Presidental Straw Poll

[Tiribulus]

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
I’d guess it’s going to be an unknown too.
It’s early. The electoral mood is anti-incumbent. It makes the most sense to pick up a governor with little Washington experience. And everybody in the running has drawbacks.

Sarah Palin has high negative ratings. Romney is too liberal for the base, and has the RomneyCare issue and the Mormon issue. Newt Gingrich is old and did his most important work more than a decade ago. Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul.

I like Paul best, actually. I’m now, belatedly and ashamedly, antiwar, and for that reason I’m very reluctant to vote to reelect Obama. But it’s all pretty hopeless. [/quote]
Pretty good AlisaV.

Except the last part. I am 4 war. I hope we find as many as possible to get into and the sooner the better.

I would give just about anything to see footage of Obama’s face during those first few security briefings when it became painfully clear that his “all we need is love” schoolboy fantasy came crashing down on his head.

[cremaster]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

but I assure you that Ron Paul has ZERO chance of becoming President. I would give some very large odds and a lot of money on that. He hasn’t got it and will NEVER be the candidate.
[/quote]

The worse “it” gets, the more likely him becoming a candidate becomes.
Thats my thoughts.[/quote]

I’ll try to be as clear as I possibly can; Ron Paul will never become, ever. He looks like a withered old man and comes off as cranky and at times darn right hostile. The vast middle of the road voter (that everyone tries to get) will steer as far away from Ron Paul as one would who was driving near a cliff.

If things get worse another star will emerge with experience that will become the next President.

This whole Ron Paul things would be funny if not so stupid.
[/quote]

Zeb is right, the worse ‘it’ gets, the better Paul’s chances become.

Remember after four years of the ‘original’ Carter, independents voted for the least-like-Carter candidate they could find - Reagan.

This time around, the independents will abandon Carter 2, and vote for his opposite.
Romney will be like Bush 1 - seen as a middle of the road, ‘Country Club’ Republican.

[Bill_Roberts]

Giuliani showed that he didn’t know how to run a campaign: aside from the “sit out Iowa and NH” strategy being dumb, it seemed that all he ever had to say was what he HAD done in New York City.

Which was, economically, remarkable. He did turn around an enormous mess.

But in Presidential elections voters don’t want to hear the resume over and over: they want to hear what the candidate is GOING to do, and Giuliani never had anything to say about that to any extent worth mentioning.

He still doesn’t seem to realize his errors there.

And then there’s the fact that his “social” stance will result in not winning Republican primaries.

But in terms of who, of those considered candidates, has the actual experience in turning around financial disasters, I don’t see how he could not be considered the most qualified of the lot.

[AlisaV]

Chic, not really. (When have I ever been chic?)

I was a teenager when the war started and I didn’t really do anything about it. My one and only goal in life was getting into college and I didn’t want anything in my reputation that would remotely class me as a troublemaker. So, no protests. Not proud of it, but then again, I was a very naive and timid kid.

Now, I’m just ashamed. Americans are dying, many of us have found it easy to say “Out of sight, out of mind,” and I still have no idea what is to be done. It sort of came home to me when a friend, whose life hasn’t been as fortunate as mine, told me about some experiences with the war. To me, nothing, no principle or ideal, is more important than making sure no harm comes to my friend. He would disagree. I don’t really care. I don’t know much about war, but I know that I damn well want no risk, no grief, no pain to come to the people I care about. It’s not even morality so much as pure mama-bear rage and protectiveness.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
<<< It’s not even morality so much as pure mama-bear rage and protectiveness. [/quote]
I will give you sincere credit for recognizing this.

You have a lot left to learn about life my dear. There’s no way to say that on a forum like this where you can’t see my face or hear my voice without it sounding flippant and condescending. I really don’t mean it that way. Just wait til you hold your first child of your own in your arms. You ain’t seen nuthin yet. You may be taken quite aback at how you find yourself reconsidering a whole list of views you once believed to be so clear.

[ZEB]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Ronald Reagan was Governor of California before he was President and he wasn’t even a blip on the Presidential radar screen two and a half years out. [/quote]

No: for example Reagan very nearly took the Republican nomination in 1976 (he had 1070 delegates, Ford had 1187).

