It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: trapeze on December 12, 2011, 03:16:22 PM
-
Found on AoS but posted at RightScoop: (http://www.therightscoop.com/glenn-beck-id-consider-ron-paul-as-third-party-over-newt-gingrich/)
"I'd consider Ron Paul as third party over Newt Gingrich."
Un-believable.
I guess he just wants to get into a competitive situation with Michael Savage or something.
Or he's on acid.
-
::facepalm::
-
Beck can say some sarcastic stuff.....Do you think he was serious?
-
I sure hope he's joking. ::bashing::
-
I am tired of even trying to take Glenn Beck seriously. He doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Not by me, anyway.
But...
A lot of people do take him seriously and dote on his every comment as conservative gospel. Because of this phenomenon I am very irritated by a person with a large audience and influence spouting such utter nonsense. He may have his issues with Gingrich but that is no reason to drive a significant number of people to vote in such a way as to assure the Dingus a second term.
Please note that (like a good Mormon) he does not rule out voting for Romney. I have to wonder if he is trying to somehow influence the vote in such a way as to favor Romney. It's crazy but so is voting for and supporting a third party run by anyone...let alone a certifiable nut like Ron Paul.
I won't waste my time listening to Beck again. Not after this. He is dead to me now.
-
He was saying it to emphasize a point he made while appearing
on Judge Napolitano's show, that Newt is a Progressive, and the
only difference between Newt and Obama is the color of their
skin.
-
I would also vote Ron Paul 3rd party over Newt.
Beck doesn't like Newt and doesn't seem to like Romney much either.
But a little more than Newt.
He has said that he likes Bachmann and Santorum
-
GLENN BECK: If Tea Party Votes For Gingrich It's Because Obama's Black
http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-beck-tea-party-doesnt-like-obama-because-hes-black-2011-12 (http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-beck-tea-party-doesnt-like-obama-because-hes-black-2011-12)
Sorry Glenn but it's ABO for me. And I'll gladly take newt over mitt.
-
He was saying it to emphasize a point he made while appearing
on Judge Napolitano's show, that Newt is a Progressive, and the
only difference between Newt and Obama is the color of their
skin.
^^ That. Sarcastic hyperbole; when Rush does it, he points it out.
-
GLENN BECK: If Tea Party Votes For Gingrich It's Because Obama's Black
http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-beck-tea-party-doesnt-like-obama-because-hes-black-2011-12 (http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-beck-tea-party-doesnt-like-obama-because-hes-black-2011-12)
Sorry Glenn but it's ABO for me. And I'll gladly take newt over mitt.
[blockquote]If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive in Obama… ask yourself this, Tea Party: Is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It’s the policies that matter.
[/blockquote]
Really, it's the only difference between the two. So that must be it.
-
Beg to differ. Newt is a progressive, yes, but there are differences between him and Duh Wun; it's not just race.
-
Yes, Mr. Obama does posses a much
higher quantity of melanin than the gNewt.
And gNewt does posses a much
higher quantity of brain cells than Mr. Obama but
that just makes him more of a threat doesn't it.
-
Beck must not have enough 10.00 contributers to GBTV. I'm sorry, Glenn, you believed in your "cause" so much you sank your entire fortune in it.
The Glenn beck show: sarcasm, 100% of the time. Please don't miss the next piece of sarcasm at GBTV, a deal at 10 bucks.
-
Who's more conservative? Ron Paul? Or Newt Gingrich?
In my mind, there is no debate. Gingrich is a big government progressive establishment Republican. His relationship to the constitution is academic. Ron Paul is a small government libertarian conservative. His relationship to the constitution is visceral and near absolute. So absolute that he completely takes himself out of consideration for an entire voting bloc because his version of conservative foreign policy is complete isolationism and fails to make moral distinctions between allies and enemies. But there is no question that Ron Paul is as ultra-conservative-libertarian as Newt Gingrich is ultra-establishment progressive GOP.
In other words, aside from the quirkiness and the vapid foreign policy, Ron Paul's policy positions are exactly what the conservative electorate has been pleading for. That is going to be attractive to many, many people.
If Ron Paul runs 3rd party, it's game over - Obama wins. There is no way possible to deride, shame, and cajole enough of his followers and enough anti-establishment Republicans to give the vote to Gingrich. Glenn Beck's comment will not make Ron Paul's 3rd party run any more damaging to a Newt Gingrich GOP run than it would otherwise be without it*. If Paul run's it's game over. Beck could say the exact opposite of what he said, and it would still be game over.
*ETA: Without Beck's comment, that is.
-
He has a personality trait that I have seen in other recovering addicts before. They latch onto something as a proxy for their addiction, and have to jump in head first. His whole above-all-that-political-nonsense spirit, love, hope, schtick wore thin with me pretty early on. I'm not saying I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but far too often he seems like one of those addicts who has found a zealotry to fill that void. It's the addictive personality. You can remove substance, but the psychology is still there. That lunatic who lived with grizzly bears in Alaska, until -- not unpredictably -- one ate him, was also an addict who had to lose himself in another obsession. I get a similar vibe from Beck.
He's a bleeding heart. Not a liberal, but a bleeding heart nevertheless.
-
He has a personality trait that I have seen in other recovering addicts before. They latch onto something as a proxy for their addiction, and have to jump in head first. His whole above-all-that-political-nonsense spirit, love, hope, schtick wore thin with me pretty early on. I'm not saying I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but far too often he seems like one of those addicts who has found a zealotry to fill that void. It's the addictive personality. You can remove substance, but the psychology is still there. That lunatic who lived with grizzly bears in Alaska, until -- not unpredictably -- one ate him, was also an addict who had to lose himself in another obsession. I get a similar vibe from Beck.
He's a bleeding heart. Not a liberal, but a bleeding heart nevertheless.
I tend to agree with you. In his wildest imaginings, I suspect he believes if TSHTF in a big enough way, he'll lead out of the darkness. It's a bit of a delusion, and somewhat dangerous I think.
-
Who's more conservative? Ron Paul? Or Newt Gingrich?
In my mind, there is no debate. Gingrich is a big government progressive establishment Republican. His relationship to the constitution is academic. Ron Paul is a small government libertarian conservative. His relationship to the constitution is visceral and near absolute. So absolute that he completely takes himself out of consideration for an entire voting bloc because his version of conservative foreign policy is complete isolationism and fails to make moral distinctions between allies and enemies. But there is no question that Ron Paul is as ultra-conservative-libertarian as Newt Gingrich is ultra-establishment progressive GOP.
In other words, aside from the quirkiness and the vapid foreign policy, Ron Paul's policy positions are exactly what the conservative electorate has been pleading for. That is going to be attractive to many, many people.
If Ron Paul runs 3rd party, it's game over - Obama wins. There is no way possible to deride, shame, and cajole enough of his followers and enough anti-establishment Republicans to give the vote to Gingrich. Glenn Beck's comment will not make Ron Paul's 3rd party run any more damaging to a Newt Gingrich GOP run than it would otherwise be without it*. If Paul run's it's game over. Beck could say the exact opposite of what he said, and it would still be game over.
*ETA: Without Beck's comment, that is.
If Paul runs third party I'll leave the party.
-
So what we want is Ron Paul with the rest of the fields belief on foreign policy?
There isn't anyone running as conservative as Paul. Of course, there isn't anyone running except Paul who makes no distinction between our friends and enemies.
This is giving me a headache.
-
So what we want is Ron Paul with the rest of the fields belief on foreign policy?
There isn't anyone running as conservative as Paul. Of course, there isn't anyone running except Paul who makes no distinction between our friends and enemies.
This is giving me a headache.
Two shots of the liquor of your choosing and you will feel better.
-
If Ron Paul runs 3rd party, it's game over - Obama wins.
Which is true.
I am thoroughly irritated with anyone who would in any way encourage this to happen.
Beck is not, by himself, going to make it happen but he is, in this situation, an enabler. He is giving the situation his blessing.
Not.
Helpful.
Paul is as dangerous as the Dingus...just in a different way. If Paul helps to re-elect the Dingus by going third party then he may as well be a Dingus supporter.
Certainly I am not the only one who finds the whole Paul thing fraudulent. He is a libertarian. He has an "R" next to his name, not an "L." That's fraudulent. He shows up at the Republican debates and participates in the Republican primaries until he loses. If he retires from the field at that point then fine. If he goes third party at that point then his previous appearances have all been fraudulent. Does this bother anyone? It should.
-
Trap, no more fraudlent than most of the field. And for the last 25 years at least.
What are Republican principles and who is upholding them?
-
[blockquote]
Certainly I am not the only one who finds the whole Paul thing fraudulent. He is a libertarian. He has an "R" next to his name, not an "L." That's fraudulent. He shows up at the Republican debates and participates in the Republican primaries until he loses. If he retires from the field at that point then fine. If he goes third party at that point then his previous appearances have all been fraudulent. Does this bother anyone? It should.[/blockquote]
As AP says, it is their corruption that allows this.
If one runs as a Republican stay a Republican or
fold. Beck bringing it up plays the fool.
-
The Libertarians, Paul, has common cause with the Left today.
-
You're right Trap, Paul is a libertarian. But it is also true that a great deal of what defines libertarianism is constitutional principles - otherwise known as conservatism. We have a two party system, which means people outside the mainstream who seek an effective political voice will infiltrate one of two parties. The GOP is a logical home for libertarians who seek to work within the two-party system.
