Al Fraken's Operation KAOS Ron Paul's forces quietly plot GOP convention revolt again

#26
#26
McCain is not the ideal candidate IMO, but with 2 Supreme Court nominations coming up and a war on in Iraq, I'd rather take my chances with McCain and worry about fixing the GOP down the road. The stakes are too high for a scorched earth scenario for the GOP.
 
#27
#27
GAVol said:
McCain is not the ideal candidate IMO, but with 2 Supreme Court nominations coming up and a war on in Iraq, I'd rather take my chances with McCain and worry about fixing the GOP down the road. The stakes are too high for a scorched earth scenario for the GOP.
Click to expand...

And I guess my thinking is that putting in McCain will not lead to a fix of the GOP. All it will do is validate the GOP leadership's line of thinking. Instead of them listening to the people/constituents more, they will feel that all is good, and that they should just continue down the path they have been on of trotting out moderates. All you are doing by perpetuating this is delaying the inevitable. The only difference between voting for McCain and voting for Obama/Hillary is time. The direction they are going is essentially the same, only the Dems will give us a fast track to socialism and the RINOs will tip toe us there.

Until I see a change in direction out of the GOP, I will continue to see no real incentive for voting for their watered down candidates.
 
#28
#28
GAVol said:
McCain is not the ideal candidate IMO, but with 2 Supreme Court nominations coming up and a war on in Iraq, I'd rather take my chances with McCain and worry about fixing the GOP down the road. The stakes are too high for a scorched earth scenario for the GOP.
Click to expand...

That is an understatement. In September/October, that guy was virtually dead broke and hitch hiking across Iowa practically. But like I said earlier, it took a monumental blow up from all of the front runners to push him to the head of the pack. I mean seriously, look at all of the things that had to happen in order to get him the nomination. Fred Thompson didn't want it. Rudy procrastinated. Romney did nothing to shake of the Mass. moderate label he had, and Huckabee only had a niche fundamentalist group of supporters. Meanwhile, Tancredo and Paul are on the outside looking in and their are the most conservative two of the bunch.
 
#30
#30
I don't think losing an election is ever a good thing... and with the way it's looking, the R's are not learning their lesson. Like someone already said, the Supreme Court openings are too important to leave in the hands of a liberal. What I am worried about is that no matter who wins, the illegal amnesty bills will start coming up again and that worries me.
 
#31
#31
GAVol said:
Sounds sort of like Bill Clinton in 1992.
Click to expand...

The lesson from '92 should be that the GOP didn't learn their lesson in '96 when they ran another moderate, insider like Dole on the ticket. Both times, Clinton was beatable, and the GOP still managed to lose both elections.

If you have a conservative running, you don't have to worry about frustrated conservatives running to a 3rd party (Perot).
 
#32
#32
Rasputin_Vol said:
The lesson from '92 should be that the GOP didn't learn their lesson in '96 when they ran another moderate, insider like Dole on the ticket. Both times, Clinton was beatable, and the GOP still managed to lose both elections.

If you have a conservative running, you don't have to worry about frustrated conservatives running to a 3rd party (Perot).
Click to expand...
Clinton was not beatable in 96.

I can agree with you about liking an arch-conservative. However, there is no way that one could be elected right now. Bush admin. might not be conservative, but they are painted and viewed as such, as their neocon label suggests. Anything labeled conservative is shot for a while. McCain's moderation is the best hope the Repubs could expect in an election following 8 years of Bush B Co.
 
#33
#33
it's amazing how the left has been able to successfully paint W as some ultra right wing idealogue. Massive expansions of the dept. of education and medicare, the addition of thousands of government union jobs in the TSA, support for illegal amnesty programs and a generally obscene increase in spending aren't exactly conservative boilerplate issues.
 
#34
#34
Rasputin_Vol said:
If you have a conservative running, you don't have to worry about frustrated conservatives running to a 3rd party (Perot).
Click to expand...
. . . and if there was a conservative running, the centrists would be jumping ship and pushing for Michael Bloomberg right now. There's never going to be a perfect candidate.
 
#35
#35
And there's the problem with our voters. Putting words into your mouth, you didn't or wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, even if you believed in him, because you would then be included with the "bunch of kooks." You'd never put yourself in such a position as it would ruin your sense of self esteem. Right? Don't vote for someone who could ruin the public's perception of you even if you believe it is the best choice and chance for this country? This is the prime example of why we have the most worthless candidates running for office in this country.


GAVol said:
He's got some good policy positions. Too bad he comes off as a nutty and seems to garner about 75% of his support from the kook element.
Click to expand...
 
#36
#36
BHAMVOLFAN said:
And there's the problem with our voters. Putting words into your mouth, you didn't or wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, even if you believed in him, because you would then be included with the "bunch of kooks." You'd never put yourself in such a position as it would ruin your sense of self esteem. Right? Don't vote for someone who could ruin the public's perception of you even if you believe it is the best choice and chance for this country? This is the prime example of why we have the most worthless candidates running for office in this country.
Click to expand...

So the voters have a problem, huh?

The great thing is that you don't have to put words in my mouth because while I agree with a few of Paul's positions, I disagree with him on some major points and generally find him to be nutty as a fruitcake.
 
#37
#37
MG1968 said:
it's amazing how the left has been able to successfully paint W as some ultra right wing idealogue. Massive expansions of the dept. of education and medicare, the addition of thousands of government union jobs in the TSA, support for illegal amnesty programs and a generally obscene increase in spending aren't exactly conservative boilerplate issues.
Click to expand...

