Discussion in 'Current Events' started by moreluck, Aug 23, 2011.
I would like to state openly that I am not for R.P. currently.
He was behind that Trans -Texas Superhighway and rail line, from Mexico to Ok., backed by money from Spain.
A super quick way to split Texas into two separate regions .
I sure wish they'd split California in half........San Francisco would definitely be in the top half and not in my half!!
It's too early to be picking Perry or anyone else....I still think a few more are going to enter.
Don't worry some day that BIG ONE earthquake will do just what you wish for.
Look for former NY Governor George Pataki (R) to enter the race soon.
Yea Perry was supporting the super highway thing for a while. It never came to fruition because he listened to the people of Texas and backed off of the proposal. Imagine that a politician that actually listens to the voters.
Is Rick Perry "Backing UP?"
Love the backup alarm sound effect!
Haven't read Perry's book for various reasons. Though I am pretty certain that this guy who must think he's brilliantly funny could be taking part of the book out of context. Don't know if that is the case here, but it is a common tactic used by left wing wannabe entertainers. BTW, IMO the guy is pretty boring.
Back tracking, flip-flopping, changing the mindset : who knows?
I actually agree with Perry that many of the programs he's called UnConstitutional are indeed that but this demands a strict interpretation mostly of Art. 1 and Art. 2 authorities and so very few people take that position today. Even so-called conservatives who on the one hand say they believe in a strict interpretation begin to back away at ever accelerating rates when the "strict" approach effects their own backyard. Examples are suppression of public welfare of the social safety net while not wanting to touch the much larger corp. welfare safety net, ignoring the ever larger encroaching state in regards to civil liberties, suppression of local control and self determination even in areas of social ideals, topdown mandates in education mostly for a corp. outcome (abandoning the classical education of the trivium and quadrivium methods) and finally expansionist policies in regards to foreign policy, militarism and even police and surveil actions across the broader population. Overall not unlike their so-called liberal counterparts, conservatives, even the limited gov't types, are out to construct and apply their self interest versions of central planning and interventionist outcomes over a controlled society.
Conservatives on the one hand scream for limited gov't and yet on the other feed the monster to ever greater and greater size. You can't have it both ways because it won't work and the last 30 years has been the proof in the pudding IMO. Whether one likes Ron Paul or not for example, he has proven that if you are going to hold and maintain certain principles, you are going to catch heat because of it. However, over time if you stay consistent, even those who oppose you will come to at least admire and respect you for it and even in some cases, given the current flip flopping fish in the barrel to pick from, some of those who once opposed might even consider supporting you.
I have no intentions of voting and yeah go ahead and run them mouths, not that your own voting hasn't screwed up the world we live in but if I were Ron Paul and got the nomination, I'd pick a Russ Feingold as my VP. Yeah I know most of you don't and won't get it but talk about shaking up the world.
Just on a quick read on Feingold, I see no severe objections to the man. But for me the question would be, why would Paul work so hard to get a nomination to risk election by bringing in a democratic maverick? As enticing as it sounds, wouldn't that be political suicide?
From the republican side, it most likely would and thus why it will never happen not to mention that the GOP will never nominate/elect Ron Paul to begin with. If by some freak of nature Ron did get the nomination, establishment GOPer's would either strike a deal with the devil and quietly vote Obama or just stay home. However, where Russ does play into this is first and foremost, it in a sense reunites the old alliance of classical liberals and paleo-conservatives that existed in opposition to FDR's new deal if not the progressive/internationalism of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Neither Paul nor Feingold represent purely either tradition but they sure both have foots in the door on bothsides so I'm good with that. It also might re-open that small window where the anti-state paleo-cons, libertarians and anti-state new left briefly broke bread together in the 60's which would be a great thing.
Now Feingold is not opposed to economic interventions as such (I do believe he wants fiscal restraint and control) but he's not an unreasonable man either and when it comes to clipping the wings of the American security state with the trampling of civil liberties, Feingold is a front and center guy in leading the opposition to that of which Ron Paul agrees. Also like Paul, Feingold also agrees with limiting foreign interventions so again there is bi-partisanship. There is also bi-partisansgip on the nature and manner of the Federal Reserve and I think Feingold would listen to that school of thought as well which deep down has a very bi-partisan appeal once you move past the scare mongers on bothsides of the debate.
A Paul/Feingold ticket if it ever happened at all (it won't) would also not only lift votes from a growing disenchanted progressive/liberal crowd that supported Obama but I also think even the independent vote might be attracted just to the bi-partisan nature of the ticket itself. Many voters would like what they might perceive and maybe rightly so of a built in checks and balance of the ticket itself. Also whatever happened going forward, good or bad, both parties as represented by Paul and Feingold would have a hand and thus blame or credit would be shared. The blame game to some extent would take a bit of vacation.
Another reason I think in this fashion is because under the original constitution, there were no Vice Presidential picks because whoever the loser was in a Presidential race became the Vice President and I happen to like that idea as another means of checks and balances. I've always felt Amendment 12 to the Constitution was a mistake and it played into the hands of self interested parties who wanted to play party politics and the losers were the real "general welfare" of the people at large.
Our political systems needs a wake up call, a paradigm shift if you will and something like a Paul/Feingold ticket IMO would do just that but I'd love to see that ticket mostly to watch the pundit class and their going nuts over such an "out of the box" move. I'd love it!
Gene Healy from Cato had an interesting piece about Rick Perry and his book Fed Up you might find find worthwhile.
Lemons will be lemons and lemmings will be lemmings too!
And complainers will be complainers and do nothings will be do nothings.
I'm not sure this is true. Sadly we will likely not find out but I've been thinking that the big government thing may be starting to jump the shark which is why you are starting to see most of the candidates talk the smaller government talk. Since zero has gotten the big government tag the nominee is not as important as the picture they paint of larger federal government vs smaller federal government. I think there is no doubt that his fundraising ability would suffer against that of B. Hussein as companies lined up for the government welfare dole. Another area that would lag would we that of the intrastate political operatives but Paul has shown a surprising ability to organize statewide networks even with a small amount of funding.
Good points but I wonder if Paul's lack of fund raising beyond individuals would actually be a help rather than a harm. Many folk across America regardless of placement on the political isle are becoming more fed up with Gov't by checkbook so that part of Paul might be a vote getter in some quarters. No doubt that Obama is the Statist but so many of the GOPer's have their own dirty laundry and it's going to come out. I know I'll do my part to help bring it out!
Seems the Texas Tea Party wants no part of Perry Kool-Aid and other Tea Party's around the country are reaching out to them for more info. Good for the Tea Party, that's the kind of real independence needed and will make them more effective IMO.
Ron Paul may be a genius and have everything figured out, but he's so squirrely, he creeps everybody out!! That's no reason, I know. That's just human nature and that's my take on it.
In my opinion it will take a vast amount of money this election cycle to get elected even if he were to start out on top in the polls just to counter the other side. This election cycle is shaping up to be very expensive as the President will likely again opt out of the public finance system. In a federal election money can be a great equalizer.
There is plenty of "dirty laundry" to go around and a lot of that is shared by the two most prevalent parties. I'm sure even Paul has some things he would rather keep to himself as well. I have a very hard time trusting anyone ( yes that includes Perry) running for political office above the local level.
Separate names with a comma.