Elites Way Off on Palin Electability

I'm not sure appearing at an event and giving a speech necessarily equates with "schmoozing". I'm waiting to hear what he says before passing judgement.

When McCain appeared 4 years ago, if I'm not mistaken, he was blistered by those with similar views to yours including the esteemed Ron Paul as basically selling out.

And I can't help but note, you didn't answer my question. Did his daddy ever appear at the event?

I realize this is the Right Wing Watch but it's not just me, the preception is Paul is selling out.

Paul has also helped serve as a bridge between the Tea Party and the Religious Right, and conservatives were quick to defend him after he said he publicly opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. In 2009 Paul headlined an event for the Constitution Party, which wants to establish “biblical law,” and his far-right positions have helped him win endorsements from prominent Religious Right figures like James Dobson and Beverly LaHaye.

I don't know if Ron Paul has ever appeared at that event. Not that it really matters, Aaron. Rand Paul is his own man. If he were to behave as a carbon copy of his father I'd be very suspicious, wouldn't you?

4 years ago I was actively engaged in Ron Paul's Presidential campaign here in WV. It is through that effort I became acquainted with several members of the WV Constitution Party. Perhaps you are unaware of this, but many members of WVCP (including some of the officers!) affiliated with the GOP in order to run as delegates to the WVGOP Convention pledged to Congressman Paul. The CP loved Ron Paul. It is no surprise to me, or anyone else associated with that campaign, the Constitution Party is so receptive to Rand.

I want to hear what he says at that event. Rand is following in his father's footsteps on issues like abortion, the Civil Rights & American with Disabilities Acts. I would be very surprised to hear him say anything that is going to make those folks swoon. For example, I would be shocked to hear him talk of marriage being between one man and one woman. Instead, I would expect him to say the government has no business in the marriage industry.

George Washington made the following statement regarding government. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

Force is exactly what government is. No matter who runs and who is elected, the odds are quite good they will become just as those before them have, corrupt with power and the desire to remain in office.

While this is just my humble opinion the "irresponsible action" Washington is speaking of is the public allow its self to become dependent on government for the daily survivial. Point being, be it Rand Paul, or Harry Reid, they aren't going to change a thing until we the public make it quite clear, we don't need them. If you really want to tranform Washington, then America has to change and become more self reliant. Until then we are just spinning our wheels.

Stephanie wrote:I don't know if Ron Paul has ever appeared at that event. Not that it really matters, Aaron. Rand Paul is his own man. If he were to behave as a carbon copy of his father I'd be very suspicious, wouldn't you?

4 years ago I was actively engaged in Ron Paul's Presidential campaign here in WV. It is through that effort I became acquainted with several members of the WV Constitution Party. Perhaps you are unaware of this, but many members of WVCP (including some of the officers!) affiliated with the GOP in order to run as delegates to the WVGOP Convention pledged to Congressman Paul. The CP loved Ron Paul. It is no surprise to me, or anyone else associated with that campaign, the Constitution Party is so receptive to Rand.

I want to hear what he says at that event. Rand is following in his father's footsteps on issues like abortion, the Civil Rights & American with Disabilities Acts. I would be very surprised to hear him say anything that is going to make those folks swoon. For example, I would be shocked to hear him talk of marriage being between one man and one woman. Instead, I would expect him to say the government has no business in the marriage industry.

Yeah, Reed and Robertson bring in speakers all the time who contradict what their message is.

Hey, that reminds me, I've got a great investment opportunity I don't think you should miss out on. It's about this bridge and I just need a couple thousand dollars up front, no questions ask and you'll make a bundle, I promis.

Aaron, I think Bachman is both smarter and more electable than Palin.

While this is just my humble opinion the "irresponsible action" Washington is speaking of is the public allow its self to become dependent on government for the daily survival.

Or, like Tocqueville suggested, once the citizens take it upon themselves to raid the Treasury, the Republic will founder.

ohio county wrote:

While this is just my humble opinion the "irresponsible action" Washington is speaking of is the public allow its self to become dependent on government for the daily survival.

