Newt

[PEACE FROG]

How will the Christian right get behind Newt Gingrich when he is so immoral? liar/adulterer doesn't doesn't exactly buy into their ideals. whats up with that?

[PEACE FROG]

Please please please not Newt. This guy is an evil criminal. Isn't there an honest man amongst you people? If this is the best they can do, lets re-elect Obama and wade though the cartoons till the main feature starts. serious lets not do this.

[LIBRA]

He wont make it, theres no way.

Im sad he has given Newts a bad rap, I love those lil amphibians

[Crochety Carpenter]

I'm with you guys. Thankfully it does not look, at the moment, like Newt has a chance.
Of those left in the field:
Romney is there only because "he is the only candidate that can win". Funny that's what "they" said about Dole and McCain. I guess we need a candidate who can't win.
Ron Paul has the best things to say but his isolationist stand on foreign affairs scares the hell out of me. Not as much as Obama though.
Santorum Looks solid to me but the way he constantly shoots himself in the foot makes it highly unlikely that he has any chance.

Quite frankly we're doomed no matter who wins in November.

Just the view of a frustrated Repugnican...er Republican.

[Gaston]

Paul isn't as isolationist as his opponents paint him. He's talking about greatly reducing our foreign bases, ending the war in Afghanistan and let the Afghans work things out - that's what's going to happen when we leave anyway, no matter when that happens to be. And, the Taliban will take over as the majority prefer that over their corrupt government; Karzai and underlings are as crooked as a barrel of fishhooks. Taliban officials about a week ago sent a message to the U.S. that they have no quarrels with the American people, but they'll fight us as long as our military is in their country(s). If we wait too long they'll form another uneasy alliance with Al Qaeda (there are suspicions they are doing that as I write this) to get us out, because the Taliban can't strike us here but Al Qaeda can ... or at least, did. And Al Qaeda swears they only want the U.S. to leave all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia. Now I don't know how much you can believe either of them, but after swatting the Qaeda training bases and finally getting rid of Saddam, we've really done what we said we came to do. Most of the cuts in military spending Paul talks about could be accomplished by stopping the great cost of all of these bases. We'd still keep our intelligence community working, and we'd keep a few strategically important ones.

The most important idea is that we'd stop using warfare as the solution to every global problem. While the founders were dead-set against a standing army, the technology race in modern warfare pretty much mandates we have one, as gone are the days when you put a musket in a man's hand and spend a half-day training him. But, we could maintain ample military strength with our troops guarding us here, at a much lower cost. Then maybe we'd have enough money to pay them a decent wage and give them better medical care.

I don't understand why Pawlenty, Huntsman and Johnson were the first eliminated, IMnsHO, they were the best candidates the RNC had. The Republicans haven't lost this race, they've thrown it away. The party stalwarts aren't going to go over to the Democrats just because they didn't get the Republican candidate they liked best, and any of those three could have given Obama a run for his money.

Gary Johnson's running as the Libertarian this November, with him at the helm that party just might surprise everyone.

[Crochety Carpenter]

"I don't understand why Pawlenty, Huntsman and Johnson were the first eliminated..."

Since Ronald Reagan, the Republican establishment has had thier way with a lon list of "moderates" who have, with the exception of the Bushes, lost. This year the "moderates" were eliminated early so Romney became the more-of-the-same candidate. As the recent Etch-a-Sketch contraversy shows, he is anything he has to be to get elected.

Thanks for the insight on Ron Paul. Sounds pretty good.

The problem with ANY third party is that they inevetibly succeed only in electing the individuall that they would LEAST like to see elected. Do you think the little general would have chosen Clinton over either Bush or Dole? Clinton never won a majority so would never have won without him. Do you think Ralph Nader would have voted for Bush over the brain dead eco-freek? There would have been no need for the supreme court without him.

To fail to chose between the LESSER of two evils is to chose the GREATER evil.

[Gaston]

Hey, Carpenter,

Please don't go away until we've established some other means of contact, I enjoy our discussions. Hearing another trusted person's views helps clarify my own - although you and I often end up closer together that either of us suspected.

