Go, Rudy! Go!

[MC_sp3]

mc jagbag,

I haven’t had the “pleasure” of your input.

Now that you’ve joined, I have a feeling of nostalgia.

Nostalgia for yesterday.

You know, the day before I knew you existed.

I was thinking of mentioning which factors were more important in this race. However, I decided that you were just some dink who revels in other’s shortcomings.

Soon, I hope someone laughs in your face. Further, I hope you fail at something that is very important to you.

JeffR

Thanks for the kind words buddy.
Honestly, was Rudy’s defeat actually a surprise to you?

Successful Republican presidential campaigns have all followed a similar formula since Ronald Reagan:
1)Early in the campaign the successful candidate stakes out positions further to the right. They embrace core conservative constituencies and shore up support among their base.
The “trick” at this stage is to appear to voters as “the real conservative” without going too far and coming off as a nutcase.

2)As the field is narrowed, the successful candidate gravitates towards the center in order to avoid alienating Dem and Independent voters in the upcoming general election. At this stage it’s essential that the candidate avoid contradicting plans and statements made during the earlier portion of the campaign. Instead the candidate “reaches across party lines” and pledges to work with the opposition on problems that are of immediate concern to the electorate, ie. economic stimulus, health care reform, etc. This is the stage where the candidate extends his appeal to working class Americans who may be leaning Democratic.

3. In general the hard-core base is accepting of this center movement if they have been properly pandered to and promised a few goodies in the future, ie. conservative judges.

Rudy’s campaign, in contrast, followed a completely back asswards approach. He did not shore up early support. He did not round up well known endorsements early in the game. And he did not contest any of the early primaries, which although they produce few delegates they are extremely important for maintaining the momentum of the national campaign. It’s possible that he may have faired well in the general election, but he’ll never have that chance because either his campaign staff are inept, or he completely ignored the dynamics of the primaries.

BTW, since your other pick was Fred Thompson I seriously question your political acumen. He may be a nice guy but that campaign was a slow motion train-wreck from the very beginning.
Aside from ridiculing Ron Paul supporters(many of whom deserve it) I get the impression that you really don’t have a clue. Just another shrill-voiced keyboard commando.

I know that the room is full of children, but you are not the only grown-up present. However, your attitude makes it difficult to differentiate you from the kiddies you despise.

I hope your day will be as great as mine.
Take care.

[MC_sp3]

mc jagbag,

I haven’t had the “pleasure” of your input.

Now that you’ve joined, I have a feeling of nostalgia.

Nostalgia for yesterday.

You know, the day before I knew you existed.

I was thinking of mentioning which factors were more important in this race. However, I decided that you were just some dink who revels in other’s shortcomings.

Soon, I hope someone laughs in your face. Further, I hope you fail at something that is very important to you.

JeffR

Thanks for the kind words buddy.
Honestly, was Rudy’s defeat actually a surprise to you?

Successful Republican presidential campaigns have all followed a similar formula since Ronald Reagan:
1)Early in the campaign the successful candidate stakes out positions further to the right. They embrace core conservative constituencies and shore up support among their base.
The “trick” at this stage is to appear to voters as “the real conservative” without going too far and coming off as a nutcase.

2)As the field is narrowed, the successful candidate gravitates towards the center in order to avoid alienating Dem and Independent voters in the upcoming general election. At this stage it’s essential that the candidate avoid contradicting plans and statements made during the earlier portion of the campaign. Instead the candidate “reaches across party lines” and pledges to work with the opposition on problems that are of immediate concern to the electorate, ie. economic stimulus, health care reform, etc. This is the stage where the candidate extends his appeal to working class Americans who may be leaning Democratic.

3. In general the hard-core base is accepting of this center movement if they have been properly pandered to and promised a few goodies in the future, ie. conservative judges.

