Who would you vote for in a republican primary?

Zyphlin said:

Again, I disagree entirely. There's a chasm between "pandering" to a segment of the base and abjectly insulting, attacking, and belittling them.

Click to expand...

Are you actually disagreeing that you don't need to pander to the extremists who are making up more and more of the GOP primary voters? Seriously? Did you see the 2012 Republican primaries? While I do agree there is a difference in what you say, the point still remains that Huntsman wasn't and didn't ever want to pander to the extremists. Again, he staked his last stand in a state where the GOP primary voters look very different from the rest of the GOP primary voters in the country. Huntsman was selling a different brand of Republicanism and the voters simply didn't want it.

Huntsman didn't need to pander to that part of the base...he just didn't need to use the only significant aggressive act of his campaign to attack them.

Click to expand...

But if you remove his insulting of them, the point still stands that you need that part of the base to win. You cannot win a GOP primary without the hard right socially conservative, hard right Democrat hating base anymore. This is not Reagan's or Eisenhower's party anymore. Or Dole's. or even 2000's McCain's. What makes you think that the necessary amounts of hard right social conservatives would ever vote for Huntsman given his policies? Huntsman would have had to do what Romney did: Completely abandon his beliefs and former platform to say whatever he needed to say to get their votes. Romney made Clinton look principled. You can focus all you want on how Huntsman alienated parts of the base, but the it doesn't do a thing to address the core problem that they wouldn't have voted for him anyway simply because of what he stood for and what he refused to do. Gary Johnson was a bit more libertarian, but he more or less ran a similar no pandering campaign. The 2012 nomination showed you absolutely must pander to the crazies if you want to win the nomination. This is why Jeb Bush stands exactly zero chance of winning a nomination. It's embarrassingly sad that Bush Dynasty is offering the best candidate at this point.

Which is what made him acting like a child tossing out insults towards his own side all the more ridiculous and suicide from a political sense. He was trying to run a positive campaign....and then when he finally went negative it was towards people on his own side. That's a political equivilent of kicking the ball into your own goal in soccer.

Click to expand...

Still doesn't address the core problem of winning a GOP primary. Even if Huntsman had maintained a positive campaign, he did zero pandering to the GOP radicals. Johnson didn't engage in the same kind of belittling as Huntsman and he ended up even WORSE than Huntsman. Fundamentally, it comes down to the ugly fact that the GOP voters didn't want a reasonable, adult candidate who actually stood for what he believed in. Romney's flip flopping made Clinton look like a steadfast wall. And that's who won the nomination.

I know its fun for liberals to sit on the outside looking in and paint Huntsman, or his campaign, as something he wasn't. It happened the ENTIRE time throughout his campaign and it was also a factor playing into his problems. But the simple issue of his views on Evolution and Global Warming, in and of themselves, were far from the top reasons for his campaigns issues.

Click to expand...

As I stated before, the science is just a manifestation of the various reasons Huntsman was doomed. The GOP extreme primary voters didn't not vote for him because of that. They didn't vote for him because he wasn't willing to completely abandon all of his positions to (temporarily) adopt theirs. Romney did.

obvious Child said:

Are you actually disagreeing that you don't need to pander to the extremists who are making up more and more of the GOP primary voters?

Click to expand...

I've been disagreeing that "accepting science" is what "did him in", or that "he refused to pander to the crazy" is what "killed him".

And I continue to disagree with that. Saying that singular thing, "accepting science" or "refusing to pander" to parts of the base about that science is what "killed him" or "did him in" is absolutely, positively, ridiculous and ignorant of the reality of that campaign.

Seriously.

As I've stated...MULTIPLE times now, clear as day...the bigger issue was not that he believed in evolution (I'd wager most Republican candidates do) or that he believed there was some merit to Global Warming (I'd wager most Republican candidats don't), it was that he was actively hostile towards other candidates/part of the republican base regarding those issues. Specifically in the midst of a campaign where he made it an absolute point to NOT be hostile towards people on the other side of the aisle.

