Republican Primaries

[ishii]

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.

I find it interesting how some liberal Democrats say they would support Ron Paul who seems like the polar opposite of everything liberal Democrat: big spending, federal solutions to local problems, etc. But yet, Ron Paul attracts some liberals. Maybe it is his unconventiality and his sincerity? Or his views on social issues? (I think many liberals hate the religious right and Paul seems to be totally apart from that group). Perhaps you could speak to why you like Ron Paul in spite of how far Ron Paul is from liberalism. Or is he? Maybe he is a “right-wing” liberal and as such is attractive to more “left-wing” liberals.

True about Reagan and how older candidates are more legitimate than they were twenty or thirty years ago. Ike was 62 when he was elected in 1952. Maybe that is the equivalent of 70 or 75 today given advances in medicine and life expectancy?

 

[Tsuwano]

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!

I think the Republican Party will look for a candidate who will run from the right, capturing the party base, as you state, but then gradually move toward the center as election day approaches. That candidate, if he wins the election, will then govern from just right of center. I’m going out on a limb here, but I think when it comes down to the wire, the Republican Party will nominate either Mr. Romney or Mr. Perry from Texas. I think this is Mr. Romney’s last hurrah as a candidate, but Mr. Perry could easily set himself up for the nomination in 2016 if he plays his cards right in this election.

 

[meltzerboy]

I think the Republican Party will look for a candidate who will run from the right, capturing the party base, as you state, but then gradually move toward the center as election day approaches. That candidate, if he wins the election, will then govern from just right of center. I’m going out on a limb here, but I think when it comes down to the wire, the Republican Party will nominate either Mr. Romney or Mr. Perry from Texas. I think this is Mr. Romney’s last hurrah as a candidate, but Mr. Perry could easily set himself up for the nomination in 2016 if he plays his cards right in this election.

Perhaps Romney as the Presidential candidate and Perry for Vice-President? Texas is a big state; of course, it would go for the GOP regardless, certainly not for Obama. What about Huntsman? He’s still unknown to most people but perhaps too close to Obama for comfort. I think, though, if Palin enters the race, all bets are off insofar as the nomination is concerned. She’s probably too far right for the general election, however. Romney and Perry it is.

 

[Tsuwano]

Perhaps Romney as the Presidential candidate and Perry for Vice-President? Texas is a big state; of course, it would go for the GOP regardless, certainly not for Obama. What about Huntsman? He’s still unknown to most people but perhaps too close to Obama for comfort. I think, though, if Palin enters the race, all bets are off insofar as the nomination is concerned. She’s probably too far right for the general election, however. Romney and Perry it is.

I think a Romney ~ Perry ticket would be a very strong one against an Obama ~ Biden ticket, as long as no major scandals or gaffs take place during the race.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I think a Romney ~ Perry ticket would be a very strong one against an Obama ~ Biden ticket, as long as no major scandals or gaffs take place during the race.

I don’t think Perry is a VP kinda guy. He will either run for President or he won’t run at all. I could be wrong though. I listen to Mark Davis out of Dallas talk about him fairly regularly, he just comes across as too alpha male to sit on a VP ticket.

 

[ExLibris]

I would like to see a Pres. Perry / VPres. Huckabee

Not to admit defeat for Ron Paul or anything…

 

[Tsuwano]

I don’t think Perry is a VP kinda guy. He will either run for President or he won’t run at all. I could be wrong though. I listen to Mark Davis out of Dallas talk about him fairly regularly, he just comes across as too alpha male to sit on a VP ticket.

I agree with you, unless Perry saw a position as VP on a losing ticket as the best way to secure the head position on a ticket in 2016. I’m not saying that Perry is cynical, but he may be political, and if he thinks there is no way to defeat Obama in 2012, he may well take 2nd place on a Republican ticket in order to burnish his credentials and increase name recognition for the next race.

 

[meltzerboy]

I find it interesting how some liberal Democrats say they would support Ron Paul who seems like the polar opposite of everything liberal Democrat: big spending, federal solutions to local problems, etc. But yet, Ron Paul attracts some liberals. Maybe it is his unconventiality and his sincerity? Or his views on social issues? (I think many liberals hate the religious right and Paul seems to be totally apart from that group). Perhaps you could speak to why you like Ron Paul in spite of how far Ron Paul is from liberalism. Or is he? Maybe he is a “right-wing” liberal and as such is attractive to more “left-wing” liberals.

True about Reagan and how older candidates are more legitimate than they were twenty or thirty years ago. Ike was 62 when he was elected in 1952. Maybe that is the equivalent of 70 or 75 today given advances in medicine and life expectancy?

