Florida early results

[Thumper]

A smart candidate will strive to make the tent more inclusive in the general election, to collect their supporters.

Paul's attractive qualities (Strict Constitutionalist/ Fiscal Conservative) are blown to hell and gone by his unattractive attributes ("It's America's fault"/ Appeasement). To bring Dr. Paul into the tent alienates at least 90% of the party.

That's one of the things about Paul supporters I don't understand. Some truly believe that their 6 or so percent should dictate the party direction. Whether you are "right" or not is irrelevent. We are a Constitutional Republic. If you can't generate votes, you get to lose.

To believe that the (vast) majority should cater to your views can only strike someone watching from the outside as naive and adolescent.

I think some are starting to realize (finally) that "he can't win" really is a valid indictment of Paul. Some of us hoped he could serve to move the Party back to the right, but unfortunately, he's failed to exhibit the leadership neccessary to keep some of his more...um...undesirable supporters in check. All he's done is alienated the base. That's unfortunate, but true.

 

[Silver Bullet]

It's really unfortunate when the media focuses only on those with a chance to win the nomination.

Who's to say who has a chance ? It wasn't too many months ago that Giuliani was the apparent front runner and McCain's candidacy appeared to be going nowhere.

I'm not letting the liberalMedia tell me who the viable candidates are, or who I should support. Your mileage may vary.

 

[rhgunguy]

I think some are starting to realize (finally) that "he can't win" really is a valid indictment of Paul. Some of us hoped he could serve to move the Party back to the right, but unfortunately, he's failed to exhibit the leadership neccessary to keep some of his more...um...undesirable supporters in check. All he's done is alienated the base. That's unfortunate, but true.

(bolding is mine)
Thank you Thumper, you finaly put my thoughts into words. Ever since the Iowa Straw Poll I have had an un-easy feeling about Paul. His supporters reminded me of the south end of a north-bound horse while they were marching around shouting things and even interupting the moderator while she was attempting to introduce Dr. Paul. The way she put it,(not nearly as eloquently as Thumper)"the inmates seem to be running the asylum".

I was, infact amused when a Paul person told me that a)he was offended by her verbage and b)whoever I was supporting(he did not even know) had no chance.

His entire campaign seems to be a cross between the counter-culture and today's disgruntled highschoolers. The Paul camp who seem to see politics as something that should be "fair"* and while promoting ideals that are incredibly unpopular^.

Fair is that the majority rules. Unpopular ideals(ie, ideals of the minority) do not attract the majority. They do however make you look "kooky" and disuade the majority ergo, you lose.

I don't dislike the man, or many of his positions, but the one that sets him apart in the feild is the deal-breaker for me. Well, that and my MTI told me to never trust an Air Force doctor.

*see whinings about lack of media coverage and poor popularity
^before I hear whining, google "popular vote", I know its not "fair"(see *) but that is the way we elect people

 

[Thumper]

Who's to say who has a chance ? It wasn't too many months ago that Giuliani was the apparent front runner and McCain's candidacy appeared to be going nowhere.

The Giuliani predictions were before the states started assigning delegates. It became obvious very quickly that both Thompson and Giuliani were non starters because they couldn't get votes. Neither have been considered viable, even in the media, for quite a while.

I was a Thompson supporter, but the boy couldn't come through. Magical thinking doesn't change that fact.

Paul supporters (and I'm asking earnestly), what is the logical path you expect Paul can follow and win the nomination at this point? What do you believe are the specific set of circumstances that could allow Dr. Paul to win the nomination?

 

[Al Norris]

About John McCain and the types of judges he would nominate. This from The Volokh Conspiracy:

NRO's Byron York reports:

I got a moment with John McCain, after an airport rally here in Orlando, to ask him about a report today by John Fund quoting some unnamed conservatives quoting McCain to the effect that, in Fund's words, "[McCain] would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.'"

"Let me just look you in the eye," McCain told me. "I've said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I've said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. I look you in the eye and tell you I've said a thousand times that I wanted Alito and Roberts. I have told anybody who will listen. I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible], and I am proud of my record of working to get them confirmed, and people who worked to get them confirmed will tell you how hard I worked."

"I don't get it," McCain continued. "I have a clear record of that. All I can tell you is my record is clear: I've supported these guys. I went to the floor of the Senate and spoke in favor of them. It's in the record, saying, 'You've got to confirm these people.'"

I asked whether McCain had ever drawn any distinction between Roberts and Alito. "No, no, of course not," McCain said.