Had he no made his "call me crazy" quip I frankly don't think evolution would've even been an issue with his primary campaign. I believe his stance on Global Warming would've came up given his history as Governor, but could've easily been navigated around with even a modicum of political savy by pointing back to his own comments regarding his stance that action at the federal action to combat Global Warming was not an appropriate step to take with our current economic situation.

His issue was not his beliefs with regard to evolution and global warming...his issue was with his attitude and reaction regarding those beliefs.

But if you remove his insulting of them, the point still stands that you need that part of the base to win. You cannot win a GOP primary without the hard right socially conservative, hard right Democrat hating base anymore. This is not Reagan's or Eisenhower's party anymore. Or Dole's. or even 2000's McCain's. What makes you think that the necessary amounts of hard right social conservatives would ever vote for Huntsman given his policies? Huntsman would have had to do what Romney did: Completely abandon his beliefs and former platform to say whatever he needed to say to get their votes. Romney made Clinton look principled. You can focus all you want on how Huntsman alienated parts of the base, but the it doesn't do a thing to address the core problem that they wouldn't have voted for him anyway simply because of what he stood for and what he refused to do. Gary Johnson was a bit more libertarian, but he more or less ran a similar no pandering campaign. The 2012 nomination showed you absolutely must pander to the crazies if you want to win the nomination. This is why Jeb Bush stands exactly zero chance of winning a nomination. It's embarrassingly sad that Bush Dynasty is offering the best candidate at this point.

Still doesn't address the core problem of winning a GOP primary.

Click to expand...

Actually, it does address the core problem with him in terms of winning a primary (And seriously, find me ANY politician who has won a Presidential primary by not pandering to some aspect of his parties base before. I'll be sitting here waiting). His campaign COMPLETELY misread the attitudes and expectations of the base at that point and made a multitude of calculated errors in handling the campaign. This isn't even about "pandering" but simply actually engaging in a political campaign in the most basic facets possible. There's a chasm between pandering to a particular audience and deftly/tactfully navigating around issues you disagree on without insulting said particular audience. If Huntsman had no intent on ever doing the latter than I become an even bigger critic and questioner of this judgement as it shows a reprehensible level of fiscal irresponsability to get into a major political race without any intentions of actually engaging in the basic understood tactics of a political campaign.

You want to belittle people by accusing them of not watching the 2012 primary? Turn the mirror around on yourself with this asinine backseat hyper partisan blithering assessment you put forth here. I actively followed the 2012 republican primary from the onset and my stances regarding Huntsman, his errors and issues, have LONG been recorded on this forum dating back to the actual primary. Take your hyper partisan garbage and try to shovel it down someone's throat that is far more ignorant than mine becuase I recognize it as the bull**** and propoganda fueld droning of an anti-conservative shill that it is.

Jack Hays said:

In foreign affairs Rand Paul is an irresponsible loon, and a know-nothing. If he were the Repub nominee I would support Hillary Clinton.

Click to expand...

I disagree, why do you say he is an irresponsible loon?

What qualifies paul ryan that disqualifies
Rand paul? I would vote for either in the general, but would take paul in the primary.

And voting for hillary is the last thing i would do.

donsutherland1 said:

Even as Senator Paul has try to wrap himself in the "Realist" label, his views remain far closer to neo-isolationism than Realism. If one examines his budget proposal, he sought to freeze U.S. foreign aid at $5 billion per year (p.46). Moreover, even as he correctly talked about some of the ineffective applications of foreign aid, absent from his discussion were conceptions of the national interest, balance of power, and strategic allies, all of which are hallmarks of the Realist school. Also absent were concrete discussions about the nation's major foreign policy challenges and opportunities. His budget discussion was largely an argument against foreign aid as a rationalization for maintaining a token amount. IMO, whether a candidate is from the Liberal Internationalist, Realist (my preference), or Neoconservative schools, that candidate almost certainly has a more well-conceived approach to foreign policy than Senator Paul.

