Monday, December 5, 2011

Open Letter to Paul Ryan: Run!!

Dear Rep. Paul Ryan,

Run for President. We need you. And I don’t mean we need you so we can win the election -- both Romney and Gingrich can beat Obama. Winning isn’t the problem. The problem is winning isn’t enough. We need YOU to save conservatism, and frankly, save the country.

America is a conservative country. Polls show it. Sixty percent of Americans believe in conservative ideas. Yet we have no conservative party.

Instead, we have an establishment party with two branches. One branch calls themselves Republicans and they pretend to be conservative, while the other calls themselves Democrats and they pretend to be liberal. But neither is what they claim. They are just different factions of the same corporate/elite cleptrocracy that controls the country. And Romney and Gingrich and Obama represent that perfectly.

Obama we know. Obama is the guy who promised socialism, but somehow ended up passing a healthcare bill that takes from taxpayers and doctors and gives to insurance carriers and drug companies. He promised to fix “too big to fail” and ended up making the biggest even bigger. He promised to regulate Wall Street and then let Wall Street write the bill. He bailed out the bad bets of Wall Street and the most connected of the Fortune 500. He promised a cleaner environment but used that to transfer money to GE -- just as “eco-freak” Algore was a tool of Occidental Petroleum and made a fortune selling phony environmental indulgences to suckers, or as anti-business Pelosi has been getting rich riding the IPO train for high tech and natural gas companies, or “average” Joe Biden sold his soul to MBNA bank and tightened up bankruptcy rules to help credit card company profits soar, or Chris Dodd played footsie with Countrywide, and Maxine Waters milked the TARP for her husband, etc. They are thieves.

Now consider Romney. Romney comes to us from the world of finance, where all turmoil has come since the mid-1990s. He has no beliefs except that it is his turn to represent the establishment. He has stood on both sides of every issue he’s ever encountered. To him, principles are things that run schools, risk is a board game, and conservatism is a cloak he bought in 2008. He has a spine of Jello and an aluminum foil will to match. He uses his mind not to chart courses and provide leadership, but to chart the wind so he knows what to believe. He is the human equivalent of bologna on white bread and he believes whatever the establishment tells him to believe at the moment.

Newt’s worse. Unlike Romney and Obama, Newt has ideas. But he can’t distinguish between the good ones and the bad ones and he’s not ruled by his brain in any event, he’s ruled by his ego. Newt is a fraud. He’s the “conservative” who believes in combating global warming by having taxpayers support Big Business, who supports forcing people to buy insurance from Big Business, who believes Obama’s Wall Street regulatory head-fake was “too harsh,” who was for the TARP before he was against it and will be for it again, and who believes in stimulus spending and amnesty for illegals. If Romney is bologna, Newt is a spoiled hot dog marked “filet mignon.”

With Cain destroyed, these are our choices?! Why are there no real conservatives? Why are there no competent candidates? No common sense candidates? No candidates who don’t stink of the establishment.

To put it simply, Mr. Ryan, we have lost faith. We are sick of never having a real choice. We are sick of both sides being the same side. And we are sick of the phony theater the establishment uses to try to trick us into believing otherwise.

We are not stupid no matter what the establishment believes. We know the establishment lets corporations rape the Treasury to cover their bets: heads they win, tails the taxpayers lose. We know the establishment thinks illegal aliens should have more rights than Americans. We know the establishment cares more about the rights of terrorists than about the rights and safety of American soldiers. We know the establishment thinks we won’t notice they are forcing taxpayers to pick up the bill for companies shipping factories overseas. We know the establishment uses the power of regulation to protect its friends from the forces of capitalism. We know the establishment taxes the middle class to support its members. We know the establishment are liars.

We know that an increase in spending is not a cut. We know the big fight over 0% cuts was an obscenity. And no amount of both parties pretending this was significant will change that. You added a trillion in spending to the budget over two years. Now we have a trillion dollar deficit. The solution is easy, and no amount of the establishment calling this an impossible puzzle can hide that. We have NOT always been at war with Oceania!

I am not kidding when I say we are reaching a point where average Americans will no longer take this. And I’m not talking about voting out one group of establishment and replacing them with another. The establishment is playing a dangerous game.

