Republican Primaries

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scott_Lafrance
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seamus_L said:
I remember once being at a talk given by the late Joe Sobran (may he rest in peace) and someone in the audience asked him who the best president of the 20th century was, and he replied, “probably Calvin Coolidge”.
Click to expand...
There is alot to like about Silent Cal. Drama free administration, served 6 years (2 after ascending to the office when Warren Harding died). Could have run for and won his second full term, but declined, stating “10 years in Washington is longer than any other man has had it - too long!” ANd yes, the only President in American history to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

He recognized the full citizenship and rights of black Americans, even after Woodrow WIlson resegregated the federal government, 👍 repeatedly called for anti-lynching laws that were blocked by southern Democrats. Gave full US Citizenship rights to Native American tribes. 👍 Was steadfastedly against farm subsidies or governmental price manipulation, stating that government control of prices cannot be divorced from political control. 👍 Refused to visit national disaster areas, because he did not want to be accused of political grandstanding. 👍 And the end of his administration, only the riches 2% of Americans paid any income taxes at all through his aggressive policy of deficit reduction and debt repayment. Reduced federal regulations to the point of near invisibility. State and local governments flourished under his watch, and was strongly in favor of letting states determine much of the laws regarding labor, wages, safety, reglulation, taxes, etc…

In fact, if the Tea Party wants a model of the ideal Presidential candidate, it is Calvin Coolidge, not Ronald Reagan.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
In fact, if the Tea Party wants a model of the ideal Presidential candidate, it is Calvin Coolidge, not Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, Coolidge didn’t have a Cold war with the Russians to fight, and also didn’t have Tip O’neill to contend with. Coolidge had large Republican majorities in congress his entire time in office and presided over an extended period of peace.

Ishii
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
The only President in history to ever shrink the size of government was Calvin Coolidge. Only one. Ever.
Click to expand...
I’m thinking there was at least two. Coolidge and Grover Cleveland.

And there will be three in a couple of years with the Paul Administration. 👍
 
ishii said:
Ron Paul is un-electable.
Click to expand...
They–including Hilary Clinton–said Obama was unelectable. Ross Perot was also said to be unelectable but, especially for a third-party candidate, he had a very respectable showing, which also might have catapulted Bill Clinton into the White House. In other words, in politics one never knows!
 
meltzerboy said:
They–including Hilary Clinton–said Obama was unelectable. Ross Perot was also said to be unelectable but, especially for a third-party candidate, he had a very respectable showing, which also might have catapulted Bill Clinton into the White House. In other words, in politics one never knows!
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I agree with this. Sometimes in politics you do know. Now, granted, it may be too early to see the next election clearly at this point, but there will come a time when pieces will fall into place and the outcomes can be predicted with a great degree of accuracy. Those who say Ron Paul is unelectable are not simply blowing smoke. In fact, I think some of these folks would like to see Ron Paul elected. But like Ron Paul or not, his politics are either unknown, misunderstood or simply rejected by a large majority of American voters. The Republican Party does not seem interested in adopting his ideas in its platform or in helping him make his views more widely known. Without such support, Mr. Paul cannot be elected. He can be a spoiler for whomever the Republican Party chooses to oppose President Obama in the election, but he cannot be President. There is a lot we can know about politics simply by looking at the depth of support a candidate has in the middle of the spectrum. Mr. Paul does not have deep support in the middle, which is primarily why he has such support from a particular group of voters, and without support from the middle of the political spectrum, he will be rejected by the Republican Party as a candidate. The next election will not be about ideology. It will be about giving comfort to the mass of voters who aren’t sure which direction they want the country to go. The middle will be the battleground in 2012 and if Mr. Obama captures it, he will be reelected to the presidency.
 
**Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney lead in first Iowa GOP poll **

In the first summer poll, published just minutes ago, the Minnesota congresswoman who was born in Iowa has 22% to Romney’s 23% lead in the still developing field of Republican presidential prospects, according to the closely-watched Des Moines Register Iowa Poll.
Business executive Herman Cain finished well behind with 10% in the poll. No other Republican attracted double-digit support.
The former governor from next door Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, lags at 6%.

Republican ex-Sen. Rick Santorum (4%) will also be wandering around Iowa this coming week, along with Rep. Ron Paul (7%) and Newt Gingrich (7%). Even President Obama, who is not seeking the Republican nomination, will visit Iowa on Tuesday to talk more about creating jobs.
Ex-Gov. Jon Huntsman (2%) has indicated he will not be making a major effort in the Hawkeye state.
 
