A Call for Sanity in the Anti-Romney Rhetoric
Posted by Leon H. Wolf (Diary)
Red State

Wednesday, January 4th

Let me just say up front that Mitt Romney is far from my first choice among the current field. I think both Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman would be far better general election candidates and Presidents than Mitt Romney and I don�t really �get� the joke the state of Iowa has clearly foisted on the entire country by essentially voting for Santorum, but macabre humor has never been my thing. However, all objective evidence seems to indicate that the GOP primary electorate does not agree with me and that Romney has the clear inside track to the nomination, with only Newt posing a serious threat to his chances. While I certainly get that Romney as a candidate has many, many flaws, I honestly do not get the gnashing of teeth I am hearing today at the prospect of a Romney nomination. In my view, if he were to win the nomination, he would be our most conservative nominee since at least 1988.

I think that some people have either lost a sense of historical perspective here or are expecting an unrealistically quick sea change if their contention is that Romney is unacceptably moderate to get their vote in a general election. Turning back the wayback machine to 1992, recall that our nominee (among other things) was most recently known for 1) raising taxes and 2) nominating a pro-choice justice to the Supreme Court. In 1996 we ran �tax collector for the welfare state� Bob Dole, whose cronies groused openly about removing the pro-life plank from the Republican party platform. In 2000, George W. Bush ran on an open platform of instituting the largest entitlement expansion in decades (Medicare Part D), amnesty for illegal aliens, and loads of other big government ideas. I mean, GWB wasn�t defending having done those things in the past, he explicitly told us that if elected, he would implement them as President. To say nothing of the fact that his wife was openly pro-choice and he flirted openly with the idea of selecting Tom Ridge as VP. In 2008, we ran a guy whose entire national name ID was due to the fact that he was, without a doubt, the handiest and most available useful idiot for the media to grab when they needed a Republican to criticize the Republican party.

Now, Mitt Romney has often been criticized (fairly and completely accurately, in my opinion) as a flip-flopper. I agree that this is less than a desirable trait and if I had my druthers I would prefer someone like Rick Perry who has been more or less consistently conservative for a relatively long time (an easier feat in Texas than Massachusetts, no doubt, but that is beside the point). However, the most salient point I can divine about this criticism, given the fact that Romney�s latest flops are all to the right, is that Romney is being criticized for accurately perceiving that he needs conservatives. Yes, I would agree that Romney would bear careful watching as President and constant egging on from Congress, but I would certainly prefer someone who panders to me for political reasons than someone who openly gives me the finger in order to pander to centrists and/or leftists, which is exactly what we have gotten in terms of Presidential nominees for the last 20 years.

I guess what I am saying here is that if Mitt Romney is the standard-fare establishment candidate who we would all only grudgingly settle for after all other options are exhausted, then we should recognize that we as conservatives have successfully moved the party significantly to the right over the last two decades, and it would be absolute infantile madness to disregard this fact and refuse to support Romney (if he is the nominee) in the general election against Obama because more conservative candidates were unable to convince GOP primary voters to vote for them.

"The Romney Rehabilitation train will commence loading up passengers/apologists at this time"

Fair assessment, but he's still going to be the last option for many here including myself. The country has moved so far left in many peoples minds that we need a savior, and Romney isn't it and never will be.

brain-addled with his 376th post of worthlessness.

I agree that if Romney is the nominee that we should support him with our votes, even if one hand is covering our nose at the time.

It's just the supposition that the party has moved to the right post-Reagan that is humorous.

Bush I, Bush II, and McCain are right of RR? He can't be serious.

The tea party is centrist?

I would hate to see Perry debate brobama

The tea party is the GOP?

If he makes 500 before SC caucus, he gets a blimp flyover.

We need the swing voters who voted for Obama last time to swing against Obama this time.

We need a lot of Democratic voters to blow off the November election out of boredom or disillusionment.

A scary Republican will not attract swing voters. He will frighten a lot of fence-sitting Democrats into getting out of bed and voting for Obama again.

Romney is not scary. He tells sweet lies.

And sweet lies will win the election.

More like "full circle". By definition, conservatives are satisfied with the status quo and liberals want change and are willing to take risks.

well he is attention deficit disorder.....

Of course. There are those who choose not to believe it, but yearn for their backing.

I heard that very thing on CNN

Sheer coincidence...I promise.

Short answer to Romney's lackluster appeal is the populace and even neocons are sooo tired of liars.

You characterized one of my posts last night as "spin" where Paul was concerned. It wasn't spin as I don't play that game. There's no need, I'm not a professional.

You've got three candidates who gained 71% of the votes in Iowa last night. 30% of those votes were Paul's. Regardless of the GOP establishment, the current "Tea Party" or the MSM either ignoring him or villifying him, regardless of "spin", it is a hard fact that Paul has taken a serious jump forward in real votes. Agreed that there is the possibility Iowa is not representative...but we shall see.

All of this leads up to one thing. When you've got some Joker who mentions also-rans like Perry and Huntsman in his article, and doesn't even take notice of Paul, the article isn't serious. It's either spin, ignorance or outright propaganda.

So true. The media knows that they can't\won't own Paul.

The tea party (presumably) pulling the Party right doesn't put us right of Reagan... that would depend upon how far left we moved in the interim.