If you care about America, Rep. Ryan, then it’s time to step up. Give us a real choice. Disclaim the Gingroromneybamas. Reject corporate socialism. Give us a flat tax with no corporate giveaways, promise us you will cut the regulatory code in half. Promise us you will open health and education to free markets and will use the power of anti-trust law to end too-big-to-fail by making them too-small-for-us-to care. Tell us you will defend American citizenship, protect our borders, slash the budget by a third NOW, not in 1,000 years. Promise us you will stop kowtowing to China and the twisted sensibilities of Europhiles. Promise us you will kill every single sacred cow and force our government back into the Constitutional confines from which it escaped. Give us a return to common sense.

Save America now, while you have the chance. Run, Mr. Ryan. America needs you.

Sincerely,
AndrewPrice

P.S. If anyone missed it, I profiled Ryan here: LINK.

85 comments:

T-Rav said...

Hear hear!

Seriously, you should email this to the Ryan people. I'm not optimistic but he needs to read it regardless.

I did just read in the Daily Caller last night that Ryan is going to be active in selecting actual conservatives to run for Congress next year, rather than the usual suspects. Maybe that's his plan; but hey, if he were running for President and won, he'd have a pretty good coattail effect on those people, wouldn't he?

Ryan needs to run.

patti said...

I propose that everyone who reads this #1) share it and #2) share it with Ryan's office.

Let's go viral! Well said, Andrew.

patti said...

T-Rav: great minds...

patti said...

Tweeted: Check. Facebook'd: Check Posted on Paul Ryan's Facebook Page: Check. Emailed article to Paul Ryan: No can do. His site only allows constituents to email him.

T-Rav said...

patti, good to know we're on the same wavelength! :-)

I'll have to find his Facebook site and do the same, I guess. There's surely some way to email his people.

tryanmax said...

Not that I don't agree with the sentiment, but I think Paul Ryan is where he needs to be. I think getting more conservatives elected to congress is the greater need and if Ryan is willing to take up the monumental task, I say he need not be distracted. That is said without any notion of his chances for success or failure, but I believe Ryan understands the importance of results over intentions, and if I am right then he would not likely take up the task if he didn't think he could make progress.

That said, I am more terrified of the prospects of a Newt presidency the more I think of it. As far as activist executives go, Newt might prove to hold a higher capacity for the task than Barack. At this point, I would settle for a president who limits himself to his Constitutional role regardless of his politics. Fat chance of that happening, I know, but Newt is the furthest from that ideal of all the GOP contenders.

Looking at the remaining field without regard to who the frontrunners are, I think the next candidate I can conscionably support is Rick Perry. My only objection to Perry is his borderline cronyism, which is leagues better than most of the all-in cronyism found in D.C. What heartens me is that he has a record of fixing policies when there is popular objection. Better a guy who gets it wrong but makes it right than a guy who is stubborn in his wrongness. (I'm looking at Newt and Mitt, both.)

tryanmax said...

Wait a minute, look at the names of these candidates: Newt, Mitt, Barack. I don't want to hear anything about "funny names" from Der Präsident.

I now look forward to the day when we will be choosing between Gavin, Chloe, and Zach.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Sadly, I don't think he'll run either, but he really should. Right now he's probably the one trustworthy genuine conservative that people could get behind. He's also electable and I have no doubt he would right this country. I can't say the same for any of the others.

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, That would be nice. It would be nice if people sent this to Ryan and he actually decided maybe it was time to jump in and save us from disaster!

AndrewPrice said...

patti, Thanks for spreading the word! :)

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, On the point about him helping find conservatives for Congress, I think that's great. But honestly, Congress isn't a problem at this point -- the Senate is. And we're not going to get 60 (and certainly not 60 conservatives) in the Senate, so the White House really is more important.

Plus, this goes beyond that. This is an issue of rebuilding our faith. Right now the establishment is trying to sell us the bologna and the hot dog as if they are far-right, genuine conservatives and they aren't. They are nothing of the sort. But the sale pitch is going. This sales pitch goes so far that even a dipstick like Christine Todd-Whitman, a traitorous "RINO" from New Jersey is telling Huntsman he should run a third party campaign because Romney/Gingrich are so far to the right.

