Rand Paul

Has the GOP Declared "Nuclear War" on its Own Grassroots?

|

Scott Shackford blogged earlier today about the Republican National Committee's report out today, from its "Growth and Opportunity Project." He focused on their professed desire to stop pissing off the young, immigrants, and gays.

As Politico is reporting this morning, other portions of the report are pissing off another group the Republicans' might want to keep on board: their own grassroots.

Excerpts:

Tucked in near the end of the 97-page report, formally known as The Growth and Opportunity Project, are less than four pages that amount to a political bombshell: the five-member panel urges halving the number of presidential primary debates in 2016 from 2012, creating a regional primary cluster after the traditional early states and holding primaries rather than caucuses or conventions.

Each of those steps would benefit a deep-pocketed candidate in the mold of Mitt Romney. That is, someone who doesn't need the benefit of televised debates to get attention because he or she can afford TV ads; has the cash to air commercials and do other forms of voter contact in multiple big states at one time; and has more appeal with a broader swath of voters than the sort of ideologically-driven activists who typically attend caucuses and conventions.

Big donors are reported to have told RNC Chief Reince Priebus that they want Iowa's early caucus to become less important.

Priebus has been trying to rhetorically jump on the Randwagon since filibuster day, when very late in the day he called on all GOP Senators to Stand With Rand. Today Priebus told a National Press Club audience that "for the most part, the party was totally on board with what Rand Paul did" in the filibuster, though evaded a question about whether Rand Paul was, in fact, the future of the Republican Party.

Good thing he's not on record on that, because from Politico's account forces around Paul are peeved at this new report–as are those of the popular vote runner-up in 2012, Rick Santorum.

But allies of potential 2016 hopefuls Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and former Sen. Rick Santorum, sensing a power play by the establishment-dominated panel, reacted angrily to recommendations they think are aimed at hurting candidates who do well in caucuses and conventions and need debates to get attention.

"Caucuses give you a better glimpse of what the base of the party wants," said Iowa GOP Chair A.J. Spiker, who hails from the Paul wing of the party. "And those people, they aren't going to be swayed as easily by television ads as a primary voter. They're a more politically educated voter."….

A close Paul adviser was even blunter, warning the party against pushing primaries rather than caucuses.

"Elimination of caucuses would mean nuclear war with the grassroots, social conservatives and [the] Ron Paul movement," said this Republican.

But it wasn't just the libertarian Republicans who were uneasy about the primary recommendations.

John Brabender, Santorum's chief adviser, said the reforms would favor the moneyed candidates.

"While I commend Chairman Priebus for taking important steps to remedy Republicans' recent election failures, I am troubled by the possibility of a condensed presidential primary process which undoubtedly gives an advantage to establishment backed candidates and the wealthiest candidates," said Brabender.

Any changes to the party's nominating process would have to be ratified by the full membership of the RNC. The first debate on the recommendation will take place next month at the party's spring meeting in Los Angeles, but party veterans don't expect any final resolution on the 2016 plan that soon.

One might remember that the only states Ron Paul did well in as far as winning delegates were caucus states. So:

The committee is more clear cut, though, on their preference for primaries as the best nominating method for building the party.

"We also recommend broadening the base of the party and inviting as many voters as possible into the Republican Party by discouraging conventions and caucuses for the purpose of allocating delegates to the national convention," the committee writes. "Our party needs to grow its membership, and primaries seem to be a more effective way to do so."

C\'mon Republicans, Let\'s Talk Ideology!
Photo credit: outtacontext / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-ND

The non-huge-money ideological candidates and their fans see this as another move in the establishment war on the grassroots that began at the RNC in Tampa. I reported on things that the Paul grassroots were pissed about then:

Several times on the convention floor Tuesday, Paulites united with Tea Party members and old-school conservatives to fight rule changes that were seen as inimical to the interest of all grassroots activists, no matter their particular stances. One controversial change out of the Rules Committee would bind state delegations to the results of straw polls or primaries, leaving no room for maneuvering at state conventions.

Independent of ideology, this would mean an end to any future upstart doing what Paul did this year: using the savvy and enthusiasm of his supporters to rack up more delegates at state conventions than they won in straw polls or primaries…..