But that's just it: Two parties. If Paul goes 3rd party, he's a treasonous bastard that willingly hands the nation to Marxists on the altar of his libertarian principles. If he stays a Republican, and continues to work to bring libertarian values to the GOP, that's the way it's supposed to work.
So far, he's worked within the two party system to bring the GOP closer to the constitution. As repulsive as he may be to many as a presidential candidate, observation of his effect on the electorate seems obvious to me. Ron Paul has brought constitutional awareness to more people more quickly than anyone else in the modern political climate. He has made apolitical people into zealous (even if misguided) defenders of the constitution. That doesn't earn him the presidency, but IF he stays loyal to the party that brought him to the dance, then I say his influence has not been negative, and could end up in hindsight being extremely important to the survival of constitutional principles among a generation that was meant by the Left to abandon them altogether.
-
Newt Gingrich is NOT a Conservative [Episode 678] - He Loves FDR (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgdzZJePL04#ws)
Do we really expect that THIS will not drive people to a 3rd party candidacy should one arise?
We demanded our "Not-Romney". Well we've got him.
-
My own preferences notwithstanding , I've always considered Beck an irritating , iconoclastic gadfly and I wish he'd shut the hell up . Why FOX ever wasted air-time on him is beyond me .
-
I would argue that there are other things than RP which have promoted constitutional conservatism...the tea party movement (of which RP was notably absent from) and Levin's book immediately come to mind.
I want smaller government but not at the price of a neutered military and a defenseless country. RP is going in that direction. I don't want the destruction of Israel. RP gives every indication that he would finish the job started by the Dingus. The growth of Islam in the world (especially in the middle east) is unacceptable. RP is okay with this.
-
I would argue that there are other things than RP which have promoted constitutional conservatism...the tea party movement (of which RP was notably absent from) and Levin's book immediately come to mind.
I want smaller government but not at the price of a neutered military and a defenseless country. RP is going in that direction. I don't want the destruction of Israel. RP gives every indication that he would finish the job started by the Dingus. The growth of Islam in the world (especially in the middle east) is unacceptable. RP is okay with this.
Believe me, I'm with you. His foreign policy demonstrates a naivete that is completely intolerable, and the worst part is, he's got people believing his is the "constitutional" position. I think he's got that part wrong.
But I do disagree somewhat with your point about Paul being absent from the Tea Party. He has vocally refused to become involved himself as a "leader", saying that it is a grassroots movement for citizens, not for politicians. He hasn't been a feature at rallies, but his Paulbots most certainly have. They are a foundational part of every large TP rally - the ones who faithfully show up, and carry signs. I'm sure there are local and regional differences, but my point is, they are involved in the Tea Party because Ron Paul awakened their constitutional awareness.
And even if the Tea Party movement is responsible for more people coming to understand their constitutional responsibilities, I was speaking of individuals. Paul as an individual has brought more people to constitutional awareness than any other individual in the modern political arena.
-
This just illustrates to me the weakness of the candidates in the Republican field. And I qualify weakness not in the sense that the MFM would like to twist it into, I mean a real weakness, a lack of true star power and someone who would take the fight to the enemy and not compromise...but she decided to bow out of the race so this is what we're left with.
So...
People can tell me Bachmann is dead in the water, but I see her as the least likely of anybody in the remaining field to screw me over...when it comes time to cast my lot it will be with her, whoever ends up with the nomination may or may not get my vote. Y'all know my thoughts on this, no need to belabor them.
-
RP and his followers, if he decides to run 3rd party, will never consider themselves treasonous bastards. I doubt such a thought enters their collective minds. If anything, he will be considered upholding constitutional principles and garner more cult like adoration. So whatever value there is to RP, in regards to awakening people to constitutional principles, is far outweighed by his intolerable stances.....like foreign policy.
I'm not sure the paulbots won't think it's treasonous if he DOESN'T run 3rd party.
-
Here's the "good" news: none of this much matters certainly not as much as we'd all like to think it does. The fact of the matter is that even if this country started doing everything right from this moment forward we're still going to hit the iceberg. You just can't undo this mess -- there is going to be a lot of pain and austerity coming as Reality reacquaints itself with our depraved citizenry. The big question mark is what will happen as a result of that discomfort. It's the sort of thing that has in the past been a recipe for the rise of opportunistic tyrants.
-
So many things.
Where to start?
First off, I am not a treasonous bastard if I vote 3rd party. An argument could be made that I am the one who is following the Constitution since I am holding to it’s principles.
There are others here, too.
I’ve stated before that I would be voting that way if the probable nominees win.
I will (98% sure) vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Not sure I would vote for him if he runs Libertarian. Not sure I wouldn’t.
Where is the law that says there can only be two parties?
Why aren’t we all Whigs?
I am not in the bag for Ron Paul. There are some things that really bother me about him.
But, there are some things that really bother me about Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Santorum.
More than bother me about Paul’s message
He is not the problem. Regardless of whether he runs 3rd or not.
The problem is that the Pubs have no principles and are really Democrat Lites.
Ron Paul would gut defense.
It appears the Super Committee that our Republicans gave us will do that with automatic cuts.
This includes 60 of the 80 or so new Republican freshmen elected in 2010.
Ron Paul would destroy Israel by cutting foreign aid.
I’ve seen it said that we give 10 times as much to her enemies.
Netanyahu, himself, said Israel would be fine without our aid.
One thing for sure to me.
A Ron Paul presidency wouldn’t have gotten us involved in Libya and soon to be Syria.
Admittedly, he is fruity on a few things. Some of those things scare me some too.
There was a discussion here a couple weeks ago where several of us refused to accept blame if Obama were elected because of 3rd party voting.
We’re going to Hell in a hand basket, as it is. It makes no difference if we go over the cliff at 120 mph or 50 mph.
We’re still going over the cliff.
Congress just passed a law that suspends Habeus Corpus.
WITH FULL SUPPORT OF REPUBLICANS!!!
Tea Party hero Alan West loves it
The Tea Party seems to be gravitating towards Newt. The Tea Party is dead.
And it committed suicide
The 2010 election was about cutting spending.
Where’s the cuts?
You and I are about to back a European bailout through the Fed.
Who is at least talking about the evils of the Fed?
States’ Rights. Perry gives a little lip service to it. But it is for real with Paul.
In the end, I wish it were Rand Paul that was running instead of Ron Paul.
Carter gave us Reagan. I think even with a strong 3rd party candidate. John Anderson.
Perot did give us Clinton. But I honestly believe he was better than Dole
There are no Reagans in this bunch
-
Perot gave us Clinton instead of G.H.W. Bush.
-
Thanks for the correction, Charles.
Not sure that hurt us too bad.
For all that was wrong with Clinton, he was a pragmatist.
Not sure he was any worse than Daddy Bush
-
Many more Christians would have lived considering
the "old man" wouldn't have waged war on them.
-
This Beck/Paul/gNewt argument is all BS!
There is not a spits worth of difference bewteen gNewt's "realpolitik Wilsonian" progressivism and Romney's silver-spoon establishment pedigree! It is why I said in the other thread these are choices 1a & 1b for Team Obama & the MFM for the general election slaughter. I'd take stroke-out/amnesty Perry over Romney or gNewt!
If you go nuts over Beck saying he would consider voting for Paul in a 3rd party run over gNewt if gNewt is the GOP nominee and not go nuts over gNewt simply being the GOP nominee regardless of any 3rd party candidates...then why are we having primaries?
We should be promoting who we are for (somebody other than Romney, gNewt or Huntsman) not having kittens over who said what regarding something that hasn't happened yet!
The same people who say Paul is too goofy to be trusted as POTUS because of his social views, foreign policy & national defense positions are being criticised for not having faith that these failings can be overcome and that he is better than (fill in the blank)....but the same argument can be used against gNewt & Romney for their progressive impulses. If we have to throw these three clowns in the same pot and pick one I would probably pick Paul too, but jeebus, we don't have to make that choice now!
::gaah::
-
Perot gave us Clinton instead of G.H.W. Bush.
He also gave us Clinton instead of Bob Dole. Perot ran in both '92 and '96.
-
I thought so, IDP but was too lazy to fact check and too old to remember things clearly.
I did read that John Anderson in 1980 got more votes as a third party candidate than any other 3rd.
Was Clinton appreciably worse than Dole?
-
...I am not a treasonous bastard if I vote 3rd party. An argument could be made that I am the one who is following the Constitution since I am holding to it’s principles....
I need to make a clarification. I am the one who introduced the "treasonous bastard" label, and I don't want the intent of what I said misunderstood. I wasn't speaking of voters, I was speaking of one politician. And I was speaking not of treason to the country, but of potential betrayal of the Republican party by running as a Republican, being a libertarian in actuality, and then running a 3rd party general election candidacy when you don't get the nomination. Think Lisa Murkowski - that kind of "treason", not the kind punishable by death.
If a politician claims to be a member of a party even though their values are out of the mainstream, and they use that party's apparatus to gain momentum for a run, but don't get the nomination, and then instead of bowing out, they make a 3rd party run, that is a betrayal of trust in my opinion. A party cannot function for the most people possible if electoral rebuttal by voters results in a threat to run 3rd party.
