TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:The problem with Ron Paul is that he's a hypocrite. He rants about earmarks and pork, and then he brings home just as much as the next guy. Naturally his constituents like him and keep reelecting him. Just don't expect "outsiders" not to call a spade a spade when they see one.

I'm not sure about the pork part, but I'm not aware that Rep. Paul has ever been against earmarks. My understanding of his position is that all of the federal government should be directly earmrked by congress, in order to be able to point directly at representatives for wasteful spending.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Now I think his son, Senator Rand Paul is a horse of a different feather, and I think he has a very bright future in the party—along with some of the other young lions like Rep. Ryan and others.

I definitely agree that Rand Paul has a bright future and would be a better candidate for national office. I was concerned that he'd abandon some of the principles he ran on, but he has so far exceeded my highest hopes for him once in office.

texasmusic wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:he's a nut-job, but he's our (Texas') nut-job. He's very, very insolationist.

He's quite adamant that he's non-interventionist, not isolationist.

The one thing that worry's me about him is, he needs to be able to wage on heck of a war if we need him to. If we are just going to step to the side of the global scene (which I believe we should) we should be prepared for whatever consequences that has. It may lead to peace because we stop funding both sides of every conflict, it may lead to a serious war because we took everybody off international welfare. I just think a president who is going to pull out of international affairs right now needs to realize that it might have unexpected consequences. He might think too much about the principle of the former and not the latter.

While libertarians tend to be opposed in military intervention around the globe, one thing they tend to be in agreement on is that national defense is one of the proper roles of government.

Personally, I'm in favor of a drastic downsizing of the regular military while maintaining or enlarging the reserves and National Guard; I believe this would save money while maintaining our ability to defend ourselves and bringing us more in line with the militia system this country originally had.

texasmusic wrote:What's wrong with Paul?

I ask because I know a little about him, but from what I hear him say, he has his head on straight.

Too much baggage to be electable.

Don't get me wrong, I like his stands on the issues, especially his prinicipled federalism and non-interventionism. I just don't think he stands a chance in a national election.

Ameer wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:ETA: By "sensible immigration reform" I primarily mean a guest worker program, not necessarily including a path to citizenship.

Why do we need unskilled guest workers when there's 10% unemployment?

If there are no jobs, they won't come--the poor economy has already cut down on the number of illegal border crossings. Provide a mechanism for them to come and work legally and let the market determine how many.

loadedliberal wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:If the Republicans can put up someone who is not insane I might be able to swallow a vote for a (R). i am losing patience with Obama on a daily basis he is not the Obama I voted for in 2008. With little chance of a strong primary challenger myself and (some) others on left may defect for a reasonable republican.

If the Republicans were to nominate a libertarian-leaning candidate(not Ron Paul) I think they would have a good chance of pulling in many from the civil liberties wing of the Democratic party. Concentrate on ending the wars in the Middle East, ending the drug war, reigning in the civil liberties abuses which have been propogated by both parties since 9/11.

Unfortunately, I don't think such a candidate has much of a chance in the Republican primaries.

If you can find 'em I'll vote for him.

Gary Johnson

Add sensible immigration reform to my list of criteria above, and pull in a sizable percentage of the Hispanic vote as well. That's unlikely to come about from a Democrat because two large Democratic constituencies--unions and blacks--are opposed to it.

ETA: By "sensible immigration reform" I primarily mean a guest worker program, not necessarily including a path to citizenship. While the immigration quota system is flawed and desperately needs to be expanded, the most pressing immigration issue (at least politically) is illegal immigration. I think that could be largely resolved by a guest worker system, since those who come here illegally now don't necessarily want to stay in the US permanently but simply want to earn money to send back to their family.

loadedliberal wrote:If the Republicans can put up someone who is not insane I might be able to swallow a vote for a (R). i am losing patience with Obama on a daily basis he is not the Obama I voted for in 2008. With little chance of a strong primary challenger myself and (some) others on left may defect for a reasonable republican.

If the Republicans were to nominate a libertarian-leaning candidate (not Ron Paul) I think they would have a good chance of pulling in many from the civil liberties wing of the Democratic party. Concentrate on ending the wars in the Middle East, ending the drug war, reigning in the civil liberties abuses which have been propogated by both parties since 9/11.

Unfortunately, I don't think such a candidate has much of a chance in the Republican primaries.

OldSchool wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:The past President's administration is what gets the future President elected. Think about it....

Except what is this President's forte (it sure has nothing to do with vision or management skills or leadership skills)? Think about it....

Obama's biggest strength in 2008 was that he was essentially a blank slate onto which his supporters could project any policy position they supported. Many of them thought, "He's a smart guy, so he must feel the same way I do about civil rights/war in the Middle East/gay marriage/etc."

He's no longer a blank slate, and has done a remarkably good job alienating his liberal base. If the Republicans nominate a non-insane candidate, Obama is beatable in 2012.