PetiteSirah


quality posts: 79 Private Messages PetiteSirah
kylemittskus wrote:Boring, conservative, white guy. They pubs learned from the Palin fiasco last round, I guess.



For somebody who cares about government spending, waste, inefficiency, and the size of government as much as you do, I'd have thought you'd be more positive on the pick.

Ryan's brilliant, a dynamic thinker and speaker, and at least on the policy side, isn't boring in the slightest.

Hail the victor, the king without flaw
Salute your new master ... Petite Sirah!


"Who has two thumbs and loves Petite Sirah?" ThisGuy!

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
PetiteSirah wrote:For somebody who cares about government spending, waste, inefficiency, and the size of government as much as you do, I'd have thought you'd be more positive on the pick.

Ryan's brilliant, a dynamic thinker and speaker, and at least on the policy side, isn't boring in the slightest.



He's only boring compared to a caricature of a candidate like Palin. However his unböringness makes him a big turn off to the demographics that Romney needs to beat Obama.

Stupid Republicans are stupid...

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
PetiteSirah wrote:For somebody who cares about government spending, waste, inefficiency, and the size of government as much as you do, I'd have thought you'd be more positive on the pick.

Ryan's brilliant, a dynamic thinker and speaker, and at least on the policy side, isn't boring in the slightest.



I'm not saying I dislike him as a pick. I just think along the lines of Mother. He was boring and predictable in that he will appease the conservatives. And I don't think that appeasing the people who will already vote for you is a smart decision.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
PetiteSirah wrote:For somebody who cares about government spending, waste, inefficiency, and the size of government as much as you do, I'd have thought you'd be more positive on the pick.

Ryan's brilliant, a dynamic thinker and speaker, and at least on the policy side, isn't boring in the slightest.



I read the choice was popular with conservatives, whose support for Romney was waning. So that's good.

Who were they going to vote for though? They may have had "waning support" for him, but they were still gonna vote for him. Ryan does very little to help him with people like me. I like some of his ideas, and I abhor some of his ideas. He doesn't make me any more excited for Romney than I already wasn't.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

JOATMON


quality posts: 19 Private Messages JOATMON
bhodilee wrote:I read the choice was popular with conservatives, whose support for Romney was waning. So that's good.

Who were they going to vote for though? They may have had "waning support" for him, but they were still gonna vote for him. Ryan does very little to help him with people like me. I like some of his ideas, and I abhor some of his ideas. He doesn't make me any more excited for Romney than I already wasn't.



I never dip into this thread. I'm gonna make one comment, and then disappear.

You talk as if there are two choices in the election, when in fact there are three, and I suspect Romney was trying to prevent the tea party activists from taking the third choice: not voting at all.

Juvie: 30+24+4; Sellout: 6+7+0
Rags: 3+2+3
Drunk: 69+94+15 wine, 20+29+4 non-wine
Rugrat: 0+0+0; Refunded: 2+3+1
(as of 2011-03-02)

rpm


quality posts: 172 Private Messages rpm
bhodilee wrote:I read the choice was popular with conservatives, whose support for Romney was waning. So that's good.

Who were they going to vote for though? They may have had "waning support" for him, but they were still gonna vote for him. Ryan does very little to help him with people like me. I like some of his ideas, and I abhor some of his ideas. He doesn't make me any more excited for Romney than I already wasn't.



It's critical to raise the excitement level primarily with respect to the 'down ticket' races.

I've heard criticism of Ryan from some younger women that he's pretty far right on abortion issues.

For me, those issues are far less important than the fundamental questions of liberty this election entails: does what you create belong to you or to the government? Is the source of government authority the specific and limited delegation by the people, or are our rights something granted by the government?

Make no mistake, this is a "big issues" election in a way no election has been since 1980, and perhaps even more so, going back ... well, actually, no election has been so clearly framed since 1860.

Goldwater in 1964 tried to make the election about liberty vs. the welfare state, but he was buried in the media's hatred and the fact that the welfare state he said would metastasize into the monster it is now, hadn't yet reached critical mass.

Even 1932 wasn't so clear, because Hoover's governing philosophy was almost as interventionist as Roosevelt's. It was "hope and change" not idease, like 2008.

Perhaps 1920, when the nation rejected Wilson's progressivism for "normalcy", but even then it wasn't so clear.