Rudy’s campaign, in contrast, followed a completely back asswards approach. He did not shore up early support. He did not round up well known endorsements early in the game. And he did not contest any of the early primaries, which although they produce few delegates they are extremely important for maintaining the momentum of the national campaign. It’s possible that he may have faired well in the general election, but he’ll never have that chance because either his campaign staff are inept, or he completely ignored the dynamics of the primaries.

BTW, since your other pick was Fred Thompson I seriously question your political acumen. He may be a nice guy but that campaign was a slow motion train-wreck from the very beginning.
Aside from ridiculing Ron Paul supporters(many of whom deserve it) I get the impression that you really don’t have a clue. Just another shrill-voiced keyboard commando.

I know that the room is full of children, but you are not the only grown-up present. However, your attitude makes it difficult to differentiate you from the kiddies you despise.

I hope your day will be as great as mine.
Take care.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]storey420 wrote:

My reference to Paul in JeffR’s post was that he felt Rudy would surely trounce Paul as indicated in prior posts that’s all but at least Paul has garnered second place in two primaries.[/quote]

Rudy would trounce Paul - this is debatable?

Rudy opted to forgo early states - a strategic mistake, I think. But that says nothing about his position versus Paul - because the voting category of “everyone else” - the huge contingent of non-Paul voters - split their votes among the legitimate candidates. Rudy could have went after this piece of the electorate, but chose not to. Paul tried like hell to get “everyone else” to vote for him - and “everyone else” rolled their eyes and went with someone else.

How many did Rudy get? Fred? Not saying that he’s going to win or anything but Fred’s definitely earns more of a “zilch of a campaign” title

Why this obsession with Fred? Why are you still talking about Fred and Paul, neither of whom is a candidate?

Fred’s campaign was going be done on his terms, win or lose. As it turns out, he lost. Early lethargy and not preparing for the presidency a year or more before hurt his chances in the modern electoral cycle.

Sad part is - Fred had a chance to win, and didn’t. And there have been rumors that had Fred stayed in, he could prevailed in a brokered convention. Paul has never had a chance to win. At all.

So what? If the last two men standing for the GOP was either Fred or Rudy versus Ron Paul, who do you think would win? A better question - just how big would the landslide be?

You seem to want to cheerlead Paul no matter what - he has never been a viable candidate. Rudy was - he was the frontrunner for most all of 2007. Clearly that pains you - and clearly that’s too bad.

[storey420]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
storey420 wrote:

My reference to Paul in JeffR’s post was that he felt Rudy would surely trounce Paul as indicated in prior posts that’s all but at least Paul has garnered second place in two primaries.

Rudy would trounce Paul - this is debatable?

Rudy opted to forgo early states - a strategic mistake, I think. But that says nothing about his position versus Paul - because the voting category of “everyone else” - the huge contingent of non-Paul voters - split their votes among the legitimate candidates. Rudy could have went after this piece of the electorate, but chose not to. Paul tried like hell to get “everyone else” to vote for him - and “everyone else” rolled their eyes and went with someone else.

How many did Rudy get? Fred? Not saying that he’s going to win or anything but Fred’s definitely earns more of a “zilch of a campaign” title

Why this obsession with Fred? Why are you still talking about Fred and Paul, neither of whom is a candidate?

Fred’s campaign was going be done on his terms, win or lose. As it turns out, he lost. Early lethargy and not preparing for the presidency a year or more before hurt his chances in the modern electoral cycle.

Sad part is - Fred had a chance to win, and didn’t. And there have been rumors that had Fred stayed in, he could prevailed in a brokered convention. Paul has never had a chance to win. At all.

So what? If the last two men standing for the GOP was either Fred or Rudy versus Ron Paul, who do you think would win? A better question - just how big would the landslide be?

You seem to want to cheerlead Paul no matter what - he has never been a viable candidate. Rudy was - he was the frontrunner for most all of 2007. Clearly that pains you - and clearly that’s too bad.[/quote]

Of course Rudy trouncing paul is debatable. In fact were they the only two candidates going and the media HAD to give him equal coverage (which conspiracy BS aside, he definitely has not gotten equal coverage) then yes I would debate that Paul might just trounce Rudy. His ideas are much better than Rudy’s leaning towards a fascist police state and his general slimy presence.

