Govt. Shutdown

By the way, this is one of the funniest things I've read on the internet in the past 10 minutes (link):

On shutdown Day One, conservatives — many of whom were elected in the 2010 tea party wave — didn’t see an endgame the defunds Obamacare, nor a way to delay the individual mandate. They ignored questions about what victory really meant at this point.

“It’s not about us or them — this is about America,” insisted Georgia Rep. Austin Scott (R), when the question was put to him. Asked again, Scott repeated the exact same answer. Asked a third time, Scott lowered his voice, “It’s not about Obamacare, it’s about America.”

He wasn’t alone in expressing that the pathway forward isn’t up for discussion.

Georgia GOP Rep. Phil Gingrey, also from Georgia, simply read talking points, including boiling the path forward down to three Twitter hashtags.
Click to expand...
 
sturg33 said:
Paul would have gotten the "anybody but Obama vote" (95% of the republican party)

He would have gotten the anti-war independents

He would have gotten the anti-war/civil liberty democracts

He would have gotten A LOT of the young vote

Romney only got the first .
Click to expand...

You can't prove the negative and I get your energy and slant, but if Romney couldn't beat Obama in this economy, I don't think Paul--whose policy initiatives are more stark--would have fared as well. The "anybody but Obama" group would likely have dwindled (or not shown up at the polls) with a Paul candidacy. A lot of those folks aren't anti-government in the same vein as Ron Paul. A lot of soccer moms in that group and while they don't cotton to a lot of the Obama agenda, they want (among other things) good schools, safe streets, and predictability. They have concerns over the size and scope of government, but my guess is Obama and company could have scared the living pants off a lot of these folks. The election was all about the economy and I just think Paul's solutions were too radical to give comfort to a populace that was very security-driven.

I doubt there are that many folks in any of the other groups you mention that would have appreciably put a dent in Obama's armor. The folks over at The Nation despise Ron Paul and if there's a stronger contingent of anti-war/civil liberty Democrats anyplace other than there, I don't know where they'd be. I don't think the results would have exactly been Nixon/McGovern because the South is so solidly Republican now that most of those states would have gone Republican if a robot were the Republican candidate (Wait a minute. The Republicans did nominate a robot.), but I believe Obama would have won more comfortably. I can't prove that, but neither can you prove that Paul would have won or done better than Romney. It's one thing to have energy, but I've run campaigns and it takes more than a bunch of excited people bouncing around to win an election. Obama's ground game is simply phenomenal. It is well-funded, well-oiled, and extremely organized. There is very little wasted energy and the concern that those folks were going to sit it out due to Obama's first term was ill-founded.

All this said, I do believe that the movement devoted to Ron Paul (and the succession that will follow him, whomever that may be) will gain in strength. There was a great article in Harper's a few months back and I agree there are a ton of young voters who are organizing through the Liberty Movement and that bloc will likely grow to be more influential. But it takes organization to win and in 2012, I don't think the organization was there.

In response to the "Iowa comment," Iowa, like a bunch of Midwestern states with strong populist roots, still has a caucus system to determine delegate allocation. Paul and Santorum did better in those states than in primary states because you need to have a motivated group willing to turn off the television (or skip Muffy's dance class or Biff's hockey practice) on a Tuesday night and head down to the local junior high school and sit for a couple of hours and talk about resolutions, issues, and candidates and figure out who to send up to the next level (legislative district, congressional district, or state) as delegates. Paul had this with his following and my guess is Santorum's followers hit the windshields with flyers in every Catholic church parking lot in caucus states to generate interest (and let's remember that Santorum won in Iowa, not Paul).

I think the Paul/Santorum dichotomy is going to be the issue Republicans have to resolve before 2016. While Paul and his followers are largely, but not exclusively, anti-abortion, they don't "wear" the issue in the same way that Santorum does and there is a considerable segment of the Republican party which is all about what they term "traditional family values." I think the younger generation of Paul-ites (Rand Paul, Rubio, Ted Cruz) try to keep a foot on both rails, but unless there's a workable fusion of those elements, I see the Republicans scuffling for a bit on the national level. Not to mention if a fusion of these two tribes becomes the base of the Republican Party, where does that leave the more standard fare featuring guys like Chris Christie?
 
