A Problem of Shrinkage

**Furunculus** · 07-18-2009, 12:19

republicans get a hard on for Cameron:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...he-States.html

**Banquo's Ghost** · 07-18-2009, 14:02

Originally Posted by Furunculus

republicans get a hard on for Cameron:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...he-States.html

The article doesn't really seem to canvas serious commentary from the Republican party leadership. It's very wishful thinking, mainly aimed at British Conservatives.

David Cameron is somewhat left of President Obama on most policies. Whilst the GOP might need to appeal more to the centre ground, one hopes that they won't adopt the vacuous pseudo-socialism of the UK Tories under Cameron.

Cameron and Osborne are, much like Brown and his cronies, merely flirting with the idea of fiscal constraint. No-one is finding the courage to talk about real, long-term fiscal responsibility in the light of the massive public debt that has been rung up. There is some light in the area of reducing the state's erosion of individual liberties but since David Davies has been cast into the darkness, and the rhetoric is very flimsy, one cannot believe that once in power, the Tories won't follow the same route as Labour.

Social conservatives in the GOP would be horrified at Cameron's "conservatism". Personally, I think the Republicans would benefit from laying off the hard-line social controls they have boxed themselves into, but I'm not American and have never really understood the paradox between the States' libertarian soul and the desire for the state to force fellow citizens into one brand of Christian morals.

I believe that many of the Western democracies would embrace parties that guarantee hard-line fiscal conservatism alongside more libertarian principles. Governments that really design smaller government, not just fire a few civil servants. Get out of the business of legislating morals (with the costs that incurs). Jeffersonian democracy, if you like.

But that also means getting shot of expensive foreign military ventures and reducing the power of corporations to influence public spending - and in so doing, removing the taxpayer "guarantee" for those corporations currently deemed "too big to fail".

I have yet to see a really "conservative" platform. It would be good to see the GOP taking this line. To do so however effectively, I suspect they might need to address the rampant anti-intellectualism that is another baffling aspect of the US political scene.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 07-20-2009, 21:56

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ma_48_palin_42

Obama 45%, Romney 45%? Weeeeeeee. Keep screwing up, Barry.

**Lemur** · 07-20-2009, 22:09

Yup, 2012 is Obama's to lose, and lose it he may.

**seireikhaan** · 07-20-2009, 23:10

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ma_48_palin_42

Obama 45%, Romney 45%? Weeeeeeee. Keep screwing up, Barry.

Its easy to be popular when you basically don't have to say anything. Granted, that can work, but one needs to keep in mind there's a reason that Romney utterly failed his last attempt to get the Republican nomination. He's comes off as an arrogant, divisive, plastic man. Palin is probably out of the picture as well, as there are simply too many theories about why she quit and a lot of people who are irked that she would do it regardless of circumstance.

Gotta remember, folks- the Republican nominee will likely need to win either Iowa or New Hampshire, lest they be seen by the rest of the country as "unelectable". Admittingly depending a bit on who else runs, Romney hasn't got a shot at either. Palin might have a shot, but I think she'll stay low for the next election cycle. The Republican party will most likely be looking at someone besides either of them.

Plus, we are.... oh... THREE YEARS away from the election.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 07-21-2009, 00:55

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

Its easy to be popular when you basically don't have to say anything. Granted, that can work, but one needs to keep in mind there's a reason that Romney utterly failed his last attempt to get the Republican nomination. He's comes off as an arrogant, divisive, plastic man. Palin is probably out of the picture as well, as there are simply too many theories about why she quit and a lot of people who are irked that she would do it regardless of circumstance.

Gotta remember, folks- the Republican nominee will likely need to win either Iowa or New Hampshire, lest they be seen by the rest of the country as "unelectable". Admittingly depending a bit on who else runs, Romney hasn't got a shot at either. Palin might have a shot, but I think she'll stay low for the next election cycle. The Republican party will most likely be looking at someone besides either of them.

Plus, we are.... oh... THREE YEARS away from the election.

