# It's official...



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

The Republican "Ralph Nader" has announced that he'll be screwing things up for the real candidate...



This will pretty much guarantee at least 4 years of liberal mis-management...


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Gabba, I'm sorry, but I don't understand. It looks like he is seeking the Republican nomination, not trying to run as an Independent (like Nader.)

Maybe it's late and I'm just being ditzy.


----------



## Alistair (Aug 12, 2007)

*Am I missing a joke here?*



The Gabba Goul said:


> This will pretty much guarantee at least 4 years of liberal mis-management...


As compared to the current administration's deft hand at the governing game? ...... ?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The biggest problem with Bush is that he has totally turned the country off with his incompetence.

Liberals nationalizing health care and doing some of their things that will damage the economy while pandering to their base will not be a good thing probably.

Both the right and left wings are destructive, but I fear the liberal side a bit more. A good centrist candidate would be refreshing, but probably can't get near the nomination for either party.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Well, you knew that was coming. I have some friends working for Rudy, I should see what they think of all this.

Brian


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I don't tell Republicans what to do (except that I want Larry Craig to stay in the Senate and fight it out), but I don't see Fred Thompson as the savior of the party. He's been pretty much running full tilt for a couple of months and his recent fundraising report shows that nobody's giving him any real money. Doesn't that suggest that Republicans aren't flocking to him?


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

vwguy said:


> Well, you knew that was coming. I have some friends working for Rudy, I should see what they think of all this.
> 
> Brian


They should be thinking "hey, that guy can get votes in the South if he's on our ticket in the general election".

This advice was free, but I'll take an administration job.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

VS said:


> They should be thinking "hey, that guy can get votes in the South if he's on our ticket in the general election".
> 
> This advice was free, but I'll take an administration job.


We'll see what's left after they set me up 

Brian


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> The biggest problem with Bush is that he has totally turned the country off with his incompetence.
> 
> Liberals nationalizing health care and doing some of their things that will damage the economy while pandering to their base will not be a good thing probably.
> 
> Both the right and left wings are destructive, but I fear the liberal side a bit more. A good centrist candidate would be refreshing, but probably can't get near the nomination for either party.


+1!!!!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I look at the police lineup we call candidates of both parties and with few lukewarm exceptions shudder. We may very well be witnessing a major turning point in two party politics not seen since the emergence of the New Republican party of Lincoln.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> I don't tell Republicans what to do (except that I want Larry Craig to stay in the Senate and fight it out), but I don't see Fred Thompson as the savior of the party. He's been pretty much running full tilt for a couple of months and his recent fundraising report shows that nobody's giving him any real money. Doesn't that suggest that Republicans aren't flocking to him?


Riiiiggghhttt. And Reagan was a "B" movie actor that no one would possibly take seriously. I love it when the left underestimates the Republicans. It's the best predictor of our success.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Mark from Plano said:


> Riiiiggghhttt. And Reagan was a "B" movie actor that no one would possibly take seriously. I love it when the left underestimates the Republicans. It's the best predictor of our success.


God I miss Reagan!


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

TMMKC said:


> God I miss Reagan!


Keep in mind that Reagan wasn't "*Reagan*" until he was. As the opinions editor for our campus newspaper, I attended a press conference in OKC while I was in college in 1980 during one of his campaign visits there. He looked a bit lost as he was being drilled by the hardened traveling press corps over the fact that he was less than sharp on the issue of "farm parity". "How can you be the President of the largest agricultural nation on the planet and not understand farm parity?" they asked. Well, he managed to overcome that particular deficit and defeat the Soviets at the same time.

Republicans will fall asleep and lose the next election if they spend it pining for the Return of Reagan. Reagan is gone (long may he live!). We must find our next leader. Perhaps it's Rudy. Perhaps it's Fred. Either way the avoidance of socialized medicine and a "retreat-first-ask-questions-later" foreign policy ought to be our first concern.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Mark from Plano said:


> Republicans will fall asleep and lose the next election if they spend it pining for the Return of Reagan. Reagan is gone (long may he live!). We must find our next leader. Perhaps it's Rudy. Perhaps it's Fred. Either way the avoidance of socialized medicine and a "retreat-first-ask-questions-later" foreign policy ought to be our first concern.


OMG...I nominate you...

seriously...I aggree whole heartedly...I think we as a party are going to shoot ourselves in the foot if we keep wishing for the good old days...it's time for another great leader to step forward...please, please, pleeeeeeeez let it be Rudy...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Theres an old BW film short from the 50s. It's from a series of drop in interviews with the movie stars. I remember Yvonne De Carlo , described always by 'Grandpa' Lewis as a T & A girl, hunting rabbits with a Winchester pump .22 out in the Hollywood Hills in her interview. Some T & A girl. Yvonne married a stunt man who was almost killed filming Ben Hur and badly maimed. She stayed with him, living up in Santa Ynez and still served real good rabbit. So much for T & A values. And Reagan was dismissed as the dumbest guy by a major Director he ever met. But Ronnie had this talent. He had ideas and then found smart and talented people who could implement them. And if you ever see that old BW interview at his ranch theres a wierd looking waterpump. Even in the 50s the slowly enroaching post WW2 housing developments were lowering water pressure and bringing in mice once controlled by owls and coyotes. And Ron's place, by a curious combination of factors had next to no pressure and poor filtration. That waterpump is military naval surplus from a ship's desalination unit. I was a little boy in grandpas' green and black studebaker truck when the huge Reo flatbed drove up with it and the Navy vet who came up with the idea. So even when I held different politics I voted for Ronnie because I knew he could find answers, even If I didn't share the same questions. There is a Reagan Republican, and a navy vet. They may have flaws like Czechs, but are worth listening to more. More by far than the dog and pony shows being sold to us all.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

The Gabba Goul said:


> OMG...I nominate you...
> 
> seriously...I aggree whole heartedly...I think we as a party are going to shoot ourselves in the foot if we keep wishing for the good old days...it's time for another great leader to step forward...please, please, pleeeeeeeez let it be Rudy...


