The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Gazoo on February 19, 2014, 03:26:40 pm
-
While Rand Paul, who is currently leading in polls of GOP voters, backs fellow Kentuckian Mitch McConnell against a tea party opponent, Ted Cruz openly defies establishment Republican leaders.
WASHINGTON
Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas are both favorites of the tea party wing of the Republican Party. If both run for president in 2016, as seems likely at the moment, they’d vie for the same conservative voters as a base upon which to build a winning GOP primary coalition.
Given that potential White House candidates are jockeying right now for support from key donors and party figures, it’s not too early to ask this question: Which of these two men is currently winning the most tea party support?
Despite their similar electoral roots, they are very different politicians, of course. And they’re taking two different roads to building name recognition and support in advance of the official White House race.
The libertarian-oriented Senator Paul is emphasizing his vision of a changed, more inclusive Republican Party. And he’s doing so in a pretty blunt way. In an interview with Glenn Beck that aired last week, Paul said the GOP will not win the White House again in his lifetime absent radical change.
“And it has to be a transformation. Not a little tweaking at the edges,” Paul told Mr. Beck in a segment aired on TheBlazeTV.
That means some kind of immigration reform, though Paul hasn’t outlined specifics on this issue beyond opposition to the indefinite jailing of detainees.
“If you want to work and you want a job and you want to be part of America, we’ll find a place for you,” Paul said in an interview with Politico published Tuesday.
Deemphasizing the war on drugs could win support in minority communities, which have a disproportionate share of their population jailed on drug charges, according to Paul. When the Kentucky senator speaks before audiences of young voters, he talks about civil liberties, not taxes.
Senator Cruz is taking a more confrontational approach. Where Paul has endorsed majority leader Mitch McConnell against a tea party primary opponent, angering some conservatives, Cruz won’t support Texas colleague Sen. John Cornyn (R), who also faces a tea party primary challenge.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2014/0218/Rand-Paul-vs.-Ted-Cruz-Who-s-winning-tea-party-voters-video?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=DC%20Decoder&utm_campaign=DC%20Decoder%20Blast%20to%20All%20Newsletters (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2014/0218/Rand-Paul-vs.-Ted-Cruz-Who-s-winning-tea-party-voters-video?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=DC%20Decoder&utm_campaign=DC%20Decoder%20Blast%20to%20All%20Newsletters)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNUjwHAwqy4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNUjwHAwqy4)
As we all discussed yesterday. Some on this forum don't like Cruz at all.
Some are liberal leaning, possibly democrats, some are GOP E. Some are Rand Paul only supporters?
Do the People that dislike Cruz do so in favor of full Rand Paul support or strict GOP loyalty?
I ask this not to criticize or hinder but to get to the core of the discussion.
Some left leaning folks I am guessing are delighting in this schism. But it is the primaries early don't take too much delight.
-
Cruz clashed openly with establishment GOP leaders last week when he forced them to break his filibuster to allow a final vote on a bill to raise the national debt ceiling. Senator McConnell had hoped the legislation would pass without Republican fingerprints, avoiding a messy fight that might spook financial markets.
Afterwards, the Lone Star lawmaker was unrepentant. Lots of GOP senators misrepresented their intentions to constituents, he said, vowing they’d fight the debt ceiling when they had no intention of doing any such thing.
“It’s like they think the American people are just a bunch of rubes, that we don’t remember what they say,” Cruz told conservative radio talk host Mark Levin late last week.
Such defiance thrills insurgent-minded conservatives. Slate’s Dave Weigel notes today that Cruz is so popular in Texas that a number of Republican candidates now prominently feature photos of themselves with Cruz on their web sites – even though Cruz hasn’t actually endorsed them.
As for Paul, his endorsement of establishment leader McConnell shows he’s bailed on bringing big change to Washington, charges Leon Wolf in the conservative RedState website.
“When it comes to actual accomplishments that have changed the way things are done in Washington or even within the Senate GOP caucus, Paul’s cabinet is pretty empty,” writes Mr. Wolf.
But here’s the kicker: Right now Paul leads Cruz in polls of GOP voters. The RealClearPolitics rolling average of major surveys has Paul as the presidential nominee choice of 11.2 percent of Republicans, as opposed to 8.2 percent for Cruz.
Paul appears to have an edge among conservative and tea party voters as well, though the data here is a bit thin. In a January McClatchy/Marist survey, 10 percent of self-described tea party supporters picked Paul as their presidential choice. Nine percent picked Cruz. Paul won eight percent of “strong Republicans” in the McClatchy data; Cruz won six percent, which is within the poll margin of error.
-
As we all discussed yesterday. Some on this forum don't like Cruz at all.
