Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian

[_EAllusion]

I do think that there needs to be two healthy parties to keep each other in check. So while I'm more comfortable, usually, with the democratic agenda, I want a healthy alternative. One that I don't believe intends to "shrink the beast" and then drown it in the bathtub.

Gary Johnson is a libertarian like I'm a libertarian, with roughly the same priorities. He's a very close match for my political views. He'd be far too fiscally conservative for you, I would imagine.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

He has no chance whatsoever of winning the nomination. In an ideal world, he has enough success that it draws attention to his top issues, causes stronger Republican candidates to pander to his constituents to prevent bleeding them, and helps to empower and increase his wing within the Republican coalition. Ron Paul running again severely damaged him, as his name recognition and established movement will suck away a lot of the attention, money, and voters Johnson might have otherwise got.

Here's my pitch to you:

Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination. It's a done deal. The Republican nomination, however, is meaningfully up in the air. People often mistakenly fail to appreciate how much internal party politics influences government. In general elections, partisans make up the bulk of voters. (Swing voters have more influence because they are persuadable.) They will vote for whatever the party they belong to is advocating. But by exercising influence at the primary level, you can shift the content of what the party is advocating. Parties shift views over time. I think the success of the "tea party" movement last election cycle is a stark example of how that process works. If and when they win, the views you advocated within the party will stretch out into the government.

What I'd suggest to you is that it is in your vested interest that the Republican party look more like Gary Johnson's vision than Michelle Bachmann's vision. And, in the tiny way your vote matters, you can influence the party to take that course. So, vote Republican and vote Gary Johnson.

[_Runtu]

Earlier I wrote this, "I think there's about a 1/3rd of Republicans in Congress who are ideologically opposed to raising the debt ceiling without a massive restructure of how the government balances its books. And I think those people would've felt the same during the Bush years. Bush's reign of profligate spending pissed off some Republicans too, after all."

I was certainly not happy with Bush's spending spree, plus an unnecessary war adding to the expenses, though I thought tying structural changes to the debt-ceiling bill was potentially a disastrous course of action, both for the country and for the GOP. I am frankly shocked that the administration signed off on a bill with no "revenue increases," though clearly the agreement leaves room for that in the coming months.

As far as the economy goes, I don't know where we would have found the money (or the political will) for a massive Keynesian stimulus package, even if I thought that would work. The problem I see is that we mismanaged our money so badly during times of relative prosperity that we've severely hamstrung our ability to do anything drastic. It's interesting that Germany has seen pretty good economic progress despite not having passed a stimulus bill.

Politically, I think Boehner has proved himself quite shrewd. On the one hand, the left feels like they've been betrayed by Obama (surrender is how some are describing it), whereas the extreme right is unhappy that they didn't get bigger cuts or a balanced-budget amendment (one writer compared the debt deal to "prison rape"). So, the bill passes, with fairly nebulous promises of future cuts, and the Republican leadership looks like it held firm in its convictions. The Democrats are forced to give cover to the GOP, and they can no longer attack Republicans for cutting entitlements, because that's what the bill does.

[_Buffalo]

Earlier I wrote this, "I think there's about a 1/3rd of Republicans in Congress who are ideologically opposed to raising the debt ceiling without a massive restructure of how the government balances its books. And I think those people would've felt the same during the Bush years. Bush's reign of profligate spending pissed off some Republicans too, after all."

I was certainly not happy with Bush's spending spree, plus an unnecessary war adding to the expenses, though I thought tying structural changes to the debt-ceiling bill was potentially a disastrous course of action, both for the country and for the GOP. I am frankly shocked that the administration signed off on a bill with no "revenue increases," though clearly the agreement leaves room for that in the coming months.

As far as the economy goes, I don't know where we would have found the money (or the political will) for a massive Keynesian stimulus package, even if I thought that would work. The problem I see is that we mismanaged our money so badly during times of relative prosperity that we've severely hamstrung our ability to do anything drastic. It's interesting that Germany has seen pretty good economic progress despite not having passed a stimulus bill.

Politically, I think Boehner has proved himself quite shrewd. On the one hand, the left feels like they've been betrayed by Obama (surrender is how some are describing it), whereas the extreme right is unhappy that they didn't get bigger cuts or a balanced-budget amendment (one writer compared the debt deal to "prison rape"). So, the bill passes, with fairly nebulous promises of future cuts, and the Republican leadership looks like it held firm in its convictions. The Democrats are forced to give cover to the GOP, and they can no longer attack Republicans for cutting entitlements, because that's what the bill does.

I think part of the reason Germany is doing well is because they have a good social safety net, and there is incentive to cut worker hours instead of firing people. When German companies need to cut expenses, to don't do so at the expense of jobs.

[_beastie]

Gary Johnson is a libertarian like I'm a libertarian, with roughly the same priorities. He's a very close match for my political views. He'd be far too fiscally conservative for you, I would imagine.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

He has no chance whatsoever of winning the nomination. In an ideal world, he has enough success that it draws attention to his top issues, causes stronger Republican candidates to pander to his constituents to prevent bleeding them, and helps to empower and increase his wing within the Republican coalition. Ron Paul running again severely damaged him, as his name recognition and established movement will suck away a lot of the attention, money, and voters Johnson might have otherwise got.

Here's my pitch to you:

Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination. It's a done deal. The Republican nomination, however, is meaningfully up in the air. People often mistakenly fail to appreciate how much internal party politics influences government. In general elections, partisans make up the bulk of voters. (Swing voters have more influence because they are persuadable.) They will vote for whatever the party they belong to is advocating. But by exercising influence at the primary level, you can shift the content of what the party is advocating. Parties shift views over time. I think the success of the "tea party" movement last election cycle is a stark example of how that process works. If and when they win, the views you advocated within the party will stretch out into the government.

What I'd suggest to you is that it is in your vested interest that the Republican party look more like Gary Johnson's vision than Michelle Bachmann's vision. And, in the tiny way your vote matters, you can influence the party to take that course. So, vote Republican and vote Gary Johnson.

I can't vote for him in the primary, because I'm a registered Democrat, and in my state only people registered as the party can vote in the primary. Otherwise, you'd have sold me.

As entertaining as the Bachmans of the world are (late night TV), I really do think our country would be better off with more Gary Johnsons (or heck, even Richard Nixon!!! Even Ronald Reagan looks like a flaming liberal compared to this new crop!) in the republican party. I really do want an alternative to the democrats, whom I don't always like or agree with, either. I have felt caught without a real alternative for a long time.