Just for the record - I'm going to show my hand just so you know whose stands I'm sitting in; though I won't be a cheerleader.
I've kept quite since T-Paw left the stage; but it is time. Just like 2008 when my top candidate fell out (that time Giuliani) - this time I am with my #2; Romney.
I'm not going to talk down anyone else and I will keep my reasons simple; we need a fixer. Romney is a fixer. We don't need to repeat the 2010 mistakes of Delaware and Nevada either.
I'm not going to be pushing Romney every day either. If you want to argue about it - feel free to in comments, but I won't play.
51 minutes ago
63 comments:
That's nice, but Romney will lose the election if nominated. Look what happened with McCain in'08 when we nominated a "moderate" rather than a conservative! We lost! Then during the midterms in '10 when the Tea Party was around, we made enormous gains in the House and Senate. On top of that Romney's record is so liberal he should be a registered Dem, for example: during a Massachusetts gudernatorial debate Romney said on camera he is Pro-Choice. Then he instituted RomneyCare in Massachusetts, and RomneyCare is the basis for ObamaCare.
Honestly, Rick Perry is a better choice. Down here in Texas he has vastly expanded manufacturing, has been staunch on parental rights, pretty good on gun control, and excellent when it comes to the Energy sector. Overall, Perry is a lot better than any of the other canidates, including Ron Paul (Resons #1 and #2).
Dude......liking your own comment? That's a little too low-brow facebook for this front porch!
I'm going to go on record with two predictions:
1. Unless Chris Christie has a sudden and unpredicted change of heart and decides to get into the race as either a candidate or a VP candidate, we will lose.
2. If Hilary decides to enter the race, she will win. But she is scared to do so because she doesn't want to go down as the one who torpedo'd the first black president to not cheat on his wife (sorry, Bill). She will likely hold out for '16. Those 4 years won't be kind to her either...she should consult Pelosi's and Kerry's botox doctor. I'm not being mysoginistic, AR......the press made her look like a hag the last time she ran against Barry, recall...just recommending that she hedge against that sort of attack.
In the interest of fair play, if the Republican's win, I suggest someone contract for a large inflated Obama characture that people can throw shoes at on the day he departs the white house. The left got a free pass on that when Bush departed.
Christie: moonbat-crazy on guns
Romney: See above, johnny-come-lately on right to life.
Gingrich: Baggage.
Paul: Moonbat, period.
Palin: inexperienced.
Bachman: incoherent.
Perry: All right as a second choice.
Only real choice, though, is Rick Santorum. Spotlessly pro-family, and good on right to keep and bear arms. My opinion only; that and $2 will get you a beverage of choice at the Red Shirt Ranch.
Didn't Hillary say she is going to retire after her tenure as Secretary of State?
Perry can't win he has destroyed himself in the debates and continues to side with ever more right wing aspects of the party (the birther thing again? seriously?).
Romney may not be the SUPER CONSERVATIVE of course neither is the average american. Most americans are center right but hold beliefs all over the board. Whats more the ever growing hispanic population IS center right. The Republican part has a bad problem its called the Super conservative. At the end of the day i'm going o vote for whoever runs againt Obama (provided that someone isn't Ron Paul or Bachman as they might be worse than obama).
Romney has changed his views on things as he got more experienced and older...thats called maturing. Thats fine with me.
Quite frankly i put a presidents views on abortion somewhere around his views of legalizing pot. Nessesary but not important compared to national defense, economy, etc.
Its a states issue give it to them.
Gingrich: the only man that fixed the budget lately. He even worked with Clinton on it which means he is flexible enough to accept some taxes in exchange for the welfare cuts.
Plus, methinks he would have enough naval knowledge to kill the LCS! Even writing books about naval things tends to educate people.
If Newt is the GOP nominee, I predict a second Obama administration.
If Romney is the GOP nominee, I predict a second Obama administration, either in fact or in spirit.
Time to start drinking. It's always 1630 somewhere, after all...
didn't read it as misogyny...read it as an accurate reflection on media bias.
Sadly good point...
I DO NOT trust the "main stream media"; they will run propaganda at full speed to support their Obama.
