Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on February 22, 2012, 07:33:24 PM
-
Ann Coulter has been backing Romney for a couple of months now, or perhaps longer. In today's column she made the strongest case for him so far, and I thought it was pretty impressive.
Unless she's twisting the facts, what am I missing?
The column is here (http://www.anncoulter.com/).
-
In regards to his platform*, Romney has the best one. I'll give him that. And that's if he even means half of it, or hell, he means all of it, but it gets corrupted by both reality and the "inside the beltway bubble", as these things always do, he's still probably the best candidate now.
The only two things I take issue with in her article is she engages in some serious handwavium by calling "Romneycare the sate level conservative alternative" that would have prevented Obamacare. That's utter bull*expletive deleted*, other than I guess it might be easier to kill off in red states once they saw it wasn't working.
I am mindful that St. Reagan used to be a democrat, and he did some seriously un-conservative things during his tenure as Governor of California, at least in terms of RKBA if nothing else, in response to panic over the Black Panthers etc. But therein lies my second complaint. Even if Romney's conservative bona-fides are TRUE, he completely lacks Reagan's ability to sell them.
Maybe he is "so outside the establishment" that the pat conservative buzz-words don't roll off his tongue, even if he really truly does mean them from a policy standpoint. If that's the case, he's even more deeply flawed in the cosmetic sense to make a gut-level emotional connection with the electorate than Perry's inarticulate performances at the debates.
I'm certainly liking Romney more than Santorum right now, or perhaps, more correctly, despising him less... Santorum, who seems bound and determined to scare away the "squishy middle" where national elections are won/lost by convincing them all that he'd love to ban all contraception and make everyone pump out 20 kids like the Duggars+, even if they're already in the productive class and married in a traditional nuclear family. And all the while, he's the one candidate with the record and positions on record to get the LGBT-WTF-BBQ crowd and sympathetic leftists so enraged it helps overcomes the "enthusiasm" gap that Obama currently suffers.
I do think Coulter's support for Romney is somewhat hollow, and borne more of a desire for the Republican party to focus and move forward on defeating Obama than anything else.
If Romney should get the nomination, and if he should win POTUS, and if he should more or less stick to his platform and a Republican house and senate stand ready to pass it, then the Republicans and America will be damned lucky. More lucky than we've any right to be. And of course, that's the proverbial "lot of IF's"...
(*Not counting Ron Paul, who's platform is deep-sixed by his inability to filter his 9/11 and AWOT messages into an acceptable form)
(+Yes, I know Santorum claims these are just his personal views and wouldn't pursue them as policy, but herp derp... that's not what everyone is HEARING when he says that.)
-
I am mindful that St. Reagan used to be a democrat, and he did some seriously un-conservative things during his tenure as Governor of California, at least in terms of RKBA if nothing else, in response to panic over the Black Panthers etc. But therein lies my second complaint. Even if Romney's conservative bona-fides are TRUE, he completely lacks Reagan's ability to sell them.
And Reagan's ability to work with both sides of the aisle to get his agendas accomplished. Something that is all too forgotten these days.
-
And Reagan's ability to work with both sides of the aisle to get his agendas accomplished. Something that is all too forgotten these days.
It was on the wane, but there was still some semblance of patriotism and "America before the party" left in the DNC in those days for Reagan to work with. It pretty much died in the 90's with the defending of Clinton, and when it became about winning at all costs through Faustian Socialism, mainly due to all the folks who were college age in the 1960's reaching their 40's and having worked their way up to Federal politics. =|
-
It was on the wane, but there was still some semblance of patriotism and "America before the party" left in the DNC in those days for Reagan to work with. It pretty much died in the 90's with the defending of Clinton, and when it became about winning at all costs through Faustian Socialism, mainly due to all the folks who were college age in the 1960's reaching their 40's and having worked their way up to Federal politics. =|
I would actually like to think that both parties should be like this. The good of the country first should be the guiding principle. Agreement on what is good for the country is the sticking point, though.
-
Back in the 80's Texas was still dominated by the Democrat party at least locally. At that time, there were still a lot of conservative minded politicians in the Dem party. I don't think those guys are there anymore. Texas went through a transition from the late 80's to late 90's from majority Democrat in state offices to majority Republican.
-
No mention of Ron Paul in that article....if Romney is such a conservative, why not compare him to Paul?.....
-
If Paul is such a conservative, why doesn't he have my vote?
-
If Paul is such a conservative, why doesn't he have my vote?
Something about this is NOT convincing...........................
-
Anne Coulter's push for Romneycare? :P
Anyway, she's a great writer very convincing - she was all for Christie too.
