Originally Posted by jazzguru
Then vote for the "Smaller Government" candidate, not "Big Government B".
Your vote didn't stop government from growing. It didn't stop a single dollar from being added to the deficit.
Wrong. My vote does not show up in Obama's totals. Therefore it is not a vote for Obama.
Your point would stand if we all lived on islands. We don't.
I voted for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party in 2008. Does that help answer your question?
What did that fix? Answer that question.
Really? They all support the Patriot Act and erosion of civil liberties. They all support interventionist foreign policy. They all support government manipulation of interest rates and fiat currency. Am I missing something, here? Oh yeah..Obamacare...which doesn't matter much if the other issues aren't addressed.
No one is going to take the last 50-60 years and just stop it instantly. I really think Steve Jobs is a great model to ponder here. Even if he was the man with the right plan early on, his inability to gather people to that vision and lead them appropriately meant he was the wrong man. He had his own board and company turn against him because even if he was right about the vision, his means of achieving it was like pure poison. There are indeed other people and real world considerations out there.
Government would continue to grow under Romney and Gingrich. It may continue to grow under Paul, too. There's only so much the president can and should do, but I believe he would fight much harder against it than Newt/Mitt/Obama. His veto pen would need barrels of ink, that's for sure.
A veto can be overcome with a two-thirds vote. If only a third of the populace endorses what he wants, then it will still be for naught. Worse still he might damage the brand. All conservatives can be labeled whatever their president happens to be. If he becomes the guy who wants to murder Grandma and has the entire Congress in opposition to him including those in his own party, then that brings the entire party down, hands the power over to someone else and then we are stuck arguing that conservative doesn't mean slave labor and grandma dying.
You can rest easy. I won't vote for him. I'll vote for someone else.
It's pretty clear you won't vote for someone who can make a difference so in that regard your vote becomes one for the status quo. It becomes like casting a vote for unicorns.
One on one against Obama? Absolutely. He'll come off as more genuine - which he is - and destroy Obama on the issues handily.
How does one suddenly acquire a trait they never previously had? I'm not saying Paul isn't a good guy or that he isn't effective in his current role. I'm saying that as SDW notes he at best comes off like a quirky, cranky great uncle who might peak a bit of curiosity while you ignore him. His support has hit a ceiling while he is a known variable. He ran before. He's run this time. His percentages don't improve as people evaluate him. There is currently limited support for his ideas.
I'm not sure what you're looking at, but he's usually in the top three in virtually every poll that doesn't exclude him from the questions or results.
The highest level of support I've seen for him is 11%. Obviously most of the field doesn't have major support yet. Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman will all be gone right after the first vote. Paul can stick around because he will have some money basically due to never having quit running last time. Also 9-11% is better than margin of error support. Gingrich and Romney are pulling about 22-30% depending upon the poll and state. Top 3 with often less than ten percent just shows how much broad support the other two candidates have.
Originally Posted by BR
Given the nature of our electoral system, a split batshit conservative vote is in effect a vote for the mildly-conservative-but-masquerading-as-a-liberal candidate. If you have a preference between the two front-runners, you do your preference a disservice by voting for the third party. This is also why our electoral system is complete crap. We should have a ranked voting system instead in which my ballot my look like...
Green Party Candidate: 1st choice
Progressive Party Candidate: 2nd choice
Democratic Party Candidate: 3rd choiceI'll let wikipedia do the rest of the explanation:
I'm sure you'll be casting your ballot for someone other than Obama for 2012 becuase you don't want to support a masquerading candidate.
Originally Posted by Frank777
Of course, one can make the case that our current system makes EVERYONE compromise, make hard decisions and try to find a middle ground, making peace with their neighbours.
In a world where everybody listens to their own media for news, segregates to their own political party and never makes common cause with those outside their circle - we my end up with far bigger problems than we have now.
I'm not sure when consensus and compromise became dirty words when talking about Democracy.
Originally Posted by BR
You are kidding, right? Our system makes us choose between the lesser of two evils who both reside firmly within the pockets of the corporate oligarchy. Now, the current crop of Republican candidates have pretty much gone off the deep end so the differences between them and Democrats these days is rather stark. However, there is no legitimate option for true progressives or true conservatives. Such an option should be viable without the fear of Nader handing the country to Bush for 8 horrible years.