Some are liberal leaning, possibly democrats, some are GOP E. Some are Rand Paul only supporters?
Do the People that dislike Cruz do so in favor of full Rand Paul support or strict GOP loyalty?
C'mon Gazoo... that is somewhat "inciteful" as opposed to insightful. It prejudges the viewpoints of some otherwise respected members of the forum. I am certainly not the police around here but it is clear (even if not intended) with a rational reading. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that we all share the same purpose. It is the Left/Progressive Democrat that I want to defeat.
------
To your question - again, I like Senator Cruz. In my view, however, he needs to stay in the Senate for seasoning. It seems to me that Senator Cruz is "smarter" than Senator Paul (no slouch, either) but he has lesser instincts than Senator Paul. From what I have seen - and the jury hasn't even been seated - I choose Senator Paul over Senator Cruz in their present iterations. A very qualified answer, I know.
-
I am sorry you took it that way.
I edited to add the following long before I just read your post...
I ask this not to criticize or hinder but to get to the core of the discussion.
Some left leaning folks I am guessing are delighting in this schism. But it is the primaries early don't take too much delight.
-
I am sorry you took it that way.
I edited to add the following long before I just read your post...
I ask this not to criticize or hinder but to get to the core of the discussion.
Some left leaning folks I am guessing are delighting in this schism. But it is the primaries early don't take too much delight.
No worries Gazoo. I know your posting history. You were not trying to get under anyone's skin.
-
C'mon Gazoo... that is somewhat "inciteful" as opposed to insightful. It prejudges the viewpoints of some otherwise respected members of the forum. I am certainly not the police around here but it is clear (even if not intended) with a rational reading. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that we all share the same purpose. It is the Left/Progressive Democrat that I want to defeat.
------
To your question - again, I like Senator Cruz. In my view, however, he needs to stay in the Senate for seasoning. It seems to me that Senator Cruz is "smarter" than Senator Paul (no slouch, either) but he has lesser instincts than Senator Paul. From what I have seen - and the jury hasn't even been seated - I choose Senator Paul over Senator Cruz (in their present iterations). A very qualified answer, I know.
Thanks for your reply. I was blunt only to get to the heart of the issue.
I won't take back my viewpoint that some that may post here are left leaning and delight in the schism. But to heck with that, let's discuss this so we are not all here after elections moaning because the democrats won due to our divide.
I like Rand Paul too. It is a cluster. But his backing McConnell over the tea party guy (that is BTW winning or tied,) of possibly no fault of his own, turns this into a three ring circus. Thanks for your reply about us all having the same goal. I think we do.
-
As we all discussed yesterday. Some on this forum don't like Cruz at all.
Some are liberal leaning, possibly democrats, some are GOP E. Some are Rand Paul only supporters?
Do the People that dislike Cruz do so in favor of full Rand Paul support or strict GOP loyalty?
I ask this not to criticize or hinder but to get to the core of the discussion.
Some left leaning folks I am guessing are delighting in this schism. But it is the primaries early don't take too much delight.
I could easily support Rand Paul. I don't agree with everything he advocates, but his style is so much more rational and reasonable.
Cruz is abrasive, confrontational, and arrogant. And that's before one pays attention to anything he says.
-
I could easily support Rand Paul. I don't agree with everything he advocates, but his style is so much more rational and reasonable.
Cruz is abrasive, confrontational, and arrogant. And that's before one pays attention to anything he says.
We have to agree to disagree on this. He is no more arrogant than the next guy. What you call confrontational I see as someone speaking up and not cowering. Like him or not- Sink, More Americans are tired of Washington and the same ole same ole. big government. Tired of them voting in their pay raises then voting on the atrocious debt ceiling and being so politically correct they cower to the media. They have become, democrats. The republican leadership could retire right now and live like kings JUST on their slush fund accounts. How about REAL term limits?
The only way I can understand what Rand may be doing is that he is trying the Reagan approach. Reagan got democratic votes. Reagan was bipartisan. But the times were different. I wonder what Reagan would say about the IRS and tea party being shoveled aside as wacko birds? I think Reagan would welcome the tea party and not demonize a man as blunt as Cruz. Rand is playing into the tactics of the democrats by addressing the war on women bluntly making them look to themselves with this false narrative that republicans despise women. But bowing to McConnell is harsh.
Why can't the republican leaders retire and embrace the new younger blood and not demonize them? They forced the hand of a tea party opponent that may beat them. Why did it come to this?
-
It will be interesting to see where these two contemporaries are a decade hence.
-
I like them both, but I think we will have a dark horse in the race and I predict it could well be the governor of Wisconsin.
-
I like them both, but I think we will have a dark horse in the race and I predict it could well be the governor of Wisconsin.
