Rand Paul: Without change, GOP will "not win again in my lifetime"

[JimG]

Third parties most often just guarantee the election of one of the major parties, because they drain more votes from one than from the other.

And when there are multiple nearly equal parties, it leads to runoff elections, as in Egypt which got Morsi elected after a runoff eliminating several candidates.

 

[seaton2005]

cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-without-change-gop-will-not-win-again-in-my-lifetime/

Is this true or is he just trying to make libertarian principles more appealing to the Republican party?

After watching how the Republican party has performed over the past six years now, they should lose. They’ve gotten this country into a real mess (unemployment, they fought against health care for their own citizens, have not come up with any reasonable ideas, resisted a fair wage - minimum wage, shut down the government, etc. etc. etc.).

 

[ishii]

After watching how the Republican party has performed over the past six years now, they should lose. They’ve gotten this country into a real mess (unemployment, they fought against health care for their own citizens, have not come up with any reasonable ideas, resisted a fair wage - minimum wage, shut down the government, etc. etc. etc.).

Your post is just a bunch of talking points/slogans devoid of substance. What got our country in trouble was the entitlements that started during the LBJ era - the Great Society programs that encouraged illegitimacy and rewarded people for not working. Not only did they help produce a permanent underclass but it is also a huge burden on our budget - along with all the other entitlements. I am very wary of partisan liberal Democrats giving “advice” to Republicans. The GOP has a lot of challenges - but so does the Democrat party - they’re answers have been to raise taxes, punish hard work and innovation, and redistribute the wealth in order to create dependent interest groups and ensure their support on election day. They have no new solutions to our problems for the past 50 years or longer. And their likely standard bearer in 2016 is a failed Secretary of State.

Ishii

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Your post is just a bunch of talking points/slogans devoid of substance. What got our country in trouble was the entitlements that started during the LBJ era - the Great Society programs that encouraged illegitimacy and rewarded people for not working. Not only did they help produce a permanent underclass but it is also a huge burden on our budget - along with all the other entitlements. I am very wary of partisan liberal Democrats giving “advice” to Republicans. The GOP has a lot of challenges - but so does the Democrat party - they’re answers have been to raise taxes, punish hard work and innovation, and redistribute the wealth in order to create dependent interest groups and ensure their support on election day. They have no new solutions to our problems for the past 50 years or longer. And their likely standard bearer in 2016 is a failed Secretary of State.

Ishii

Ishii Your using talking points yourself. :tsktsk:

 

[ishii]

Ishii Your using talking points yourself. :tsktsk:

Nice of you to join the conversation, Mickey - looking forward to your objective analysis. Actually its not talking points, its really history. The effect of entitlements on illegitimacy, work ethic and the creation of a permanent underclass are well documented. There are those who have a vested interest in the system who refuse to believe it though.

Ishii

 

[SMGS127]

Nice of you to join the conversation, Mickey - looking forward to your objective analysis. Actually its not talking points, its really history. The effect of entitlements on illegitimacy, work ethic and the creation of a permanent underclass are well documented. There are those who have a vested interest in the system who refuse to believe it though.

Ishii

Even discounting the talking points Mickey pointed out in your post Ishii, the phrase “failed secretary of state” is a talking point in and of itself. In fact, Hillary is considered one of the best Secretaries the country has ever had, both by historians and the general public. She is extremely popular due to her successful work as Secretary. So “failed” is entirely partisan, and likely entirely due to an embassy in a wartorn country being attacked, and RW media somehow attributing the 4 resulting deaths to some form of “failure” on the part of the SoS. Of course, ambassadors in volatile countries are at risk of death all the time, but it only matters if a Democrat is in charge. IOKIYAR.

 

[powerofk]

I think you make a good point. The problem is any message by the GOP will be filtered through the media. But the GOP can help themselves if they nominate a more diverse ticket - I think Rubio might be able to reach out to the Hispanics. Or Susanna Martinez of Arizona. I don’t believe this is pandering. There is nothing wrong with a ticket that reflects the ethnic diversity of our country. If more Hispanics would listen to a Rubio or Martinez than a Walker or a Romney, then why not? The goal is to win - not lose by insisting with an ideological purity at all costs.