...and that distance was greater than the power of the tea party to overcome, which itself has now become nothing more than a bunch of Republican Party hacks with little substance to add to the debate.

I think the writer took into consideration that certified lunatics (like Paul) have about as much chance of getting the nod as you do.

Tired of liars? Heavens no! The vast majority of the population is _desperate_ for liars. It's why Paul's percentages are so low and why so many people are so determinedly casting him as a crackpot. He's the only one who _isn't_ lying.

Americans are still a long way from being able to handle the truth--especially older Americans, clinging bitterly to their big-government warfare-welfare state.

I have to agree.

If need be I'll vote for Romney over Obama, but the truth is they both SUCK. Romney is a sack of chitt. Obama is two sacks of chitt.

I'm sick of voting against someone as opposed to voting for someone.

+1

"Americans are still a long way from being able to handle the truth--especially older Americans, clinging bitterly to their big-government warfare-welfare state. [/quote]"

Actually,Barak,we oldtimers just have been conned often enough to spot a Ron Paul as soon as he comes out of the chute.

Paul's worldview is that of a classic liberal in that he thinks people are basically good.From that he deduces that "government" is a corrupting agent that causes people to do bad things.

So he appeals primarily to youngsters [ALL of whom think they are "special"] and a class of otherwise sane adults who still retain a certain childish self-centeredness that needs to feel"special".

The Christian view is that people are basically [and intrinsically] bad.And you know THAT.

That won't change until people start voting for people instead of against people.

If the Republican Party had to present you with a worthwhile candidate to get your vote, then that's what it would do.

Right now, it has you and the rest of the base so thoroughly buffaloed with its ingenious "A vote for a third party is a vote for a Democrat!" propaganda that it can get away with giving you candidates who are actually no better than Obama, and may even be worse, and still be serenely confident of your vote.

As long as you keep giving them your vote, they'll keep taking it, and sniggering at you all the way to Washington.

The Democrat party is doing the same thing in reverse. That's why so many Democrats will hold their noses and vote for Obama again, even though he worked out to be worse for them than Baby Bush was.

Many posts on here today are crocks of [bleep],..but this one has to be a contender for the biggest.

No, Paul believes that people are basically evil, but government power A) makes them more evil, and B) serves as an amplifier to magnify their evil so that it can devastate the lives of thousands or millions rather than just those of themselves and people immediately around them.

Why don't you itemize the flaws in my post,Bristoe?

When do the nurses in the Old Folks Home put you to bed? I'd like to know so I could avoid posting at the same time you are. I was always taught to respect my elders, even when it's difficult and to refrain from insulting them...even when it's difficult. I'm finding it impossible here though. Could you help a feller out?

It's more accurate to say that Ron Paul believes in minding your own business. There are a lot of people in this country that don't and the more it sways away from Paul's view, which used to be more prevalent, if not dominant, the worse it gets. You can tell the ones who can't keep their noses out very easily. They're the ones more worried about two [bleep] getting hitched than they are about whether or not their grandchildren are going to be speaking Chinese.

If men are inherently bad, what are governments made up of those same men?

Boy howdy

First off, Classic Liberalism is another title for Conservatism. Such a stalwarts as Russell Kirk (among others) described himself as being in the "Classically Liberal tradition," so you might want to understand terms before tossing 'em around.

Second off, RP agrees with your (correct... blind squirrel thing...) assertion pertaining to the nature of people. What you don't seem to understand is that while on the one side of the coin individuals are evil and need restraining, the other side of the coin is that governments are made up of people who, likewise, are in need of restraint.

Your whole post is an ignorant misread of what RP is about. If you're happy to remain ignorant (as I have no doubt you are) that is fine, but to do so in silence would be better than showing stupidity in talking about things you know nothing of.

He just did.

But he says dinnerjacket will be a good guy if we be nice to him.Don't sound like he thinks people are evilif he can't condemn THAT regime.

That you think that is somehow a putdown says a lot. You should spend less time here and more time reading about the founders of our country. You might actually learn something and quit supporting "liberal" analjesters such as Romney.

This is where some well intentioned people get fugged up. They think that by spending trillion$ in a [bleep] like Iraq, it makes them a conservative.

The world has truly gone mad and ther aint no stopping it.

You don't think Paul condemns the Obama regime? Where is the nurse with your meds?

Make wuv, not war

Your mammy.

Crossfire has Hunter1960 following him around I've got you.

You are boring so I'm gonna see if I can trade.I'll have to take 1960 off "ignore" to do it though.

Be easier to just ignore you.

Really? I took no note of you until you started dogging my posts. I've thought about calling the Nursing Home, but decided that would be cruel. Just tell me when they let you post and I'll try to avoid you.

Seriously, just put me on Ignore. I'm sure it will make you feel better.

No, he says Ahmedinejad can't significantly hurt us without getting himself wiped off the map by the militaries of almost the whole world, no matter how many nuclear weapons he has.

A generation of younger people is gradually forming whose brains are still pliable enough to understand the difference between "He's an evil man" and "We must invade his country." My hopes are high.

"No, he says Ahmedinejad can't significantly hurt us without getting himself wiped off the map by the militaries of almost the whole world, no matter how many nuclear weapons he has".

And the guys and gals in the blow-up vests can't "hurt" us without killing themselves.

That "deterrent" ain't working too good.

