|
Post by Ritty77 on May 16, 2011 12:45:15 GMT -5
Newt is toast, too. That didn't take long.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on May 16, 2011 12:53:12 GMT -5
Essentially, so did Newt.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on May 16, 2011 13:37:20 GMT -5
So basically, Newt supports a "variation" of the individual mandate. A mandate ruled unconstitutional by Judge Vinson.
He must feel that his ideas are different and he can sell them. Otherwise, he wasted everyone's time even running.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on May 16, 2011 13:53:38 GMT -5
Well. Nevermind then, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on May 16, 2011 14:33:49 GMT -5
The Republican establishment, moderates and the left all believe that Obama is more than vulnerable; they don’t, however want to see him replaced by a true (radical in their mind) conservative. I think Republicans that lean toward big government realize this and they’re getting favorable treatment from the MSM while true conservatives are being ignored.
This could lead to a third party.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on May 16, 2011 17:13:58 GMT -5
Look for big, serious primary battles next winter/spring. I have a sense that the American people won't be dictated to by the Ruling Class elites who control both parties anymore. Well, on the Republican side, anyway. On the Democrat side they still appear to WANT to be told what to do and who to vote for.
|
|
|
Post by twinder on May 16, 2011 17:18:15 GMT -5
So Newt was "for it before he was against it?" Here we go again.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on May 17, 2011 8:29:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by twinder on May 17, 2011 20:11:15 GMT -5
I like what I hear about this guy, Phil. It'll be quite a challenge for him to take on the "establishment" and win the nomination.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on May 18, 2011 16:42:55 GMT -5
Ron Paul, Herman Cain & The Tea PartiesBy Jonah Goldberg May 18, 2011 4:22 PM A few quick thoughts in response to some (predictable) complaints about my latest column. I wrote, “Ron Paul, the libertarian Harold Stassen, is in for another go, presumably on the mistaken assumption that America has turned into Tea Party Nation. (If only!).” I should have been clear that I think he thinks he’s the candidate of the tea parties and he thinks that the electorate — both in the primary and the general — has moved toward him. I don’t think the former is true, and I don’t think the latter is true enough to do him much good. Indeed, I’ve never thought much of all the talk about how Ron Paul is the “Godfather of the tea parties.” I’ve given major speeches at three tea party rallies (including the Cincinnati Tax Day tea party rally last year which was the biggest audience I’ve ever spoken to), and attended a couple tea party related events in the D.C. as a spectator. I bring that up just to say that I’ve met a lot of tea party folks at the leadership level all the way down. Obviously, Ron Paul has many fans and adherents in those circles. But I never got the sense that, generally speaking, the tea partiers were definitive Ron Paul followers or fans. Among other things, I think the folks I’ve met were generally more in favor of the military, the war on terror, and mainstream conservative foreign policy than anything that could be described as Paul-ism. Moreover, both in e-mail and in person, the enthusiasm for Herman Cain and to a lesser extent Michele Bachmann and, before her, Sarah Palin, was greater than anything I’ve seen for Paul. Now, yes, my impressions are anecdotal. I didn’t run a scientific poll of tea partiers I’ve met around the country. Nor have I applied a regression analysis to my e-mail. And, yes, I am sure I will hear from many Ron Paul fans and self-described tea partiers who will insist that because they and their friends are Ron Paul supporters that I am wrong (I have ample experience with Paulista e-mail deluges, can’t you tell?). As for Herman Cain, I’m also catching a lot of grief for not discussing him. For the record, what I’ve seen of Cain I like. I certainly respect the guy, though I was less impressed with what I saw of his debate performance than Frank Luntz’s focus group was. And I am far from convinced he’s the right candidate at the right time. I didn’t mention him, or Michele Bachmann (who, I’d predict, will do better than Cain in the primaries if she enters the race), because they didn’t fit directly into the thesis of the column, particularly given space constraints. I can tell from the comments and e-mail that Cain’s fans are already trying to make support for him into some kind of litmus test. I’m not buying any of that. But I look forward to seeing how he does in the weeks and months ahead. www.nationalreview.com/corner/267583/ron-paul-herman-cain-tea-parties-jonah-goldberg
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on May 21, 2011 12:04:23 GMT -5
Herman Cain just announced his official candidacy for President. CNN describes him as a "Tea Party favorite."
A Black man supported by the Tea Party? Outrageous!