And I DO NOT trust "American voters"; they voted for him in 2008 blindly (see Obama media propaganda)
Grew up in pennsylvania. he lost his seat for a reason. failed to stick to the issues at hand, got needlessly wrapped around the axel whenever any morality ocnversation came up. I'm not saying that you have to divest yourself of morality when you go to Washington, but you have to make time to actually get your f-----g work done too.
It's no surprise that Paul is unpopular among military careerists. Truly supporting and defending the constitution is, after all, bad for their business (and post-career hiring opportunities).
Hey Guest,
You ever supported or defended anything but yourself? Paul's naive and ill-considered view of foreign affairs will leave a bunch of messes to be cleaned up, largely by those military "careerists". Likely from a position of considerable disadvantage.
That is why Paul is unpopular in some military circles.
Hey URR,
I am currently under oath to support and defend, and there are many who do so without falling for the temptation of careerism. The notion that we can only defend our nation by eroding Constitutional liberties and spending as much as the rest of the world combined is perpetuated by those who stand to benefit.
Just whose notion is that? And you tossed out two separate arguments. One is budgetary, the other, Constitutional.
You need to show how you think one begets the other. And how military "careerists" have anything to do with it.
Whose notion? Military careerists'. To be even more explicit, they are "those who stand to benefit" by growth in the power and budget of the war industry.
The arguments are not separate. Much of our budget is accounted for by extra-Constitutional activities (i.e., those exceeding the mandate to provide for the common defense, and acts of war not explicitly authorized by Congress).
For more reading on the role that military careerism plays in recent national defense failures, I highly recommend the following collection of short essays: http://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-Labyrinth-Short-Essays-Through/dp/0615446248/
Always remember your oath, and have the courage to follow it even at risk of personal loss.
Exactly, GOH.
Bush, Obama, Romney, Gingrich are all keynesians. You will get more of the same with either of them.
"Military careerist"? That is quite a general term. I could be considered a "military careerist". Yet, I don't see the military budget as any indication of infringement on Constitutional rights.
The opaque bureaucracy that accompanies all large, especially government, organizations, is not proof positive of your assertion. Not by a damn sight.
We are at the very edge of a thread jack. An interesting one, but a thread jack nonetheless.
Let's just say that I disagree entirely with why Ron Paul would be unpopular.
And I disagree that "military careerists" are the threat to our Constituton.
And that I believe the "spending more than the rest of the world combined" argument is a massive red herring.
And that I hardly need to be reminded of my oath.
That said, I might suggest you are looking in the wrong place. But were it only there, it would be much more easily contained and fixed than where that place truly is.
If you want to talk deeper, our good host can shoot you my contact info.
I like Ron Paul. Simple reason.. Constitution.
Media is making a grave mistake ignoring him. Newt and Romney are big government liars.
I don't think Ron Paul is unpopular in military circles.
No, perhaps not. But where he is unpopular, his vision of foreign affairs is almost always the reason why.
I don't think Newt is electable due to his past personal and professional history (divorces, ethics fines when Speaker, etc). That and he tends to change his responses/opinions on things a bit too easily & quickly. I like most of what Newt says, but I've never felt like he's one to stick with his word.
Romney is electable, but will have a hard road ahead of him. His professional success will be lambasted in the run-up due to our current economy (i.e., painted as a corporate raider, killing jobs for his bottom line, etc). I also believe his Mormon religion may keep many from the religious base of the Republican party home on election day. There's nothing he can do about either of those, but it will make him a target for various attacks.
Perry would be more successful in balancing the ticket as VP than running for Pres.
Short of some sort of miracle, none of the other current candidates will likely see the nomination nod.
Newt's no saint, but he's got ideas - and a vision of a much stronger United States. He reminds me of Reagan. Another man who terrified half the Republican Party.
That being said, this is not a very good field. There was far too much done to attack good potential candidates before they entered the race.
Of course, you could all vote for me. :-D
URR, youre point is a valid one. I support RP on his domestic plan and of course his fidelity to the Constitution is beyond reproach. I have eased my concern on Foreign Policy to a degree, becasue RP is simply stating that the power for use of the armed forces resides in Congress. Congress alone. He is on the record for saying "If we have to go, we declare War through the Congress, then we go in hard, go in to win, and then come home".