If one looks at Paul's proposed 2014-2023 defense outlays (p.93), one finds a cumulative figure of approximately $5.584 trillion. That's approximately 19% less than President Obama's latest budget for the same timeframe (p.8). Put another way, President Obama proposed spending approximately $1.23 on defense for every dollar Paul would spend. Recognition of the importance of power, of course, is an essential element of the Realist school.

Paul's budget concept articulates where he stands. His recent attempts to package himself as a Realist in the tradition of many past GOP Presidents rings hollow once one examines his proposed budget allocations.

Click to expand...

I dont see the problem. Reducing spending is something that must be done and foreign aid is a good place to start. There are numerous countries that receive foreign aid that many would consider to be allies of our enemies.

Paul advocates reducing spending in all areas of government. Defense is no exception.

Sabanist said:

Lots of good candidates in 2016

Jeb Bush
Rand Paul
Mitt Romney
Paul Ryan
Ted Cruz
Ben Carson
Scott Brown


At this point i am leaning Paul or Carson

I like the idea of a president that has done something other than politics. I also share many of the same positions of paul and carson. Not all, but i dont miss the forest for the trees. I would support any of the above candidates tho if they won the primary.


What say you

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree but I like Ted Crruz a lot to. Like you I would vote for any Conservative candidate and I think that any of the three can defeat "The wicked witch from the east, Hillary....I think it would be disasterous for this country if she were elected.......I am not sure we could ever recover frrom a Hillary presidency.

Sabanist said:

I disagree, why do you say he is an irresponsible loon?

What qualifies paul ryan that disqualifies
Rand paul? I would vote for either in the general, but would take paul in the primary.

And voting for hillary is the last thing i would do.

Click to expand...

RP is an isolationist who would gut the US military. PR has a much more adult view of the requirements for US power and the US role in the world. I would not vote for Hillary happily, but at least she's not irresponsible as is RP.

tres borrachos said:

This. And the difference I saw between Romney and Obama in 2012 was that Romney had a proven history of working with the other party when he was top dog. There are few states if any that have such a disparity in party representation in the state legislature as Massachusetts, yet Romney managed to compromise to death in order to get things through, including that oh so famous healthcare law in that state.

Obama, on the other hand, had no history of working collaberatively across party lines, neither before 2009 nor during the 4 years he was POTUS.

Romney would have been another Clinton. And while Clinton wasn't my favorite President, he certainly knew how to build consensus.

Click to expand...

Plenty of differences in romney and obama. Romney has spent his whole life in executive positions, obama none, romney cut taxes and increased jobs as gov with a democrat congress, obama raises taxes and whines about a republican house, romney turned failing enterprises into successes such as the olympics. The list goes on

Sherman123 said:

I would consider voting for Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Scott Brown, or Paul Ryan. Possibly Marco Rubio. I would not vote for Paul. I would never vote for Cruz or Carson, I don't think either is qualified to be President. Especially not Carson. If either of them were the nominee I'd actively support Hillary Clinton.

Click to expand...

I like Jeb Bush a lot to...............I think we have some excellent candidates for 2016.

Sabanist said:

I dont see the problem. Reducing spending is something that must be done and foreign aid is a good place to start. There are numerous countries that receive foreign aid that many would consider to be allies of our enemies.

Paul advocates reducing spending in all areas of government. Defense is no exception.

Click to expand...

The focus of fiscal reform should be on the large budget items. That's where the largest returns could be achieved be they through efficiency savings, reductions, or a combination of both. Foreign aid accounts for less than 2% of the federal budget. It is not a driver of the nation's long-term structural imbalances.

The nation's defense posture should be based on the security challenges that confront it. Reliance on the good will of others simply to meet fiscal targets is a dangerous security stance. There is big concern among the nation's current and retired military leaders that the planned funding is inadequate for the security environment that confronts the nation, not to mention the context of a shifting balance of power. Rand Paul's budget would go far beyond the funding levels that have already raised concern. IMO, the funding concerns should be addressed so that military is in a good position to meet such requirements as the security environment might impose.

