The political world is ABLAZE with the news of the latest results from the Contract From America and TheTeaParty.net 2016 Presidential poll!
Sens. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul lead the pack of candidates while Govs. Jeb
Bush and Chris Christie come in the last two spots.
Here some of what the
Washington Examiner had to say:
"Conservative Sens. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul top the
biggest Tea Party presidential poll yet, while moderates New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush are dumped at the bottom, undermining
their hopes of being 2016 crossover candidates.
The online poll of 62,000 grassroots activists
provided exclusively to Secrets finds that conservatives and Tea Party
organizers stand fully behind the heroes of their movement...
But the poll for nation's largest Tea Party
group, TheTeaParty.net, and the influential conservative organization Contract
from America drenched cold water on the hopes of Christie, Bush and other
moderates hoping to attract conservative attention."
As stated here previously Christie is a wet dream of the New York inside money and the national media. MSNBC focusing twenty four hours a day on BridgeGate is laughable endeavor.
ReplyDeleteChris Christie will make a super attorney general under either Cruz or Paul in 2017.
Sad but true WM that it is Christie or Bush who would have the best chance to win a national presidential election. But don't worry they will pander to the far right in the primaries then run right back you know where to run against a democrat, THE CENTER. One day you guys will get it.
DeleteWe will finally "get it" when we stop listening to leftists like you rick pick our "centrists" candidates.
DeleteIt's interesting how candidates that will subvert their positions for a vote attract this nebulous group of wishy washy voters. It certainly shows a lack of resolve and integrity of position but then again, who cares right?... I mean the movement that hails compromise as the answer obviously has no real idea of what is right or wrong or they would have some principle... Perhaps the real deal is that 'centrists' are nothing more than neo-liberals who know that they can compromise their way to success... It will take a little longer but half a gain is better than no gain.
DeleteWilliam we don't pick these guys for you your republican party voters do. It was you the teas that aligned yourselves with the republican party.
DeleteTS this whole country right up to your prized constitution was founded on compromise. Compromise is no more then the trading of ideas and positions to create for the common good. It is not wishy washy, it is not a lack of resolve, it is the building of something in a realm that all parties and people can live within. Nothing wrong with it. You scorn the very thing that makes our country different from all the others and a great piece of American Exceptionalism, our ability to peacefully come to decisions of what we feel is best for our country and people and our ability to transfer power between people and parties seamlessly. That my friend is what the world esteems us for, not our military might and not our economy but our ability to live in peace among 50 states each and everyone working together to make the whole. We don't always agree but we always work for the good of the collective whole. That is what makes us the greatest nation and the greatest experience in government that mankind has ever known the ability to compromise and accept each sides positions into the whole. The right wing of the repub party has lost that.
Deleterick, in one breath you state that the Tea's have aligned themselves with the republican party (or compromised) and in the next paragraph you say that the right wing of the republican party has lost the ability to compromise. Which way is it, you can't have it both ways?
DeleteObama has been the great anti-compromise executive. He stated that he would fundamentally change America. Being unwilling to compromise with the majority in the peoples house of representatives he is using his pen and his phone to do exactly that.
I guess at the end of the day it's not what you ideals you are willing to compromise but who you are or aren't willing to compromise with.
you have not compromised with the republican party. You run under their banner for money and votes. Do you like John Boehner? Do you like Lindsey Graham? Do you like John McCain? No you do not. You have not compromised with them you attempted and failed to hijack their party.
DeleteHey WM who was involved in your little poll? 62000 tea partiers? This would be like asking 62000 democrats do you want Biden or Hilary. Who do you figure would win a poll like that. Let's ask 62000 normal repubs who they like. I bet Christie and Bush would win that one. The world isn't ABLAZE with this information. Only that little piece of it that lives in the bubble.
DeleteI am sorry Rick but you seem to have gotten cause and effect backwards here. You are indeed correct that ‘exceptionalism’ never meant anything other than ‘different’ as opposed to something good or superior, however the effect of that difference is a stable government and a strong economy and a strong willingness to defend ourselves.
DeleteAmerican exceptionalism is actually only referred to by a couple of people prior to recent reincarnation and redefinition of the word. One of course was Tocqueville. While misquoted by many as being positive, he was using it in a rather derogatory way. I think however that if he were to re-examined his statement today, discounting the socialist damage done by trying to emulate Europe, he just might change his mind. The other of coarse was Stalin who was incensed that the US should defy his call for world communism. Much is made of ‘American Exceptionalism’ as being arrogant hubris of an America that thinks itself better than other countries. Unfortunately, of late, republicans play into the hands of this propaganda. We may indeed be better at some things but the class use of the word exceptionalism never meant that.