Yes I agree on RP = truth and that truth is a hard sell. But it appears the people are finally so fed up that, even with the efforts of the GOP, MSM and corporate fascism, Romney does not have the usual support.

You haven't noticed Ahmedinejad trying on an explosive vest, have you? Neither did Hussein or bin Laden. Politicians don't want to _die,_ they want to _rule._ That's why they have other people's idealistic young children do the dying for them--in those countries and in this one.

Politicians don't want to _die,_ they want to _rule._ That's why they have other people's idealistic young children do the dying for them--in those countries and in this one.

This is something I can agree with.Good place to end our discussion.

Give Mz Penny a hug!

You making very good and valid points. But... The bottom line is you're rationalizing. You're trying to dress up a pig and call her your date.

With all that said.... Nice Pig!

I'll do that, and tell her who it's from.

Cheers.

=============

Aside from my simple courtesy right now,does anyone even reply to your idiocy any longer?

Your cluelessness suggests your 2 clients over the past couple of years had trouble resuscitating you?

Let me know if you need a dictionary link!

I don't understand the pig part either, I must admit; but he's right on the rationalizing part. (He may have been directing that at the author of the article, rather than at you.)

There's an awful lot of rationalizing in that article, with the "we've done worse before, why not Romney this time?" argument at the top of the list, followed closely by "flip-floppers are okay, as long as they're flipped my way during the campaign."

I wouldn't mind being in an argument about where to go to lunch with that guy, but I think that's about as far as I'd want to take it.

Agree completely. I'm "sick" of the whining over no true conservative. How would you know? Look, for crying-one-thousandths-time who is in office and what he's done again just today! We don't need no true, stinking conservative; we just need someone less an arrogant, Affirmative Action appointment and more appreciative of this countries moorings.

"Most conservative since 1988" ain't saying much. Or, rather, it is...in that the (R)s haven't run anyone worth a f'k in a LONG time.

Mittsy, ain't no change from that.

Sorry, but the "we suck slightly less" platform was never very good, and is LONG overdue for replacement.

F'k 'em...

With all due respect to you (I say that sincerely cuz I like you) I am reasonably well acquainted with the writings/principles of American Conservatism, and what is and is not a true Conservative.

I'm young enough to still be idealistic enough to have become impatient with this constantly swirling downward spiral in which we the people vote for the lesser of so many evils, even as the evils get more and more so. Seems to me that the only thing we haven't tried is pulling in someone from the WAY outside. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results and it got me 8 yrs of GWB who was less Conservative than his dad... so the "but he isn't as bad as X" isn't something I care to repeat.

I understand all of you who run that line and just because you do doesn't mean that I disrespect you (although many of you provide a sundry of other reasons for that) but many of y'all are going to have to abandon ship sooner or later, as the Republican Plantation just ain't producing in spite of your slavin'. I am in favor of heading out early, and the more of us who do the fewer "wasted votes" we have for a third.

This I say under the assumption that the best the Republicans can seem to put up is the (BARELY) lesser of so many evils, of course. If they get their act together and run someone who is consistent with Paleo-Conservative values I'll be all about it. Heck, if the Democrats ran such a man I'd be all about it; party allegiance ain't my thing.

Everything is relative.

Romney is right of Obama. That's all that matters come November 2012.

Romney is right of McCain.

exactly....the choice is between real world options, and there will be two. whoever the republicans nominate, he will be far more conservative than Obama. take your pick.

So, the (D)s constantly move one to two full steps left, but as long as the (R)s are a half-step to the right of them, it's all good?

F'k that.

Aside from ObamaCare,which if not dead by the Justices,will be dead on day one Romney is in office. Now,aside from ObamaCare,what are the gripes which appear to be deal breakers.

No talking points or opinion. State a fact or some facts supporting your posisition and let's see which ones appear to be valid and not manageable by both Houses being controlled by the GOP.

I gotta go watch WVU for a while. I'll look forward to seeing if anyone really has such a heartburn over a topic,it makes you wish to not cast a vote and willing to give it to the Magic Hope and Changer.

LOL
"take your pick" but ya don't have a rats chance to turn back the Fascism we got going on here.

"f*ck that" doesn't change the facts. you'll either have Obama picking judges for four years or a republican. you'll either have a candidate who wants to repeal obamacare or the guy it's named after. you'll either have a redistributionist who wants to raise taxes or someone who opposes tax increases. you'll either have somebody who's itching to grow the welfare state, or someone who wants to scale back entitlements. you'll either have somebody who will not seek more gun regulation, or somebody who is dedicated to it.

you won't have your dream candidate who mirrors your positions on every issue, but with three hundred million people, half of whom pay no income taxes, that is not possible.

I give a flying [bleep] about party affiliation. There is no one out there I want to vote FOR. Still, I'll vote for a bag of chitt, regardless of party before I'll vote for two bags of chitt. Or write in Alfred E. Newman.

Only a lawyer would try to plead THAT case...