Some media reported on a "compromise" on one hated aspect of the new delegate rule, which allowed candidates to handpick their own delegations. Many feared shis change would mean only insiders and donors and friends of the winner would ever get to the RNC. The Rule 16 that ended up passing still apparently gives candidates that power. It says, "No delegate or alternate delegate who is bound or allocated to a particular presidential candidate may be certified under Rule No. 20 if the presidential candidate to whom the delegate or alternate delegate is bound or allocated has, in consultation with the state party, disavowed the delegate or alternate delegate."….

Morton Blackwell, the head of the conservative training group the Leadership institute, was Barry Goldwater's youngest delegate in 1964. He's been present at every rules committee meeting for the past 40 years, and he thinks the new rules are "the most awful I've ever seen come before any National Convention….a power grab by Washington, D.C. party insiders and consultants designed to silence the voice of state party activists and Republican grassroots."

Matt Welch was on the scene then in Tampa and interviewed some of those angry grassroots types.

Advertisement

NEXT: Report: Iraq War Killed 112,000 Civilians

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. One might remember that the only states Ron Paul did well in as far as winning delegates were caucus states.

    What happened to those delegates? Oh yeah. They were ignored.

  2. Ooo, maybe McCain can get another shot.

    1. I wouldn’t mind bringing him back to kick around some more.

      1. No, because then he always does something that reminds you he can’t lift his arms up all the way and you get all sad even though you know you shouldn’t because he’s an asshole.

  3. Another key problem is that asshats, Cooper and Blitzer who ‘moderate’ (skew) ‘debates’ refuse to acknowledge anyone the script doesn’t say is ‘a serious’ candidate. The New York Times might as well publish what it thinks are unserious candidates and be done with it.

  4. Wouldn’t Rand Paul be a “big moneyed candidate” at this point? It seems to me these people are fighting the last war. They are kidding themselves if they think making it tough for insurgent candidates is somehow going to get some establishment jackass the nomination.

    1. It worked for Romney.

      1. Last war. And again, did Romney win because of money or because every single one of his competitors did something stupid to destroy their chances? I would say the latter.

        1. Romney won because it was “his turn” as runner-up to McCain in 2008 and he fit the narrative of incumbent black guy against wealthy old white guy.

          He was expected to be the party nominee, so he became the party nominee.

          1. That is complete bullshit. Romney was consistently behind in the polls all year. No one wanted the guy. But everyone time someone got ahead of him, Cain, Gingrich, Perry for a bit, they did something stupid or had a scandal that killed their chances. Romney won by default. There just wasn’t any other viable candidate. And no, Paul wasn’t a viable candidate, at least in the GOP primaries, because of his blowback statements. He pissed too many people off. And Santorum had no appeal beyond SOCONS.

            Romney didn’t win because he was next. He won by default.

            1. Yes, Romney was behind in all of the polls for most of the year. And he lost many important polls and even a number of the early primaries and caucuses. That doesn’t discount my theory, your theory, or the idea that he was the big money candidate.

              1. To add on this point:

                If “Nobody wanted the guy”, why wouldn’t he have fallen off or dropped out? Yes, there were a half dozen other looneys in the primaries, but it is because some clearly did want him–namely, the establishment who figured it was his time–that he stuck around long enough for the other candidates to screw up.

                It happened after 2000 with McCain coming out of nowhere as the go to candidate for 2008, so it’s not without precedent.

                1. If “Nobody wanted the guy”, why wouldn’t he have fallen off or dropped out?

                  Because he had money that is why he didn’t drop out. And he only won because everyone else was so week. Had there been any credible alternative or if Cain and Gingrich and Perry hadn’t self destructed, he would have never won.

                  1. Huntsman wasn’t credible? Gary Johnson wasn’t credible? They were barely given any attention, as was Ron Paul.

                    They were a hell of a lot better than Romney. I’m not saying Romney didn’t get lucky with abysmal competition; I’m saying he should never have been the establishment’s main pick because of his history as a liberal, Romneycare, etc. THEY wanted him, so he ran, got the donations, continued to run, and was able to stick it out the longest.

                    But he never should have been in.

                    1. Huntsman wasn’t credible?

                      You mean a guy who worked for the Obama administration and spent his spare time writing op eds explaining to liberals who stupid Republicans were was not credible? You are kidding me?

                      Gary Johnson wasn’t credible?

                      Not even for a second. What purpose did Johnson serve that Paul wasn’t already doing? There was only enough room for one libertarian candidate and Paul had that locked up. Johnson never had a chance.

                      hey were barely given any attention, as was Ron Paul.

                      Paul got huge amounts of attention and raised tons of money. Paul didn’t lose for lack of coverage or lack of money.