2nd, I wasn't speaking of people whose conscience leads them to vote 3rd party. We all have a line that we will not cross to support a GOP we deem not worthy of support. That is a personal line, we draw it in different places, and I respect everyone's line.
I look at the field that we have now, and I am dismayed. I came into this thinking Ron Paul was the worst of the worst. I don't think that anymore. In spite of his obvious problems, he is the one candidate above all the others who unapologetically and unwaveringly adheres to a set of principles. I differ with a few of his principles in a huge way, but that doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul is and has always been Ron Paul, and he doesn't bend with the wind. Couple that with the fact that on almost all domestic issues, he rarely utters a word with which I find strong disagreement.
In a field led by Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, backed up by the brain synapse-challenged Rick Perry, the truth-challenged Michele Bachmann, followed by Rick Santorum (who I personally like) and Jon Huntsman... I no longer see Ron Paul as the worst of that bunch. Not by a long shot.
All I know now is it looks like the two guys I trust and like the very least and who reek the most of establishment politics are in the lead. Would Ron Paul be a worse conservative's choice as president than Mitt Romney? Newt Gingrich? I don't see a strong case to be made. Romney and Gingrich are the worst of the worst in my opinion. Ron Paul comes somewhere after them.
-
Thank you for that, IDP.
Dismayed is a pretty accurate word to sum up my feelings,too.
If this is the best we have, we are in even more trouble than I thought.
There is no Reagan in this bunch.
I have a theory about history that I think I mentioned before.
I call it the Great man Theory.
In times of great crisis, a great leader will come forth.
There may be someone there who can rise to the office but I can't see it now
-
...I have a theory about history that I think I mentioned before.
I call it the Great man Theory.
In times of great crisis, a great leader will come forth.
There may be someone there who can rise to the office but I can't see it now
LOTR The Fellowship of the Ring - Boromir and Aragorn in Lothlorien (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyhIiCHJ71M#ws)
Famous Speeches: Aragorn at the Black Gate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXGUNvIFTQw#)
Coronación y canción de Aragorn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvxmF9GHKHY#)
A great president may be among us now, and he or she may not be aware.
-
My hope is for a brokered convention.
However, that may work against us,too
But it can't be any worse than what we have
-
My hope is for a brokered convention.
However, that may work against us,too
But it can't be any worse than what we have
No doubt. The worst that could happen would be a reaffirmation of Newt or Romney as the nominee. I would LOVE to see a brokered convention. Throw somebody off the wall at the Democrats at the last moment. It seems pretty clear that the person Republicans can feel good about getting behind is not now in the field.
-
The last time a Republican convention came close to being "brokered" was in 1976, but Reagan didn't push it and Ford was given the nod. I think Ronald knew any candidate with an "R" after his name running in the post-Watergate cauldron was going to get trounced no matter how incompetent the Dem nominee was...and look, they picked a nobody Governor/peanut farmer! Plus, I think Ronald knew 1980 was going to be a better year to make a strong push, and once the disaster that was Carter became reality, Reagan's decisions look inspired. Ike I guess was the last hand-picked republican nominee.
I doubt we'll get to a brokered convention, but perhaps somebody not currently in the field could be selected if the current crop cannot see one emerge with enough delegates...but I doubt it...my Ruling Class BS detector is still chiming loudly, so I think the likelihood that the fix is in at some point is the most likely result...
-
I suppose you're right, Libertas.
Then I would expect it to be Romney.
I don't see Newt having the discipline or staying power to make it all the way
-
I've been praying that at the convention, none of the present candidates garner enuff votes to secure the nomination, and Sarah is drafted as our nominee.
Ok, wake me up! ::USA::
-
A lot has to happen between now and this summer, I will be pleased if I am proved wrong and the Ruling Class candidates have been eliminated, but we'll see...I know I am casting my lot with Bachmann when the caucus hits my state, at least if I am kept awake at night it won't be over that!
Nice dream ya got there Radioman, if only it could be true!
::thumbsup::
-
A lot has to happen between now and this summer, I will be pleased if I am proved wrong and the Ruling Class candidates have been eliminated, but we'll see...I know I am casting my lot with Bachmann when the caucus hits my state, at least if I am kept awake at night it won't be over that!
Nice dream ya got there Radioman, if only it could be true!
::thumbsup::
That's where I've decided to put my hat and Radioman we can dream can't we. ::praying::
Just say NO to Prog's. ::laserkill::
-
It saddens me greatly that people within our cause are fighting amongst themselves over a nominee. The right nominee has not revealed himself/herself, obviously. Glenn Beck is on our side. Someone said he's an addictive person. That he thinks he'll be a savior when TSHTF. He is admittedly a prepper. He wants others to prepare. He's going to produce a show on GBTV following the pursuits of one family as they prepare. That takes courage. I don't see any other well known figures putting themselves out there seriously talking about TEOTWAWKI, not even Rush. I'm not sure that makes Beck a savior in his mind. His emotions run strong, and he is clearly affected by the prospect of TEOTWAWKI. I think many of us can say the same. His personal cause has become trying to help people through it with grace, not hopelessness. I don't think that's such a bad thing.
-
And I'll say this about Beck, since leaving Fox and going out on his own, he has been a lot more riled up on his show...there was always some humor and ridicule there before, but now I think he feels liberated to unload. I don't agree 100% with everything he says, but 90 some percent of the time he is making valid points. I think Rush views himself as an educator and entertainer in the field of politics and daily life as we know it, I don't think he would be comfortable discussing things like prepping primarily because at his core he is a hopefull and optimistic person. That is not a character flaw, it is an asset to him and to us. Hearing both what we can do now and what we can do tomorrow rounds out our perspective so both men fill roles that are of benefit to us. It will be interesting to see if the prepper show Beck is talking about is serious and not something that makes people look like fringe kooks. Hope they picked the right family!
-
Who's more conservative? Ron Paul? Or Newt Gingrich?
In my mind, there is no debate. Gingrich is a big government progressive establishment Republican. His relationship to the constitution is academic. Ron Paul is a small government libertarian conservative. His relationship to the constitution is visceral and near absolute. So absolute that he completely takes himself out of consideration for an entire voting bloc because his version of conservative foreign policy is complete isolationism and fails to make moral distinctions between allies and enemies. But there is no question that Ron Paul is as ultra-conservative-libertarian as Newt Gingrich is ultra-establishment progressive GOP.
In other words, aside from the quirkiness and the vapid foreign policy, Ron Paul's policy positions are exactly what the conservative electorate has been pleading for. That is going to be attractive to many, many people.
If Ron Paul runs 3rd party, it's game over - Obama wins. There is no way possible to deride, shame, and cajole enough of his followers and enough anti-establishment Republicans to give the vote to Gingrich. Glenn Beck's comment will not make Ron Paul's 3rd party run any more damaging to a Newt Gingrich GOP run than it would otherwise be without it*. If Paul run's it's game over. Beck could say the exact opposite of what he said, and it would still be game over.
*ETA: Without Beck's comment, that is.
Exactly !! (see bold above)
-
You're right Trap, Paul is a libertarian. But it is also true that a great deal of what defines libertarianism is constitutional principles - otherwise known as conservatism. We have a two party system, which means people outside the mainstream who seek an effective political voice will infiltrate one of two parties. The GOP is a logical home for libertarians who seek to work within the two-party system.
But that's just it: Two parties. If Paul goes 3rd party, he's a treasonous bastard that willingly hands the nation to Marxists on the altar of his libertarian principles. If he stays a Republican, and continues to work to bring libertarian values to the GOP, that's the way it's supposed to work.
So far, he's worked within the two party system to bring the GOP closer to the constitution. As repulsive as he may be to many as a presidential candidate, observation of his effect on the electorate seems obvious to me. Ron Paul has brought constitutional awareness to more people more quickly than anyone else in the modern political climate. He has made apolitical people into zealous (even if misguided) defenders of the constitution. That doesn't earn him the presidency, but IF he stays loyal to the party that brought him to the dance, then I say his influence has not been negative, and could end up in hindsight being extremely important to the survival of constitutional principles among a generation that was meant by the Left to abandon them altogether.
Amen to that.. right on. (above bold print)
-
My own preferences notwithstanding , I've always considered Beck an irritating , iconoclastic gadfly and I wish he'd shut the hell up . Why FOX ever wasted air-time on him is beyond me .
True... FoxNews is far too "Establishment GOP" to allow for independent thought and pushing for Freedom and individual responsibility. I agree.
-
This just illustrates to me the weakness of the candidates in the Republican field. And I qualify weakness not in the sense that the MFM would like to twist it into, I mean a real weakness, a lack of true star power and someone who would take the fight to the enemy and not compromise...but she decided to bow out of the race so this is what we're left with.
So...
People can tell me Bachmann is dead in the water, but I see her as the least likely of anybody in the remaining field to screw me over...when it comes time to cast my lot it will be with her, whoever ends up with the nomination may or may not get my vote. Y'all know my thoughts on this, no need to belabor them.
Here Here... I'll raise my drink to that! (bold above)
-
Here's the "good" news: none of this much matters certainly not as much as we'd all like to think it does. The fact of the matter is that even if this country started doing everything right from this moment forward we're still going to hit the iceberg. You just can't undo this mess -- there is going to be a lot of pain and austerity coming as Reality reacquaints itself with our depraved citizenry. The big question mark is what will happen as a result of that discomfort. It's the sort of thing that has in the past been a recipe for the rise of opportunistic tyrants.