Ishii

Okay, Ishii, just so you know - Susana Martinez is from New Mexico. As I live in Albuquerque, I should know this. It’s doubtful that she could even win in Arizona (she’d probably get questioned by the Arizona State Police and forced to prove her residency status, even though she’s originally from El Paso, TX). And, btw, she’s no Tea Partier. She’s actually quite the pragmatist. She does have her agenda, but most of it hasn’t really been implemented, except for her education “reform” agenda (which was the NM Public Education Department creating new rules on the fly). She accepted the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. She accepts compromises on the budget (which are still heavily slanted toward Dem party goals). It’d be impossible for a Tea Partier to be successful as a New Mexico governor - New Mexico is the 2nd poorest state in the country, and has always had a Dem majority in both houses of the state legislature.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Nice of you to join the conversation, Mickey - looking forward to your objective analysis. Actually its not talking points, its really history. The effect of entitlements on illegitimacy, work ethic and the creation of a permanent underclass are well documented. There are those who have a vested interest in the system who refuse to believe it though.

Ishii

Well documented? Ishii

 

[ishii]

Well documented? Ishii

Yes. I’d gladly provide the documentation if I thought I was dealing with someone with an open mind - who might be persuaded by a point of view that goes against the liberal orthodoxy. I would start with the democrat Daniel Patrick moynihans warning as early as the late 60’s early 70’s and proceed with Charles Murray and Thomas sowell. Minds work better when open, Mickey.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Okay, Ishii, just so you know - Susana Martinez is from New Mexico. As I live in Albuquerque, I should know this. It’s doubtful that she could even win in Arizona (she’d probably get questioned by the Arizona State Police and forced to prove her residency status, even though she’s originally from El Paso, TX). And, btw, she’s no Tea Partier. She’s actually quite the pragmatist. She does have her agenda, but most of it hasn’t really been implemented, except for her education “reform” agenda (which was the NM Public Education Department creating new rules on the fly). She accepted the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. She accepts compromises on the budget (which are still heavily slanted toward Dem party goals). It’d be impossible for a Tea Partier to be successful as a New Mexico governor - New Mexico is the 2nd poorest state in the country, and has always had a Dem majority in both houses of the state legislature.

Thanks for the info. If New Mexico is a blue state, then its obvious that Martinez has to walk the tightrope - govern as a moderate lest she be kicked out of office. I would rather have a moderate conservative in office than an unelected tea partier. I think Martinez could possibly be a GOP leader in the future and be able to communicate to the Hispanics in this country - help the GOP get more Hispanic support.

Ishii

 

[seaton2005]

I think if you ask most political pundits who is more likely to gain a majority in the Senate in 2014, they will say the Republicans

If that happens, God help us.

 

[ishii]

Even discounting the talking points Mickey pointed out in your post Ishii, the phrase “failed secretary of state” is a talking point in and of itself. In fact, Hillary is considered one of the best Secretaries the country has ever had, both by historians and the general public. She is extremely popular due to her successful work as Secretary. So “failed” is entirely partisan, and likely entirely due to an embassy in a wartorn country being attacked, and RW media somehow attributing the 4 resulting deaths to some form of “failure” on the part of the SoS. Of course, ambassadors in volatile countries are at risk of death all the time, but it only matters if a Democrat is in charge. IOKIYAR.

LOL. Who, SMGS, other than partisan liberal Democrats, consider Hillary to be anything other than a failed Secretary of State? She presided over a complete disaster in Benghazi and responded, “what does it matter?!!” I hope the Dems put all their eggs in one basket and nominate Hillary. I like the GOP chances against a 70-something liberal failed Sec of State. Maybe they can nominate Jimmy Carter to be her running mate.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia View Post
I think if you ask most political pundits who is more likely to gain a majority in the Senate in 2014, they will say the Republicans

If that happens, God help us.

A congress in control of the GOP would put the reigns on Obama. He could spend his last two years as a lame duck playing golf. This would help our country a great deal.

Ishii

 

[SMGS127]

LOL. Who, SMGS, other than partisan liberal Democrats, consider Hillary to be anything other than a failed Secretary of State? She presided over a complete disaster in Benghazi and responded, “what does it matter?!!” I hope the Dems put all their eggs in one basket and nominate Hillary. I like the GOP chances against a 70-something liberal failed Sec of State. Maybe they can nominate Jimmy Carter to be her running mate.

Ishii

pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary

Her popularity has gone down all of 7% since Benghazi, to 59%. She has a +22% popularity rating in the public.

washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/12/05/National-Politics/Polling/release_182.xml

This poll was done only 3 months after Benghazi, and 68% of people approved of her job as SoS vs. 22% against. That is a positive +46% job approval rating.

I realize you’re an extremely conservative Republican Ishii, but it does no good to your side to pretend like everyone thinks the way you do. And unless you’re suggesting 68% of the country are “partisan liberal Democrats,” your post has already been disproven.

She was actually an exceptional SoS who presided over an unfortunate situation in a wartorn country where an ambassador died. That’s not a “scandal.”