It's bull. It's intended to deceive us of what is going on.

Someone needs to break that if conservatism will ever prevail and save our political system from collapse.

DUQ said...

Andrew, I do love your rants. I agree completely!

tryanmax said...

Todd-Whitman is an idiot. If anything (and I wish I were joking) Huntsman is to the right of Newt and Mitt--not that that says much.

tryanmax said...

Point well taken about the Senate being a bigger priority than the House.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Newt is probably the most dangerous in the crowd (and I count Paul in that). You never know what he's going to do and I suspect he won't be able to stop himself from trying to build a legacy day one. The problem with that is the easiest legacy -- the kind that gets you bronze statutes in the soviet vein -- is to start giving people things like nationalize healthcare or "saving the planet."

I have little doubt Newt will do whatever he wants without regard to the Constitution or conservative principles -- in fact his prior support for things like an insurance mandate proves it. He will be Obama with a wider desire to achieve. It will be a disaster.

On Perry, I can't support the guy. He has shown me all I need to know about his thinking to know he's a crony and a liberal. He sees Washington as a place to plunder. He wants to join the establishment.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It could be so much worse than that -- Skyler, Lashawn, and Keesha.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks DUQ. Sadly, I will probably get to continue ranting from time to time because that's how our universe seems to work.

T-Rav said...

I hear Cain is probably going to endorse Newt either today or in the next few days, which doesn't surprise me at all, given the friendly relations between the two.

Of the people now running, I'd have to vote for Newt. I still can't stomach Romney, I'd like to take a bazooka to Perry's camp, and Paul--no. Just no. But if things get much worse, I may end up just casting a vote for Bachmann or Santorum, and I don't even like them.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, The problem is the Senate will take several elections to fix if ever. But the White House has tremendous power and could literally fix 90% of this problem.

Moreover, I think this is a broader issue than just the actual massaging of politics. I think Ryan is the one guy conservatives know is trustworthy. He's the only politician I see who has honestly put the country ahead of his career, who works for genuine conservatism, and who is both smart enough and honest enough that he would represent US and not "the system."

I think we need that right now because what we're being offered is unacceptable at this point.

Ed said...

Andrew, I didn't know much about Ryan until he stood up to Obama and that impressed me. And your article about Ryan impressed me more. I think you're right that we need Paul Ryan. I would support him in a heartbeat and never look back, even if the MSM told me he eats children.

T-Rav said...

I wonder if maybe we can get through to Boehner and some others in the House leadership and ask them to put pressure on Ryan to run. They were all in favor of it at one point, if I remember right.

tryanmax said...

Well, I just didn't want to jump in the conversation about who I can't support without saying who I can. Of all the candidates, Perry is the only one that gives me a sense of who he might be that I can handle.

Gingrich is a chameleon.
Romeny is an empty suit.
Bachmann is a jr. chameleon.
Paul favors a nightmare foreign policy.
Santorum favors a nightmare domestic policy (and I'm not convinced he knows the day of the week).
Huntsman is just nothing.

I guess you could say that I want desperately to stay engaged (if I can't anymore be enthused). If I am to "stick to the Devil I know," Perry is the one I know best. Ho hum.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Todd-Whitman is an idiot. She's also the first Chris Christie -- initially somewhat-conservative-seeming governor elected in liberal New Jersey, becomes instant Republican celebrity, turns out to be hard-core RINO.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I expect Cain will endorse Newt because they are friends and they have shown that they do like and respect each other. But that doesn't sway me.

I honestly have no idea who I can support at this point. I'm actually leaning toward Romney over Newt but am seriously considering Paul just because...

I can't stomach the rest.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I've updated the piece to add a link to that article in case anyone missed it.

