Why will the GOP backers never support Paul or Cain?

[catamount man]

Seems like the God fearing, gun toting, kick all foreigners asses in the name of JEBUS would be on Ron Paul or Herman Cain's jocks since they do advocate smaller govt. So why do we see Romney and Perry topping the list given Romney's run at Mass.governor and Perry's love of illegal immigrants in Texas? Discuss republicans.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

why? here's a few reasons.

1. Perry is popular with a huge swath of the base (the Tea Party types primarily) because he "looks the part" and "acts the part" - he "talks tough" and honestly just pushes all the buttons and feeds all the red meat they want. They want a candidate who reflects their rage and anger. Really... he's Howard Dean by another name and year. Bear in mind - Dean was leading at this point in '03.

2. Romney is very comparable to John Kerry... he's clearly a strong candidate - he doesn't really move the needle that much with the rabid part of the base - but he's seen as a consensus candidate among those activists who are VERY worried about electability. I always thought Pawlenty would rise in to that role... not so much.

3. Voters generally don't sit down and make detailed studies of policy and evaluate the candidates based upon those answers... they pick the one who appeals to (or panders in all likelihood) either their pet issue - or their emotional feeling - or a demographic connection.

4. based upon point 3 - Paul and Cain have a problem... while their platforms may in a "blind taste test" pass muster... the candidates themselves do not. (i'll set aside the specter of Cain's race, because in this case I don't think it's relevant in this race - though it has been raised as an issue) Neither Paul, nor Cain look or sound "presidential" - and as much as that might seem like a crock of shit - consider the two front runners look like they came out of central casting for "president" in a movie or tv show.

5. Paul may advocate smaller government - but - true to his ideology - he also advocates for an almost isolationist foreign policy... that's a deal breaker with a LOT of GOPers. He also loses any support among evangelicals because he (again standing on principle) refuses to pander to the culture wars. (at least overtly)

6. Cain's problem is (generally) a matter of 1. not looking the part, and 2. being not ready for the job. Earlier in the year he surged, becoming the fields flavor of the week... the spotlight caused him to wither, he started saying some pretty crazy shit... even for the GOP field... and he faded back out. By the way - this is (somewhat) what happened to Bachmann - although she was mostly hijacked by Perry.

7. Lastly, with regard to Paul... and I never really used to believe this until this year - is CLEARLY being intentionally marginalized by the GOP and their allies in the media. Witness his very strong performance in the Iowa straw poll, amazing fundraising and seemingly strong grassroots support... and yet, radio silence from places like Fox News and right-wing talk radio. He's off the script for them - and I suspect there is a sense that were he to succeed (though I still doubt his agenda would ever really capture enough to win primaries) he would drive a serious rift in the GOP base.


so that was a lot of writing... alrighty then.

Edit - committed one of my own pet peeves "looses" instead of "loses" - gah.

[AZGrizFan]

That entire post could be boiled down to this ONE comment:

Neither Paul, nor Cain look or sound "presidential" - and as much as that might seem like a crock of shit - consider the two front runners look like they came out of central casting for "president" in a movie or tv show.

[catamount man]

why? here's a few reasons.

1. Perry is popular with a huge swath of the base (the Tea Party types primarily) because he "looks the part" and "acts the part" - he "talks tough" and honestly just pushes all the buttons and feeds all the red meat they want. They want a candidate who reflects their rage and anger. Really... he's Howard Dean by another name and year. Bear in mind - Dean was leading at this point in '03.

2. Romney is very comparable to John Kerry... he's clearly a strong candidate - he doesn't really move the needle that much with the rabid part of the base - but he's seen as a consensus candidate among those activists who are VERY worried about electability. I always thought Pawlenty would rise in to that role... not so much.

3. Voters generally don't sit down and make detailed studies of policy and evaluate the candidates based upon those answers... they pick the one who appeals to (or panders in all likelihood) either their pet issue - or their emotional feeling - or a demographic connection.

4. based upon point 3 - Paul and Cain have a problem... while their platforms may in a "blind taste test" pass muster... the candidates themselves do not. (i'll set aside the specter of Cain's race, because in this case I don't think it's relevant in this race - though it has been raised as an issue) Neither Paul, nor Cain look or sound "presidential" - and as much as that might seem like a crock of **** - consider the two front runners look like they came out of central casting for "president" in a movie or tv show.

5. Paul may advocate smaller government - but - true to his ideology - he also advocates for an almost isolationist foreign policy... that's a deal breaker with a LOT of GOPers. He also looses any support among evangelicals because he (again standing on principle) refuses to pander to the culture wars. (at least overtly)

6. Cain's problem is (generally) a matter of 1. not looking the part, and 2. being not ready for the job. Earlier in the year he surged, becoming the fields flavor of the week... the spotlight caused him to wither, he started saying some pretty crazy ****... even for the GOP field... and he faded back out. By the way - this is (somewhat) what happened to Bachmann - although she was mostly hijacked by Perry.