Very well said and pointed out Glock32... exactly right. (bold above)
-
My hope is for a brokered convention.
However, that may work against us,too
But it can't be any worse than what we have
No doubt. The worst that could happen would be a reaffirmation of Newt or Romney as the nominee. I would LOVE to see a brokered convention. Throw somebody off the wall at the Democrats at the last moment. It seems pretty clear that the person Republicans can feel good about getting behind is not now in the field.
I'm not sure if that's exactly true. I do think Republicans can get behind Romney and Newt... they perfectly follow the progressive/socialist views of the Republicans....
Now.. on the other hand.
Let me re-write your comment:
It seems pretty clear that the person Conservatives can feel good about getting behind is not now in the field.
I think that is worth talking about.
(Point trying to make): The Republican party is no longer conservative... conservatives feel lost and wandering for their choice in a location that no longer is even trying to give them a choice they can feel good about.
-
I've been praying that at the convention, none of the present candidates garner enuff votes to secure the nomination, and Sarah is drafted as our nominee.
Ok, wake me up! ::USA::
From your lips to God's ears.
Edit: (addition)... though I think Sarah has some issues with letting the GOP push her around. After reading her first book I got annoyed with how much she just accepted what they shoveled on her and led the reader to think ... well.. they're the big guys... they must know best.
I want someone that will take a running chainsaw and shove it up the ass of the establishment while singing the national antheum.
-
And I'll say this about Beck, since leaving Fox and going out on his own, he has been a lot more riled up on his show...there was always some humor and ridicule there before, but now I think he feels liberated to unload. I don't agree 100% with everything he says, but 90 some percent of the time he is making valid points. I think Rush views himself as an educator and entertainer in the field of politics and daily life as we know it, I don't think he would be comfortable discussing things like prepping primarily because at his core he is a hopefull and optimistic person. That is not a character flaw, it is an asset to him and to us. Hearing both what we can do now and what we can do tomorrow rounds out our perspective so both men fill roles that are of benefit to us. It will be interesting to see if the prepper show Beck is talking about is serious and not something that makes people look like fringe kooks. Hope they picked the right family!
I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to be a religiously loyal viewer (pun intented for humor) of the prepper show he's going to be producing.... but I can't justify the $10 a month for a membership to GBtv.com for it. I'm spending that $10/month on bags of rice and ammo. :)
-
I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to be a religiously loyal viewer (pun intented for humor) of the prepper show he's going to be producing.... but I can't justify the $10 a month for a membership to GBtv.com for it. I'm spending that $10/month on bags of rice and ammo. :)
You're a wise man.
-
It saddens me greatly that people within our cause are fighting amongst themselves over a nominee. The right nominee has not revealed himself/herself, obviously. Glenn Beck is on our side. Someone said he's an addictive person. That he thinks he'll be a savior when TSHTF. He is admittedly a prepper. He wants others to prepare. He's going to produce a show on GBTV following the pursuits of one family as they prepare. That takes courage. I don't see any other well known figures putting themselves out there seriously talking about TEOTWAWKI, not even Rush. I'm not sure that makes Beck a savior in his mind. His emotions run strong, and he is clearly affected by the prospect of TEOTWAWKI. I think many of us can say the same. His personal cause has become trying to help people through it with grace, not hopelessness. I don't think that's such a bad thing.
No, it's not a bad thing, michelleo. The prepping discussions are what got me/us started.
I wrote what you've cited here about "savior", so let me explain and clarify.
I've been listening to Beck on the radio since way before he was on Fox and observed how he's changed. His emotions do run strong, and, while not a fault, Beck is intemperate. It's not what he says about who, it's not the prepping and his anxiety over the future of the country and our welfare; it's because he doesn't appear in control of those emotions. Some days, before he left Fox, he sounded as depressed on the radio as he must have felt; other days he was in full rant, Levin-style and too many days, he and Pat and Stu ... well, the show was unlistenable -- manic laughter, weird voice-imitations while screeching over each other. Not only was it not entertaining, it caused me to wonder what the hell was wrong with them that they thought it would be.
Then there was the YouTube he made of himself after his "ass surgery" as he put it.
I don't find fault with the faith rallies, either, but I question Beck's devotion to the work and memory of Martin Luther King; for a man who prides himself on The Truth, he's either missing a lot or deceiving himself about the entirety of who King really was.
Finally, there's his insistence on non-violence. It makes me grind my teeth. If he thinks we're going to Gandhi or King our way out of this, and it appears he does, he couldn't be more wrong. But I can see him standing at the forefront (here's the "somewhat delusional" part) shouting to not resist, don't fight, don't shoot.
I take from Beck the good and the sensible and I credit him for that, and I stand in awe of his deep and abiding Faith, but the rest? I worry.
-
Pan, that was a very good summary of where I'm at with Beck, too.
I'd like to think that his non-violence leads only up until it gets started.
That way, they have nothing to justify the inrvitable iron fist that's coming.
By not starting anything, many more may be awakened to what is really going on
-
The non-violent thingy is my biggest beef with him, but how much of that is genuine and how much is not wanting to get pulled off the air....I dunno, seems more of the former than the latter...the King issue Pan raises being exhibit "A" of that.
King was a socialist, how he can rail against Wilson and FDR et al and lose sight of King...???
-
I tend to agree with Beck on the violence thing. Unless politically or culturally motivated incidents of violence are clearly seen by all Americans as having come from the Left or from the government, any violence will be used to blame conservatives and put the hammer down.
I don't think Beck is suggesting people allow themselves to be slaughtered. I think he is saying that if it's gonna go hot, it has to be with the opposition clearly seen as having taken the first shot. I may be wrong - I don't catch him all that often. But from what I've heard, that's what I've taken away.
-
I don't have an argument with that concept IDP (I've argued it in the context of a civil war, let them make the first overt move so as to be able to claim the high moral ground) but at times it appears Beck thinks only peaceful non-violent opposition is the answer, I've heard nothing clearly stated by him that once the crap hits the fan it is now OK to embrace the violent overthrow of these statists.
How can you overthrow statists without bloodshed? I've never seen that...
-
I don't have an argument with that concept IDP (I've argued it in the context of a civil war, let them make the first overt move so as to be able to claim the high moral ground) but at times it appears Beck thinks only peaceful non-violent opposition is the answer, I've heard nothing clearly stated by him that once the crap hits the fan it is now OK to embrace the violent overthrow of these statists.
How can you overthrow statists without bloodshed? I've never seen that...
I think he understands that he absolutely cannot be seen as an instigator of violence and still have a career. Nor do I think he wants it on his conscience. There ARE nutjobs out there who could do immense harm to any hope of national restoration with one ill-conceived act of violence with which the opposition could use to justify almost anything. I think he senses that, and wants to make doubly sure that if some such act of violence occurs, that he can not be held accountable in any way for instigating it.
-
I don't have an argument with that concept IDP (I've argued it in the context of a civil war, let them make the first overt move so as to be able to claim the high moral ground) but at times it appears Beck thinks only peaceful non-violent opposition is the answer, I've heard nothing clearly stated by him that once the crap hits the fan it is now OK to embrace the violent overthrow of these statists.
How can you overthrow statists without bloodshed? I've never seen that...
Beck know what the reality is but he doesn't want to become an add campaign for Bambi.I would bet that him being a prepper includes weapons out the ying yang.
-
I don't have an argument with that concept IDP (I've argued it in the context of a civil war, let them make the first overt move so as to be able to claim the high moral ground) but at times it appears Beck thinks only peaceful non-violent opposition is the answer, I've heard nothing clearly stated by him that once the crap hits the fan it is now OK to embrace the violent overthrow of these statists.
How can you overthrow statists without bloodshed? I've never seen that...
That's exactly my point. It's a far cry from advocating violence to defending against it to holding up Gandhi/King as the example to follow. I can understand Beck's not wanting to be held accountable as instigator -- more, he doesn't want to BE an instigator. So far, so good.
But peaceful prayer rallies aren't going to get these people off our backs and I seriously doubt an election will either. Who, on the roster right now, looks likely to be in favor of our liberation? A leader will emerge? Okay. I guess.
Furthermore, I wonder, really I do, what the response will/ought to be to another Ruby Ridge/Waco. Isolated instances which cannot be allowed to escalate into action from the people? Or no RR/W type action at all, just the constant pushpokepushpoke as more laws and regulations are passed, people are "peacefully" arrested and prosecuted for dealing in raw milk? Congress just passed a very ambiguous piece of legislation that suspends Habeas Corpus, so ambiguous that the if and when was punted before the fact to the Courts to decide; SWAT cops are killing us, mistakenly or otherwise, and nothing is done to them; the decent military members are being attrited out of our armed forces which bodes very badly FOR US, and we're being robbed blind right into the next generation, but, okay, let's be vewy, vewy careful not to bring on the Iron Fist because Beck is going to lead us in praying our way out of this.
-
I don't have an argument with that concept IDP (I've argued it in the context of a civil war, let them make the first overt move so as to be able to claim the high moral ground) but at times it appears Beck thinks only peaceful non-violent opposition is the answer, I've heard nothing clearly stated by him that once the crap hits the fan it is now OK to embrace the violent overthrow of these statists.
How can you overthrow statists without bloodshed? I've never seen that...