She claims she just wants to end the Obama nightmare/Mitt is the only guy who can win.
It could be though that she thinks Mitt cant win and she knows she'll sell more books if B.O is there to rail against.
-
Everything considered Romney is our best shot--and probably only real shot--at taking the White House. There it is. How conservative is Romney? Let's hope we find out and that if he's not sufficiently conservative we find the will and means to push him rightward.
Sometimes I think Romney is too good for the American electorate as it exists in 2012. That could be the bitterest irony of this Election.
-
she knows she'll sell more books if B.O is there to rail against
Bullseye.
I can't take her seriously, she would argue in favor of a Moon-is-made-of-cheese theory fact with out batting an eye if it would get her air time and book sales.
Coulter is just a stone-faced, loud-mouthed individual that figured out how to rub the red team audience just right.
And Romney is the best shot at getting a white Obama, who in turn ended up being black Bush. A vote for any candidate the MSM purports to have the best chances of winning is a person that will continue down the same path we are going down now. Maintain the status quo. Sure, we might change from the left lane to the right lane, but it's still the same road to hell. All the core policies that enable the tail spinning free fall of the country will remain unchanged regardless.
If you want to see change in direction you need massive unabashed voter insurrection to debase the two pillars of political power that have grown in parallel, not feel good merry-go-round nonsense.
-
If Paul is such a conservative, why doesn't he have my vote?
If you're such a conservative, why doesn't Paul have your vote?....
-
I think Coulter supports Romney solely because she bought into the "electability" meme. If it came out tomorrow that he was actually a cultist who ritually sacrificed children to the Great Old Ones she'd try to spin that as proof he wouldn't scare away the folks with devout religious beliefs. She's become the epitomy of The Cause > than anything. Reminds me of the leftists who roast Santorum for insensitive comments, and ignore Daily Kos boy and Keith Olberman dismissing OWS rape victims. Hard to take her seriously since she's started whoring for her man.
-
When I see Ann Coulter I always think of Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct. A lot of amp but too much vamp. That said, I think she's right about Romney. He's the best we can get WITHIN THE PROCESS AS IT IS.
No one says we can't work outside the process.
-
Bullseye.
I can't take her seriously, she would argue in favor of a Moon-is-made-of-cheese theory fact with out batting an eye if it would get her air time and book sales.
Coulter is just a stone-faced, loud-mouthed individual that figured out how to rub the red team audience just right.
Hit the nail on the head with this! =D
-
If you're such a conservative, why doesn't Paul have your vote?....
That's a win on several levels!
-
That's a win on several levels!
It's the APS "Oh SNAP!" of the year, for sure. =D
-
If you're such a conservative, why doesn't Paul have your vote?....
He's not good enough for me.
-
He's not good enough for me.
Why not? Bad hair? Old suit? Didn't push for single-payer health care?
-
Everything Noonan and Coulter write is suspect to me these days.
Same goes for Rove and Krystol.
-
Personally, I've been pretty suspicious of Dave Barry.
-
"Trust no one, not even me, litle marmoset."
~Herod to Claudius
-
Personally, I've been pretty suspicious of Dave Barry.
As well we all should be. Someone who can write those 'year in review' columns would have great power if he turned to the Dark Side. [tinfoil]
-
Why not? Bad hair? Old suit? Didn't push for single-payer health care?
Ron Paul is the Republican Party writ small. Like the Republican Party, he has some great ideas. Like the Republican Party, he's pretty good in theory. Like the Republican Party, he disappoints when it comes down to it.
I wish I could believe in him. Here he is, this guy with all this integrity. All these great positions on so many things. But in the clinch, he fails. The GOP fails because the leadership either doesn't really embrace the platform, or just can't/won't fight for it. Paul believes in his platform, and fights for it, but doesn't realize that looking like the right man for the job is as important as being that man. Or maybe he knows how bad he looks, but he's doing the best he can. Regardless, he fails as a presidential candidate.
Not that I would do any better. And in fairness to Paul, he does seem to have popularized his ideas to a great extent. He just hasn't shown himself to be the guy to implement them.
I hope Rand will do a better job.
-
If you're such a conservative, why doesn't Paul have your vote?....
My problem with Paul is that he has a lot of good idea's and I'm right there with him on them. The first 3/4 or so of what he says has me going right along with it. My problem is that last 1/4.
-
My problem with Paul is that he has a lot of good idea's and I'm right there with him on them. The first 3/4 or so of what he says has me going right along with it. My problem is that last 1/4.
As oppossed to Romney? I agree with only 1/10 of what Romney says, and I'm not sure I can believe him on that much.