7. Lastly, with regard to Paul... and I never really used to believe this until this year - is CLEARLY being intentionally marginalized by the GOP and their allies in the media. Witness his very strong performance in the Iowa straw poll, amazing fundraising and seemingly strong grassroots support... and yet, radio silence from places like Fox News and right-wing talk radio. He's off the script for them - and I suspect there is a sense that were he to succeed (though I still doubt his agenda would ever really capture enough to win primaries) he would drive a serious rift in the GOP base.


so that was a lot of writing... alrighty then.

And it's a shame that so called loyalists to the PRINCE OF PEACE oppose a man who is against war. I never realized Jebus carried a machine gun.

[native]

Nice analysis, ttbf.

[AZGrizFan]

Paul coming off as a kook tonight....

[native]

I would like to see most of the Republican candidates as cabinet secretaries in the next Republican administration.

For example, in a Perry administration, I would like to see Mitt Romney at Treasury, Herman Cain at Commerce, Gary Johnson at HHS, Jon Huntsman at State, and Mitch Daniels at Transportation. Newt will never be my candidate but I appreciate his fecund mind and would like to see him in some sort of role.

My favorite Hispanic VP candidate would be Susanna Martinez, but I will accept Marco Rubio as a consolation prize and the more likely candidate.

Also, I would like to see Jeb Bush as Secretary of Education with Michelle Rhee as his assistant and successor, and Sarah Palin at Interior. Drill baby, drill!

[HI54UNI]

Paul coming off as a kook tonight....

i.e. Paul acting normal.

[AZGrizFan]

Paul coming off as a kook tonight....

i.e. Paul acting normal.

[Bronco]

-
Pasul is nuts he said he'd consider putting Dennis Kucinich in his Cabinet

Cain I like

[native]

-
Paul is nuts he said he'd consider putting Dennis Kucinich in his Cabinet.

Cain I like.

[OL FU]

why? here's a few reasons.

1. Perry is popular with a huge swath of the base (the Tea Party types primarily) because he "looks the part" and "acts the part" - he "talks tough" and honestly just pushes all the buttons and feeds all the red meat they want. They want a candidate who reflects their rage and anger. Really... he's Howard Dean by another name and year. Bear in mind - Dean was leading at this point in '03.

2. Romney is very comparable to John Kerry... he's clearly a strong candidate - he doesn't really move the needle that much with the rabid part of the base - but he's seen as a consensus candidate among those activists who are VERY worried about electability. I always thought Pawlenty would rise in to that role... not so much.

3. Voters generally don't sit down and make detailed studies of policy and evaluate the candidates based upon those answers... they pick the one who appeals to (or panders in all likelihood) either their pet issue - or their emotional feeling - or a demographic connection.

4. based upon point 3 - Paul and Cain have a problem... while their platforms may in a "blind taste test" pass muster... the candidates themselves do not. (i'll set aside the specter of Cain's race, because in this case I don't think it's relevant in this race - though it has been raised as an issue) Neither Paul, nor Cain look or sound "presidential" - and as much as that might seem like a crock of **** - consider the two front runners look like they came out of central casting for "president" in a movie or tv show.

5. Paul may advocate smaller government - but - true to his ideology - he also advocates for an almost isolationist foreign policy... that's a deal breaker with a LOT of GOPers. He also loses any support among evangelicals because he (again standing on principle) refuses to pander to the culture wars. (at least overtly)

6. Cain's problem is (generally) a matter of 1. not looking the part, and 2. being not ready for the job. Earlier in the year he surged, becoming the fields flavor of the week... the spotlight caused him to wither, he started saying some pretty crazy ****... even for the GOP field... and he faded back out. By the way - this is (somewhat) what happened to Bachmann - although she was mostly hijacked by Perry.

7. Lastly, with regard to Paul... and I never really used to believe this until this year - is CLEARLY being intentionally marginalized by the GOP and their allies in the media. Witness his very strong performance in the Iowa straw poll, amazing fundraising and seemingly strong grassroots support... and yet, radio silence from places like Fox News and right-wing talk radio. He's off the script for them - and I suspect there is a sense that were he to succeed (though I still doubt his agenda would ever really capture enough to win primaries) he would drive a serious rift in the GOP base.


so that was a lot of writing... alrighty then.

Edit - committed one of my own pet peeves "looses" instead of "loses" - gah.

Once again, reppies

[catamount man]

I don't see why people think Ron Paul is looney? I don't get it. Why continue to waste money on wars overseas? Does America have that much of an inferiority complex?

[kalm]

As TTBF mentioned, Paul is non-establishment.

[GannonFan]

That entire post could be boiled down to this ONE comment:

Neither Paul, nor Cain look or sound "presidential" - and as much as that might seem like a crock of **** - consider the two front runners look like they came out of central casting for "president" in a movie or tv show.

Yup - you actually need to look or sound the part to get elected. We tried moving away from that with Carter back in the 70's, but you needed Vietnam and Watergate right before that to make people decide to move away from the looks and sounds to elect him. And there's still too many people who remember what came of that to think it would be a good idea to go that direction again.

[Ivytalk]

why? here's a few reasons.

1. Perry is popular with a huge swath of the base (the Tea Party types primarily) because he "looks the part" and "acts the part" - he "talks tough" and honestly just pushes all the buttons and feeds all the red meat they want. They want a candidate who reflects their rage and anger. Really... he's Howard Dean by another name and year. Bear in mind - Dean was leading at this point in '03.