Insofar as Ron Paul is concerned, he is anti-interventionist and anti-war: this scores points with many Liberals today. I think he may have carried this policy too far when he opposed aid to Darfur and questioned the US commitment to Israel. In general, however, his anti-Iraq stand and, currently, his belief that we are militarily over-extended throughout the globe, I agree with. His states’ rights advocacy, while reminiscent of Southern Democrats in the post-era of slavery, must today be seen in a different light. What it amounts to for Liberals is his opposition to federal legislation and amendments which would broadly limit personal freedoms, such as DOMA and a federal ban on stem-cell research. States’ rights has become nowadays the guarantor of personal liberties rather than the destroyer. I also reject the stereotype that Liberal Democrats are the party of big spending, since the Republicans under George W. Bush expanded the federal government beyond recognition. Both parties spend too much. However, Paul is a little soft on federal government regulation of corporate institutions, and he also is a solid supporter of the constitutional right to bear arms (which I agree with for the purposes of hunting, collecting, and defense of property, provided regulations are enforced), but you can’t have everything. On the other hand, he did oppose the Patriot Act. All in all, it’s a mixed bag. Nonetheless, I like several of Paul’s domestic and foreign policy views, he does seem to be sincere and consistent in his thinking, which means he is an ideologue who stands for something, and, no mean item, he opposes the current federal income tax.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I agree with you, unless Perry saw a position as VP on a losing ticket as the best way to secure the head position on a ticket in 2016. I’m not saying that Perry is cynical, but he may be political, and if he thinks there is no way to defeat Obama in 2012, he may well take 2nd place on a Republican ticket in order to burnish his credentials and increase name recognition for the next race.

Perry’s never lost a race, and I doubt he would enter one this late in the game unless he sincerely thinks he can win.

However, if he doesn’t run this go around I expect we will see him in 2016. Maybe Palin as well, I can’t really tell what she’s going to do and I think she wants to keep it that way.

 

[meltzerboy]

I don’t think Perry is a VP kinda guy. He will either run for President or he won’t run at all. I could be wrong though. I listen to Mark Davis out of Dallas talk about him fairly regularly, he just comes across as too alpha male to sit on a VP ticket.

If LBJ could do it, so can Perry.

 

[bbarrick8383]

If LBJ could do it, so can Perry.

True and it turned out to be a close race. But I wonder if LBJ thought they would win by a landslide based on the economy at the time and 8 years of Republicans. Sounds oddly familiar doesn’t it…

Perry could make the same choice, but I think everyone is expecting a tight race regardless.

I’m crossing my fingers the motivation from the mid-terms will carry over and there will be a blowout win by the GOP candidate.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I would like to see a Pres. Perry / VPres. Huckabee

Not to admit defeat for Ron Paul or anything…

I am kinda leaning on a Paul/Bachmann, Bachmann/Paul ticket.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Insofar as Ron Paul is concerned, he is anti-interventionist and anti-war: this scores points with many Liberals today. I think he may have carried this policy too far when he opposed aid to Darfur and questioned the US commitment to Israel. In general, however, his anti-Iraq stand and, currently, his belief that we are militarily over-extended throughout the globe, I agree with. His states’ rights advocacy, while reminiscent of Southern Democrats in the post-era of slavery, must today be seen in a different light. What it amounts to for Liberals is his opposition to federal legislation and amendments which would broadly limit personal freedoms, such as DOMA and a federal ban on stem-cell research. States’ rights has become nowadays the guarantor of personal liberties rather than the destroyer. I also reject the stereotype that Liberal Democrats are the party of big spending, since the Republicans under George W. Bush expanded the federal government beyond recognition. Both parties spend too much. However, Paul is a little soft on federal government regulation of corporate institutions, and he also is a solid supporter of the constitutional right to bear arms (which I agree with for the purposes of hunting, collecting, and defense of property, provided regulations are enforced), but you can’t have everything. On the other hand, he did oppose the Patriot Act. All in all, it’s a mixed bag. Nonetheless, I like several of Paul’s domestic and foreign policy views, he does seem to be sincere and consistent in his thinking, which means he is an ideologue who stands for something, and, no mean item, he opposes the current federal income tax.

Thanks for this. Generally the impressioon that I get is that Paul is most arduously resisted by Republicans, not the general electorate.

 

[narrowgatequest]

As a recovering ex-Democrat (left over abortion and gay “marriage”) but not used to the Republican’s fiscal conservatism, can someone explain to me why it’s good to keep the minimum wage low? I live in WA where we have one of the highest state minimum wages in the country, probably thanks to the Democrats, and I remember a time when I worked minimum wage, so I have a hard time seeing a lower minimum wage as a good thing? I really want to like the Republican candidates but I’m having trouble getting over this “in the pocket of big business” image that I have.