Everything considered Romney is our best shot--and probably only real shot--at taking the White House. There it is. How conservative is Romney? Let's hope we find out and that if he's not sufficiently conservative we find the will and means to push him rightward.
Sometimes I think Romney is too good for the American electorate as it exists in 2012. That could be the bitterest irony of this Election.
I think trying to influence a president, once in office, is next to impossible for us mere mortals. At best, public polls will push a president to speak words of appeasement. Once the furor dies down, the president will go right back to his agenda.
-
Ron Paul is the Republican Party writ small. Like the Republican Party, he has some great ideas. Like the Republican Party, he's pretty good in theory. Like the Republican Party, he disappoints when it comes down to it.
I wish I could believe in him. Here he is, this guy with all this integrity. All these great positions on so many things. But in the clinch, he fails. The GOP fails because the leadership either doesn't really embrace the platform, or just can't/won't fight for it. Paul believes in his platform, and fights for it, but doesn't realize that looking like the right man for the job is as important as being that man. Or maybe he knows how bad he looks, but he's doing the best he can. Regardless, he fails as a presidential candidate.
So, you're saying "presidential hair" is more important than substance? Did you vote for Obama as well? He was certainly more polished and "presidential" than McCain. Obviously that's more important to you than ideas. [popcorn]
Chris
-
Most likely I'll go into the polling place, vote my conscience instead of the lesser of two evils and then as I'm leaving I'll metaphorically "shake the dust of my feet".
I've never believed in big government statism yet I've felt compelled over the years to vote for candidates who advocate it under the lesser of two evil/incremental change formulation.
If it weren't for the Supreme Court picks of GWB I might actually agree with the left about how horrible a president he was, those SC picks are my only solace.
For years the Supreme Court (and the courts in general) were the epicenter of transformational change. The epicenter has moved, it is now the imperial presidency that is driving change.
If I must vote for a king, then I will vote for an old frumpy libertarian who has no desire to rule.
-
So, you're saying "presidential hair" is more important than substance? Did you vote for Obama as well? He was certainly more polished and "presidential" than McCain. Obviously that's more important to you than ideas. [popcorn]
Chris
Yeah, I was talking about hair. That's exactly what I meant. I like Ron Paul, except for the hair.
-
Yeah, I was talking about hair. That's exactly what I meant. I like Ron Paul, except for the hair.
Hair, personal style, ability to dress fashionably, take your pick. You did specifically state looks, not substance, were important to you.
I wish I could believe in him. Here he is, this guy with all this integrity. All these great positions on so many things. But in the clinch, he fails...Paul believes in his platform, and fights for it, but doesn't realize that looking like the right man for the job is as important as being that man. Or maybe he knows how bad he looks, but he's doing the best he can. Regardless, he fails as a presidential candidate.
I hear Mitt has nice hair and is a snappy dresser. ;)
Chris
-
Hair, personal style, ability to dress fashionably, take your pick. You did specifically state looks, not substance, were important to you.
I hear Mitt has nice hair and is a snappy dresser. ;)
Chris
As a citizen of a state with a governor with world-class hair and not overly burdened with substance, I feel qualified to address this.
fistful has the better point. "Attractiveness" attracts more voters. The best idea-man is an ineffectual failure if he can't get elected and enact those ideas. And, never forget that, in addition to half the population being of less than mean intelligence, half the population is of greater than mean shallowness. They like their policritters shiny.
That is reality. Acknowledging it is not some sort of moral failing.
Misrepresenting the other argument, "You did specifically state looks, not substance, were important to you," versus "Paul believes in his platform, and fights for it, but doesn't realize that looking like the right man for the job is as important as being that man," doesn't help your case.
"Vote for Governor Goodhair"
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.a2politico.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F08%2Fperry.jpg&hash=0fa24e9632bbf0cde156bd2b5fa46fd42570cf0f)
"Great hair, and empty head, and a willingness to stay out of the way of the private sector."
-
On the left, "Chia Perry." On the right, uh, the guy who ran against him last time and lost.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpegasusnews.com%2Fmedia%2Fimg%2Fphotos%2F2010%2F09%2F20%2Fthumbs%2FPerry_White.jpg.728x520_q85.jpg&hash=470ddf3d73dc35ba0d204317f9adacdf37ba9e86)
-
I loved to tell liberals I couldn't vote for John Kerry due to his hair, and all the money he spent on it.
-
As oppossed to Romney? I agree with only 1/10 of what Romney says, and I'm not sure I can believe him on that much.