That is 4 years out.[/quote]

You’re right four years out, but not two and a half. Because of Reagan taking it to Ford many with in the republican party were blaming him for weakening Gerald Ford who later lost a very close election to Jimmy Carter. Hence, Reagan was thought of as being on the outs with the party and as I said, was not even a blip on the Presidential radar screen two and a half years out.

[ZEB]

[quote]cremaster wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

but I assure you that Ron Paul has ZERO chance of becoming President. I would give some very large odds and a lot of money on that. He hasn’t got it and will NEVER be the candidate.
[/quote]

The worse “it” gets, the more likely him becoming a candidate becomes.
Thats my thoughts.[/quote]

I’ll try to be as clear as I possibly can; Ron Paul will never become, ever. He looks like a withered old man and comes off as cranky and at times darn right hostile. The vast middle of the road voter (that everyone tries to get) will steer as far away from Ron Paul as one would who was driving near a cliff.

If things get worse another star will emerge with experience that will become the next President.

This whole Ron Paul things would be funny if not so stupid.
[/quote]

Zeb is right, the worse ‘it’ gets, the better Paul’s chances become.

Remember after four years of the ‘original’ Carter, independents voted for the least-like-Carter candidate they could find - Reagan.

This time around, the independents will abandon Carter 2, and vote for his opposite.
Romney will be like Bush 1 - seen as a middle of the road, ‘Country Club’ Republican.
[/quote]

I never said the worse it gets the better Paul’s chances. Paul has NO chance. Remember me as the guy who said Paul never had a chance and will never have a chance to become President. I also said this in the previous Presidential election and the hard heads who love Paul never listened.

[Bill_Roberts]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Ronald Reagan was Governor of California before he was President and he wasn’t even a blip on the Presidential radar screen two and a half years out. [/quote]

No: for example Reagan very nearly took the Republican nomination in 1976 (he had 1070 delegates, Ford had 1187).

That is 4 years out.[/quote]

You’re right four years out, but not two and a half. Because of Reagan taking it to Ford many with in the republican party were blaming him for weakening Gerald Ford who later lost a very close election to Jimmy Carter. Hence, Reagan was thought of as being on the outs with the party and as I said, was not even a blip on the Presidential radar screen two and a half years out. [/quote]

Well, anyone can have any opinion whatsoever but a claim that Reagan was big on the radar screen 4 years prior, but 2 1/2 years prior wasn’t a blip suggests to me that you weren’t around at the time.

(I don’t recall your age and so I don’t know if that’s factually correct, but it seems the most likely explanation.)

The idea that Reagan supporters forgot about him and/or no longer considered him a prime or even likely candidate for the reason you state is just incorrect.

[AlisaV]

Tiribulus and Push, you’re nice gents, and you’re right, things may change when I’m older and have different experiences. I’m open to learning. I’m serious enough about this that I’m not conceding the point, but sure, I have no idea who I’ll be in fifteen years.

[ZEB]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
ZEB wrote:Bill Roberts
wroteZEB wrote:

Ronald Reagan was Governor of California before he was President and he wasn’t even a blip on the Presidential radar screen two and a half years out.

No: for example Reagan very nearly took the Republican nomination in 1976 (he had 1070 delegates, Ford had 1187).

That is 4 years out.
You’re right four years out, but not two and a half. Because of Reagan taking it to Ford many with in the republican party were blaming him for weakening Gerald Ford who later lost a very close election to Jimmy Carter. Hence, Reagan was thought of as being on the outs with the party and as I said, was not even a blip on the Presidential radar screen two and a half years out.

Well, anyone can have any opinion whatsoever but a claim that Reagan was big on the radar screen 4 years prior, but 2 1/2 years prior wasn’t a blip suggests to me that you weren’t around at the time.[/quote]

Before I say anything else I just want to thank you for this comment. If I were not around in 1980 that would mean that I am under 30 years old right now. I just want to savor that one.

The idea that Reagan supporters forgot about him and/or no longer considered him a prime or even likely candidate for the reason you state is just incorrect.