Jack Hays said:

RP is an isolationist who would gut the US military. PR has a much more adult view of the requirements for US power and the US role in the world. I would not vote for Hillary happily, but at least she's not irresponsible as is RP.

Click to expand...

Can you back this up with some statement that paul made that indicated he is an isolationist and he would gut the military?

Sabanist said:

Plenty of differences in romney and obama.

Click to expand...

Exactly--Romney was to the left of Sen. Kennedy in their 1994 election--and well to the left of Obama.
Then he flip-flopped and etch-a-sketched his way to being a "serious conservative" over the next 20 years.
He even turned down a 10-for-1 swap on cuts vs. revenues, which normal GOPs like Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn and Jon Huntsman agreed to .

donsutherland1 said:

The focus of fiscal reform should be on the large budget items. That's where the largest returns could be achieved be they through efficiency savings, reductions, or a combination of both. Foreign aid accounts for less than 2% of the federal budget. It is not a driver of the nation's long-term structural imbalances.

The nation's defense posture should be based on the security challenges that confront it. Reliance on the good will of others simply to meet fiscal targets is a dangerous security stance. There is big concern among the nation's current and retired military leaders that the planned funding is inadequate for the security environment that confronts the nation, not to mention the context of a shifting balance of power. Rand Paul's budget would go far beyond the funding levels that have already raised concern. IMO, the funding concerns should be addressed so that military is in a good position to meet such requirements as the security environment might impose.

Click to expand...

Thats the same old same old big spending attitude.

Foreign aid is only 2pct

Welfare is only x pct

If you save a billion here and there, it adds up.

To each their own but if you are even considering voting for hillary i dont think we are in the same universe of priorities

Jack Hays said:

RP is an isolationist who would gut the US military. PR has a much more adult view of the requirements for US power and the US role in the world. I would not vote for Hillary happily, but at least she's not irresponsible as is RP.

Click to expand...

As just another example of Senator Paul's lack of attention to a robust foreign policy, recently 88 Senators from both political parties signed a letter that asked Secretary of State Kerry "to focus on three key objectives: (1) preventing Hamas from rebuilding its military capabilities; (2) enabling the Palestinian Authority to move toward becoming the Palestinian governing authority in Gaza; and (3) preventing negative developments at the UN General Assembly, UN Human Rights Council, and the International Criminal Court that could derail any prospects for the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians."

Israel is a strategic U.S. ally and the Mideast is torn by various sectarian conflicts, the Sunni-Shia split, and extremist actors such as ISIS. Among the 12 Senators who did not weigh in was Rand Paul.

The text of the letter and those who signed it can be found at: Casey, Ayotte Lead 88 Senators in Letter Opposing Hamas and Warning Against Unilateral Palestinian Initiatives that Would Derail Future Peace Talks - U.S. Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania

Jack Hays said:

RP is an isolationist who would gut the US military. PR has a much more adult view of the requirements for US power and the US role in the world. I would not vote for Hillary happily, but at least she's not irresponsible as is RP.

Click to expand...

I don't think he is an isolationist, per se. He advocates for various amounts of interventions in some areas of the world. That being said, it cannot be denied that he advocates for far less of a role for the United States around the world in comparison with the status-quo or short-term expected stature of United States foreign affairs. However, despite his differences from his father, Rand somewhat consistently panders to the worst populist impulses of the Republican Party in regard to foreign aid. I'm skeptical there would be much follow-through if he were to get into office, and believe much of it is satisfying the psyche of the uninformed. That being said, the fact that he's saying these things is worrying.

Sabanist said:

Can you back this up with some statement ... he would gut the military?

Click to expand...

His budget proposal is as definitive a statement as there could be. Paul's proposed 2014-2023 defense outlays (p.93) has a nearly 19% reduction from President Obama's latest budget for the same time frame (p.8).