1912 wasn't clear because both TR and Wilson ran as progressives, though the difference in the penchant for state action and the racism of Wilson wasn't so clearly defined.

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
JOATMON wrote:I never dip into this thread. I'm gonna make one comment, and then disappear.

You talk as if there are two choices in the election, when in fact there are three, and I suspect Romney was trying to prevent the tea party activists from taking the third choice: not voting at all.



And there's whatever other whack jobs are running, but none of those are really valid choices. If you want Obama gone, you've got to vote. So even if you don't like Romney you're going to vote for him based on the lesser of two evils stratagem.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
rpm wrote:Lots of things



That's all nice RPM, but none of it matters when he loses because y'all picked a veep candidate that will turn off everyone that wasn't already 'never voting for Obama.'

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
mother wrote:That's all nice RPM, but none of it matters when he loses because y'all picked a veep candidate that will turn off everyone that wasn't already 'never voting for Obama.'



Outside of Palin, I don't think that you can point to instance where a VP choice has actually prevented a candidate from receiving a significant number of votes (and to be honest, I don't even think that there's a strong case to be made that Palin 'so turned off people that they didn't vote for McCain,' in any meaningful way, inasmuch as in 2008 no Republican was going to beat Obama, regardless of VP selection).

The VP is a nearly powerless position, and so long as you're not choosing a *complete and total* wing-nut or moon-bat, I can't see how any choice would meaningfully affect an election, and am a bit hard pressed to think of an historical occasion where such a thing happened.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
mother wrote:That's all nice RPM, but none of it matters when he loses because y'all picked a veep candidate that will turn off everyone that wasn't already 'never voting for Obama.'



That's the crux of the argument. He may be a wonderful choice from a policy, economics, civil liberties, blah blah standpoint, but he's Right of Romney and Romney had those votes based on the fact that he isn't Obama. Ryan does nothing to solidify those left of Romney, but not left enough to be Democrat, ya know the independents and undecideds. People like me basically.

Unless the theory is, Romney will get the moderates and Ryan will appease the conservatives. I guess I hadn't thought of that, but I have serious doubts that Romney can garner moderate votes in large enough quantities to win. He needed a VP that was more moderate, cause again, he had the right by default.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
jawlz wrote:Outside of Palin, I don't think that you can point to instance where a VP choice has actually prevented a candidate from receiving a significant number of votes (and to be honest, I don't even think that there's a strong case to be made that Palin 'so turned off people that they didn't vote for McCain,' in any meaningful way, inasmuch as in 2008 no Republican was going to beat Obama, regardless of VP selection).

The VP is a nearly powerless position, and so long as you're not choosing a *complete and total* wing-nut or moon-bat, I can't see how any choice would meaningfully affect an election, and am a bit hard pressed to think of an historical occasion where such a thing happened.



Possibly, but these are historic times. His choice for VP tells me who he is going to pander to if he wins. For me, and people like me, which will be the ones that decide the election, Ryan is a puzzling choice. Had he chosen a more moderate VP, I'd at least have the thought, well maybe the VP can get in his ear about some of the policy issues that matter to me as opposed to CUT THIS WHOLESALE AND flunk EVERYONE WHO THINKS OTHERWISE. I want things cut, don't get me wrong, but in increments.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
jawlz wrote:Outside of Palin, I don't think that you can point to instance where a VP choice has actually prevented a candidate from receiving a significant number of votes (and to be honest, I don't even think that there's a strong case to be made that Palin 'so turned off people that they didn't vote for McCain,'



I'm a real* independent, and I hang out with a bunch of both real* and not so real* independents, a bunch of pinko commies, and a bunch of fascist pricks. Just about every real* independent I know begrudgingly voted for Obama or stayed home after he picked her.

We are talking about VERY close elections where the True Believers(tm) are pretty evenly split. The people who decide these elections are those of us in the middle.

You have two issues working against picking candidates more extreme than yourself:
1) We're only willing to vote for someone like Romney because we think he's a pragmatic technocrat, and not a True Believer(tm). We don't like most of the True Believer(tm) horseshit in his platform and would be betting that when push comes to shove, he will abandon all that nonsense after election.
2)If he dies (more of an issue for McCain) and we're stuck with this person as president- how much damage could they do?