Maybe you are the one that was not “around” in 1980. I voted for Reagan twice and remember very clearly how ticked off the republicans were at him after he literally harpooned Fords chances of defeating Carter. I spoke with my states conservative chairman over this exact issue in the late 70’s and he was mad at the republican state chairman as there was a conspiracy brewing to keep him (Reagan) far away from the nomination in 1980. On top of that Reagan himself thought that he would not have a chance as he blew his opportunity trying to unseat Ford. Furthermore, they thought age was going to be a factor and didn’t think that Reagan could overcome that disadvantage. The leading candidates 2 1/2 years out were former CIA director George Bush, Senate minority leader Howard Baker and former Gov. of Texas John Connally.

For these reasons Reagan was viewed as a non-candidate 2 1/2 years out from the 1980 Presidential race. I was there I saw it, I lived it and I remember it well.

[dmaddox]

Who would you all vote for? Ron Paul vs Obama, or Mitt Romney vs Obama. No matter who goes up against Obama, the conservatives will unit and vote against Obama. Obama has shown his true colors. No person in the US will allow any red herring Obama throughs out to say he is not a liberal. Obama is going to try really hard to start making himself look like a middle of the road guy, but everyone knows he is not.

[Bill_Roberts]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
ZEB wrote:Bill Roberts
wroteZEB wrote:

Ronald Reagan was Governor of California before he was President and he wasn’t even a blip on the Presidential radar screen two and a half years out.

No: for example Reagan very nearly took the Republican nomination in 1976 (he had 1070 delegates, Ford had 1187).

That is 4 years out.
You’re right four years out, but not two and a half. Because of Reagan taking it to Ford many with in the republican party were blaming him for weakening Gerald Ford who later lost a very close election to Jimmy Carter. Hence, Reagan was thought of as being on the outs with the party and as I said, was not even a blip on the Presidential radar screen two and a half years out.

Well, anyone can have any opinion whatsoever but a claim that Reagan was big on the radar screen 4 years prior, but 2 1/2 years prior wasn’t a blip suggests to me that you weren’t around at the time.[/quote]

Before I say anything else I just want to thank you for this comment. If I were not around in 1980 that would mean that I am under 30 years old right now. I just want to savor that one.

The idea that Reagan supporters forgot about him and/or no longer considered him a prime or even likely candidate for the reason you state is just incorrect.

Maybe you are the one that was not “around” in 1980. I voted for Reagan twice and remember very clearly how ticked off the republicans were at him after he literally harpooned Fords chances of defeating Carter. I spoke with my states conservative chairman over this exact issue in the late 70’s and he was mad at the republican state chairman as there was a conspiracy brewing to keep him (Reagan) far away from the nomination in 1980. On top of that Reagan himself thought that he would not have a chance as he blew his opportunity trying to unseat Ford. Furthermore, they thought age was going to be a factor and didn’t think that Reagan could overcome that disadvantage. The leading candidates 2 1/2 years out were former CIA director George Bush, Senate minority leader Howard Baker and former Gov. of Texas John Connally.

For these reasons Reagan was viewed as a non-candidate 2 1/2 years out from the 1980 Presidential race. I was there I saw it, I lived it and I remember it well.

[/quote]

Sorry, I was around then too and your idea that he was off the radar is wrong.

You’re extrapolating from individuals you knew and are assuming it was widely across the board.

There were many who considered Ford a poor candidate, by no means wanted him to be the candidate in 1980, and still thought Reagan was the man for 1980.

I will grant that you didn’t happen to know any. But there was no lack of this.

I’m surprised that you don’t grant that your terminology “not even a blip on the radar,” which you’ve used twice, was over-reaching.

If you wanted to say he wasn’t seen as the front-runner 2.5 years out, that might well be a true statement.

But claiming “not even a blip” makes your statement wrong.

Throughout the entire Carter presidency, Reagan was still considered very seriously by very many. Maybe not those you knew personally. But you have extrapolated way too far.

[Vegita]

Would anyone vote for Andrew Napolitano? ZEB is old and grunpy and doesn’t think Ron Paul can win. I think he is dead wrong, but I really do not think I’m going to pull a republican lever if they throw a Romney, or Palin, or any other career politician whose voting record does not look like Ron Pauls in there. I know there are a lot of people who feel the same way.