Beck know what the reality is but he doesn't want to become an add campaign for Bambi.I would bet that him being a prepper includes weapons out the ying yang.
Well he is planning on giving Guns and Bibles this year for Christmas.
-
I don't have an argument with that concept IDP (I've argued it in the context of a civil war, let them make the first overt move so as to be able to claim the high moral ground) but at times it appears Beck thinks only peaceful non-violent opposition is the answer, I've heard nothing clearly stated by him that once the crap hits the fan it is now OK to embrace the violent overthrow of these statists.
How can you overthrow statists without bloodshed? I've never seen that...
Beck know what the reality is but he doesn't want to become an add campaign for Bambi.I would bet that him being a prepper includes weapons out the ying yang.
Well he is planning on giving Guns and Bibles this year for Christmas.
Can he be any more clear then?
-
I don't have an argument with that concept IDP (I've argued it in the context of a civil war, let them make the first overt move so as to be able to claim the high moral ground) but at times it appears Beck thinks only peaceful nonviolent opposition is the answer, I've heard nothing clearly stated by him that once the crap hits the fan it is now OK to embrace the violent overthrow of these statists.
How can you overthrow statists without bloodshed? I've never seen that...
That's exactly my point. It's a far cry from advocating violence to defending against it to holding up Gandhi/King as the example to follow. I can understand Beck's not wanting to be held accountable as instigator -- more, he doesn't want to BE an instigator. So far, so good.
But peaceful prayer rallies aren't going to get these people off our backs and I seriously doubt an election will either. Who, on the roster right now, looks likely to be in favor of our liberation? A leader will emerge? Okay. I guess.
Furthermore, I wonder, really I do, what the response will/ought to be to another Ruby Ridge/Waco. Isolated instances which cannot be allowed to escalate into action from the people? Or no RR/W type action at all, just the constant pushpokepushpoke as more laws and regulations are passed, people are "peacefully" arrested and prosecuted for dealing in raw milk? Congress just passed a very ambiguous piece of legislation that suspends Habeas Corpus, so ambiguous that the if and when was punted before the fact to the Courts to decide; SWAT cops are killing us, mistakenly or otherwise, and nothing is done to them; the decent military members are being attrited out of our armed forces which bodes very badly FOR US, and we're being robbed blind right into the next generation, but, okay, let's be vewy, vewy careful not to bring on the Iron Fist because Beck is going to lead us in praying our way out of this.
Agreed. I also see a distinction between promoting instigation and responding to overt attempts by an increasingly unconstitutional federal government trampling all our rights and liberties away and only offering peaceful nonviolent opposition to it. I think some of this stems from the fact that we are struggling right now to determine what the "last straw" is...is there going to be one act that if it happens the flare goes up and its full blown civil war? I have no issue with Beck wanting to hold peaceful rallies and offering up prayers, but it is disingenuous and negligent to not also prepare people for action and let people know action can be proper and necessary. It is this latter part that is being totally ignored, and by everyone, not just Beck.
So let us agree to define the boundary of the Rubicon!
-
I don't have an argument with that concept IDP (I've argued it in the context of a civil war, let them make the first overt move so as to be able to claim the high moral ground) but at times it appears Beck thinks only peaceful nonviolent opposition is the answer, I've heard nothing clearly stated by him that once the crap hits the fan it is now OK to embrace the violent overthrow of these statists.
How can you overthrow statists without bloodshed? I've never seen that...
That's exactly my point. It's a far cry from advocating violence to defending against it to holding up Gandhi/King as the example to follow. I can understand Beck's not wanting to be held accountable as instigator -- more, he doesn't want to BE an instigator. So far, so good.
But peaceful prayer rallies aren't going to get these people off our backs and I seriously doubt an election will either. Who, on the roster right now, looks likely to be in favor of our liberation? A leader will emerge? Okay. I guess.
Furthermore, I wonder, really I do, what the response will/ought to be to another Ruby Ridge/Waco. Isolated instances which cannot be allowed to escalate into action from the people? Or no RR/W type action at all, just the constant pushpokepushpoke as more laws and regulations are passed, people are "peacefully" arrested and prosecuted for dealing in raw milk? Congress just passed a very ambiguous piece of legislation that suspends Habeas Corpus, so ambiguous that the if and when was punted before the fact to the Courts to decide; SWAT cops are killing us, mistakenly or otherwise, and nothing is done to them; the decent military members are being attrited out of our armed forces which bodes very badly FOR US, and we're being robbed blind right into the next generation, but, okay, let's be vewy, vewy careful not to bring on the Iron Fist because Beck is going to lead us in praying our way out of this.
Agreed. I also see a distinction between promoting instigation and responding to overt attempts by an increasingly unconstitutional federal government trampling all our rights and liberties away and only offering peaceful nonviolent opposition to it. I think some of this stems from the fact that we are struggling right now to determine what the "last straw" is...is there going to be one act that if it happens the flare goes up and its full blown civil war? I have no issue with Beck wanting to hold peaceful rallies and offering up prayers, but it is disingenuous and negligent to not also prepare people for action and let people know action can be proper and necessary. It is this latter part that is being totally ignored, and by everyone, not just Beck.
So let us agree to define the boundary of the Rubicon!
I have no issue with Beck wanting to hold peaceful rallies and offering up prayers, but it is disingenuous and negligent to not also prepare people for action
The problem I see with that if you "prepare people for action" you now become a militia and therefor an enemy of the current State.
IDK just my opinion.
That's why he pushes 9/12, Meetup, and the Tea Party $hit that's how I found my way here in a round about way.
-
I'm glad you found your way here, DL, however it happened.
-
I've watched a few of his recent gbtv shows, and he's suggesting people arm themselves for self defense.
He's cooking up a new rally in Dallas this summer on the theme of Charity. He's pushing the idea that when/if TSHTF, if private citizen groups/preppers can step in where the government fails than we can prove the value and importance of individual liberty and private charity, win hearts and minds towards the cause of freedom, and thus "take our country back" through charity/service.
It's a naive notion. He also suggests that we should all start networking with our neighbors now so that when/if TSHTF we can assist each other, pool resources/expertise, etc. I can agree with that. But Glenn doesn't overtly say we should be banding together with our like-minded neighbors. When/if TSHTF I don't think we're going to all come together and sing Kumbayah. I for one will not be feeling very charitable towards my liberal neighbors.
-
What is the Rubicon threshold? That's the $10K question. My biggest fear is that if we reach a point where violence is justified, it will take the form of an insurgency, not a civil war per se. I think the vast majority of people will refuse to participate. We currently lead such comfortable, privileged lives, that denial will be the hardest thing to overcome. It'll be a river 1000 miles wide.
-
What is the Rubicon threshold? That's the $10K question. My biggest fear is that if we reach a point where violence is justified, it will take the form of an insurgency, not a civil war per se. I think the vast majority of people will refuse to participate. We currently lead such comfortable, privileged lives, that denial will be the hardest thing to overcome. It'll be a river 1000 miles wide.
That's the biggest hurdle...will the most just sit it out as in the Revolution. Until the Brits made moves against those that would sit it out pushing them into the arms of the rebellion/revolt. I guess, I'll have to face it, nothing will change the minds of these "sit on your fat ass types" favoring action because life is too cushy. The US intervened in affairs in Portaprince many times but who's going to be out trustee and help us out?
Let it crash and burn and rebuild but that will let the criminals off the hook way to easy. ::dueling::
-
I hate to sound overly naive but there are very few circumstances I can envision that would justify violence of any sort.
We campaign.
We vote.
We live with the outcome.
Four years later we do it all over again.
Elections (along with a great many other things) have consequences.
The other thing to consider is that, as powerful as the president is, he (or she) is only one third of the government. We still have the ability to elect conservatives to the House and Senate. The SCOTUS still votes the right way most of the time.
What I come back to in this discussion is my central point that any 3rd party run by someone right of center will almost certainly guarantee the re-election of the Dingus. And that will guarantee (barring an unfavorable SCOTUS decision) the full implementation of O'BamaCare. And whatever else his fertile imagination can dream up and implement through regulation or other means.
I think that a lot of people are under the impression that given the right candidate (a Reagan who does not currently exist) we will be able to turn things around almost instantaneously. That simply will not happen even if Reagan's biological clone emerged from a brokered convention. We did not get here in three years*. We got here in something like ninety years. It could take that long to return our country to the constitutional republic crafted by the founders. Politics, like sausage making, is something that is very hard to do without some nausea so buckle up.
What we need is a first step back toward the founding principles. Trying to get there in a single election cycle is short sighted, in my opinion. I think we have already taken the first step. I think that it took place in 2010** with the drubbing that the Republicans gave the Democrats. I think that we will take another step in the right direction next year. I look forward to more conservative Republicans in the House and Senate. I look forward to a Republican president (whomever he or she turns out to be) rubber stamping some serious walk backs on the O'Bama agenda. And yeah, a president can be made to follow Congress...if that weren't true we would have Supreme Court Justice Harriet Myers on the bench right now. It's actually somewhat of a miracle that (pre-Tea Party) this didn't happen.
Don't get me wrong...if I could flip a switch and fix everything right now I would. But that's unrealistic. It isn't going to happen.