Your guess may be right Rap. But guess what, the dems are on it like white on rice. 25 minutes ago breaking news.
Scott Walker, eyeing 2016, faces fallout from investigations as ex-aide’s e-mails are released - The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/scott-walker-eyeing-2016-faces-fallout-from-investigations-as-ex-aides-e-mails-are-released/2014/02/18/8b26bfa4-98b2-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/scott-walker-eyeing-2016-faces-fallout-from-investigations-as-ex-aides-e-mails-are-released/2014/02/18/8b26bfa4-98b2-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html)
I like him as well. I have not read the entire article but The Clinton Dem machine is at work. The dems were already screaming he has no college education :rollseyes:
-
I like them both, but I think we will have a dark horse in the race and I predict it could well be the governor of Wisconsin.
YESSSS!!!!
I have to agree with folks about Cruz and Paul. I like them both, but hope they both gain more on their resumes than filibustering, before considering a run for high office.
Has it been determined that Ted Cruz is even constitutionally eligible to run for president?
-
YESSSS!!!!
I have to agree with folks about Cruz and Paul. I like them both, but hope they both gain more on their resumes than filibustering, before considering a run for high office.
Has it been determined that Ted Cruz is even constitutionally eligible to run for president?
Yes, it has been determined ad nauseam to the point that the MSM even quit harping. Ted Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship. Did Obama renounce his?
-
Whoever runs in 2016 had better get some better consultants than the candidates used in 2012. The current GOP consultancy class are pathetically in the 1960's the person who will even stand a chance of winning needs someone who is in this century - and investigators like O'Keefe on he payroll.
-
Whoever runs in 2016 had better get some better consultants than the candidates used in 2012. The current GOP consultancy class are pathetically in the 1960's the person who will even stand a chance of winning needs someone who is in this century - and investigators like O'Keefe on he payroll.
Hillary I am guessing, has full use of the Obama machine of a room full of nothing but PI's researching. NO WAIT, my bad they now have the NSA/FBI/DOJ at their disposal. Saint Mother Teresa could reign down from heaven and they would find dirt on her.
-
I just noticed at the top a few minutes ago 15 guests viewing this topic. Are they mostly bots?
If not, sign in people and post!!!
-
Hillary I am guessing, has full use of the Obama machine of a room full of nothing but PI's researching. NO WAIT, my bad they now have the NSA/FBI/DOJ at their disposal. Saint Mother Teresa could reign down from heaven and they would find dirt on her.
She also has her own personal Spanish language channel 100% in her pocket......... which means even the Spanish soap opera's will be pushing her like they pushed food stamps........
-
I don't want Cruz to run in '16. Full stop.
Not because he wouldn't make a decent President. He would. But where he is at the moment is far more valuable in terms of shifting the country back to the right. You don't get pearls without irritating an oyster, and he is particularly adept at irritating.
Paul - well. No. I know - he's a right leaning Libertarian, pretty much has all the same positions as I do, but he's not quite ready for prime time. Maybe when his old man is retired and out of the way.
-
We have to agree to disagree on this. He is no more arrogant than the next guy. What you call confrontational I see as someone speaking up and not cowering. Like him or not- Sink, More Americans are tired of Washington and the same ole same ole. big government. Tired of them voting in their pay raises then voting on the atrocious debt ceiling and being so politically correct they cower to the media. They have become, democrats. The republican leadership could retire right now and live like kings JUST on their slush fund accounts. How about REAL term limits?
The only way I can understand what Rand may be doing is that he is trying the Reagan approach. Reagan got democratic votes. Reagan was bipartisan. But the times were different. I wonder what Reagan would say about the IRS and tea party being shoveled aside as wacko birds? I think Reagan would welcome the tea party and not demonize a man as blunt as Cruz. Rand is playing into the tactics of the democrats by addressing the war on women bluntly making them look to themselves with this false narrative that republicans despise women. But bowing to McConnell is harsh.
Why can't the republican leaders retire and embrace the new younger blood and not demonize them? They forced the hand of a tea party opponent that may beat them. Why did it come to this?
It came to this because Tea Partiers think they can beat down the Democrats and Obama from sheer force of will. And, they also believe they can scare other conserviatives with threats of replacing them in office.
More often than not, they can't do that and will do less and less of it as time goes on. The "Republican leaders" are no longer cowed by the Tea Party, and their success in upcoming primaries will pretty well put the lie to the power of the Tea Party.
We saw the power of the "new younger blood" exhibited in the government shutdown in October. How'd that work out?
The new younger blood needs to figure out a strategy that includes EVERYBODY in the Republican party. If they don't do that, they'll become less and less relevant.
-
She also has her own personal Spanish language channel 100% in her pocket......... which means even the Spanish soap opera's will be pushing her like they pushed food stamps........
