Anyone For Mitt In 2016

[hornadylnl]

I haven't ruled out Rand. Honestly don't know that much about him. Much like the repubs like candidates that have the left's panties in a twist, any repub that has the kirkpublicans' panties in a twist is worth giving a solid look.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There are times when Rand sounds an awful lot like our resident libertarians.

Rand Paul: Time to rethink opposition to judicial activism - Washington Times

 

[mrjarrell]

There are times when Rand sounds an awful lot like our resident libertarians.

Rand Paul: Time to rethink opposition to judicial activism - Washington Times

And many times when he doesn't. He's gone out of his way to say he's not a libertarian.

"They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian," Paul says

Rand Paul Leads GOP Kentucky Senate Race as Outsider - TIME

He agrees with libertarians on a few things and sounds close on others, but I'll take him on his word that he's a TEA Partier and republican. If he were to get the nod from the gop, I'd look at him, but I doubt I'd vote for him. I have made a decades long habit of not voting for dems or reps. Don't see myself breaking that streak.

 

[MisterChester]

There are times when Rand sounds an awful lot like our resident libertarians.

Rand Paul: Time to rethink opposition to judicial activism - Washington Times

Rand realizes that judicial activism has helped both liberal and conservative causes alike. You could argue Citizens United, McDonald v Chicago, etc are examples of judicial activism. They certainly legislated from the bench on the former, and reaffirmed a right in the latter.

 

[rambone]

Rand is being strategic with his self-imposed labels, which is a smart move, politically.

 

[BogWalker]

Rand is being strategic with his self-imposed labels, which is a smart move, politically.

So he's "telling the sheeple what they want to hear"? Must be a true tyrant in the making.

I would vote for Rand Paul. I thought Ron was a little out there, but Rand seems to have his head on straight.

 

[rambone]

So he's "telling the sheeple what they want to hear"? Must be a true tyrant in the making.

You definitely missed the point of our discussion.

 

[BogWalker]

You definitely missed the point of our discussion.

I think you must have misunderstood me then. I don't expect any shift in views from anyone to appease the voters. I just think politicians can go along way to helping their campaign by putting on a friendly face. He's doing the exact same thing I was telling you needs to be done.

Oh well, let's not restart that here. We can all go back to agreeing that Mitt Romney needs to go home.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Actually , let Mitt, Jeb and that whole crowd do what they will. The more they divide the RINO vote, the better the chances that Rand or someone else of his type wins in places like Iowa, NH, etc.

mrj , so it sounds like your reason for not voting for him, is BECAUSE he would have a R after his name as opposed to an L? Even though he would likely take the country in a direction that you would find agreeable for the most part? And how is that different from those who likely invoke your anger, by saying "my grandpappy was an X, my pappy was an X and I'll die an X" and ignorantly pull the R or D straight ticket lever? Not disparaging your choice - but pointing out that there's not a lot of difference. I guess the acid test would have been to ask if you would have voted for Gary Johnson had he been the R nominee instead of an afterthought in the R primary.

GFGT - there are things about Rand that I don't like, but you're never going to find someone that's 100%. If a Romney or a Jeb is closer to the mark for you then great.

rambone - I remember you mentioning what you were doing during the last election. Kudos to you for being FOR something and campaigning for it. No matter what it was.

horn, et al... (and I intend to follow this path) Right now, as the field of candidates is wide open and people are emerging, would it not make more sense, instead of saying "well Person XYZ is a [insert animal of choice]'s [insert body part of choice]" - rather to find someone who most closely resembles who we think needs to be there, and SUPPORT them? Whether they have an L or an R or a BFD after their name?

As for me - I prefer those who are as close to liberty as I can find. I will be supporting the closest person to that, that has any kind of name recognition. Third party candidates included in the mix (and there have been some in the past who have had name recognition, Perot, Anderson, et al.). From the list of those who have stuck their nose out thus far, Rand would be leading the pack in my book. Huntsman could prove interesting if he chose to as well, but there's much to be seen. Cruz, Rubio are interesting agitators, but I wonder if they are not more suited to the agitator role than that of President.