Thanks Gabba. I would only counsel you to "fear not Fred." Fred is a serious person and has been since he was the first Republican to ask the question of Nixon's minions, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" (given voice by his then mentor Howard Baker). Fred may not win the nomination, but he will do the process no harm. If he wins it he will be a superb candidate.

He is a "first principles" guy. He may well be the only person in either party that believes that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution still has meaning in today's world and ought to be taken as seriously as the 1st or the 16th. He needs to have a voice in the next campaign cycle.

Don't confuse him with Nader (or is it nadir?). He will work FOR any Republican nominee, not against them as Nader did with the Dems. There is no comparison at all. Fear not Fred.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Kav said:


> I look at the police lineup we call candidates of both parties and with few lukewarm exceptions shudder. We may very well be witnessing a major turning point in two party politics not seen since the emergence of the New Republican party of Lincoln.


We're very nearly at the point where a plurality of the registered voters do not affiliate with either party. The country is obviously fed up with the partisan games (seen Congress' approval rating lately?). Third parties normally start on a good idea or a great candidate. It's fun to think about but I'm not sure I see more than potential as of yet.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> He's been pretty much running full tilt for a couple of months and his recent fundraising report shows that nobody's giving him any real money. Doesn't that suggest that Republicans aren't flocking to him?


Except that he wasn't officially running. Who wants to give thier money to someone when they don't know if they are running or not? Now that it's official, expect an uptick.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

radix023 said:


> We're very nearly at the point where a plurality of the registered voters do not affiliate with either party. The country is obviously fed up with the partisan games (seen Congress' approval rating lately?). Third parties normally start on a good idea or a great candidate. It's fun to think about but I'm not sure I see more than potential as of yet.


Really nothing new about this. Frustration with the choices is our political birthright. I've not been paying attention that long but remember the 3rd party candidacies of John Anderson, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader (twice) who did nothing but petulently attempt to deny (or succeed in denying) the presidency to the party they most closely agreed with.

Since coalition governance is not a really a part of the American system, the process of coalition building happens inside the party structure (Traditional leftists, Labor, ethnicities, greens, etc. to the Dem coalition; traditional rightest, Business, religion, etc. to the Repub. coalition) then the two fight it out.

Third parties in America most often succeed only in taking clear and precise aim and shooting themselves squarely in the foot (or the head) precisely because they are by definition coalition splitters. TR is the exception people point to, but TR's movement was ultimately toothless and faded away. Only the Lincoln Republican movement succeeded in taking root and that because it rode the wave of a sea change in politics (and because in hindsight, the North won the war).

Only a third party that could draw equally from both coalitions has any prayer of success (the mythical "Third Way" of Clinton and Blair). But the reality is that the Third Way is boring. It holds no real interest for people. It has no burning agenda. It has no defining principles. Ultimately it has no identity. That's why it will not succeed.

The center complains about the choices, because it has abdicated its responsibility in the process. The center is too busy paying the mortgage to volunteer on campaigns and allows the fringes to make its choices. The center only gets interested when the decision is all but made. The center has no one to blame but itself.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

vwguy said:


> We'll see what's left after they set me up
> 
> Brian


You know where to find me. I can do the news releases.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Nader needs to stick a fork in it...he's done and is in serious danger of becoming a modern-day, left-leaning Harold Stassen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Stassen


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

One has to admit that GOP bench is weak. I had always thought that if my candidate, McCain, didn't win the nomination, I'd suck it up and vote for the GOP nominee like I did in 1996 and 2000 but the more I see of the rest of the field the more I am leaning towards McCain or nobody. I still don't see why everyone is jazzed about Rudy - he has all the negative characteristics of Bush and none of W.'s positive qualities.

McCain looks dead in the water now but he's overcome tougher challenges in his life than a fickle electorate.

Can't wait for all the "true" Republicans to attack McCain and his record.

Karl


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> One has to admit that GOP bench is weak. I had always thought that if my candidate, McCain, didn't win the nomination, I'd suck it up and vote for the GOP nominee like I did in 1996 and 2000 but the more I see of the rest of the field the more I am leaning towards McCain or nobody. I still don't see why everyone is jazzed about Rudy - he has all the negative characteristics of Bush and one of W.'s positive qualities.
> 
> ...


It sounds like you and I are in the same boat on this one. I was an enthusiastic supporter of McCain during the last go-around. The minute I saw him snuggling up to the conservatives in the GOP, I got a sinking feeling he was toast. I might still be pursuaded to vote for Rudy, but I doubt it. I like Ron Paul, but he doesn't stand a chance. I'm not so willing to count out McCain yet (primarily because, if anyone might recall, Bill Clinton was in about the same position at this point when he first ran for POTUS).