*"real independent" as opposed to people who claim to be independent but always end up voting for one party at any given level.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
mother wrote:I'm a real* independent, and I hang out with a bunch of both real* and not so real* independents, a bunch of pinko commies, and a bunch of fascist pricks. Just about every real* independent I know begrudgingly voted for Obama or stayed home after he picked her.

We are talking about VERY close elections where the True Believers(tm) are pretty evenly split. The people who decide these elections are those of us in the middle.

You have two issues working against picking candidates more extreme than yourself:
1) We're only willing to vote for someone like Romney because we think he's a pragmatic technocrat, and not a True Believer(tm). We don't like most of the True Believer(tm) horseshit in his platform and would be betting that when push comes to shove, he will abandon all that nonsense after election.
2)If he dies (more of an issue for McCain) and we're stuck with this person as president- how much damage could they do?

*"real independent" as opposed to people who claim to be independent but always end up voting for one party at any given level.



This explains how I feel, wholly and completely.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rpm


quality posts: 172 Private Messages rpm
mother wrote:I'm a real* independent, and I hang out with a bunch of both real* and not so real* independents, a bunch of pinko commies, and a bunch of fascist pricks. Just about every real* independent I know begrudgingly voted for Obama or stayed home after he picked her.

We are talking about VERY close elections where the True Believers(tm) are pretty evenly split. The people who decide these elections are those of us in the middle.

You have two issues working against picking candidates more extreme than yourself:
1) We're only willing to vote for someone like Romney because we think he's a pragmatic technocrat, and not a True Believer(tm). We don't like most of the True Believer(tm) horseshit in his platform and would be betting that when push comes to shove, he will abandon all that nonsense after election.
2)If he dies (more of an issue for McCain) and we're stuck with this person as president- how much damage could they do?

*"real independent" as opposed to people who claim to be independent but always end up voting for one party at any given level.



to both you and kylemittskus: what does it mean to be a true independent? Does it mean simply you don't like either party very well? That feeling probably encompasses 75% of all voters.

What I don't understand is how independent translates into moderate or, more basically, what moderate means in the context of this election.

Does it mean socially liberal and fiscally conservative? Many people are in that position, too. But, if you see things that way, you ultimately have to decide what's more important: getting economic and political liberty right, or getting socially liberal (which tend in practice to be pretty illiberal towards those who don't agree) policies right. In which case saying you're a moderate means you're unwilling to choose which is more important, or you're unwilling to admit which you think is more important.

Reflecting my own views (of course), I see things as pretty much a binary decision: either we're going to stop the left's project to increase government's role in the economy, undermine economic liberty and ultimately political liberty, or we're not.

The existing welfare state is unsustainable without destroying the economy, and the increased welfare state the Democrats want will only destroy the economy more quickly.

Maybe Barry Goldwater had it right in 1964: moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.



As Glenn Reynolds says, read the whole thing: Acceptance Speech 1964 Republican Convention

I was in the Cow Palace when it was delivered.

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus

I'm independent from either party. I have no party loyalty and don't care what party you claim to be a part of. And there is no way that 75% of the voting population really follows this pattern. They may say they do, but they will vote party lines all day long.

W/r/t the current election, I will vote Romney. But that's not the point. The point is did he make a mistake by not choosing someone who will appeal to other people who could swing either way. The type of person who is too afraid of people who are too extreme in the ways that they (these people) think are important, i.e.: social issues that won't change anyway, like abortion.

I think he did make a mistake because for whatever reason, people think that a president can and will actually alter things that are pretty well set in stone.

The question is: why did he choose Ryan? What is he gaining by doing so?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:I'm independent from either party. I have no party loyalty and don't care what party you claim to be a part of. And there is no way that 75% of the voting population really follows this pattern. They may say they do, but they will vote party lines all day long.

W/r/t the current election, I will vote Romney. But that's not the point. The point is did he make a mistake by not choosing someone who will appeal to other people who could swing either way. The type of person who is too afraid of people who are too extreme in the ways that they (these people) think are important, i.e.: social issues that won't change anyway, like abortion.

I think he did make a mistake because for whatever reason, people think that a president can and will actually alter things that are pretty well set in stone.

The question is: why did he choose Ryan? What is he gaining by doing so?



I think he solidifies the conservatives, as well as making this election more about ideas. It will force the democrats into defending their “socialist policies” that are bankrupting the country.