We're not going to be disrespected, We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."-- Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)​
 
50 is right on it. Obama's ground orgainzation is among the best there's ever been. Bush had a strong ground game in 2004 as well.

I see the "Paul" movement gaining in strength too, but there will have to be at least some uniting on issues. The anti-tax and anti-war people and those who oppose things like the Patriot Act as their main issue that have flocked to the Pauls and Gary Johnsons don't always agree on a lot of things. The Bush and Obama folks were generally more united on just about everything.

I understand the social conservatives' perspective on most things, but I really believe the majority of people are FAR more concerned with two things: How's my checkbook going to be looking, and are we safe?
 
bravesnumberone said:
50 is right on it. Obama's ground orgainzation is among the best there's ever been. Bush had a strong ground game in 2004 as well.

I see the "Paul" movement gaining in strength too, but there will have to be at least some uniting on issues. The anti-tax and anti-war people and those who oppose things like the Patriot Act as their main issue that have flocked to the Pauls and Gary Johnsons don't always agree on a lot of things. The Bush and Obama folks were generally more united on just about everything.

I understand the social conservatives' perspective on most things, but I really believe the majority of people are FAR more concerned with two things: How's my checkbook going to be looking, and are we safe?
Click to expand...

Very true. It's about getting bodies to the polls.
 
50PoundHead said:
You can't prove the negative and I get your energy and slant, but if Romney couldn't beat Obama in this economy, I don't think Paul--whose policy initiatives are more stark--would have fared as well. The "anybody but Obama" group would likely have dwindled (or not shown up at the polls) with a Paul candidacy. A lot of those folks aren't anti-government in the same vein as Ron Paul. A lot of soccer moms in that group and while they don't cotton to a lot of the Obama agenda, they want (among other things) good schools, safe streets, and predictability. They have concerns over the size and scope of government, but my guess is Obama and company could have scared the living pants off a lot of these folks. The election was all about the economy and I just think Paul's solutions were too radical to give comfort to a populace that was very security-driven.

I doubt there are that many folks in any of the other groups you mention that would have appreciably put a dent in Obama's armor. The folks over at The Nation despise Ron Paul and if there's a stronger contingent of anti-war/civil liberty Democrats anyplace other than there, I don't know where they'd be. I don't think the results would have exactly been Nixon/McGovern because the South is so solidly Republican now that most of those states would have gone Republican if a robot were the Republican candidate (Wait a minute. The Republicans did nominate a robot.), but I believe Obama would have won more comfortably. I can't prove that, but neither can you prove that Paul would have won or done better than Romney. It's one thing to have energy, but I've run campaigns and it takes more than a bunch of excited people bouncing around to win an election. Obama's ground game is simply phenomenal. It is well-funded, well-oiled, and extremely organized. There is very little wasted energy and the concern that those folks were going to sit it out due to Obama's first term was ill-founded.

All this said, I do believe that the movement devoted to Ron Paul (and the succession that will follow him, whomever that may be) will gain in strength. There was a great article in Harper's a few months back and I agree there are a ton of young voters who are organizing through the Liberty Movement and that bloc will likely grow to be more influential. But it takes organization to win and in 2012, I don't think the organization was there.

In response to the "Iowa comment," Iowa, like a bunch of Midwestern states with strong populist roots, still has a caucus system to determine delegate allocation. Paul and Santorum did better in those states than in primary states because you need to have a motivated group willing to turn off the television (or skip Muffy's dance class or Biff's hockey practice) on a Tuesday night and head down to the local junior high school and sit for a couple of hours and talk about resolutions, issues, and candidates and figure out who to send up to the next level (legislative district, congressional district, or state) as delegates. Paul had this with his following and my guess is Santorum's followers hit the windshields with flyers in every Catholic church parking lot in caucus states to generate interest (and let's remember that Santorum won in Iowa, not Paul).

