AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
I would if he were up against Clinton.
Here is my prediction.
Most say "no way" and may vote for this or that candidate in the primaries, but come general elections, they'll sing praises to whoever is on the ticket and vote party line and all the negatives will be a distant memory.
If he's in the running I would vote in the GOP primaries, I would vote for him in that, and I would vote for him in a general.
If not I would have to evaluate between the LP candidate, the GOP candidate, possibly even the CP candidate, or just not voting for President at all if they all suck.
I viewed neither Mitt Romney nor Gary Johnson as very palatable options... even if either would be at least marginally better than the fail we have now.
If he makes it to the debates, I hope whoever hosts the debates gives him as much speaking time as they gave his racist daddy.
After reading your article, I really don't see much difference between Rand's position on Civil rights and that of Goldwater.
Rand speaks for the entire GOP when saying none of the ACTs of the 1960's are necessary any more,
since there is no longer discrimination in Civil Rights and Voting Rights.
And now Rand has tweeked Jeb Bush's "act of love" comments, clearly setting himself up as THE alternative in the GOP.
He's also up for reelection in 2016, giving him an easier platform to run in 2020 .
Chemists Have Solutions .