I didn't know much about Ryan before a couple years ago but what I've seen has impressed me. He really does seem to be the only one in DC with a brain and a sense of integrity. And I find that statement very sad.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, you should know not to egg me on after yesterday. Here is my nightmare presidential election, and I don't think any of y'all can top it:

Muhammad Hussein(Democratic Sharia Party)
Muhammad Mohammed (Islamic Republican Party)
Hakim Khalid al Siddiqui (Independent)

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I don't know. I don't know why he didn't run or who told him to and who told him not to. I'm honestly not hopeful this will get him to change his mind. But if anyone who reads this knows Ryan or lives in his district, tell him we need him.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Ryan would be the dark horse we could all get behind. Sadly, it's probably too late. But as unenthusiastic as we all are about the current field, who knows? Stranger things have happened. Hope Ryan is listening.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I can't disagree with your assessments. We are left with HORRIBLE choices. I wouldn't hire these people to mow my lawn, much less run my country.

If Paul wasn't so flaky and he wasn't planning to let the world destroy us, I could jump on his bandwagon pretty easily.

The one thing that could win me over to tolerating Romney is the fact he does have his finger in the wind and right now the wind is blowing conservatively -- so maybe he'll be our Clinton who ends up being pretty decent by mistake and by letting Congress run the show?

Perry just screams "the worst of George Bush times 10" to me.

The rest... blech.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Fortunately, that's not even a remote possibility. I think the real nightmare scenario is our side picks one of the Kardashians and their side picks one of the Lohans.

I would advocate nuking the country at that point.

tryanmax said...

I think that it is interesting that we are seeing such strong conservatives coming out of Wisconsin. And heartening, too.

It's long been taken for granted the expression, "so goes California so goes the nation." But a critical eye on US and specifically Progressive history finds that Wisconsin is a far more frequent instigator of change in the nation. I suppose California earns its reputation as an early-adopter of Progressive ideas if not an originator.

I'm not ready to toss-up the old saying in favor of inserting the Badger State, but it certainly is a remarkable development.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I honestly don't think it would be too late. Ryan is a guy who would immediately absorb conservative support like a sponge. He would easily overtake Newt and Romney even before he hired a single staffer in Iowa.

tryanmax said...

I dunno, Andrew. Putting either of those families in the White House spells instant reality show. That would mean unprecedented government transparency. I rather like the suggestion.

Besides, Washington is already a mess, a hot mess would be an improvement.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I think it's interesting too because I've always considered Wisconsin to be a liberal place... but that seems to be changing. My guess is that the liberals are all fleeing to the big coastal cities.

California gets a lot of credit for things merely because it's got good advertising. It's glory days ended in the 1960 and it's been slowly declining ever since.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Could you imagine? Actually, I don't think we even have to imagine. If you've seen Idiocracy then you know exactly what that would be like. :(

T-Rav said...

I agree that it is pretty late for Ryan to get into the game. If he's going to do it at all, he needs to do it quick. However, this has been such an unstable race so far that I think anything is possible. If Newt starts alienating a large portion of the base the way Romney has, that would open the door for a last-minute third option.

tryanmax said...

I may move to Wisconsin yet! (I think it's beautiful there.)

Individualist said...

Andrew

Amen

You have encapsulated exactly what I and many others are thinking.

We are tired of establishment RINOs pretending to be the most "conservative" candidate who is "electable" only to have them trash any truly conservative response.

I am so sick of hearing party "moderates" calling us extremists and then stating "where are you going to go!"

tryanmax said...

BTW, not to "be like that" or anything, but I stacked a little commentary about the political parties and the third-party movement in the Muslim names I chose. Maybe I'm just craving validation again, but I figured no one would look for it otherwise.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I honestly don't think it's too late because there is no enthusiasm for anyone in the race. Newt is currently winning because he's not Romney and that is probably enough to give him the nomination. But I honestly don't see anyone saying "yeah, I love Newt."

I think that right now, a high profile guy like Ryan or Rubio or maybe Jindal could step into the race and literally steal all the conservative voters away from Newt by the end of the week.

And in terms of alienting people, Newt is already beginning his comment about the poor last week was the first Newtism to crack through the "good Newt" facade and more will start to follow.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, It's incredibly frustrating. I'm super frustrated by the whole sham aspect of all of this.

We're told blatant lies which everyone knows are false and then everyone in the establishment -- left, right and center -- jumps up and swears these lies are the truth and acts accordingly. It's Orwellian.

