@Earlpearl: Who are you and what have you done with Earlpearl?!! @cPAce: Not to sling mud at some heroes of yours but you should read a little more on Kennedy. His father, who made his fortune from an illegal enterprise (moonshine) was connected with the Chicago mob and Mayor Dailey, whose motto was "Vote Early and Vote Often". Kennedy's Chicago victory was won based on people being bused from district to district to vote repetitively. Similar claims were made about Texas and, if true, Kennedy likely would have lost an honest election. He is also the guy who brought us quite literally to the brink of nuclear war. He also got us into Vietnam. He was also completely unfaithful to his rather hot wife while holding the office of the President. If you want to speculate as to who killed him, likely as not it was the Chicago mob who expected more than he gave for helping put him in office, not some nebulous military industrial complex. Personally, I like Kennedy. He gave us the space program, and by today's standards he would be called a right winger. My point is, things are never as black and white as your post makes them out to be. Romney for instance is wealthy, but there is very little evidence that he is corrupt. If anything, he's too clean. He doesn't drink. He doesn't smoke weed. He's been faithful to the wife of his youth who raised five well mannered and well behaved boys. He goes to church, he pays his taxes. He has the same group of business people with him that he has for nearly three decades. EXTREMELY BORING, but a far cry from corrupt. The funny thing is, Obama, one of the most corrupt presidents we've had in a century, is the guy trying to equate individual wealth with corruption. Hypocrisy has become the norm with this president. FTR, Ron Paul is no saint either. We don't have all the dirt on him because he has never had enough support for a long enough period of time to let the bright light of scrutiny bring it all to the surface, or make it the current topic of conversation, but the racist newsletters put out by his organization would be just the start.
Ofcourse Kennedy had his ups and downs, but he still had a gotten a lot accomplished. If it wasn't for Kennedy putting us at the brink of nuclear war, we may not have as great of a relationship as we do with Russia. I know Ron Paul is no saint, but he has key points that would seriously help America at this point. We don't need more politicians in office to focus on a bunch of random issues, what we need now is a President that will lead us to become a prosperous nation once again.
And in a subsequent election, Ronald Reagan carried forth Goldwater's hard right tack and won. http://spectator.org/archives/2007/10/05/the-goldwater-reagan-victory History is repeating itself whether you choose to see it or not.
Reagan was about as hard right as Bill Clinton was hard left. [video=youtube;uJDhS4oUm0M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJDhS4oUm0M[/video]
^ Now you are just spouting nonsense. Dredging up something from 1948 to try and prove he wasn't fighting for and carrying on Goldwater's legacy over 20 years later? Please. If that's the level of intellectual honesty you bring to a discussion, you don't deserve thoughtful replies.
I see. So when Reagan pioneered the first amnesty for illegal aliens, was that part of Goldwater's legacy, or something different?
More red herrings. Try comparing the platform he campaigned on when he got elected to his first term and you will be on point. The issue, as raised by earlpearl, is the electability of strong conservative (far right) candidates.
The platform he campaigned on? So you are now saying that because Romney is campaigning on a strong pro-life, anti socialized medicine platform, he is a hard right candidate? We are just supposed to ignore the fact he used to be pro-death and helped institute socialized medicine in Mass? You should scroll up a few posts and listen to Reagan's support speech for Truman because, word for word, it sounds exactly like something Barack Obama might say today. Reagan was a fairly hard core liberal who came around, campaigned as a conservative, and implemented a mixed agenda. What, you think Reagan carried 49 states in a general election because all the liberals in America suddenly turned in their commie cards?
Reagan worked for Goldwater's campaign in '64. Ron Paul supported Reagan's campaigns in '76 and '80. Up until Reagan took office, he had over a decade of strong conservative / hard right credentials. I was a young person at the time, but I seem to recall that when Reagan was elected, he was widely perceived as being far right on the political spectrum at that point in time.
Ron has a lotta stands I agree with, some I don't, which describes anyone running for the nomination as it usually does. Seldom will any of us find a candidate that embodies all our views. The only reason so many last round thought Obama embodied their views was he'd carefully avoided going on record in many situations with anything stronger than a vote of "present". He was the proverbial blank slate onto which many imprinted their model candidate. Add to that he delivered a helluva speech, many of which his later actions proved were empty talk, but people liked it at the time. He'll have a tougher time this round because he has a record, and except for the hardcore believers he'll have a hard time comparing his actions to the empty rhetoic. Ron Paul is mathematically out of the race. I appreciate the fact that he's persistent, but the numbers arent there. For better or worse, that ship has sailed. I've never agreed 100 percent with anyone I've voted for. Not Reagan, not either Bush, etc. It's no different with Romney. There are parts of every candidate that's ever run that I've disagreed with... but there are virtually none I've felt as strongly about as Obama when it comes to being bad news. His little open-mic episode the other day frankly chilled my blood. Bottom line, whether I agree with Romney 100 percent isnt the question. He has a much better set of credentials for dealing with the economy than Obama has or ever will. I agree with a helluvalot more of his positions than I do Obamas, and I dont see him putting blatant crooks like Eric Holder into positions of power. I also believe he has more respect for the constitution than Obama. IMO, it's time for those of us that do not want Obama to serve another term to put away our disagreements and unite behinmd the guy that IS going to get the nomination. It's just a matter of dealing with reality. .02
If Romney had cooked up something called the "Therapuetic abortion act" in Massachusetts only a decade ago, I don't think anyone would be thinking of him as hard right. I also don't buy into the idea that the right is any more right today than it was in 1980, making Reagan less conservative only in hindsight. If anything, I'd say the right has drifted left on a lot of social issues. Reagan had a special gift, just like Bubba. He was able to sell his ideas and build consensus with people who disagreed with him. They say Clinton used to regularly call legislators on the other side of the isle. Not some trumped up political event, but a personal phone call from the president. He would hammer out issues on a one to one basis, which is how he got things done. Our current president thinks he was elected dictator, over and above the co-equal legislative branch of government. Truly the worst president since Jimmy Carter.