Zyphlin said:

I've been disagreeing that "accepting science" is what "did him in", or that "he refused to pander to the crazy" is what "killed him".

And I continue to disagree with that. Saying that singular thing, "accepting science" or "refusing to pander" to parts of the base about that science is what "killed him" or "did him in" is absolutely, positively, ridiculous and ignorant of the reality of that campaign.

Click to expand...

And my point is that science bit was just a manifestation of the reasons why he lost.

As I've stated...MULTIPLE times now, clear as day...the bigger issue was not that he believed in evolution (I'd wager most Republican candidates do) or that he believed there was some merit to Global Warming (I'd wager most Republican candidats don't), it was that he was actively hostile towards other candidates/part of the republican base regarding those issues. Specifically in the midst of a campaign where he made it an absolute point to NOT be hostile towards people on the other side of the aisle.

Had he no made his "call me crazy" quip I frankly don't think evolution would've even been an issue with his primary campaign. I believe his stance on Global Warming would've came up given his history as Governor, but could've easily been navigated around with even a modicum of political savy by pointing back to his own comments regarding his stance that action at the federal action to combat Global Warming was not an appropriate step to take with our current economic situation.

His issue was not his beliefs with regard to evolution and global warming...his issue was with his attitude and reaction regarding those beliefs.

Click to expand...

But does that even matter when his policy stances themselves are opposite of what the GOP primary voter wants? Sure Huntsman made bad points at being hostile, but that again is just manifestation of his absolute refusal to pander. My ultimate point is that Huntsman lost (and stood no chance) because he refused to pander. Everything else is just a symptom of that. It's not particularly any specific policy, it's his refusal to abandon his positions and do what Romney did. Its kind of messed up how the GOP wanted a fighter, but picked a guy who literally abandoned his own former principles and beliefs. That's a mercenary at best. When Huntsman's attitude is I'm not going to pander, he's doomed. I think we can both agree on that. His insulting of the hard right was just a symptom of his refusal to do what Romney did.

Actually, it does address the core problem with him in terms of winning a primary (And seriously, find me ANY politician who has won a Presidential primary by not pandering to some aspect of his parties base before. I'll be sitting here waiting). His campaign COMPLETELY misread the attitudes and expectations of the base at that point and made a multitude of calculated errors in handling the campaign.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't address the absolute necessity that a GOP candidate requires at least part of the hard social right to win a nomination. Huntsman was getting none of that. At all. Period. I don't disagree that you need to pander, you do, but in the GOP case, you need to pander to groups that held beliefs diametrically opposite of what Huntsman wanted. Romney was willing to forsake all that he believed in to do so. Huntsman was not. Yes, his campaign misread the attitudes, and it was pretty stupid to run a campaign on being a responsible adult when the GOP wanted a no nuance firebrand. But Huntsman was never going to be that candidate. He was never going to be the guy who ignored all the facts to spread myths to placate the voters. He was never going to be the guy who got down into social conservative ditches. He was never going to be the candidate that the GOP primary voters wanted. He was never willing to be the guy who ran with a story he knew was so twisted from the truth to get air time. And he was never willing to be that guy.

This isn't even about "pandering" but simply actually engaging in a political campaign in the most basic facets possible. There's a chasm between pandering to a particular audience and deftly/tactfully navigating around issues you disagree on without insulting said particular audience. If Huntsman had no intent on ever doing the latter than I become an even bigger critic and questioner of this judgement as it shows a reprehensible level of fiscal irresponsability to get into a major political race without any intentions of actually engaging in the basic understood tactics of a political campaign.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. What the GOP wanted and what Huntsman was willing to be were never going to be the same thing. Huntsman could navigate all he wanted, but that wasn't what the voters in the primaries wanted. How can you navigate the desire to be a no nuanced firebrand? Outside of the vague framework of less taxes, less regulation and more private activity, what exactly did Huntsman agree with per the primary voter? He wasn't a social conservative. He wasn't anti-foreign. He understood that America is not in a unipolar world anymore. His views on science and reality were wholly different. Maybe you're right that he basically jumped into a race trying to win the votes of people who were never going to agree with him.

