As I see it from this post, there is absolutely no purpose to the points you have been trying to make. No thought from you as to what the logical consequence of your words meant.
Let me say one last time.........IF the Republicans in Congress had not run away like scared little children from the War in Iraq in 2006........IF the Republicans in Congress (and on the street for that matter) had defended our troops' mission and the Commander in Chief against the incessant lies of the media and leftist politicians, THEN the war would not have been "unpopular."
Your entire point that Republicans should avoid "unpopular wars" to win elections is based on a false assumption that the Republicans in Congress behaved corrected regarding the support of that war, which they did not.
The war in Iraq is part of the reason we did not have another terrorist attack on US soil under George W. Bush. The enemy gathered in Iraq and fought our military there and did not attack us here because they were being killed in Iraq.
It was a necessary war, and the spineless Republicans only lost Congress in 2006 because they were cowards. NOT because the war was "unpopular."
2008 had a whole other set of complications, including some of the things I have already listed, but having very little to do with Iraq.
At any rate, avoiding foreign wars is not an acceptable position for a commander in chief, and therefore Ron Paul cannot be our President on that fact alone. He won't do his Constitutional duty and protect us.
Besides which, he is only supported by a small minority of rabid internet, poll-happy, sometimes paid groupies, and could never get more than a percent or two of the vote.
It would be best to give up on the guy. He's not presidential material by any standard.
You have made a fairly decent argument there.
Since we’ve done about 3 or 4 versions of this, I will
admit that I don’t really want to think through whether or not my argument is based on a false assumption that Republicans acted correctly.
I kind of recall that you earlier blamed the media for the unpopularity of the war, not the Republicans.
I could argue that there was nothing the Republicans could
do to make the war popular. If I were to make that argument, my argument wouldn’t rest on the behavior of Republicans to make the war popular. (I don’t think it does anyway).
My argument really doesn’t require the detailed, thoughtful analysis that you’re giving it. I’m simply saying unpopular wars make Republicans lose when they’re the ones pushing them. And the Iraq war was a war we won. It was still unpopular. That should tell you something.
If I was arguing against me, I’d add that the election 6 years in is typically bad for the incument party. The non-ideological folks out there usually get tired of the incumbent party after a while and vote for change. The Iraq War was simply the issue of the day. Those would be the arguments I’d use against me. Can’t prove it either way,
and there is some data to support it.
Personally, if the Conservatives are going to do something that might be unpopular, I, personally, just opinion, would want it to be cutting goverment programs that some people might like. That’s just me. I want smaller government. And Conservatives, year in and year out, vote for someone they hope will actually shrink government, and it NEVER happens. NEVER. The #1 thing that the Conservatives want (smaller goverment) NEVER happens. And Conservatives are the biggest group in the US. 40% consider themselves Conservative. War - ALWAYS. Shrinking Government - NEVER.
I honestly don’t care either way about these wars. If people were drafted, these wars would be much much more unpopular. It’s just the unpopular thing that the Republicans do instead of cutting government.
We disagree, obviously, on Ron Paul. Ron Paul wouldn’t be “spending his political capital” on unpopular wars. It would be cuts cuts and more cuts. And that’s exactly what I want. BTW, Ron Paul did over 15% in the Pennsylvania Primary. And he’s starting 2012 much better known, he’ll make money right away instead of having to wait for Guy Fawkes Day and the Anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. He didn’t get any votes at SRLC in 2006 (Romney was 2nd then as I recall).
If you ask me who I think’ll get the nod, I’d say Palin. And I like Palin for the most part, but I’m pretty sure that she’ll say she’s for smaller goverment, but there will be a war instead and she’ll say she’s sorry, but our important allies interests are threatened so everything good and cutting spending will have to go. Or she’ll give a half hearted attempt to do something, and won’t twist any arms. She’ll save that for the war votes. Like it always happens.
But I do like her. It’s possible that she’s as canny as people say she is. She should stop using a cell phone to talk to Fox. Maybe she has. I was watching Fox the night Brown won. Here’s Sarah Palin calling from Alaska on a cell phone. There should be a kickass studio in Palin’s house with better TV cameras than there are in Fox’s studio. Less of Palin, but better quality. Why is Palin being asked questions? She was on with Glenn Beck that time. Who are your favorite founding fathers? She answered that question like she had never heard it before. And she probably hadn’t. Why? Is Sarah Palin not popular enough to get a TV job that makes her look super great always? Since Palin started with Fox, it seems like it’s been screw up after screw up after screw up? What about Sarah Palin’s Alaska? Does she need to be on Discovery or whatever minor cable channel that’s on? Does she think that people don’t know who she is? Does she want people to get sick of looking at her on TV? Very few TV appearances, slick production values. Something that allows her to get her message out perfectly. But, nope. She was beaten by Ron Paul at SRLC.
What was that about? I don’t know if she can pull out of it. What’s next, 7th place and QVC? 10th place and public access? She is a superstar. In music, a superstar can make a bad record, make a series of bad decisions, and destroy their career, even if they are the most compelling personality, with the best voice. I mean, it’s cool if, like, Britney Spears (I dunno) sings backup for Animal Collective. But if Britney Spears never made a hit record it isn’t particularly cool, she’s just a backup singer for Animal Collective. Sarah Palin needs to stop singing backup and make a hit record (not a hit book, something like a massive victory at one of these straw polls, or something that firmly establishes her at the top, as the clear front-runner, which she really should be).
I liked Gingrich in the 90’s. He knows that dying wives can be a drag. And he’s bipartisan on the most important fictional problem of our times.
But Gingrich is better than Romney. How mad do the Romney fans get when you point out the gay marriage thing? A conservative would’ve said “you will have to throw me out of office before I authorize town clerks to perform gay marriages” And Romneycare? The fact that Romney really really really wants to be President is not a good reason to support him. It kinda arouses suspicion.
Don’t even think about Cheney. No more Bushes. Is Liz Dole under 80? How about Dan Quayle? What are Tom Ridges positions on the issues? Unacceptable on abortion I hear, but compared to Romney’s first set of positions as Governor of Massachusetts? Ridge would likely carry Pennsylvania. There might be something truly awful on Ridges resume like Gingrich and Romney have, but I don’t know what it is offhand. US Rep, popular PA Governor, Homeland Security (no terror on his watch), Vietnam Vet.