What's Christine Todd-Whitman doing these days? Nader is not a savior, just a spoiler.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

It's spelled NADER not NADIR. Ralph is from Lebanese Christian ancestry along with Jamie Farr of M.A.S.H. and many other noted americans who don't swear oaths on the Jefferson Qu'oran. And last time I checked, in spite of Arroganta Huffington and Scream Dean my vote is not defacto two party in spite of business as usual. Republicans and Democrats are like a two horse team. One wants to race down a hill and get the job done at any cost. The other horse worries about unseen dangers and does a stockhorse sliding stop. The Republican horse has been displaying some pretty bad vices lately, kicking out at a fox and bringing jackals to the roadside. The Democrat horse doesn't even want to be in it's left harness anymore, but become a hunter jumper and gallop through farm fields and gardens and some still wild properties not surveyed. Meanwhile there are two dogs barking from each side to get this rig going down the road properly. Until it does, I'll be giving pats on the head to the dogs and not giving bolts of oats to the nags.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Yes, I know precisely how it's spelled. Note that the parentetical is not capitalized. Meant to be a joke (I guess it isn't funny if you have to explain it to the audience--see definition #2 below):

*na·dir* (nā*'*dər, -dîr') 
_n._ 

_Astronomy._ A point on the celestial sphere directly below the observer, diametrically opposite the zenith.
*The lowest point: the nadir of their fortunes.*
Used in a sentence: Ralph Nader is the nadir of American politics*.*


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Kav said:


> It's spelled NADER not NADIR. Ralph is from Lebanese Christian ancestry along with Jamie Farr of M.A.S.H. and many other noted americans who don't swear oaths on the Jefferson Qu'oran. And last time I checked, in spite of Arroganta Huffington and Scream Dean my vote is not defacto two party in spite of business as usual. Republicans and Democrats are like a two horse team. One wants to race down a hill and get the job done at any cost. The other horse worries about unseen dangers and does a stockhorse sliding stop. The Republican horse has been displaying some pretty bad vices lately, kicking out at a fox and bringing jackals to the roadside. The Democrat horse doesn't even want to be in it's left harness anymore, but become a hunter jumper and gallop through farm fields and gardens and some still wild properties not surveyed. Meanwhile there are two dogs barking from each side to get this rig going down the road properly. Until it does, I'll be giving pats on the head to the dogs and not giving bolts of oats to the nags.


Good luck with that.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> It sounds like you and I are in the same boat on this one. I was an enthusiastic supporter of McCain during the last go-around. The minute I saw him snuggling up to the conservatives in the GOP, I got a sinking feeling he was toast. I might still be pursuaded to vote for Rudy, but I doubt it. I like Ron Paul, but he doesn't stand a chance. I'm not so willing to count out McCain yet (primarily because, if anyone might recall, Bill Clinton was in about the same position at this point when he first ran for POTUS).
> 
> What's Christine Todd-Whitman doing these days? Nader is not a savior, just a spoiler.


McCain snuggling up to True conservatives in the GOP?! Do you mean McCain-Feingold or McCain-Kennedy?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Can't wait for all the "true" Republicans to attack McCain and his record.
> 
> Karl


I can't imagine a True Republican attacking McCain. McCain has always been a loyal Republican. I think his problem is with True Conservatives like myself that are not loyal to a party, but to ideals and values with which McCain is often at odds.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> He's been pretty much running full tilt for a couple of months and his recent fundraising report shows that nobody's giving him any real money. Doesn't that suggest that Republicans aren't flocking to him?


No. He hasn't been full-tilt. He's still been playing coy and trying to get organized (he's been thru almost two full staffs now).

Let's see how he does in the next month or two. I think Fred is likely to pick up most of the votes from Tancredo, Brownback, Huckabee, and Hunter. I think it will probably come down to a choice of two tickets - Fred & Mitt vs. McCain & Rudy.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Do you mean McCain-Feingold or McCain-Kennedy?


Moving to the political center is not a crime...at least it wasn't the last time I checked. It seems about the only way to get anything done these days.

All I was trying to point out was that when politicians move too far toward the extreme flanks of their respective parties, they tend to lose the faith of moderate voters (who I suspect are still a very large chunk of the populace). The problem is, the moderate voters seem to be the first to get turned off by the process and often don't vote because they feel there are no good options...which leaves the door wide open for extremist and "one issue" voters to dictate the winner.

IMO..."true" conservatives believe in fiscal conservatism and limited government, neither of which I presently see in the GOP.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

The ideals and values that got McCain through seven years of a North Vietnamese POW camp are alot more important to me than the fact that I don't always agree with every one of his positions. If "true conservatives" can't support McCain it says more about them then it ever will about him.

Karl


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

For better or for worse, McCain seems to think and speak from his heart, even if it will hurt him.

I like Huckabee, even if he's a lot more conservative that what I would like. He's got to be one of the most personable, humorous politicians ever. Even if you don't like his positions, he would be the perfect next-door neighbor.

McCain is the only other candidate in either party that comes close to giving me that feeling.

While this may not be the smartest way to pick a leader, I wonder if Huckabee might be able to sneak in, using his humor and personality as his trump cards. No one else is taking control of this.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

F2K,

Perhaps the most important reason to support McCain is that he is the only GOP candidate willing to disavow the use of torture in the war on terror. Want to make a bet that if McCain becomes competitive again that someone will call him soft on terrorism bc he doesn't support torture?

Brownback is too conservative but give him credit for making prison reform a human rights issue and making it a central theme to his campaign.