Did you read about the system? If your first choice gets the fewest number of votes, he or she is eliminated from the running. Your vote then goes to your second choice. Jazzy could vote for Paul first and Romney second without feeling like he's throwing his vote away. We might actually break free from this bullshit two-party system which has done nothing but turn our political conversation into a pissing match between fans of rival sports teams.
Couldn't disagree more.
So disagree and feel free to throw your vote away. The reality is that running a national party and bringing a bunch of people together some core issues is like herding cats. It requires loads of work just to even raise awareness. The reason the type of people you endorse don't rise higher is because occupying a park bench doesn't do much nor does being a needy, whining pain in the ass.
Originally Posted by Frank777
I get your point. (And will ignore the hyperbole about the GOP.)
Trust me on this, having five parties spanning the entire spectrum (including separatists) doesn't really help matters a large part of the time. Of course I'm referencing Canada (which does still have FPTP) but European countries have gone proportional without their political systems rising from the corporate and union muck.
To be honest, the best thing to happen to Canadian politics in recently history has been the banning of corporate and union donations in the federal system. Only people vote and only people donate. I think that might have a better chance at providing the real change you seek.
I actually believe we are pretty close to some significant change. Clearly the media hold on information, their attempt to manufacture consensus and their literal free megaphone are starting to be overcome by the internet and others sources. Money doesn't equate to speech as much when you've got a YouTube channel that can reach millions. We've seen dozens of elections where throwing money out there didn't alter the outcome for a bad candidate or a bad message. All money does is magnify be it good or bad.
Some new Newt news for the day.Gingrich vs. Obama
Political professionals sometimes speak of the mood of the electorate. This subtle force goes beyond ideology, policy and even character. The ability to read and respond to the publics mood often represents the difference between winning and losing.
The current mood of the country? Disaffection. Congresss approval rating is in the single digits. The presidents is, at 42%, dramatically lower than that of any other elected president in his third year since the dawn of polling far lower than that of the feckless, politically doomed, Carter.
The technocratic Mitt Romney has proven his appeal to Republican moderate primary voters, perhaps one-third of the party. The much larger conservative base, however, enthusiastically kept sampling insurgent contenders in search of an antidote to disaffection: a populist progressive conservative.
Populist progressive conservative is a hard combination to pull off. But it can be done. Populist means optimistic about peoples ability to govern themselves. Progressive stands for champion of the little guy against powerful insider special interests. Conservative? Fundamentally committed to free enterprise, traditional values and a robust America. Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, two Gingrich icons, did it. Gingrich, perhaps uniquely this cycle, may have threaded this very needle.
I think that does a very good job of breaking down the state of how the electorate and candidates are with regard to current positioning.
Gingrich proposes to use government power to unleash the free market. So perverse are the incentives, so inept are government officials, that libertarian consternation at such a proposal is more than understandable. But the libertarians (whose presidential champion Gary Johnson consistently drew asterisks) are not representative of the broad electorate. Moreover, business oligarchies can (with government connivance) exist. It was an exercise in government power the breakup of AT&T that obliterated the black, corded, dial phone and paved the way for our modern, feature-rich, telecom environment. The libertarian stance that the king can do no right is but the doctrinal obverse to the monarchists adage that the king can do no wrong.
This is the prime point. You can't just declare the world is going to change. If the government has been force for negative change in many areas for a certain number of years, just declaring you are going to erase it won't work. People have to unlearn bad habits and learn good ones. They have to adapt to the new reality. The change needs to occur but also needs to be managed. Then when people aren't afraid they can more likely go along with the new and necessary change but if they are afraid, they will fight it.Why is Newt Rising?
The political consultants working against Gingrich seem unable to absorb facts or adapt their ideas to them. One of the biggest criticisms of Gingrich is his inability to organize staff and run a campaign. Karl Rove wrote what was supposed to be a devastating criticism of Gingrich's leadership deficiencies in the Wall Street Journal last week. Rove said, among other things, that Gingrich had failed to qualify for the ballot in both Missouri and Ohio and that the former House speaker had little or no organization in Iowa.
Rove's article would have been devastating but for one fact: it wasn't true. Gingrich has, for example, qualified in both Missouri and Ohio.