                      Sure the establishment wanted him. But the establishment only got what they wanted because the other candidates were so weak.

                    2. What purpose did Johnson serve that Paul wasn’t already doing? There was only enough room for one libertarian candidate and Paul had that locked up.

                      Well for starters, he had actual experience as a governor, and in a blue state no less! Then, he also balanced the budget without significantly raising taxes, something that should have appealed to the Tea Party.

                      Who says that there is only room for one libertarianish candidate in the Republican primary? Certainly not me. That sounds like another thing that the establishment tried to ensure happened lest the general public hear multiple people espousing the ideas of liberty.

                  2. To be fair, Cain was really the subject of character assassination that according to most reports sprang from either the Perry or Romney campaigns.

                    1. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to find out that Cain was derailed because of a pre-emptive strike by the Obama campaign.

            2. And no, Paul wasn’t a viable candidate

              Bullshit!

              1. And no, Paul wasn’t a viable candidate

                Bullshit!

                Then why didn’t he do better? He had tons of money, a huge organization and tons of coverage. He didn’t do better because he pissed off 70% of the Republican electorate. When you do that, you are no longer viable.

                1. He finished 2nd.

                2. Without trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist…

                  The man was marginalized at every opportunity both by the Republican establishment and the media (BOTH SIDES of the media). For the simple reason that both sides feared him.

                  When allowed to speak his piece and explain positions, people love him. The media has made vast fortunes under the two party system, pitting one side against the other. FOX’s entire corporate strategy is to command market share by appealing to conservatives, leaving the other 50% to be divided among the rest of the liberal media.

                  Along comes a guy who is neither liberal or conservative and people were starting to listen to him. He might just upset the apple cart.

                  The difference in how he was treated compared to the rest of the candidates was beyond obvious.

          2. Romney was expected to be the guy perhaps, but no other candidate did anything to dispel that. From Cain’s real or faux scandal to Perry’s inability to count to three to Noot’s churlishness to Ricky being the town scold, Romney was the only guy not shooting his own foot off.

            The party was so bent on finding the next Reagan conservative and from Bachmann to Perry to Ricky, all were sorely lacking. Add in the GOP’s own anti-Mormon animus and the Repubs pulled victory from the jaws of defeat.

            1. But Romney being in there, when by all objective reasons he should not have been the Republican standard-bearer (Romneycare, his flip flopping on traditional conservative stances like abortion, etc.) meant that a more realistic candidate couldn’t get in there.

              Whether it was the Republican decision makers or the mainstream media trying to set up the “young, hip black guy vs. old, stiff white guy” fight doesn’t matter; he was chosen because that is what they wanted, not because that is what Republicans as a whole wanted.

        2. Romney won because he was the next establishment jackass in line.

          1. That is a nice myth people, Paulites in particular, like to tell themselves. But it is not true. If Romney had beaten any credible candidate, it would have been true. But he didn’t. He won by default. Winning because you are next in line implies you beat someone else who could have one. Who in that field could have won the nomination? Cain? Gingrich? Not a chance.

            1. Romney had two assets:

              (1) Stacks of money.
              (2) The support of the establishment (Repub and media).

              These enabled him to outlast his opponents.

              He greased his strong early opponents with massive negative media buys, and was never in danger of running out of money (unlike his opponents).

              The media held off on their Romney-killing until the general, likely because the word was that he would be a weak challenger for base turn-out strategy.

              Sure, the rest of the field was flawed, but without those two advantages (one of which, recall, was that he was “next in line” for the Repub establishment), he wouldn’t have made it.

              1. Okay RC. If Romney hadn’t made it, who would have?

                1. John, the truth of the matter is that Romney was just as bad a candidate as all of his opponents that you so easily write off as “weak”. Hell, Ron Paul in a head-to-head match up poll with Obama consistently won over 50% of the vote.

                  When Obamacare was the reason for such a huge turnaround in 2010, it is unfathomable to run a candidate that basically did it on a smaller scale already. And yet he ran, and he continued to raise money from “somewhere”, even though in all of the early polls most people wanted someone other than Romney.

                  1. He had money and he didn’t say something too stupid or offensive. That is really all there was to it. And yes nominating someone who effectively invented Obamacare was beyond stupid.

        3. And again, did Romney win because of money or because every single one of his competitors did something stupid to destroy their chances?

          Yes.

  5. their professed desire to stop pissing off the young, immigrants, and gays.

