if you’re a conservative, irrespective of who it is.
This post by Ilya Somin is aimed at McCain, but the argument excerpted below, which critiques the hope that a weak Democrat president would necessarily lead to a strengthened and more conservative GOP, would be applicable to either McCain or Romney:
[i]I am much less convinced by Michael’s argument that the cause of limited government will be better off in the long run if the Democrats win. Michael argues that, just as Jimmy Carter’s failures in office paved the way for Ronald Reagan, the shortcomings of a Hillary Clinton or Obama administration will pave the way for a Reaganite resurgence. By contrast, if McCain wins, the Republicans will end up adopting his pro-government agenda if he is politically successful or will be blamed for his shortcomings if he fails in office.
Maybe Michael is right. But Carter failed to win reelection in large part because he was the victim of circumstances outside his control: a severe recession and the emergence of foreign policy crises in Iran and Afghanistan. Had he been luckier and a more skillful politician, he might not have lost in 1980. In all three cases, Carter probably made a bad situation worse. But his bumbling would have been much less noticeable to the electorate if he had been blessed with better circumstances. By contrast, the next president will probably enjoy a favorable economy two or three years into his term (once the current pseudo-recession ends). And we don’t yet know how international events will play out. When you consider that Obama and Hillary are both more skillful politicians than Carter, and that Obama at least is highly charismatic, it’s quite possible that a Democratic president will enjoy considerable political success. Unlike Michael, I am not convinced that the Democrats will repeat the political mistakes of Bill Clinton’s first two years in office. They (especially Hillary) might well have learned from those errors and be more effective in enacting their agenda this time around.
The Dems might turn out to be a political success even if they adopt policies that cause great longterm harm (as I think is quite likely). The harm may not yet be apparent to voters in 2012 or even 2016. Even when it does become evident, rationally ignorant voters ( Knowledge About Ignorance: New Directions in the Study of Political Information by Ilya Somin :: SSRN ) might lack the knowledge necessary to connect it to the big government policies enacted by the Democrats years earlier.[/i]
Serious questions: Do you think McCain is more hell-bent on war than Bush? I don’t think he fits the “neo-con” label as well as Dubya, but his rhetoric coupled with his temper leaves a lot of questions unanswered. With Bush’s abysmal approval rates, isn’t it very unlikely that people would vote for more of the same?
Also, what kind of conservative supports amnesty for illegals?
The way I see it, if the Republicans want to stay in the White House they either need to cut terrorists some slack or downright stage a big attack and blame it on Iran or some other pigeon.
In the many months left to the actual elections, a lot could happen. With the current data I wouldn’t bet on the Republicans - even if Hillary gets the Democratic nomination.
The economy will keep going south. That much is indubitable. The rate at which the decline continues will determine whether Paul will have a shot or not. And if only Al-Sadr resumes the activities of his militia or more Iraqis start shooting at the foreign troops, Ron Paul may just be the next US president.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Serious questions: Do you think McCain is more hell-bent on war than Bush? I don’t think he fits the “neo-con” label as well as Dubya, but his rhetoric coupled with his temper leaves a lot of questions unanswered. With Bush’s abysmal approval rates, isn’t it very unlikely that people would vote for more of the same?
[/quote]
First: Don’t kid yourself - Paul has no shot, and he never has had a shot.
Second, you’re ignoring the frame of the question, which is imposed by the U.S. 2-party system: Given the other candidate with any chance of winning the presidency, is it better for a conservative to vote for the GOP nominee or to do something else?
So, w/r/t McCain, the question regarding illegal immigrants would be: Do you prefer McCain’s position or the position of Hillary/Obama (whoever happens to win the nomination)?
Same set up for any other issue.
And keep in mind, too, that the question needs to be considered in light of the almost surety that there will be a Democratic Congress for at least the first two years of the next Presidential term.
I had no intention to kid myself or anyone else for that matter. Just offered my analysis. The way things are, Ron Paul doesn’t stand much a chance. But a lot of things could change between now and the end of the year.
I can’t say what would make more sense for a “conservative”. I suppose that people who are content with the current state of affairs in Washington should vote for McCain (or whoever the nominee is). But…it would send a dangerous message.
The way things are, Ron Paul doesn’t stand much a chance. But a lot of things could change between now and the end of the year.[/quote]
That is exactly the point - your “analysis” is wrong. There is nothing that would change Paul’s chances between now and the end of the year. Both your posts suggest that Paul would have a chance if the economy gets softer or on the basis that “something could change”. Flatly wrong.
Paul has no chance - and he is irrelevant to the topic.
The way I see it, if the Republicans want to stay in the White House they either need to cut terrorists some slack or downright stage a big attack and blame it on Iran or some other pigeon.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Paul has no chance - and he is irrelevant to the topic.[/quote]
No he is not irrelevant. When he accepts a third party nomination he is going to “spoil” the GOP. No one in the GOP has any chance as long as Paul stays in the race.
He’ll even take votes away from Hillary.
The outcome of this election was determined the day Bush invaded Iraq…it’s pretty ironical and sad it is going to go to the democrat who is closest in line with Bush’s negligent foreign policy.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Serious questions: Do you think McCain is more hell-bent on war than Bush?
[/quote]
No, but he has vowed to see the Iraq war through to the end.
I will vote for whomever the Dems nominate; however, if McCain should win the General Election, I think, and hope, that he would not be as wreckless as Bush.