Not saying I agree with him either, of the crop running none particularly inspire me. Cain had a glimmer but fizzled out, and I still haven't a concrete opinion of just who is the best up there. Goodhaired RHINO in chief, big spending preacher in chief, philanderer in chief, and kooky old guy in chief. Which one I really think would do best has been ebbing and flowing.
Frankly, given the political climate of the country, the fact this is the best the republicans could muster is down right depressing.
-
Ron Paul is the Republican Party writ small. Like the Republican Party, he has some great ideas. Like the Republican Party, he's pretty good in theory. Like the Republican Party, he disappoints when it comes down to it.
How has he disappointed? Seems like he's stayed consistent to message for decades....certainly longed than the GOP has....
-
How has he disappointed? Seems like he's stayed consistent to message for decades....certainly longed than the GOP has....
That's great, but did he win 4 years ago? No. Is he going to win this year? No.
Disappointment.
Roo_ster,
Thanks for backing me up, but I wasn't actually talking about his physical appearance.
-
That's great, but did he win 4 years ago? No. Is he going to win this year? No.
Disappointment.
Roo_ster,
Thanks for backing me up, but I wasn't actually talking about his physical appearance.
;/ Your crystal ball tell you this?
-
That's great, but did he win 4 years ago? No. Is he going to win this year? No.
Disappointment.
He won't win if you don't vote for him..... ;/
-
He won't win if you don't vote for him..... ;/
Yup. Too bad he's not more vote-worthy. =|
-
Yup. Too bad he's not more vote-worthy. =|
What specifically makes him unworthy of your conservative vote? And which of the other candidates is worthy of your conservative vote?
-
All have flaws; rely not on leaders. They should be representative. We need listeners, not leaders.
-
What specifically makes him unworthy of your conservative vote?
First of all, the racist comments that he allowed to go on in his newsletter. YMMV, but I have a very low tolerance for racism coming from people on my side. Perhaps it's a personal failing, but it just puts me off. Four years ago, he refused to divest himself of a donation from a out-and-out racist. I still remember that.
Paul wants to end the Federal Reserve system. Well, I'd like to know more about that, but so far that seems like a very bad policy to me.
The Golden Rule foreign policy - no thank you. If I understand correctly, he holds to the dangerously insane idea that we dare not sit in judgment of whether other nations have nukes. I hope that is not true.
Like I said, I agree with him on all manner of things. The disappointment arises mostly with his failure to be a good candidate. I wish he could be, but it doesn't look hopeful. I do think he has popularized small government ideas, and he deserves a lot of credit for that.
And which of the other candidates is worthy of your conservative vote?
Paul, Santorum and Newt all have their deep and abiding flaws. In the primary, I will probably vote for one of the latter two. For the general, I will vote for any of the three, just not Romney.
-
So... on one hand, Ron Paul allowed some racist comments to be printed in his newsletter (to what extent this racism is inpermissible), and is against the Federal Reserve, and is an anti-interventionist.
On the other hand, Ron Paul supports the abolition of all Federal gun laws, drug laws, regulations on food, drugs, milk, the environment, opposes abortion completely, opposes the graduated income tax.
Good to know you have your priorities straight.
-
Actually, I said that Paul wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve and would impugn our prerogative to keep nukes out of the wrong hands, and I pointed out a pattern of tolerating racism in his own ranks.
If it's priorities you want, how about Paul's priorities? He keeps running for president, but he's more worried about being right than about showing himself to be a competent leader. So he argues about our past foreign policy decisions, and comes off as a hand-wringing, frustrated policy wonk, rather than the guy who will lead us out of the problems we currently have (regardless how they began). In so doing, he's let us down. He simply isn't the guy we need right now, at least not in the White House.
Is national defense a top priority of our government? Paul's foreign policy is one of rainbows and unicorns. That shouldn't be important to me?
On the other stuff, yeah, Paul is against a whole bunch of stuff. So am I. So is Palin. So is Santorum. Yah for us.
-
Yes. Believers in individual liberty should find it far more important than national defense.
There are not hordes of Nazis or Soviets trying to destroy the United States, where you might - as conservatives once did - postpone mercilessly eliminating the welfare state so we can instead build a coalition around fighting the Soviets. No, Ron Paul advocates the complete reverse: postpone fighting the illiterate Afghan goatherds, focusing instead on an assault on the welfare state as our chief enemy. Not a single other candidate is for that.
This is the difference between Ron Paul and the three other candidates.
Ron Paul stands not even so much for specific budget plans [although he has them], but for the idea that we should immediately go for the jugular of the modern state, and attempt to kill it. Not "starve the beast" over pointlesss years, while thousands of drug war/war on guns inmates wither away in prison. Pardon the victimless-crime inmates on day one and return them to their families, their rights fully restored. Attack, attack, attack, driving as fast as you can towards the schwerpunkts of the welfare state - attacking the very existence of its key institutions.