Remember when she declared her love for Al Jazeera TV?
-
Remember when she declared her love for Al Jazeera TV?
Yep, wanna bet they will go all in for her, too.
-
I like them both and could vote for either. I like the governor of Wisconsin even better though. He is a proven leader.
-
She also has her own personal Spanish language channel 100% in her pocket......... which means even the Spanish soap opera's will be pushing her like they pushed food stamps........
If that is not proof she bought Obama's get out the vote machine I don't know what is! Wasn't it said Obama's team hacked Romney's program so he could not do I-pad outreach?
-
I like them both and could vote for either. I like the governor of Wisconsin even better though. He is a proven leader.
Agreed. But the liberals think someone with no college can't be President. Only Ivey league smart lol people like Barack.
-
Liberals won't be the ones voting for any republican candidate. Anyone who thinks a college degree gives a person leadership abilities or makes them intelligent is once again a very very low information voter and the republicans once again aren't going to ever get their vote.
-
Liberals won't be the ones voting for any republican candidate. Anyone who thinks a college degree gives a person leadership abilities or makes them intelligent is once again a very very low information voter and the republicans once again aren't going to ever get their vote.
I agree. They despise what this man did. WI actually has a surplus now.
-
The new younger blood needs to figure out a strategy that includes EVERYBODY in the Republican party. If they don't do that, they'll become less and less relevant.
All factions under the center-right tent need each other to win.
Anybody who denies that, is either unwilling or unable to grasp the statistics easily found in polls and in demographics.
Eventual 5 Star Eisenhower prepared, waited until the plans and resources were ready to SUCCESSFULLY invade Normandy.
And 3 Star Patton might well have brashly charged across the channel, and lost the war.
-
It came to this because Tea Partiers think they can beat down the Democrats and Obama from sheer force of will. And, they also believe they can scare other conserviatives with threats of replacing them in office.
More often than not, they can't do that and will do less and less of it as time goes on. The "Republican leaders" are no longer cowed by the Tea Party, and their success in upcoming primaries will pretty well put the lie to the power of the Tea Party.
We saw the power of the "new younger blood" exhibited in the government shutdown in October. How'd that work out?
The new younger blood needs to figure out a strategy that includes EVERYBODY in the Republican party. If they don't do that, they'll become less and less relevant.
When were the republican leaders cowed by the conservatives? Maybe when the tea party won for them in 2010 for two seconds? Even then, the GOP did not listen. They should have spoke out instead of waiting for 50 year olds to show at a town hall and say ENOUGH!
Where were they for the CAN YOU HEAR US NOW DC protest?
When a party is told to do their damned jobs and they don't listen. The only way is to run for office yourself,would you not agree? The pub approval rating is in the tank because their own party is not happy with them.
-
... I don't want to lose sight of the fact that we all share the same purpose. It is the Left/Progressive Democrat that I want to defeat.
------
...
I have a serious (sincere) question for you, if you don't mind answering it. Are you also troubled by the Left/Progressive Republican as well; and hence would like to see them defeated also?
I will give you my answer: I see virtually no difference in the two. (I will concede that for legislative purposes in both houses, having additional bodies with an "R" after their name provides an advantage for control of the legislative body and committees/sub-committees therein, and therefore offers a potential advantage * in agenda setting and action.) To use Levin's terminology, he views the Left/Progressive Democrat as a "statist" and the Left/Progressive Republican as a "neo-statist" although I see only slight differences around the edges in many cases. (He started using these terms quite some time ago, I actually wonder if he wrote Liberty and Tyranny today, if he would bother with this distinction at all...)
So, beyond the potential advantage of having additional "R" bodies in the legislative chambers, there is no functional difference between the Left/Progressive Democrat and Left/Progressive Republican, and I view both as an enemy of the Republic. And at times, when I consider the outright lying and deceit of the Left/Progressive Republicans (primarily to their base constituency when they need $$$ and/or votes), they actually fall a peg lower in my mind.
As I said above, I am interested in your take on this (as well as any others that may care to chime in). Thank you in advance for your consideration.
* - I say potential advantage since it actually has to be used to move forward conservative/Constitutional measures to really be an advantge. Reference the Boehner House as an example of a potential advantage wasted for the most part.
-
I have a serious (sincere) question for you, if you don't mind answering it. Are you also troubled by the Left/Progressive Republican as well; and hence would like to see them defeated also?
I will give you my answer: I see virtually no difference in the two. (I will concede that for legislative purposes in both houses, having additional bodies with an "R" after their name provides an advantage for control of the legislative body and committees/sub-committees therein, and therefore offers a potential advantage * in agenda setting and action.) To use Levin's terminology, he views the Left/Progressive Democrat as a "statist" and the Left/Progressive Republican as a "neo-statist" although I see only slight differences around the edges in many cases. (He started using these terms quite some time ago, I actually wonder if he wrote Liberty and Tyranny today, if he would bother with this distinction at all...)