W is a literal liberal joygasm......
 
#38
#38
GAVol said:
So the voters have a problem, huh?

The great thing is that you don't have to put words in my mouth because while I agree with a few of Paul's positions, I disagree with him on some major points and generally find him to be nutty as a fruitcake.
Click to expand...

There's nothing nuttier in the worl than some guy running around talking about the Federal Reserve, the value of our currency, protecting the Constitution, protecting our borders, having Congress declare war, and having the US step out of the way of Israel so that they can defend themselves.

I'm so glad we have a sobering man like John McCain that will not consider drilling in the most remote corner of the planet (ANWR), chooses to undercut the 1st Amendment (McCain-Feingold), shows integrity (Keading 5), and promises to have amnesty for illegals...

I can't wait to pull the lever for this guy so I can shake off the memories of that right wing kook Paul.
 
#40
#40
GAVol said:
. . . and if there was a conservative running, the centrists would be jumping ship and pushing for Michael Bloomberg right now. There's never going to be a perfect candidate.
Click to expand...

Obviously, there is no perfect candidate... reaosnable people can agree that doesn't exist.

But it would be nice to actually have a candidate that agrees with about 70-80% of what I agree with. A strong defense of the 1st-10th Amendments (minimum), lower taxes and spending, defending our borders and national sovereignty, protecting us from enemies from within (your run of the mill anti-capitalists, Marxist nihilists and criminal class) and enemies from without (Islamic terrorists), supporting a sound and resonable energy policy (which should include drilling in ANWR and off shore and also include nuclear power), controlling the growth of gov't and practicing a more laissez-faire approach to handling our economy...

If I could get a candidate that at least shows they have a history of supporting most of that, I would give up a little here or there. But none of these guys seem to understand or care about these issues.

What did I do... name about 8 things up there? can anybody name a candidate within the past year that has even supported 5 of those items? I mean c'mon... I realize there are no perfect candidates... I realize that. But I'm not gonna settle for somebody that doesn't even support half of the things that I feel are the most important issues facing the future of the republic.
 
#41
#41
Rasputin_Vol said:
But it would be nice to actually have a candidate that agrees with about 70-80% of what I agree with.
Click to expand...

So do you vote for the guy you agree with 60% of the time or allow the guy you agree with 0% of the time get elected?
 
#44
#44
GAVol said:
So do you vote for the guy you agree with 60% of the time or allow the guy you agree with 0% of the time get elected?
Click to expand...

If I found one I agree with 60% of the time (which I haven't seen yet), I would vote for him/her. But a candidate that actually believes 5 of the 8 or so issues I named earlier is very, very rare outside of the libertarian party. I mean, I don't even agree with some of their war stances, nor do I buy into the 9/11 conspiracy crap that most of the Paul supporters were advancing, but at least Paul (the candidate and not the supporters) had qualities that were more in line with what I value as important. Plus, it represented a change in direction. All McCain brings to the table is more of the same... maintaining the staus quo. The current path we are following is not the right direction and all we are doing is crawling towards socialism.

Do you realize that the GOP of today is probably more liberal right now than JFK or RFK were 40-50 years ago? Heck, Reagan of 1976 or Goldwater of 1964 would be outcasts in the current GOP.
 
#45
#45
GAVol said:
So do you vote for the guy you agree with 60% of the time or allow the guy you agree with 0% of the time get elected?
Click to expand...

Answer me this...

If there was a candidate out there that you agreed with 90% of the time, but he was rating in the low teens, would you vote for him anyways or would you abandon your principles and vote for a moderate that had at best a coin flips chance?
 
#46
#46
Exactly and that's exactly what GA said and I'm not putting words in his mouth, he did. This is exactly why this country is so screwed up. We vote for the wrong people for the wrong reasons and aren't smart enough to figure it out. In the mean-time our desire to associate ourselves with a philosophy, even though
we know it's flawed, keeps the mindless lined up with specific parties. Frankly, I have been a repub since my first voting day in 1974. As Rasputin says above, this group of republicans are liberal. The truth is, today's southern republicans are decendants of the George Wallace Dixiecrats of the 60s and 70s. They are socially backwards and politically liberal. There is nothing conservative about today's republican party. At least Ron Paul gets the idea of conservatism. He's fiscally conservative, constitutionally determined, wants to use military ONLY when we have a need for our own or our allies self defense and would guard our borders. Look at all the acts of the new conservatism under Bush and tell me where he is conservative. Is it because he and his party panders to evangelicals for their money and votes?
Rasputin_Vol said:
Answer me this...

If there was a candidate out there that you agreed with 90% of the time, but he was rating in the low teens, would you vote for him anyways or would you abandon your principles and vote for a moderate that had at best a coin flips chance?
Click to expand...
 
#48
#48
what exactly does Al Franken have to do with Ron Paul's planned disruption of the GOP convention?
 
#50
#50
OrangeEmpire said:
Nothing why?

Sarcastic thread title ala El Rushbo and his operation KAOS.
Click to expand...

ok, but what do Al Franken and Ron Paul have to do with each other? I know the Paulies are plotting mischief at the GOP convention, but I still don't get the Franken reference.

Unless, of course, you mean that since Al Franken is a failed comedian who's about as funny as drying paint and the current GOP is a Greek tragedy waiting to happen, then yeah, I can see the reference.

:thumbsup::salute:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top