I asked about the "wore his conservatism on his sleeve" line. "I'm proud of people who wear their conservatism on their sleeves, because they have to have a clear record of strict adherence to the Constitution," McCain told me. "Remember, in all my remarks, I've said, look, we're not going to take somebody's word for it. You have to have a clear record of adherence to the Constitution, a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I have said that time after time after time."

"And maybe as an aside, why would I say anything derogatory about somebody like that? What would be the point, after working so hard to get not only those two confirmed, but the Gang of 14 which I know is controversial but our record of getting those judges confirmed that the president nominated, I'm still proud of."

As many know, I'm from Idaho. Here the vote was gonna split between McCain (Non-Catholic Conservatives) and Rudy (Catholic Conservatives) on the one hand and Romney (the LDS vote) on the other. That would have made Romney the clear winner. Now with just McCain and Romney, it's gonna go to those who crossover their religious idealogical lines. While I hate to bring this component up, it is a fact of life in Idaho.

Ron Paul, should he still be in the race when the primary is held here, won't be a blip on the radar. So despite my wanting to vote for him, as a protest vote, I have to be realistic. Which of the two, McCain or Romney fills the bill?

It will be McCain for me.

Since I disagree with many of the things about which the Republican candidates have claimed or their voting records. I have about given up on casting my vote (in the primary) for any of them. However, based upon the above quotes from NRO's Byron York, I would vote for McCain. The prospect of getting one or two more conservative Justices on the Supreme Court is about the only criteria I have left, upon which to base my vote.

 

[4sarge]

Throwing away votes?

In a primary?
I'll wait and make the decision to "Throw away my vote" in November.
Until then I'll vote for the ONLY candidate that has "Walked the Walk" for the past 30 years plus.

 

[sasquatch]

It will be McCain for me.....The prospect of getting one or two more conservative Justices on the Supreme Court is about the only criteria I have left, upon which to base my vote.

If I remember correctly, McCain voted to confirm justices Ginsburg and Breyer.

 

[jtaylor]

Paul got 2nd in NV and 1st in LA, you don't hear much about LA because the results can't be official until Feb 9th after provisional ballots can be counted.
Media blackout is not a conspiracy...I watched the debates, 90 minutes, 6 of which was Paul's and 15 on average for the others.
I watch the analysis after each debate where Paul wins the stations own poll, but they refuse to talk about it! I see the charts and coverage where MSM would have you think there is no Ron Paul. Media wants a strong military industrial complex and a neo-con agenda, this is no conspiracy, just reality.
Paul, despite media blackout has done considerably well. 11 candidates, now just 4! He has funds left to advertise, his campaign grows each day, on it's own!!
McCain is more democrat than the democrats! Huckabee is liberal, big gov, with a shaky past and special interests as well as an evangelical agenda! Have you heard his quote? :
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
Romney is anti gun as anyone, McCain is 4 more years of Bush and economic decline...So, I'm glad I like Ron Paul, but even if I didn't I don't see any other rational choice here. I support our constitution and conservative ideals. I support a republican candidate, a real republican candidate.
Besides, out of what, 1159 delegates needed, McCain has about 90? There's still a ways to go. let's all watch the CNN debate and take it from there.

 

[Pat H]

If I remember correctly, McCain voted to confirm justices Ginsburg and Breyer.

I believe he voted to confirm Souter as well, one of the worst statists of all time, right up there with Ginsburg.

 

[Thumper]

Ins't your comment a little disingenuous Pat? Weren't these confirmations in an era when tradition dictated that Congress overwhelmingly confirm a President's Justice selection?

· Justice Breyer – Confirmed by a vote of 87 – 9 in a Congress composed of 57 Democrats and 43 Republicans.

· Justice Ginsburg – Confirmed by a vote of 96 – 3 in that same Congress.

· Justice Souter – Confirmed by a vote of 90 – 9 in a Congress composed of 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans.

· Justice Kennedy – Confirmed by a vote of 97 – 0 in a Congress composed of 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans.

· Justice Scalia – Confirmed by a vote of 98 – 0 in a Congress composed of 47 Democrats and 53 Republicans.

· Justice O’Connor – Confirmed by a vote of 99 – 0 in a Congress composed of 46 Democrats and 53 Republicans.

· Justice Stevens – Confirmed by a vote of 98 – 0 in a Congress composed of 61 Democrats and 37 Republicans

 

[Pat H]

Disingenuous? Not at all, that there was a "tradition" of some sort of gentleman's agreement to virtually never question the judicial nominations of any president is quite irrelevant. Any Senator could have and should have opposed anti-Constitutional nominees.

