RoyGBiv wrote:The only candidate that comes close on any of that is Ron Paul.
I am not a Ron Paul fan at all.... I think he's nuts.
Now what?
Heck of a position to be in, isn't it? I'm going to do my duty and vote in the general election for whomever the Republican nominee turns out to be. Beyond that, the party will no longer be able to count on my unwavering support............and no, I am NOT about to join the Libertarian party.
There are a small handfull of really good, intelligent, dynamic
conservative Republicans whose careers are untainted by scandal, and who could easily win an election:
- Marco Rubio would have to be at the forefront of them—and he has the added benefit of being attractive to the hispanic vote. Unlike Obama's "immigrant story," which is a sham as he grew up the son of privilege, Rubio's family are not only genuine immigrants, but immigrants who fled actual repression under Castro's brand of communism (the same Castro whom Ron Paul wants to treat as a legitimate equal of an American president). Being hispanic, a Rubio candidacy would take away the race card as a political tactic used by Democrats.
- Paul Ryan, as a budget hawk and a former speech writer to Jack Kemp, could be a candidate who could truly articulate the conservative fiscal argument perhaps better than anybody else. He is also one of the three founders of the GOP's "Young Guns" program to recruit and train promising young conservatives for the electoral process—recognizing that one of the great sins of the party has been that of stagnation. The party desperately needs new blood to reinvigorate it. Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul are all examples of that necessity. Paul Ryan, in addition to his "Path to Prosperity" plan which is as clear a statement of why we have to reverse course on Obamanomics as could be stated, recognizes this need for new blood and has devoted part of his efforts to it. The survival of the Republican party means out with the old, in with the new. If the party cannot make this transition by 2016, it will be dead as a viable force in American politics.........and it will have itself to blame. Too many old dogs holding onto their power, having lost sight of the good of the nation.
- Rand Paul makes a clear-headed argument for the more libertarian side of the party, without sounding like a cranky old whackadoodle like his dad, and without descending into full-on anarchist Libertarianism. Like his dad, he has had extensive experience running a medical practice before entering politics as a candidate. The senate term he is currently fulfilling is his first ever elected office. Paul is one of the favorites of the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party movement (in which I have participated to a limited degree) is a rebellion against the old guard of the Republican party which has lost its way—which makes it objectionable to both the old guard, who recognize their demise in it, and to the Democrats, who understand that it is a conservative movement, not a Republican movement, which even appeals to some Democrats.
That's just three possibilities, and there are certainly others whom I've either failed to mention or who haven't yet appeared on the radar. It is my fervent prayer that folks like this can maintain their integrity and refuse to yield to the swan song of media adoration until their turn for a run at the presidency can come to fruition. The media, at this particular point along the arc of our history, is the single most corrupting influence there is in Washington. Money and power have
always been a potential temptation going back to the founders, although in times when men were possessed of greater character, money and power were less of an attraction to them. What has changed is the media. Not until the 20th century has the media had the power to offer an elected official the addictive drug of
national adoration, and I don't think there is any stronger drug in all of creation. Power and money can corrupt man, but adoration is what convinces him that he is god and no longer accountable to the people who elect him. He will do whatever he must to get reelected so that he may have continued access to the power and money, and getting reelected on that basis means that he must by necessity have
some degree of accountability to those who elect him. But national adoration convinces its object that he no longer needs to be accountable. When a politician, no matter how hackneyed, starts believing his own press and claiming that adoration as his right, then we are in deep doodoo.
This is nowhere more apparent than in the election of presidents. If you don't believe that national adoration is a stronger drug than money and power, look no further than Barak Hussein Obama and his love affair with the media. The media have
never treated him like a politician. They have always treated him like he is their savior, their comforter, their king, their lover. Thus, they pour more obsequious fawning, more worship and praise on him as he absconds with greater and greater power for himself, as if the limitations imposed on him by the Constitution were somehow immoral and in violation of his divine right. Mention the Constitution, and now you are a racist. Mention that it does not permit to him the liberties he has taken, and now you are just trying to damage his presidency. Mention that his foreign policy and his economic policies are unpatriotic because they are hostile to the nation's interest, and now
you are unpatriotic for being genuinely concerned that this president might be an existential threat to the future existence of the nation. What happens where the nation's media are convinced that their president can do no wrong? We get
more of him.
And that is what I believe is going to happen this time around. I have come to the conclusion that none of the current candidates can probably beat Obama. But beyond that, I don't think that any of them are
worthy of the office. I truly don't give a rip about the primary. I will likely play eeny-meeny-miny-mo between Gingrich and Romeny in the ballot box. In the general election, I will vote for whomever the party's nominee turns out to be. After that, I will reregister as an Independent, and the Republican party will no longer be able to
count on my support. The ONE THING that will bring me back into the fold is if the old guard finally steps down and surrenders the party and its leadership to the young lions. If the party runs a Rubio/(Rand)Paul/Ryan type of candidate in 2016, I'll start paying attention again. But until they do, they're all just a bunch of politicians.......and I mean that in its worst sense.
If it doesn't happen, then I'm going to be devoting
all of my efforts to prepping for what's coming. I am sorry if I come off as depressed about this stuff, but somebody please show me how the
current crop of candidates A) has even a chance of winning the general; and B) will
actually (not just in pretty words) change Washington DC from the cesspool that it is. I don't believe it can be done.
Why? Because the media won't let it happen. And by the way, I am NOT calling for a repression of the media. What I
want is for the media to fairly reflect within its own ranks the actual percentages of democrats/republicans, liberals/conservatives as exists in the population. But, that will never happen again. Why is that, you ask? Because "journalist" is no longer considered to be an honorable profession by the roughly half (possibly more) of the nation which self-identifies as being right of center. Conservatives will shy away from journalism as a profession because they either A) don't think it is a reputable choice (conservatives preferring reputation over notoriety); B) they (understandably) don't want to take on a job where they will be the minority voice (by a huge margin) in the newsroom; or both A & B. In the old days, journalists excoriated politicians and kept them honest, but they did so
equally. In other words,
nobody was spared their tender mercies because the opinions of the editorial boards of publications were equally divided among the parties and their constituencies. That is no longer the case, and it hasn't
been the case for the past 70 or 80 years. Furthermore, as the media continue to become more and more centralized under the banner of large corporations—which was
not the case 80-100 years ago—liberal managers of newsrooms who are responsible for hiring reporting and editorial staff tend to make sure that they hire like-minded employees. Thus, the newsroom looks just like academia.....which is
another lost cause for conservatives.
I much prefer the sunny optimism of a Ronald Reagan, but I no longer have any myself, and I certainly don't think there is any reason for it in this election cycle.
