken these voters a while to realize that they have actual power within the party, and they're starting to use it. The chicken has come home to roost, and it's wearing a sweater vest.
A Santorum nomination, however unlikely, might be enough to shock the party into reinventing itself (honestly, the fact that he's been this successful should be enough). In spite of a massive win in 2010, the Republican party remains fractured, disjointed, and alltogether weak. This isn't just bad for the party. It's bad for everyone. Even if you'd never vote Republican, we all benefit from serious, thoughtful, consistent opposition. In order to have a healthy electoral system, we need 2 strong parties. Right now we barely have one.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/303372_2518056130545_1827515045_1528236_1702048467_n.jpg)
