Great article that really lends credence to the position of many (including myself) who have been disenchanted with the "old GOP" for years:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/opinion/w ... index.html

Regardless of HOW the message comes across, it's clear that many old-school GOP principles and positions are antiquated and unworthy of attention in this day and age. We've got bigger fish to fry.

To see the Right rush to the middle (while BHO rushes to the right - see today's headlines about "consolidation") simply proves the point that there's an awful lot of voters out there just like me: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, sick of bureaucracy and unnecessary intrusions, desperate for personal accountability, and longing for a return to common-sense governing.

Now, the question is: Why elect someone who's going to take us back to 1991 (Romney) when we can take the leap and get a Libertarian in the White House?

At this point, I don't see how I CAN'T support Dr. Paul's campaign, until he's given me reason not to. The other candidates already have given me millions of reasons not to back them (one lobbyist at a time).

When the system is built on infinite layers of s*** a person who makes sense and walks the talk is very dangerous. The GOP will ignore the primaries if he is able to accumulate enough votes to press his candidacy and nominate Romney regardless.

I dunno, Greg; folks have been saying how President Obama is the best Republican President we've had in a long time since well before his request to Congress to allow him to request to Congress to allow him to consolidate the administrative state.

And Clinton (with the help of a Republican Congress) cut our country's budget and helped to create a budget surplus.

IBCoupe wrote:...folks have been saying...

...and lots of "folks" spend a lot of time on a sofa eating TV dinners and watching Maury Povich and Jersey Shore.

Sure, if he keeps pandering to the center/right, he'll be fine. But we haven't forgotten 2008-2011. And even if he does it "right" (or should I say, correctly) from here on out, there's still that nasty bit of being a typical pol - Too many influence-peddlers got him there, and he OWES them.

BHO got elected on a tide of "anyone but Bush" and "Hope / Change". He was a break from the norm.

So, what's wrong with a REAL break from the norm (if we ignore the "old" / "White" / "male" factors that the Left swears don't matter)?

Will 4 years of isolationism hurt anything? After all, 4 years of "sucking up" hasn't really accomplished much, has it?

It is not isolationism. That is the tag that neo(decepiti)cons use to smear Ron Paul. His stance would be non interventionism and against preemptive invasions.

Regardless of what we call it (I don't have a problem with it), the Left might actually latch onto the Right's flawed perception of it and actually *AGREE* with them.

Hilarity ensues.

AZhitman wrote: Hillary ensues.

***Fixed.

AZhitman wrote:So, what's wrong with a REAL break from the norm (if we ignore the "old" / "White" / "male" factors that the Left swears don't matter)?

Will 4 years of isolationism hurt anything? After all, 4 years of "sucking up" hasn't really accomplished much, has it?

For me, nothing's wrong with it. If we all decide that we don't want most of the government that we have, and we make that decision like adults, I'm okay with it. But I think, if voters actually consider it as adults, they don't want to eliminate those programs.

As far as foreign affairs go, if you really think we've had four years of "sucking up," I think it's time to stop replaying Mitt Romney's stump speech.

AZhitman wrote:Regardless of what we call it (I don't have a problem with it)

My comments were not intended to be a rebuke. I think as a supporter we need to correct the neo-cons that intend on smearing Rep. Paul by using extremist terms to describe his stances. If we start using their terms, then I think it may lend credence to the smear campaign.

IBCoupe wrote:As far as foreign affairs go, if you really think we've had four years of "sucking up," I think it's time to stop replaying Mitt Romney's stump speech.

I don't get my news from Mr. Romney. In fact, I don't really want to hear anything he has to say - his credibility is crap as far as I'm concerned (and it has nothing to do with his involvement in Bain, or his record as a pol).