Karl


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I get mixed messages about torture and the value of the information given.

I don't think I like it, but don't have a firm opinion yet.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

F2K,

Even if torture does work we shouldn't use it. But I too have heard different opinions from friends (one who served in Iraq and one who is a Special Agent in the FBI) who have to deal with the issue. But for most of us the concept of torture is an academic exercise, for McCain it is not.

Karl


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You are right about that.

Maybe we'd be better off if the draft dodgers who are making the decisions now had McCain's experience.


----------



## red96 (Jun 26, 2007)

I'm a bleeding-heart, liberal Democrat, so I've watched the Republican campaign with equal amounts curiosity and fear. I also come from Massachusetts, and I really can't put into words my feelings about Mitt Romney's gubernatorial tenure here...at least in a public forum! :crazy:

But here's my question. Rudy seems to be leading all the national polling but Iowa and New Hampshire seem to be lining up behind Mitt. I know there's lots of campaigning to go, and the Fred factor looms large, but wouldn't two early wins for Mitt basically eliminate Rudy's national advantage? Or are we headed for a primary campaign that ironically doesn't get decided until the very end because no one could score a decisive edge in the front-loaded string of primaries?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

red96 said:


> But here's my question. Rudy seems to be leading all the national polling but Iowa and New Hampshire seem to be lining up behind Mitt. I know there's lots of campaigning to go, and the Fred factor looms large, but wouldn't two early wins for Mitt basically eliminate Rudy's national advantage? Or are we headed for a primary campaign that ironically doesn't get decided until the very end because no one could score a decisive edge in the front-loaded string of primaries?


It will indeed be an interesting year. I am starting to wonder if the results from Iowa and New Hampshire will eventually be rendered (relatively) meaningless since so many states are jockeying to move their primaries and caucuses earlier and earlier in 2008. My biggest fear (other than having a President Romney or President Edwards) is that both parties will eventually nominate candidates that embody the views of their most extreme flanks. Where will that leave us? Basically with what we already have...and then NOTHING will get done. Too bad we don't have a viable third party.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

ksinc said:


> No. He hasn't been full-tilt. He's still been playing coy and trying to get organized (he's been thru almost two full staffs now).
> 
> Let's see how he does in the next month or two. I think Fred is likely to pick up most of the votes from Tancredo, Brownback, Huckabee, and Hunter. I think it will probably come down to a choice of two tickets - Fred & Mitt vs. McCain & Rudy.


Fred's site has raised 300k dollars in the first 19 hours of his campaign.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

red96 said:


> But here's my question. Rudy seems to be leading all the national polling but Iowa and New Hampshire seem to be lining up behind Mitt. I know there's lots of campaigning to go, and the Fred factor looms large, but wouldn't two early wins for Mitt basically eliminate Rudy's national advantage? Or are we headed for a primary campaign that ironically doesn't get decided until the very end because no one could score a decisive edge in the front-loaded string of primaries?


Campaigns are all about perception and momentum. Remember when everyone loved Dean, then we had the stupid "Scream" and he faded faster than anyone I can recall. Even being a hardcore Republican I wondered how that could sink his candidacy when he far worse things out there that no one made an issue. Anyway, we have a long road ahead of us and who knows what will happen.

Brian


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Moving to the political center is not a crime...at least it wasn't the last time I checked. It seems about the only way to get anything done these days.


But, you said he was snuggling up to conservatives not moving to the political center. Pick one and go with it


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> The ideals and values that got McCain through seven years of a North Vietnamese POW camp are alot more important to me than the fact that I don't always agree with every one of his positions. If "true conservatives" can't support McCain it says more about them then it ever will about him.
> 
> Karl


Why, are you planning on being in a North Vietnamese POW camp? If so, then I agree McCain might be a good person to follow.

Still, I can respect McCain's service and say that as a so-called true conservative I don't support *most* of McCain's positions (vs. just not agreeing with him on every one) and I don't think he's owed the Presidency for what happened to him in Vietnam.

Unfortunately, that's not what you were talking about when you said "true republicans" attacking McCain and I hope you know has nothing to do with conservatism. Kerry was in Vietnam and he's not a conservative either. Vietnam experience is not exactly relevant to the job or to conservatism.

Although McCain and Kerry do have something else in common: McCain was apparently for the Confederate Flag and Bob Jones University before he was against them! LOL


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

ksinc said:


> But, you said he was snuggling up to conservatives not moving to the political center. Pick one and go with it


Sorry if I wasn't very clear. I liked McCain because he always seemed willing to compromise and go to the center to solve problems. I find it very troublesome that he felt he needed to court the conservatives to curry favor within the GOP. I think he's exhausted his political capital and it would look very shallow and desperate if, after all that has happened, to try and paint himself as a rugged individualist again.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Sorry if I wasn't very clear. I liked McCain because he always seemed willing to compromise and go to the center to solve problems. I find it very troublesome that he felt he needed to court the conservatives to curry favor within the GOP. I think he's exhausted his political capital and it would look very shallow and desperate if, after all that has happened, to try and paint himself as a rugged individualist again.


I agree he's moving to the center. I do agree he's declared he is a conservative, but "those who know, not only know, but know who else knows" and he's simply not a conservative. I don't understand why he says he is. It's not like it's a crime not to be. Why try to fool people? I would respect him more if he just said he was a good and loyal Republican - which he is and didn't try to label himself a conservative. I guess that is what you mean by snuggling up. As a conservative that threw me because we ignore what he says he is and look at the type of legislation he sponsors which is not conservative at all. The result is more like jabbing a stick in my eye than snuggling up. I don't know any conservatives that like McCain for President.