As the field gets narrowed down, then I will still support the most liberty leaning candidate who passes the basic name recognition test, regardless of party.

And folks like Obama and Hillary run a close second to Satan himself in the "I want to tear down liberty" camp in my book. Santorum and Christie, though, tend the same way. If those are all that's left we're in real trouble. I would rank Romney and Jeb slightly better , but not by a huge margin. Romney better than Jeb because our economy would at least be on a better footing than with the others. Barring any future "he killed small puppies" type of revelations, Rand has shown the ability to be pro-liberty without going all loony and screaming like his dad did. And so far, he leads the pack by a long way in my book.

I'm not going to waste my time tearing people that I disagree with down. Aside of the occasional snarky witticism or something. I'm just going to support who I can.

Just my two centavos...

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

rambone - for the record, I found some of the tactics employed by the Ron Paul campaign the last time to be remarkably "Bill Bellichick-ish" in their nature. I understand why they were done, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when it happens. Agitation is necessary when trying to bring an issue to the front of the discussion. It is also decidedly un-presidential. I would hope that the "win at all costs" crowd would think for a minute about that before deciding on such a strategy.

Kirk is right in the assertion that to be successful, the Rand camp has to leave the Wookie suits at home.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Actually , let Mitt, Jeb and that whole crowd do what they will. The more they divide the RINO vote, the better the chances that Rand or someone else of his type wins in places like Iowa, NH, etc.

mrj , so it sounds like your reason for not voting for him, is BECAUSE he would have a R after his name as opposed to an L? Even though he would likely take the country in a direction that you would find agreeable for the most part? And how is that different from those who likely invoke your anger, by saying "my grandpappy was an X, my pappy was an X and I'll die an X" and ignorantly pull the R or D straight ticket lever? Not disparaging your choice - but pointing out that there's not a lot of difference. I guess the acid test would have been to ask if you would have voted for Gary Johnson had he been the R nominee instead of an afterthought in the R primary.

GFGT - there are things about Rand that I don't like, but you're never going to find someone that's 100%. If a Romney or a Jeb is closer to the mark for you then great.

rambone - I remember you mentioning what you were doing during the last election. Kudos to you for being FOR something and campaigning for it. No matter what it was.

horn, et al... (and I intend to follow this path) Right now, as the field of candidates is wide open and people are emerging, would it not make more sense, instead of saying "well Person XYZ is a [insert animal of choice]'s [insert body part of choice]" - rather to find someone who most closely resembles who we think needs to be there, and SUPPORT them? Whether they have an L or an R or a BFD after their name?

As for me - I prefer those who are as close to liberty as I can find. I will be supporting the closest person to that, that has any kind of name recognition. Third party candidates included in the mix (and there have been some in the past who have had name recognition, Perot, Anderson, et al.). From the list of those who have stuck their nose out thus far, Rand would be leading the pack in my book. Huntsman could prove interesting if he chose to as well, but there's much to be seen. Cruz, Rubio are interesting agitators, but I wonder if they are not more suited to the agitator role than that of President.

As the field gets narrowed down, then I will still support the most liberty leaning candidate who passes the basic name recognition test, regardless of party.

And folks like Obama and Hillary run a close second to Satan himself in the "I want to tear down liberty" camp in my book. Santorum and Christie, though, tend the same way. If those are all that's left we're in real trouble. I would rank Romney and Jeb slightly better , but not by a huge margin. Romney better than Jeb because our economy would at least be on a better footing than with the others. Barring any future "he killed small puppies" type of revelations, Rand has shown the ability to be pro-liberty without going all loony and screaming like his dad did. And so far, he leads the pack by a long way in my book.

I'm not going to waste my time tearing people that I disagree with down. Aside of the occasional snarky witticism or something. I'm just going to support who I can.