The kind that likes the cheap labor pool. That may not always be the case. Of course, some might see it as just a pragmatic necessity. I think this issue divides the Republican Party. On the one hand, you have those that like the cheap labor pool; on the other, you have middle and working class Republicans that, rightly or wrongly, believe that the “illegals” threaten their livelihood.
The other option, which is the card I am sure McCain is going to play, is to say that he has a military history and somehow that makes him more knowledgeable on how to deal with terrorism. He’ll trot out again how Hillary (if she gets the Dem nomination) voted for allocating money for a Woodstock Museum, whereas he was in a POW camp when Woodstock was going on. We’ll see endless glimpses of those videotapes of him in the Vietnamese POW camp.
[quote] The rate at which the decline continues will determine whether Paul will have a shot or not.
[/quote]
Paul has NO chance. Today we have a lot of the big primaries that should pretty much seal it for McCain. McCain will be the Republican nominee, unless something really disastrous happens to him (illness, etc).
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
First: Don’t kid yourself - Paul has no shot, and he never has had a shot.
Second, you’re ignoring the frame of the question, which is imposed by the U.S. 2-party system: Given the other candidate with any chance of winning the presidency, is it better for a conservative to vote for the GOP nominee or to do something else?
So, w/r/t McCain, the question regarding illegal immigrants would be: Do you prefer McCain’s position or the position of Hillary/Obama (whoever happens to win the nomination)?
Same set up for any other issue.
And keep in mind, too, that the question needs to be considered in light of the almost surety that there will be a Democratic Congress for at least the first two years of the next Presidential term.[/quote]
If I lived in a swing state, I would buy into this. Kansas is pretty much a guarantee for the GOP, so if McCain gets the nomination, I will strongly consider 3rd party.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The way I see it, if the Republicans want to stay in the White House they either need to cut terrorists some slack or downright stage a big attack and blame it on Iran or some other pigeon.
[/quote]
I notice that a lot of people believe that Bush and Cheney are going to stage another “attack” in an effort to remain in power. When this doesn’t happen, I wonder what will they will be saying then?
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
lixy wrote:
The way I see it, if the Republicans want to stay in the White House they either need to cut terrorists some slack or downright stage a big attack and blame it on Iran or some other pigeon.
I notice that a lot of people believe that Bush and Cheney are going to stage another “attack” in an effort to remain in power. [/quote]
I notice that you need to work on your reading comprehension.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
‘cut terrorists some slack’? WTF?
You know, the same way aircrafts managed to get to the WTC and the massive operation of Ben-Laden went unnoticed.
It’s not that hard to do. You just turn a blind eye when intelligence reaches your desk.[/quote]
Don’t start going down that path, Lixy. An intelligence failure is not a conspiracy. And there’s nothing mysterious about the airliners striking the WTC. For whatever it’s worth, I didn’t think you were into that crap.
[quote]lixy wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The outcome of this election was determined the day Bush invaded Iraq…
Heh. Where does Bush’s re-election fits into this theory?
[/quote]
All general elections have followed the same recipe. If one is independent, statistically, he or she will vote incumbent. After the second term comes to a close he or she will punish the party in power by voting for the the opposite party if there is a significant cause for it. If the president is beloved, like Regan was, then the independent voters will turn out in favor of the party. Bush I lost a second term because he raised taxes. Carter lost a second term because of economics and Iran.
General elections are never about the candidate but rather who they can blame for the countries woes. Bush II won a second term because independent voters were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on Iraq, despite the dubiousness of all the information we were fed.
You know, the same way aircrafts managed to get to the WTC and the massive operation of Ben-Laden went unnoticed.
It’s not that hard to do. You just turn a blind eye when intelligence reaches your desk.
Don’t start going down that path, Lixy. An intelligence failure is not a conspiracy. And there’s nothing mysterious about the airliners striking the WTC. For whatever it’s worth, I didn’t think you were into that crap.[/quote]
I didn’t say it was a conspiracy. What happened is total incompetence which one would not expect from a country spending more money on “defense” than the rest of the world combined.
A bomb on a subway or train is one thing. Allowing airliners to strike multiple targets (one of which twice) is negligence, pure and simple. 9/11 was a phenomenal fsck-up, and people have understandably tried to protect their necks so they kept a lot of things in the dark, which in turn led to the conspiracy theories we have today.
There are many things an administration can do to give the impression of preventing attacks. Take what’s happening right now for example: people entering the US legally are kept in custody while little is done about securing the borders. Does that make any sense? Is building military bases in Iraq more of a priority than protecting the damn borders?
I don’t think the incompetence that let 9/11 happen was malicious. It was just an example of what could be done should they chose to purposefully endanger the country.
How was 911 a big fuck up? If you recall the gov made all flights land within hours of the attack. Its kinda fucking hard to stop every airplane in the country at once. Your a dumbass and a prick, I hope we catch you in your hideout in the mountains in Pakistan.
Hop on your camel and head to the voting station to vote for Paul, oh you can’t, why in the fuck are you so concerned with our elections, yet throw a fucking hissy when we (Americans) discuss foreign affairs? Get Fucked.
You can bet your ass the prior to 911 you could have done the same fucking thing in any country in the world (hijacking airplanes and crashing them into shit), but your right we should just “cut those cute little ole terrorists some slack,” I mean poor old Mushariff al Jezera bin Shariff III is a really good guy deep down.