You are probably correct in your conclusion on his political capital, but I think the party does owe him some support. He has been a loyal Republican if nothing else.

He's certainly a compromiser. I think he's probably a great/good Senator for that reason and I don't really dislike him, I just don't support him for President or support any of his positions. I'm not against him just because I disagree with him on most everything. I think that's part of people's problem in considering someone on the other side idealogically an "enemy". I'd put him in the same category as Sen. Spectre.

I will say I think McCain is the best on the 2nd Amendment. Although that is important to me, I am not a one issue person and I don't think being pro-gun is enough to make someone a conservative. I think Fred is also supposed to be strong on the RKBA and I regular write Mitt trying to smack some sense into him on the issue.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I agree he's moving to the center.
> 
> 
> > "Moving" or "moved?" I think that's where we disagree about him. I think he's moved, or at least SAID he's moved, to the right...and wrongfully painted himself as a conservative (as you so correctly pointed out). I believe he was at the center and moved right in hopes of appealing to a more idealogically powerful faction within the GOP. As a centrist and a moderate myself, I found it really disturbing and a frustrating...primarily because his centrist views always appealed to me (and a lot of disinfranchised Republicans and disillusioned Democrats).
> ...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Lets assume the next President has just been sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. What is the number one issue that will shape the presidency? Who is competent enough to deal with it?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Kav said:


> Lets assume the next President has just been sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. What is the number one issue that will shape the presidency? Who is competent enough to deal with it?


Great questions. No easy answers, I'm afraid.

I want to say the number one issue would be keeping the U.S. relevant and competitive in the face of globalization of commerce. However, I think the next President's legacy will be how well he/she pulls us out of the mess the current administration has made in the Middle East...if we can ever truly get out of there! Who is the most competent? Saying "none of the above" would be a snarky cop-out, so I'd have to give my nod to Rudy, Hillary or Bill Richardson (I wish I could add McCain to the list, but my current assessment of his performance won't permit me to do it.)


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

red96 said:


> I'm a bleeding-heart, liberal Democrat, so I've watched the Republican campaign with equal amounts curiosity and fear. I also come from Massachusetts, and I really can't put into words my feelings about Mitt Romney's gubernatorial tenure here...at least in a public forum! :crazy:
> 
> But here's my question. Rudy seems to be leading all the national polling but Iowa and New Hampshire seem to be lining up behind Mitt. I know there's lots of campaigning to go, and the Fred factor looms large, but wouldn't two early wins for Mitt basically eliminate Rudy's national advantage? Or are we headed for a primary campaign that ironically doesn't get decided until the very end because no one could score a decisive edge in the front-loaded string of primaries?


The perception among Americans is that you can toss any combination of Republican candidates (save Ron Paul) into a blender and the resulting Neocon Frappe' will taste exactly the same. E.g. 70% of Americans want us out of Iraq, yet all the Republican candidates (again, except for Paul) are holding their hands over their ears and pretending they're deaf to that fact. The same is true for spending, immigration, reproductive rights, civil unions etc.

The defining issue this election is Iraq, and as Bush/Cheney hand us yet another year of power grabbing, bald-faced lies and delusions, the Republican candidate who runs furthest from this moral bankruptcy would have the best chance of winning a general election next year -- but will also have the least chance of winning the nomination from their party.

I continue to be impressed with Ron Paul. After the last debate it was a lot of fun watching Sean Hannity nearly rip his Men's Wearhouse suit in half when 33% of Fox News viewers said Paul had won the debate (almost triple the percentage of the second place candidate), and when Paul confirmed he wanted to abolish the CIA and IRS, and said that half the murders in Iraq are being carried out by *Saudi* citizens, and called the other candidates and Fox News a bunch of Neocon traitors to true conservatism etc.

What a breath of fresh air in an overstuffed room! But it certainly illustrates why the Republicans have either zero or close to zero chance of winning the White House next year.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Ahhh...Ron Paul. I am warming to him. Actually, I rather like his approach and find him refreshing...if not a little "wacky." I have pretty strong Libertarian leanings anyway, so it's not that surprising.

Too bad I think he'll get run over by the neocons who drive GOP political machine.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Too bad I think he'll get run over by the neocons
> who drive GOP political machine.


Like McCain? LOL 

I like Ron Paul too!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Great questions. No easy answers, I'm afraid.
> 
> I want to say the number one issue would be keeping the U.S. relevant and competitive in the face of globalization of commerce. However, I think the next President's legacy will be how well he/she pulls us out of the mess the current administration has made in the Middle East...if we can ever truly get out of there! Who is the most competent? Saying "none of the above" would be a snarky cop-out, so I'd have to give my nod to Rudy, Hillary or Bill Richardson (I wish I could add McCain to the list, but my current assessment of his performance won't permit me to do it.)


I think I agree with you. I think the major issue is somewhat general and broad. Iraq and immigration are symptoms of failed social experiments and policies that are destroying the US competitive advantages in commerce and even war. This is why Ron Paul is really striking a cord with so many people IMHO. It's about applying consistent values and ideals to each issue, not bring the troops home or support the surge. SS, Medicare, Healthcare, National ID cards, and a slew of foreign policy issues can all be dealt with consistently by someone that geniunely believes in Individuals over Government.