==================

Not too many would refute that assertion.

that's a myth, Barak. Obama has been pretty much exactly what they wanted. The Iraq war is over. Afghanistan will be virtually evacuated before the election. Government controlled health care is a reality. Gays serve openly in the military. The regulatory state has mushroomed. Crony capitalism to connected democrat donors has paid trillions into their contributors coffers. the DOJ has abandoned deportation of illegals, and the fence is dead. Leftists have been appointed to the Supremes and the lower courts. Gitmo was always a BS issue to club bush with, and nobody really cares about it any more. He will continue to push hard for higher taxes on the productive class and more give aways for the taking class.

in short, he's their dream guy. don't be fooled by their grousing that he hasn't actually started flying the hammer and sickle over the capital.

and none of their complaints would cause them to vote for a guy like Paul. they may give him an attaboy when he sounds like a truther, but they aren't going to vote for him, other than their reverse Operation Chaos votes in primaries.

You're rationalizing that it makes any difference which direction you face when you take it in the ass.

.Gov won't repeal Obama(Romney)Care; they'll "reform" it. .gov will do what it will, with another puppet in place, and your side or the other will cheer for their team captain, while the game continues.

The nation is morally, economically, and politically bankrupt.

Let it crash, balkanize, and the pieces will reconfigure as they must.

Choosing between Hussein, and HusseinLite, is a false choice. Lying to yourself to convince you that RINOney won't screw us all just slightly less worse/quickly than Obama won't change those facts.

The nation is becoming honey badger like; it just don't give a f'k.

Bob;

How's this for a Top 5 list?

2A
Entitlement ELIMINATION
REAL balanced budget
.Gov agency/program/ELIMINATION
Secured border/no amnesty/deportation.

None of which will RINOney do' and without those, it's all piss in the wind.

You're still going to vote, though, right?

Pure BS!

I honestly don't know at this point.

The everso slightly lesser of two evils is still an evil.

I dont think Paul is electible, but your analysis is spot on in my opinion.

The next Supreme Court justice.

Picked by Obama, Romney, or whatever?

That's really the only consideration I have left. Says much as what little is left of the republic, though, when that's the ONLY slight deciding factor...

Key words:"paleo-conservative"; "young enough to still be idealistic.."

Pardon me for my less than moderated expressions above. Second, I'm probably alone here but I think our republic has reached a threshold it cannot return from, both culturally and politically, and most fundamentally, spiritually. We know longer have enough of the electorate who are morally grounded or sufficiently informed relative to those who vote purely self-interest or on some momentary emotional urging. Trampling the Constitution by various agents of the government goes back to at least WWI. As much as I "scream" about Obama, the little man is a symptom of a much bigger, invasive, and malignant problem. As are all his little minions, czars, talking heads, secular progressives, socialists, communists, anarchists, etc. Even many here who claim conservatism are so out of pragmatism, tradition or some other motivation such as American individualism, which itself is no more inherently good than socialism.

Let's look at three measuring sticks of national health (national debt, government, and the place of morality) from Thomas Jefferson's eyes:

"I place economy among the first and foremost of important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared- (1816).

"I am for government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing by every device the public debt on the principle of it's being a public blessing.."

"..it shows how necessary was the care of the Creator in making the moral principle so much a part of our constitution as that no errors of reasoning or speculation might lead
us astray from it's observation in practice.."

It's impossible to go further into detail here but even thumbnail sketches show how far the boat is adrift from our early days. So, you are looking for a true conservative out of this mileu? He'd have to already been in the pipeline for decades..where is he? They have to be known for years if not decades to become part of the national scene. Once they are in politics their conservatives bona fides become suspect if they are at all involved in the process "making sausage."

Secondly, an inference from Biblical prophecy which I assume you know the Reformed denominations have completely ignored to their error: according to Charles Missler PhD, for one, the U.S., is either absent in eschatology or insignificant.

George

no, you aren't alone in your sentiments.

that's a nice wish list....exactly what proposals to do those things do you think will pass the Congress? regardless of who is president? because Romney would sign anything that came out of congress tending in those directions, and Obama wouldn't.

so your plan is, let's let Obama communize the courts for a generation? yeah, that'll teach 'em a lesson.

Today but that will change as needed. Mitt is a chameleon.

Unfortunately that is the bright side of the picture. It looks like it going to take another ass kicking for the Pubs to get the picture one Amaerica won't be able to afford.

Right, left, up, down, counterclockwise or sideways,...

There's only two choices remaining.

Shut it down or wait for the collapse to shut it down.

Either option is going to be very rough, but winding it down in an orderly fashion at least leaves some hope for the survival of the nation.

If it's allowed to spontaneously collapse, it will probably never get back up again.

what you're really saying is that Republican primary voters haven't selected anyone you agree with for 23 years.

that's a damn shame, and it sums up the complaints of the majority of the Paulists and the whining class in general. I didn't get who I wanted in the election, and I'm pissed.

Well, that is sort of one of the risks you take living in a democratic republic, and your choices are to convince more people to agree with you, attempt a coup, start slitting throats until your group is in the majority, or vote for the best available choice when the general election comes.

or, of course, you can keep chanting "f*ck it", but unless you're auditioning for a career as a rapper, that ain't likely to get you much.

Schit in equals schit out. The (R)s have run schit in primaries for decades, and thus have had schit candidates selected. Facts, are facts.

Of course, all you have is an insult option at this point, as it's abundantly clear that the VAST majority of Americans don't care for either party or their candidates (voting participation).

Apathy comes before the fall, and it's being produced due to no meaningful choices and similar results regardless of the head of the snake tapped each 4 years.

Whats really infantile madness is that Reagan would be to far to the left to get elected today.
The far left and the far right are for the most part.
Just a pain in the ass.


dave






dave

not insulting you, bud, but jeez, go back and read your posts.

