I don't agree with him on every point, but Quin Hillyer provides a generally good summary of Cain's problems. I suspect that many of Cain's supporters are similar to Sarah Palin's in some ways. They like Cain as a person and assign an inordinate amount of weight to his likeability. They're not nearly as concerned about electability as they ought to be. They have a tendency to underestimate his weaknesses. They overestimate the role of the media and other sources in harming their candidate. Etc. I was glad when Palin announced she wouldn't be running. Unfortunately, the mindset of her supporters seems to have gained a foothold in the Cain campaign.
Is he guilty of sexual harassment or something similar to it? Probably. I find it unlikely that the growing list of people who have accused him are all wrong. But even if the accusations had never come up, his frequent missteps on the issues, like the examples Hillyer mentions, are enough to disqualify him.
I originally wanted Bobby Jindal to be the Republican candidate. I was also interested in some other possibilities, like Marco Rubio. But my top choices didn't run. So I went with Tim Pawlenty. Remarkably, even candidates as weak as Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain got more support than Pawlenty did, and he didn't stay in the race long. After Pawlenty, I went with Rick Perry. He's made some mistakes, but his weaknesses aren't nearly as bad as Cain's. Mitt Romney is more electable than Perry, but Perry can be trusted more to govern as a conservative if he gets elected. My sense is that Perry has sufficient electability to win against Barack Obama. But if it doesn't look like he'll be electable enough early next year, I'll move over to Romney. Most Republicans want an alternative to Romney, and they need to decide on one soon. I think Cain should be abandoned, and Perry ought to be the alternative. Then give him some time to improve as a candidate, like improving his debate performances. If he's sufficiently electable early next year, go with Perry. If he's not, go with Romney.
Thanks Jason for your comments. Setting aside the alleged sexual harassment issue for a moment.
ReplyDeleteAny citizen candidate is going to have missteps, for they are not trained politicians as for example Romney. I am very willing to forgive missteps to an authentic Cain because I know that at the end of the day his policies will work--fiscal and social.
And let us just assume that he did harass a woman or two fifteen years ago. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is contrite about it and learned his lesson from it; if it is even true. Unlike the ubiquitous democratic slime balls who are repeat offenders _in office_.
And as far as electability, it is a myth that Cain is not electable. Today he would win in a landslide against Obama. I am no longer voting for RINOS. The last one I voted for was Bush senior. No more RINOS.
We need a citizen conservative in office to make some radical changes---quick.
Thanks for my two cents.
By the way, if it's true that the Perry campaign or the Romney campaign initiated the sexual harassment story, why is that supposed to be a problem? Nobody denies that Cain was accused of sexual harassment. What's wrong with raising the issue? I don't know how this sexual harassment story got started, but blaming the Perry campaign seems to be the most popular approach at this point. If it was started by the Perry campaign, so what? Perry has had to respond to charges of racism or improper associations with racists. He's had to address accusations of being too opposed to Mormonism or too closely associated with people who are. Romney has had to reply to charges of insincerity. Etc. Why not raise the issue of Cain's treatment of women?
ReplyDeleteThere are some commenters at National Review (not members of the staff, but people commenting in the threads there) who are suggesting that Perry's campaign will be finished if it becomes known that they initiated the sexual harassment story. That's absurd. The sexual harassment story is a valid one, and any opponent of Cain would be justified in raising it. Given the allegations against Cain and his poor handling of the subject so far, it's perverse to portray him as a victim while acting like Perry (or Romney) is deserving of punishment. Maybe one or more of Cain's opponents did something wrong in the process of the unfolding of this story. But I doubt that anything they did wrong is as bad as what Cain has done.
Alan, I agree that Cain would be better than Obama. I'd vote for Cain if he were the Republican candidate.
ReplyDeleteWe're not limited to a choice between Cain and RINOs. Perry isn't a RINO. Romney would have many factors in place that would motivate him to govern as a conservative, even if he didn't believe in those conservative principles.