And then we are told who is left, who is right and who is center, but they're all the same. They may make noise about an issue, but it's only talk and if you listen, you will hear that what they are proposing is simply smoke and mirrors.

Look at Bachman and Santorum. They are billed as "conservatives" and their credentials are primary "social conservatism." But look more closely. First, they both entirely ceded economic policy to the establishment. So they are part of the establishment where it counts. But what about the social conservatism? They're different on that, right? Wrong. Both are proposing impossible solutions like "I'm going to change the constitution to cause/prevent gays/abortion/public prayer/etc." Those are bullshit solutions because there is 0.0% chance of such an amendment getting through.

What they are doing is trying to make themselves seem like they are something other than establishment dupes by proposing impossible but extreme sounding solutions to issues they know many voters care about. The same is going on on the left.

In the end, they are all the same only they wear their ideology like costumes to pretend to be different.

I'm sick of it and I think America is sick of it. I want a genuine change.

tryanmax said...

I'd totally vote Jindall!

It's funny, the race over Nelson's senate seat in Nebraska is like a mirror of the presidential race: an incumbent with low approval is being challenged by a field of candidates no one is enthusiastic about and there are a few calls for an outsider (Gov. Dave) to get in the race.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I hear Wisconsin is pretty, though I haven't been there. They do have the Packers.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I'm not sure I get the commentary of which you speak? How about a clue?

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, We saw that in several senate races last time too -- and sadly, in most of those cases, the establishment worked over time to push aside anyone who was genuinely different. That's how in several cases (like Indiana) we ended up with total establishment hack running for the Republican side when the door was wide open for a genuine conservative.

ArmChairGeneral said...

For me the answer is simple - Ron Paul. Sorry I know you guys have your reservations about his international policies but at least he wants to follow the constitution not amend it to his own will. Plus, even with a Paul president it is not like he is going to get all of his policies through. It looks like even if he did get elected he would have strong opposition against sending everyone home.

AndrewPrice said...

ACG, I am honestly reconsidering Paul at this point. The fact that Congress could largely keep his worst instincts in check actually is giving me some comfort. I'm am worried about electability with him though.

tryanmax said...

Not only do social conservatives' impossible stances and economic ignorance irritate me, I'm also irritated by the leftists who seem to be freaked out by the soCons.

I mean, come on, do they really think America is on the verge of theocracy, really?

Actually, aggressive secularist's skittishness over all things religious probably stems from projection. If religious Americans all suddenly came together and decided to do to secularists what the secularists would like to do the the religious, they would have a lot to fear.

But that just demonstrates how little secularists understand religion in America. With the exception of Westboro types, no such impulse exists among the faithful here. If it did, the secular left would have nothing to fear, because their fears would have long-ago been realized.

tryanmax said...

It's not deep or anything, so I'll reveal all.

Both party candidates are named Muhammad because the parties put up candidates that are mutually indistinguishable.

The Democrat nominee is Hussein because they like to pretend that something as superficial as a tarnished name makes them an underdog.

The Republican nominee is double-named because that is just how bland Republican candidates are.

Because of that, our Independent runner is the only one who is at all distinguishable, but is likely none-too-different than the rest.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I agree on all points. For one thing, the American public has zero interest in turning America into a theocracy or adding religious belief to our laws. And it's ridiculous that secularists would panic about such a thing -- though this is probably based on projection as they seem to have no problems telling everyone else how to live.

But that said, I do think some members of the religious right encourage this thinking because it adds to their fundraising abilities. It's again political theater -- if the other side is whining about my effectiveness and my massive power to reshape the world, then people who like what I'm being accused of are more likely to support me and send me money. If, on the other hand, everyone is more rational about it, then no one is going to send me money hoping that I will somehow rid society of _____.

And I agree about the impossible solutions as well. Look at the number of people promising to fix gays or marriage or Godlessness by changing the constitution. That simply won't happen -- and how would it work if it did? These are fake solutions which are nothing more than bait for the unwary. The people proposing the solutions know their "solutions" will never pass and wouldn't work if they did, but they don't care about that because all they really want are people to support them.

And in the meantime, they are avoiding actual policies that would make things better.