It stinks how facts keep getting in the way of spin be it neo-conservative or liberal spin.
Another reason Gingrich isn't fading is Mitt Romney. Let's face it: Mitt Romney is the Republican version of Al Gore. Even people who are predisposed to liking him can't seem to get there. Romney is supposedly more electable than Gingrich, at least according to the Inside the Beltway crowd and the major media.
OUCH! Wow, that is a concise bite there. Al Gore, the man who has the right plan but doesn't know who he is and never seems to bring about any passion. That point hit the mark.
This part is great too!
While Gingrich remains positive, the media eagerly await what they believe is the inevitable act of Newtonian self-destruction. They seize on anything he says that doesn't sound like something they hear around their newsrooms and try to make a feeding frenzy out of it. Yes, it could still happen. But the odds are against it because what Gingrich has been saying is what a lot of people are thinking.
When Gingrich said that school kids, especially those in poor families, could work in schools to learn the habits of reliability and earning, the media jumped on him. But people understood that Gingrich was right. Young Americans don't have the work ethic of their parents or grandparents.
Gingrich told the Occupy Whatever kiddies to take a bath and get a job. Those aren't the words of a wild man. They're what most working Americans think when they see the Occupy Whatever rabble.
When Gingrich said that the Palestinians were an "invented people," the media -- and the Palestinians -- thought the feeding frenzy could start.
On Saturday night, Romney came after Gingrich on this point. Romney said that he wouldn't make any statement like that without first consulting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Gingrich claimed the Reagan mantle and spoke about the Palestinians again in terms he equated to Reagan calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Gingrich said he'd speak the truth even if it discomfited the "timid," meaning Romney.
Even the strongest supporters of Israel among us, including me, do not want an American president who will ask Israel's permission to make a speech or decide a policy. That's what Romney pledged to do and which Gingrich -- properly -- rejected.
Better still, as the article mentions but doesn't completely examine, Gingrich gets media attention but also ends up discrediting them everytime they come after him about one of their own biases which they presume everyone else has. It's like they can't stop it. It totally exposes them and shows their agenda. They'll end up trying to defend who government can't give poor kids part time work. It blows up in their face. They end up trying to explain how people sitting in a park are making the world better. It just makes them look like biased, idiots while giving Gingrich more and more exposure.
In two televised debates, Gingrich went after the moderator for asking "gotcha questions" and demanding that the Republicans attack each other. He alone has dared challenge the all-knowing, all-powerful media.
Thank goodness he is doing this and it take courage to do it.
It's long past time for a Republican leader to make a speech that says pointedly that the major media aren't in the news business. They're political activists abusing their power to propel Obama to re-election, and Americans know it. They're as angry at the media as they are at Congress.
Exactly, it isn't hard to see that the larger the media influence the more blue the electorate. They are nothing but a propaganda organization.
The major media outlets -- the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS and many more -- are populated entirely by liberals. In 2005, Washington Post editor Marie Arana said, "The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness.... If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings at the Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democratic candidates." It's a culture, not a conspiracy.
The more the truth is told about this, the more the electorate will be willing to listen to candidate solutions.
Americans know this and if Gingrich makes a speech that humorously criticizes the media rather than condemning or threatening them, Americans will respond enthusiastically with their votes in the primaries and, if he's nominated, in the general election.
As noted by many here, it isn't just if you have the best platform. How do you get buy-in, how do you overcome the entrenched interests, how do you get past the media who will stop at nothing to make sure you are defeated. Gingrich is far from perfect and has taken his lumps here in the past but like Steve Jobs, I believe he has swallowed that bitter medicine, learned from it and is the man for the job now.
Gingrich can reduce the liberal media's power in the 2012 election by pointing out that, for example, the New York Times is a dysfunctional liberal family the likes of which isn't usually found outside of Hollywood. He should take on the "suits" -- the people such as NYT publisher Pinch Sulzberger and the guys who run NBC/MSNBC -- who make people such as Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd, and their ilk prominent voices on television and in print.
Take down the talking heads, the spinmasters, those who scream their opinions at you trying to stop your thoughts and replace them with their own. They are the one percent that someone ought to rail against. They claim to have the moral high ground and that they want to control the flow of information in the information age. They are the true elites and they want a lot more than your pocket book, they want your mind.