And Cain's mistakes go beyond what "any citizen candidate" would do. His handling of abortion, for example, has been ridiculous. The mistakes he made on that issue could easily have been avoided by some other citizen candidate and often have been avoided by such people. The same can be said of other mistakes Cain has made.
I doubt that Cain would win in a landslide today or next year. He'd probably lose if the election were held today. Most voters aren't conservatives, and the Democratic candidate has gotten more votes in four of the last five presidential elections. Polls are sometimes inaccurate, but they're generally reliable. Cain isn't doing well in polls against Obama at this point, though that's probably largely due to a lack of familiarity with Cain. He'd probably be higher in the polls next fall, if he were to become the Republican nominee. He'd have a reasonable chance of beating Obama, but Perry would have a better chance of it and Romney even more so.
As for authenticity, there's a lot of it that's lacking in Cain. How many times can he credibly claim that he meant to say something other than what he seemed to have said? That he thought an interviewer was asking him some unusual question rather than what seemingly everybody else thought the interviewer was asking him? That he was just joking when he said something that people took seriously? Cain strikes me as somebody who makes a lot of mistakes and tries to cover them up, but isn't good at it.
@Jason: Regarding the first paragraph of your first comment ("By the way, if it's true that the Perry campaign...").
ReplyDeleteFrom a Christian perspective the answer to your question is quite simple, really. There are many Scripture references one could point to regarding malice, slander, the fruit of the Spirit, or a host of other passages that might be applicable depending on the reality of the matter. So one can only assume you mean from a worldly perspective, in which case, sure, it's not a problem if one of those campaigns drummed up the issue to hurt Cain's campaign.
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteHow are things like "malice, slander, the fruit of the Spirit" relevant here? Multiple parties have accused Cain of sexual harassment on multiple occasions. That's something a presidential candidate should be expected to address. Similarly, Perry was expected to address charges related to racism, Bill Clinton was expected to address charges about sexual misconduct, etc. Issues like a candidate's character and whether he broke the law are significant and relevant.
But if you're going to bring up "malice, slander, the fruit of the Spirit", then would you make the same charge against Cain and his campaign for their criticisms of Perry? It's ironic that Cain supporters keep claiming that there's too little evidence to warrant taking the charges against Cain seriously, yet they keep making accusations against Perry's campaign, for initiating the sexual harassment story, based on even less evidence.
Since the people you choose to favor tend to drop out, would you please pick Mitt Romney as your favorite?
ReplyDeleteThen pick Ron Paul.
Then pick John Huntsman.
Then pick Newt Gingrich.
Thank you.
(c:
Silver-tongued Newt is a smart, tough old bird. What's wrong with Newt? Bumper sticker slogan: NEWT MAKES SENSE. I know it's just me, but I am puzzled by his unpopularity in the polls. If ever given the chance in these Republican debates, he, in my opinion I know, comes off as knowing what he's talking about and the experience to make it happen. :)
ReplyDeleteNewt is indeed silver-tongued, and has ties to the New Age movement in ways that give some discerning Christians a fair bit of pause.
ReplyDelete@Jason: You asked a question, I gave an answer and I think you know precisely how it applies.
God bless.
A reference to New Age and Newt.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jacob. I'm not familiar with Constance Cumbey and will do some further research on this link between Gingrich and The New Age Movement. Bush senior was allegedly part of this as well, correct? Or am I confusing 'New Age' with 'New World Order'?
ReplyDeleteAre we sure that any of the other candidates, i.e., Romney or Bush or Cain would not be classified in this same sense by Ms. Cumbey as well?
Sorry, my sentence below should read: Romney or Perry or Cain...
ReplyDeleteAll these Republicans are the same old same old. I like Ron Paul, because I like cosistency, and I like the US Constitution.
ReplyDeleteWith any of these guys I see America going Bankrupt. I hope not. I really hope not, and pray our Lord would show us mercy, but I'm very skeptical.
I voted for McCain, becuase I voted against Barak the Socialist, (who denies being a Socialist). But I truly believe John McCain would have spent the same amount of $$$$, and been the same old same old bureaucrat
sitting in their nice suits on leather chairs with $100 ink pens signing, and signing, and signing, etc.