Ron Paul is a nice guy but he's far gone . He maybe stood a chance in the beginning but he bit the dust a long time ago . He's make a excellent vice president though .
I disagree strongly that the nomination is locked up. Santorum refused to endorse Romney and his suspended campaign managed to send a fundraising letter to all of Iowa (which is still conducting it's delegate selection process BTW) essentially calling Romney the devil. Santorum urged his supporters to "vote their conscience". I also disagree with your premise that "uniting behind Romney" is going to deny Obama a second term. I don't believe Romney offers independents enough contrast to win their support from Obama (this appears to be validated from the major polling firms). I also don't believe that Ron Paul's firm support (something like 10-15% of the GOP voters) are going to support Romney and he can't win the general without them. So, IMO, supporting Romney now is essentially conceding the general to Obama. YMMV.
Terrific. That proves that Santorum is a useless tool, not that Romney is not the presumptive nominee. Its pretty sad when Al Gore, whose campaign was finally suspended by supreme court decision in 2000, shows more class than Santorum who is nowhere even close to Romney's delegate count. If by chance Romney doesn't win the general election, we can all send a thank you note to Rick Santorum for doing his part for Obama. Perhaps the redefinition of his name was appropriate. I'm curious why any Ron Paul supporter would even consider Rick Santorum. Is the pro-life, big government, anti-gay, anti-drug, anti-education platform where the Ron Paul people are at these days? I was kind of under the impression they leaned more libertarian, and that the economy was the number one issue, right or left. I'm sure there are some folks who thought having Santorum up their ass might be nice, I just wouldn't expect it to be the Ron Paul folks. I think you need the Ted Nugent pep speech. [video=youtube;06XVt6zEr9E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06XVt6zEr9E[/video]
It's a simple matter of math... Paul doesnt have anywhere near enough support to win the nomination. If his supporters would burn the house down around them instead of seeing someone else in it, hope they're enjoying the first Obama term, cause as the hot-mic episode suggests, the second where he's unfettered by the wishes of the pesky old voters will be even more fun. Ron's from Texas, and if I'm a betting man even he doesnt believe in that sort of petulant self-destruction.
Where did anyone assert such a thing? You seem to be fond of ridiculing straw man arguments. Ron has the support at the margins (which is where general elections are won or lost). The GOP itself is his biggest hurdle. If GOP supporters deny the reality of Romney's inability to win the general election without Ron Paul supporters, hope they're enjoying the first Obama term, ... Blame is easy to cast. Few like to take responsibilty for their own decisions/actions these days. Ron Paul supporters are fighting for more than just right/left party politics. If you don't understand that, you aren't going to understand why Romney will never get their support.
You are correct. I phrased it wrong. Why would a Santorum voter support Paul? Its the same question, just reversed. Obviously those two groups have very different agendas. If anything, Romney's agenda is closer to Paul's than Santorum's, and both are preferable to Obama's. Or better said, he has marginal support. Latinos make up a bigger group. Women make up a much larger group. None of the above groups votes as a monolithic block. When Romney officially receives the nomination at the convention, those voters will all get behind someone who is actually running in the general election, they will write in a name, or they will stay home. Again, you assume Paul supporters won't vote for Romney. I think you need to look at the graph on this page. Now that Santorum is out, the polls are showing his supporters falling in behind Romney. Paul's numbers are moving that way too. By the end of June, I predict Ron Paul's solid 10% will be down to 5%. By the time the general election hits, you'll have a few folks (2.5% of Ron Paul supporters from the Republican Primary?) who are so sad Paul didn't make it, they will refuse to vote for Romney on principal. Fortunately for Romney, now that he has moved onto competing in the general election, he can focus his campaign on how he will help the economy, not how he will try and outlaw abortions. That alone should get him back 10% of the single female voters he lost in the primary process, more than making up for disgruntled Paulistas.
I said this the last time he ran... but it bears repeating. I like Paul to a degree, but his biggest problem in gaining acceptance is the rabid foaming at the mouth guys that "support" him with a vocal presence on the internet that is childish and embarrassing. He seems to attract a rather large share of, frankly, immature nuts. They are his biggest fans, and also his largest hindrance to broader acceptance. With friends like that he's screwed. You suggested his supporters form 10-15% of the GOP. Honestly doubt that number... as a large amount of his supporters strike me as never having voted before. But if we accept your number, it's still obvious that in a Democracy 10-15% do not dictate to the other 85-90 percent. So spare me the breathlessy self-indulgent bullshit about fighting for a higher cause if you don't even understand the basic tenets of democracy.
robjones - Ron didn't have 10-15% support from the GOP in 2008, but primaries in 2012 have consistently shown at least that level of support. I didn't claim that 10-15% will dictate anything. Merely that Romney doesn't have enough support from independents to win the general election without Ron's base. If that's being "breathlessly self indulgent" on my part, I apologize. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep..._ron_paul_supporters_part_of_our_natural_base http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288395/gop-should-heed-ron-paul-michael-tanner