I think there's a daily three "f*ck it" limit.

People run for office, not parties. Voters choose, not some mystery force. You don't like the results of elections...I'm not thrilled about a lot of them either, but the solutions are kind of limited to those I listed.

Yep, only 42k and change to catch that sour, front porch sittin' neighbor.



"Mr. Conductor, best ya get in the cab of the locomotive... time to get the watered down RINO's to the next station..."

You guys kill me. I've been staying out of this election crap because of the vitriol being spewed on a grand scale, but this takes the cake.

Sean lists five important items to him, and there is exactly one candidate that meets that test, namely Ron Paul, but he is considered a nut, fruitcake, and unelectable by Sean because he won't continue the war that we cannot afford.

George lists a bunch of quotes from Thomas Jefferson that are apropos, but again, there is only one candidate, Ron Paul, who will live up to the ideas contained in those quotes, yet George believes Ron Paul to be a nut, fruitcake, and unelectable because he won't continue a war that we cannot afford, or for some other reason that he hasn't explained fully. News flash George, Thomas Jefferson would be considered a nut, fruitcake and would not be elected by most who post on this forum.

The reason that I'm voting for Ron Paul, again, and will likely vote Libertarian if he isn't the R nominee is simple. He is the ONLY candidate in the two legacy parties who would not impose Martial Law and dictatorship when the collapse comes-and it is coming. It is mathematically inevitable and there is no avoiding it. The debt loads are too high, and the interference by the government into the private sector is too far gone for recovery.

The system is going to collapse, and when it does, the tweedle dee and tweedle dum D and R candidates will do everything in their power to maintain said power. Worrying about SCOTUS appointments that could possibly be made is irrelevent, especially after the supposed "originalists" on the SCOTUS ruled that the Fourth Amendment is essentially null and void in King v. Kentucky. I can't wait to here what they have to say on the NDAA sections 1031 and 1032, and the upcoming challenge to Obamacare. If the lawyers on this board really and truly believed in original intent they would be extolling Ron Paul as their candidate, flawed though he may be. Out of all the candidates on either side, he is the only one with a solid voting record in favor of the Constitution. Compromising on that in search of "real world electability" is a betrayal of principle. It's one that I will not be making again.

apocalypse now, huh? how's life going, Mike....I mean other than the impending apocalypse thing?

Great post Mike...

You are so right! The right wants the status quo of founding principles of individual liberty and freedom (so old). The left wants the change all the other leftists wanted. These leftists are Stalin (international socialists), Hitler (National socialists), Castro Pol Pot Mao Chavez, etc, all international socialists. They have killed about 150 million of their own citizens for not looking like them or for not thinking like them. More deaths than all the wars in the same time. Class warfare or race warfare. Dear Leader is doing both and seems to bow to tyrants. The left always seems to side with evil and attack good.

We should vote for whoever can beat Obama; that decision over rides any other!

Fine. Busy. Good hunting season, but had to sell back vacation due to training requirements, so it shortened my season.

As to "apocalypse now", sooner than you think. Between the MF Global debacle, the Eurozone solvency crisis and our continued bailouts of Eurozone banks through the Fed, and the exposure of US banks to CDS's written on Euro sovereign debt, the house of cards is awaiting one puff of air. Do the math. There is no escape.

was talking to a venture capital guy this weekend who does a lot of work in Europe and the middle East....Beylorussian Jew born in the forest during the war and emigrated to the US when he was 3, speaks about eight languages. he's convinced all the Euro patches and fixes will irrevocably fail before our election, with a financial crisis to dwarf the one that decided the 2008 election. he's a real cheery fellow....you'd like him. Just got his La. CCW at age 66.

No, I generally agree with what you say if you'll note the above and it's not because I won't vote RP because he won't [/i] continue [i] a war but because right now, in this time and place with nuclear weapons, I don't think you take the isolationist tact.

And I think if RP became president he'd see this and his foreign policy would change. As far as financial calamity, or worse on the horizon, yes, I wouldn't disagree.

"And I think if RP became president he'd see this and his foreign policy would change. As far as financial calamity, or worse on the horizon, yes, I wouldn't disagree."

It seems to me that most non-paulies are of the opinion that the good Dr.would realize that most of his goals are un-obtainable were he by some chance find himself in the WH.

Paulies - even the real smart ones, like Mike - believe that he would,or would not[see Mike's statement about martial law]-do exactly the "right "thing.

This is an example of blind faith being vested in an ordinary human being since Dr.Paul has never demonstrated the ability to command anything more complicated than a medical clinic.

It is that willingness to believe a man can achieve the impossible that unites his followers and makes of them a cult.

Excuse me while I raise the BS flag.

Ron Paul is the ONLY one with a proven track record of voting in line with the Constitution every time. I place much greater faith that in a time of national crisis that he would resist all attempts by the executive bureaucracy to violate civil liberties. Every one of the current crop of candidates except Paul has proven by either action or word that they view the Constitution as an impediment to the imposition of their view of the world. Your opinion of the Executive as some type of imperial personage that is supposed to "command" others to perform his will is in direct conflict with the original intent of the Constitution. The Executive is supposed to do nothing more than execute the laws passed by Congress, or veto them should he not agree. If his veto is over ridden, then his only function is to execute them, not modify them through bureaucratic fiat.