The Wall Streeters and the Politicians are all doing fine, and Main Street is losing.
There's my rant, if I may. Thanks brothers in Christ for addressing these issues.
I support Ron Paul.
ReplyDeleteLike every candidate, there are some areas where he can be criticized. But overall he is the most consistent traditional conservative. And by far the most honest. He really believes in what he says.
The main complaint with Paul seems to be that he is not electable. In which case, it's a shame that elections have become a horse race where we bet on the winner instead of choosing the one who wins (to borrow an old Alan Keyes analogy).
To some degree, in the later stages of the political process, it's understandable that we want to pick someone who we think will win. But at this stage in the political process it makes more sense to me to back the candidate we think will do the best job over who has the most probable chance of winning the job.
Well said, Jonathan. And donsands.
ReplyDeleteJacob wrote:
ReplyDelete"You asked a question, I gave an answer and I think you know precisely how it applies."
No, I don't. That's why I asked you to explain your reasoning. Instead of supporting what you said, you're suggesting that you don't have to, since I supposedly know that you're correct. That's just another unsupported assertion on your part. And you're ignoring what I said in the rest of my post.
Jonathan wrote:
ReplyDelete"To some degree, in the later stages of the political process, it's understandable that we want to pick someone who we think will win. But at this stage in the political process it makes more sense to me to back the candidate we think will do the best job over who has the most probable chance of winning the job."
You can't separate the two. We're choosing who to send into the general election campaign. How do you "pick someone who you think will win" in the general election if you pick somebody in the primaries who's highly likely to lose in the general election?
Or think of what happened with Pawlenty. What if he'd gotten more support early on instead of so many votes being wasted on the likes of Paul and Bachmann? If Pawlenty were still in the race, we'd have a better alternative to Romney at this point.
If you're ignoring electability at this stage, then why not write in the name of an ideal candidate who would be even better than Paul? Why not do that in every primary for every political office (if write-ins are allowed)? Or why not get somebody better than Paul, like your uncle or cousin, to run? Sure, he'd only get seven or eight votes, but who cares about electability?
It should be noted that the Republican party is far from ideal by the standards of Ron Paul and his supporters. Yet, Paul has decided to be a Republican. And his supporters have voted for him in that context, have decided to work through the Republican party by participating in its primaries, etc. They're already making a lot of concessions to electability. Why not take it a step further and use your vote to help decide between, say, Perry and Romney or Cain and Romney rather than using your vote to give Paul a small handful of percentage points again?
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteYou can't separate the two. We're choosing who to send into the general election campaign. How do you "pick someone who you think will win" in the general election if you pick somebody in the primaries who's highly likely to lose in the general election?
1. We aren't voting in the primaries yet.
2. It seems like your objection is only a concern if Ron Paul won the primaries. But if Ron Paul could win the primaries, why think he can't win the race overall? Frankly, I'm not as skeptical about Ron Paul's electability as many are. Despite the media ignoring and downplaying Paul as much as possible (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXBz6AGJFM), he is very popular. I would suggest the idea that the "electability" issue is one of the stories floated by his opponents.
Or think of what happened with Pawlenty. What if he'd gotten more support early on instead of so many votes being wasted on the likes of Paul and Bachmann? If Pawlenty were still in the race, we'd have a better alternative to Romney at this point.
I don't buy the rhetoric of "wasted" votes. Last presidential election I voted for the Constitution Party candidate. Of course I knew he wouldn't win. Was that vote "wasted"? I don't think so. If nothing else is shows that those voters aren't satisfied with the candidates in the two-party system. It throws off the bell curve.
If you're ignoring electability at this stage, then why not write in the name of an ideal candidate who would be even better than Paul? Why not do that in every primary for every political office (if write-ins are allowed)? Or why not get somebody better than Paul, like your uncle or cousin, to run? Sure, he'd only get seven or eight votes, but who cares about electability?
