Saturday, January 03, 2009

Ron Paul and what if Part 3

The million dollar question is how would a Ron Paul vs Barack Obama match up in 2012 fair out? The lesson that should be cast in stone from this Presidential Election is that "Left to center Republicans can't win the presidency". Obama will have a hard time defending a collapsed economy in 2012. The same way FDR prolonged the great depression is the same way Obama's FDR version 2.0 "stimulus" is going to flat line the economy. . All one has to do is go back in time and understand why Bush 41 and Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton. Bush 41 ran as a conservative on the coat tails of Reagan to win, but he forgot that quickly the reason Reagan was able to win in landslides in 1980 and 1984. Herbert Bush moderated his positions once he won, and the rest is history. Line up John McCain, Herbert Bush and Bob Dole. All three of them weren't conservatives. George Bush ran as a conservative and won against Gore, The only reason he won re election was because conservatives couldn't stand Kerry and they supported the war in Iraq. Bush wasn't governing as a conservative once he was sworn into office. The bottom line is this. Republicans that run as conservatives tend to win elections. Ron Paul has always been an attack dog against the growth of government. I would like to see him run again for the nomination in 2012. If the economy is as screwed up as I expect it will be, he may be the only person that can beat Obama by attacking Obama through his love of bigger bloated government that can't substain itself.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whatsuhmatter Tyrone, isn't Gov. Lapdance the future of the party anymore? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Nice that you finally figured out who you finally are going to vote for in the 2008 election.

4:21 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

The great brilliant liberal response is "whatsuhmatter"? :-0 Is liberal intelligence directly linked to Romper Room? It is always best to read everything I write first then comment, when you do that, you don't make yourself out to look like the mascot of the Democrat Party. If you actually comprehend what I said, you will notice that I didn't say that Paul was better then Palin nor did I say Palin shouldn't run. You just suffered from a case of foot in mouth. I want Paul to run as well as Jindal and Palin. It's way to early to have a favorite candidate, but it will be nice to see a group of true conservatives contrasting perfectly everything that is wrong with Obama. As for 2008, my support of paul wouldn't have made a difference one way or the other. In retrospect the outcome was better for conservatives, because the party has to come to grips that liberals and neocon can't win elections. I still like Palin, she sure as hell was more qualified then the machine gun stuttering, teleprompter dependent, mass marketed, four month senate serving, community organizer Barack Obama. But hey why let facts get in the way, you know what I mean? :-0

5:55 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

So much can and will happen between now and 2012 Tyrone, that I'm not sure that Ron Paul will even be a factor then.

As I've said, I don't see Obama as "the AntiChrist" or the incoming administration as "evil" by any means.

We HAVEN'T had a free market here in America since about 1912...almost 100 years now.

That's something that most Americans both on the Right and Left either refuse to acknowledge OR are just plain unaware of.

In FACT, we have the SAME economic model as all of Western Europe and Japan have - a "Corporatist" (for lack of a better word) economy, one that is market-based but heavily government regulated.

Within that Corporatist framework there is a sliding scale, with Supply-Side market-emphasis on the one side and Keynesianism government-emphasis on the other. Some people erroneously call Keynesian Corporatism (like they've had in France, Germany and Sweden) "socialism," and America's, Australia's and Hong Kong's as "free market"...when NEITHER is the correct way of defining those economies. ALL of them are Corporatist economies, differing only in the degree of their regulation and the size of their welfare states. ALL are predicated on private ownership of property and basic market principles.

Europe appears more Keynesian lately, but we were just as Keynesian up UNTIL it imploded under Jimmy Carter amidst the burden of previous bailouts and stimulus packages, along with tax hikes.

Ironically enough, Carter’s very Keynesian administration was preceded by a Republican Keynesian administration (Nixon’s) which thought “inflation primed the economic pump,” and engaged in all manner of over-regulation, even wage and price controls, which NO administration has had the guts to return to since! Interestingly, Obama is now following another Keynesian Republican (Bush Jr), who managed as a Keynesian his entire second term, and like Carter, Obama is faced with a Congress top-heavy with misguided Liberals.

A lot of today’s Congressional Democrats (Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Waxman, Reid, Frank and Rangel, among others) want to move us back to a decidedly Keynesian path (more like France and Sweden and less like America) and a lot of Moderate/"Rockefeller-wing" Republicans want the same.

For now, a majority of the American electorate has bought into the nebulous concept of "change" and will probably go along with some of that leftward, Keynesian tilt, UNTIL or UNLESS it results in even worse economic dislocation. There’s no reason to expect different results from the same policies that imploded the economy in the 1970s.

I accept that as inevitable.

The fact is that we are, at this point, a VERY spoiled country and the FACT is that the vast majority of Americans haven’t felt the economic tsunami that appears headed our way. Right now, states from Illinois to California to New York to Michigan are teetering on insolvency and with or without bankruptcy, many states are already laying off workers, in advance of the massive Municipal layoffs that would accompany harder times. New Jersey just passed its first state budget EVER which is smaller than the year before’s! New York is looking at serious pension reform and Chicago’s, like California’s state pension systems are the nation’s most underfunded and least solvent systems.

Think things are bad now?