My point is that while Paul has not had a chance given the current state of affairs it doesn’t mean, for many people, aww shucks I guess I’ll just give up my vote and choose the least shitty of the scumbag choices I’ve been given. Either way my vote has descended into the “anyone but Hillary” category at this point.

[lixy]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But that says nothing about his position versus Paul - because the voting category of “everyone else” - the huge contingent of non-Paul voters - split their votes among the legitimate candidates. [/quote]

Again with this “legitimate candidates” crap?

Bastard!

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Of course Rudy trouncing paul is debatable. In fact were they the only two candidates going and the media HAD to give him equal coverage (which conspiracy BS aside, he definitely has not gotten equal coverage) then yes I would debate that Paul might just trounce Rudy. His ideas are much better than Rudy’s leaning towards a fascist police state and his general slimy presence. [/quote]

And this shows your level of foolishness and hubris - Paul’s ideas, while so very dear to you, had very little mainstream traction. Most people realize this. The fact you claim “Paul’s ideas are much better” as the basis for “trouncing Rudy” demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about - and you can’t separate what you want to be the case from what really is the case.

This is the common trend of Paul supporters. Complete detachment from the real world.

My point is that while Paul has not had a chance given the current state of affairs it doesn’t mean, for many people, aww shucks I guess I’ll just give up my vote and choose the least shitty of the scumbag choices I’ve been given. Either way my vote has descended into the “anyone but Hillary” category at this point.

Paul has had every chance - he’s been in every debate, he has the internet - there has been no shortage of noise regarding Paul. The sad fact is Paul supporters keep comforting themselves by pretending that the failure of Paul’s candidacy was always something - anything - other than the substance of his ideas - always scapegoating the media, the Republican Establishment, whoever.

Like the children they are, the True Believes whine that there is always some excuse why the One True Hero of Truth couldn’t get his perfect message out. How about growing up and facing the reality that Paul’s fringe brand of politics are the problem?

No, instead it is…wait for it…someone else’s fault!

Always, always, always.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]lixy wrote:

Again with this “legitimate candidates” crap?[/quote]

Paul has never been, nor ever will be a legitimate candidate for President of the United States. Any rational person would be able to see that.

Nor was Dennis Kucinich. Those of us with a functioning brain stem knew this since the beginning.

Bastard!

Poor Lixy - it’s always kind of sad when you start tearing up. Always with the tantrums - what’s the matter, the trust fund check not come in this month?

Stay classy.

[MC_sp3]

I thought this thread was about Rudy, not not Ron Paul.

Come on people do you have to inject Paul into every fucking thread. I’m beginning to understand why there is so much bashing of Paul supporters. You guy really need to learn how to keep your arguments topical.

Don’t let Jeff have all the fun. Is anyone else actually surprised by Rudy’s defeat and if so, why?

I believe that his campaign was poorly ran, that he strayed from tried and true GOP primary strategy, and that on the wedge issues he identified himself as moderate to center-left much to early for a R primary candidate.

Does anyone else have a cogent point of view on this?
Or is it more of Ron Paul time, all the time?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]MC sp3 wrote:

I thought this thread was about Rudy, not not Ron Paul.[/quote]

Correct.

Come on people do you have to inject Paul into every fucking thread. I’m beginning to understand why there is so much bashing of Paul supporters. You guy really need to learn how to keep your arguments topical.

Preach on.

Don’t let Jeff have all the fun. Is anyone else actually surprised by Rudy’s defeat and if so, why?

I am surprised - but part of the space that Rudy was supposed to occupy was the artificially inflated candidacy of Huckabee (thanks Iowa). Not that there is a perfect overlap between the kinds of voters attract - there’s certainly not - but suddenly Huckabee became a huge part of the election “narrative”, which crowded out Rudy, who didn’t participate in Iowa.