I like Romney because he seems competent and most of the rest do not. I like Paul becuase I agree with him on most things. Maybe Fred will split the difference?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Maybe Fred will split the difference?


At this point, Fred is whatever people want him to be...which is dangerous. He may surprise people and position himself as some type of uniter for the GOP...or as a centrist who knows how to hold out an olive branch to the Dems.

If anything, I predict we'll see some great theater (ala the Reagan years) from Fred.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Kav said:


> Lets assume the next President has just been sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. What is the number one issue that will shape the presidency? Who is competent enough to deal with it?





TMMKC said:


> Great questions. No easy answers, I'm afraid.


I agree they are great questions. I disagree that there are no easy answers. The answer is quite obvious (at least to me). The US is at war. We have been at war since 1983, but didn't acknowlege that war until 9/11/01.

We tried fighting it by ignoring it (Reagan, Bush I) and relying on our superpower status to protect us as it had during the Cold War, that didn't work. We tried fighting it by treating it as a criminal law issue (Clinton) and using "proportional response" military attacks, that didn't work either. GWB was prepared to continue the status quo when finally the enemy escalated the attacks to such an extent that we could no longer avoid the inevitable. We are at war. There is no other issue.

This President has aggressively prosecuted this war, but had a Secretary of Defense who believed that he knew better than his general officers how it should be prosecuted and took significant operational risk and was proven wrong in his approach. He's gone now and there's a new sheriff in town and things are going better.

When the next President takes over, we will still be at war. When the next President takes over directing the nation during wartime will still be the POTUS's most important constitutional duty. We are electing a wartime president whether we want to admit it or not.

We better pick a good one.

As for the second question, that's what campaigns are for. I have an idea who will be the most competent, but I want this to play out before I make my final decisions. I have already crossed some people off the list who want to go back to the failed "ignore it" or "let the courts take care of it" approach. Beyond that, it remains to be seen.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Mark,

One could argue that we have been at war with radical Islam since the founding of our Republic and our early battles with the Barbary pirates. The shores of Tripoli are mentioned in the first line of the Marine Corps hymn. I understand why you would say 1983 bc of the attack in Beruit but our current troubles go back a tad further to the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis in 1979.

For further inquiry into the subject one should check out this book:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0...6412/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-4782813-3812016?ie=UTF8

Karl


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

That's fine. I'm willing to amend my prior post to say 1979 instead of 1983, but the point still stands. When an enemy declares war on you, you are at war. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Mark from Plano said:


> When an enemy declares war on you, you are at war. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.


Good point. Getting back to the premise of the thread...does Nader realize this? Does he even care? Does he even understand it?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Mark,

At the risk of seeming pedantic, a few points. We were supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan until well into 1988. The actual tide there only began to turn in 1986 when we began supplying them with Stingers, the use of which severely crippled Soviet airborne operations. 

Of course the Iranians and Libyans to an extent still fought a proxy war against us throgh their support of terrorism but Radical Islam didn't turn on us in a big way until we sent troops to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War. Now there is little doubt that radical Islams would have found some other excuse to wage war on us but the first Gulf War expidited the process.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Mark,
> 
> One could argue that we have been at war with radical Islam since the founding of our Republic and our early battles with the Barbary pirates. The shores of Tripoli are mentioned in the first line of the Marine Corps hymn. I understand why you would say 1983 bc of the attack in Beruit but our current troubles go back a tad further to the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis in 1979.
> 
> ...


Islam, radical or otherwise is simply a convenient excuse.

"Our current troubles" go back well before the Iranian Revolution. Bush/Cheney lies notwithstanding, we don't support democracy in oil-rich Middle East countries and we never have. We support (and, when necessary, help to install) corrupt, repressive, "Western-friendly" regimes who build palaces and buy sterling silver BMWs for themselves, while their people live in absolute or near absolute squalor.

The roots of terrorism are economic, political and social, not religious.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Mark,
> 
> At the risk of seeming pedantic, a few points. We were supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan until well into 1988. The actual tide there only began to turn in 1986 when we began supplying them with Stingers, the use of which severely crippled Soviet airborne operations.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry we've gotten caught up in our underwear arguing over when this war started. Obviously it isn't that clear. Nor is it that important to the point. At some time radical Islam (or some portion of it) decided we were the "Great Satan" and declared war against us. Over time, various segments of radical Islam with whom we may (or may not) have had some fragile alliances, joined in that war. Regardless of when the war started, it started.

The point, so that it doesn't get lost is that we are at war and managing that war is the next President's most critical job requirement.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Did I actually change the thread's direction from personalities to issues? I agree, in THE SHORT TERM the war vs radical islam will be the primary issue. And you know what? History will look at it as a dangerous, but ultimately time specific distraction from real matters of import, like continued environmental degradation or the destruction of the american working class and it's wholesale displacement by a latino working class with foriegn political values and loyalties. I'm looking for a leader with job skills to perform this job description. I am not looking for a glad handing store greeter who makes eye contact and doesn't know where the cat litter is.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

TMMKC said:


> I like Ron Paul, but he doesn't stand a chance.


In this sentence, you have summed up the greatest problem with American electoral politics.

This isn't a horse race, people. You're not supposed to be voting on who you think will win, but rather on who has the best ideas and will do the most good for the country.

If more people voted their conscience instead of letting the media dictate the terms, we might see some actual change in this country.