We have an opportunity at the end of next year. And opportunity to take the White House away from the greatest threat to the country that it has ever seen: A full blown communist who won't hesitate to operate outside of the Constitution to further his agenda. You cannot tell me that any of the current candidates, regardless of their individual weaknesses, would not be a vast improvement on the aberration in chief.
But...
All that will be thrown away with any notion of a (center right) third party run by RP or anyone else. Seriously, that is the only scenario in which the Dingus ekes out a win. That cannot be allowed to happen. And anything that furthers that scenario should be resisted...not encouraged. That's why Beck pisses me off. He is throwing this idea a bone. That is defeatist and irresponsible.
I have said it before and I will say it yet again. I will vote for whoever wins the Republican nomination. Yes, even Ron Paul.
But violence? No. Not as long as the system still functions. I do not subscribe to Asimov's famous quote, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." And I certainly don't believe that old liberal chestnut, "War never solved anything." That's moronic and is at odds with historical precedent. Pacifism is for losers. But violence should be reserved for extreme circumstances. And I truly do not think we are close to that point. I see it as one possibility among a myriad of others. I have no desire to rush to it.
For now I am content to allow the process to play itself out.
Oh, yeah, and, "Go Santorum!"
*Which, when you think about it, is as the founding fathers designed things. They knew that quick changes were unhealthy and the Constitution was written in such a way as to make a quick change difficult. They made amending the Constitution difficult. They made the Senate more difficult to flip than the House. So...we have a long and tough row to hoe. I recommend the long view.
**You could even make a reasonable argument that the first step took place in 1994 with the Republicans gaining a majority in the House for the first time in many decades. The "Contract With America" (authored in part by you know who) was fulfilled on schedule...not all passed but, as promised, all voted on. Now, as we all know, there were subsequently a step or two backward between 1996 and 2006 but on balance there was some progress made rolling back the liberal agenda. The very notion that the Democrats could be defeated and sent to the minority was revolutionary all by itself. Like the fall of the Soviet Union, no one thought it would ever happen. But it did. Small steps forward.
-
I for one will not be feeling very charitable towards my liberal neighbors.
And to speak to this point, everyone should steadfastly and deliberately not be charitable to any known leftists. Leftists will not only stare a gift horse in the mouth, they'll then raise a stink about the gifts until their precious state apparatus is brought in to tax the gift horse as punishment for how unfair it is that it has more than others.
The troubling times that lie ahead -- which are at this point a near inevitability -- offer many opportunities as well. One of those opportunities is to help Nature attrit a bunch of the Grasshoppers.
-
I hate to sound overly naive but there are very few circumstances I can envision that would justify violence of any sort.
We campaign.
We vote.
We live with the outcome.
Four years later we do it all over again.
Elections (along with a great many other things) have consequences.
The other thing to consider is that, as powerful as the president is, he (or she) is only one third of the government. We still have the ability to elect conservatives to the House and Senate. The SCOTUS still votes the right way most of the time.
What I come back to in this discussion is my central point that any 3rd party run by someone right of center will almost certainly guarantee the re-election of the Dingus. And that will guarantee (barring an unfavorable SCOTUS decision) the full implementation of O'BamaCare. And whatever else his fertile imagination can dream up and implement through regulation or other means.
I think that a lot of people are under the impression that given the right candidate (a Reagan who does not currently exist) we will be able to turn things around almost instantaneously. That simply will not happen even if Reagan's biological clone emerged from a brokered convention. We did not get here in three years. We got here in something like ninety years. It could take that long to return our country to the constitutional republic crafted by the founders. Politics, like sausage making, is something that is very hard to do without some nausea so buckle up.
What we need is a first step back toward the founding principles. Trying to get there in a single election cycle is short sighted, in my opinion. I think we have already taken the first step. I think that it took place in 2010* with the drubbing that the Republicans gave the Democrats. I think that we will take another step in the right direction next year. I look forward to more conservative Republicans in the House and Senate. I look forward to a Republican president (whomever he or she turns out to be) rubber stamping some serious walk backs on the O'Bama agenda. And yeah, a president can be made to follow Congress...if that weren't true we would have Supreme Court Justice Harriet Myers on the bench right now. It's actually somewhat of a miracle that (pre-Tea Party) this didn't happen.
Don't get me wrong...if I could flip a switch and fix everything right now I would. But that's unrealistic. It isn't going to happen.
We have an opportunity at the end of next year. And opportunity to take the White House away from the greatest threat to the country that it has ever seen: A full blown communist who won't hesitate to operate outside of the Constitution to further his agenda. You cannot tell me that any of the current candidates, regardless of their individual weaknesses, would not be a vast improvement on the aberration in chief.
But...
All that will be thrown away with any notion of a (center right) third party run by RP or anyone else. Seriously, that is the only scenario in which the Dingus ekes out a win. That cannot be allowed to happen. And anything that furthers that scenario should be resisted...not encouraged. That's why Beck pisses me off. He is throwing this idea a bone. That is defeatist and irresponsible.
I have said it before and I will say it yet again. I will vote for whoever wins the Republican nomination. Yes, even Ron Paul.
But violence? No. Not as long as the system still functions. I do not subscribe to Asimov's famous quote, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." And I certainly don't believe that old liberal chestnut, "War never solved anything." That's moronic and is at odds with historical precedent. Pacifism is for losers. But violence should be reserved for extreme circumstances. And I truly do not think we are close to that point. I see it as one possibility among a myriad of others. I have no desire to rush to it.
For now I am content to allow the process to play itself out.
Oh, yeah, and, "Go Santorum!"
*You could even make a reasonable argument that the first step took place in 1994 with the Republicans gaining a majority in the House for the first time in many decades. The "Contract With America" (authored in part by you know who) was fulfilled on schedule...not all passed but, as promised, all voted on. Now, as we all know, there were subsequently a step or two backward between 1996 and 2006 but on balance there was some progress made rolling back the liberal agenda. The very notion that the Democrats could be defeated and sent to the minority was revolutionary all by itself. Like the fall of the Soviet Union, no one thought it would ever happen. But it did. Small steps forward.
I too will be voting for whoever emerges because Obama is a danger and I simply cannot go galt. It will be to each his own, but IMO, to simply not vote for a newt or a Romney because of a belief it only delays our enviable demise as a country is a premise I believe is flawed.
I thought the same with carter. How in the hell are we gonna come out of this? Then along came reagan and prosperity. Do I see a reagen in today's field? No........but I believe there are reagans out there and if I must live thru a newt, Romney to achieve the goal I will......but With each passing day of Obama, the road back becomes longer and more difficult....and another 4 years of the worst president in history, because Of a thought it would compromise a principle is something else I believe is a flawed premise.
I believe this is a center right country, with the minority getting all the press. It is why newt was successful with the contract with America, why ronald reagan won his 2nd term in a landslide, why on more then one occasion democrats have been sent out in droves from congress and the senate. I also see more dems up for re election in the next few years than repubs, so the opportunity exists to enact real change. Hopefully, it will occur with a more conservative president,,,,,, but if we cannot achieve that goal,it does not equate to the tide can't be turned back. It believe it will.
-
I don't know how on the one hand we think we have 90 years to undo what the Left has done...when did FDR leave office, April 1945 feet first, right? It's been 66 fricken years! Have we gotten rid of any of the social crap he heaped on us? No! Wilson, his League of Nations (predecessor to the UN), the Fed, the FTC...has ANY of that crap gotten smaller or eliminated? No! That clown left office 90 fricken years ago!
Now people can do what people want to do, but that road goes both ways you know?! You can think we have 90 years to fix things, I don't don't, if we have a decade (even under a RINO POTUS) I'd be shocked. You can think "holding the line" is a sound strategy, that a little more progressive creeping towards the end zone is better than giving up a touchdown, but I don't. Surrendering to a little evil isn't better than surrendering to all evil. I am hearing it will be my fault if Stymie gets re-elected because I refuse to cast a vote for Romney or gNewt. OK, let's assume that dogma is 100% accurate. You know what? How does that advance your position to get me to support your fatally flawed candidate? I'm not asking for Mr or Mrs Perfect, that is clearly not an option. And I can flip the blame game around, and I think on a more solid foundation, by saying if you foist a fatally flawed candidate on people, it will be YOUR fault Stymie got re-elected.
I am sick and tired of being taken for a chump by the RNC, the state GOP party, every RINO candidate, the Machivellian operators like Karl "The Butthead" Rove, the media, pundits and the leftist pol's!!! I can't do a damn thing about the last three, but the first four I will fight to my dying breath!
No more compromises!
That is my line in the sand.
Oh, and to drive my point home even more, the Rubicon could be here already...
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,4209.0.html (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,4209.0.html)
...this, courtesy of our enlightened leaders on the Hill!
Time, it is not on our side, and it appears it may have never been...
::gaah::
-
I am hearing it will be my fault if Stymie gets re-elected because I refuse to cast a vote for Romney or gNewt.
Your fault? You, personally?
No. But I will fault a center right candidate who does run third party. I fault Perot for giving us Clinton. Twice. The stakes are just higher this time.
-
Libertas is right on the money with respect to the time argument. I hear it from Levin and others, that this is not going to be solved overnight and it requires a decades-long pushback just like it got here in the first place. I get that this is the "respectable" position, and I can further get why someone in Levin's position feels obligated to advance it, but notwithstanding my great respect for his intellectual firepower I don't buy that one. We have nothing like decades to fix this mess. We already have a situation where virtually 1 in 2 adults pays no net federal income tax. Combine that with the demographic sea change (which favors the Dems almost entirely), and how are we supposed to have a foundation from which to orchestrate a multi-generational pushback? It ain't happening. Even if we could elect the reincarnation of Reagan, just the sheer looming bulk of our already committed debts and entitlement obligations is enough to sink this ship.