Our current state of warfare for the last 10 years in Iraq and Afghan have rightly or not, not been so succesful in terms of long term strategy. True we have prevented another 9-11 style attack by killing the baddies, but we also have a time and a place to engage with Diplomacy and we have attempted to do both, but not with any consistency.
RP is NOT a pacificst nor is he a true Isolationist. He simply believes as Many do in the military, that the power to send our sons and daughters off to war, resides in the congress. Congress cannot subsitute that nor sub contract out that responsibility. The Congress MUST step up to the plate.
<img></img>
I'm so disappointed with where we are. The candidates that I wanted the most all declined to run. I love Santorum, but that makes me a member of a very small club. I supported Pawlenty, but he ran an uninspired campaign and dropped out. I switched over to Perry, and he shot his own foot off over and over again. I'm not a Gingrich fan. Which leaves me with Mitt Romney. Unless Rick Perry starts showing a pulse, I'm going to cast the most unenthusiastic vote ever for Mitt Romney, and hope that the Congress will push him to the right.
I understand MTH. However, to tell the American people with a straight face that he believes Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and the ICBMs to carry them is tough to reconcile with any realistic understanding of international affairs. It is, in fact, a warning light to me. And it goes far deeper than the abdication by Congress of the responsibilities of their branch of government.
@URR: You correctly point out that I should have better defined careerism up front. Not all who make a career of military service are "careerists." I (and others) define careerism as assigning undue priority to one's career, at the expense of sound judgement, good stewardship of taxpayer money, and, all-to-often, personal integrity.
The trap of careerism is often quite subtle. In the Pentagon, action officers are competing against one another for limited resources. This is right and necessary, but sometimes the focus becomes entirely on victory in budget battles (and the ensuing prestige, promotability, and post-military marketability). When this happens, officers lose sight of the reason they were given a commission in the first place.
To come full circle, men like Ron Paul are a threat to men who profit from military activity.
Here the reason why I will vote for Newt: he's a professor AND student of history. He's also worked closely across the aisle with the Democrats when he was Speaker and built from consensus instead of the non-functioning hate and discontent we have now. Does he have feet of clay? Don't we all? Has he found the Path? One hopes. For sure, he is a 'R'epublican, not a weathervane.
Murphy, I think the Media is attempting to ignore and marginalize Ron Paul, (he is not mentioned in news casts, news talking head medium) is due to the fact that RP actually is contrasting to Obama and they are afraid Obama will lose to Paul. I calculate that as a serious risk for the Democrats. hmm so what was that about "electability"?
Guest,
Those careerists, as you define them (which is a very good one, by the way), have always been there. However, they are at the very bottom of the hill of people who profit from military activity. They are willing political hacks for the politicians who have the resonsibility to provide civilian oversight of our Armed Forces.
They have, in recent years, turned the civil-military relationship from one of professional steward/public servant to one of master/minion. Especially in the last three years, there have been those who know precisely how to parlay such servitude from our senior leadership into supplicance of the Military to social agendas and political ones. It is not a new paradigm by any means, but it is something rather unprecedented in modern America.
The blatant contempt for Constitutional requirements has been a hallmark of especially the far Left, but not exclusively (see: RICO). The expansion of police powers, turning many LEAs into paramilitary units who talk of themselves as 'operators" and everyone else as "civilian" is a direct result of that contempt. As is the reference in several public comments of the limitations of Title 10 power as being "impediments" to mission, rather than safeguards of personal liberties.
No, in this case, Ahab's question of "be he agent, or be he principle" is the overarching one. If the disturbing trend toward ever-increasing reach of government, military or otherwise, was the result simply of "careerists", that trend can be reversed. If, as I would posit, those senior uniformed leaders are carefully selected for their moral and political pliability to serve a much more powerful array of political/legal power-grabbers, we are in a lot more desperate straits, and far closer to something that cannot be undone than many dare believe.
Byron, I prefer my republicans to have a little "r". Newt is a big government, progressive. He lobbies for Fannie and Freddie (part of the housing bubble and economic disaster), he is there for part of the problem we face. He is also FOR the Indivual Mandate on Obama Care. That is to say he would presume to FORCE us, aye Compel us to have medical insurance.. so the FED will tell me I HAVE to buy something? He also is for Cap and Trade. Yes he truly is and has been documented ont he record for it. He is also has a spotty record for 2nd amendment. My biggest concern with Newt, is he is arrogant and un-trustworthy. No sir he will not get my vote.