"We don't need to re-write the Constitution, we need to re-read it." -Cain
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on May 21, 2011 12:25:38 GMT -5
Go Herman!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by relenemiller on May 22, 2011 12:57:24 GMT -5
Here's the ticket- Palin/Cain 2012! Socially and fiscally conservative, business minded, TRUE African American, both Constitutionalists, both supportive of military, both small limited govt., and one man and one woman! The biggie? R E A L C H A N G E ! Neither are conformists! Phil, all due respect....your suggestion that Palin is too conservative, is precisely what many Americans long for, openly admitting it or secretly in their hearts, people are fed up with any staunch of liberalism and its raunchy lifestyle of deprivation. You just don't heart it openly by people along both sides of the aisle for fear of the labeling of being too conservative! Won't the libs be surprised, BTW, if Cain takes a lead? Gee, maybe they will retreat into their corners and quit calling us racists?
|
|
|
Post by relenemiller on May 22, 2011 12:58:28 GMT -5
Palin/Cain...minus the Mc...LOL!
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on May 22, 2011 15:20:42 GMT -5
Relene, you’re going to have to differentiate between social conservative and fiscal conservative. Fiscal conservatism is only a problem for liberal voters, but social conservatism is a problem for many of the more moderate and independent voters.
You can bet that liberals and the MSM will try and paint both Palin and Cain as religious extremists. They’ve already accomplished that with Palin. Cain may be harder for them.
A lot of us aren’t at all satisfied with the establishment Republicans but I think the left knows there guy is vulnerable and they want a Republican running against him that is still a big government candidate in case he does lose.
Time will tell how it will play out.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on May 22, 2011 17:31:53 GMT -5
Phil, I'm not convinced that the problem you see about social conservatives (which of course means anyone with religious principles that influence their political views) is a true one. How do we know about this as a problem with moderate (often just a codeword for liberals who refuse to accept the label) and independent voters? Why, because the MSM tells us it's a problem. Now why should we take their word for that? Honestly, I think that claim is overblown at the very least. Painting Palin as a religious extremist? That's terminology straight out of the MSM playbook. In fact, her religious beliefs are squarely in the middle of mainstream American belief. That's only "extreme" for those on the left who wouldn't vote for her anyway, and for various big-city elites (actually, we're talking about the same folks, so I guess it's not a different category). If Palin gets in the race and gets the nomination, she'll be able to demonstrate to the portion of the country that's not yet paying attention that what she believes is largely what THEY believe.
So differentiate all you want between fiscal and social conservative, but I don't think it's all that big a deal.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on May 22, 2011 22:49:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on May 23, 2011 5:55:29 GMT -5
Doug, it looks like your wishes are interfering with your objectivity. When people speak of the extreme right, they are referring to social conservatism in most cases. And remember that perception is everything. You’d be hard pressed to find very many moderates and independents that want to vote for a social conservative.
A social conservative has a chance at being nominated, but being elected is a different story. Many moderates will say home or vote for a third party candidate before they’d vote for a social conservative, and like it or not, moderates and independents will likely decide the election.
|
|
|
Post by relenemiller on May 23, 2011 12:40:27 GMT -5
Phil, again...you want to see socially conservative as an alter evil to say....agnosticism, or religious right. There are people who don't cross the thresh hold of a church door of any type and still find our country in a repugnant morally deprived state. I would argue that they are unaware of why they are feeling that way, but that's another discussion. People are fed up with the "in your face" of homosexuals and the push of immorality nod of tolerance in various liberal social fields. Drugs, alchohol...etc...Many people are simply fed up with paying for sooooo much that falls under social "needs" created because of individual choices to be dependent on our govt. That feeling comes from both sides of the aisle as well as those in the middle (and I would suggest even more). People who identify themselves as moderates, libertarians actually believe in ones right to free exercise of religion, working for a living, and families identified as a family, not just by extreme liberal philosophy. Yes, there is a difference in fiscal conservative and social conservative, but people are, IMHO more outraged about our Constitution being demolished and our govt. encroaching more every day (which speaks to over spending) than they are about someones religious preferences. And, as Doug has suggested, the mainstream philosophy about religion present in ones life is more acceptable than not and Palin's conservatism is not a detriment to her as you may think.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on May 23, 2011 16:55:24 GMT -5
Phil, right back at you. I think your wishes are interfering with your objectivity too. Almost everyone who ever uses the term "the extreme right" already has an ax to grind with both you and me. As for the rest, they're reachable if it's done correctly. But pretending that everyone views "social conservatism" with the disdain that it's clear you do isn't the same thing as that being true.
|
|