So, beyond the potential advantage of having additional "R" bodies in the legislative chambers, there is no functional difference between the Left/Progressive Democrat and Left/Progressive Republican, and I view both as an enemy of the Republic. And at times, when I consider the outright lying and deceit of the Left/Progressive Republicans (primarily to their base constituency when they need $$$ and/or votes), they actually fall a peg lower in my mind.
As I said above, I am interested in your take on this (as well as any others that may care to chime in). Thank you in advance for your consideration.
* - I say potential advantage since it actually has to be used to move forward conservative/Constitutional measures to really be an advantge. Reference the Boehner House as an example of a potential advantage wasted for the most part.
goopo
-
Oh, and to answer Gazoo's main question (as I understand it), there are aspect of both Messrs. Cruz & Paul that I like. In fact, as a libertarian-minded guy, I tend to agree with much of Rand's philosophy and approach to government, however, I don't really like the "politician" that I see in him at times. Backing Mr. McConnell is an example (although he basically forced his own hand in this by accepting Mr. McConnell's support in the past). Another example is I watched him being interviewed on CNN on the day of dear Reader's NSA speech, for 9-1/2 minutes he spoke very truthfully about the issues, unfortunately he ended it by saying that he believes that both dear Reader and Clapper "have good hearts." Now I suspect that Mr. Paul is way too smart and informed to actually believe that, but nevertheless, he goes ahead and says it (for "political" reasons). That is how he lets me down, and he does it often. Whereas I have yet to hear Mr. Cruz make any similar statements close to this level of abject pandering. Advantage Mr. Cruz.
-
Personally, I'm probably more ideologically sympatico with Rand Paul than Ted Cruz, but I'd be happy to support either of them. I'd also support Walker, Perry, Bush or even Palin. I sincerely hope an early consensus emerges among conservative voters so that a moderate doesn't win by default, as happened the past two cycles.
-
I have a serious (sincere) question for you, if you don't mind answering it. Are you also troubled by the Left/Progressive Republican as well; and hence would like to see them defeated also?
Fair questions with thoughtful follow-up. Of course, I want the Left/Republican defeated as well - for all the obvious reasons. As a practical matter, your other points come to the fore. I do not want the Republicans being in the minority following November's elections. So, there is the rub... isn't it?
-
I sincerely hope an early consensus emerges among conservative voters so that a moderate doesn't win by default, as happened the past two cycles.
QUOTE OF THE YEAR!
-
Thanks for your reply. I was blunt only to get to the heart of the issue.
I won't take back my viewpoint that some that may post here are left leaning and delight in the schism. But to heck with that, let's discuss this so we are not all here after elections moaning because the democrats won due to our divide.
I like Rand Paul too. It is a cluster. But his backing McConnell over the tea party guy (that is BTW winning or tied,) of possibly no fault of his own, turns this into a three ring circus. Thanks for your reply about us all having the same goal. I think we do.
I tend to differ with both of those boldface points above. I actually don't believe (maybe I am naive??) that anyone posting regularly here actually is "left leaning." I believe that rather than leaning left, they lean party. And to a certain extent, I can understand this bent. In fact, I too leaned party for most of my adult life. Being far less informed about the core truths of these matters, I voted without applying very much critical thought. I had been raised with a belief that the Republican Party, in virtually every case, would field the better candidate in an election. So it was fairly easy for me, I would simply support, fund, and vote for the Republican Candidate (and yes, life was far simpler in those days!! on a number of fronts!! lol)
Now before any gets up in arms about any implication that people that still tend to lean party are ignorant or somehow misinformed. Well, some of them are, but I am not really speaking about them, I am describing what I see from some of the posters here. I believe that they are as well informed (or not) as anyone else here. However, I think that the key difference comes down to a matter of acceptance. Some of us have accepted the fact (as difficult as it is (and I am not messing around in this post -- at times I have felt a deep agony and intense pain in my life during the process of coming to accept the present realities)) that we (meaning We, the People) don't really have a team on the field any longer. As sad as that sounds, with far too few exceptions, the "Republicans" that we have on the national stage as just as much big government statists as the Democrats. I believe that the true divide is between the "Ruling Class" (of 'both' parties) and the "Country Class" as described in Angelo Codevilla's AMERICA’S RULING CLASS — AND THE PERILS OF REVOLUTION (http://spectator.org/articles/39326/americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution) Spectator article of a few years ago.