Not a single other candidate will do this. Santorum explicitly opposes this, and Romney cannot name a single cabinet-level agency he will destroy.
There is not a choice between a Goldwater conservative who will smash up the Islamic terrorists and also restore the constitution, and Ron Paul. Such a person is not running, and AFAIK the only such person was Goldwater. There is only a choice between Ron Paul and three candidates who have other priorities other than restoring the Republic.
-
Yes. Believers in individual liberty should find it far more important than national defense.
You fail right out of the gate. Believers in individual liberty should find it as important as national defense. I would be surprised if Ron Paul would disagree with me on that.
We disagree on priorities, as you have observed. So that's that.
And you may have faith in Ron Paul accomplishing all of those things through presidential power. I do not. I also find it contradictory to the portion of his platform in which he bemoans the enlarged powers of the president.
-
I read a few excerpts of the old
Ron Paul Lew Rockwell Murray Rothbard newsletters and wondered "Where's the beef?"
Racism sure ain't what it used to be.
-
Personally, I find our romping around the middle east killing people and breaking things to be several degrees separated from our "National Defense".
Iraq was a stretch but I followed as it was the natural consequence of Gulf War 1. GWB's slow disengagement from Afghanistan was something I was happy about, the sooner we got out of there the better was my opinion. Secretly I thought to myself when Obama was elected "at least he will get us out of Afghanistan". Little did I know how wrong I was.
Somewhere along the line the term "National Defense" has been conflated with ANY military action our Federal Government decides to take.
I'm done giving these jackwagons my consent (vote) to kill folks on the other side of the planet and by extension endanger our citizens who have chosen to stand in the gap for me ie. soldiers.
I would like to see a US military disengagement start taking place around the world. All the while making it clear to those who would be our enemy that we will be less active but re-adopting a total war stance against those who attack us or are allies.
-
Personally, I find our romping around the middle east killing people and breaking things to be several degrees separated from our "National Defense. "
Was that supposed to be a response to moi?
-
Was that supposed to be a response to moi?
More generically to all those who find Ron Paul's distaste for military adventurism somehow an abrogation of support for a strong national defense.
-
More generically to all those who find Ron Paul's distaste for military adventurism somehow an abrogation of support for a strong national defense.
Oh, not me then. =)
-
The problem as I see it, is even if we argue for the need for a global interventionist policy to keep America safe is a given, and 100% accepted for the sake of argument...
We still have to be able to pay for it.
And America's ability to "throw money at the problem" has been our #1 key strategic and tactical asset since WWII. It's ultimately how we defeated the Soviet bloc. And more so now than ever, as conflict continues on the double trend of ever more technical, and ever more asymmetrical warfare, our ability to develop new responses is key. (and it co$t$ us dearly) Simply marshaling our natural resources in industrial meat-grinder war as in WWI and WWII, supported on our internal economy only is probably never going to happen again.
Paul's geopolitical and military stances may make us vulnerable.
Anything other than a slash-n-burn restructuring of the fed.gov, our spending, and our monetary policy is guaranteed to leave us vulnerable.
-
I read a few excerpts of the old Ron Paul Lew Rockwell Murray Rothbard newsletters and wondered "Where's the beef?"
Racism sure ain't what it used to be.
This. Have you read any of the "racist" newsletters Fisty? Even taken wildly out of context as the pundits enjoy doing, it's about as "racist" as the average call for an end to illegal immigration or affirmative action.
-
This. Have you read any of the "racist" newsletters Fisty? Even taken wildly out of context as the pundits enjoy doing, it's about as "racist" as the average call for an end to illegal immigration or affirmative action.
It has become an "established fact" the same way it is an "established fact" that the candidate who has won the fewest elections is "most electable," Newt is the smartest critter running, and Santorum wants to outlaw rubbers & plays with dead babies for kicks:
Repetition, consumption, regurgitation.
Note, "cogitation" is not in that ^^^ mix.
-
Roo_ster: the mockery of Santorum's way of mourning his child is unwarranted. Dunno if you've ever had a child die, but someone's method of mourning and coping say little about them. I also note that what he did is in fact a common and even recommended thing to do.
Note: I can't stand Santorum and wouldn't vote for him. But "he handled the death of his child differently than I would have" is hardly a substantiative criticism.
-
Roo_ster: the mockery of Santorum's way of mourning his child is unwarranted. Dunno if you've ever had a child die, but someone's method of mourning and coping say little about them. I also note that what he did is in fact a common and even recommended thing to do.