For those who think Ron Paul's a looney - do yourself the favor of reading at least one of his books. He has a depth of knowledge that will knock you scooting on your ass, whether you agree with him or not. The sole reason that he's ostracised is that he would upset both established parties, as he attacks their dumbassery with equal vigor. Surely you have a library that has one of the several books he's written. His positions are sufficiently sophisticated that they simply can't be expressed in the ten seconds or so he's allowed on TV. But ... as has often been said here ... read a book. I'm a finance major which involves an excess of economics classes, and I had to backtrack on his "End the Fed" book several times because he lost me for a bit; but, after reading it, I respect his positions even more. I think the reason that he appeals more to the younger set is that what he's saying agrees with the subjects they're studying, and their minds are quicker. Also, they're far more willing to accept something that's outside the status quo.

Please don't get me wrong, while college is supposed to teach critical thinking, the individual courses may not, and college isn't the be-all and end-all some folks think it is. But, put all that aside and find some source of Paul's material that isn't soundbites only, and you'll have a different perspective of the principles he's expounding for all his political life. Wade through the graduate-level economic theory he explains, and it all boils down to simple common sense.

All that said, I'm angry at Paul. He's not a Republican in the "managed carefully by the RNC" sense. He should have had the testicular fortitude to divorce himself from them long ago, and I fault him heavily for it. I understand his idea that he can help more from within the party than from without, but on the other hand I think that's pretty chickenshit. Since this time he's decided to end his career in the House and not pursue another term, then the least he can do for those of us who have stood by him is to make a run at it. He may even achieve a Pyrrhic victory, which could be enough to spawn a third party with clout, aka Ross Perot, even if he doesn't win. I think U.S. voters deserve a lot more than a choice between the lesser weevils.

[Crochety Carpenter]

Gaston, Really appreciate the above insight.
Ron Paul ran for years on the Libertarian Party Platform. He could not grab enough traction to get much notice, or rather he got noticed but not voted for.
I think he came to realise, as I did, that we have an irrevocable two party system. The voting populace is too lazy to sufficiently educate themselves to give an independent candidate a chance. When the candidate has a party affiliation many of thier views, or at least in a broad sense, thier general philosophy, is already known. Of course, the degree to which they will hold to it varies from candidate to candidate.
I think that I have stated before that a third party ALWAYS winds up electing the candidate they least desire. Do you think that the Ross Perot voters preferred Clinton over Bush or Dole? I hated them both but would have taken either over Clinton. How about Ralph Nader? He definately would have prefered Gore.
I staunchly maintained my independence untill I saw several state and local issues derailed by intransigent extreemists. Realising that I most often voted Republican I opted to try to exert what influence I could there. I started attending the monthly Central Commitee meetings and discovered that it is quite easy to get involved and, if you are the least bit articulate, exert conciderable influence locally which can eventually go beyound. I served as Vice Chair of the Central Commitee and Chair of the Platform commitee twice. The only reason I was not Party Chair is that I had to restrict my involvement due to family demands. I attended three State conventions and served once on the State Platform Commitee. The particular county in which I served remains one of the most conservative counties in Washington state. It wasn't when I got there.
Ron Paul has, with this involvement in the Republican Party, legitimised debates on ending the Federal Reserve, IRS, "no strings" Foreign Aid, and reducing the number of Federal Departments. He never accomplished that in decades of being a Libertarian. Ron Paul has done us a great service, he should be commended. Of course I would have loooved to see him as President...

[Gaston]

I refuse to vote for the lesser weevil anymore. If one of the two main party candidates is, in my opinion, the best candidate then I'll vote for him or her. Otherwise, I'll vote for whoever I think is the best candidate running. Right now that candidate is in my opinion Gary Johnson, a libertarian.