This is a very difficult to fully accept and embrace. We tend to avoid (it is our nature as humans) acceptance of painful truths for as long as we can. For whatever reasons, some of us have come to this acceptance already, and some still wish to resist it. I believe that a great deal of the "arguments" that take place in many of these threads amongst our population of like-minded individuals, can be explained by the different levels of acceptance. (And of course, everyone is free to "accept" my view, or not!! lol)
Oh, and as to your second point in the above, that some "delight in the schism." I actually don't really believe that it is the schism that some find "delightful," rather it is merely the opportunity to argue and contest that many enjoy. (Again, just my opinion, take it for what it is worth....)
-
Fair questions with thoughtful follow-up. Of course, I want the Left/Republican defeated as well - for all the obvious reasons. As a practical matter, your other points come to the fore. I do not want the Republicans being in the minority following November's elections. So, there is the rub... isn't it?
Yes, it is a rub indeed!! This always brings to mind Milton Friedman's use of the term "satisficing." We are satisficing when we allow that particular rub to influence us. And when I think back on the last instances of having Republican's control both chambers, I don't really have a lot of hope that "this time" it is going to be much different. But yes, that rub makes this whole process a bit less clear than it may appear, even a few layers beneath the surface...
-
I tend to differ with both of those boldface points above. I actually don't believe (maybe I am naive??) that anyone posting regularly here actually is "left leaning." I believe that rather than leaning left, they lean party. And to a certain extent, I can understand this bent. In fact, I too leaned party for most of my adult life. Being far less informed about the core truths of these matters, I voted without applying very much critical thought. I had been raised with a belief that the Republican Party, in virtually every case, would field the better candidate in an election. So it was fairly easy for me, I would simply support, fund, and vote for the Republican Candidate (and yes, life was far simpler in those days!! on a number of fronts!! lol)
Now before any gets up in arms about any implication that people that still tend to lean party are ignorant or somehow misinformed. Well, some of them are, but I am not really speaking about them, I am describing what I see from some of the posters here. I believe that they are as well informed (or not) as anyone else here. However, I think that the key difference comes down to a matter of acceptance. Some of us have accepted the fact (as difficult as it is (and I am not messing around in this post -- at times I have felt a deep agony and intense pain in my life during the process of coming to accept the present realities)) that we (meaning We, the People) don't really have a team on the field any longer. As sad as that sounds, with far too few exceptions, the "Republicans" that we have on the national stage as just as much big government statists as the Democrats. I believe that the true divide is between the "Ruling Class" (of 'both' parties) and the "Country Class" as described in Angelo Codevilla's AMERICA’S RULING CLASS — AND THE PERILS OF REVOLUTION (http://spectator.org/articles/39326/americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution) Spectator article of a few years ago.
This is a very difficult to fully accept and embrace. We tend to avoid (it is our nature as humans) acceptance of painful truths for as long as we can. For whatever reasons, some of us have come to this acceptance already, and some still wish to resist it. I believe that a great deal of the "arguments" that take place in many of these threads amongst our population of like-minded individuals, can be explained by the different levels of acceptance. (And of course, everyone is free to "accept" my view, or not!! lol)
Oh, and as to your second point in the above, that some "delight in the schism." I actually don't really believe that it is the schism that some find "delightful," rather it is merely the opportunity to argue and contest that many enjoy. (Again, just my opinion, take it for what it is worth....)
Excellent post. I was more referencing downright progressives, liberals whatever they call themselves nowadays. There was an article out that people are actual paid ops for Obama. The OFA or cyber warriors. They actually sign up to conservative/republican forums and add to the demise by posting ridiculous far-out things, causing divisive interruption with phony political ideals. Their goal was clear. They wanted the primaries fought out as long as possible and made it hard for the political posters to gather around one candidate. One of the crude examples was someone fessing up to posting dire hardcore adoration at another site I won't name; for a candidate that was not even running. And saying if they don't run I stay home.
So what I meant was discussion around any political parties primaries is always heated a bit, but with the added schism of the tea party/libertarians/independents v. the GOP establishment, the left could divide and conquer so much easier and indeed take great delight in watching the schism as Hillary or Peter P Progressive is crowned and we are all screwed.