1. Where is your argument that I should either bet on the winning horse or go all out on idealism? Seems like you think I should be an all out pragmatist or an all out idealist. Why?
2. What makes you think I know anyone more qualified and over-all well established than Ron Paul? My cousin isn't qualified to be President. But I think Ron Paul is.
3. I'd rather support Ron Paul now to show that there are people who agree with his traditional conservativism and then vote for the lesser of two evils when Paul is no longer in the picture.
It should be noted that the Republican party is far from ideal by the standards of Ron Paul and his supporters. Yet, Paul has decided to be a Republican. And his supporters have voted for him in that context, have decided to work through the Republican party by participating in its primaries, etc. They're already making a lot of concessions to electability. Why not take it a step further and use your vote to help decide between, say, Perry and Romney or Cain and Romney rather than using your vote to give Paul a small handful of percentage points again?
ReplyDeleteWhy should we (Ron Paul supporters)? I don't see how it follows that if we make concessions on x and y that we should also make concessions on z.
I shall vote for Paul in the primary. There are Paul supporters who think he will upset the rest. And they are hoping others will see how Ron Paul is steadfast in his convictions about the US Constitution.
ReplyDeleteif he loses the primary, then whoever arises I shall most likely support. Out of the others, i would hope .....um,.... not sure yet.
Thanks for allowing me to vent my politic-heart, or the political portion of my mind. It really does help to get these things out.
Jonathan wrote:
ReplyDelete"It seems like your objection is only a concern if Ron Paul won the primaries."
No, I'm also concerned about other contexts. See my Tim Pawlenty example above.
You write:
"Despite the media ignoring and downplaying Paul as much as possible (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXBz6AGJFM), he is very popular. I would suggest the idea that the 'electability' issue is one of the stories floated by his opponents."
He did poorly when he ran in 2008. Those poor results didn't come from the media, polls, or Paul's opponents. They came from the voters. And he's typically been at less than ten percent in this year's polling, with almost no chance of doing significantly better. If you're going to dismiss all of the polling as unreliable in some way, then you'll need to offer evidence in support of that conclusion.
You wrote:
"Last presidential election I voted for the Constitution Party candidate."
Which undermines your claim that you were only addressing what we should do in the early stages of a campaign, before we even vote in the primaries.
You write:
"If nothing else is shows that those voters aren't satisfied with the candidates in the two-party system."
That's a vague message. And it's a message only being sent by a tiny minority of the population. How many people will even notice it to a significant extent? Given the closeness of so many recent elections, like Bush/Gore in 2000 and Franken/Coleman in Minnesota in 2008, I would say that supporting the better candidate in such contexts carries more weight than joining a tiny percentage of the population in sending the vague message you refer to above. Even if you're not voting in a context in which the frontrunners are close, you'd need to consider whether the vague message you refer to above is worth sending, whether you should be supporting a movement that's encouraging people to vote the wrong way in contexts like Franken/Coleman, etc.
You write:
"What makes you think I know anyone more qualified and over-all well established than Ron Paul?"
I had no way of knowing whether you think Paul is the most qualified person. That's why I asked. I didn't think you would claim that he's the best person, but now you're suggesting that you think he is. Why? I suspect that your answer will involve some elements of electability. What I'm trying to get from you is an explanation for why you pursue electability up to the level of somebody like Paul or a Constitution Party candidate, but then stop there. What's the reasoning behind stopping at that point?
You write:
"I'd rather support Ron Paul now to show that there are people who agree with his traditional conservativism and then vote for the lesser of two evils when Paul is no longer in the picture."
In 2008, you voted for the Constitution Party candidate. And you told us that you don't think your vote was wasted. But now you're saying that you'll vote for "the lesser of two evils". How are you reconciling those two approaches?
What you do now will affect the "two evils" you have to choose from in the future. I think we'd be better off with Pawlenty than Cain, Perry, or Romney. But we'll be getting one of those latter three, probably either Perry or Romney. That's partly because people wasted their early support on candidates like Paul and Bachmann. Or what if the primaries would come down to a close race between, say, Perry and Romney in your state? Would you limit yourself to a choice between the two frontrunners in that context?
donsands wrote:
ReplyDelete"There are Paul supporters who think he will upset the rest."