 

[Brendan]

As a recovering ex-Democrat (left over abortion and gay “marriage”) but not used to the Republican’s fiscal conservatism, can someone explain to me why it’s good to keep the minimum wage low? .

If a high minumum wage is good, why not make it $100,000 an hour?

I’m sure you could see the problem with that, no one would hire anyone.

As the minium wage goes higher, it negatively affects the business’ ability to hire someone.

That is true no matter what the change. If the min wage moves up, a business thinks more carefully if the value of the work obtained can be justifed compared to the cost of employing an individual.

The conservative view looks at a minium wage job as being ‘entry level’, where a person begins in the particular field of work ( or in work for the first time) and builds the skills necessary to become a more valued employee, and thus being more employable at at higher wage category.

It therefore makes sense to have this opportunity to learn and advance more widely available to everyone.

 

[narrowgatequest]

The conservative view looks at a minimum wage job as being ‘entry level’, where a person begins in the particular field of work ( or in work for the first time) and builds the skills necessary to become a more valued employee, and thus being more employable at at higher wage category. It therefore makes sense to have this opportunity to learn and advance more widely available to everyone.

Actually, that does make a striking amount of sense. Thanks

I always got this impression that the conservative view was kind of heartless, but now that the minimum wage thing makes sense to me, maybe I can take another look at welfare, labor unions, and public healthcare

 

[meltzerboy]

Actually, that does make a striking amount of sense. Thanks

I always got this impression that the conservative view was kind of heartless, but now that the minimum wage thing makes sense to me, maybe I can take another look at welfare, labor unions, and public healthcare

Of course minimum wage makes sense, but only to employers, not employees. In other words, they can hire cheap labor while they save and invest their capital and become wealthier. Thus by maintaining low wages, business owners, with the support of the GOP, have created a category called the working poor, who remain below the economic poverty line and have continued difficulty supporting themselves and their families. No one is asking companies to go bankrupt, but rather to give their employees a living wage. And without labor unions to fight for them, employees’ wages in certain jobs will remain below what they need to survive.

 

[Redbaron998]

Herman Cain is my man!

But I respect Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann as well and would happilly vote for them if they wont the primaries.

 

[estesbob]

Of course minimum wage makes sense, but only to employers, not employees. In other words, they can hire cheap labor while they save and invest their capital and become wealthier. Thus by maintaining low wages, business owners, with the support of the GOP, have created a category called the working poor, who remain below the economic poverty line and have continued difficulty supporting themselves and their families. No one is asking companies to go bankrupt, but rather to give their employees a living wage. And without labor unions to fight for them, employees’ wages in certain jobs will remain below what they need to survive.

The problem with the term “living wage” is if there is no definition of it. It is totally subjective and is used to demonize business owners, like myself, regardless
of how much you pay your employees. One thing you will find out if you are and employer is nobody thinks they are being properly compensated.

The result of pressure to try to replace the “minimum wage” with a "living wage’ has been to push teenage unemployment, especially among African-Americans, to astronomical heights The idea of getting a summer job so that one can learn a work ethic and earn some spending money has been destroyed. I know about this problem firsthand. Back in early 80s I used to hire high school students to work in my office during the summer. Quite frankly, they weren’t even worth what the minimum wage was in those days. But, as with many business owners, I did so at the behest of the local high school in an attempt to help high school students gain a worth ethic and learn about office demeanor. No way I would even consider doing that today-the cost is simply too high. In fact none of my small business clients do this anymore. Rather than look at the left-wing policies that have destroyed these kinds of programs the left instead wants to criticize employers being greedy and heartless.

The idea that we need labor unions protect the wages specious. The truth is the labor unions have destroyed jobs in this country by making the cost of business so high it is actually cheaper to manufacture goods overseas, ship them halfway around the world that it is to make them at home. If one wants to see the damage caused by unfettered unions. they need only look at the financial crisis of most this that municipalities and state governments were union representative among state employees is high.

 

[ExLibris]

I am kinda leaning on a Paul/Bachmann, Bachmann/Paul ticket.

It’s always hard to speculate who Ron Paul would run with. He refused to even endorse McCain last time (not that it was wrong or anything), so he’s unwilling to compromise his principles - but we already knew that.

VPs from the GOP pool that I could see would be:
Tom McClintock, who he endorsed for his House race.
And that’s all I can think of. Goldwater Jr maybe?

From the general pool:
Andrew Napolitano, who he named as a running mate when asked to pick from anyone “dead or alive.”
Chuck Baldwin, who definitely deserved a reciprocating endorsement for all his work.
Jesse Ventura, but he says he won’t do it if Ron’s a Republican, so no.

So yeah, I don’t know.

Personally, I hope for Andrew Napolitano. He’s Catholic and from New Jersey. There’s a lot of electoral votes to be won over there.