-
I tend to differ with both of those boldface points above. I actually don't believe (maybe I am naive??) that anyone posting regularly here actually is "left leaning." I believe that rather than leaning left, they lean party. And to a certain extent, I can understand this bent. In fact, I too leaned party for most of my adult life. Being far less informed about the core truths of these matters, I voted without applying very much critical thought. I had been raised with a belief that the Republican Party, in virtually every case, would field the better candidate in an election. So it was fairly easy for me, I would simply support, fund, and vote for the Republican Candidate (and yes, life was far simpler in those days!! on a number of fronts!! lol)
Now before any gets up in arms about any implication that people that still tend to lean party are ignorant or somehow misinformed. Well, some of them are, but I am not really speaking about them, I am describing what I see from some of the posters here. I believe that they are as well informed (or not) as anyone else here. However, I think that the key difference comes down to a matter of acceptance. Some of us have accepted the fact (as difficult as it is (and I am not messing around in this post -- at times I have felt a deep agony and intense pain in my life during the process of coming to accept the present realities)) that we (meaning We, the People) don't really have a team on the field any longer. As sad as that sounds, with far too few exceptions, the "Republicans" that we have on the national stage as just as much big government statists as the Democrats. I believe that the true divide is between the "Ruling Class" (of 'both' parties) and the "Country Class" as described in Angelo Codevilla's AMERICA’S RULING CLASS — AND THE PERILS OF REVOLUTION (http://spectator.org/articles/39326/americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution) Spectator article of a few years ago.
This is a very difficult to fully accept and embrace. We tend to avoid (it is our nature as humans) acceptance of painful truths for as long as we can. For whatever reasons, some of us have come to this acceptance already, and some still wish to resist it. I believe that a great deal of the "arguments" that take place in many of these threads amongst our population of like-minded individuals, can be explained by the different levels of acceptance. (And of course, everyone is free to "accept" my view, or not!! lol)
Oh, and as to your second point in the above, that some "delight in the schism." I actually don't really believe that it is the schism that some find "delightful," rather it is merely the opportunity to argue and contest that many enjoy. (Again, just my opinion, take it for what it is worth....)
I usually don't make long replies to a post here (my old dyslexic fingers dislike typing) but yours warrants a complete reply.
I agree with you that MOST folks posting here are not left leaning. They are products of the environment that surrounds them. If they live in a state run by democrats their first order of business is to stop the bleeding by rectifying that condition! They MUST think party first and are perfectly right in doing so. Then there are those who live in states with divided government, who have made some progress in fixing the problem, but still have a ways to go! They to are pretty much compelled to think party first. Others have already fought that fight, have Republican governments, and are now turning their attention more to ridding the party of RINOS. They are right in doing so as well! There are however a few people here who are IMHO members of the political class and don't want anyone rocking their boat no matter what the circumstances currently surrounding them are! Those are the ones I tend to get crosswise with!
-
Excellent post. I was more referencing downright progressives, liberals whatever they call themselves nowadays. There was an article out that people are actual paid ops for Obama. The OFA or cyber warriors. They actually sign up to conservative/republican forums and add to the demise by posting ridiculous far-out things, causing divisive interruption with phony political ideals. Their goal was clear. They wanted the primaries fought out as long as possible and made it hard for the political posters to gather around one candidate. One of the crude examples was someone fessing up to posting dire hardcore adoration at another site I won't name; for a candidate that was not even running. And saying if they don't run I stay home.
So what I meant was discussion around any political parties primaries is always heated a bit, but with the added schism of the tea party/libertarians/independents v. the GOP establishment, the left could divide and conquer so much easier and indeed take great delight in watching the schism as Hillary or Peter P Progressive is crowned and we are all screwed.
Sure, I am taking the posters here at face value. Maybe some aren't who they appear to be..... But you are correct, I was not talking about any paid operators, as I said, I may be naive....
-
I usually don't make long replies to a post here (my old dyslexic fingers dislike typing) but yours warrants a complete reply.
I agree with you that MOST folks posting here are not left leaning. They are products of the environment that surrounds them. If they live in a state run by democrats their first order of business is to stop the bleeding by rectifying that condition! They MUST think party first and are perfectly right in doing so. Then there are those who live in states with divided government, who have made some progress in fixing the problem, but still have a ways to go! They to are pretty much compelled to think party first. Others have already fought that fight, have Republican governments, and are now turning their attention more to ridding the party of RINOS. They are right in doing so as well! There are however a few people here who are IMHO members of the political class and don't want anyone rocking their boat no matter what the circumstances currently surrounding them are! Those are the ones I tend to get crosswise with!
Thank You, very good points on the environmental considerations in the different states. And as far as anyone being a member of the political class, I agree with you totally as to how I view them. I avoid them like the plague!!
-
I usually don't make long replies to a post here (my old dyslexic fingers dislike typing) but yours warrants a complete reply.
I agree with you that MOST folks posting here are not left leaning. They are products of the environment that surrounds them. If they live in a state run by democrats their first order of business is to stop the bleeding by rectifying that condition! They MUST think party first and are perfectly right in doing so. Then there are those who live in states with divided government, who have made some progress in fixing the problem, but still have a ways to go! They to are pretty much compelled to think party first. Others have already fought that fight, have Republican governments, and are now turning their attention more to ridding the party of RINOS. They are right in doing so as well!