American Exceptionalism whether described from the view point of an early American or from someone outside the US was a fact… it wasn’t something to be believed it.
The traits that were identified as exceptional were things like liberty, individual rights, republicanism, populism and economic freedom. Things that just were not done in other countries at the time thus making them exceptional. Things that separated us from the monarchy and feudalism of Europe. These traits set up a country based on three primary pillars. . 1) ‘Religionism’ – An abstact concept of common values that, in this case, speaks of Judeo-Christian moral compass. A common set of values from which agreement, vision and compromise can occur. 2) Freedom and private property – the ability of people to freely interact with one another and create families, homes and businesses of their liking as long as they did not harm or interfere with the liberties of others and keep for themselves that which they had earned 3) A federalist form of government - A government where power was distributed giving most power and autonomy to the person and not the government; a system of self governance that starts from the bottom, not the top.
The question of what America would have been without the convergence of common morals, ideals and hope… they answer: It would be a geographic entity held together by fear and bureaucratic inertia. While ‘American Exceptionalism’ was never meant to indicate that we were superior to the rest of the world in terms of education, civil liberties, social mobility, science, health care, and a host of other areas and most importantly, the ideas -- our ideas, that were at the formation of the American Revolution: liberty, equality, free trade, the rights of the governed, etc -- had triumphed throughout the world -- besting fascism, communism, and feudalism.
Continued >>>>>
It has also been said that part of America’s continuing exceptionalism is that it was never strongly affected by socialism which allowed for the continued benefits of individual liberty and enterprise. Socialist of course plays to the new definition of ‘exeptionalism’ and call America arrogant and full of false pride. What is interesting though is that for a long time America did lead in so many things. Capitalism has raised the standards of living of the very poorest person to a level of health and abundance not known by 100% of the population just 100 years ago and in fact raised the standard of living throughout the world. It would appear that an unraveling of that leadership has taken place over the last half century. Interestingly enough we can find the unraveling in another discussion we are having... Compromise.
Delete“YOUR prized constitution”….. kinda sets the tone and relative positions between us doesn’t it?. No, compromise isn’t inherently bad, however compromise for compromise sake is. Compromising a position that is known, with heart and conviction to be bad, is bad. Giving your kids treats to shut them up is bad... that is the kind of compromise we are talking about…. And you, even in your argumentative self, know it. It goes back to the basis for American exceptionalism… one of which was unity… unity of spirit, values, government function and liberty. As the definition of those elements began to diverge, so did our ability to compromise.
Here are today's polls, don't put a lot of faith in Presidential polls this early though.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
I hope Christie survives the stupid bridge thing and makes a run for the WH.
ReplyDeleteReports are that he is raising tons of money around the country for GOP causes. The long knives are out to further define him as a bully.
DeleteWill be an interesting endgame to BridgeGate.
like Jeb Bush, he was a great Governor for Florida. However his last name may doom any serious campaign, so I would probably go for Christie if he decides to run.
Deletepfunky, would you vote for Christie or Hillary?
DeleteRemember honesty is a virtue.
As things stand today, I'd vote for Christie.
DeleteHillary was my girl in '07, I always thought she was the smartest kid in the room. Then Obama won the nomination, I became a McCain vote - right up until he named the auto show spokesmodel from AK as his running mate.
I loved Hillary but her time has passed. Too much looking backward, too much baggage, and frankly, I think she's too old now.
Christie, is a charismatic, young guy, who strikes me as a pragmatist who is not above doing a little political arm-twisting to get shit done. I think he's ambivalent about the issues that the social conservatives care about, though he'll pay them plenty of lip service to win a primary. He's a Pub that won a landslide election in a very blue state, your home, right?
I think he's a leader and someone who will expand the Pub base and drag the shrinking party of Angry, Old, White People into the 21st century.
Hillary is past her prime, and frankly, I don't know who else the Dems have to run against Christie who's under the age of 70.
Of course, the election is a long ways away ...
I hear ya pfunks but I just don't think Christie can even win his/our home state. No less any other deep blue northeastern State. His coat tails have not been able to change a single vote in our State legislature.
DeleteAgreed that we are a long way off. The Obummer wasn't even twinkle three years out. And the Hill does have tons of wear and tear.
If slick Willie can find a way to grab enough money to support dem senate candidates so they find a way to hang on to Harry's job then I think the Hill will slide right in. We both know she wants the legacy but if elected I can't see how she lasts more than one term.
