GOP debate

[Razgovory]

It ties well to the idea of libertardians that the government that governs best is the government that is bound, gagged, and blindfolded.

As opposed to the anti-liberty crowd that thinks that people are too stupid to be allowed to do what they want, so a giant bureaucracy (set up by them, of course) is much better suited to deciding how people should live, and how their resources should be expended.

"anti-liberty" crowd?

[KRonn]

So, where are the real contenders running for the GOP? Didn't see them in the fifteen or so minutes I watched last night. We need leaders. Don't have one in the White House now, and I don't see too much of interest in the Repubs either. But hey, it's early yet. Last election Barack Obama was also an unknown and came out of nowhere.

Romney (who doesn't stand for anything) and Huntsman (who I don't know much about) are the only reasonable people in the group. The rest are flakes. Probably including Perry.

I'm not too fond of Romney though he seems one of the more reasonable ones. But I don't really get a good sense that he stands for anything that strongly. Huntsman I don't know; it's very early and he hasn't been on the national stage very long. Perry seems good but I'm hearing some negatives about him from Texas, that he isn't real knowledgeable on the economy. But again, it's early and we're just starting to see some of these guys/gals.

[MadImmortalMan]

"anti-liberty" crowd?

Alternate-liberty crowd?

[MadImmortalMan]

Yes.  It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with.  Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.

True. Don't forget that there are a bunch of crazies every time. In our last round it wasn't just Hillary and Barack at the beginning. We had Kucinich and Gravel too.

[alfred russel]

Yes.  It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with.  Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.

Also, there is a decent chance that whoever is nominated is going to win.

A dynamic that doesn't seem to be getting much coverage after the debate is that a lot of these candidates may not be out to win, but instead to enhance their political fortunes/name recognition (and some out to win may be hedging their bets). I have to think that the Pizza Guy knows he is going to lose. Pawlenty may have chosen to go after Bachman rather than Romeny so that he doesn't burn bridges with someone who may be the next president.

[Valmy]

Perry seems good but I'm hearing some negatives about him from Texas, that he isn't real knowledgeable on the economy.

Just curious what about him seems good?

[DGuller]

Yes.  It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with.  Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.

True. Don't forget that there are a bunch of crazies every time. In our last round it wasn't just Hillary and Barack at the beginning. We had Kucinich and Gravel too.

Yes, but as with many such comparisons, just because both Democrats and Republicans have it doesn't mean that the effect is the same on both. 

Democrats have their fringe, but it has been really on the fringe as of late.  The Republican fringe, on the other hand, is in charge now.  Even the sane mainstream candidates are in effect put on the fringe, because they have to submit to the fringe ideology.  It's with that dynamic that you get John McCain to say that taxes should never be raised, and that in fact lowering them would increase revenues.

[derspiess]

Romney (who doesn't stand for anything) and Huntsman (who I don't know much about) are the only reasonable people in the group. The rest are flakes. Probably including Perry.

Huntsman is the biggest flake out of the group.  If he got the nom I'd seriously think about voting for a 3rd party candidate.

[Viking]

So, where are the real contenders running for the GOP? Didn't see them in the fifteen or so minutes I watched last night. We need leaders. Don't have one in the White House now, and I don't see too much of interest in the Repubs either. But hey, it's early yet. Last election Barack Obama was also an unknown and came out of nowhere.

Romney (who doesn't stand for anything) and Huntsman (who I don't know much about) are the only reasonable people in the group. The rest are flakes. Probably including Perry.

I'm not too fond of Romney though he seems one of the more reasonable ones. But I don't really get a good sense that he stands for anything that strongly. Huntsman I don't know; it's very early and he hasn't been on the national stage very long. Perry seems good but I'm hearing some negatives about him from Texas, that he isn't real knowledgeable on the economy. But again, it's early and we're just starting to see some of these guys/gals.

Perry is unacceptible to me on the grounds that he basically bankrupted Texas and then rather than devise a plan to solve Texas' problems he decided the solution was to Pray for Rain. Not only VooDoo Economics, but also VooDoo Religion, Politics, Defense, Transportation, Medicine ect.ect.

The fact that Perry is not the Guano Phosphate Rock Futures Candidate tells you alot about the state of the Republican Party.

[DGuller]

Romney (who doesn't stand for anything) and Huntsman (who I don't know much about) are the only reasonable people in the group. The rest are flakes. Probably including Perry.

Huntsman is the biggest flake out of the group.  If he got the nom I'd seriously think about voting for a 3rd party candidate.

Exhibit A in support of what I just talked about.

[Berkut]

Yes.  It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with.  Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.

True. Don't forget that there are a bunch of crazies every time. In our last round it wasn't just Hillary and Barack at the beginning. We had Kucinich and Gravel too.

Yes, but as with many such comparisons, just because both Democrats and Republicans have it doesn't mean that the effect is the same on both. 

Democrats have their fringe, but it has been really on the fringe as of late.  The Republican fringe, on the other hand, is in charge now.  Even the sane mainstream candidates are in effect put on the fringe, because they have to submit to the fringe ideology.  It's with that dynamic that you get John McCain to say that taxes should never be raised, and that in fact lowering them would increase revenues.

Yep - the Dems went through this when they were all forced to comete with one another over who would abandon Iraq faster if elected.

But the current reality that no Republican can contemplate any kind of tax increase is going to make it impossible to vote for one.

[Razgovory]

"anti-liberty" crowd?

Alternate-liberty crowd?

I wonder what Berkut meant by that tribal jab.

[KRonn]

Perry seems good but I'm hearing some negatives about him from Texas, that he isn't real knowledgeable on the economy.

Just curious what about him seems good?

From afar, the fact of strong job creation in Texas; the state budget  under control, are two things that I can think of that are talked about with him. But what I don't know is how much is his doing.

[Valmy]

From afar, the fact of strong job creation in Texas; the state budget  under control, are two things that I can think of that are talked about with him. But what I don't know is how much is his doing.

WTF?  Um our state budget is royally screwed which is incredible given how strong the state's economy is.  Perry's leadership is basically to ignore problems and put them off as long as possible and pray.  Lots of praying and putting his foot in his mouth.  And lots of bullying and political cronyism and corruption.

Our strong job creation is the result of long standing political philosophies in Texas that have been in existance for a long time.

Besides as I tried to explain to you guys before the Texas Governor has very little real power.  It is mostly a job of convincing and unofficial power (which Perry largely abuses) and generally a terrible audition job for being a US President.

[derspiess]

Yes.  It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with.  Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.

People on your side love Huntsman because they know he's a wuss & would get mauled in the general election.