I think the Paul/Santorum dichotomy is going to be the issue Republicans have to resolve before 2016. While Paul and his followers are largely, but not exclusively, anti-abortion, they don't "wear" the issue in the same way that Santorum does and there is a considerable segment of the Republican party which is all about what they term "traditional family values." I think the younger generation of Paul-ites (Rand Paul, Rubio, Ted Cruz) try to keep a foot on both rails, but unless there's a workable fusion of those elements, I see the Republicans scuffling for a bit on the national level. Not to mention if a fusion of these two tribes becomes the base of the Republican Party, where does that leave the more standard fare featuring guys like Chris Christie?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the well thought post... will respond later when I have more time
 
Sturg or anyone for future reference, if you're going to quote a post that is very long with plenty of paragraphs like 50's, make sure to use the spoiler tag inside the quote so it doesn't stretch the page extra farther down. :Bunchie1:
 
McConnell and Paul have no idea the mic is on and the camera is running, basically leak the strategy the GOP has been using the last 4 years. Publicly say you want to compromise and find common ground, but in reality don't do anything and eventually people will blame the other side as equally bad as you.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-government-shutdown-97795.html

I remember a few years ago a few former GOP aides that worked for Bush 1,2, Reagan and some other 90's Republicans said that the party has become so radical now by design that if they just refuse to compromise and be extremely partisan that eventually people will just give up any faith that anything will get done to the point where they'll just naturally blame both sides for not doing anything. It's a brilliant strategy when you think about it. It takes two sides to make a deal. If you don't negotiate or compromise on anything, eventually people will believe the other side is just as much as fault no matter how ridiculous your own demands are.
 
Paul cannot be that stupid, there has to be a reason he went to a mic'd and in front of camera McConnell. Are they trying to torpedo the house reps? Has to be a reason they're doing it cause it can't be stupidity, just can't.
 
It's about time Politico recognizes what many have been reporting since January 2009.

The first give away was McConnell declaring - I paraphrase _"our main goal is to be sure Obama is a one term President"
The second might have been The Williamsburg Accord.

Welcome to Friday Politico --
 
zitothebrave said:
Paul cannot be that stupid, there has to be a reason he went to a mic'd and in front of camera McConnell. Are they trying to torpedo the house reps? Has to be a reason they're doing it cause it can't be stupidity, just can't.
Click to expand...

boehner-crying-o.gif
 
KeithLockhart said:
McConnell and Paul have no idea the mic is on and the camera is running, basically leak the strategy the GOP has been using the last 4 years. Publicly say you want to compromise and find common ground, but in reality don't do anything and eventually people will blame the other side as equally bad as you.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-government-shutdown-97795.html

I remember a few years ago a few former GOP aides that worked for Bush 1,2, Reagan and some other 90's Republicans said that the party has become so radical now by design that if they just refuse to compromise and be extremely partisan that eventually people will just give up any faith that anything will get done to the point where they'll just naturally blame both sides for not doing anything. It's a brilliant strategy when you think about it. It takes two sides to make a deal. If you don't negotiate or compromise on anything, eventually people will believe the other side is just as much as fault no matter how ridiculous your own demands are.
Click to expand...

Did you read what they said? I didn't get that out of what they said. They just said it was dumb for the president and democrats to keep saying that they weren't going to negotiate. I mean... the dems are publically saying they won't negotiate and you aren't grumping about them. Talk about intense homerism.
 
weso1 said:
Did you read what they said? I didn't get that out of what they said. They just said it was dumb for the president and democrats to keep saying that they weren't going to negotiate. I mean... the dems are publically saying they won't negotiate and you aren't grumping about them. Talk about intense homerism.
Click to expand...

I didn't read what they said, I listened to what they said.

What was transcribed on the article when read is different from the tone in which you listen to them.
 
And the Dems not willing to negotiate is the right move.

Never has one party ever been this extreme in shutting down the government in an attempt to repeal duly-passed legislation.

You shouldn't compromise just because the other team has some severe sour grapes. GOP could've brought these discussions up months ago, but they waited until the game clock expired because they knew they'd have more leverage.

At least Boehner has enough balls to admit he isn't going to let us default.
 
KeithLockhart said:
I didn't read what they said, I listened to what they said.

What was transcribed on the article when read is different from the tone in which you listen to them.
Click to expand...

I listened too and I guess I don't have a masters in tone interpretation so I guess I can't speak on that. It's hilarious that you are grumping based on pure speculation that the reps aren't negotiating when the dems are publically stating that they won't negotiate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top