It reminds me of the environmentalists. When we had an air pollution problem in the 1970s, everyone knew that 5% of the cars were causing 95% of the problem. But buying up and eliminating those cars wasn't sexy. Instead, these groups worked to eliminate cars or punish new car makers. This simply couldn't fix the problem. So why go this route? Because they were more interested in power, in remaking the economy, and in getting people to send them money than they were in solving the problem. In fact, if the problem was solved then the need for them would go away, so they actually resisted plans to scrap the 5% because that would have robbed them of their best selling point.

I'm also sick of fake-overstated problems. For example: this country will not recognize Sharia law. It is impossible under our constitution. Yet certain conservatives cynically (or stupidly) start screaming that we're headed for a full on Muslim theocracy every time a Muslim gets appointed to one of the hundred thousand local judgeships in this country. It's ridiculously stupid... but it gets listeners/readers and it boosts the fundraising.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I see. That about sums up our current system.

EricP said...

If possible, please involve fellow Congressmen Thaddeus McCotter and Mike Kelly, too. Yes, it seems I’m partial to the Irish.

AndrewPrice said...

Eric, I like McCotter a lot, sadly they wouldn't even let him get in on the debates. I'm not as familiar with Kelly.

Individualist said...

Andrew

While I am religious and I rail against the leftist attack on religion I am not enamored with social conservatives. All to often the end up in practice cowtowing to government statism.

It is the idea that we can be activist judicial judges for the "right". Problem is that the answer is to divorce the government from those aspects of our lives.

Jesus said "Whose picture is on that coin?.... then give to Caesar what is Caesers and give to God what is God's" We take this to mean that we should pay our taxes and obey a lawful government.

However there is a reverse sentiment that we are not keeping. Give to God what is God's. If you need to help the poor because God wills it then you should do so through the church or an appropriate secular charity. That help should not be polluted by a government official who is trying to expand his bailiwick.

This is the failure to get things right that I think many of the social conservatives are stumbing with. They are trying to give to God what is God's but they want Caeser to be the tax collector. When they do that God gets shorted.

Just my thoguhts....

tryanmax said...

I need Paul to do a little more to win me over, but at this point, he is within the realm of possibility for me, which is an advancement on his part.

I've been considering Paul's answers to question he's taken regarding Israel--which serves as a proxy for any of our allies in discussion. What I've realized is that Paul isn't so much flipping the bird at any of our allies as he is refusing to answer the questions.

The problem is that journalists won't put a question to Paul the way he wants it asked. If the question isn't framed Constitutionally, Paul won't answer it. Both sides know what they are doing, but it seems like Paul isn't on to the media's game while they are on to his. Paul's Constitutional sidesteps aren't working any more now than they ever did.

I know I railed against the notion that a candidate needs to be media savvy when I was defending Herman Cain, and I stand by that. But there is no reason why a candidate who is media savvy shouldn't be. Paul is savvy, but he's playing the buffoon and doing so convincingly. Too convincingly.

All said, I do believe that if Congress declared war in aid of Israel or anyone else for that matter, Paul would feel Constitutionally bound to support it. I expect he would sincerely push to limit foreign aid whereas I can't be certain if other candidates are equally sincere. And I have little doubt he would defend the border.

So really, all Paul needs to do to win me over at this point is to answer the damned questions and stop being so coy!

tryanmax said...

Indie, the is my problem with socons in a nutshell: they are every bit as statist as social liberals. It's just that they swap out entitlements for forced morality.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Not to open a can of worms, but I agree. Too often, social conservatism ends up advocating the use of government to impose a particular religious view point.

This troubles me for many reasons.

First, this is a bad idea because the creation of government power is always bad because you can never control who will use it next.

Secondly, this troubles me because I do believe in freedom of religion, including freedom of non-religion, and you can't have freedom of religion when the government is being used to promote one point of view...

(.... and let me contrast this with the idea of freedom "from" religion -- the government should be neutral and should ALLOW all, it just shouldn't pick sides and it should NEVER stop people from practicing their beliefs).

Third, I think this scares people who would otherwise be conservatives and it does so for no gain because the things they advocate are not going to be made law in any event. So all it ends up doing is turning people off for no gain whatsoever.