 

[ishii]

pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary

Her popularity has gone down all of 7% since Benghazi, to 59%. She has a +22% popularity rating in the public.

washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/12/05/National-Politics/Polling/release_182.xml

This poll was done only 3 months after Benghazi, and 68% of people approved of her job as SoS vs. 22% against. That is a positive +46% job approval rating.

I realize you’re an extremely conservative Republican Ishii, but it does no good to your side to pretend like everyone thinks the way you do. And unless you’re suggesting 68% of the country are “partisan liberal Democrats,” your post has already been disproven.

She was actually an exceptional SoS who presided over an unfortunate situation in a wartorn country where an ambassador died. That’s not a “scandal.”

Did the poll also ask people who was secretary of state? Did it ask them to name the 3 branches of government? LOL - polls. Wait until she runs and the spotlight turns on her involvement in the Benghazi scandal.

Can you name one thing she achieved in her four years as secretary of state?

Ishii

 

[_Abyssinia]

pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary

Her popularity has gone down all of 7% since Benghazi, to 59%. She has a +22% popularity rating in the public.

washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/12/05/National-Politics/Polling/release_182.xml

This poll was done only 3 months after Benghazi, and 68% of people approved of her job as SoS vs. 22% against. That is a positive +46% job approval rating.

I realize you’re an extremely conservative Republican Ishii, but it does no good to your side to pretend like everyone thinks the way you do. And unless you’re suggesting 68% of the country are “partisan liberal Democrats,” your post has already been disproven.

She was actually an exceptional SoS who presided over an unfortunate situation in a wartorn country where an ambassador died. That’s not a “scandal.”

It is fairly unimaginable that if she runs and has a platform, her ratings would increase from where they are now. I think I heard that Hillary Clinton’s high poll ratings are in part probably due to the fact that she is not a governor, or in the House or Senate, most people do not know what her platform would be as president.

As Mary Matalin says:

Hillary Clinton’s lead is ephemeral. As soon as she gets in, if she gets in, she will be challenged and it will evaporate. Just the nature of the beast. I predict she doesn’t run.

politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/gop-nominee-2016-chris-christies-loss-is-someones-gain-103236.html

A segment of the American population is uninformed about issues. A newsweek poll from 2011 found 29% of 1000 participants couldn’t name vice president. 59% Knew Joe Biden was vice president in a Pew poll from 2010. As for Benghazi, I think a segment of the American population probably doesn’t even know the details regarding the Benghazi terrorist attack or the fact that Hillary Clinton stood in front of the caskets of dead Americans and blamed a video for the attack, or know of the ‘what different does it make?’ comment she made at the congressional hearing.

 

[Geist]

Wait until she runs and the spotlight turns on her involvement in the Benghazi scandal.

Outside of Fox news viewers I have never encountered anyone who knew or cared about Benghazi.

 

[meltzerboy]

Outside of Fox news viewers I have never encountered anyone who knew or cared about Benghazi.

I’m sure most MSNBC viewers know about Benghazi, as the topic has been discussed. Whether they care (enough) about it is another issue.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

It is fairly unimaginable that if she runs and has a platform, her ratings would increase from where they are now. I think I heard that Hillary Clinton’s high poll ratings are in part probably due to the fact that she is not a governor, or in the House or Senate, most people do not know what her platform would be as president.

As Mary Matalin says:

politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/gop-nominee-2016-chris-christies-loss-is-someones-gain-103236.html

A segment of the American population is uninformed about issues. A newsweek poll from 2011 found 29% of 1000 participants couldn’t name vice president. 59% Knew Joe Biden was vice president in a Pew poll from 2010. As for Benghazi, I think a segment of the American population probably doesn’t even know the details regarding the Benghazi terrorist attack or the fact that Hillary Clinton stood in front of the caskets of dead Americans and blamed a video for the attack, or know of the ‘what different does it make?’ comment she made at the congressional hearing.

This has become the way to run. The electoral hopeful gives little if any specific information. They are out of public life, and therefore provide little ammunition for mud throwing. This way, they spend a lot less of their resources defending themselves, and looking bad.

Republicans in this upcoming election cycle are struggling to find a way to proceed. We’ve already seen them attempting to use Hillary’s presumed popularity to raise fear. I guess hoping to draw more stay at homes to the polls. If there* is *a Republican Dark Horse in the wings. They would do well to remain there till the last minute.

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Yes. I’d gladly provide the documentation if I thought I was dealing with someone with an open mind - who might be persuaded by a point of view that goes against the liberal orthodoxy. I would start with the democrat Daniel Patrick moynihans warning as early as the late 60’s early 70’s and proceed with Charles Murray and Thomas sowell. Minds work better when open, Mickey.

Ishii

Ishii Liberal what?