I'll vote in 2012, I'll vote for whichever Republican wins the nomination with the probable exception of Romney, but I will consider it nothing more than due diligence.
-
We all should do as our conscience dictates.
Choose wisely.
-
To use another football analogy, we're using a prevent defense which usually prevents nothing.
And it's a bad strategy because we're using it when we're behind with less than 2 minutes to go.
I wonder if many of the arguments we're discussing were made by the Whigs?
We're 11 months m/l from the election. Long road ahead and there are many turns.
As bad as he is, I would not be surprised to see Stymie re-elected. Whether or not there is a serious 3rd party candidate.
Events could help him. Nothing like a good old war to get the nationalistic spirit going. We tend to not want to change bus drivers when one is going on
All the signs are there for one hell of a brouhaha any time now
Demographics has been mentioned.
But, I think he has a secret weapon that will almost guarantee his victory.
Hillary.
Look for Biden and Hillary to swap places.
She brings back the base and appears more Centist.
She has the popularity.
She will do what Palin did for McCain
Hillary is ambitious enough that being the first woman veep would give her her place in history
-
I am hearing it will be my fault if Stymie gets re-elected because I refuse to cast a vote for Romney or gNewt.
Your fault? You, personally?
No. But I will fault a center right candidate who does run third party. I fault Perot for giving us Clinton. Twice. The stakes are just higher this time.
I'm personally feeling rather helpless in all of this. Any candidate that we need (someone willing to dismantle many of the power structures of government) is destroyed by the establishment. Status quo is the best we can hope for. Meanwhile we all see the train wreck that awaits us if we do nothing.
-
I am hearing it will be my fault if Stymie gets reelected because I refuse to cast a vote for Romney or gNewt.
Your fault? You, personally?
No. But I will fault a center right candidate who does run third party. I fault Perot for giving us Clinton. Twice. The stakes are just higher this time.
This is where I get frustrated...I disagree that Perot in and of himself gave us Clinton, if G.H.W. Bush had not betrayed Reaganism and told the Dem's to stick tax hikes up their butts, I think he would have won easily over both Perot & Clinton. So the problem was a flawed, establishment candidate. Establishment candidate ought to be the key phrase people direct their full attention on!
"We all should do as our conscience dictates."
"Choose wisely."
I fully agree! And my conscience will not allow me to accept the status quo or a Ruling Class/establishment candidate, period. Ownership of any results after the fact are the sole responsibility of how people voted in the primaries. I will go to my caucus, I will try to influence other voters as best I can, I will use the electoral process as long as the electoral process is functional...but I cannot guarantee people act as I do, think as I do, or vote as I do...I will do what I can, but I am planning for the worst, not because I wish for it, but because it is prudent to do so and the odds appear tilted that direction to me.
In this system people have the right to make totally stupid decisions, it has been demonstrated on more than one occasion and no doubt will be demonstrated again...
-
I am hearing it will be my fault if Stymie gets re-elected because I refuse to cast a vote for Romney or gNewt.
Your fault? You, personally?
No. But I will fault a center right candidate who does run third party. I fault Perot for giving us Clinton. Twice. The stakes are just higher this time.
I'm personally feeling rather helpless in all of this. Any candidate that we need (someone willing to dismantle many of the power structures of government) is destroyed by the establishment. Status quo is the best we can hope for. Meanwhile we all see the train wreck that awaits us if we do nothing.
It is a helpless feeling. From what I'm reading, it won't matter who or how conservative a candidate needs to be, we cannot stem the tide, much less change its direction. So if your belief is it can't be reversed, then what does it matter if you don't, won't, can't vote for a Romney or newt? So what if a bachmann or perry makes strides in winning the nomination? What would it gain? Apparently nothing.
-
I think Bachmann, Perry or even Paul would be more palatable to primary voters and offer just a fair a chance at winning in the general as gNewt or Romney (if not more) on product differentiation alone...and if we're going to stop-gap, makes sense to stop-gap with a more reliable candidate than Romney or gNewt...right? So frustrated? Yes. Helpless? Not yet.
-
I think Bachmann, Perry or even Paul would be more palatable to primary voters and offer just a fair a chance at winning in the general as gNewt or Romney (if not more) on product differentiation alone...and if we're going to stop-gap, makes sense to stop-gap with a more reliable candidate than Romney or gNewt...right? So frustrated? Yes. Helpless? Not yet.
I think the reason Bachmann hasn't been able to get traction is because we like her too much, and don't want to subject her to the Palin treatment. Women candidates don't work. They will be MILFd by the establishment.
-
I think Bachmann, Perry or even Paul would be more palatable to primary voters and offer just a fair a chance at winning in the general as gNewt or Romney (if not more) on product differentiation alone...and if we're going to stop-gap, makes sense to stop-gap with a more reliable candidate than Romney or gNewt...right? So frustrated? Yes. Helpless? Not yet.
I don't disagree, but unless one of the 3 gain traction, it will be newt or Romney.......but as I sit here and watch Fox, Romney has a huge lead.
-
Slightly off topic but I'll tie it in since I think I heard it on Beck
The argument for Romney is his supposed electability.
Don't know if it's true, but heard that he has run for office 19 times and won 5.
That's not even a great baseball batting average
-
I think Bachmann, Perry or even Paul would be more palatable to primary voters and offer just a fair a chance at winning in the general as gNewt or Romney (if not more) on product differentiation alone...and if we're going to stop-gap, makes sense to stop-gap with a more reliable candidate than Romney or gNewt...right? So frustrated? Yes. Helpless? Not yet.
I don't disagree, but unless one of the 3 gain traction, it will be newt or Romney.......but as I sit here and watch Fox, Romney has a huge lead.
I've been warning for quite a while that Romney's huge warchest and the establishment/establishment pundits in his corner would be a big hurdle to overcome, but it still comes down to us...if enough people say "screw the establishment" and refuse to drink the kool aid, we can upset their anointing of either Romney or gNewt...
As this depends upon the intelligence (or lack thereof) of voters, I am not filled with an overabundance of confidence, but I'll try to disrupt the Ruling Class any way I can!
-
Slightly off topic but I'll tie it in since I think I heard it on Beck
The argument for Romney is his supposed electability.
Don't know if it's true, but heard that he has run for office 19 times and won 5.
That's not even a great baseball batting average
Not sure of that either, other than MA Gov, not sure what he's run for...first time on radar was winter oympics several years back...
But if true, 5-19 is a pretty pedestrian .263 batting average...
Yup, sounds like "electability" for Ruling Class brains!
::hysterical::
-
Ran for Prez in 2008 and MA Senate against Teddy
-
I am hearing it will be my fault if Stymie gets reelected because I refuse to cast a vote for Romney or gNewt.
Your fault? You, personally?
No. But I will fault a center right candidate who does run third party. I fault Perot for giving us Clinton. Twice. The stakes are just higher this time.
This is where I get frustrated...I disagree that Perot in and of himself gave us Clinton, if G.H.W. Bush had not betrayed Reaganism and told the Dem's to stick tax hikes up their butts, I think he would have won easily over both Perot & Clinton. So the problem was a flawed, establishment candidate. Establishment candidate ought to be the key phrase people direct their full attention on!
"We all should do as our conscience dictates."
"Choose wisely."
I fully agree! And my conscience will not allow me to accept the status quo or a Ruling Class/establishment candidate, period. Ownership of any results after the fact are the sole responsibility of how people voted in the primaries. I will go to my caucus, I will try to influence other voters as best I can, I will use the electoral process as long as the electoral process is functional...but I cannot guarantee people act as I do, think as I do, or vote as I do...I will do what I can, but I am planning for the worst, not because I wish for it, but because it is prudent to do so and the odds appear tilted that direction to me.
In this system people have the right to make totally stupid decisions, it has been demonstrated on more than one occasion and no doubt will be demonstrated again...
I think I'm in love with Liberatas. Seriously.. would anyone reach down to the middle of my soul and express what I believe better than what he just did?
-
I think Bachmann, Perry or even Paul would be more palatable to primary voters and offer just a fair a chance at winning in the general as gNewt or Romney (if not more) on product differentiation alone...and if we're going to stop-gap, makes sense to stop-gap with a more reliable candidate than Romney or gNewt...right? So frustrated? Yes. Helpless? Not yet.
I think the reason Bachmann hasn't been able to get traction is because we like her too much, and don't want to subject her to the Palin treatment. Women candidates don't work. They will be MILFd by the establishment.
I would love love love to get Bachmann as a choice. I'd vote for her in 1/8th of a second.
-
I've been warning for quite a while that Romney's huge warchest and the establishment/establishment pundits in his corner would be a big hurdle to overcome, but it still comes down to us...if enough people say "screw the establishment" and refuse to drink the kool aid, we can upset their anointing of either Romney or gNewt...As this depends upon the intelligence (or lack thereof) of voters, I am not filled with an overabundance of confidence, but I'll try to disrupt the Ruling Class any way I can!
WooHoo! Now You're talking my language !