Fourth, these huge pie in the sky demands prevent people from focusing on more effective policies to achieve better things.

Finally, mixing government and religion only cheapens religion. Government corrupts everything it touches and when religion intermixes with government, you end up sucking the genuineness out of religion and turning it procedural.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, What concerns me about Paul isn't actually his specific answers it's a "general sense"... I get the feeling that he is advocating total isolationism. But I'm not sure because, as you say, he doesn't really provide clear answers. I can't disagree with some of his premises, but I can't get a firm fix on what he's actually saying.

I'm going to pay more attention to his specifically and see if I can't figure out exactly what he means.

And you're right that unfortunately, he plays the buffoon and seems to relish the role. That concerns me about his electability.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I oppose statism in any form and for any purpose.

EricP said...

Highly recommend Rep. Kelly's clips on his YouTube channel. He was also the inspiration for my band's latest, "Common Sensical," as debuted live for the Congressman at the Republican Party Animals' event back in October. Shamelessly:
http://youtu.be/IX2fwZfx2eg .

EricP said...

Let's try that again: http://youtube/IX2fwZfx2eg

tryanmax said...

correction: "that is my problem with socons in a nutshell."

AndrewPrice said...

Eric, Thanks for the link! I'll check him out.

Here's the link: LINK.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, you said better what I was trying to: Paul doesn't give specific answers so all one is left with is the "general sense." That troubles me because, at best, he's being coy with the media for his own good or, at worst, he's doing the Obama thing and allowing himself to be projected upon.

The feeling I get leans more toward the coy thing, but I hate the other possibility even being out there.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I'm glad you clarified that! ;)

tryanmax said...

And, yes, I totally pulled off a Paul/Obama comparison.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's the real danger -- that he's just letting people project idea on him and we don't really know what he's thinking.

On the one hand, we do have a pretty clear sense of what he believes -- and the fact he would like to take a hatchet to the government.

But on the other hand, I'm never really sure what precisely he means to do. I'm not saying he's lying or trying to mislead us -- as I know Gingrich is -- but I would like more specifics from him.

AndrewPrice said...

The comparison makes sense to the degree that both present themselves as blank slates pointed in a particular direction. I'm not that's fair to Paul as he had given many ideas and does seem much more specific than Obama ever was about his goals, but the strategy is an effective one for winning support -- let people see you as whatever they want you to be.

LawHawkRFD said...

Well, as long as we're pushing Ryan and kicking around the other candidates, let me put in my dark horse bid. It won't come as any surprise to those who follow this blog. Run, Bobby, run!

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Yep, Jindal would be good too.

So why haven't these guys chosen to run? Grrrr.

tryanmax said...

By no means do I mean that comparison to extend beyond its natural limits. Certainly Paul has revealed more of himself to the public than I expect Obama ever will. Nor do I think Paul is a libertarian radical in the way Obama is a leftist radical. I merely meant that, if Paul is in fact employing a tactic similar to that used by Obama, it should be cause to pause and examine the explicitness of Paul's platform.

tryanmax said...

And the boo-yah was because Paul supports didn't think it could be done.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It would call into question his genuineness, which is something I've honestly never questioned with Paul.

In any event, I'm going to take a hard look at him.

AndrewPrice said...

I need to leave for a couple hours, but I will respond to all questions and comments when I get back.

T-Rav said...

I would vote for Rubio or Jindal in a heartbeat as well, though I imagine Rubio would be at a serious disadvantage due to relative inexperience. Four or eight years from now, sure.

And just to reiterate, I will have no part of a man who thinks Iran would leave us alone if we just left them alone. I do not want that guy as Commander-in-Chief.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's a huge sticking point with me too. I am troubled by the idea that he believes that if we stick our head in the sand, then the world will ignore us.

tryanmax said...

I think it rightly should call Paul's genuineness into question. If he is merely being coy, then his genuineness is sound. If he is playing the blank slate, that strikes me as a disingenuous tactic. The probability of the former to the latter may be 95/5, but while that is still in question, I don't see how it relates to anything other than his genuineness.

How that relates to what we know about him, his desire to shrink the government, is that we can't be sure what his approach to that will be, and anybody who thinks they know is just projecting their ideas on Paul. Is he letting that happen, or just not aware that it is? I don't know.