Why believe them? Paul did poorly in 2008. He's been doing poorly in the polling and in other contexts this year.
I don't think Ron Paul is a traditional conservative. To the contrary, he's a fairly eccentric conservative.
ReplyDeleteI also don't grant his claims to be a Constitutionalist. He's not a Constitutional scholar like Robert Bork or Antonin Scalia. He has no particular expertise in Constitutional history. He's a physician by training.
He also has some whacky ideas, like comparing a fence on the Southern border to the Berlin wall. That's certifiably paranoid.
Likewise, he keeps comparing the Iranians to the Russians. But unlike suicide bombers, the Russians didn't have a death wish. They didn't glamorize martyrdom.
Finally, he's too old to be president. If elected, he'd be 77 when sworn in.
No, I'm also concerned about other contexts. See my Tim Pawlenty example above.
ReplyDeleteYour Pawlenty example was concerned with wasted votes.
As I said, I don't buy the rhetoric of "wasted" votes.
I might as well say "What if less votes were wasted on Pawlenty and Bachmann and Paul had more supporters? Paul is a better alternative to Romney, so why are you wasting time focusing on these others?"
He did poorly when he ran in 2008. Those poor results didn't come from the media, polls, or Paul's opponents. They came from the voters.
Voters who are influenced by the rhetoric of the media and politics. .. Which try to ignore and downplay the electability of Paul.
And he's typically been at less than ten percent in this year's polling, with almost no chance of doing significantly better. If you're going to dismiss all of the polling as unreliable in some way, then you'll need to offer evidence in support of that conclusion.
I'm not trying to pin the whole thing as due to the media bias and the political tactic of his opponents. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with people approaching the issue from your mindset. Voting is betting on a winning horse. Some of it also probably has to do with people's dumb political reasoning. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaYKw5VK_zc
Though the video above is probably from the dumb reasoning of some democrats, many Republicans have their own dumb logic that causes them to support candidates worse than Paul. Take your own example of Palin supporters.
Anyway, my point in Paul's electability was that he obviously has a message that is resonating with a lot more people than the media wants to admit. I think this is the point illustrated by the Stewart video.
Even when Paul was doing good in the Iowa straw poll, the media wanted to ignore it and talk about how other people had electability chances at that time.
Which undermines your claim that you were only addressing what we should do in the early stages of a campaign, before we even vote in the primaries.
How does what I did in 2008 undermine what I was speaking of doing in 2012?
Can you draw that out for me?
That's a vague message.
For one thing, you don't know that that's the only "message" I sent. I was politically active for that party (when Paul dropped out) outside of a vote. Nevertheless, the vote itself doesn't seem vague to me. The vote was for the Constitution Party. That message says I support a candidate who has a strong sense of duty to uphold the constitution.
And it's a message only being sent by a tiny minority of the population.
The message sent by the Republican party last election was by a minority of the population.
How many people will even notice it to a significant extent?
Don't know. How many people will notice your vote to a significant extent?
Given the closeness of so many recent elections, like Bush/Gore in 2000 and Franken/Coleman in Minnesota in 2008, I would say that supporting the better candidate in such contexts carries more weight than joining a tiny percentage of the population in sending the vague message you refer to above.
Why not take last election as an example? If all persons who voted for a third party conservative candidate last election had voted for a Republican candidate, would it have made a difference?
The fact is, there is scattered support for people like Ron Paul because people are dissatisfied with state of neo-conservatives or just plain dumb conservatives that seem to be the only option in the Republican Party.
I don't see how everyone dissatisfied with this situation supporting these same neo-cons and Palin-type of Republicans would be any sort of step toward fixing the situation.
I had no way of knowing whether you think Paul is the most qualified person. That's why I asked. I didn't think you would claim that he's the best person, but now you're suggesting that you think he is. Why?
ReplyDeleteBecause I think his approach to the issues the best.