The only time the executive becomes a commander is during wartime. Unfortunately since WW II, this country has seen perpetual war-undeclared-but still war. Whether it was the "cold" war, Korea, Vietnam, on up through the current debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have been on a war footing and the Executive has grown in power until people think of the office of the President as some type of emperor. That's pretty much what the office has become, and to the detriment to our liberties under the Constitution. It has grown exponentially worse since 9/11. We have traded our liberty for security, and now we have neither, just as Franklin warned.

I would rather place a man, flawed as he may be, but who has proven through his actions as well as his words that he truly believes in our founding document, into the Executive in the hopes that he will reverse some of the deterioration in our liberties, than I would place another wolf in sheep's clothing there, knowing before they get their that will only pay lip service to the law of the land.

That's pretty much the choice that we face, and the fact that so many are willing to compromise on that gives me little hope that anything will change. We get the government that we deserve, because we vote for it, or allow others to do so. It may sound overly dramatic, but we are being given an opportunity to at least reduce the speed at which we're racing towards tyranny, but most seem to want to press the accelerator further to the floor.

I would agree with your venture capital acquaintance, but I give it less time. The Euro zone is a disaster in progress, and the Eurocrats are making it worse. Check out the Italian banking system and the coupon rate of their sovereign bonds, especially IRT how much they have to refi in the next year alone. Then add Greece, Spain, Portugal and France to that. Then see who is writing the CDS's on that debt-JPM, Gov't Sachs, HSBC, Citi, BofA, WF-the Federal Reserve. Catastrophe is a mild way of putting it.

good to see you chime in mike, you're a very good communicator.

I've tried to make the point over and over without much success that the financial straits we find ourselves are much more a danger to the American way of life than the Muslim problem though it is a problem.


it simply amazes me that smart guys like Steve NO that are students of history don't or won't admit that the likelihood of a super power losing it's "super" status comes from the cancer within (in this case debt) than any threat from outside it's borders.


to be sure the threats outside the borders will rear their head, but our true enemies, competitors for the worlds natural resources will bide their time till we've weakened ourselves from our foolish spending and unwillingness to enact financial discipline before they act.

they're much smarter and therefore more dangerous than our ME enemies. YMMV

Heard this morning Spain just rerigged the income tax regs and rates. Spose to hit the lower and middle income earners the hardest. Funny how it always works out that way.

If you want to look at an "unexpected" occurrence that will, and is, having great impact, see what is happening in Hungary right now.

Agree 100% Randy. Resource wars have begun, and we're losing that battle through our heavy handedness. Who's getting Iraqi oil? Who got the contracts to extract it? You know, the oil that was supposed to pay for the $4 Trillion cost of the war.

With the present field I would say your screwed!

================

Without even needing to look at the name of the poster,I knew who this was.

Good to see such thoughtful articulation from a man who can actually make one think the unlikely could really happen.

Welcome back,Miguel.... for a good while,I hope.

Happy New Year,as well, pig hunting partner!

Thanks Bob. Back at you. Unfortunately I won't be pig hunting this year-but you knew that already. I hope all is well with you and yours.

Here's a little link that everyone who thinks that we can "grow" our way out of this should read. To paraphrase a former GOP governor, "Judgement Day is inevitable."

www.goldsilver.com/news/34-shocking-facts-about-u-s-debt-that-should-set-america-on-fire-with-anger/

who will be first to chime in


"the sky is falling, the sky is falling" ????


I'd lmao, but it really isn't funny


I may be wrong, but I see their strategy as inflation rather than deflation.


anyway you slice it, it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

dang Chinese..... "may you live in interesting times"

It's been their "strategy" since 1913. They have never stopped printing. With all of the dumping of US Treasuries going on throughout the world, how do you think that there has such a low coupon? The Fed has been creating the money to buy the bonds and using their proxies to hide it. There has been no audit of the Fed since its inception so we will probably never know the true extent of their activities. A very small tip of a very large iceberg was revealed when the Bloomberg FOI request revealed that the Fed had essentially printed and transferred $16 trillion to various banks, both US and foreign in 2008 alone. I guarantee that the situation is much worse than that.

Boy, you came just in time! About Thomas Jefferson, who knew? Thanks for the news flash!

Sarcasm doesn't become you.

I was just pointing out your apparent disconnect between the obvious admiration for Jefferson and your antipathy for Paul, especially as Paul is the only candidate that even approaches belief in the ideas for which Jefferson stood. All the rest are fascists to one level or another, depending upon fiscal or social issues. Political schizophrenia abounds here abouts.

Nope. The war has nothing to do with it. I'd rather that be actually FOUGHT the right way, won, and done.

Well then what? Out of all the candidates currently standing for election, one, and only one espouses all of the points that you made. I freely admit that he has his flaws and that he lacks style and charisma, but he's much less scary than Romney, Gingrich, Perry, or Santorum.

Big Plus One.

You're right. I apologize. Unfortunately, it's hard to swing such heavy axes with white gloves on..

Sounds like something that's going to be difficult to fix by voting.

yeah, dinnerjacket was just saying the same thing.