    So they should ignore Rand then?

  6. I know you want to believe that Paul can come in and shake up TEAM RED, but that would mean shaking up TEAM BE RULED, and guess what? That ain’t happening. Statist status quo is statist.

    1. The beltway is going to close in around their own. Things may be so bad and Obama so unpopular by 2016, the media may have to recon with the possibility of any Republican winning. So you better believe they are going to do everything they can to make sure that Republican is not anyone who would actually change anything.

  7. WTF with the constant collectivization of people? Did I mistakenly find myself at Democratic Underground? I thought that human beings were individuals, crazy me. After reading this article I now see that human being are merely members of their collectives. “Gays, immigrants and the young” all agree with the Leftist expansion of the State. Who knew?

    1. What? Reading Comprehension – Have Some.

    2. An article detailing the beliefs and feelings of each individual homosexual, immigrant and young person would be a bit cumbersome.

      1. And an article claiming to speak for the entire group of individuals is, what?

        Sorry, I just read another article which defined “women’s” issues as being Leftist only, also. They clearly should have also been included in this article.

        1. So isn’t claiming to speak for libertarians collectivist as well?

        2. Isn’t claiming to speak for Reason collectivist as well?

          1. You obviously get closer to truth as you narrow groups. Groups that require membership are, or should, be somewhat closer to the truth, but size matters. Claiming to speak for the people of Podunk, Arkansas population 25, will be closer than if you claim to speak for the people of NYC.

            As you should know by now, no one speaks for Libertarians, or I should say “each Libertarian insists upon speaking for himself.” Reason is a different story, however. As a private organization they should be able to speak more closely as one, and do. I claim to speak for neither.

            Claiming that large diverse groups of individuals think as one is usually an attempt to deceive, instead of enlighten.

        3. This is not claiming to speak for the entire group. Do you dispute that the SoCon bullshit that routinely gets espoused publicly by Republicans is probably going to anger the majority of homosexuals? Or the vitriol directed toward immigrants is not likely to make immigrants very happy with the Republican party? This is not even collectivization, it’s just an incredibly stupid objection to the article, almost to the point of being a non sequitur.

    3. So what about Gillespie’s articles on Teh Yutes and Teh AKs?

      1. Hate that shit, too.

        I should read such things more generously, I admit. Simply placing “many” or “some” in front would be more accurate and doesn’t really change this gist of most of them. “Many immigrants, gays etc”

        It does, however, provide an excellent reason to start drinking!

  8. Primaries ARE a better way to pick a candidate in a general election. It’s a little ridiculous to judge the effect because it would hurt your favorite candidate ex-ante. The GOP needs clear, fair rules that allow candidates with the broadest support to win (and to follow those rules). The existing system doesn’t do that, and the GOP ignored inconvenient winners anyway.

    This is a good move, especially for the libertarians and moderates in the GOP. This is unambiguously bad for the die hard social conservatives. It won’t happen right away, but a better primary system will incentivize the RNC and GOP overall to adopt more appealing policies and shun divisive ones, regardless of how loyal those constituencies are.

    1. I don’t get what is wrong with primaries. Caucuses are complete back room bullshit.

    2. Open primaries are a better way to pick a candidate. Closed primaries are complete bullshit. If you want to have a candidate that appeals to more than just your standard Republican base, like the Republicans try to do EVERY GOD DAMN ELECTION (Hint: the nation as a whole does not want a “moderate”, as evidenced by the last 4 elections), then make the primaries open to everyone.

      1. But open primaries allow voters from the other party to come over and fuck with the outcome. If you want a say in who a party nominates, you ought to have to be a member of the party. Would you like it if a bunch of Republicans showed up and voted in a Libertarian open primary just for the sake of fucking with it?

        1. If you want a say in who a party nominates, you ought to have to be a member of the party. Would you like it if a bunch of Republicans showed up and voted in a Libertarian open primary just for the sake of fucking with it?

          Emphasis added. What difference do my feelings about the matter make?

          1. Because it is your party. So I would say you get a vote in how it is run and someone who is not in the party shouldn’t.

        2. I want a say in who should represent EVERY PARTY, because I don’t like the candidates that ultimately represent each party come election time. I think the parties are a terrible way to determine who the president should be, and there is a major duopoly in elections, specifically presidential elections.

          But that is a good point, because then instead of just the Republicans and Democrats having the exact same candidate, a la 2008 or 2012, we would have 8-10 candidates that are all pretty much the standard “moderate”.