As to the Ostrich Doctrine, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that Paul's foreign policy would court trouble from Iran any more than Obama's already has. For one, Paul is definitely pro-military and in favor of defense building, stances that have historically discouraged our enemies.

My reservation regarding the Ostrich Doctrine is that I am pretty sure Paul would sit on his hands if he couldn't get a declaration of war from Congress if one was needed. And I wouldn't put it past several politicians in Congress to so sabotage him.

T-Rav said...

tryanmax, that may be, but Paul's approach to Iran, while it might not be worse than Obama's, certainly wouldn't be any better. And the net result would be to extend the do-nothing plan four years into the future, by which point Iran may be fully nuclear and capitalizing on that fact.

Moreover, I think Paul is as much of an ideologue in some ways as TOTUS, if not more so. You're right; I could see him choosing not to lift a finger for Israel or anyone else without a formal declaration of war. That's very principled and all, but it's going to seriously jeopardize us in the long run.

StanH said...

Not to disrupt your Paul Ryan plea, but it isn’t going to happen. We are sadly stuck with this field. My fear is that someone runs 3rd party and dilutes the vote against Barry, allowing that disaster back in by a mere plurality ala Clinton, ‘92. Once our candidate is chosen, we had better coalesce and push hard for that persons election. As much as it pains me, I’m leaning Romney…yuck! The sad part, this could be a decisive conservative landslide in 2012, now I believe we’ll just win. That being said, we must focus on all elections from dogcatcher up, and populate the beauroacracy with as many conservatives as possible, 2010 was just the very, very beginning.

tryanmax said...

This Ron Paul debate we're having reminds me of the James Bond debate. We all know he isn't what we want in a president, but we can't agree on which facet is the deciding factor on that.

AndrewPrice said...

I'm back and better than ever! ;)

tryanmax, I suspect Paul isn't as "doctrinaire" as sounds on issues like isolationism.... but I would have to choose a guy on the assumption that's not what he claims to be.

I just don't know what to make of him. As I've said many times, there's a lot of good there... but it does get mixed with some very bad crazy.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, Sadly, I agree with you that Ryan won't run, but I still want it on the record.

I'm little surprised you're leaning toward Romney, but not as much as you would think as most of the conservatives I know seem to be leaning that way too now. If I had to vote right now, he would probably be my choice too -- though I wouldn't be enthusiastic about it.

I also agree that this means we need to work to get conservatives at all levels to make up the difference.

Ug.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That is my concern. The world is fully of bullies and if you aren't making your own future, then you are letting others make your future for you.

I do think we've had very bad foreign policy for decades in many parts of the world and I like SOME of Paul's principles... but his premise of non-intervention and head-in-the-sandism is a recipe for disaster on a grand scale.

rlaWTX said...

"head-in-the-sandism" - love that phrase!

I guess I am stuck with Perry for the time being - he oughta win his own state after all, right?

I heard pieces of the Fox forum thing. One part of Bachmann's was about whether supporting something from the federal level was OK. Her answer went something like "yes, because it's essential." The first time she said it was about abortion and a constitutional amendment - OK, I get that. And that's the process for the fed govt to get involved. But the second was tort reform from the top down - "because it's essential"???? WTH? I mean, yeah, it's really important, but how is it constitutionally acceptable or essential? I decided to stop listening.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I like that phrase too! It sounds like it should be a medical condition or something. The scan shows you've got "head-in-the-sandism". Don't worry, we have pills for that.

On Bachmann, that's the problem with that kind of thinking -- it's unprincipled and thus it can be stretched and bent and twisted to fit any issue. Basically, what she's saying is "if I think it's important enough, then I support the Feds doing it." But that's the EXACT SAME reasoning the left uses to justify EVERYTHING they do -- "this is too important to ignore/leave to the states/leave to the voters/worry about the constitution." Importance cannot be allowed to be a justification for breaking the rules!

That's why principle is so important, because people who aren't bound by principle are bound by nothing. And people who claim they are bound by principle but really aren't should make us all very nervous when they ask for power.

Post a Comment