-
::hat-tip::
-
Intellectually I would say that by electing a Republican president
and taking the senate we will be able to do some immediate damage
control. Repealing ObamaCare, eliminating various bureaucracies,
and drill baby drill will relieve our great national burden and begin
our recovery.
However, Libertas opinion bolstered by his example are, historically,
frighteningly accurate.
-
If we can get a Bachman or Perry, I think objectives repealing obamacare and drill can be accomplished.....Not sure with Romney of Newt......Or I'm not sure with Romney, as newt was quite effective pushing thru an agenda.
Most likely none of them would end the EPA, Dept of Education and Dept of Energy. We may need to wait for a Rubio.
-
Rubio is ineligible.
-
Rubio is ineligible.
?
-
Rubio is ineligible.
How? I bet his BC is as ligitament as our current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania.
-
I am hearing it will be my fault if Stymie gets reelected because I refuse to cast a vote for Romney or gNewt.
Your fault? You, personally?
No. But I will fault a center right candidate who does run third party. I fault Perot for giving us Clinton. Twice. The stakes are just higher this time.
This is where I get frustrated...I disagree that Perot in and of himself gave us Clinton, if G.H.W. Bush had not betrayed Reaganism and told the Dem's to stick tax hikes up their butts, I think he would have won easily over both Perot & Clinton. So the problem was a flawed, establishment candidate. Establishment candidate ought to be the key phrase people direct their full attention on!
"We all should do as our conscience dictates."
"Choose wisely."
I fully agree! And my conscience will not allow me to accept the status quo or a Ruling Class/establishment candidate, period. Ownership of any results after the fact are the sole responsibility of how people voted in the primaries. I will go to my caucus, I will try to influence other voters as best I can, I will use the electoral process as long as the electoral process is functional...but I cannot guarantee people act as I do, think as I do, or vote as I do...I will do what I can, but I am planning for the worst, not because I wish for it, but because it is prudent to do so and the odds appear tilted that direction to me.
In this system people have the right to make totally stupid decisions, it has been demonstrated on more than one occasion and no doubt will be demonstrated again...
I think I'm in love with Liberatas. Seriously.. would anyone reach down to the middle of my soul and express what I believe better than what he just did?
I'm with you. ::grouphug::
-
Rubio is ineligible.
Not in four years. ::danceban::
-
I don't know how on the one hand we think we have 90 years to undo what the Left has done...when did FDR leave office, April 1945 feet first, right? It's been 66 fricken years! Have we gotten rid of any of the social crap he heaped on us? No! Wilson, his League of Nations (predecessor to the UN), the Fed, the FTC...has ANY of that crap gotten smaller or eliminated? No! That clown left office 90 fricken years ago!
Now people can do what people want to do, but that road goes both ways you know?! You can think we have 90 years to fix things, I don't don't, if we have a decade (even under a RINO POTUS) I'd be shocked. You can think "holding the line" is a sound strategy, that a little more progressive creeping towards the end zone is better than giving up a touchdown, but I don't. Surrendering to a little evil isn't better than surrendering to all evil. I am hearing it will be my fault if Stymie gets re-elected because I refuse to cast a vote for Romney or gNewt. OK, let's assume that dogma is 100% accurate. You know what? How does that advance your position to get me to support your fatally flawed candidate? I'm not asking for Mr or Mrs Perfect, that is clearly not an option. And I can flip the blame game around, and I think on a more solid foundation, by saying if you foist a fatally flawed candidate on people, it will be YOUR fault Stymie got re-elected.
I am sick and tired of being taken for a chump by the RNC, the state GOP party, every RINO candidate, the Machivellian operators like Karl "The Butthead" Rove, the media, pundits and the leftist pol's!!! I can't do a damn thing about the last three, but the first four I will fight to my dying breath!
No more compromises!
That is my line in the sand.
Oh, and to drive my point home even more, the Rubicon could be here already...
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,4209.0.html (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,4209.0.html)
...this, courtesy of our enlightened leaders on the Hill!
Time, it is not on our side, and it appears it may have never been...
::gaah::
Libertas you have expressed a well written and well reasoned argument.
But;
I cannot in words convey my dislike for obama as a president. I believe he is a man of poor character and quality. He and I hold irreconcilable differences with respect to vision and values as how our country should be governed. obama has made statements against the Bible, his sympathies seem to lie with islam, is antagonistic toward Israel and there is not enough time to expound on how he is damaging our wonderful country through his and the lefties domestic and economic policies. His values and morals are polar opposite of what I believe…………. as I derive mine from Gods Holy word the Bible and he it seems from the book “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky.
I freely admit, I probably have ods (obama derangement system) and it may give me poor judgement in this matter. But because I love this country and hate the way it is being governed by obama and the lefties, I am at the point were I would probably vote for any candidate the republicans put up………… even Newt or Romney ::puke:: if it means obama is defeated and I do not ever again have to hear his vile lefty ideological sewage spilling from his teleprompter.
-
Rubio is ineligible.
Not in four years. ::danceban::
No. I believe his parents were not citizens when he was born and I don't care that Duh Wun MAY have set a precedent by skirting the g-damned law. He's an unConstitutional president and so would Rubio be.
If it was up to me, the parents of a presidential candidate would have to be born here, as well as the candidate himself; the opportunity for a dual loyalty concerned the Founders and I share the concern.
-
Rubio is ineligible.
I believe that the precedent has now been set to allow him to serve.
-
I just got done watching the Ted Baxter Factor wherein Ted Baxter interviewed Glenn Beck. I agreed with everything that Beck said about Gingrich. Beck did not repeat his statement about going third party. I would like to think that he has backed off of it but I doubt it.
-
I don't know how on the one hand we think we have 90 years to undo what the Left has done...when did FDR leave office, April 1945 feet first, right? It's been 66 fricken years! Have we gotten rid of any of the social crap he heaped on us? No! Wilson, his League of Nations (predecessor to the UN), the Fed, the FTC...has ANY of that crap gotten smaller or eliminated? No! That clown left office 90 fricken years ago!
Now people can do what people want to do, but that road goes both ways you know?! You can think we have 90 years to fix things, I don't don't, if we have a decade (even under a RINO POTUS) I'd be shocked. You can think "holding the line" is a sound strategy, that a little more progressive creeping towards the end zone is better than giving up a touchdown, but I don't. Surrendering to a little evil isn't better than surrendering to all evil. I am hearing it will be my fault if Stymie gets re-elected because I refuse to cast a vote for Romney or gNewt. OK, let's assume that dogma is 100% accurate. You know what? How does that advance your position to get me to support your fatally flawed candidate? I'm not asking for Mr or Mrs Perfect, that is clearly not an option. And I can flip the blame game around, and I think on a more solid foundation, by saying if you foist a fatally flawed candidate on people, it will be YOUR fault Stymie got re-elected.
I am sick and tired of being taken for a chump by the RNC, the state GOP party, every RINO candidate, the Machivellian operators like Karl "The Butthead" Rove, the media, pundits and the leftist pol's!!! I can't do a damn thing about the last three, but the first four I will fight to my dying breath!
No more compromises!
That is my line in the sand.
Oh, and to drive my point home even more, the Rubicon could be here already...
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,4209.0.html (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,4209.0.html)
...this, courtesy of our enlightened leaders on the Hill!
Time, it is not on our side, and it appears it may have never been...
::gaah::
Libertas you have expressed a well written and well reasoned argument.
But;
I cannot in words convey my dislike for obama as a president. I believe he is a man of poor character and quality. He and I hold irreconcilable differences with respect to vision and values as how our country should be governed. obama has made statements against the Bible, his sympathies seem to lie with islam, is antagonistic toward Israel and there is not enough time to expound on how he is damaging our wonderful country through his and the lefties domestic and economic policies. His values and morals are polar opposite of what I believe. as I derive mine from Gods Holy word the Bible and he it seems from the book “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky.
I freely admit, I probably have ods (obama derangement system) and it may give me poor judgement in this matter. But because I love this country and hate the way it is being governed by obama and the lefties, I am at the point were I would probably vote for any candidate the republicans put up………… even Newt or Romney ::puke:: if it means obama is defeated and I do not ever again have to hear his vile lefty ideological sewage spilling from his teleprompter.
I share your extreme distaste in the current occupant of the White House, I cannot add or detract from anything expressed on that point. I merely plead with people to make the best choice we can in the selection process so we can all have someone we can vote for. The advocates ABO at this stage is putting the cart before the horse IMO. I am not saying people cannot hold to the ABO point of view, I merely propose that expressing such sentiments not be the Holy Grail of our selection process, as it appears to me (and I sure know it appeals to promoters of establishment candidates) to give certain candidates more leverage with voters than it should at this point in the game. IMO it smells of settling and compromising ones beliefs for an expedient goal we all share except with respect to the means in how we get there. I would like to see more emphasis on who offers the most likely advance of our cause, not who the elite tell us are the only people capable of gathering the mushy middle or who currently polls better (11 months out) from the general election.
-
Rubio is ineligible.
I believe that the precedent has now been set to allow him to serve.
No. An illegal action does not precedent make. It's an illegal and unConstitutional violation.
eta: And another point is that Congress took pains to validate McCain's eligibility and gave the current sonofabitching occupant of the WH a total pass in a demonstratin of unequal treatment under the law.
NO.
-
We may or may not see. Time will tell.