So ZEB, while you say Ron Paul CAN’T win. Listen to me when I say this, if the GOP puts someone in who the Tea Partiers don’t fully endorse as a small government conservative, this country will get another 4 years of Obama. So sit up on your pedastal all you want, if we get Obama again, I’m blaming it on people like you. Our groups are making it pretty clear exactly what we find acceptable, we also have enough numbers to make some real noise. The only chance the GOP has is to bend to our will. I mean other than the choice of getting slaughtered in 2012.

At our local tea party meeting there was a guy who I think is a lot like you. He was our past town supervisor. Staunch republican, decent politician, made good conservative decisions. Here is the problem, he came to the meeting and started telling us that we can not succeed, that we will fail unless we come back in line with the republican party. We specifically said at the beginning of the meeting, Democrat, republican, independant, doesn’t matter, if they want the same things we wan’t and they will do what they say, we will support them.

I like ron paul, I like him because he has a LONG voting record in congress, anyone can pull the lever for him and KNOW he will do what he says, he is the only person you could put up there with that. ANYONE else there is going to be some doubt. BUT that being said, if a younger, “less angry”, better spoken candidate shows up with strong conservative small government values, I will have no problem voting for them. I just don’t see anyone coming foward yet who can fit that bill, so for now, Ron Paul is MY frontrunner.

V

[dmaddox]

Would Ron Paul endorse someone if he was not going to get the Party Nod? I like Ron Paul do not get me wrong, but unless he has muscles like Reagan he is not going to come across as electable by the middle or the left. Would this be enough for the Tea Party to change their mind? I am going to attend a Tea Party function here on April 15th and this will be my first political function to attend ever.

[cremaster]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]cremaster wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

but I assure you that Ron Paul has ZERO chance of becoming President. I would give some very large odds and a lot of money on that. He hasn’t got it and will NEVER be the candidate.
[/quote]

The worse “it” gets, the more likely him becoming a candidate becomes.
Thats my thoughts.[/quote]

I’ll try to be as clear as I possibly can; Ron Paul will never become, ever. He looks like a withered old man and comes off as cranky and at times darn right hostile. The vast middle of the road voter (that everyone tries to get) will steer as far away from Ron Paul as one would who was driving near a cliff.

If things get worse another star will emerge with experience that will become the next President.

This whole Ron Paul things would be funny if not so stupid.
[/quote]

Zeb is right, the worse ‘it’ gets, the better Paul’s chances become.

Remember after four years of the ‘original’ Carter, independents voted for the least-like-Carter candidate they could find - Reagan.

This time around, the independents will abandon Carter 2, and vote for his opposite.
Romney will be like Bush 1 - seen as a middle of the road, ‘Country Club’ Republican.
[/quote]

I never said the worse it gets the better Paul’s chances. Paul has NO chance. Remember me as the guy who said Paul never had a chance and will never have a chance to become President. I also said this in the previous Presidential election and the hard heads who love Paul never listened.

[/quote]

My mistake, I confused you and THE_CLAMP_DOWN.

You are wrong, he is right.

As your debate with Bill Roberts is making clear, you were too much of a Republican insider to see the appeal that Reagan had, and you are still too much of an insider to see that in 2012 the ‘Anti-Obama’ candidate will triumph. Romney (Obama-light)won’t cut it.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Tiribulus and Push, you’re nice gents, and you’re right, things may change when I’m older and have different experiences. I’m open to learning. I’m serious enough about this that I’m not conceding the point, but sure, I have no idea who I’ll be in fifteen years. [/quote]

Life will never be fair for as many people as you’d like.
Justice will never be extended equally to as many people as you’d like.
Under the very best of all possible human constructions some people will be screwed and it might be somebody you know or even you.
Any attempt to centrally coerce otherwise leads to at least some level of tyranny.
There will always be somebody who will find some reason for wanting to kill you no matter who you are and whether you deserve it or not. It may not be you personally, but there will always be somebody.
The existence of other people willing to kill and or die defending you from them is an unfortunately necessary and possibly painful blessing.
Unwisely smiling and extending your hand in such a world will get your ass shot off.

One day you will look into some mirror somewhere into your own eyes and the realization will come into focus that you were lied to in some of those classrooms and textbooks. It will be both heartbreaking and liberating.