Good points. I have lived in Illinois for 15 years. If that doesn't mess with your political gyroscope, nothing will. The sad part is... the state is conservative for the most part. Chicago and Cook County dictate everything. Here is a map of the 2010 Gubernatorial Election. Governor Quinn won 4 counties and lost 97.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Illinois2010.png/403px-Illinois2010.png)
-
Good points. I have lived in Illinois for 15 years. If that doesn't mess with your political gyroscope, nothing will. The sad part is... the state is conservative for the most part. Chicago and Cook County dictate everything. Here is a map of the 2010 Gubernatorial Election. Governor Quinn won 4 counties and lost 97.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Illinois2010.png/403px-Illinois2010.png)
That is truly tragic!
and so is this (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Fevwna4wbi4/UJzwjPIvO6I/AAAAAAAADjY/VKctHnzz8OY/s1600/2012-Election-County-By-County.png)
-
Sure, I am taking the posters here at face value. Maybe some aren't who they appear to be..... But you are correct, I was not talking about any paid operators, as I said, I may be naive....
In general the divide can certainly be said to cause great delight in democrats.
We are right v left and Obama lied when he said he would end this and be everyones President.
Obama has made us more divisive.
The left can say Dubya Bush was not their President but they were not attacked by him via the IRS..
And the economy was good until the very end.
-
That is truly tragic!
and so is this (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Fevwna4wbi4/UJzwjPIvO6I/AAAAAAAADjY/VKctHnzz8OY/s1600/2012-Election-County-By-County.png)
Is this 2008 or 12?
I still say he cheated like hell in the swing states for the win I don't care what anybody says.
-
Looking at Ohio I asked out loud how in the heck did he win Ohio?
-
Is this 2008 or 12?
I still say he cheated like hell in the swing states for the win I don't care what anybody says.
It's 2012.
2008 is below and more clearly illustrates what Lando is talking about. Probably will answer your question about Ohio as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/election/uscounties.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/election/uscounties.html)
It also perfectly illustrates what so concerned Thomas Jefferson when he said "I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.”
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. Papers 12:442
-
I view the Tea Party and it's current representation in Congress as the Navy SEALS of the Republican Party.
Our "special forces" if you will.
Just wish the Republican leadership worked with them a bit.
We're not all witches or misogynistic. ....sorry if that offends anybody. :whistle:
-
I view the Tea Party and it's current representation in Congress as the Navy SEALS of the Republican Party.
Our "special forces" if you will.
Just wish the Republican leadership worked with them a bit.
We're not all witches or misogynistic. ....sorry if that offends anybody. :whistle:
So the Navy's own Seals would be gunning for its own regular Navy forces?
-
So the Navy's own Seals would be gunning for its own regular Navy forces?
All I meant was that they're the ones that get up off their asses and march....and show up.
If there was a standard vetting process of candidates, maybe the animosity wouldn't have gotten to this point.
-
I could easily support Rand Paul. I don't agree with everything he advocates, but his style is so much more rational and reasonable.
Cruz is abrasive, confrontational, and arrogant. And that's before one pays attention to anything he says.
Which is why, as Lando put it, Cruz needs some seasoning. That is a big part of the problem right now: a lot of the upcoming generation of GOP leaders, particularly those coming from further right than the current core leadership, need aging. When a good wine is first pressed, all (most) of what will eventually make it good is there, in embryo if you will, but as a disparate set of elements rather than a composed whole; it is only with the right amount of aging that those elements come together and make that good wine good. That process is not inevitable, however, so care must be paid to the aging process; otherwise one runs the risk of ending up with strong but unpalatable vinegar.
-
So the Navy's own Seals would be gunning for its own regular Navy forces?
Uncalled for. To expand your metaphor to its logical conclusion: would the regular Navy forces go gunning for the Navy's own Seals? 'Cause that's certainly happening, if the metaphor is to be believed.
-
Interesting...
On the dark horse, Walker subject
The WashPost thinks he is a contender
Is Scott Walker still the 2016 dark horse GOP candidate?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/02/20/is-scott-walker-still-the-2016-dark-horse-gop-candidate/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/02/20/is-scott-walker-still-the-2016-dark-horse-gop-candidate/)
Scott Walker, eyeing 2016, faces fallout from investigations as ex-aide’s e-mails are released - The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/scott-walker-eyeing-2016-faces-fallout-from-investigations-as-ex-aides-e-mails-are-released/2014/02/18/8b26bfa4-98b2-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/scott-walker-eyeing-2016-faces-fallout-from-investigations-as-ex-aides-e-mails-are-released/2014/02/18/8b26bfa4-98b2-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html)