What else are you looking for? Are you wanting to debate his ideas on whether the current empire-esque interventionist foreign policy is sustainable or representative of traditional conservativism? In other words, are you wanting me to lay out his specifics and then defend those?
I'll have to continue the rest after I get back from work.
I suppose I don't really believe that Paul will win. But, there are quite a lot of hopeful people, and I know the Media ignores him, for the most part. Too boring I guess.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if 77 is too old, when you compare the others we might put in the Whitehouse. Mitt, Perry, Cain, Newt, and the others to me are same old politics, and spending tons of our money.
Paul will genuinely stop the incredible spending. And his stance on Defense is a good one, if you haven't checked it out, then I would encourage you to.
And of course Paul has problems, who doesn't. Reagan, Kennedy, Lincoln, and all the rest had problems, because they are sinful and in the flesh. Evene King David had problems, and He was a man after God's own heart, and wrote all those Psalms.
I just want someone with integrity and consistency, who is staunchly pro-life #1, as Ron Paul is. I don't see any of these others as stauchly pro-life, do you?
Have a great weekend and Lord's Day!
DONSANDS SAID:
ReplyDelete"Paul will genuinely stop the incredible spending."
How would he do that? By executive fiat?
A president can't single-handedly curtail spending. That requires the consent of Congress, as well as the will of the American electorate.
"And his stance on Defense is a good one..."
His stance on defense is dangerous, reactionary, and simplistic. The alternative to nation-building is not to shut down all our military bases around the world, do nothing to check Iran, Russia, China, and withdraw into the false security of our porous borders.
Moreover, Paul doesn't believe in border security. He doesn't believe in profiling. He has a one-size-fits-all approach to citizens and terrorists alike. Open borders won't protect us from our enemies.
"I just want someone with integrity and consistency, who is staunchly pro-life #1, as Ron Paul is..."
His private opposition to abortion (and other social issues) is irrelevant. As a presidential candidate, what matters is his public policy initiatives. Otherwise, it's just the Andrew Cuomo cop-out: "I'm personally opposed, but..."
Returning from work...
ReplyDeleteIn 2008, you voted for the Constitution Party candidate. And you told us that you don't think your vote was wasted. But now you're saying that you'll vote for "the lesser of two evils". How are you reconciling those two approaches?
I don't see any contradiction that needs reconciling.
McCain and Palin were such a poor pair and I thought had no chance of winning.
I think Romney would be better than McCain and has a better chance of winning next year.
What you do now will affect the "two evils" you have to choose from in the future. I think we'd be better off with Pawlenty than Cain, Perry, or Romney. But we'll be getting one of those latter three, probably either Perry or Romney. That's partly because people wasted their early support on candidates like Paul and Bachmann.
Sorry, but your line of reasoning just doesn't follow for me since I don't think the "wasted" votes idea makes sense.
If my vote has significance for Pawlenty then why not for Paul?
Or what if the primaries would come down to a close race between, say, Perry and Romney in your state? Would you limit yourself to a choice between the two frontrunners in that context?
I'm registered independent and, thus, can't vote in the primaries in my state.
But if I could I would probably vote for Paul if he was still in the race at that point.
Why believe them? Paul did poorly in 2008. He's been doing poorly in the polling and in other contexts this year.
http://wjbc.com/obama-paul-big-winners-in-isu-straw-poll/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/29/ron-paul-wins-both-tallies-at-gop-pres-straw-poll-in-iowa/
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-09-17/ron-paul-wins-california-straw-poll-with-44-9/
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI don't think Ron Paul is a traditional conservative. To the contrary, he's a fairly eccentric conservative.
On some things he is more libertarian than traditional conservative. But I think the arguments that traditional conservativism has more in common with present day libertarianism than present day neo-cons has some force.
I also don't grant his claims to be a Constitutionalist. He's not a Constitutional scholar like Robert Bork or Antonin Scalia. He has no particular expertise in Constitutional history. He's a physician by training.