Another wild card is the unlikely case that Willie lasts another eleven years.
pfunky... the way you describe Christie... with my eyes closed I could see him standing as a key note speaker at the Democratic National Convention.
DeleteCould you tell me, in your opinion, what those 'Angry, Old, White People' stand for? I know all the stereo typical references but I would just like to know what you think is their biggest errors in judgement.
although we can't take a lot of stock in early polling right now Chris Christie is the only republican candidate out of 30 or so that can even come close to beating Hillary. I gotta believe that a lot of these early results fall on name recognition but that is half the battle in national elections, being known. It's funny that you all jump on the bandwagon of say a Ted Cruz after all the stink about Obamas experience. And you guys want to talk about maintaining your principles and positions and not flopping around. You know he will have just 4 years of national experience in 2016 which by the way is his 1st elected office. Less then that if he spends that fourth year on the road trying to get elected president, which he will have to do. Wasn't he an appointed official in Texas. Yea he was. If you don't like Christie and Bush because of their centrist views then your next most experienced would be Rick Santorum, followed by John Huntsman who I think is to liberal for the teas. Scott Walker John Kaisch both 1st term governors so they have roughly 4-6 years of elected public experience about the same as the president had. You really shot yourselves in the foot on the experience question with the people you would have to be president. They have no more and in some cases less experience then the president had. But now it seems to be okay.
Deleterick, Cruz's lack of experience inside the DC tumbler is exactly the reason we Tea's love his candidacy.
DeleteAfter eight years of Obama's edicts from on high a constitutional expert is exactly what we are looking for. This is reflected in the Tea pol stated above. Paul and Cruz have not been homogenized. Christie is going through the BridgeGate blender and Jeb Bush will be another compassionate big spender like his brother, daddy (and Obama) were/are.
So lack of experience only counts against those who don't share your views. The office of the president would eat Cruz alive. Obama would look like an old hand in comparison. More tea party hypocrisy.........
DeleteAnd the presidency hasn't eaten Obama alive? Have you checked his approval rating lately?
DeleteI didn't say that he hasn't had problems I said he would make Cruz look like a mere child in the position. You know you put too much stock in approval ratings especially for a soon to be lame duck incumbent. Your all about those to when they are bad when they were good I am sure you felt they meant nothing. more wish wash wish wash.
Delete@TheScott
DeleteIt is, like you alluded to, about the perception held by the electorate.
I made that statement based on the demographic breakdown of how the votes fell in 2012. The only demo in which Romney soundly beat Obama was with white men, more specifically, older white men. Every other demo from Women to Voters Under 40 to Hispanics went to Obama. Every single one - and Obama, even among libs, wasn't very popular.
The future electorate is younger and browner. This is demographic reality.
That voter is a Hispanic lesbian, not a grumpy old white dude in a Hoveround. The Pubs need to acknowledge this and work to expand their base accordingly rather than looking for ways to suppress the votes of younger, browner people (again, we're talking perception here).
IMO, the errors in judgment the Pubs made is in selling their souls to the loony right, particularly on social issues, giving those folks a platform and a megaphone, making those views the views of the Pubs as a whole.
Take Gay Marriage:
Time & time again the polling data shows that even self-ID'd conservatives under the age of 40 either favor gay marriage/civil unions or don't oppose it.
Now I didn't post this to debate the merits/evils of same-sex marriage with you, TS, you have made your feelings on the subject very clear on this blog.
I bring it up because Same-Sex Marriage has truly become much more a generational issue than a Con vs Lib issue and I think it's a Litmus Test issue for young voters.
To a new voter - say a 20 year old fiscal conservative who believes in limited government and would likely vote Republican - when he/she hears a candidate compare gays to pedophiles, gay relationships to bestiality, and how gays will bring about the end of civilization as we know it, it's very off-putting, and will instantly turn that voter away. It reminds that voter of the ramblings of his/her crazy, bigoted old uncle at the Thanksgiving table - to them it sounds very much like, "HEY, YOU DAMN KIDS!!! GET OFF OF MY LAWN!!!" Another vote instantly lost for the Pubs ...
That's just one example - it's 2012, yet the pubs are bringing up birth control? Hasn't that issue been settled? The venom with regards to immigration? The ridiculous abortions laws (state-mandated vaginal probes)? The sudden need to change voting laws right now, before the election? All these "issues", IMHO, are New Voter Kryptonite.
My father, a lifelong Pub who has been involved in local politics for most of his adult life, is horrified by what his Party is becoming. He's Old School - he believes in law & order, a prohibitive national defense, sound fiscal policy, and removing roadblocks so people who work hard can succeed - making money.