[quote]I believe that his campaign was poorly ran, that he strayed from tried and true GOP primary strategy, and that on the wedge issues he identified himself as moderate to center-left much to early for a R primary candidate.

Does anyone else have a cogent point of view on this?
Or is it more of Ron Paul time, all the time?[/quote]

I think Rudy is a fantastic “New York Republican” who was going to struggle in the Heartland. Unfortunately, that is where the first primaries are. He was likely going to fare well in the big, urban areas - but by the time they rolled around, there was simply too much momentum from too many other candidates from the earlier primaries.

In retrospect, I think he should have taken a shot at the Heartland - after all, what could it have hurt? His tough foreign policy and his impressive public administration resume might have earned him more momentum heading into the big urban areas.

I think he gambled and lost, but it was a fair gamble, given his weaknesses in those areas - but it was pretty uphill to begin with.

[storey420]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
storey420 wrote:

Of course Rudy trouncing paul is debatable. In fact were they the only two candidates going and the media HAD to give him equal coverage (which conspiracy BS aside, he definitely has not gotten equal coverage) then yes I would debate that Paul might just trounce Rudy. His ideas are much better than Rudy’s leaning towards a fascist police state and his general slimy presence.

And this shows your level of foolishness and hubris - Paul’s ideas, while so very dear to you, had very little mainstream traction. Most people realize this. The fact you claim “Paul’s ideas are much better” as the basis for “trouncing Rudy” demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about - and you can’t separate what you want to be the case from what really is the case.

This is the common trend of Paul supporters. Complete detachment from the real world.

My point is that while Paul has not had a chance given the current state of affairs it doesn’t mean, for many people, aww shucks I guess I’ll just give up my vote and choose the least shitty of the scumbag choices I’ve been given. Either way my vote has descended into the “anyone but Hillary” category at this point.

Paul has had every chance - he’s been in every debate, he has the internet - there has been no shortage of noise regarding Paul. The sad fact is Paul supporters keep comforting themselves by pretending that the failure of Paul’s candidacy was always something - anything - other than the substance of his ideas - always scapegoating the media, the Republican Establishment, whoever.

Like the children they are, the True Believes whine that there is always some excuse why the One True Hero of Truth couldn’t get his perfect message out. How about growing up and facing the reality that Paul’s fringe brand of politics are the problem?

No, instead it is…wait for it…someone else’s fault!

Always, always, always.[/quote]

Wow have you shown your true colors here which is I’m sure why you always have generals as your avatars. YOUR OPINION IS NOT FACT. Just because you think it is one way does not make it so. I merely said that were they the only two remaining that yes, it is debatable who would win, to say otherwise means that you are in fact the delusional one as though your opinion is the end all be all.

Don’t compare the votes in FL to this situation as you were the one that created this fictional dialogue of “Rudy would trounce Paul” mano y mano. In this fictional scenario anyone who still does not know who Ron paul is (many people still derive their only information from what they are spoonfed) would be forced with a 50/50 choice. In that case the vote would be “more of the same” Rudy or “moonbat but at least he’s honest and there would be a change” Paul.

I have no problem saying that it is up for debate what the American populace would choose. YOU are the one so blinded by your contempt for Paul taht you can’t even entertain the debatability of your own statement. I can at least concede that Rudy would have a chance to beat Paul.

Secondly, I never said he hasn’t had tremendous media coverage just that it wasn’t equal on the mainstream outlets. On the day he broke Kerry’s contribution record, three of the 4 major news sites I visit didn’t even have that listed but rather had front page stories on minor issues from other candidates. Regardless of the margin in Nevada, he came in second. I didn’t (nor did anyone at the conference I was attending) hear about that on CNN, Headline News, or Fox but a few days later in South Carolina, I sure as hell heard about the second place candidate.

Oh and I have to waffle. I just can’t vote for McCain at this point with the 2nd amendment issues. God damn I hope this doesn’t mean voting for the original waffle master Romney.

