GOP Candidates and Controlled Opposition

Back in 2008 many of us were scratching our heads about someone named Sarah Palin. At first she seemed harmless, just another quazi-republican neo-(non)conservative, no big deal. Then suddenly and (for some) without warning, she was the Republican vice-presidential candidate.

Depending on the nature of one's livelihood and other factors, not everyone has the time to sit in front of a TV or computer every day and keep up with the greatest of the latest US political shenanigans. For those of us who were forced to settle for highlights and sound-bytes, Palin's existence in the national political arena was an abberation at best, a nightmare at worst.

The nation was at a crucial juncture, war-weary and bankrupt, ready to give up everything for ANYTHING new. The Bush administration effectively primed the US to guarantee the election of a FAR-left Democrat, and the best the Republican party had to offer to "defend" us from a sh**storm of ultraliberalism was John McCain (an aging warmonger and practical Bush clone) and Sarah Palin (considered by many to be some sort of karmic joke on the American people).

As we watched the 2008 presidential race, for many there was nothing scarier than the election of a Democrat who would absolutely guarantee the continuation of Bush's fiscally liberal big-government policies... there was only the EQUALLY frightening prospect of the McCain/Palin ticket. For many of us it seemed like in the wake of the Obama PR mega-machine, the closest thing we had to conservative representation had effectively "thrown" the match. Though some may disagree, the election of our current POTUS can probably be attributed almost entirely to an "Anyone but Bush" attitude held by the majority of the nation. Rather than offering a real alternative, the Republican party presented a duo that was, for all intents and purposes, "unelectable." Not because the entire media apparatus said so, but because their policies were just another continuation of the status quo.

So here we are, a few years later, and in the distance there is a drummer playing almost the same beat as before. As predicted, the Obama administration did everything BUT "bring the troops home", and through unparalleled abuse of the nation's borrowing power, they have exponentially sped up the financially destructive process that Wilson and Nixon started. So with an upcoming election and the advantage of an increasingly prevalent "Anyone but Obama" national mindset, what do we have to look forward to from the Republicans?

Well, most true conservatives can look at the policies and voting records of Romney, Paul, Bachmann, Perry, etc, and pretty easily win a game of "Which One Doesn't Belong". Romney, Bachmann, and Perry very clearly represent a continuation of oversized government and interventionist foreign policy. Ron Paul, however, has clearly defined, fiscally conservative, Constitutionalist policies. So Paul is obviously the most logical Republican candidate, right? Apparently not.

Over the last few weeks, Paul has been the subject of what is essentially a media blackout, and those who have dared to mention his name in the MSM have practically slandered him, calling him everything from unelectable to crazy. His supporters are demonized and have been called cult-like by many news organizations. Some have even speculated that Bachmann's winning of the Iowa straw poll was "rigged" (Bachman paid for over 6000 entries into the poll, among other things, while Paul won 1st place by a margin of nearly 3000 UNIQUE votes online). Yet Bachmann, Romney, and Perry are being touted by both sides of the MSM as the "front runners" for the Republican ticket. This kind of disengenuous reporting is not, however, isolated to the "left", even the neocon darlings at FOX news have jumped on the bandwagon. So why the concerted effort to paint Paul as either non-existant or "unelectable" in the minds of Americans?

Perhaps the "Right" is again "throwing the fight". If the MSM can use their dirty tactics to edge out Paul, and present the remaining liberal neocons as the only alternative to Obama, what chance do the true conservatives of the US have in being truly represented by their President? In 2008, America spoke. The people voted for Obama because he seemed like the only alternative to the constitution-shredding travesty that was the Bush administration. Now that Obama has followed suit, and Paul's name is being whitewashed from the list of possible alternatives, who will save us? Would-be theocrats? Big-government imperialist warmongers? Or will the people reject neoconservatives again and curse themselves with arguably the most frightening three words that can be said in relation to the current administration:

"Four more years"

reply to post by EdgarFriendly


Read the rules buddy. 20 posts before a thread. This thread will probably be closed.

reply to post by EdgarFriendly


Also you sound like a troll. Only talking points, and no real substance. For shame.

Actually the most obvious republican choice would be someone that's willing to work with Congress and compromise when needed.

Ron Paul doesn't have a record of compromising and has voted no on almost every bill put before him. Unless it involves the oil company's however. Here is a rundown on how he votes and you will see that he would not agree to much if anything outside of his point of view.

www.ontheissues.org...

reply to post by Cantmakedisup


Sorry I'm new to ATS

Thanks for the hit-and-run by the way

Quite a warm welcome

My apologies if opinion translates as nothing but "talking points"
I didn't think I'd need citation for what is obviously personal conjecture

To keep from going OT I'd mention that most of the current GOP contenders rely almost exclusively on talking points, of course I'm not the one claiming to be capable of running an entire country

Originally posted by kro32
Actually the most obvious republican choice would be someone that's willing to work with Congress and compromise when needed.

Ron Paul doesn't have a record of compromising and has voted no on almost every bill put before him. Unless it involves the oil company's however. Here is a rundown on how he votes and you will see that he would not agree to much if anything outside of his point of view.

www.ontheissues.org...

If compromise means signing off on unconstitutional, government-expanding legislation, maybe compromise isn't the best strategy. Spending money on programs that don't work is a big part of the problem.

The US is on the verge of an economic catastrophe, which stems from its flawed financial system and spending habits. The unstustainable interventionist foreign policy so common in congress won't be fixed by compromise, as it is promoted by both sides of the aisle. For any positive change to occur, a paradigm shift is necessary.

Before we can afford the luxury of pursuing our ideals, we must first change the system to guarantee that our basic needs will be met. Obama won't do this, Perry won't do this, Bachmann won't do this. We're broke because of the US's military aggression. Only Ron Paul would even attempt to address this issue