Yes, Huntsman was kind of naive for running at a time like this, but maybe he had the notion that if he could win the primary, the general would be a cake walk (which probably would have been true).

You want to belittle people by accusing them of not watching the 2012 primary? Turn the mirror around on yourself with this asinine backseat hyper partisan blithering assessment you put forth here. I actively followed the 2012 republican primary from the onset and my stances regarding Huntsman, his errors and issues, have LONG been recorded on this forum dating back to the actual primary. Take your hyper partisan garbage and try to shovel it down someone's throat that is far more ignorant than mine becuase I recognize it as the bull**** and propoganda fueld droning of an anti-conservative shill that it is.

Click to expand...

Did you not see Romney's complete abandonment of his principles? Did you not see the Huntsman refuse to follow Romney's lead?

Before you accuse me of being a hyperpartisan, remember that I posted my vote for Gary Johnson in 2012 to the forum. Remember that I made it very clear I would have voted for Huntsman many times. Remember that I started calling Obama Bush III in 2009. I'm not Disneydude.

Sabanist said:

Can you back this up with some statement that paul made that indicated he is an isolationist and he would gut the military?

Click to expand...

[h=3]Rand Paul's foreign policy views aren't liberal and they aren ...[/h]dailycaller.com/.../rand-pauls-foreign-policy-views-arent...The Daily Caller


Apr 2, 2014 - Rand Paul has taken a page from the foreign policy views of the .... Hawks commonly argue that entitlement liabilities dwarf military spending, and that's ... The truth is that Paul, like many Democrats, wants to cut the defense ...


[h=3]Rand Paul Adjusts Foreign Policy Stance - WSJ[/h]online.wsj.com/.../rand-paul-adjusts-foreign-policy-...The Wall Street Journal


Sep 18, 2014 - Rand Paul staked out new territory for the GOP when he proposed cutting defense spending by 10% and eliminating foreign aid. "A more

Fiddytree said:

I don't think he is an isolationist, per se. He advocates for various amounts of interventions in some areas of the world. That being said, it cannot be denied that he advocates for far less of a role for the United States around the world in comparison with the status-quo or short-term expected stature of United States foreign affairs. However, despite his differences from his father, Rand somewhat consistently panders to the worst populist impulses of the Republican Party in regard to foreign aid. I'm skeptical there would be much follow-through if he were to get into office, and believe much of it is satisfying the psyche of the uninformed. That being said, the fact that he's saying these things is worrying.

Click to expand...

It's never a good idea to vote for someone on the assumption he/she won't follow through.

donsutherland1 said:

His budget proposal is as definitive a statement as there could be. Paul's proposed 2014-2023 defense outlays (p.93) has a nearly 19% reduction from President Obama's latest budget for the same time frame (p.8).

Click to expand...

Hardly evidence of isolationism. More like constitutionally appropriate. Read your own link beginning on page 38. He describes his plan. Too many look at defense as the sacred cow and cannot really justify WHY it cant be reduced, they just call anyone who tries an isolationist or worse.

He includes a great quote from ike. "We will bankrupt oursellves in the vain search of absolute security."

Our defense defense budget is over 10 times that of the nearest competitor. Its larger than the gdp of several nations.

If you are a conservative, you want to see a reduction across the board, including defense.

Jack Hays said:

[h=3]Rand Paul's foreign policy views aren't liberal and they aren ...[/h]dailycaller.com/.../rand-pauls-foreign-policy-views-arent...The Daily Caller


Apr 2, 2014 - Rand Paul has taken a page from the foreign policy views of the .... Hawks commonly argue that entitlement liabilities dwarf military spending, and that's ... The truth is that Paul, like many Democrats, wants to cut the defense ...