Mike & Byron correctly assess Newt's virtues.
However, he is too much the "idea guy" and I fear that he will be ineffective by coming up with new ideas every day and failing to follow through on any of them. Most of his ideas are pretty good, but many are absurd (e.g- his climate change lovefest with Pelosi).
I can live with Romney, but really want(ed?) to vote for an actual real live conservative canddate, not some squishy moderate. Especially not for one who is weak or hostile on Second Amendment issues.
Rick Santorum was woefully unprepared for the debates I have seen. Alternating between looking like a whiner to at times foolish and childish.
Nobody has looked great in this - the canidate pool is rather shallow. Romney may be the least bothersome.
That is true. But I wouldn't point to our foreign affairs posture of the last 20 years as being a success.
STU, i know VERY few people who are Ron Paul supporters. fewer still who are in the military who consider him anything but a nutter.
OK for those who havn't looked look at ALL of Pauls idea's. THEN look at the tactics used by his supporters.
Pauls problem and that of many if not most who call themselves liberterian is that their idea's while sounding nice cannot be supported in the real world.
Pauls foreign policy? IGNORE EVERYTHING. Thats his policy. Its not our buisness so we do nothing unless attacked. Meanwhile he will destroy the military and industrial complex that can build it. So when we are attacked or forced into a corner your children will be the ones forced to bend over and kneel aside. Because the SUPER Ninja Milita/mall cop force is a freaking cluster F*&k and will basicly just die in droves.
He doesn't do things because they are logical or good for the nation as a whole. NO he and those like him do things because they FEEL it is the rightthing acording to their beliefs. Good....i wonder how many people sat on their hands while the NAZIES terrorized europe and the Japanese raped half of asia? OH but that doesn't involve us...........
Never works.
James,
that's funny. I know many people in the military and retired who are Ron Paul supporters...
James,
Maybe you should get out more.
James,,,
lol...umm whut?
Paul is a Constitutionalist. Period. He isnt a pacifist and not once did he indicate he would ignore anything. Your hysterical assertions aside, show me proof... oh right..
your comment doesnt make any sense.
Big Government and Big Business go hand-in-hand. They love each other.
Really, ok find me his foreign policy. List it then we can pick it appart....quite easily.
My assertions aren't hysterial at all. Its simply hard to figure out why people take him seriously as a candidate for the most powerful presidency in history...
10% good idea's 90% idiology.
Morality IS the 'issue at hand'; all law is at base MORAL law. Things are not illegal because they violate someone's rights; things are illegal because they are IMMORAL.
Stu,
That lack of success can be tied directly to the dismissal of the requirement of being able to fight two simultaneous MRCs. Otherwise known as the "peace dividend". While Clinton was not a success, and Bush a mixed bag, this guy teeters on the edge of impending catastrophe.
Ron Paul is not wrong in saying it is the duty of Congress to declare war. However, other views which he expresses cause me a great deal of unease. He seems to entirely dismiss the idea of a war for western civilization, declared and touted by Islamists who have attacked us on numerous occasions, large and small.
Just because one side doesn't believe there is war does not mean there is not, indeed, war.
Why is it all I can think of when you say "idea guy" is Michael Keaton in "Night Shift"?
"I'm an idea man, Chuck!"
Edible Paper.
An underrated movie.
"Guest's" definition of a military careerist describes my resource sponsor tour at OPNAV to a tee!
Well,
I don't know who the GOP candidate will be. What I will promise ytou is this: if it is Romney, then I will not cast a vote for him. I've lived in New England for more than 30 years now. I saw first hand the disaster that his governorship was for Mass. They are still paying through the nose for RomneyCare.
Romney and Obama are two sides of the same coin. Both are narcissists who will do and say whatever they think needs to be said to gain the election, to attain their goals, and then to maintain them. There is no room in either of their hearts for anyone or anything else.
I will never again cast a vote for a candidate just to ensure that some other candidate doesn't win. My right to vote is too important to me to sell out like that. I did it for McCain and I will NEVER again make that mistake. I am not for sale. I still want to be able to look myself in the mirror and not see shame.
As for Ron Paul, fuggetaboutit. If he's the answer than it's a damned stupid question.