Trot out the boogerman of the Iranians, keep everyone convinced that we have to go to war with them to keep the world safe for democracy and continue our Wilsonian campaign of "doin' right." I guess it'll never end will it? Not until we're totally bankrupt and all the wealth has been transferred to the banksters at any rate.

ignoring them won't make them any less a threat.


nor will sweet words and abandoning surveillance of their nuclear program.


how do you figure a nuclear exchange in the Middle East will affect your investments?

What nuke exchange?

First off, who says that they have a nuke, or are close to getting one? Is it the same people who told us that there were WMD's in Iraq? Look how true that was, now that we've squandered close to $4 Trillion and untold lives, and are essentially turning it over to the same people that we're now gearing up to fight. Seems rather insane to me.

Secondly, who will be doing the exchanging? Israel and Iran? Somehow I am doubtful that anyone on either side is that suicidal, including Achmadinejad. More likely our activities in the Gulf will result in a catalytic war that will involve larger players such as Russia and China.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that much of the intel concerning the Iranian nuke program is coming from the very people who have the most to gain if they can cozen us into doing the dirty work that they either can't or won't do, namely the Israeli's.

Besides, it won't take a nuke exchange to wreck our economy, all it will take is a hot war or incident in the Straights of Hormuz which shuts off all oil flow and runs the price to $200/bbl. That's the fire that we're playing with right now, and it is very likely to burn us, sans nukes.

There is still an option.

http://www.rickperry.org/

Let's give him a chance in South Carolina. We don't have to settle for Mitt.

kwg

I'm completely with you on the sadness that accompanies the fact that Bammy is merely a symptom of the broader problems you lay forth. I also know that you have given RP credit in certain areas and agree with him. I would agree with Mike that those quotes you cite are best represented by RP, his lack of electability notwithstanding.

On your comments re: Missler's eschatalogical assessment of the USA, I would say this. It is not that the Reformed denominations have "completely ignored to their error," it is that we have a different hermaneutic for biblical prophecy than does Missler, who is a Baptist. We interpret the Scriptures, particularly prophecy, in radically different ways, which lead us to less specific "conclusions" about the end of the world. While Dispensationalists have been attempting to tell who the different figures are in the end times prophecys (to their repeated error) our hermaneutic leads us to a bit more (for lack of a better word) agnostic view pertaining to the specifics players in end time events.

Phew sorry. Long winded way to say I don't share Missler's assessment, nor to those Reformed scholars who are true to their own hermaneutic...

?!!

WOOP! WOOPWOOPWOOP!,...WOOP!,.......woop woop

Does not "your" hermeneutic "stem" from Augustine (who I admire) who decided Revelation (in particular) could not be explained other than in symbolism, spiritualizing, and such. And then came Origen in the third century A.D. who went even further. And then in the Reformation, Luther expressed similar sentiments. It's ironic then that in vs three in ch 1 of Revelation is found the only place in the whole of the scriptures where it states the the reader and speaker "of these words" is blessed.

I used Missler as an example though there are many others who are not out in orthodox Christianity loony land (though I realize many Reformers, to borrow a mathematical term, are rather a closed set) and while I guard against being dogmatic about it is it not true that the Reformers have steadfastly as a group ignored the prophetic parts of Ezekiel, Isaiah, and acted as if anything past the first four chapters in Revelation were just plain Diaper rash? Hermeneutic or a tradition of ignoring large portions of scripture?

Anyway, be aware "of the seasons" by the signs. I think we'd agree they are tumultuous.

yes, mike, I'm sure a country floating on oil is spending a huge portion of its GDP on electric power generation experiments, and hollowing out mountains for the research because it's cheaper than regular construction.

surely you're not saying they're not trying, you're just saying they're not there yet. well, yeah....that's kind of the point.

WMDs in Iraq. Didn't Steve vacation over there some time back and find them dam things.

There's a thing here about our country--the world--philosophically speaking, that once a threshold has been reached (I don't know quite how to articulate it other than the "exponential proliferation of everything"), we can no longer go back to the reality of TJ than we can go back in time without a [/b] major reset [b].

And in the words of that famous philosopher, Chris Farley, "It's gonna leave a mark." maybe until that happens, we're playing around the edges.

You don't have to go much past Obamalitecare to figure out the little POS is a socialist!

Why wouldn't they want nuke power? It's a heck of a lot more efficient and less polluting than oil fired power plants. Besides, oil is a finite resource that will eventually deplete and at a much greater rate than uranium.

Whether you want to believe that they desire the nukes for power generation or power projection, the sources that we have on exactly how far along they are and whether they intend to weaponize are suspect. It mostly comes from the Mossad, and they have a very large stake in getting us to believe their version of things.

But let's say that they get a nuke soon, what evidence other than conjecture do you have that they would in fact use it, and are you willing to further indebt the country, sacrifice more blood, and possibly wreck the world economy by cutting off 40% of the world's oil supply to ensure that they will not acquire one? Do you think that the Iranians are more willing to commit national suicide than say, the Pakistani's, Indian's, or North Koreans? And why are we not threatening these other countries? Are we going to get an actual declaration of war from Congress this time, or are we going to intervene under the War Powers Act as we did in Libya? Or maybe we're just going to get them to provide the casus belli through sanctions and actions that do harm to their populace and drive them to war.

To me this whole "bang the drums" for war smells to high heaven, worse than the pretexts we used for Iraq, and it comes at a time when we can least afford it. Maybe that's why, to deflect attention from the worsening economic conditions here at home, and get everyone worked up over some boogy man in the Middle East.