It's going to be about revising SS & Medicare to keep them going in a more viable format, rather than business as usual where they are bankrupting the country.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:I think he solidifies the conservatives, as well as making this election more about ideas. It will force the democrats into defending their “socialist policies” that are bankrupting the country.

It's going to be about revising SS & Medicare to keep them going in a more viable format, rather than business as usual where they are bankrupting the country.



solidifying the conservative vote HE ALREADY HAD and that WILL NOT win him this election? That's sound strategy.

And making the election more about "ideas" is a bad move when your VP has a track record of not being appealing to Social moderates.

and he can't do flunk all with SS and Medicare, and whatever other social program of the moment, unless Congress goes Republican also.

Sparky, Cue dead horse emoticon!

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

Economic liberty versus social liberty. Which to choose? I lean more toward social liberty, for a few reasons. First, I don't see economic liberty coming to my house anytime soon, Romney or not. Second, how can I have economic liberty if the gov't restricts what I can spend my money on, and when employers can fire me or pay me less because of what they imagine might be going on in my bedroom, and if my earning potential is stunted because politicians have decided I can't make my own medical decisions? I don't want to be "illiberal" towards folks who don't agree...I don't want to force anybody to have an abortion, or to do drugs, watch cheat sheet, dance naked in the moonlight or whatever else is associated with social liberalism. Live and let live. You guys don't like the "nanny state" detention - neither do I. Don't tell me what to do, even if it's for my own good. Having the gov't tell me what to do for my own good costs money. How can I have economic liberty if the state treats me like a child?

Look, I haven't studied economics and I'm not even good with my own money, so I listen to what educated people say on matters of the economy. Problem is, there seem to be reasonable, educated people on both sides of the debate. I really do not understand why we can't have a candidate who would like to reduce bureaucracy AND who has better things to do than worry about the social issues. I'd like to see the social issues debate go away. Politicians can admit that it's none of their business and get down to actually running the country. That would work for me. Stop with the constitutional amendment to ban this or that. Stop with contraception a license to "do things." Just stop. I feel I must push back, because these teacher's pets are actively working to restrict personal liberties which are none of their business. It's not okay, even if it's unlikely to succeed. That means I have to vote for a candidate in the hopes that he's incompetent.

All that aside, if I thought that Romney might actually do something good for the country, I'd be willing to put my concerns over social issues aside. I've spent all year trying to do that. It does seem that he can help the very rich hold on to more of their money. That's not going to do anything for me or my economic liberty, or lack thereof. Will it help the country as a whole? I don't see how. The rich are richer than ever before and paying less tax than (mostly) ever before, and yet here we are. Can we expect a better outcome by doing more of the same?

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
bhodilee wrote:solidifying the conservative vote HE ALREADY HAD and that WILL NOT win him this election? That's sound strategy.

And making the election more about "ideas" is a bad move when your VP has a track record of not being appealing to Social moderates.

and he can't do flunk all with SS and Medicare, and whatever other social program of the moment, unless Congress goes Republican also.

Sparky, Cue dead horse emoticon!



Only if the dead horse stands for social "moderates".


You guys keep denigrating Ryan, but you haven't said who WOULD have gotten you more towards voting for Romney. Who would have gotten your vote as VP?


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:Only if the dead horse stands for social "moderates".


You guys keep denigrating Ryan, but you haven't said who WOULD have gotten you more towards voting for Romney. Who would have gotten your vote as VP?



That's an excellent question, and I'm not sure I can answer it. I like Krispy Kreme because he makes me laugh, but I don't know his social views. I'll have to think about this and get back to you.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:Only if the dead horse stands for social "moderates".


You guys keep denigrating Ryan, but you haven't said who WOULD have gotten you more towards voting for Romney. Who would have gotten your vote as VP?



We're not saying Ryan is a bad politician, person, or golf player. We're saying that he was a bad choice for the current situation. I'm criticizing the decision, not the man. As far as who's better, I have no idea. I'm not familiar with every possible candidate. I do know some people didn't want to pair with Romney, which is interesting.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:Economic liberty versus social liberty.