Just my two centavos...

These political arguments are entertaining but boring in their repetitiveness. (Every now and then, somebody comes up with a new spin or funny witticism.) You'll soon be countered with some form of "I'm tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils and always getting the same result" argument. Lather-rinse-repeat.

The truth of the matter is by the time the election comes along, the fact we're arguing over Obama-care and if so-and-so will repeal it or not, the argument, to a large extent, is already lost. We know that the election of someone like Obama will make things worse, in a shorter amount of time, but the election of any Republican, LP, Green, Constitutional Party, etc. person is unlikely to make significant strides in the other direction unless the people are ready. So, with that in mind, much like you, my plan is to vote for the most constitutionally minded person I can find that will likely be elected.

Some will make the "anybody but Hillary" aspersions or accusations that people like you and I are only perpetuating the boot-on-your-neck party system but the real truth is that until the culture can be turned around, until people are allow to experience the ramifications of their choices, the schools actually teach the Constitution, etc., no single president, senator, or rep. can turn this around...they can make it worse...but everything else will be confined to the margins.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I don't care who's running against Elizabeth Warren... I'm voting for them.

 

[bwframe]

These political arguments are entertaining but boring in their repetitiveness. (Every now and then, somebody comes up with a new spin or funny witticism.) You'll soon be countered with some form of "I'm tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils and always getting the same result" argument. Lather-rinse-repeat.

The truth of the matter is by the time the election comes along, the fact we're arguing over Obama-care and if so-and-so will repeal it or not, the argument, to a large extent, is already lost. We know that the election of someone like Obama will make things worse, in a shorter amount of time, but the election of any Republican, LP, Green, Constitutional Party, etc. person is unlikely to make significant strides in the other direction unless the people are ready. So, with that in mind, much like you, my plan is to vote for the most constitutionally minded person I can find that will likely be elected.

Some will make the "anybody but Hillary" aspersions or accusations that people like you and I are only perpetuating the boot-on-your-neck party system but the real truth is that until the culture can be turned around, until people are allow to experience the ramifications of their choices, the schools actually teach the Constitution, etc., no single president, senator, or rep. can turn this around...they can make it worse...but everything else will be confined to the margins.

Smart fellow others should listen to.

 

[jamil]

Rand realizes that judicial activism has helped both liberal and conservative causes alike. You could argue Citizens United, McDonald v Chicago, etc are examples of judicial activism. They certainly legislated from the bench on the former, and reaffirmed a right in the latter.

I'm not sure I agree with all of the Citizens United decision, but do you think that the constitution gives Congress power to restrict political contributions of anyone? As for McDonald v Chicago, if you oppose incorporation, I don't see how you can maintain consistency and not oppose that decision. But the reverse is also true. I don't see how the court could have ruled against McDonald and kept incorporation in place aside from judicial activism. If there was any judicial activism in that case it came from the left side of the court. They favor incorporation yet they opposed McDonald.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm not sure I agree with all of the Citizens United decision, but do you think that the constitution gives Congress power to restrict political contributions of anyone? As for McDonald v Chicago, if you oppose incorporation, I don't see how you can maintain consistency and not oppose that decision. But the reverse is also true. I don't see how the court could have ruled against McDonald and kept incorporation in place aside from judicial activism. If there was any judicial activism in that case it came from the left side of the court. They favor incorporation yet they opposed McDonald.

If it were up to me, I'd gladly have never had McDonald decided the way it was if it meant the theory of "incorporation" were eliminated from our constitutional conscienceness. It is one of the concepts, like the bastardization of the commerce clause, and the "separation of church and state", that has allowed way too much government into our lives.

 

[jamil]

If it were up to me, I'd gladly have never had McDonald decided the way it was if it meant the theory of "incorporation" were eliminated from our constitutional conscienceness. It is one of the concepts, like the bastardization of the commerce clause, and the "separation of church and state", that has allowed way too much government into our lives.