[Sloth]

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Oh and I have to waffle. I just can’t vote for McCain at this point with the 2nd amendment issues. God damn I hope this doesn’t mean voting for the original waffle master Romney.

[/quote]

Vote for who you want. Don’t get trapped in the whole “gee, I gotta make sure the R’s win over the D’s.” Vote for who you think is good for this country and stick with it. Besides, I doubt any Republican nominee has much of a chance this time around. They’re going to ride the Iraq war and their mid-east policies right into oblivion. The next US president will be pulling out the troops.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Wow have you shown your true colors here which is I’m sure why you always have generals as your avatars. YOUR OPINION IS NOT FACT.[/quote]

I have no idea what the generals-as-avatars means, but I have never suggested my opinions are facts - they are opinions.

Just because you think it is one way does not make it so. I merely said that were they the only two remaining that yes, it is debatable who would win, to say otherwise means that you are in fact the delusional one as though your opinion is the end all be all.

Let’s see - you think your opinion is right, and that is ok, but me thinking my opinion is right, and I am delusional?

I don’t think it is debatable who would win - and I have some pretty good non-opinion backing up my opinion.

In this fictional scenario anyone who still does not know who Ron paul is (many people still derive their only information from what they are spoonfed) would be forced with a 50/50 choice.

Your problem is that you have diminishing returns - the more people find out about Paul, the less they like him.

In that case the vote would be “more of the same” Rudy or “moonbat but at least he’s honest and there would be a change” Paul. I have no problem saying that it is up for debate what the American populace would choose.

And you would be wrong - Rudy appeals to people as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative with a reputation for being a very food public administrator.

Paul appeals to people who want to return to the gold standard, isolationism in fact, “blowback” nonsense, and a dismantling, not merely reducing, of the federal government.

Now which archetype do you think would play better with the “American populace”?

Be serious. Paul is good for a foil, but his excesses damn him to the margins. They always have.

YOU are the one so blinded by your contempt for Paul taht you can’t even entertain the debatability of your own statement. I can at least concede that Rudy would have a chance to beat Paul.

It’s not that I have a particularly high level of contempt for Paul - I actually don’t - I just know his very real limitations (and there are plenty). He brings a good, quirky voice to the House, but he was never Presidential timber. And his politics brought to fruition are dangerously naive.

The contempt I have is for his half-informed followers who have exaggerated Paul’s abilities or chances over and over, despite what common sense and intellectual honesty should be telling them, and their jettisoning reasonable debate in favor of histrionics and mind-numbing ideological blindness.

Paul is basically who he says he is - I am ok with that. He is no less than that, but is no more than that either. Paul is essentially the GOP’s Dennis Kucinich - and I put their chances of debating and beating a mainstream candidate at about the same: very, very bad.

Secondly, I never said he hasn’t had tremendous media coverage just that it wasn’t equal on the mainstream outlets. On the day he broke Kerry’s contribution record, three of the 4 major news sites I visit didn’t even have that listed but rather had front page stories on minor issues from other candidates.

Because it isn’t all that newsworthy - Paul isn’t a legitimate candidate. It’s not breaking news. Name anyone who cares - with the exception of Paul’s followers.

Regardless of the margin in Nevada, he came in second. I didn’t (nor did anyone at the conference I was attending) hear about that on CNN, Headline News, or Fox but a few days later in South Carolina, I sure as hell heard about the second place candidate.

Because the second place candidate in SC is in the running. Use your brain - the media are going to follow and report the big stories that are going to impact the actual election in 2008 - you know, the real big one? Paul hasn’t done anything to warrant any news coverage because he simply matters very little.

Notice, also, how the TV media covered very little of Paul’s sordid history of the racist newsletters - it was a blip, at best - it was mostly talked about on the internet. Why? Because it was a tempest in a thimble - it makes a candidate who has zero chance of winning the presidency look worse…so what is less than a zero chance of winning?