Note: I can't stand Santorum and wouldn't vote for him. But "he handled the death of his child differently than I would have" is hardly a substantiative criticism.
It was not I who mocked the death of the Santorums' child. The lefties, MSM, and pro-abortion harrows sure had a field day deriding Santorum & family for their actions rather than just aborting the child ASAP and sending her out with the biomedical trash.
More generally, my list consisted of conventional wisdom that looks more like lazy groupthink than wisdom by my estimation.
-
This. Have you read any of the "racist" newsletters Fisty? Even taken wildly out of context as the pundits enjoy doing, it's about as "racist" as the average call for an end to illegal immigration or affirmative action.
Well, here's one that I perused.
http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-political-report-special-issue.html?m=1
Paul knew this was a problem, so why did he keep that racist's money 4 years ago? Does this guy have any intention of winning?
-
And you may have faith in Ron Paul accomplishing all of those things through presidential power. I do not. I also find it contradictory to the portion of his platform in which he bemoans the enlarged powers of the president.
On the contrary, Ron Paul has stated - correctly - that using the pardon power to free federal victimless crimes inmates is within the President's power. So is canceling previous unconstitutional executive orders.
No, it is true, the President cannot kill the beast, but he can do it some serious injuries.
-
Well, here's one that I perused.
http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-political-report-special-issue.html?m=1
Paul knew this was a problem, so why did he keep that racist's money 4 years ago? Does this guy have any intention of winning?
Let us suppose, for the sake of hypothethicals, that Ron Paul personally dislikes African Americans and has written the newsletters (I do not believe either, for reasons that have been discussed by smarter and better people for only about five thousand times on the Internet).
Is it the job of the President to like African-Americans, Japanese-Americans, or any-other-Americans? Is his Oath of Office "I shall be non-racist"? No, his job is to protect the Constitution, and therefore the Constitutional rights of African-Americans and any other Americans.
Ron Paul is clearly more willing to do that job than Santorum, Romney, or Newt.
-
Well, here's one that I perused.
http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-political-report-special-issue.html?m=1
Paul knew this was a problem, so why did he keep that racist's money 4 years ago? Does this guy have any intention of winning?
Like I wrote, racism ain't what it used to be.
I recall the 1992 LA riots, and have read much of the social science quoted/alluded to in that article. My recollection of events and the social science at that time jibes with what he wrote. The author of the article is guilty of being insensitive and not kowtowing to leftist standards of PC & doublespeak.
"There is a certain meanness in the argument of conservatism, joined with a certain superiority of fact."
----Ralph Waldo Emerson
-
Let us suppose, for the sake of hypothethicals, that Ron Paul personally dislikes African Americans and has written the newsletters (I do not believe either, for reasons that have been discussed by smarter and better people for only about five thousand times on the Internet).
Is it the job of the President to like African-Americans, Japanese-Americans, or any-other-Americans? Is his Oath of Office "I shall be non-racist"? No, his job is to protect the Constitution, and therefore the Constitutional rights of African-Americans and any other Americans.
Ron Paul is clearly more willing to do that job than Santorum, Romney, or Newt.
The only quibble I have with that is the willing part. He doesn't seem all that eager to get the job.
-
The only quibble I have with that is the willing part. He doesn't seem all that eager to get the job.
He's running a campaign in multiple states for the office....what more do you need?.... :facepalm:
-
He's running a campaign in multiple states for the office....what more do you need?.... :facepalm:
The gravitas of Buddy Roemer.
-
He's running a campaign in multiple states for the office....what more do you need?.... :facepalm:
To win? To earn our trust by presenting himself as a guy who can lead, not just a guy who has opinions?
Was that a trick question?
-
So basically, "I won't vote for Ron Paul because other people don't vote for Ron Paul"?
-
Try, "I won't vote for Ron Paul (at least in the primary) because he has not earned my trust as a leader."
Hey, wait, that actually resembles what I said. :O
-
What exactly is that prize awarded for, in this case?
-
Huh?
-
What does that mean?
It clearly doesn't mean "he doesn't look Presidential enough".
What do you mean by it?
-
I've explained it before. Re-read my posts. And if that doesn't satisfy you, just chalk it up to the hair, and move on with your life. Is it that important to you that I don't think your favorite candidate shows the qualities of a good leader? Is he so far above reproach that you can't admit he has a few flaws? Like being OK with racist dweebs writing his political screeds and sending him well-publicized donations?
Look, maybe it's just me, and he's convinced enough people that he will win the primary. If not, then he loses, and he finally learns that he should have been a better candidate.