Or, like Tocqueville suggested, once the citizens take it upon themselves to raid the Treasury, the Republic will founder.

It took Rome 400 years to fail. I don't think it will take America as long to reach 3rd world status. The sad part is both parties are so hellbent on blaming the other that neither will open their eyes and do what's right to save this country.

Aaron wrote:

ohio county wrote:

While this is just my humble opinion the "irresponsible action" Washington is speaking of is the public allow its self to become dependent on government for the daily survival.

Or, like Tocqueville suggested, once the citizens take it upon themselves to raid the Treasury, the Republic will founder.

It took Rome 400 years to fail. I don't think it will take America as long to reach 3rd world status. The sad part is both parties are so hellbent on blaming the other that neither will open their eyes and do what's right to save this country.

In the grand scheme of things all things die, that includes nations. Just as Jerimiah, I think anyways, pointed out, it is not in man's charactor to direct his own steps. Rome, Great Britian, Greece, and many others have come and gone. Man's vision, work, and ingenuity created these great nations and man's arrogance, lust for power, and greed destoryed them. Just as it has happened many times before, it is no different here. We haven't learned from the past and thus we have doomed ourselves to repeat it.

The real question to answered is, can we change? Can we come back from the brink? That answer is of course, yes, but our attitudes will need to change. First and foremost we are going to have to come to grips with one simple fact, morals and ethics play a major roll in governance. If we want the nation our founders envisioned, then we have to be a moral people. We are going to have to realize morals aren't just what we say they are or what we want them to be. We are going to have to realize and accept that morals are based on a standand of behavior that applies to all equally. Until we start there, we are wasting our time and our breath and I can assure you things will not change and we as a nation will die.

The real question to answered is, can we change? Can we come back from the brink? That answer is of course, yes, but our attitudes will need to change.

Sorry about that Willy, ...... but the pendulum has done swung too far ......... to come back from the brink.

It done went over the brink ...... and is now in free-fall ....... and until it gets through crashing ........ there will be nothing left to do but try to pick up the pieces and fight like hell to reassemble some of them that bests benefits the survivors.

The Romans pretty much ruled the Western World for 400 years ...... but then the Dark Ages ruled for the next 1,500 years.

Me think history is in the process of repeating itself.

I'm with Sam on this one. I think we've went too far and while I don't want to see the pain from a failure, I do know that something quick would be better in the long run. I honestly think had Washington allowed capitalism to work over the past 5 years, we would all be better off.

Cato wrote: We are going to have to realize morals aren't just what we say they are or what we want them to be. We are going to have to realize and accept that morals are based on a standand of behavior that applies to all equally.

When has mankind ever had such a realization?

SheikBen wrote:Aaron, I think Bachman is both smarter and more electable than Palin.

Mike, I think Bachman will prove more divisive and a whole lot crazier than Palin.

Stephanie wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Aaron, I think Bachman is both smarter and more electable than Palin.

Mike, I think Bachman will prove more divisive and a whole lot crazier than Palin.

Hmmm, where have I heard this before?

The Pauls' timing and maneuvering coincides with that of Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who is competing with Rand Paul for congressional leadership of the tea party, the largely Republican group that he trumpets in his campaign biography, The Tea Party Goes to Washington.

I can't get that page to open.

It's the story from the Louisville paper regarding Bachman and Paul. I highlighted the quote from 2 or 3 weeks ago that pointed out the difference between those who support Bachman and those who support Paul. I don't think it's the least bit odd that you and Mike have the opinions you do which follows along with what the story stated.

SamCogar wrote:The Romans pretty much ruled the Western World for 400 years ...... but then the Dark Ages ruled for the next 1,500 years.

Me think history is in the process of repeating itself.

I can't vision very much difference in the effect it will have on humanity ....... if the lefty liberal Socialists gain control in the 21st Century ........ than the effect it had on humanity when the Church of Rome gained control in the 4th Century.