I don't know why you would think "constitutionalist" refers to academic training or professional career. Would you guess that the "Constitution Party" is composed of people with academic training in constitutional law or that they are professional constitutional lawyers or something along those lines?
I doubt it.
He also has some whacky ideas, like comparing a fence on the Southern border to the Berlin wall. That's certifiably paranoid.
I don't think it's certifiably paranoid, but I agree it's a point of criticism. Romney, Perry, etc. have them too.
Likewise, he keeps comparing the Iranians to the Russians. But unlike suicide bombers, the Russians didn't have a death wish. They didn't glamorize martyrdom.
Paul's foreign policy makes some sense to me. It seems more reasonable to understand Muslims as being upset that we are in their land screwing with their politics than the typical Republican line that they "hate freedom." This is what the Muslims themselves have said (that it is our intrusion into their land and culture).
Saying they hate our freedom makes us feel patriotic... and it gets the Palin-esque supporters hooting and hollering, but I don't think it makes much sense.
At the same time, I recognize that people are often very irrational. So I shouldn't necessarily expect Ron Paul's logic of why it wouldn't be in Iran's interest to attack us to be shared by all Iranians (and I don't think all Iranians have a death wish).
Thus, this may be one of Paul's weaker points. But not his weakest.
Finally, he's too old to be president. If elected, he'd be 77 when sworn in.
I don't know how you are arriving at the conclusion that that is too old.
His stance on defense is dangerous, reactionary, and simplistic. The alternative to nation-building is not to shut down all our military bases around the world, do nothing to check Iran, Russia, China, and withdraw into the false security of our porous borders.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we need military bases all around the world? Is the current modus operandi really sustainable?
Moreover, Paul doesn't believe in border security. He doesn't believe in profiling. He has a one-size-fits-all approach to citizens and terrorists alike. Open borders won't protect us from our enemies.
Granted. Military bases in Japan etc. don't seem to be doing much good either.
His private opposition to abortion (and other social issues) is irrelevant. As a presidential candidate, what matters is his public policy initiatives. Otherwise, it's just the Andrew Cuomo cop-out: "I'm personally opposed, but..."
I agree this is one of his weakest points. He said, if I recall, with Chris Matthews that this should be a state-rights issue. To say that murder should be up to the state is absurd.
But I don't know that Romney or Perry are any better on this issue.
Steve, Did you read Ron Paul's statement on Defense?
ReplyDeleteI read it, and it looked solid to me. And we just have to disagree on spending hundreds of billions of dollars for having military all over the world.
As far as Congress doing the spending, you're right, but Ron will veto spending, and any cuts he will sign, not like these other guys, who will spend, spend, spend, spend, and spend, because they are the same old same old.
We are going banckrupt Steve. And our government spent more this year than last year.
And alos, being Pro-life is the #1 consideration for me. It really says a lot about the man's heart. Barak is pro-infanticide, and pro-partial-birth abortion. He thinks it's good to kill babies. And Romeny used to be, and I don't know where these other guys are on the death of babies. Doesn't seem like it matters that much to them. I could be wrong, but that's how it seems, and that says a lot about their heart.
Jonathan wrote:
ReplyDelete"I might as well say 'What if less votes were wasted on Pawlenty and Bachmann and Paul had more supporters? Paul is a better alternative to Romney, so why are you wasting time focusing on these others?'"
Claiming that my reasoning can be applied to Paul doesn't refute the reasoning. I was making the point that our choices about who to support early in a presidential campaign affect what options we have later. Applying my reasoning to Paul doesn't refute the point I was making.
And you're assuming that Paul is interchangeable with Pawlenty. Why should we believe that? The Republicans who have been seeking an alternative to Romney have been going to candidates like Perry and Cain. They're looking for a mainstream conservative, not somebody who's more libertarian. The idea that they would be as interested in Paul as Pawlenty, or even more interested in Paul than they would be in Pawlenty, is ridiculous. Pawlenty was just recently governor of a state that leans Democratic, he was one of the frontrunners for the vice presidential slot in 2008, he received a lot of media attention and interest from the Republican leadership in the early stages of the 2012 campaign, etc. The idea that Ron Paul has comparable or better electability doesn't make sense. And Paul didn't need more early support in order to stay in the race, as Pawlenty did. Their circumstances were different.