Then let Rand run in a few years. He'll probably do much better.
-
Are you saying that Paul would make for a worse leader than Romney or Santorum?.....
-
Everybody has flaws. This is a meaningless argument.
But the problem is, the three other candidates are maybe 75% flaw.
It's funny to me - and it's always been, not just in relation to Ron Paul - that when mainstream canddiates run we're told to overlook their "minor flaws" (consisting of basically being part of the machine), whereas where candidates like Herman Cain appear, the same people nitpick them over bizarre pseudoscandals.
And why do people like Rand Paul that much, I have no idea.
Here is my prediction: Rand Paul will never be President.
-
You don't fancy Rand Paul? Surprising, he strikes me as everything his dad isn't, in a good way.
-
You don't like Diet Coke? It strikes me like everything Coke isn't.
-
Are you saying that Paul would make for a worse leader than Romney or Santorum?.....
As a leader? Yes. There's a difference between having good policy and leading others in the execution of said policy.
-
As a leader? Yes. There's a difference between having good policy and leading others in the execution of said policy.
Point for Fistful on that one. I do have to agree with it. As far as I know, we've never seen how RP functions in an executive capacity. And to merely say "I think his policies and positions are right, and we need those positions/policies badly" does not answer the question.
I do sort of have this gut suspicion a Paul presidency could be a corrupt mess, where Paul has no ability to reign in folks running rough-shod over everything. A Paul presidency, poorly executed, could discredit Libertarian thought for a hundred years. Yes, I understand the "if we never try" counter argument that's inherent in that.
To which I reply with the "Ground up, run for dog-catcher first"-argument about the LP.
To which you reply with the "Free State Project, they already are"-argument
To which I reply, "Good, they should keep on doing that."
However, I'd still be willing to take a chance on a RP presidency. But I understand people's honest reservations, and it's not just some anti-Libertarian phobia.
-
My upcoming vote for Paul is every bit a negative vote against the status quo as it is a vote for him.
I refuse to give my consent to the cast of statist clowns running.
Since the Bush vs Clinton race I've sold out my vote choosing the lesser of two evils.
If a candidate doesn't promote liberty I'm not voting for them.
-
Leadership in and of itself is overrated. Good leaders (people who easily get people to follow) can take a nation of a cliff or into a World War and subsequent destruction if they don't have sound plans. Say what you will about his actions, Hitler was a gifted leader.
And Rand doesn't strike me as having the backbone Ron does, despite the relation. You will most likely never again get a more uncompromising and stalwart Constitutionalist. If you want to see real hacks and slashes to the Federal Government Ron Paul is pretty much the last viable chance. Someone needs to have the balls to hit the reset button because the system has clearly crashed.
-
You don't like Diet Coke? It strikes me like everything Coke isn't.
Meh. Rand may fail the libertarian ideological purity test, but he strikes me as far more likely to actually get something accomplished. How long has Ron Paul been in .gov, and what has he accomplished in that role? He's done a tremendous job popularizing libertarian thought, but in terms of actually changing laws etc he doesn't have a track record.
I'll take mostly right, and can get things done over %100 in line and ineffectual. Of course, I'm not an ideologically pure libertarian myself so it's even less of an issue...
-
If it came out tomorrow that he was actually a cultist who ritually sacrificed children to the Great Old Ones she'd try to spin that as proof he wouldn't scare away the folks with devout religious beliefs.
That'd get my vote.
-
Meh. Rand may fail the libertarian ideological purity test, but he strikes me as far more likely to actually get something accomplished. How long has Ron Paul been in .gov, and what has he accomplished in that role? He's done a tremendous job popularizing libertarian thought, but in terms of actually changing laws etc he doesn't have a track record.
I'll take mostly right, and can get things done over %100 in line and ineffectual. Of course, I'm not an ideologically pure libertarian myself so it's even less of an issue...
It has nothing to do with ideological purity - have you known me to be ideologically pure ? - but, as Blackenzy said correctly, about backbone.
-
It has nothing to do with ideological purity - have you known me to be ideologically pure ? - but, as Blackenzy said correctly, about backbone.
I'd love to know what in his record you find so cowardly and lacking in moral fibre. Links would be appreciated.
-
I'd love to know what in his record you find so cowardly and lacking in moral fibre. Links would be appreciated.
I don't find his record cowardly.
[I have questions about his support of NAGR, but that's not cowardly].
I don't think he'd be bad as President. He would probably be good.
But good is not AWESOME.
He's not yet demonstrated the sort of AWESOME Ron Paul has demonstrated, for years.