Incorporation is here to stay. It's a part of the constitution now and it's never going away short of changing the constitution to specifically eliminate it. It's just another construct to allow powerful people to make the law whatever they want it to be.

I imagine that the next Obamacare ruling will amount to nothing. News outlets have been pulling out the stops talking about how hard the sky will fall if SCOTUS strikes down the subsidies. But it's either constitutional or it's not. The ruling shouldn't be about ideology or how much political pressure you can put on justices to lean your way. It should simply be, is the law constitutional or not.

 

[Camdog]

Not enough of them to win.

 

[Redhorse]

I haven't ruled out Rand. Honestly don't know that much about him. Much like the repubs like candidates that have the left's panties in a twist, any repub that has the kirkpublicans' panties in a twist is worth giving a solid look.

You'll like his stance on personal liberty and the second amendment for starters

And many times when he doesn't. He's gone out of his way to say he's not a libertarian.

Rand Paul Leads GOP Kentucky Senate Race as Outsider - TIME

He agrees with libertarians on a few things and sounds close on others, but I'll take him on his word that he's a TEA Partier and republican. If he were to get the nod from the gop, I'd look at him, but I doubt I'd vote for him. I have made a decades long habit of not voting for dems or reps. Don't see myself breaking that streak.

He's gone out of his way to keep all of his eggs out of one basket and to connect with the broadest portion of the electorate possible. Instead of only seeking conservatives or only seeking libertarians, he's trying to seek out everyone, hence he has discussions and debates with liberals. Our electorate continues to diversify everyday, if the GOP wants to survive, they must connect with a larger base and run candidates who can connect with them.

Rand is being strategic with his self-imposed labels, which is a smart move, politically.

All politicians must do this if they like their jobs.


I've noticed many of you refuse to vote for someone if they belong to a party. Say what you will but since they belong to a major party, designated with an uppercase letter next to their name, many of you refuse to vote. Do you refuse to practice American democracy? This has been our system since the second president of our nation and will never change. Read that again; this will never change as long as we continue to be a nation. If it does, we will no longer be the nation we are right now. Considering our system has clearly been the most effective one to date, I will continue to support it. We all have the right to do as we please, however, when election day comes, I will support which ever candidate I feel can lead (not rule tyrannically) this great nation best. Considering we can still own, and carry, firearms, we are very, very, far from being ruled by "consensual tyrannical dictators." We can vote, that is democracy, specifically federal representative democracy here in our United States. It has its flaws but its our system.

 

[mrjarrell]

So, which Mitt Romney will be running? The same old progressive.

The New Progressive Mitt Romney is the Same as the Old Progressive Mitt Romney - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[jamil]

So, which Mitt Romney will be running? The same old progressive.

The New Progressive Mitt Romney is the Same as the Old Progressive Mitt Romney - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Huh, I'd have thought you'd like the new progressive Mitt.

But anyway...

"...a new-and-improved candidate Romney would focus on climate change, poverty, and education..."
​

The article is essentially a libertarian opinion about the opinion of someone's opinions. In other words, spinning the spin.

Let's stop the spinning for a reality check. Mit Romney is not a progressive liberal. He's a moderate. He leans to the left socially. He leans to the right fiscally. He has moderately ranging opinions about the role of government and about personal liberty. He's not far enough one way or the other that either end of the spectrum can accept him.

He may be rearranging the priority list for what message he pushes to try to appeal to a different demographic. But I'd bet his solution for climate change would be utterly rejected by the tree huggers. The "social justice" progressives would defecate all over his solutions for poverty. And I'm confident his educational solutions wouldn't be indoctrinational enough for the progressive academic elites. Just like his solution for big government would be laughed at by staunch libertarians.

The center does not appeal to the extremes. If Mitt thinks he can appeal to the progressives, he's going to experience the same result he got with trying to appeal to conservatives. Mit is a moderate.