I agree with everything you're saying. The problem is, since we are really being forced to choose between the two -- the issue is, I agree, we shouldn't have to -- we need to choose. For me, the decision is relatively easy. I'm white, straight, male, middle class, and pay lots of taxes. Do I care about homosexual rights? Absolutely. SWMBO and I have made that our focus for activism (she publishing on the subject). Women's rights? Of course. Minorities? Sure. But if I'm forced to choose between the issues that I care about but don't directly affect me and issues that I see directly affecting me, it's easy.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:I agree with everything you're saying. The problem is, since we are really being forced to choose between the two -- the issue is, I agree, we shouldn't have to -- we need to choose. For me, the decision is relatively easy. I'm white, straight, male, middle class, and pay lots of taxes. Do I care about homosexual rights? Absolutely. SWMBO and I have made that our focus for activism (she publishing on the subject). Women's rights? Of course. Minorities? Sure. But if I'm forced to choose between the issues that I care about but don't directly affect me and issues that I see directly affecting me, it's easy.



At least you admit it.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:At least you admit it.



I'm nothing if not honest.

In my dream world, though, social issues would be so far from gov't control, they'd be in a different universe.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:I'm nothing if not honest.

In my dream world, though, social issues would be so far from gov't control, they'd be in a different universe.



I'd like that too. Why can't we do that? C'mon history students, explain why we can't do that. Pleeeeeease.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:I'd like that too. Why can't we do that? C'mon history students, explain why we can't do that. Pleeeeeease.



Because I should care what you do, even though it doesn't affect me. /sarcasm

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
chemvictim wrote:I'd like that too. Why can't we do that? C'mon history students, explain why we can't do that. Pleeeeeease.



You should take a closer look at the Goldwater speech RPM linked to; once you get past the anti-communism parts, that is really pretty close to the ideas expressed.

rpm


quality posts: 172 Private Messages rpm
jawlz wrote:You should take a closer look at the Goldwater speech RPM linked to; once you get past the anti-communism parts, that is really pretty close to the ideas expressed.



Indeed. Goldwater represents the classical liberal side of the Republican Party, concerned primarily with liberty in all its forms.

Never forget that it was a Republican-dominated Supreme Court that overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and it was Republican votes in the Senate that passed the Civil Rights bills.

Many Republicans were in a tough position, in a way: they opposed legally required segregation, but did not necessarily (and increasingly less so) support legally required integration. That may seem a fine point, but both positions are consistent with a commitment to liberty.

To the extent there was legislation on social issues - remember this was a day when homosexuality was illegal everywhere and abortion was illegal in many states, but not all - it was primarily at the state or local level. Which is to say it was pretty much community-based and community-enforced, and one certainly had the option of moving to places where either enforcement or the law (or both) was congenial.

[NB. This was also correct as a Constitutional matter: the states have what's known as 'general police power' and the federal government does not.]

By the way, this doesn't mean people like Goldwater were not personally conservative in their habits and mores, or that they wouldn't encourage or even exhort others to behave so, or to permit social, but not legal sanctions against those who egregiously violated accepted norms. But, this principled view stops short of allowing state (meaning government at any particular level) punishment with respect to such matters.

What happened, as it were, was that as the Democrats pushed the white working class out of the party, largely Protestant in the South and West, and Catholic in the North, and as abortion became an issue at the national level, the classical liberal Republicans of the Goldwater stripe found themselves working cheek-by-jowl with all of these new 'converts' whose social views mostly made their skin crawl. Yet, as Richard II did when presented with a gift horse by Saladin, no one was willing to look the gift horse in the mouth. And, after, Roe v. Wade, such voters became an important part of the Republican base. I didn't much like it at the time, and I still don't much like it, but there is more to be said for the morally conservative position than most of us were willing to 20-30 years ago: Charles Murray's Coming Apart (2012) makes it very clear that we have paid a very, very heavy price for the sexual revolution and the breakdown of traditional mores. Ironically, it's the working class and increasingly the lower middle class, which is bearing the brunt of the breakdown of the family.

It's a dilemma - one would like to see strong traditional morality freely chosen as a general rule - that is without visiting horrible punishments on those who live outside such norms - but how does one make a society work in that case? Just letting it be hasn't worked out so well. Perhaps if we let people do as they chose, but insisted that society did not have any obligation to take care of people whose choices turned out to be disastrous.... I dunno. Not easy at all.

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
rpm wrote:... Barry Goldwater.



RPM,

When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.


I feel very definitely that the administration is absolutely correct in cracking down on companies and corporations and municipalities that continue to pollute the nation's air and water. While I am a great believer in the free competitive enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment. To this end, it is my belief that when pollution is found, it should be halted at the source, even if this requires stringent government action against important segments of our national economy.


"Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the nuts."


"Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar."



If ONLY the current GOP looked ANYTHING like Barry Goldwater. It's everything he feared and nothing he was.

"Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."



Edit: Damnit ALL of those quotes are on the Wikipedia page for him...

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

One thing I also need to say:
To the moderates, W (dubbba-yew) lost the Republican party all claims to being pro liberty in any way shape or form.

So you cannot assume that people consider Romney/Ryan as a choice for economic liberty, because that's just not how it's seen.

Edit: If it makes you feel any better, Obama has lost the Democrats any claim to the same...

rpm


quality posts: 172 Private Messages rpm
mother wrote:Edit: Damnit ALL of those quotes are on the Wikipedia page for him...



You don't get much of a fight from me on most of that - I was a Goldwater Republican and in many ways still am. He was essentially correct about the threat that the welfare state represented and about crony capitalism and the rise of the religious right.

Notwithstanding, some of those quotes come from BG well into his dottage, not in his prime or even sunset years.

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

rpm


quality posts: 172 Private Messages rpm
mother wrote:One thing I also need to say:
To the moderates, W (dubbba-yew) lost the Republican party all claims to being pro liberty in any way shape or form.

So you cannot assume that people consider Romney/Ryan as a choice for economic liberty, because that's just not how it's seen.

Edit: If it makes you feel any better, Obama has lost the Democrats any claim to the same...



This is simply short-sighted. W did what he thought was necessary in a very difficult time (I'm thinking 2001-2004) and I won't second guess that very much. He did go off the rail during his second term -- and there were plenty of Republicans (me included) who were screaming our heads off about it.

You need to take a little bit longer view.

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
rpm wrote:This is simply short-sighted. W did what he thought was necessary in a very difficult time (I'm thinking 2001-2004) and I won't second guess that very much. He did go off the rail during his second term -- and there were plenty of Republicans (me included) who were screaming our heads off about it.

You need to take a little bit longer view.



Perhaps I should take a little bit longer view, but that still leaves everybody else, if you get my drift.

I'm saying that "This is what is" (queue jokes about what is is).

What should be doesn't matter in the context of Romney beating Obama.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
rpm wrote:...I didn't much like it at the time, and I still don't much like it, but there is more to be said for the morally conservative position than most of us were willing to 20-30 years ago: Charles Murray's Coming Apart (2012) makes it very clear that we have paid a very, very heavy price for the sexual revolution and the breakdown of traditional mores. Ironically, it's the working class and increasingly the lower middle class, which is bearing the brunt of the breakdown of the family...



I haven't gotten around to reading this yet (but hope to at some point, as I usually appreciate Murray's writings); would it be fair to characterize it as being essentially the Moynihan report writ white, or is there more to it than that?

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rpm wrote:Indeed. Goldwater represents the classical liberal side of the Republican Party, concerned primarily with liberty in all its forms.



Does this exist in any shape or form now, though? Do you see any of that in Romney? I don't see it, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place.



Never forget that it was a Republican-dominated Supreme Court that overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and it was Republican votes in the Senate that passed the Civil Rights bills.

Many Republicans were in a tough position, in a way: they opposed legally required segregation, but did not necessarily (and increasingly less so) support legally required integration. That may seem a fine point, but both positions are consistent with a commitment to liberty.



That doesn't really seem too fine a point. One thing I got from the Goldwater speech was that he wasn't too keen on bullying. The 'separate but equal' business was bullying on a grand scheme, really.



To the extent there was legislation on social issues - remember this was a day when homosexuality was illegal everywhere and abortion was illegal in many states, but not all - it was primarily at the state or local level. Which is to say it was pretty much community-based and community-enforced, and one certainly had the option of moving to places where either enforcement or the law (or both) was congenial.

[NB. This was also correct as a Constitutional matter: the states have what's known as 'general police power' and the federal government does not.]


I see this as more bullying, and modern day Republicans are encouraging it. For whatever reason. As far as states' rights, including rights to bully, it's nice if you can just pick up and move out of a state you're not happy with (like I just did), but you don't want to have to do that multiple times. If you're poor, it's practically impossible. People ask me all the time why I didn't move to California. The short answer is that it's apparently the most financially screwed up state in the union. See, I care about these things a little bit! lol



By the way, this doesn't mean people like Goldwater were not personally conservative in their habits and mores, or that they wouldn't encourage or even exhort others to behave so, or to permit social, but not legal sanctions against those who egregiously violated accepted norms. But, this principled view stops short of allowing state (meaning government at any particular level) punishment with respect to such matters.