You write:
"Voters who are influenced by the rhetoric of the media and politics. .. Which try to ignore and downplay the electability of Paul."
If the voters are so influenced by those sources who are opposed to Paul, then why are we supposed to think that the voters will support Paul?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"For one thing, you don't know that that's the only 'message' I sent."
I was responding to what you said. It's not my responsibility to discern what other messages you thought you were sending.
You write:
"Nevertheless, the vote itself doesn't seem vague to me. The vote was for the Constitution Party. That message says I support a candidate who has a strong sense of duty to uphold the constitution."
And how many people have even heard of that party? How many news items on the 2008 election even mentioned the votes received by the Constitution Party? When a rare individual hears about that tiny fraction of one percent of the vote that the Constitution Party candidate received, what is he supposed to make of that message you sent him? What does it accomplish for such a tiny party to send such a tiny message?
You write:
"The message sent by the Republican party last election was by a minority of the population."
The Republican minority in 2008 was far larger than the Constitution Party minority. The average American has heard of the Republican party and frequently hears what the Republican party has to say, unlike the minority party you voted for. And the Republican party is often the majority, as it was in the 2010 cycle and probably will be again in 2012. The Constitution Party not only hasn't ever achieved any comparable status, but also has tremendously poor prospects for ever achieving it in the future.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"I don't see how everyone dissatisfied with this situation supporting these same neo-cons and Palin-type of Republicans would be any sort of step toward fixing the situation."
As I said earlier, the significance of supporting somebody like Paul or the Constitution Party varies from case to case. It can do short-term damage in a close election, like Bush/Gore or Franken/Coleman, but in other cases it's more of a long-term issue, as I explained earlier.
You write:
"But if I could I would probably vote for Paul if he was still in the race at that point."
Which undermines what you said about electability in the 2012 campaign. You say that you'd vote for Romney because he has a better chance of beating Obama than McCain did, but you also say that you'd vote for Paul in a close primary race between Perry and Romney. But Romney has to win in the primaries in order to get to the general election. As I said before, what we do in the primaries determines what our options will be in the general election cycle. Why would voting for Paul in the primaries carry more significance than getting one frontrunner nominated rather than another (Romney rather than Cain, Perry rather than Romney, etc.)?
You write:
"http://wjbc.com/obama-paul-big-winners-in-isu-straw-poll/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/29/ron-paul-wins-both-tallies-at-gop-pres-straw-poll-in-iowa/
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-09-17/ron-paul-wins-california-straw-poll-with-44-9/"
So what? Those polls aren't representative of much. One of the polls you linked had Romney at zero percent and one percent. Yet, you've referred to how you'd vote for Romney in the general election because of his chances of beating Obama. You don't seem to be putting much stock in those zero percent and one percent results in the polls you linked.
For some more significant polling, see here. And it's not as though Paul had been the frontrunner and just recently dropped. Rather, he got persistently bad numbers in 2008, and he's been persistently low in the polls this year, even though he started so early, had the advantage of having run before, etc.
"The Republican minority in 2008 was far larger than the Constitution Party minority."
ReplyDeleteRon Paul is a Republican. And his views on the US Constitution are growing in a great way.
I was thinking as I listened to Rand Paul on TV how refreshing this young man is, and suppose all the work his Dad has done makes a way for Rand Paul to be nominated and elected as our President in the future.
Just a way out there thought.
Our nation needs to get away from the Socialists and Republicans that also like to look good spending trillions of tax payers money.
Lord bless! Thanks for the good discussion. Have a terrific Lord's Day!
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI had taken about an hour writing out a long response and had finished it when I accidentally closed the tab just now (when trying to close another tab, your "more significant" link).
All I had written in the last hour was deleted. I'm tempted to just cuss at you. I've already cussed at my web-browser. But rest assured though, most of your points are irrelevant and the rest are wrong. :)