Aaron wrote:I'm with Sam on this one. I think we've went too far and while I don't want to see the pain from a failure, I do know that something quick would be better in the long run. I honestly think had Washington allowed capitalism to work over the past 5 years, we would all be better off.

If you and Sam feel we are past the point of no return, what is the point of bothering to discuss the issue. We'll die as a nation, and people and be replaced by another or number of others. Maybe some will even be lucky enough to begin again with the same ideals as our founders.

Cato wrote:If you and Sam feel we are past the point of no return, what is the point of bothering to discuss the issue.

For one thing, it is an entertaining thingy to do for old farts like myself.

Willy, any attempts to re-nurture and/or re-educate the past three (3) generations of the populace would be akin to peeing up a dangling rope in the middle of a tornado.

Geeeze, even my "one on one" attempts to re-educate participants of this Forum mostly falls on "deaf ears".

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:I'm with Sam on this one. I think we've went too far and while I don't want to see the pain from a failure, I do know that something quick would be better in the long run. I honestly think had Washington allowed capitalism to work over the past 5 years, we would all be better off.

If you and Sam feel we are past the point of no return, what is the point of bothering to discuss the issue. We'll die as a nation, and people and be replaced by another or number of others. Maybe some will even be lucky enough to begin again with the same ideals as our founders.

The biggest reason is that during my time off work, it's helped me sharpen some skills that I use when working. In addition to working on writing skills, it helps me to literally read people but pushing buttons. Besides, trash talking is fun.

SamCogar wrote: For one thing, it is an entertaining thingy to do for old farts like myself.

Willy, any attempts to re-nurture and/or re-educate the past three (3) generations of the populace would be akin to peeing up a dangling rope in the middle of a tornado.

I will agree that there are many in any generation that don't think or let others think for them. However, there are quite a number that think for themselves. there are also many that are more than willing to see if what is being said is so or not. If that weren't the case we would still be living under British rule.

SamCogar wrote:Geeeze, even my "one on one" attempts to re-educate participants of this Forum mostly falls on "deaf ears".

Did you ever consider that those "Deaf Ears" are deaf because they have found some of wha tyou say doesn't hold water.

Aaron and Stephanie,

Bachman, like Paul, is a candidate that I support that would not likely win in a 'normal' year. 2012 will not be a normal year. And if the American electorate feels better about Obama than either of these two (while differnt) people of integrity, then we deserve to reap Obama's harvest of high inflation, unemployment, and a misery index that will make Carter years look like the roaring 20s.

My point Mike is the conservatives are split into two groups and if they can't come together then Obama will win a 2nd term. The thing is, and I know it's early but I don't see anyone out there that can unite them. The only way I see the two sides coming together is if one side completely appeases the other.

That very well could be Rand Paul as his speech at Ralph Reed/Pat Robertson's Faith and Freedom Coalition conference shows. Despite what Stephanie thinks, I doubt he'll go there and say anything that will offend Reed or Robertson as he won't get their support if he does.

As for Bachman, she's not going to garner the support of the majority of the 2008 Paulites so I just see one big fight in the Republican Party that could hand the election back to Obama.

And to be honest, if Republicans could maintain control of the house and gain control of the Senate, I have no problem with a neutered Obama Presidency. I much prefer that to one will rise spending at the rate Bush did. Like it or not, the right governs no better than the left when they have complete control of Washington.

That very well could be Rand Paul as his speech at Ralph Reed/Pat Robertson's Faith and Freedom Coalition conference shows. Despite what Stephanie thinks, I doubt he'll go there and say anything that will offend Reed or Robertson as he won't get their support if he does.

I never said I thought Rand Paul would say things to offend or antagonize Reed or Robertson. What I said was, and what I continue to say is, don't expect Rand Paul to change his views or positions for their support. He can certainly tailor a speech for that appearance that will please them without discussing the issues where they differ. There is a lot of common ground there, why would he bring up issues they don't agree upon?

why would he bring up issues they don't agree upon?

Well, he would iffen he wanted a sore foot.