The old "you're going to lose your vote" idea is one the D's and R's love because it maintains their duocracy. Yes, the first campaign or two I may lose my vote if I go third, fourth, etc. party, but right now I lose it almost every year, over and over. Both major parties are internally conflicted to the point that it looks like they took turns picking their platform planks out of a hat held up over their heads. Neither are our father's parties - hell, I'm old enough that they aren't my party(s). I voted Republican many years ago because of the Democrats' love of useless pork barrel spending, and because of their lack of positive action on human rights, especially racial/religious/ethnic equality. I jumped ship when Reagan ran, hell even his own V.P. later called his fiscal plans "voodoo economics", and it was, and is. Look at any trustworthy source on the debt/deficit over the years and follow the line on the chart, that's proof in itself. It took a Democrat (Clinton) working with a Republican (Gingrich) to get our national finances under control again, and as soon as both were gone the debt/spending lines on the chart shot up and kept climbing. President Obama inherited a mess because of President (Dubja) Bush's attempt at trickle down economics, but after the huge borrowing necessary to keep our nation out of that particular ruin, the debt keeps climbing without good reason. It doesn't matter what your social policies and ideas are if you run us into ruin in the process so we can't pay for any of them.

The Libertarians (I wouldn't have used the capital "L" before they nominated Johnson) would stop one of the most expensive policies, both fiscally and socially, that this nation has embraced since alcohol prohibition - the War on Drugs. Obama promised not to enforce it if the states agreed, and he has gone back on that word. I don't want "drugs". I won't take "drugs" (OK, maybe a hit off a spliff now and then, were it legal, but not habitually). It isn't that I want drugs. It's that the current policy is filling jails faster than we build them and we are letting violent criminals out of prison to make room for newly-caught dope-smokers. It's well beyond stupid. Our tiny county got, on top of all the financing they get from the county budget (property taxes) and state programs, nearly 1/2 million dollars for the WoD - despite the fact that most arrests come from the Drug Task Force which includes several other well-funded agencies, and most of those come from a Commonwealth Attorney (DA) that habitually overcharges detainees so she can sweat them into ratting out someone else. Our sheriff didn't know what to do with the money, so he suggested to the Board of Supervisors buying an armored vehicle and training a SWAT team ... for a county of about 10k population, that has rapid access to an experienced Virginia State Police SWAT team with vehicles that's only a radio/phone call away. In the southern part of our county the VSP can probably get there faster than the county can. If the Libertarians only fixed this one thing the whole country would be noticeably better off, and the various levels of gov't would spend far less money. What's more important, good citizens wouldn't get outlandish punishment for doing something that harms no one else (and in many cases, not even themselves), we wouldn't be paying private businesses to incarcerate citizens (that whole idea is like fingernails on a chalkboard for me), and we wouldn't be wasting all this money trying to find a couple of pills in someone's pocket instead of chasing down the thieves and violent criminals. This county rounded up over 50 people last month for drug infractions, many of them minor stuff, but the last time a snowstorm took out our electricity it took the power companies an extra week to bring them back online because scrap metal thieves had gutted two of our major substations, and stolen a lot of downed wires. And the deputies drive 4-wheel-drives here. Maybe they could take a fraction of that 500k and buy a few 4-wheelers, that's what the thieves used.

The Libertarians under Johnson would stop something else even more expensive, as it costs lives as well as dollars - meddling in the business of other countries. A lot of those dollar costs aren't even reflected in our official budget, and how can you put a price on the human costs, both those of our soldiers, sailors and marines, but also those of civilians in the countries we try to "fix"? There would have been no 9/11 attack had we not continued to keep troops in Arab, Muslim nations - Osama himself stated it plainly more than once. No U.S. Cole attack, no attacks on our embassies in Africa, and none of dozens of other attacks, some not properly attributed or considered newsworthy. Al Qaeda was specifically formed to force the U.S. to remove our military from Muslim/Arab countries. They warned us, many times. And, we had no business there anyway except to protect US corporations you used the fact that they could get military protection to start ventures in countries that they knew were not otherwise safe.

No, it's very unlikely I'll ever vote R or D again, unless we just happened to get an outstanding candidate for one of them that their respective national committees didn't ruin during the campaign. I don't think a good candidate can survive the primary process for either party.

Wonder if Perot would run again?