Tsuwano said:
I’m not sure I agree with this. Sometimes in politics you do know. Now, granted, it may be too early to see the next election clearly at this point, but there will come a time when pieces will fall into place and the outcomes can be predicted with a great degree of accuracy. Those who say Ron Paul is unelectable are not simply blowing smoke. In fact, I think some of these folks would like to see Ron Paul elected. But like Ron Paul or not, his politics are either unknown, misunderstood or simply rejected by a large majority of American voters. The Republican Party does not seem interested in adopting his ideas in its platform or in helping him make his views more widely known. Without such support, Mr. Paul cannot be elected. He can be a spoiler for whomever the Republican Party chooses to oppose President Obama in the election, but he cannot be President. There is a lot we can know about politics simply by looking at the depth of support a candidate has in the middle of the spectrum. Mr. Paul does not have deep support in the middle, which is primarily why he has such support from a particular group of voters, and without support from the middle of the political spectrum, he will be rejected by the Republican Party as a candidate. The next election will not be about ideology. It will be about giving comfort to the mass of voters who aren’t sure which direction they want the country to go. The middle will be the battleground in 2012 and if Mr. Obama captures it, he will be reelected to the presidency.
Click to expand...
You may be right; I’m not sure. By middle, I assume you mean centrist. However, I don’t think the Republicans are necessarily looking for a centrist, because their base is right of center, if not far right. Bachmann is a viable candidate for the primaries and she’s a true Conservative. The question is, though, is she a viable candidate for the general election? I don’t think so. Paul, on the other hand, may not win the primaries, yet he would be more appealing to the general electorate. Pawlenty, in whom I saw some promise, was awfully weak-looking in his exchange with Romney. I see the latter as electable since he can appeal to some Independents and even some Liberals. For Romney, however, the problem is his lukewarm appeal to the Conservative Republican base. Obama may win by default, provided we don’t go from a recession to a depression!
 
meltzerboy said:
They–including Hilary Clinton–said Obama was unelectable. Ross Perot was also said to be unelectable but, especially for a third-party candidate, he had a very respectable showing, which also might have catapulted Bill Clinton into the White House. In other words, in politics one never knows!
Click to expand...
Obama was a U.S. senator, charismatic, a good campaigner, etc. and he had the support of much of his party in 2008. To compare his chances to Ron Paul’s chances in 2012 is to fail to understand the basics of politics. Ron Paul will be 77 years old in 2012. He is a congressman - no congressman has been elected president in the history of this country. Also, Ron Paul’s politics - even though he has a small vocal group of supporters, are too far to the right for this country. You’re right - in politics one never knows. But one thing I do know is that the chances of Ron Paul becoming president are almost nil.

Ishii
 
meltzerboy said:
You may be right; I’m not sure. By middle, I assume you mean centrist. However, I don’t think the Republicans are necessarily looking for a centrist, because their base is right of center, if not far right. Bachmann is a viable candidate for the primaries and she’s a true Conservative. The question is, though, is she a viable candidate for the general election? I don’t think so. Paul, on the other hand, may not win the primaries, yet he would be more appealing to the general electorate. Pawlenty, in whom I saw some promise, was awfully weak-looking in his exchange with Romney. I see the latter as electable since he can appeal to some Independents and even some Liberals. For Romney, however, the problem is his lukewarm appeal to the Conservative Republican base. Obama may win by default, provided we don’t go from a recession to a depression!
Click to expand...
I agree that Bachmann would atleast be portrayed as an extremist by much of the media - much like Goldwater was in 1964 - and for that reason would likely be a weak general election candidate going up against Obama. I had hopes for Pawlenty and still do, but I agree with you assessment of his performace thus far - including his dismal debate performance. Romney looks like the one to beat- and he sure has his weaknesses which are his questionable conservative credentials, and Romney care. The only way for Obama to win by default is is the GOP nominates a weak candidate. I think either Pawlenty or Romney would give him a run for his money. If the economy stays weak, it might be the GOP’s election to lose. Count on rose colored analysis of the economy leading up to the election from much of the media which supports Obama.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Obama was a U.S. senator, charismatic, a good campaigner, etc. and he had the support of much of his party in 2008. To compare his chances to Ron Paul’s chances in 2012 is to fail to understand the basics of politics. Ron Paul will be 77 years old in 2012. He is a congressman - no congressman has been elected president in the history of this country. Also, Ron Paul’s politics - even though he has a small vocal group of supporters, are too far to the right for this country. You’re right - in politics one never knows. But one thing I do know is that the chances of Ron Paul becoming president are almost nil.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Yes, the age of Paul is a factor and he doesn’t have the charisma of Obama, or, for that matter, Reagan, who was regarded as old for the time. But too far right? If he is so, then almost none of the Republican candidates can win, for they are all too far right, with the exception of Huntsman. Paul is a Libertarian, and that may draw more potential voters than one might expect. Voters of both major parties are hungry for different ideas and for someone who speaks their mind and doesn’t appear to be so polished and politically-minded as both Romney and Obama appear. Again, witness Perot: a lunatic, perhaps, but he got the audience’s attention by his plain talk more than his charisma. As to being a Congressman, Senators (especially inexperienced, African American ones) have not had such a good track record of being nominated or elected either when compared to Governors.
 
