View Single Post
  #3  
Old 12-12-2007, 07:02 PM
EE-BO EE-BO is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC View Post
While I agree with a lot of the sentiment here (and the Perot comparison is pretty apt, as well), Paul's leanings are actually very Libertarian, and I really don't see either the aim nor the ability to resonate with "stupid" average voters. In fact, outside of his desire to be rid of the IRS (which is a view shared by about half of the major GOP candidates), most of his views would seem very fanciful to most average Americans - think about his view on drug policy, for instance.

He's about half of the perfect candidate and half complete miss for someone like me, who aligns well with the Libertarian/state's rights view on social policy but desires fiscally conservative government. However, he just misses the mark badly on some issues - being rid of NAFTA? OK, possibly - low governmental spending? OK, well, that's a great concept . . . eliminating the Federal Reserve under the guise of a strict construction of the Constitution? Well, now we're pretty far off the reservation, and I've never really heard a good defense of why he wants to do this.

And it's like this over and over again - he has pretty sound views on health care, but no plan to implement those ideas and no structure beyond "do not socialize" (which, admittedly, is a good start). His views on immigration and war are draconian and incredibly inflexible, while his views on state's rights and education seem like the most uniquely American ideas I've ever heard.

He's about 50% fantastic candidate and 50% horribly awkward - this pretty much adds up to Drolefille's "no chance to win" for the most part, but it really is fascinating to watch. Since McCain and Romney have been absolute stiffs in any sort of unscripted environment and Giuliani has struggled to gain a foothold with casuals and hardcore right-wingers, it'll be interesting to see how Crazy Ron fares in the debates today - especially if Huckabee gets drilled about his amazing half a million in reported gifts as governor and has to get defensive. It would be completely sick, but I could see him bouncing out as the winner . . . he might be the only guy who can't beat Hillary.
Well said.

My comment about the "simple minded" voter is reflective of my feeling that he too often comes up with overly simplistic ideas and promises that have a lot of initial emotional appeal- but just won't work. It is a style of campaigning that appeals to one's impulses- and it is really kind of insulting since even the average person can readily see where his ideas cannot work as presented.

Even under a flat tax or consumption tax, the IRS will remain in place- and they will have a lot of work to do. The agency may shrink in size with attrition, but it would still be there. If a consumption tax were created, for example, you can bet it would be applied to internet sales as well- watch out eBayers. Getting all that set up and enforcing it would keep the IRS busy for the forseeable future.

And pulling out of Iraq overnight would not work either. Candidates can say what they want- but whoever wins will, I expect, find very quickly that there is no easy next step to dealing with our current foreign policy situation. Hillary herself sees this and is very responsible about not making promises she cannot keep, even if her base wants to hear those promises.

Ron Paul would have had a real shot here- but he has been too activist in his public speeches. I think he makes a great advocate for a given position in his current role, but this is not someone who can lead a diverse nation where fast and easy solutions to problems are few and far between.

As for Hillary- I think Guiliani could beat her. Maybe Huckabee too as he attracts more attention- but only if he survives the intense scrutiny that is coming now that he is seen as a more serious candidate for the Republican nomination.

I do not think any of the other Republicans can beat her. And truth be told- while I do not agree with many of her domestic policies- in terms of competence and the potential for being a consensus builder, I think she is the strongest candidate of any party by a wide margin. I always thought she was smart, but she is really looking "Presidential" to me these days. And she certainly does not have any "gray past" issues that would make her any less desireable than the leading Republican candidates. All of them have a few pause-giving things on their record.
Reply With Quote