Wait till you see tens of thousands of cops, teachers and other Municipal workers getting pension “buyouts” of pennies on the dollar, screaming about the “broken trust.”

The sad thing is that years of tax cuts have expanded tax revenues and resulted in even MORE bloated federal, state and local governments, meaning that their ONLY response to real hard economic times is going to HAVE to be massive layoffs and major pension overhauls...this has the possibility of getting very, VERY ugly, not too far down the road.

Many, many political careers may be irrepairably altered or eradicated in the coming four years.

6:28 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

jmk "So much can and will happen between now and 2012 Tyrone, that I'm not sure that Ron Paul will even be a factor then."

That is true jmk, It possible that his one true chance was last year. No Republican except Paul last year was honest in telling people how much of a mess this country is financially. The Republican field more or less was more concerned of stagging the right answers instead of trying to give honest answers.

jmk "As I've said, I don't see Obama as "the AntiChrist" or the incoming administration as "evil" by any means.

Oh give it time jmk. Obama will show his horns eventually. Sprinkle a little holly water on his big ears and watch the fun. lol Seriously though, I don't think the guy represents anything decent and righteous at all, I can't actually think of one redeeming quality about him jmk to be honest.


jmk "We HAVEN'T had a free market here in America since about 1912...almost 100 years now."

There was an economist I heard speak the other that said the exact same thing. I guess with government regulations is applied to free markets, it in essence ceases to be "free". To be free is to be without regulations.

jmk "In FACT, we have the SAME economic model as all of Western Europe and Japan have - a "Corporatist" (for lack of a better word) economy, one that is market-based but heavily government regulated."

The closet thing to resemble a free market is an underground economy. A totally free market can be dangerous, without regulations, people can be taken advantage of. Liberals like to put for a bogus argument that we don't like regulations in the market place. It's not even about eliminating regulations or safeguards, its only about limiting regulations so that innovation, wealth creation and expansion is hindered or bogged down. I guess probably the biggest supporters of a true free market system would be libertarians.


jmk "A lot of today’s Congressional Democrats (Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Waxman, Reid, Frank and Rangel, among others) want to move us back to a decidedly Keynesian path (more like France and Sweden and less like America) and a lot of Moderate/"Rockefeller-wing" Republicans want the same.

The day that happens. Our economy will never be the same again. Excessive regulations will stifle entrepreneurship wealth creation and kill a growing economy.

9:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tyrone, do us all a favor and hand the keys of the blog over the JMK. Thx.

And I apoligize that between my gas station job and my fast food job and my Wal-Mart job and keeping track of my 3 children from 4 different women that I haven't had time to read EVERY SINGLE WORD of this captivating blog ...

But I do know this: The closest you came to actually endorsing a presidential candidate (with this being a political blog, no less!) was saying you had man-love for Fred Thompson. ...

And then Fred Thompson went away. ...

Then Obama won in a landslide, and you said you wanted the MILF to run in 2012. ...

And then you come out with this 3-act Paul vs. Obama fantasy. ...

And now you're saying you like Paul and Palin AND Jindal. Man, the 2012 GOP Convention is going to be one HELL of a party!!!

My next question, of course, is why stop at only a handful of creationism believers? Why not also endorse the entire cast of The Flintstones?

12:28 AM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

anon "Tyrone, do us all a favor and hand the keys of the blog over the JMK. Thx.
And I apoligize that between my gas station job and my fast food job and my Wal-Mart job and keeping track of my 3 children from 4 different women that I haven't had time to read EVERY SINGLE WORD of this captivating blog ..."

Keys to a blog? Oh that was an attempt at being funny? :-0 A few hours of comedy central should fix that right up. As for your apology, how about you actually spell it correctly first. Maybe I can turn over the keys to the spell checker. Now that is humor, see how it works? ;-) My blog is one of many. I don't mind you posting, but nobody is forcing you to. There must be a reason, As for your baby mommas and children, did the thought of that ever so popular union of marriage ever once cross your mind? I'm just being nosy. Also, condoms were created for a reason. They aren't hard to use, even a liberal can figure it out. Oops then again maybe not. Sorry about that :-(

8:23 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

"My next question, of course, is why stop at only a handful of creationism believers? Why not also endorse the entire cast of The Flintstones?" (Anonymous)
<
<
WoW!

There’s an irony in there...somewhere, maybe it’s that neither Bill Hanna, nor Joe Barbera (the creators of the Flintstones) were notedly very religious at all, OR maybe it’s that most scientists are NOT atheistic at all, including no less a figure than Albert Einstein, who, when asked, “Do you believe in God?” Answered, "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

In later life, he expressed a sense of wonder at the universe and its mysteries — what he called a “cosmic religious feeling” — and famously said: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

In fact, Einstien appeared, later in life to be a classic advocate of “Intelligent Design,” a view currently derided by Left-wing kooks (who hold to an equally faith-based belief in anthropomorphic global warming) as “Creationism.”

As John Brooke, emeritus professor of science and religion at Oxford University, who noted that while “Einstein was not a conventional theist” his later letters show that Einstein believed that “there is some kind of intelligence working its way through nature."

Even YOU, anonymous, have to admit that that's pretty darned ironic, right?

4:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home