-
Awesomely ineffectual, you mean? I'm about at the point where losing on principle is less attracctive than getting things done incrementally.
-
It is easy to be "awesome" when you are marginal and not taken seriously and you hang on to your nice job. Paul is a gadfly, but the elephant is still there.
No "leader" is going to save or restore America, only a critical mass of good, strong citizens, and that will happen here...or somewhere else.
-
I think we can now say with confidence that, if either Romney or Obama is elected POTUS, it is fistful's fault....
-
Awesomely ineffectual, you mean? I'm about at the point where losing on principle is less attracctive than getting things done incrementally.
Except, Ron Paul is no running (anymore) for Congress. He's running for a job where wheeling-and-dealing is less required.
"Blah, blah, blah. You don't like me. I get it. Happily I don't need your liking to use the power of pardon. Enjoy the rest of your day."
-
Except, Ron Paul is no running (anymore) for Congress. He's running for a job where wheeling-and-dealing is less required.
"Blah, blah, blah. You don't like me. I get it. Happily I don't need your liking to use the power of pardon. Enjoy the rest of your day."
I don't think Ron Paul believes he has a realistic shot at being nominated for potus. I think he's running to gain a stake for his ideas in the overall GOP. A plan which I fully endorse and support, btw.
-
I can't imagine this working if you don't make a good faith effort to get yourself nominated.
Running "just to make a point" basically just means nobody will care about your campaign.
-
I don't think Ron Paul believes he has a realistic shot at being nominated for potus. I think he's running to gain a stake for his ideas in the overall GOP. A plan which I fully endorse and support, btw.
I agree, seems like there is already a bit of horse trading going on too,
-
I can't imagine this working if you don't make a good faith effort to get yourself nominated.
Running "just to make a point" basically just means nobody will care about your campaign.
It's politically naive to think a potus bid's only justifiable end goal is getting nominated. Running to spread a message, get a VP or other important spot, or just to tell the GOP that it needs the libertarians are all laudable goals.
-
Running to spread a message, get a VP or other important spot, or just to tell the GOP that it needs the libertarians are all laudable goals.
This, the good doctor has been a great influence on the GOP this yr.
I have high hopes for Rand, he seems like hes good on TV and quick witted-on fox news today he made a great argument against Santorum.
My first choice for pres is Sarah Palin, I plan on campaigning in every way I can for whomever is the GOP nod this yr though-I wish it was Paul ( because Sarah didn't run ) but its truly important we get any R in there so I can afford to buy some guns and ammo this yr
-
It's politically naive to think a potus bid's only justifiable end goal is getting nominated. Running to spread a message, get a VP or other important spot, or just to tell the GOP that it needs the libertarians are all laudable goals.
On the contrary, it is politically naive to believe the media will pay any attention to a "bid" if the candidate will not at least make a good faith effort to win the race. The media - correctly - have paid nearly zero attention to the "run to make a point" libertarian party candidates over the years.
-
On the contrary, it is politically naive to believe the media will pay any attention to a "bid" if the candidate will not at least make a good faith effort to win the race. The media - correctly - have paid nearly zero attention to the "run to make a point" libertarian party candidates over the years.
That's funny. I seem to remember a lot of complaints about a "media blackout" of Ron Paul's candidacy. Why, it's almost as if he weren't making a good faith effort to win the race.
Yet even as the media has tried to downplay Ron Paul, his ideas have become more widespread.
-
On the contrary, it is politically naive to believe the media will pay any attention to a "bid" if the candidate will not at least make a good faith effort to win the race. The media - correctly - have paid nearly zero attention to the "run to make a point" libertarian party candidates over the years.
Running as a pointless 3rd party candidate isn't effective. But in the primary of a major party? RP is gathering delegates, spreading his ideas, and pushing the GOP to the right even though everyone including Papa Ron know he won't get in. Losing the battle can still win the war.
-
Running as a pointless 3rd party candidate isn't effective. But in the primary of a major party? RP is gathering delegates, spreading his ideas, and pushing the GOP to the right even though everyone including Papa Ron know he won't get in. Losing the battle can still win the war.
This....Paul still has enough delagates to swing the nomination....and the GOP will ignore the number of voters in his influence at its peril....
-
You will most likely never again get a more uncompromising and stalwart Constitutionalist. If you want to see real hacks and slashes to the Federal Government Ron Paul is pretty much the last viable chance. Someone needs to have the balls to hit the reset button because the system has clearly crashed.
There are plenty of those out there; they just need the chance to emerge.
-
I would be willing to accept a Romney presidency if, and only if, we had a titanium-clad guarantee that Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Herman Cain would be immediately appointed to the Supreme Court.....