[h=3]Rand Paul Adjusts Foreign Policy Stance - WSJ[/h]online.wsj.com/.../rand-paul-adjusts-foreign-policy-...The Wall Street Journal


Sep 18, 2014 - Rand Paul staked out new territory for the GOP when he proposed cutting defense spending by 10% and eliminating foreign aid. "A more

Click to expand...

So you are posting links that he has adjusted his foreign policy stance in favor of bigger defense budgets in attempt to prove what?

Sabanist said:

So you are posting links that he has adjusted his foreign policy stance in favor of bigger defense budgets in attempt to prove what?

Click to expand...

I don't think one of the links says that at all. The other suggests his change is tactical. And then there's this.

Rand Paul: A Politician After All

He’s playing the game.
BY JOHN MCCORMACK Bookmark this

Manchester, N.H.
On the evening of September 11, Rand Paul sipped red wine out of a clear plastic cup as he wended his way through a bar full of 200 or so millennials. After snapping photos with admirers who had gathered to hear Paul speak and partake of free food and drink provided by Generation Opportunity, a libertarian-leaning nonprofit, the Kentucky senator took the stage.
“How many people here have a cell phone?” Paul asked at the beginning of his remarks. “How many people think it’s none of the government’s damn business what you do with your cell phone?” The crowd cheered.
“I really, really worry about Anthony Weiner. Because you know he likes to take the selfies,” Paul said of the former Democratic congressman who accidentally posted lewd photos of himself on Twitter. “He’s had trouble finding a place to put them where no one can find them. So ...

. . . . It’s not clear how much of a price Rand Paul will pay among those who remain staunchly opposed to an American air war in Syria and Iraq. Libertarians and noninterventionists will have no one more dovish than Paul to turn to in the 2016 Republican primaries. But by “playing the game” on matters of war, Paul has opened himself up to potentially devastating attacks that could keep the rest of the GOP from giving him a second look.

Sabanist said:

More like constitutionally appropriate.

Click to expand...

Rand Paul's approach isn't the only "constitutionally appropriate" foreign policy. All of the mainstream foreign policy schools are constitutionally appropriate.

He includes a great quote from ike. "We will bankrupt oursellves in the vain search of absolute security."

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any President who has pursued absolute security. Indeed, such a pursuit would be futile.

obvious Child said:

Did you not see Romney's complete abandonment of his principles? Did you not see the Huntsman refuse to follow Romney's lead?

Click to expand...

Pivoting is what is required, even if we have the means to replay quotes from any day of the last 30 years. We also didn't see an active or charismatic campaign from Huntsman.

Sabanist said:

Lots of good candidates in 2016

Jeb Bush
Rand Paul
Mitt Romney
Paul Ryan
Ted Cruz
Ben Carson
Scott Brown


At this point i am leaning Paul or Carson

I like the idea of a president that has done something other than politics. I also share many of the same positions of paul and carson. Not all, but i dont miss the forest for the trees. I would support any of the above candidates tho if they won the primary.

What say you

Click to expand...

Jeb Bush Good governor in Florida, name hurts his chances.

Rand Paul Attractive candidate from a libertarian standpoint. Not confident that his executive experience is strong enough

Mitt Romney Nor a great campaigner but would probably make the best President.

Paul Ryan Smart guy, congressmen don't make as good executives as governors.

Ted Cruz Lots of guts, bold decision maker. I'm not confident in his executive experience.

Ben Carson Probably the best human being in the list. I'm not sure he has enough experience in government, although that could be a positive. I just don't know about Ben.

Scott Brown Northeast liberal Republican. No thanks.

Every person mentioned on the list would be a better choice than the currant President.

Fiddytree said:

Pivoting is what is required, even if we have the means to replay quotes from any day of the last 30 years. We also didn't see an active or charismatic campaign from Huntsman.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between pivoting and complete belief abandonment. Romney went from tooting his horn on the insurance program that was the foundation of the ACA to saying the ACA was a total mess. Romney turned his back on everything he used to believe just to get the GOP nomination, then he forsook those beliefs to move to the center. A lot of people saw that as completely scummy. And it was.