wrong thread.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re more a moderate than I thought. You attempt to mask it as pragmatism and to a certain extent that is a correct approach. However, to dump on the Tea Party for the tax extension deal though runs your true colors up the flag pole.[/quote]
I didn’t dump the Tea Party for the tax extension deal - I was skeptical of the newly formed and organized capital-T, capital-P Tea Party as soon as it was co-opted by libertarianish types who ran candidates like Sharron Angle for perfectly winnable seats.
The tax extension deal was simply the nadir of what was once a very-good grassroots movement. And now, the credibility of this group is gone, and likely can’t recover. They blew it.
And, no, I don’t mask my pragmatism, assuming you can read. As I have type many times, conservatives are definitionally pragmatists, else they really aren’t conservatives. My true colors should be fairly obvious - and, uh, I did say Huntsman was my guy for 2012 - but most importantly, I understand one crucial thing: there is talking about policy, and there is enacting policy. Navel-gazing ideologues think they are the same; they are not.
Incorrect, I haven’t been aligned (or even a casual member of) the GOP since they committed to deficit spending that they preached that deficits “didn’t matter” because tax cuts would deliver the deficits away. So, in fact, though I have voted for the GOP in national elections, I am not part of the GOP because…wait for it…I’m more fiscally conservative than the platform of the GOP.
But, I’m also wise enough not to make the perfect the enemy of the good, so the GOP candidate has (usually) gotten my vote in a national election based on the fact that the Democrats have almost always put up an urban/coastal-oriented candidate emamored with a social-democrat policy.
Glad you realized that, and that was entirely my point - any candidate (and any supporter of such candidate) who goes in with the presumption that they are going to be able to enact a hard-right cramdown and ignore Democrats is going to not only be sorely disappointed, they are setting the Democrats up for political re-alignment and huge victory in 2014 and beyond.
Also, Reagan raised taxes. You might also want to realize that particular piece of history when waving around your “true believer” flag.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gingrich is almost as old and in far worse health.[/quote]
I never said anything to the contrary.
So does Obama. And the democrats have been winning those 18-23 for decades.
[quote]He does not get the black vote.
He does not get the female vote.
He’s basically just in it to help get Obama reelected.[/quote]
I agree, Gingrich loses to Obama by staggering numbers, but not as bad as Paul would.
Hey Gingrich may be fat and he might be a sleaze ball and he may even be unfaithful too but…hmmm where am I going with this? I don’t much like Gingrich…
LOL–I agree Gingrich can’t beat Obama either and I never said otherwise.
You didn’t defend Paul very well here Lifty.[/quote]
I have defended him enough already in many of the other threads.
If you were more honest we could have a real debate but I don’t even know who you support.
I don’t think Paul would do as badly as you think he would.
He’s not as unappealing to potential voters as you pretend he is.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gingrich is almost as old and in far worse health.[/quote]
I never said anything to the contrary.
So does Obama. And the democrats have been winning those 18-23 for decades.
[quote]He does not get the black vote.
He does not get the female vote.
He’s basically just in it to help get Obama reelected.[/quote]
I agree, Gingrich loses to Obama by staggering numbers, but not as bad as Paul would.
Hey Gingrich may be fat and he might be a sleaze ball and he may even be unfaithful too but…hmmm where am I going with this? I don’t much like Gingrich…
LOL–I agree Gingrich can’t beat Obama either and I never said otherwise.
You didn’t defend Paul very well here Lifty.[/quote]
I have defended him enough already in many of the other threads.
If you were more honest we could have a real debate but I don’t even know who you support.
I don’t think Paul would do as badly as you think he would.
He’s not as unappealing to potential voters as you pretend he is.[/quote]
I support anyone who can beat Obama. But naturally I’ll support whomever the republican party nominates. And Paul is exceptionally unappealing to the voters. I told you that months and months ago. And where is he now? About where I thought he’d be, in last place.