Karl89 said:


> Perhaps the most important reason to support McCain is that he is the only GOP candidate willing to disavow the use of torture in the war on terror.


False.



TMMKC said:


> Ahhh...Ron Paul. I am warming to him. Actually, I rather like his approach and find him refreshing...if not a little "wacky." I have pretty strong Libertarian leanings anyway, so it's not that surprising.


If one listens to him speak or reads his actual words, there's nothing at all "wacky". It's only when one allows the media to interpret his words and overplay pointless little soundbites that he comes off sounding wacky.



> Too bad I think he'll get run over by the neocons who drive GOP political machine.


I think the neocons are in for a rude awakening come primary season.

Of course, that's probably why neocon kingmaker Rupert Murdoch, head of Fox News, is already hosting fundraisers for another neocon named Hillary Clinton...



Karl89 said:


> ... our current troubles go back a tad further to the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis in 1979.


Which stemmed, of course, from Operation Ajax, which was when we came in and tossed out Mosaddeq, their democratically-elected leader, and installed our puppet stooge, the Shah. It shouldn't have taken a genius to see that that was going to piss them off.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jolly Roger,

Just linking to Paul's website doesn't prove he is against the use of torture but if he is, then my mistake and good for him.

And enough with Mosaddeq canard. The Shah may have had his faults but he was far better than what would have eventually become a Soviet client state. And we both know that Iran would be far better off today had the Shah remained in power.

And finally why not define neo-conservative in your own words instead of using it as a code word for the nefarious cabal which you think controls this country.

Perhaps neo-cons are in for a rude awakening this election cycle but alas doctrinal libertarians and Paul apologists are in for a ruder awakening when they once again fall oh so very far from any chance at winning the election. 

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Jolly Roger,
> 
> Just linking to Paul's website doesn't prove he is against the use of torture but if he is, then my mistake and good for him.
> 
> And enough with Mosaddeq canard. The Shah may have had his faults


Yeah, a few. Here's just one:

https://www.angelfire.com/home/iran/savak.html


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Jolly Roger,
> 
> Just linking to Paul's website doesn't prove he is against the use of torture but if he is, then my mistake and good for him.


I thought someone as politically-minded as yourself would by now be familiar enough with Congressman Paul's position on torture, as he has addressed it many times, including in nationally-televised debates. But if I was mistaken, and you aren't aware of it, I recommend reading some of his articles on the subject. Here's a short one:
Torture, War, and Presidential Powers

There are others at the Ron Paul Library:
https://ronpaullibrary.org/search/search.php?q=torture



> And enough with Mosaddeq canard. The Shah may have had his faults but he was far better than what would have eventually become a Soviet client state. And we both know that Iran would be far better off today had the Shah remained in power.


No, we don't know that, unless we could see all possibilities. After all, we built up both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and that didn't turn out so well, did it?

And the _fact_ that we deposed Mosaddeq and installed a puppet government, which led to the 1979 Revolution and subsequently the taking of the hostages, is _not_ a "canard".

The lesson is that if you play with fire, you're going to get burned. Reagan understood this when he pulled our troops out of Lebanon in 1984 and declared that we shouldn't put our troops at risk in trying to influence what he described as the "irrational" politics of the Middle East.



> And finally why not define neo-conservative in your own words instead of using it as a code word for the nefarious cabal which you think controls this country.


Sure, I wouldn't want you to think that I use the word "neocon" as mindlessly and unthinkingly as a guy like Hannity uses the word "liberal". I'd also be happy to recommend some books and articles. 

Essentially, neoconservatism is an ideology that promotes a welfare-warfare state. It allows for growing government spending and entitlement programs, even as it promotes an aggressive foreign policy somewhat akin to Woodrow Wilson's doctrine of "making the world safe for Democracy", but with an acceptance of unilateral action and preemptive war.

Most of its progenitors came out of the political Left, but began to reject communism in the 1960s and 1970s. One of its most famous founders, former trotskyite Irving Krystol, described himself as a "liberal mugged by reality".

In those early days the movement centered around Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, whose congressional staff included Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, but many of its adherents (including the two just mentioned) later aligned themselves with the GOP, ideologically influencing its movement away from the positions long held by traditional Republicans and the Old Right.

There are neoconservatives on both sides of the party divide, though. That is why it is increasingly difficult to discern any real difference between the two parties on matters of economics and foreign policy.



> Perhaps neo-cons are in for a rude awakening this election cycle but alas doctrinal libertarians and Paul apologists are in for a ruder awakening when they once again fall oh so very far from any chance at winning the election.


Let's not count our chickens before they hatch. Even in your great state, Congressman Paul drew 16.7% of the vote in the recent Texas GOP straw poll. What is most significant about this is that the straw poll actually just measured the support of the Republican establishment itself, since only people who had been delegates to one of the last four Texas Republican state conventions or the last two Republican National Conventions were allowed to vote. What's more the vote was taken after the Texas GOP had been playing pro-war propaganda payed for by Ari Fleischer and his crew over at the Orwellianly-named think tank "Freedom's Watch" all day.

As a matter of fact, he's won more straw polls than any other candidate thus far. And despite Hannity's lies about "0.1%" in the polls, he's gaining momentum nationally.

I could be wrong, but I'm surely not willing to rule out an upset come the primaries, as the pro-war, big-government vote is diluted among five candidates, while Ron Paul manages to draw all of the anti-war vote and draws in unexpected amounts of support from independents, young people who are being inspired by Paul to join the Republican Party, and many former Republicans who have drifted away from the Party in recent years because of dissatisfaction with its move toward neoconservatism.

