I do not like hearing that "newby" talk just because you have been on "this" forum for 8 years and were given moderator status and think that means that any new person to this forum's opinion doesn't matter against your's - if you really feel that way then perhaps don't welcome the idea of allowing new people in here.
I have no problem with new people and welcome them. However, I do have issue with anyone who tries to talk down to me through the presentation of their
opinion as fact as you did with the "you do know" start and proceeding to claim there was "no way" Rand would be picked.
My comment in terms of your newness was based on your statement. I was suggesting that someone whose opinion I have learned to respect over a period of time interacting with them...be it on this forum, in real life, etc...could speak in the way you just did and proclaim their opinion as fact and I may give it some credence because they've shown a history of their opinions being solid and credible. I have no basis on which to weigh your opinion outside of this thread, because you're new. This isn't a slight on newness, but rather stating a fact in terms of the immediete information present to form an opinion.
Over time I may come to actually respect and put value in your opinion, and as such a comment like you made would not have such a negative response from me. HOWEVER, at this point in time, I have not had anywhere near sufficient interaction with you to garner such an opinion.
Hope that clears that portion up a bit.
I am not stereotypical (at least not entirely) but then again I'm not perfect. I have my beliefs that I feel very strongly about. People are required to stand up and fight for what they believe in - even if they disagree. You can disagree with me and I can still respect you. I can enjoy disagreements and debates - after that, that's what this forum is about, no?
Absolutely.
You may not be stereotypical in your views, however from this thread thus far you've seemed like a typical social tea partier. Nothing wrong with that, but at the same time it shades the things you say. Perhaps over time my perception may change, but that's all that I had seen from you up to the point where you talked down to me and threw my point based on opinion presented as fact.
Anyway - Reagan who was a conservative chose a moderate in 1980 (and again in 1984) - and in the lead up to the 1976 GOP National Convention - actually announced that if nominated, that a liberal Republican U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania named Richard Schweiker would have been his running mate - which likely hurt his chances there - but anyway, I do not normally see moderates picking conservative running mates.
Paul Ryan was widely heralded by the Tea Party prior to...well, pretty much the past few months...and was selected by Romney. Sarah Palin is still BELOVED by many of the socially conservative tea party supports and was chosen by McCain. George W. Bush was considered the "Conservative" option in that particular republican primary, so would not really fit the bill.
Both of the last two "moderate" Republicans nominees have selected individuals well liked and thought to be strongly conservative by the base at the time of the selections.
I don't think Christie is a good choice. He supports Gun Control & NSA Spying.
My take on the NSA spying is actually one that follows along a message George Bush had for the candidates in 2008. Paraphrased...be careful what promises you make now because you aren't seeing what I see yet. This type of thing has been carried on in some fashion under Presidents on both sides of the aisle and under congresses controlled fully by each part. Does it bother me? Yes, it does. However, I'm leery to take a strong stance on it because its the type of thing I simply recognize I can't possibly make a fully well informed decision on. It's also something that I think there's enough public problems with that it will continue to transition to a point that both serve our NatDef needs while being more reasonable towards privacy.
In terms of Gun Control, I agree with you...it's an area I'm nervous about towards Christie. That said, because his views are less in line with mainstream Republicans that would be in teh House and/or Senate I'm less worried about the impact of his views there. Though in research, it defintely seems a mixed bag. It's fair to call him moderate, but probably not fair to call him liberal. You don't find many folks liberal on gun control getting this kind of article written about them by the NRA (
LINK). I by no means think Christie is a perfect candidate, he has his issues. But I think the most important things for us in this country right now is getting our fiscal house in order and stimulating the economy and I believe he has the skills and ideological mindset to do that.
Also, where we seem to split is in terms of electability. You seem to be more in the "Limbaugh Rule" camp...it's impossible to know the answer about electability, so vote for the most conservative and give it a go. I am more in the Buckley Rule" camp...I'm more in favor of getting the most conservative person (and particular, the most conservative on the issues I think are more important in a given election) that has a reasonable shot to win. Now, I'm probably a lot more lienent about reasonable shot than most Buckley Rule types....if it's a coin flip with a big conservative, and a sure thing with a moderate conservative, I don't mind the coin flip depending on the situation.
I also think that all elections aren't equal. Primarying out a moderate Republican in a House race right now is a gamble to take even if the more conservative Loses. Primarying out a moderate Republican in the Senate for a seat typically held by Democrats and where we're either unlikely to win or lose the Senate by "playing it safe" is a worth while gamble. Right now, I don't know if 2016 and 4 more years of a Democratic presidency is a worth while gambling point.
This was my issue with the government shutdown as well, and part of my issue with Cruz. I don't blame Republicans for going the shutdown route if they campaigned that they'd do everything in their power to stop Obamacare...they were trying to do what they were elected to do. HOWEVER, I think even going into that position was a stupid choice. Why? Because it's a poor gamble. It was like putting $1000 on a $13 on a routlette wheel...if you win, you win big, but the odds are MASSIVELY stacked against you. There was VERY little real chance that they were going to stop Obamacare with a shutdown and all the reasons in the world to believe that the population would in large part blame the republicans more than the Democrats for the shutdown. It was also a HORRIBLE move fiscally in the end, at a time when we're supposed to be worried about getting our fiscal house in order. It was a POOR gamble in the name of ideology that ended up with a result that not only didn't reach its intended result but ALSO did damage to things we'd ideologically care about.
I do'nt mind a little gamble in my Presidential elections...I have a significant issue with a big gamble. And an inexperienced Senator whose beloved by the base but is unpopular with pretty much everyone else and is the FACE of the shutdown which was
wildly unpopular and unlikely to be completely forgotten in at least one swing state is someone, at this time, I'd consider a big gamble. There's time between now and 2016, but that's my view at the moment.