I'm not buying it. Fool me once-Iraq, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

given enough money and time, every country that can acquire nuclear weaponry will.

who can blame them, we invaded Iraq and deposed their ruler, who was a bad actor, but no worse than lil Kim in North Korea, or perhaps no worse than the Pakistanis that hid OBL so well for so long, as far as we know.

you have nuclear you don't get invaded, you don't have it, it's a risk you take, that seems to be the geopolitical lesson of these last few decades.


do you really think we'll be able to hold off Iran from ever getting nuclear weaponry Steve? To me it seems inevitable. They've got the oil to finance it, and peak oil is bandied about, only the Iranians know how much they have left, if they're to have a future wouldn't it be smart for them to have nuclear energy and weaponry?

That Nostradamus guy said those Iranians would. I watched him on tv Steve musta seen the same show.

Wow! Tell me Neville Chamberlain isn't proud of some of y'all!!

When did Iran become a friendly, trustworthy state? Instead of Israel....

do you really think we'll be able to hold off Iran from ever getting nuclear weaponry
==========================

My friend,Randy,

Syria has been nuclear disabled for a couple of decades and the disruption a significant attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would cause,coupled with global interactions such as the "virus" Iran recently experienced and continuing sanctions will also set Iran back for a couple of decades,if not longer,and have them crying uncle in short order.

To think Iran should be entitled to implement a functional nuclear arsenal on top of their express threats to annihilate another allied nation is a mindset that boggles the mind and contrary to the opinion of over 60% of US voters who feel Iran should be prevented from having such a weapon.

The naivety expressed here is more than remarkable,it's dangerously foolish and it's refreshing to see that such foolishness is limited to a infinitesimal faction of this country's daydreamers.

And it's always, always the RPeeer's....I hope when the day comes and RP is laid to rest these goobs are buried with him.

Bless his soul.

Fixed it.

If I can figure out how to do it I'll make sure your body is wrapped in an upside down flag for the burial.....not an American flag, of course.

What flag would you choose?

Easy Bob,


no where did I say Iran was entitled to nuclear weapons or that I have any desire for them to have nuclear weapons, just that I understand their desire to have them and why.

it's just logic, and I'm wondering if you're just being obtuse as a ruse.

heck I didn't want lil Kim to have nuclear weapons, but he's got them and they seem to work pretty well for him, despite all the failings of communism and most of the world turning away from it by at least some degree, N. Korea still pretty much practices that political philosophy in large part because they have the capability to extract too high a price from anyone desiring to end their little experiment.

If Mexico was our sworn enemy and they had nuclear weaponry, do you not think we'd be working diligently to acquire our own nuclear capabilities?


I have no idea how China is dealing with Iran, but my best guesstimate is they're probably buying their oil and selling them military technology to get their money back.

I've also no problem with Israel bombing Iran's nuclear sites, creating viruses to disrupt their progress etc.

Hell I was all for us going into Iraq and winning the war, but I thought it was bullchit that we stayed and tried to win the peace. What has that got us? If you go to war and win their should be some spoils. Still incredulous that we didn't get enough oil from Iraq to reimburse us for liberating those kind, decent folk.


and I agree that the naivety expressed here is remarkable, but it seems to be a lot more widespread than your estimate, what so many of you can't seem to get is......


we're broke, and 15 trillion in the hole, we depend upon the financing of China and others to continue to play our role as world superpower and world policeman.

we're the bright beacon light upon the hill, we're out to right the world's wrongs and let justice prevail, if we can just get someone to finance it for us

that's the bottom line my friend, courtesy of those folks you and I have elected


I understand a simpleton like Stan mistaking logic for pacificism, but certainly expect better from you.

Well, after reading your post I'd suggest you not call someone else simpleton....

it's just logic, and I'm wondering if you're just being obtuse as a ruse.
==============

I'm sorry...I could have sworn I read you to ask "can anyone really stop Iran from having the nuclear bomb?"

My bad.

If you'd rather have a little more bush-beating, I guess that's okay; but although you softened the first and second phrases without too severely altering the general sense of them, you completely redirected the third, so that it's essentially a restatement of the second.

What I originally meant is that a private-sector evil man with merely persuasive power is strictly limited in the amount of devastation he can cause; but a public-sector evil man with coercive State power and rank upon rank of armed State thugs to back him up and herds of State intellectuals to generate propaganda for him is nowhere near as limited.

If you want to soften that, that's fine; but that was the direction I was headed.

I'm hoping we can aid in the delay of Iran getting the bomb, but I can certainly understand my enemy wanting to acquire weaponry that neutralizes the vast military superiority of those on their borders.

buying time is most certainly a worthwhile endeavor, maybe we'll get lucky and we can delay them till dinnerjacket is resting in the ground or better yet scattered to the 4 winds.


but I've seen little evidence from the ME that he'll be replaced with much more to our liking.

I knew what you meant, Barak. I don't think you read it carefully if you think the third is now a mere restatement of the second. Government power corrupts (2), and (3) government amplifies the destructive impact to society of this corruption, e.g., private corruption is far more limited in potential scope. Basically, I'm saying I agree with your sentiment, but with very slight modification in choice of words.

aim small, miss small, I had a very defined target and believe I nailed the X. YMMV