Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well maybe he has a chance then, if he can use the Tea Party and also address economic issues. At least when he speaks, he is aware of what the problems in this country are. As long as he picks a decent VP for the ticket who isnt Palin, maybe he could win....
Another aspect that both parties have is certain sects that want to ram their ideology down your throats, and social conservatives are no exception. What is needed is a strong in your face Paul type to point out to them that even though they say they are for freedom they aren't. Even though they claim to be strong state righters, they are not.
Case in point, lets say we did have state rights and abortion was illegal in 20 states, would that make them happy or would they be trying to out law it in all 50? And of course it would remain a political football and leaders would be running under the Pro Life or Pro Choice banner.
Wonder if we will ever hear someone say that those issues belong to the states and we have the judicial system {due process?} to protect rights.
What happened to the deficit? Tea Party moves to social conservative issues.
I still see and hold out hope for the Ron/Rand Paul faction of the Tea Party, but once it came down to putting rubber to the road, it appears many of the Tea Party were little more than Republicans riding a wave anti-establishment resentment towards Obama. The focus on health care and associated spending was largely responsible for sewing the seeds for this tsunami.
Now that it is time to actually govern and you ask people, ok, what do we cut. Suddenly the realization of alienating the elderly voting bloc by cutting Social Security isn't so glamorous. Of course there was never any thought of cutting offense (defense) spending, so that left things like earmarks and things like US foreign aid, which even on this there is a split among the Tea Party. Turns out, many in the Tea Party where all rhetorical sheep in establishment clothing.
As many discussions as you and I have butted heads on this, I hate to admit you were more right than I, but I still have my fingers crossed for the Paulian wing. If you are going to dream, might as well dream big.
I don't know that we "butted heads."
I think your earlier comments about the need for the tea party to channel some of the voter anger on the economy was absolutely right. It did need to happen. The problem was that they had a leadership vacuum (kind of like the fear in Egypt right now--it's the same concept) so that the R's, with money and "organizers," could easily step in and take control.
My comments were based in knowing the history of how the R's organized and used the social conservatives in the past, and I'm a fairly recent, politically active former R, remember? I know how the party works, inside and out, and this is all pretty standard stuff for them. Talk the talk, throw out crumbs, stir the pot, paint the other side as evil on a personal level, and then ignore those issues to do what the leadership wants to do regardless. Get the votes, then distract the voters...it's worked for them, over and over.
I see what you're saying with the Pauls, and although I disagree with some of their stands, no one can say that they're not "the real deal." They absolutely don't let anyone control them, and they stand firm on their principals. You have to respect that. I think there is a core group of people behind them, but I'm afraid it's a long way from a majority at this point. If the R's move too far away from the economy and continue to more toward the social conservative issues (the pacifier issues) that group might be much smaller, but they could become very vocal very quickly. We need those folks to stand firm--it doesn't take a big group--just a loud one--to point out the BS and take the R leadership to task. I hope it happens, but it also means civil war in the R party. Maybe that's a very good thing.
As for the rest...
Swing voters are fickle, and they tend to vote their pocketbooks. It puts pressure on both parties--whoever actually starts getting something done on the economy wins. The Paul's definitely need to be a strong voice in that conversation, because I think they're some of the few who dealing with issues vs. partisan politics.
Well maybe he has a chance then, if he can use the Tea Party and also address economic issues. At least when he speaks, he is aware of what the problems in this country are. As long as he picks a decent VP for the ticket who isnt Palin, maybe he could win....
Unlikely. Paul has a strong following and I think he does talk good sense often on economic issues (anti war, against the corporatist republican takeover) etc,.. Though he isn't "republican" enough to get the nod, and if he ran on the libertarian ticket, would get tarred and feathered for throwing the election. The biggest question is to see how the tea party holds up if they were nothing but a sham to get voters, is the Koch's brothers monster they created going to ultimately backfire? Or will the whole party shift to an ultra-right religious extremist group.
Unlikely. Paul has a strong following and I think he does talk good sense often on economic issues (anti war, against the corporatist republican takeover) etc,.. Though he isn't "republican" enough to get the nod, and if he ran on the libertarian ticket, would get tarred and feathered for throwing the election. The biggest question is to see how the tea party holds up if they were nothing but a sham to get voters, is the Koch's brothers monster they created going to ultimately backfire? Or will the whole party shift to an ultra-right religious extremist group.
I think you're absolutely right--he's a very sharp guy and he's way too smart to go third party. What he can do though, is raise a ruckus within the R party and hold their feet to the fire. He seems pretty comfortable doing that. Thank goodness...
If they shift ultra right religious extremist, they'll lose the middle. That's not where the voters are.
One comment though--the tea party in Iowa went strong social conservative independently DESPITE the R party leadership. I think the R leadership is trying to walk a balancing act with those groups around the country by attempting to strongly control the message--claim the groups are grassroots and focused on the economy, but completely control the stand on economic issues. The Paul's scare the Rs to death, and they don't want them to lead the debate. The R's counter it by throwing out social conservative crumbs (like changing the abortion issue in HCR on a national level) as a distraction that they know won't go anywhere, but will appease the base, and then do whatever the leadership wants to do on the economy. Bait and switch.
It's got to be scaring them to death that in a high profile political state like Iowa, they can't successfully control that message anymore, and they're pretty much at the mercy of the local leadership in how the debate is shaped. They want to use the social conservatives, but they don't want to give them any power, or make those issues the key focus of a campaign--they want them to have crumbs. It's falling apart for them. They don't want Paul to have a chance to become the voice of leadership on economic issues either. It's a mess. Maybe Koch will just pump in more money...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