Paul isn’t a story any more - he had his fun, his followers got to feel all proud and romantic about his grassroots candidacy and, in furtherance of that, write some of the dumbest things ever recorded in the history of the internet. It was entertaining. Move on.

[lixy]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The next US president will be pulling out the troops.[/quote]

Given that most Americans have been asking for that very thing, your statement is in accordance with what one would expect from a democratic state.

I’m sure nobody wants to hear that, and it pains me to say it, but it won’t make that much of a difference. Iraqis will be pissed at the US for destroying their country. Al-Qaeda will claim that it defeated the enemy. The Saudis will step up the repression of the Shi’ites, and the Iranians will certainly react to that.

I don’t doubt that Democrats can eat Republicans alive this time around, but I doubt any of them will get American troops out of the country. Obama seems sincere, but I just don’t see him getting all the American military out of Iraq. Hillary even less…

One thing is certain: It will take a long long time to repair the damage Bush has done.

[storey420]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
storey420 wrote:
Oh and I have to waffle. I just can’t vote for McCain at this point with the 2nd amendment issues. God damn I hope this doesn’t mean voting for the original waffle master Romney.

Vote for who you want. Don’t get trapped in the whole “gee, I gotta make sure the R’s win over the D’s.” Vote for who you think is good for this country and stick with it. Besides, I doubt any Republican nominee has much of a chance this time around. They’re going to ride the Iraq war and their mid-east policies right into oblivion. The next US president will be pulling out the troops.[/quote]

No I’m with you Sloth and I really want to write Paul in but I just cannot let Hillary’s reich take over.

[Mikeyali]

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
storey420 wrote:
Oh and I have to waffle. I just can’t vote for McCain at this point with the 2nd amendment issues. God damn I hope this doesn’t mean voting for the original waffle master Romney.

Vote for who you want. Don’t get trapped in the whole “gee, I gotta make sure the R’s win over the D’s.” Vote for who you think is good for this country and stick with it. Besides, I doubt any Republican nominee has much of a chance this time around. They’re going to ride the Iraq war and their mid-east policies right into oblivion. The next US president will be pulling out the troops.

No I’m with you Sloth and I really want to write Paul in but I just cannot let Hillary’s reich take over.[/quote]

I don’t understand. Who then will you vote for? You can’t say Romney if you’re an RKBA voter. He signed an assault weapons ban and said he’d do it again. Who are you voting for then bro?

mike

[storey420]

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
storey420 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
storey420 wrote:
Oh and I have to waffle. I just can’t vote for McCain at this point with the 2nd amendment issues. God damn I hope this doesn’t mean voting for the original waffle master Romney.

Vote for who you want. Don’t get trapped in the whole “gee, I gotta make sure the R’s win over the D’s.” Vote for who you think is good for this country and stick with it. Besides, I doubt any Republican nominee has much of a chance this time around. They’re going to ride the Iraq war and their mid-east policies right into oblivion. The next US president will be pulling out the troops.

No I’m with you Sloth and I really want to write Paul in but I just cannot let Hillary’s reich take over.

I don’t understand. Who then will you vote for? You can’t say Romney if you’re an RKBA voter. He signed an assault weapons ban and said he’d do it again. Who are you voting for then bro?

mike[/quote]

Its a tough call Mikey. I saw your other thread and I’m just like who the hell do I vote for? Write in Paul and vote ideals? I write in an independent last time because Bush and Kerry were/are both douchebags and Bush still swayed the masses.

There is not one single candidate I agree with even 75% including Paul but at least he is the only one that I don’t feel like I’m being lied to outright. I truly believe, based on past transgressions, that Hillary is out to take down our 2nd amendment rights, which to me is the huge f-ing sign that it is time to exit America stage left.

[storey420]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

A bunch of tripe. [/quote]

Mmmleeghh. What is the point. Its not debate when the one side wants to debate that debating is even an option.

I have respected your opinion on many things on this forum but unfortunately we’ll just have to disagree on this one.