          1. The 2 party-system is an inevitable consequence of the way our election system works. Anything we do that does not get rid of First-past-the-post (aka winner take all) voting will fail to break the two party duopoly.

            Not implicating you here, but there is nothing conspiratorial or insidious about the sameness of our 2 parties. For those who took economics: what is the rational profit-maximizing strategy in monopolistic competition and duopoly? Minimize the distance between you and your competitor, and engage in ‘branding’.

            1. Minimize the distance between you and your competitor, and engage in ‘branding’.

              That is a really good point.

            2. I didn’t mean to imply there was something conspiratorial or insidious about the two party system, other than gaming the system so that they can stay in power the longest (obscure rules for third parties to get into debates, onto ballots, etc). I was only saying that both parties are pretty much the same, and as you said, they just have different brands.

              It’s all Coke vs. Pepsi; I just want some beer or whiskey once in a while, you know.

              1. Again, didn’t mean to imply you were saying that. I was just moving along with a train of thought. I was addressing an idea I encounter too often, especially among fellow libertarians.

                I’m not sure whether to call them ‘Alex Jones Libertarians’ or ‘Jesse Venture Libertarians’ or ‘Black Hawk Libertarians’ or ‘Paranoids’, but I think we all know who I’m talking about.

    3. I’ve always thought that the primaries should* be weighted differently than they are. It should be : E * min(1.0-P,P) where E = number of electoral votes for that state and P = non-conditioned probability that that party carries that state. If a particular state is a lock to vote one way or another, they shouldn’t really have any say in picking the candidate.

      This assumes all states are winner take all … which isn’t quite true, but that is an implementation detail given the current configuration.

      *when I say “should” I don’t mean from any moral perspective, I just mean from the POV of a private club trying to take over the government.

      1. My view of primaries/caucuses is that they should be weighted in proportion to how late in the year it is. If Iowa and New Hampshire want to always go first, let them; just make sure that they’re choosing very few delegates. That will push back the point where half the delegates have been chosen to considerably later in the year, which will give a dark horse candidate time to build support. Any kind of front-loaded system will automatically select the person that has the best combination of money and name recognition, which is highly likely to be an establishment candidate.

  9. If party bosses change the election rules, my hypothesis is that they’re up to something, ie, that they’re trying to tilt the playing field in behalf of the kind of candidate they support. And I’ll go out on a limb and assume this *doesn’t* mean Rand Paul.

    1. Sure they are. But they are pissing in the wind. Paul is going to inherit his father’s supporters and fund raising apparatus. Paul is the fucking establishment. He is going to be able to raise more money and have a bigger organization than anyone other than Jeb Bush. Given that, I don’t see how tilting the playing field towards big money candidates is going to hurt Paul. If anything it will help him by ensuring there are not any smaller candidates to split his support.

      1. Well, I don’t think it’s in the bag that Rand inherits all of Ron’s donors and support. While Ron lacked the necessary rhetoric and composure to successfully run for president, it was his ideology that millions of people rallied around. Rand Paul is almost there, but he has had to shy away from the blatant “Take me as I am” persona that his father became in order to remain politically relevant. I sort of think that will alienate some of Ron’s fanbase in making the switch over to him.

        Hell, if it’s that easy to jump ship for the Paulites, why didn’t Gary Johnson easily clear the 5% margin? He and Rand are a lot closer than Gary and Ron.

        1. Gary Johnson wasn’t Ron Paul’s son. And more importantly, Ron Paul isn’t running in 2016. Had Paul not ran in 2012, Johnson would have gotten nearly all of Paul’s supporters.

  10. Good. Let ’em self-immolate.

  11. Seems like the well-funded establishment candidates have an even bigger advantage in a drawn-out primary. They will have the resources to last that long if the base decides it wants to try out one wacko lunatic after another until all it’s left with is Mitt Romney or whomever. Just think if the primary had ended when Newt was leading. We’d be stuck with President Obama for four more years!

    1. *chuckle*

  12. Big donors are reported to have told RNC Chief Reince Priebus that they want Iowa’s early caucus to become less important.

    I’m not a big donor to Republicans, but I think it might not hurt to reduce the importance of a caucus in a state with seven electoral votes and interests that may not apply outside of ADM-land.

  13. Well, ya know, going with the rich guy went so well last time.

  14. The GOP won’t be running against an incumbent in 2016, and it’ll be interesting to see how that affects the primary races.

