Ann Coulter's push for Romney; care to critique?

[lupinus]

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.

[Fly320s]

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.

[mtnbkr]

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. 

Chris

[Ron]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

Chris

Yeah, I was talking about hair. That's exactly what I meant. I like Ron Paul, except for the hair.

[mtnbkr]

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

[roo_ster]

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"



"Great hair, and empty head, and a willingness to stay out of the way of the private sector."

[roo_ster]

On the left, "Chia Perry."  On the right, uh, the guy who ran against him last time and lost.

[gunsmith]

I loved to tell liberals I couldn't vote for John Kerry due to his hair, and all the money he spent on it.

[lupinus]

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.

[seeker_two]

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....

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[TommyGunn]

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?    

[seeker_two]

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..... 

[Perd Hapley]

He won't win if you don't vote for him..... 

Yup. Too bad he's not more vote-worthy. 

[seeker_two]

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?

[longeyes]

All have flaws; rely not on leaders.  They should be representative.  We need listeners, not leaders.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[roo_ster]

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.

[Ron]

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.  

  

[Perd Hapley]

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?