That my friend was an easy call.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re more a moderate than I thought. You attempt to mask it as pragmatism and to a certain extent that is a correct approach. However, to dump on the Tea Party for the tax extension deal though runs your true colors up the flag pole.[/quote]
I didn’t dump the Tea Party for the tax extension deal - I was skeptical of the newly formed and organized capital-T, capital-P Tea Party as soon as it was co-opted by libertarianish types who ran candidates like Sharron Angle for perfectly winnable seats.
The tax extension deal was simply the nadir of what was once a very-good grassroots movement. And now, the credibility of this group is gone, and likely can’t recover. They blew it.
And, no, I don’t mask my pragmatism, assuming you can read. As I have type many times, conservatives are definitionally pragmatists, else they really aren’t conservatives. My true colors should be fairly obvious - and, uh, I did say Huntsman was my guy for 2012 - but most importantly, I understand one crucial thing: there is talking about policy, and there is enacting policy. Navel-gazing ideologues think they are the same; they are not.
Incorrect, I haven’t been aligned (or even a casual member of) the GOP since they committed to deficit spending that they preached that deficits “didn’t matter” because tax cuts would deliver the deficits away. So, in fact, though I have voted for the GOP in national elections, I am not part of the GOP because…wait for it…I’m more fiscally conservative than the platform of the GOP.
But, I’m also wise enough not to make the perfect the enemy of the good, so the GOP candidate has (usually) gotten my vote in a national election based on the fact that the Democrats have almost always put up an urban/coastal-oriented candidate emamored with a social-democrat policy.
Glad you realized that, and that was entirely my point - any candidate (and any supporter of such candidate) who goes in with the presumption that they are going to be able to enact a hard-right cramdown and ignore Democrats is going to not only be sorely disappointed, they are setting the Democrats up for political re-alignment and huge victory in 2014 and beyond.
Also, Reagan raised taxes. You might also want to realize that particular piece of history when waving around your “true believer” flag.[/quote]
Fair enough. I appreciate the thoughtful reply.
Two things, however:
-
You didn’t answer my question about the 1980 primary.
-
You leaned Huntsman way earlier even though my impression of him is that he was THE most libertarian of the bunch save Paul and Johnson. What gives?[/quote]
Out of all the republican canditates, Huntsman may have gotten my vote in a national election.
Really, in my opinion, he was the most interesting candidate that they had.
Push:
Let me get into this discussion, because like Christine, Huntsman was a very viable choice for me also.
-
Like me; he felt that the most important thing we needed to do was to get our “fiscal House in Order”. Everything else, while there may be some importance, were secondary to this.
-
He had a clearly drawn out plan for both revising the Tax Code to a) make it simpler and more fair for the individual and b) making it much more business friendly.
-
He refused to be pulled into signing pledges; proving how “conservative” he was; or into bashing not only the other GOP candidates, but even the President. He realized that our economic problems went way beyond any one person or a select group of candidates.
-
He understood China, and stated clearly from the beginning that going to “war” with them economically was not in our best interest. (Like many were advocating). Also, it was extremely important to make them a strategic security “partner”.
Push; he’s a fiscal conservative who sees no need to either “prove” his conservative values or bash others while trying.
He just seems like a steady, pragmatic problem solver, which I think we need right now.
Bash away!
Mufasa
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Two things, however:
-
You didn’t answer my question about the 1980 primary.
-
You leaned Huntsman way earlier even though my impression of him is that he was THE most libertarian of the bunch save Paul and Johnson. What gives?[/quote]
-
I know.
-
I don’t think Huntsman is particularly libertarian, not as libertarianism is trucked today. He is fiscally conservative and socially moderate, but that doesn’t pass for “libertarian” any more. I liked Huntsman because of his deep experience (and experience matters), his track record, his international bona fides, and most importantly, with respect to the most salient challenges we face - financial/economic - he had the best platform and most concrete proposals to actually get something done.