What happened, as it were, was that as the Democrats pushed the white working class out of the party, largely Protestant in the South and West, and Catholic in the North, and as abortion became an issue at the national level, the classical liberal Republicans of the Goldwater stripe found themselves working cheek-by-jowl with all of these new 'converts' whose social views mostly made their skin crawl. Yet, as Richard II did when presented with a gift horse by Saladin, no one was willing to look the gift horse in the mouth. And, after, Roe v. Wade, such voters became an important part of the Republican base. I didn't much like it at the time, and I still don't much like it, but there is more to be said for the morally conservative position than most of us were willing to 20-30 years ago: Charles Murray's Coming Apart (2012) makes it very clear that we have paid a very, very heavy price for the sexual revolution and the breakdown of traditional mores. Ironically, it's the working class and increasingly the lower middle class, which is bearing the brunt of the breakdown of the family.

It's a dilemma - one would like to see strong traditional morality freely chosen as a general rule - that is without visiting horrible punishments on those who live outside such norms - but how does one make a society work in that case? Just letting it be hasn't worked out so well. Perhaps if we let people do as they chose, but insisted that society did not have any obligation to take care of people whose choices turned out to be disastrous.... I dunno. Not easy at all.



This is still playing out, but things are bound to change and there is always an adjustment period after any big change. Right? Now, I have no idea why some people would think sexual revolution = indiscriminate sex with no precautions and just hope for the best, but...people are stupid. And they feel that they have nothing to lose, because they don't have anything to start with. Have you met people like that?

Imagine4vr


quality posts: 22 Private Messages Imagine4vr

And then there are those of us who choose to live outside societal norms both personally and professionally. Sorry to say for these reasons I can't support the Republican ticket because the social issues have a much more direct impact on the life I choose to live.

If only I could vote for a fiscal conservative and social liberal at the same time.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
chemvictim wrote:I'd like that too. Why can't we do that? C'mon history students, explain why we can't do that. Pleeeeeease.



because we don't exist on a flat plane rendering all social models completly useless. Theories are great until people start being people.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
rpm wrote:
Charles Murray's Coming Apart (2012) makes it very clear that we have paid a very, very heavy price for the sexual revolution and the breakdown of traditional mores. Ironically, it's the working class and increasingly the lower middle class, which is bearing the brunt of the breakdown of the family.

It's a dilemma - one would like to see strong traditional morality freely chosen as a general rule - that is without visiting horrible punishments on those who live outside such norms - but how does one make a society work in that case? Just letting it be hasn't worked out so well. Perhaps if we let people do as they chose, but insisted that society did not have any obligation to take care of people whose choices turned out to be disastrous.... I dunno. Not easy at all.



And this is where my eyes start to roll. Most everything up to this point, though, I liked.

This idea of a sexual revolution just doesn't hold water, in my view (although I am curious enough to check this book out). The difference that has occurred is empowerment. Divorce sucks for children. Period. But is it better than what used to happen -- namely, the wife stayed with the cheating husband? Teenagers are having unprotected sex. This is a terrible idea. But our reaction, as a society, is to hide information about sex and make contraception difficult to get (mark that you can't get the plan b pill without parental consent, but can get an abortion).

The issue is not, nor has it ever been, sex. The issue is responsibility and accountability, from the parents to the children and so forth. And you even state it in your last sentence. If people make a stupid decision, sexual or otherwise, then they should be left to deal with it. I invest my money like an brainiac, don't give me yours. And if I have a baby at 14, don't give me incentive to do it again. But, following the idea of liberty, if there is a sector of society who/that would like to assist these people, then they may do so. But they need to do it privately, like a church or non-profit organization. The gov't shouldn't be using tax dollars for this. And here we come again, back to the welfare discussion.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
Imagine4vr wrote:If only I could vote for a fiscal conservative and social liberal at the same time.



Ah, libertarianism!

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:Ah, libertarianism!



Nevermind, I this strays way beyond the topic of "Ryan was a stupid choice" for which I allowed myself to come in here :P