 

[Thumper]

Ok...I actually agree with you here, but to fail to mention the tradition (if you knew) is, of course, disinginuous.

Doesn't matter, either way.

My belief is that the Republican Field is more likely to nominate strict Constitutionists than the Democratic Field.

 

[Al Norris]

If I remember correctly, McCain voted to confirm justices Ginsburg and Breyer.

You will correct me, if I'm wrong, but IIRC, the majority of the Senate voted to confirm them. Including long time 2A stalwarts such as, Larry (just tapping my foot) Craig.

 

[Thumper]

I asked earlier:

Paul supporters (and I'm asking earnestly), what is the logical path you expect Paul can follow and win the nomination at this point? What do you believe are the specific set of circumstances that could allow Dr. Paul to win the nomination?

Still waiting...

 

[Pat H]

Thumper, I've posted that in another thread. You can read it here.

You do know that a brokered convention is very likely, and after next Tuesday, we'll know if it's a certainty.

 

[Yellowfin]

So there was a "gentleman's agreement" to completely ignore the Constitutional process and let those monsters in?!? That is utterly abominable.

 

[Pat H]

Yes, interesting enough, it was the Democrats that first began to stop that with the Bork nomination (thank God they did, Bork would be worse than Souter), but it was still slow to change.

Bush II essentially completed the process of ending the agreement through his nominations, which is okay by me. Harriet Miers, give me a break.

There's still a "gentleman's agreement" on lower court appointments. If a judgeship comes open in a Senators district, they're "allowed" to blackball any nominee put forward by the president.

 

[rhgunguy]

Paul got 2nd in NV and 1st in LA, you don't hear much about LA because the results can't be official until Feb 9th after provisional ballots can be counted.

That sounds like the "rules", not a conspiracy.

Media blackout is not a conspiracy...I watched the debates, 90 minutes, 6 of which was Paul's and 15 on average for the others.

That sounds "fair" for a canidate with two top three places in eight primaries, if you realy want to count LA.

I see the charts and coverage where MSM would have you think there is no Ron Paul.

For all practical purposes ther is no Ron Paul. He has NO chance of winning. Taking first in a heavily Democrat state(LA) and second in the state that Harry Reid calls home(NV) means that he is the best(or second best) smelling peice of fecal matter in their estimation as far as electoral votes go. For that matter there are no Paul supporters, seeing as how I have been told repeatedly that they will not vote if Paul does not get the nomination. Just like the lottery, you can't win if you don't play.

Media wants a strong military industrial complex and a neo-con agenda, this is no conspiracy, just reality.

Your very notion is laughable. If that were true the media would be calling for Jeb Bush 2008.

He has funds left to advertise, his campaign grows each day, on it's own!!

That means nothing. Mcain went into debt to stay alive in the race and his campaign was considered DOA. Look how well he is doing now.

In fact almost everything I have heard from Ron Paul supports can be classified a laughable notion. Perhaps I should change my signature to Ron Paul 2008-a laughable notion.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Paul supporters (and I'm asking earnestly), what is the logical path you expect Paul can follow and win the nomination at this point? What do you believe are the specific set of circumstances that could allow Dr. Paul to win the nomination?

As the other nominees drop out, more of the attention is put on Ron Paul. There’s a chance that as more people listen to him open-mindedly they will become converts. This assumes that there are enough open-minded folks who are not brainwashed by the liberalMedia.

I don’t expect him to win, I hope he wins, and I’m taking steps to make increase the likelihood of that happening. If he doesn’t win, at least I will have made an effort. I won’t have stood by doing nothing while the most qualified candidate of my time, heads and shoulders above any other I’ve seen, runs for the presidency. I have to try.

What’s with all this “he can’t win, so don’t vote for him” circular reasoning ? If I restrict myself to who I expect to win, I guess I’m stuck with Hillary. If the election comes down to Obama vs. Ron Paul, are you telling me you would vote for Obama merely because you “expect” him to win ? I have a bad feeling that I might get what you deserve.

 

[sasquatch]

Antipitas

You will correct me, if I'm wrong, but IIRC, the majority of the Senate voted to confirm them. Including long time 2A stalwarts such as, Larry (just tapping my foot) Craig.

Neither was confirmed by a unanimous vote, indicating to me that some Senators might have actually voted their conscience; John McCain would not be inluded in that group.

Larry Craig is not running for President.