heretic on 10/9/2008 at 15:55
Quote Posted by heywood
I don't understand what was so wrong with Howard Dean. The party suddenly decided he was unelectable and ran away from him in a big hurry.
I couldn't agree more regarding Kerry. He reminded me of a shadier version of Carter, only even less charismatic and twice as lame.
As far as Dean, (Politics aside) I think it was all of the frothing at the mouth. Even the Democrats that had initially propped him up were put off by his beserker rage. The aura of arrogance he exuded could not have helped much either.
As far as policy though Dean easily seemed the more sound of the two IMO.
heretic on 10/9/2008 at 16:06
Quote Posted by Starrfall
In real life they probably don't notice much though, and I suppose Ron Paul practically IS his own party at this point. Paul getting even 1% of the vote would probably send more of a message to the republican party than the libertarians getting more than in 2004.
Perhaps, but I think that message should have been loud and clear for quite some time.
The problem is, there are still far more 'moral majority' conservatives than there are South park ones. These folks are a no-brainer to eventually vote for any RINO offered, so it just doesn't pay for the party to trade off yet.
Maybe it will in our lifetime, but I'd rather that the younger crowd abandon the Republicans alltogether. They had their chance, and they blew it in a major way. All of this antithetical corporate welfare and government growth suggest they are a lost cause.
heywood on 10/9/2008 at 16:11
By the way, what is up with Ron Paul? He just gave a press conference today with Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader of the Green Party and Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, telling people to vote for a 3rd party and endorsing three different candidates from three different parties: McKinney, Baldwin, and Barr (who was curiously absent). Apparently, all 3 parties have agreed on a set of common principles. Perhaps if they could agree another principle, unity, they might get somewhere.
What I really don't understand about Paul is that if he wanted to leave the Republican party, he could have run for the Libertarian party nomination. It would have been his and he probably would have gotten enough votes to be relevant. But instead, he decided to stay in the Republican party for a while, only to denounce it later.
It's this kind of behavior that makes people question his sanity sometimes.
heretic on 10/9/2008 at 16:29
Quote Posted by heywood
What I really don't understand about Paul is that if he wanted to leave the Republican party, he could have run for the Libertarian party nomination. It would have been his and he probably would have gotten enough votes to be relevant. But instead, he decided to stay in the Republican party for a while, only to denounce it later.
It's this kind of behavior that makes people question his sanity sometimes.
The argument can be made that the Republican party left Paul, not vice-versa.
Paul was actually drafted to some state Constitutional party tickets, and he has maintained widespread support throughout various Libertarian and Constitutional circles elsewhere.
A lot of this support was made possible by the fact that he is a well-known independant-Republican, so the core Libertarians took his stance on abortions and Jesus with a grain of salt and the Constitutionalists did the same regarding some social issues.
They might not have been willing to do so otherwise, as Barr and Baldwin have their parties closer to lockstep than anyone else has for years. In the end, I think he is trying to send a message rather than actually win a nomination, much like Buchanan has tried in the past.
heywood on 10/9/2008 at 17:27
Well, it seems to me the message they're sending this cycle is that the 3rd party landscape is a clusterfuck.
Besides, if Ron Paul doesn't believe in the Republican party anymore, then what is the value in "sending a message"?
heretic on 10/9/2008 at 17:47
Quote Posted by heywood
Well, it seems to me the message they're sending this cycle is that the 3rd party landscape is a clusterfuck.
Besides, if Ron Paul doesn't believe in the Republican party anymore, then what is the value in "sending a message"?
That's fair enough, but a lot of people will be hearing of these parties for the first time due to this exposure. How is that a bad thing? If his goal is to shake up the big 1.5 I'd go so far as to say that it may well be a step in the right direction in the long run.
I can't speak for the man, but he must believe in the Republican party, or he would have withdrawn his affiliation.
Maybe he views the party as it's ideal as well as it's present sad state. Maybe he has hopes of a paradigm shift that might bring back the days of smaller government and more personal freedom. Maybe he just enjoys being a thorn in their side and reminding them of the faults they share with the opposition.
I won't second guess the man in this regard, I've watched him speak before congress too many times to question his reasoning.
Thief13x on 10/9/2008 at 18:07
I think he's smart enough to realize that America needs about 12 more years of babbling bipartisan bullshit before it's ready to call a timeout
BEAR on 11/9/2008 at 03:04
(
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1221102020-JA3+PCTuAh5GLDLLpJMnjg)
Man I
really hope McCain gets in so he and his oil lobbyist advisers can fix this awful mess we're in!
Quote:
On one occasion in 2002, the report said, two of the officials who marketed taxpayers' oil got so drunk at a daytime golfing event sponsored by Shell that they could not drive to their hotels and were put up in Shell-provided lodging. Two female employees “engaged in brief sexual relationships with industry contacts,” the reports' cover memo said, adding that “sexual relationships with prohibited sources cannot, by definition, be arms' length.”
I think I'm in the wrong business.
BEAR on 11/9/2008 at 19:02
Also I'm going to need someone to go ahead and laugh at this or something, because that was pretty great.
Starrfall on 12/9/2008 at 14:09
(
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/522583.html)
When Palin was mayor she forced rape victims in her town to pay for their own rape kits. This is the rough equivalent of forcing the survivors of a murder victim to pay for any forensics evidence collection or tests. And never mind that there is already a serious and enduring problem of rapes being under-reported.
FEMINISTS FOR PALIN
edit: To make the actual point clearer, if McCain was really trying to get the wimminfolk on board, he seriously dropped the ball with this pick. Palin appears to be identical to McCain when it comes to women's issues: seems ok on the surface, but dig a little deeper and it's an absolute horror. And I would not at all be surprised if we see identical effects: independent female leaners running like hell once they find out the candidate's
actual stance.