    In the end, this kerfluffle about rules changes won’t amount to much. Candidates will gain and lose momentum and primary votes based on what happens to them in the media, not on how effective they are in glad-handing local party activists.

    Ron Paul ran the “caucus insurgent” strategy about as well as it could be run, and he didn’t come within shouting distance of the nomination. Obama used a similar strategy in 2008, but he was running from a much wider base of support within his own party.

    If Romney hadn’t been burdened with the Massachusetts version of Obamacare, he could have effectively run against it and won.

    1. “If Romney hadn’t been burdened with the Massachusetts version of Obamacare…”

      Isnt that kinda like a drunk who blames his hangover on being ‘overserved’? Ya’know it is really the bartender’s fault!

      He wasnt burdened by it, he owned it.

      1. I wasn’t speaking of it in terms of his intent. I guess it’s more proper to speak of the GOP being burdened with Romneycare, rather than Romney himself.

        1. Ah, ok.

          I think everyone is still scratching their heads over why the party did not unburden themselves with Romneycare. It really was a hopelessly stupid move.

          My personal conspiracy theory is that they are counting on winning in 2016 and they want Obumbles to keep usurping more power for them to inherit.

    2. If Romney hadn’t been burdened with the Massachusetts version of Obamacare, he could have effectively run against it and won.

      None of the exit polls support this contention. R-R lost because they were seen as taking away the entitlement gravy train.

  15. John Brabender, Santorum’s chief adviser, said the reforms would favor the moneyed candidates.

    I’d go further and contend that the con artists in the hierarchy of republican party want to nominate another factotum of the noble house of bush, if not another in-the-blood bushite.

    1. It’s pretty obvious that Jeb will run in 2016, but I think he’s a long-shot. If not, the GOP will likely lose again in humiliating fashion.

  16. “No delegate or alternate delegate who is bound or allocated to a particular presidential candidate may be certified under Rule No. 20 if the presidential candidate to whom the delegate or alternate delegate is bound or allocated has, in consultation with the state party, disavowed the delegate or alternate delegate.”

    I had to read this a couple of times, yet I am still puzzled. Why would a candidate disavow a delegate who has bound themselves to them ( throw away votes ) ?

    Perhaps I dont understand the candidate/delegate relationship.

    1. A way to get rid of potentially rogue delegates?

  17. The treatment of Ron Paul’s delegates at the Tampa convention was the second action by the Republicans which led to my walking away from them. I was/am not a Ron Paul supporter, but my thought when they refused to allow the delegates to nominate him was “What would it have cost them?” Allow him to be nominated. Allow his delegates to be counted for him. Allow him to do the graceful thing and add his delegates to Romney’s when it suited him.

    They spit in the face of 2 million voters when they did that. Turned out they couldn’t afford to leave that many voters on the table.

  18. PoliSci 101
    Even though it wasn’t the intent of the founders, it became fairly clear almost immediately that the effect of the Electoral College is a two-party system. The reasons it wasn’t changed after it became apparent are many, but one of the most important still stands today, and that is to help give more weight to the concerns of smaller states. Since Federalism is either dead or at least very ill, there may be arguments to make advocating a change to the system.
    But eliminating the two party system doesn’t magically give us a three party system with the Libertarians as number three. Instead, we end up with a Parliamentary system. I fail to see how a Parliamentary system has made, for example, Great Britain into a paradigm of liberty and limited government.

  19. Santorum is political rat poison. I consider him a Democrat who courts the religious voters.

    1. I count him as a big-government Republican, which isn’t very far from your characterization. In my mind, it’s not so much the religious aspect of SoCons that drives people away, it’s that pretty much every one of them wants to use the federal government to impose their point of view, which makes them no better than big-government liberals.

  20. I have the solution!

    Just need all the states to deny ballots to people who watch reality TV.

    Phew! Glad we dodged that one. Thought we were headed the same way as Europe, for a second.

  21. That is, someone who doesn’t need the benefit of televised debates to get attention because he or she can afford TV ads; has the cash to air commercials and do other forms of voter contact in multiple big states at one time; and has more appeal with a broader swath of voters than the sort of ideologically-driven activists who typically attend caucuses and conventions.

    Do keep in mind they’re talking about how to WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION. In which case this is exactly what you want, someone who can fundraise like crazy and appeal to independents.

  22. Soetimes dude you jsut have to roll with it. Wow.

    http://www.WebAnon.da.bz

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.