I don't know yet who I'll cast my vote for, if for anyone this time around. I do know that Romney & Paul are right out.
If the military loves Ron Paul, they're in for a shock if he gets elected.
I'm just glad that everyone was able to wipe their noses, assuage hurt feelings and continue what turned into a really good thread. Sheesh!
"Good recovery, Mav!"
I'm exactly on same boat as you Byron. Re: "idea man" - he has seen more backdoor gritty clockwork of Congress as the Speaker than most of the congressmen do in their political lifetime...
So if the nominee isn't ideologically pure and free of scandal, Republicans will stay home in some numbers.
So nothing changes. The margin between elected and also ran will be a tiny percentage of the total votes, no matter who is nominated. More of the same, in this situation. Is that the risk you wish to increase?
Is that what you really want? Is that what you really want?
Now? In this situation? Really?
Don't forget what I said about being a professor of and student of history. To me that's a huge plus.
agree with all, except Ron Paul..
I'm not 100% Ron Paul, URR. But he pushes the debate back in the direction that it needs to be. We have spent the last 20 years (even with a two simultaneous MRC philosophy) getting involved in things with the military often with no rhyme nor reason for what we are doing or what we are trying to achieve. It's not working. Time to rethink the strategy a bit. Romney, Gingrich will be more Obama and Bush. Big spenders promoting Big Government and Big Business all while we in the trenches become part of The Servile State (that's a book BTW that all should read).
FWIW, I'm all for fighting a war to save Western Civilization against the Mohammedan aggression. However, that war needs to be fought in a very different way than we did in the Crusades (which ultimately wasn't successful.) Unfortunately, I don't believe the secular West has the desire for it.
James, you want me to find his foreign policy for you to pick it apart? What? You are probably the kind of guy who tells someone their uniform is wrong and then tell them to go look it up...
No. I am comfortable with my choice of candidate for this primary. I think it tragic that less than a month to go for the start of the primary's and peopel still cant decide on a candidate.. My decision was easy to make once I stopped following the crap that Fox and the other talking heads want to convince us of..
great movie..
any politician who can write alternate history books of WW2 deserves a honorary porch membership!
Stu,
I am not 100% against Ron Paul, either. He informs the debate and discussion about such matters, and as a relatively strict constructionalist, shares a good deal of my beliefs in the limited authority of government at all levels.
BUT... his thoughts as expressed in debates and interviews about the US role in stabilizing areas in which we have vital national interests remains naive, undeveloped, and somewhat "pie in the sky". While the GW Bush years are often disparaged regarding foreign policy, history will likely judge them quite a bit more successfully, particularly in comparison to this administration's ongoing diplomatic cataclysm.
Paul's comments don't in the least inspire confidence that he has any real understanding of America's vital interests globally, nor of the emerging threats (radical Islam, Red China, Russia resurgent, UN power creep), let a lone a vision as to the shaping of the military and diplomatic tools needed to successfully counter those threats and navigate in a multipolar and largely hostile world.
Paul's foreign policy? Here's just one: I'm guessing you haven't read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and Paul's deritive legislation in 2001 and 2007? Check it out - it's all about allowing men to be men and nations to go on about their business without compromising national security for the sake of a few air and sea pirates. Jefferson and Adams were on board with it.
Which candidate has previously introduced legislation as a Congressman that is consistent with his proclaimed current foreign policy on the campaign trail? Just one.
Totally understand URR's reservations about Paul. However, we are heading into our 25th year of military action that even the most ardent interventionist has to stretch hard to make "national interest" become "national security", from Noriega to Osama and every two-bit Aidid and Arkan in between.
I recall vividly watching "The Wind and The Lion" before stepping off into Mogadishu with a double handful of 5.56 and lots of prayer. Lesson learned: Never underestimate a President's ability to throw your and your friends life away for his own entirely political purposes that have jack to do with saving your country.
Bothers me not one iota if the pendulum swung the other way for an administration or two. Better now than when Red China is spun up to the 9's. At least we won't be stretched across the ME any more.
Any danger of Paul winning the nomination or the election? Not unless China and Russia go at it prematurely.
She may retire as SecState, true. But, not as a politician.
At least by one measure, Ron Paul outpaces all other candidates and the President combined in support from the military.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/310783
Post a Comment