meltzerboy said:
Yes, the age of Paul is a factor and he doesn’t have the charisma of Obama, or, for that matter, Reagan, who was regarded as old for the time. But too far right? If he is so, then almost none of the Republican candidates can win, for they are all too far right, with the exception of Huntsman. Paul is a Libertarian, and that may draw more potential voters than one might expect. Voters of both major parties are hungry for different ideas and for someone who speaks their mind and doesn’t appear to be so polished and politically-minded as both Romney and Obama appear. Again, witness Perot: a lunatic, perhaps, but he got the audience’s attention by his plain talk more than his charisma. As to being a Congressman, Senators (especially inexperienced, African American ones) have not had such a good track record of being nominated or elected either when compared to Governors.
Click to expand...
Paul is the furthest right in my view because of his libertarian views. He is really more suited for the Libertarian party and running as a 3rd party nominee than as a Republican. Reagan was 69 when elected in 1980. When he retired he was 77 - that is a far cry from Ron Paul’s situation. I suppose Paul might attract a different group of voters that the GOP doesn’t normally attract and that is probably due to his views on the legalization of drugs, social issues (he wants the govt. out of marriage) and on foreign policy. However, that group is fairly small to begin with and probably doesnt’ amount to a large enough bloc to make much of a difference in the general election. I agree with what you say about Romney and his polished style - he seems to come across as another politician who will say all the right things to get elected - and that is why he’s not my first choice. To tell you the truth, I am not that impressed or excited about the field of candidates on the GOP side, but I know that defeating Obama is more important that electing the “perfect” Republican who I would agree with on all the issues. I like Pawlenty, and much to the dismay of some of my right-wing friends, I like Huntsman too. Perot was sort of a crackpot, but he had enough support that he was able to play the spoiler and make it easier for Clinton to defeat Bush. Ron Paul could also do the same, but I think he’d have less clout than Perot did in '92.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Paul is the furthest right in my view because of his libertarian views. He is really more suited for the Libertarian party and running as a 3rd party nominee than as a Republican. Reagan was 69 when elected in 1980. When he retired he was 77 - that is a far cry from Ron Paul’s situation. I suppose Paul might attract a different group of voters that the GOP doesn’t normally attract and that is probably due to his views on the legalization of drugs, social issues (he wants the govt. out of marriage) and on foreign policy. However, that group is fairly small to begin with and probably doesnt’ amount to a large enough bloc to make much of a difference in the general election. I agree with what you say about Romney and his polished style - he seems to come across as another politician who will say all the right things to get elected - and that is why he’s not my first choice. To tell you the truth, I am not that impressed or excited about the field of candidates on the GOP side, but I know that defeating Obama is more important that electing the “perfect” Republican who I would agree with on all the issues. I like Pawlenty, and much to the dismay of some of my right-wing friends, I like Huntsman too. Perot was sort of a crackpot, but he had enough support that he was able to play the spoiler and make it easier for Clinton to defeat Bush. Ron Paul could also do the same, but I think he’d have less clout than Perot did in '92.

Ishii
Click to expand...
I agree with your analysis, except, as I noted, Reagan was thought to be old AT THE TIME. Today 70 is the new 60. Still, our culture is youth-oriented, and many really don’t want an elderly President, including seniors. (BTW, how old was Eisenhower when he ran for his first term? Of course, he had other credentials and we were not so obsessed with youth in those days.) Otherwise, I also think Huntsman is someone to watch, as well as Pawlenty. And then there’s the deus ex machina, Sarah Palin. As of now, however, it appears Romney has the advantage. In case you were unaware, I’m a Liberal Democrat and one who has NEVER voted Republican. But, to tell the truth, if there were someone in the GOP whom I found exciting (a younger Paul, perhaps), I’d consider them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top