We need a businessman/woman. I suspect that a "feel good" candidate isn't going to get too far in the event that the worst "recession that isn't a depression" stretches. That means tokens are out, so first women, indians, trannys etc probably own't have a chance - and Barry can't guilt us into voting for the first black president to be re-elected this time. If a woman comes around blasting through with business acumen, maybe she has a shot, but the novelty of her privates probably won't stir much when pensions are drying up and America is becoming more testosterone filled and less sensetive.

**Lemur** · 07-21-2009, 02:19

Let's all pretend this is an Amish barn raising, and work real hard and sing Kumbaya and try not turn this into yet another thread about Obama.

In support of which, why wouldn't the Republicans embrace Romney? He seems like the natural choice and the best shot for 2012, but large chunks of the Repub base are cool toward him. Is it the Mormon thing? The Massachusetts thing? What? 'Cause the dude is extremely smart and successful, and a poster child for economic development. He seems like the strongest choice.

So why isn't he the obvious choice?

**seireikhaan** · 07-21-2009, 02:58

Originally Posted by Lemur

Let's all pretend this is an Amish barn raising, and work real hard and sing Kumbaya and try not turn this into yet another thread about Obama.

In support of which, why wouldn't the Republicans embrace Romney? He seems like the natural choice and the best shot for 2012, but large chunks of the Repub base are cool toward him. Is it the Mormon thing? The Massachusetts thing? What? 'Cause the dude is extremely smart and successful, and a poster child for economic development. He seems like the strongest choice.

So why isn't he the obvious choice?

Well, I can't speak for every state, but in Iowa, its basically for the reasons I listed, with a bit of the mormon thing thrown in to boot. People here view him as plastic model of a 60-ish year old man who's dishonest to the core. His ability to make people think he genuinely cares and relates to them is severely lacking, and you pretty much need that in Iowa. If he's not in his comfort zone, he's very clearly very far away from it, as evident by his "who let the dogs out" debacle in Florida.

**Xiahou** · 07-21-2009, 07:09

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

Its easy to be popular when you basically don't have to say anything. Granted, that can work,

So true!

Originally Posted by Lemur

In support of which, why wouldn't the Republicans embrace Romney? He seems like the natural choice and the best shot for 2012, but large chunks of the Repub base are cool toward him. Is it the Mormon thing? The Massachusetts thing? What? 'Cause the dude is extremely smart and successful, and a poster child for economic development. He seems like the strongest choice.

So why isn't he the obvious choice?

Count me in as one of the "cool" kids. Romney has a little bit of an issue with flip-flopping and then there's his legacy to Massachusetts, Romneycare, which has resulted in exploding healthcare costs for the state since he implemented it.

"They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget. The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic. The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006."

Now, to me, he's not political dead meat by any stretch, but he's got enough question marks to keep me from running to him with open arms. But really, he probably is the best candidate we have on the table right now.

**Askthepizzaguy** · 08-06-2009, 15:53

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/25863

Please replace Chairman Michael Steele before I injure myself with laughter; he is a Democrat's wet dream, a walking parody. I do not quake with fear with this man leading the Republican party. He makes Howard Dean look sane.

**Lemur** · 09-01-2009, 18:04

This is the most encouraging thing I've seen in weeks, Republicans organizing against WND.

In the 1960's, William F. Buckley denounced the John Birch Society leadership for being "so far removed from common sense" and later said "We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner."

The Birthers are the Birchers of our time, and WorldNetDaily is their pamphlet. The Right has mostly ignored these embarrassing people and organizations, but some people and organizations inexplicably choose to support WND through advertising and email list rental or other collaboration. For instance, I have been told that F.I.R.E (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) - an otherwise respectable group that does important work - uses the WND email list. They should stop.

No respectable organization should support the kind of fringe idiocy that WND peddles. Those who do are not respectable.

I think it's time to find out what conservative/libertarian organizations support WND through advertising, list rental or other commercial collaboration (email me if you know of any), and boycott any of those organizations that will not renounce any further support for WorldNetDaily.