Let me ask a question, and please do not take it as an attack. It is merely a query I have on the manner in which people are sifting (and thereafter shifting) through the various candidates.
You said that Ron Paul has his faults ...but ...if people think any of the other candidates would make a significant reduction in government. You mentioned more positives than negatives. Is that really the case? Paul's views on foreign policy are not only highly detrimental for the US, but they are so detrimental as to approach suicide. Paul seems to hold a very simplistic view of the way things work - as if everything will be alright if the US decides on non-intervention. No, it will not. The influence of nations like China will grow at a frenetic pace, and the void left by the absence of the US will be filled. Furthermore, just because the US doesn't want to play game doesn't mean that other countries will not drag it kicking and screaming to the park (see: Pearl Harbor).
However, that was not my question. My question is this - why does it seem that a good number of people only see things as black or white? Why is it not possible to have the best ideas of a Gingrich, the best ideas of a Paul (he does have some good ideas on some constitutional issues), the best ideas of a Santorum, etc. For instance (just a play of ideas here), a Gingrich presidency, Santorum as VP, Allen West as Sec of Defense, Ron Paul as AG, etc. That is just something I pulled out of my behind, but it shows how it is possible to get the best attributes while avoiding the worst attributes.
Ron Paul has some good ideas on the constitution, but some of his other political positions are honestly not wacky ...they are downright stupid and very dangerous. Just because rat poison will eliminate rodents doesn't mean that it should be mixed in with mom's apple pie!
Reading FR posts it is easy to see Gingrich supporters attacking Santorum supporters. Santorum supporters attacking Gingrich supporters (here is one example from another thread: 'Newt is a big mouth fat slob who is probably the easiest politician to dislike in the last couple of decades. Imus is correct when he labels him a vile disgusting person!'). This is the same nonsense that arose between Sept-Oct 2011 (where the Perry supporters, all known and with one getting a zot drew first blood by attacking FReepers - not even candidates, FReepers - calling them 'lovestruck teenage girls,' 'stupid,' and all sorts of other names for not supporting Perry; and then when the Cain Train took off there was a huge backlash against Perry on FR that just cemented the 'heartless' remarks and debate performances on the forum). Looking at the tension slowly building up between SOME Gingrich people and SOME Santorum people seems like a redux of that. And of course there is Ron Paul, who has SOME very good ideas but has also many really bad ideas.
To use my analogy of rodents - it is like breeding rattlesnakes in the farm to fend off moles and voles.
Why is it not possible to support one candidate who can win (sorry - it is not Paul, and it is not Perry, and since I do not want to spark off another Gingrich/Santorum silly-fest let me leave it at that), and then see if the administration of Gingritorum/Santogrich will incorporate the best ideas available while leaving out the wacky ideas?
This dogmatic inanities are going to lead to a Romney win, and then an Obama re-election. And when FReepers even start considering Ron Paul because he has some good ideas (and overlooking his other ideas) it seems a tad myopic. Ideas are not anchored to one person. To accept Paul's (very intelligent) views on border control/illegal immigration and national debt do not require having to accept his (absolutely asinine) views on foreign policy and Israel. If a car has a great engine and nice interior, but a rusted chassis and electronic systems out of hell doesn't make it a nice car. It makes it a lemon.
Why is it not possible to have (say) a Gingritorum/Santogrich presidency, with a Santogrich/Gingritorum VP, with a focus on border immigration that borrows some of Dr. Paul's ideas, but with a continued focus on strong national defense, and a prudent concentration on tacking the debt issue? Why does it have to be 100% one package - warts and all (and in some cases, rattlesnakes and rat poison)?
That is my question. If you have read this far, thank you.
I think one major problem to thinking outside of the box is that it is currently every man for himself. Maybe in the end there will be some combination of candidates in positions within the govt that serve to highlight their strong suits, but I don’t know how they could all just shake hands and run as a team, if you know what I mean.
Plus, I think a lot of people have very strong aversions to certain aspects of each person’s candidacy, indicative of the distribution of support among the candidates and the vitriol of some of one guy’s supporters to the other guy’s supporters. For instance, there are certain things that I admire in Newt, but I have strong reservations about his views on the distribution of power among the three branches of government.. Specifically, he believes in a STRONG executive, imbued with large amounts of power, that is anathema to the intent of the framers of the constitution. That worries me to the point where I just cannot support him.
So, in general, I think you make some really good points, but I just don’t see a way of implementing those ideas.
Well, I can’t answer all that, but I will say that we could all benefit by taking it a little easier on one another here.
The ZOTs have been a bit too plentiful, as has the negativity towards candidates. I don’t attack any particular candidates...not even Romney. But I will point out strengths and weaknesses.
The hysterics some people here engage in really don’t help.