He is not radical enough.
to Mountanman "The trouble with the GOP is that many have
rejected the vision of America held by our founding fathers (freedom, self
reliance and free market capitalism)"Actually, these people
exist. They are called Libertarians. The GOP, however, is full of
Ivy league educated crony capitalists or Nascar watching, bible thumping
apologists for the previous group.LDS Lib hit it spot on yet again.
There is an interesting comparison between Jefferson & Palin towards the end
of The Sign by Raymond Khoury
Until we stop the R vs D fighting and focus on the common problem, nothing will
change.R and D do very similar things for very similar reasons.M O N E YOur politicians on both sides put themselves first,
their party second and the American people third.Until we get the
corporate and union money out, both sides will cater primarily to them.Most of you don't get it. And it is so easy to see. So you continue to
fight between R and D.
If the GOP nominates anyone more "moderate" then the last 2 candidates,
they might as well blow it up and become democrats. This is why they lose, they
don't nominate candidates that will bring their base to the polls. Rand
Paul is an interesting candidate, because he is well spoken, very conservative,
but doesn't appear to have all the nuttiness, and cowardly baggage his
father has. Name one GOP candidate who would be more popular, and don't
keep throwing out airhead ideas like Jon Huntsman. Give me a break.
"Why vote anyway? The two parties are the practically the same
anyway!"This, my friends, is a well-documented
disenfranchisement strategy being perpetuated upon the gullible American
public.When the public is not involved and voter turn-out is low,
those in power tend to remain in power and the status quo does not change.To claim that you can change things from outside of the system - by
refusing to participate and vote - shows a clear lack of understanding of our
form of government.I mean, seriously - how well did not voting work
for you in the last election?There is no minimum number of voters
needed or required. Whoever gets the most votes wins. If the only people who
vote are the politicians, they are still going to win and be politicians.If you are unhappy with elected officials - vote them out! Don't
just sit around and think they are going to notice or care.
Thanks, Edgar, but I'm pretty sure you won't like my ideas. Ideally, I
don't WANT congress to get anything done because so little good (if any)
comes out of there. Compromise only means they agree on another bad idea. Sorry
I'm so cynical, but I think Ron Paul had it right. Vote "no" on
just about everything, Republican or Democrat. That's why he was known as
"Dr. No" by many. The only real suggestion I have for you is
to stop believing that voting will make things better. It doesn't matter
who you vote for or against anymore, they're nearly all there to enrich
themselves and their cronies. The idealists burn out quickly and become part of
the problem in a very short time. Any real changes will come outside of the
system. Working within the system for change is an oxymoron. Either you work
within the system OR you work for change. Not both.
Well Obama had much worse people in his past and his administration and somehow
he still qualifies as a mainstream Democrat. Such a double standard. Democrats
can have any baggage in their past, but find a Republican who chewed gum in
class and off with their political head. What a stupid country we live in, and
guys like Gerson only make it worse.
SEY - I understand your sentiment - that Democrats and Republicans are almost
indistinguishable anyway - but if that is the case then why do the Republicans
in the House, without any exception, consitenty vote unanimously against
legislation proposed by the Democratic President and approved by the Democratic
Senate? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or be arumentative. I really want
to know what happened to the pragmatic members of the Republican party who
always came to the conclusion that getting part of what you want is better than
nothing at all. I'll admit that some Democrats are just as partisan but I
think anyone looking at the situation rationally would have to admit that
Democrats, during this administration and the previous one, have been the ones
more likely to compromise, if for no other reason than to get SOMETHING done.Any ideas?
Better yet, Maverick, why not just have Republicans merge with Democrats since
they're almost indistinguishable anyway. We have what is basically
one-party rule in Washington: the government party.
And neither can Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle, or any other of the assorted
Tea-Party right-wing-political fringe.Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck
have their fans...and they by themselves can't win elections.
I love how folks are bashing the messenger rather than the message.Making Gerson look bad doesn't make Paul look any better!They're both crazies that should be abandoned by their parties. The GOP
needs to find real leadership. Chris Christie anyone?
Gerson - you've danced and drank, socialized and laughed, joshed and
plotted with Rand Paul over the last few years. Now you turn on him, as if to
say - he's not one of "us" conservatives.
The trouble with the GOP is that many have rejected the vision of America held
by our founding fathers (freedom, self reliance and free market capitalism) and
have resorted to trying to out democrat, Democrats with redistribution,
socialism and big government. The blind trying to lead the blind and both shall
fall into an economic and social ditch!
(continued)Gerson desperatly tries to paint Jack Hunter, now a Rand
Paul staffer, as a neo-confederate. In Gerson's mind, anyone who disagrees
with Abe Lincoln's decision to invade the South must be pro-slavery and
racist. Nothing could be further from the truth. But that's how the
"good vs. evil" mind of Gerson works. Everything is simple: black/white,
light/dark, either/or. Complexities are for loonies and liberals.The
Republican Party is dying because it is trying desperately to woo voters by
cozying up to independents and conservative Democrats without appearing to
become a mere echo of the Democratic Party. It's failing on all counts. It
has long ceased to be a countervailing choice in American politics. It is merely
playing catch-up to Democratic Party successes.Gerson's attempt
to vilify the growing surge of Rand Paul Republicanism by punching below the
belt is reprehensible and deserves to be repudiated for what it is: the politics
When a prominent writer embarks upon a smear campaign of guilt by association
against someone from whom he wishes to distance him- or herself, it might be a
good idea to understand the writer's own perspective.Michael
Gerson is, among other things, a committed neo-conservative. He was George W.
Bush's head speechwriter 2001-2006, hand-picked by none other than Karl
Rove. He is the creator of the "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" metaphor
used by then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to scare the nation into
supporting the (can we say it?) looney notion of invading Iraq. He coined the
phrase "axis of evil," another looney concept that contributed to the
idea of an American crusade to cleanse the world of "evil-doers." Time
Magazine named him the 9th most influential Evangelical in America in 2005.With that background, is it likely that Gerson can be regarded as a
spokesman for what is or is not "mainstream" Republicanism? I'd
have to agree that he can. The truth of the matter is that these ideas are the
reason the Republican Party is in a tailspin and on the path to irrelevancy.(to be continued)
The GOP is such a wild mess right now. It's almost time to just blow it up
and start over.Paul would have us become 50 independent countries.
We've seen this. The Articles of Confederation failed. Out of it was born
our Constitution. Having us revert to the Articles of Confederation would just
about destroy what is left of this country.