http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24243Human Events.com said:
Here's my documentation, disappointing that Paul supporters try to spin the truth as they see it...not how it really is.
Tonights Repub debate
- Thread starter Pat H
- Start date
Here's my documentation, disappointing that Paul supporters try to spin the truth as they see it...not how it really is.
Just wanted to pop in and point something out:
You folks seem to be griping about the current state of affairs in the country and the direction of the Republican party (both of which are interrelated).
Do you not realize that parties are geared towards voting blocs rather than ideals? Do you not realize that voting for the most "electable" candidate (even though it should be obvious that nobody with an R after their name can actually win the general election) encourages the very same drift you're lamenting?
Your vote for McCain tells the Republican party and the general electorate that you approve of his positions more than any of the other candidates; that the Republican party as a whole should be more McCain-like. But that's not really true, is it?
Can Paul win the Republican nomination? No, probably not now. Does that matter? No, not really. My vote, volunteering, and donations for Paul tell the party and electorate that I want the Republican party to be more conservative.
There are many ways to "win" in a primary. Having the ability to point out that he's the only candidate with fervent grassroots support (I know, too fervent) and still out-raising the other guys is a victory; a signal that either one of the "electable" candidates would have more support and funding if they were more Paul-like instead of the current front-runner who is heading into ST flat broke.
Obama has learned this lesson; he recently made a statement that sounded like it came straight from Paul:
A new generation has been drawn into the party seeking offices across the country which they intend to execute in the same spirit.
This isn't just about a presidential election, it's about a movement. And it's working.
So if you haven't voted already and you support what he's about, I highly encourage you to "waste" your vote on him. If you can't bring yourself to abandon the hope that McCain or Romney can actually defeat HillBama and insist on "wasting" your vote on them instead... you can still help promote the reform of the party by donating, becoming more active and vocal in local party functions, or even running for office yourself.
I'm off. Good day, all
You folks seem to be griping about the current state of affairs in the country and the direction of the Republican party (both of which are interrelated).
Do you not realize that parties are geared towards voting blocs rather than ideals? Do you not realize that voting for the most "electable" candidate (even though it should be obvious that nobody with an R after their name can actually win the general election) encourages the very same drift you're lamenting?
Your vote for McCain tells the Republican party and the general electorate that you approve of his positions more than any of the other candidates; that the Republican party as a whole should be more McCain-like. But that's not really true, is it?
Can Paul win the Republican nomination? No, probably not now. Does that matter? No, not really. My vote, volunteering, and donations for Paul tell the party and electorate that I want the Republican party to be more conservative.
There are many ways to "win" in a primary. Having the ability to point out that he's the only candidate with fervent grassroots support (I know, too fervent) and still out-raising the other guys is a victory; a signal that either one of the "electable" candidates would have more support and funding if they were more Paul-like instead of the current front-runner who is heading into ST flat broke.
Obama has learned this lesson; he recently made a statement that sounded like it came straight from Paul:
-Barack Obama re. FISA
A new generation has been drawn into the party seeking offices across the country which they intend to execute in the same spirit.
This isn't just about a presidential election, it's about a movement. And it's working.
So if you haven't voted already and you support what he's about, I highly encourage you to "waste" your vote on him. If you can't bring yourself to abandon the hope that McCain or Romney can actually defeat HillBama and insist on "wasting" your vote on them instead... you can still help promote the reform of the party by donating, becoming more active and vocal in local party functions, or even running for office yourself.
I'm off. Good day, all
Reagan would have never been elected with that strategy. I certainly don't agree with McCain or Romney on everything but nobody wins elections by appealing to the minority hard liners. Nobody. Ron Paul may be right about a lot of things but if he was presidential material he would have shown some leadership skills by commanding more time to get his message across. Instead he sat there and let them ignore him. If he can't get respect from CNN pond scum, he won't get it from international leaders.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are taking advantage of this bickering in the huddle and are running end plays around us like last night's love fest.
JaserST4,
So then, what was the point of nominating them in the first place?
This election year simplifies things. No matter who gets the Republican nomination, he's a sacraficial lamb in the general election anyway. Heck, the front-runner doesn't even have enough cash left to advertise in the ST states! How on earth is he gonna compete with Hillbama?
Answer is he won't, so "electability" shouldn't be an issue this year. The watchword is "direction". The Republican party is splintered, confused, and rudderless. Now is the time to tell them what you want. I really don't think that you want someone who smirks at concepts like lower taxes, less government, laissez-faire economics, and has an established history of gun-grabbing.
But if you're not careful, that's exactly the signal you're going to give the party.
Thumper,
Like I said, you pays your money and you takes your chances. Nobody knew how it was going to turn out and I said that a lot. Unfortunately, I don't have the opportunity to post here very often these days, but I'll pop in when I can.