I wouldn't write him off just yet, if I were you.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

By the way, for a guy with a Reagan Revolution avatar, you're pretty dismissive of libertarianism. After all, wasn't it Reagan who said, "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JollyRoger, they don't like to do their own homework. You have to spoonfeed them.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Jolly Roger said:


> By the way, for a guy with a Reagan Revolution avatar, you're pretty dismissive of libertarianism. After all, wasn't it Reagan who said, "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."


President Reagan also said the nine most dangerous words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Jolly Roger said:


> Let's not count our chickens before they hatch. Even in your great state, Congressman Paul drew 16.7% of the vote in the recent Texas GOP straw poll. What is most significant about this is that the straw poll actually just measured the support of the Republican establishment itself, since only people who had been delegates to one of the last four Texas Republican state conventions or the last two Republican National Conventions were allowed to vote. What's more the vote was taken after the Texas GOP had been playing pro-war propaganda payed for by Ari Fleischer and his crew over at the Orwellianly-named think tank "Freedom's Watch" all day.


16.7% in his home state is not particularly impressive. Especially since the Texas straw poll was greeted with a collective "Yawn" by the Republicans in Texas. Few even bothered to show up. A fairly well organized dish towel with a tie to Texas could have pulled 20% at this thing.



Jolly Roger said:


> I could be wrong, but I'm surely not willing to rule out an upset come the primaries...


Maybe you aren't, but I am.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Mark from Plano said:


> 16.7% in his home state is not particularly impressive. Especially since the Texas straw poll was greeted with a collective "Yawn" by the Republicans in Texas. Few even bothered to show up. A fairly well organized dish towel with a tie to Texas could have pulled 20% at this thing.


Considering it was held on the other side of the state from his home district and it was restricted to Republican establishment, I'd say 16.7% was a good showing. Not only that, but there's youtube video of pro-Paul voters being turned away at the door for being late, even though the vote had not yet started.



> Maybe you aren't, but I am.


Well, you certainly have the right to be wrong.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

ksinc said:


> President Reagan also said the nine most dangerous words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."


Ain't _that_ the truth!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jolly Roger,

I am dismissive of doctrinaire libertarianism and find its isolationist worldview troubling. As far as economics and social policy goes (with the exception of abortion) I hold a classically liberal postion - free minds and free markets.
Though I don't favor a return to the gold standard either.

I am glad that Congressman Paul is against the use of torture, to the great shame of the GOP most of the other candidates are not.

Karl


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

Mark from Plano said:


> Keep in mind that Reagan wasn't "*Reagan*" until he was. As the opinions editor for our campus newspaper, I attended a press conference in OKC while I was in college in 1980 during one of his campaign visits there. He looked a bit lost as he was being drilled by the hardened traveling press corps over the fact that he was less than sharp on the issue of "farm parity". "How can you be the President of the largest agricultural nation on the planet and not understand farm parity?" they asked. Well, he managed to overcome that particular deficit and defeat the Soviets at the same time.
> 
> Republicans will fall asleep and lose the next election if they spend it pining for the Return of Reagan. Reagan is gone (long may he live!). We must find our next leader. Perhaps it's Rudy. Perhaps it's Fred. Either way the avoidance of socialized medicine and a "retreat-first-ask-questions-later" foreign policy ought to be our first concern.


the soviets defeated themselves.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

It's funny, I got acquainted with a Soviet naval officer in Alaska via a few medivacs of injured soviet sailors from the fishing fleet, one of the perks? of learning basic russian to further my career ( should have studied spanish.) Pasha made the comment " We know we are not free. You think you are" over shared cigarettes. Years later when the USSR was breaking up I wrote Pasha, as we had done a few times a year. Pasha wrote back, " You just didn't lose as bad as we did."


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I can't imagine a True Republican attacking McCain. McCain has always been a loyal Republican. I think his problem is with True Conservatives like myself that are not loyal to a party, but to ideals and values with which McCain is often at odds.


And don't forget the GOP has done everything they can to push Pat Buchanan paleoconservatives and Ron Paul libertarians out of the party and instead embrace big government neocons and evangelical theocrats.

Sucks for me that the Republicans are pushing out all the candidates, writers, etc that I like. That still doesn't mean I should be shamed into supporting a moderate who is at odds with what I think.

I love how Paul & Kucinich (and Buchanan and Nader) all agree on issues that the two major parties are against. They represent the fringes of the parties and have been pushed out.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Jolly Roger,
> 
> I am dismissive of doctrinaire libertarianism and find its isolationist worldview troubling. As far as economics and social policy goes (with the exception of abortion) I hold a classically liberal postion - free minds and free markets.
> Though I don't favor a return to the gold standard either.
> ...


I'm with you on these points.

I was disappointed in the response to the "torture" question in the early GOP debate. Torture is unamerican in the extreme.


----------



## red96 (Jun 26, 2007)

crazyquik said:


> I love how Paul & Kucinich (and Buchanan and Nader) all agree on issues that the two major parties are against. They represent the fringes of the parties and have been pushed out.


I would love to see this cast of characters recognize their mutual interests and collaborate to form some type of unconventional third party that wasn't single-issue focused and could actually pick up some seats in Congress and a few electoral votes. Maybe that is the way out of this increasingly painful political environment.


----------