He's disturbed that to be a good Pub today, he has to hate, or even care, about gays (he doesn't approve but it's none of his business), hate the government, hate science, be anti-intellectual (my father's a brilliant man), be super religious, but most importantly, hate Dems.
Again, we're talking perceptions here, but it is important to point out that this is the perception held by a 67 year old FOX viewing white man who's a lifelong Republican. Not a perception fostered upon him by the Evil Liberal Media.
Our culture and our population is changing. If the Pubs don't change along with it they will continue to shrink to irrelevance to become a small, regional party of the Mason-Dixon South. The demographic and polling data supports this.
I think Christie, or maybe Rubio, has the potential to expand the base and lead toward the future rather than continuously look toward the past - to make the GOP more than the party of grumpy old men yelling at the kids to get off of their lawn. Just my opinion.
For the record, I supported neither the Dems nor the Pubs in 2012.
I post this criticism of the Pubs in hopes that they get their shit together and help lead our country into the 21st century.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply. Sorry for the delay in responding but have been preoccupied with a pet medical emergency and some good winter Olympic events.
DeleteI agree with most everything you said. Truth be told I agree with all of it... Not that he or you consider my approval of any importance but I think your dad has his head on right too!
The one thing I will say is however, and it is important to understand when you read any political article regardless the position, is that the 'evil liberal media' do have a very large part to play in the perception... I would never hope to go to Huffington and see any adoration for an old white conservative leaning libertarian who, while they my not like gay marriage, think that it of no relevance to the government. Because the 'evil liberal media' has no room for anything but political correctness on these issues. By invoking the right of freedom of association and free speech,a right that everyone should agree with... I become a grumpy old white man.
You are rightly correct that the republican party must change its attitude about social issues... It must change because it cannot wrap itself in the constitution and simultaneously 1)push legislation that tells people how to live 2) expect the left to stop trying to make these individual preferences a matter of law rather than the a socially acceptable (or not) behaviour.
The problem for me with Rubio is that he truly changes nothing. He is young, good looking, well spoken and most importantly for the Republican party... the is Cuban. He is a brown face. He somehow adds legitimacy to the party... He may better articulate the republican message but the problem isn't just PR it is in fact... the message. I read somewhere that for a candidate to successfully resonate with new voters (as a Republican), candidates would have to be able to confidently stand up and without insulting their audience, tell people just how they are different from George W Bush... and I don't think Rubio or Jeb Bush or Christie can... I don't even think they would understand why they would need to.
You may be right about Rubio, I don't really know much about him. He just really impressed me at the Pub Convention. I thought his speech was the highlight of an otherwise fairly awkward affair, and it was overshadowed by gossip about Clint Eastwood and his Empty Chair. To me, Rubio's speech was a bit reminiscent of one given by a reletively unknown junior senator from Illinois at the Dem Convention in '04.
Delete"It must change because it cannot wrap itself in the constitution and simultaneously 1)push legislation that tells people how to live 2) expect the left to stop trying to make these individual preferences a matter of law rather than the a socially acceptable (or not) behaviour." - Very well stated, TS.
"regional party of the Mason-Dixon South" pfunky? I hardly think so.
ReplyDeletePetitions to secede are filed for 23 states since election
Petitions have been filed on behalf of the following states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.
I'm pretty sure some "Hispanic lesbians" are mixed in with the "grumpy old white men" in most of these states.
DeleteOk WM get your facts straight. These petitions are filed by individuals not the states., hoping to get the 50,000 votes required for governmental review. These are filed on the "we the people" portion of the White House website and in fact WM all 50 states have a petition. Only Texas has exceeded the review threshold no other state is even close. Just shows that there are crackpots in all 50 states not just yours.
DeleteAs for the Hispanic lesbians, I doubt it. Conservatives dislike them for being Hispanic and probably illegal (remember these are the people you guys think are voting illegally and often on election day) so you change up the laws to prevent not only voting but the ability to gain worthwhile employment. The conservatives dislike people of a different sexual orientation then they deem to be proper. Remember the legislatures of almost ever repub controlled state have passed unconstitutional laws and amendments trying to define the definition of marriage, so that gay couples who have been together longer then many hetero ones can't enjoy the same rights of living, dying, inheritance, and taxation. Oh WM I doubt that many of them are a fan
DeleteI can't say I know any Hispanic lesbians personally but I am sure they are lovely people. I'll bet there are a few grumpy old Hispanic lesbians out there also.
DeleteIt was a joke Rick, just a joke.
Doubt it.
Delete