2. Romney is very comparable to John Kerry... he's clearly a strong candidate - he doesn't really move the needle that much with the rabid part of the base - but he's seen as a consensus candidate among those activists who are VERY worried about electability. I always thought Pawlenty would rise in to that role... not so much.

3. Voters generally don't sit down and make detailed studies of policy and evaluate the candidates based upon those answers... they pick the one who appeals to (or panders in all likelihood) either their pet issue - or their emotional feeling - or a demographic connection.

4. based upon point 3 - Paul and Cain have a problem... while their platforms may in a "blind taste test" pass muster... the candidates themselves do not. (i'll set aside the specter of Cain's race, because in this case I don't think it's relevant in this race - though it has been raised as an issue) Neither Paul, nor Cain look or sound "presidential" - and as much as that might seem like a crock of **** - consider the two front runners look like they came out of central casting for "president" in a movie or tv show.

5. Paul may advocate smaller government - but - true to his ideology - he also advocates for an almost isolationist foreign policy... that's a deal breaker with a LOT of GOPers. He also loses any support among evangelicals because he (again standing on principle) refuses to pander to the culture wars. (at least overtly)

6. Cain's problem is (generally) a matter of 1. not looking the part, and 2. being not ready for the job. Earlier in the year he surged, becoming the fields flavor of the week... the spotlight caused him to wither, he started saying some pretty crazy ****... even for the GOP field... and he faded back out. By the way - this is (somewhat) what happened to Bachmann - although she was mostly hijacked by Perry.

7. Lastly, with regard to Paul... and I never really used to believe this until this year - is CLEARLY being intentionally marginalized by the GOP and their allies in the media. Witness his very strong performance in the Iowa straw poll, amazing fundraising and seemingly strong grassroots support... and yet, radio silence from places like Fox News and right-wing talk radio. He's off the script for them - and I suspect there is a sense that were he to succeed (though I still doubt his agenda would ever really capture enough to win primaries) he would drive a serious rift in the GOP base.


so that was a lot of writing... alrighty then.

Edit - committed one of my own pet peeves "looses" instead of "loses" - gah.

Good analysis by our once and future operative! Good deconstruction of Ron Paul in a recent National Review article by Kevin Williamson. Takeaway: he really is a kook.

[Ibanez]

why? here's a few reasons.

1. Perry is popular with a huge swath of the base (the Tea Party types primarily) because he "looks the part" and "acts the part" - he "talks tough" and honestly just pushes all the buttons and feeds all the red meat they want. They want a candidate who reflects their rage and anger. Really... he's Howard Dean by another name and year. Bear in mind - Dean was leading at this point in '03.

2. Romney is very comparable to John Kerry... he's clearly a strong candidate - he doesn't really move the needle that much with the rabid part of the base - but he's seen as a consensus candidate among those activists who are VERY worried about electability. I always thought Pawlenty would rise in to that role... not so much.

3. Voters generally don't sit down and make detailed studies of policy and evaluate the candidates based upon those answers... they pick the one who appeals to (or panders in all likelihood) either their pet issue - or their emotional feeling - or a demographic connection.

4. based upon point 3 - Paul and Cain have a problem... while their platforms may in a "blind taste test" pass muster... the candidates themselves do not. (i'll set aside the specter of Cain's race, because in this case I don't think it's relevant in this race - though it has been raised as an issue) Neither Paul, nor Cain look or sound "presidential" - and as much as that might seem like a crock of shit - consider the two front runners look like they came out of central casting for "president" in a movie or tv show.

5. Paul may advocate smaller government - but - true to his ideology - he also advocates for an almost isolationist foreign policy... that's a deal breaker with a LOT of GOPers. He also loses any support among evangelicals because he (again standing on principle) refuses to pander to the culture wars. (at least overtly)

6. Cain's problem is (generally) a matter of 1. not looking the part, and 2. being not ready for the job. Earlier in the year he surged, becoming the fields flavor of the week... the spotlight caused him to wither, he started saying some pretty crazy shit... even for the GOP field... and he faded back out. By the way - this is (somewhat) what happened to Bachmann - although she was mostly hijacked by Perry.

7. Lastly, with regard to Paul... and I never really used to believe this until this year - is CLEARLY being intentionally marginalized by the GOP and their allies in the media. Witness his very strong performance in the Iowa straw poll, amazing fundraising and seemingly strong grassroots support... and yet, radio silence from places like Fox News and right-wing talk radio. He's off the script for them - and I suspect there is a sense that were he to succeed (though I still doubt his agenda would ever really capture enough to win primaries) he would drive a serious rift in the GOP base.


so that was a lot of writing... alrighty then.

Edit - committed one of my own pet peeves "looses" instead of "loses" - gah.

OPERATIVE!


But seriously, you're right. It's a fact (at least for this post it is) that good looking, strong looking people win the Presidency. Gore was stiff, impersonal. Bush was social, he was a great candidate (poor leader).

[CitadelGrad]

Ron Paul isn't isolationist. He's non-interventionist. There's a difference.