Huntsman’s proposed reform to wage war on “Too Big Too Fail” financial institutions was exceptional. Finally, a conservative with something more than generic platitudes about reform in this area. Also, Huntsman’s tax plan broadening the tax base and lowering marginal tax rates (while eliminating a bunch of deductions) was wise and yet bold policy.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Two things, however:
-
You didn’t answer my question about the 1980 primary.
-
You leaned Huntsman way earlier even though my impression of him is that he was THE most libertarian of the bunch save Paul and Johnson. What gives?[/quote]
-
I know.
-
I don’t think Huntsman is particularly libertarian, not as libertarianism is trucked today. He is fiscally conservative and socially moderate, but that doesn’t pass for “libertarian” any more. I liked Huntsman because of his deep experience (and experience matters), his track record, his international bona fides, and most importantly, with respect to the most salient challenges we face - financial/economic - he had the best platform and most concrete proposals to actually get something done.
Huntsman’s proposed reform to wage war on “Too Big Too Fail” financial institutions was exceptional. Finally, a conservative with something more than generic platitudes about reform in this area. Also, Huntsman’s tax plan broadening the tax base and lowering marginal tax rates (while eliminating a bunch of deductions) was wise and yet bold policy.[/quote]
Too bad he gave off the impression that he hated the base.
Let me add:
He obviously can get people to look beyond their petty differences and to see a “greater good” (BOY do we need that in Washington…)
And this is not just some platitude. I read that as Governor of Utah…perhaps the most Conservative State in the Union…he got them to seriously look at some very business-unfriendly liqour laws in order to make them more business/tourist friendly. (Lama can probably comment more first-hand on this. My understanding is that the laws can be pretty “strange”, and seem to change by the minute, according to the author).
He also was instrumental in bringing High Tech business to Utah.
As Bolt said, he simply has a long record of TRULY getting things done.
(sigh. Oh, well! He ain’t gonna’ be President!)
Mufasa
“…Too bad he gave off the impression that he hated the base…”
The man is Conservative, Sloth…
And “the base” was not happy when he said (paraphrasing) that he would not sign any promise or pledge (which most of the other candidates had done) because the only “pledge” or promises he would make were to His God, his Wife and to His Country.
He also went on to say that “locking oneself” into promises was a sure way to prevent someone from getting anything done in Washington.
Mufasa
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Too bad he gave off the impression that he hated the base.[/quote]
Yes, this was a dumb, unforced error. Even if he didn’t “like” the base, you don’t go beating that drum in the primaries. Or ever, really, but certainly not in the primaries. That was just bad strategy, and it hurt him right out of the gate.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
And “the base” was not happy when he said (paraphrasing) that he would not sign any promise or pledge (which most of the other candidates had done) because the only “pledge” or promises he would make were to His God, his Wife and to His Country. [/quote]
And this is a fair point as well - while I think Huntsman handled his mood on the base poorly, no doubt he was irritated at the incredibly stupid litmus test politics they were trying to impose on him (and other candidates).
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Too bad he gave off the impression that he hated the base…”
The man is Conservative, Sloth…
And “the base” was not happy when he said (paraphrasing) that he would not sign any promise or pledge (which most of the other candidates had done) because the only “pledge” or promises he would make were to His God, his Wife and to His Country.
He also went on to say that “locking oneself” into promises was a sure way to prevent someone from getting anything done in Washington.
Mufasa[/quote]
He wanted to run in the republican primary while claiming to be THE conservative on stage. His failure to sign such pledges was bewildering. He campaigned as a conservative. If he can make pledges to His Country, he can make them to the base he’s asking to put him into such a position.
And no, he wasn’t going to get the Democrats in DC to look past party. There’s isn’t/wasn’t a candidate capable of doing such. Next, you’ll claim he could walk on water.
Well he didn’t…
So now you’ve got Newt, Mitt and Rick to rally around…
Mufasa
And I’ll leave the Water Walking to Santorum…
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
And I’ll leave the Water Walking to Santorum…
Mufasa[/quote]
Santorum’s social views aren’t really any different than what Huntsman’s supposedly were, no? Anti-gay marriage, pro-life.