That kinda highlights my point. Sort of a Goldwater conundrum. It doesn't matter whether a candidate promotes your ideals if he can't get elected, right? But the corrolary is it doesn't matter if you get a candidate elected if he doesn't support your ideals. Case in point: The only 2 "viable" candidates are McCain and Romney. Going by their track records with Democrat majority legislatures, exactly which conservative principles will they *not* chuck under the bus in the name of "cooperation"?
So then, what was the point of nominating them in the first place?
This election year simplifies things. No matter who gets the Republican nomination, he's a sacraficial lamb in the general election anyway. Heck, the front-runner doesn't even have enough cash left to advertise in the ST states! How on earth is he gonna compete with Hillbama?
Answer is he won't, so "electability" shouldn't be an issue this year. The watchword is "direction". The Republican party is splintered, confused, and rudderless. Now is the time to tell them what you want. I really don't think that you want someone who smirks at concepts like lower taxes, less government, laissez-faire economics, and has an established history of gun-grabbing.
But if you're not careful, that's exactly the signal you're going to give the party.
Thumper,
Like I said, you pays your money and you takes your chances. Nobody knew how it was going to turn out and I said that a lot. Unfortunately, I don't have the opportunity to post here very often these days, but I'll pop in when I can.
You still don't trust ol' Scottie Rasmussen? He keeps being right and you keep being wrong...you know Scottie has McCain beating both Clinton and Obama head to head, right?
Most of the left leaning people I'm forced to be around admit that they dig McCain, too. I mean, I don't necessarily like him, but if he keeps Hilbama out...cool with me.
Thumper,
The first part of your response is such a bundle of fallacies I won't even bother trying to unravel it. It is (among other things) a red herring and I'm not interested in pursuing it.
What I'm interested in is the second part:
Why, exactly, would that be cool by you? What would Hillbama do that McCain wouldn't? What could McCain stop that Hillary wouldn't?
In short and as a practical matter, what makes McCain any better than Hillbama? After all, he already has a well-established track record of cooperation with his friends across the aisle.
And if there is any practical upside there, is it worth the cost of misdirecting the Republican party about what you really want? I mean, the longer you deny them direction, the longer it's gonna take for them to get their act together and become relavant again.
I have to bow out at this point. I'll check back in one of these weeks. Carry on.
The first part of your response is such a bundle of fallacies I won't even bother trying to unravel it. It is (among other things) a red herring and I'm not interested in pursuing it.
What I'm interested in is the second part:
Again, ignoring the obvious false representation and getting to the heart of the matter:
Why, exactly, would that be cool by you? What would Hillbama do that McCain wouldn't? What could McCain stop that Hillary wouldn't?
In short and as a practical matter, what makes McCain any better than Hillbama? After all, he already has a well-established track record of cooperation with his friends across the aisle.
And if there is any practical upside there, is it worth the cost of misdirecting the Republican party about what you really want? I mean, the longer you deny them direction, the longer it's gonna take for them to get their act together and become relavant again.
I have to bow out at this point. I'll check back in one of these weeks. Carry on.
Simple answer is that I believe that we're stuck with one of four candidates. There were more, and I'd hoped for better, but now there are four.
The Republican Candidate is MORE LIKELY to appoint a strict constitutionist justice than the Dems.
The Republican Candidate is MORE LIKELY to provide a higher degree of Second Amendment protection than the Dems.
McCain (of the remaining Republican Candidates) is MORE LIKELY to beat the Dem Candidate.
The Republican Candidates at least give lip service to protecting the causes I hold dear. The Democrats swear to tear down that which I hold dear.
Though I'm not thrilled with the candidates I'm presented with, the choice between the eventual two is a no brainer.
Remember that logically this is not a false dichotomy...I have always believed Paul, et al were never an option. Time has proven me right.
I wish we could have gotten Thompson or even Huckabee...it didn't happen. It's time to be pragmatic.
BoringAccountant
New member
Not so fast there...I think it is still possible to change the frontrunner again. While I completely agree with your statements about who to vote for in the general election if it were McCain vs Hillibama...I still see the primaries as not being completely over yet. Since your primary isnt until March...are you considering voting for Huckabee?
Reason I ask is if you don't, then you have made the decision like the rest of the not-so conservative Republicans. I feel that in the primary one should still vote for who most closely aligns to their views...then in the general its time to vote for the lesser of two evils.
So...who you pulling the lever for in your primary? And, I dont think its a wasted vote for Huckabee just because the Rasmussen polls pull McCain in first...they did that for Guiliani too. (I know putting all his eggs in the Florida basket was a HUGE part of his downfall, but still)
BoringAccountant
New member
Oh ok, we are on the same page then...just checking 
Voting for Paul (IN THE GENERAL) when there is a good shot he will not win is like pissing into the wind
Wow, I went back and reread it and it was confusing, sorry.
I must have had three different sentences going on in my head when I wrote that
Voting for Paul (IN THE GENERAL) when there is a good shot he will not win is like pissing into the wind
Wow, I went back and reread it and it was confusing, sorry.
I must have had three different sentences going on in my head when I wrote that
Last edited:
BoringAccountant
New member
fixed, sorry, it was confusing