Comments on: Cobbled Together http://larison.org/2007/12/08/cobbled-together/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:16:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Koz http://larison.org/2007/12/08/cobbled-together/#comment-8303 Mon, 10 Dec 2007 04:36:44 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/12/08/cobbled-together/#comment-8303 Pat's message was mostly domestic, ie, trying to marry a socon platform with mercantilist protectionism for the working class. For those times, foreign policy was an afterthought. And, let's not forget to note, Pat went nowhere. He was strongest in '92 as a protest vote against Bush pere (see a RP parallel there?). By '00 he had regressed back to his 2-3% mean. Pat’s message was mostly domestic, ie, trying to marry a socon platform with mercantilist protectionism for the working class. For those times, foreign policy was an afterthought.

And, let’s not forget to note, Pat went nowhere. He was strongest in ‘92 as a protest vote against Bush pere (see a RP parallel there?). By ‘00 he had regressed back to his 2-3% mean.

]]> by: bsebse http://larison.org/2007/12/08/cobbled-together/#comment-8296 Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:52:54 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/12/08/cobbled-together/#comment-8296 I think Frum once said "most people agree with Pat Buchanan on the issues, they just don't like the way he is saying it." I think there is a lot of truth to this. Ron Paul isn't exactly Pat Buchanan, but I would say there is 50% overlap, and his other issue are also acceptable to paleocons. My mother is a great example. She wants America to be strong, doesn't like sending jobs overseas and thinks we have too much immigration but doesn't want any radical action on that. Pat scared her, however, and she would not vote for him. She didn't like how he was making a big deal about homosexuality. (We have a gay person in our extended family). It does seem like there is room for a third party if they can stick to Ron Paul's formula of espousing freedom where there is disagreement on the social issue. Lord knows the Wall Street Republicans have not been good to the working class Republicans in Ohio and Michigan. I think Frum once said “most people agree with Pat Buchanan on the issues, they just don’t like the way he is saying it.”

I think there is a lot of truth to this. Ron Paul isn’t exactly Pat Buchanan, but I would say there is 50% overlap, and his other issue are also acceptable to paleocons.

My mother is a great example. She wants America to be strong, doesn’t like sending jobs overseas and thinks we have too much immigration but doesn’t want any radical action on that.

Pat scared her, however, and she would not vote for him. She didn’t like how he was making a big deal about homosexuality. (We have a gay person in our extended family).

It does seem like there is room for a third party if they can stick to Ron Paul’s formula of espousing freedom where there is disagreement on the social issue.

Lord knows the Wall Street Republicans have not been good to the working class Republicans in Ohio and Michigan.

]]> by: Zarathustra http://larison.org/2007/12/08/cobbled-together/#comment-8295 Sun, 09 Dec 2007 06:21:25 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/12/08/cobbled-together/#comment-8295 <blockquote>OTOH, all Republicans hate Noam Chomsky. None of them are going to go for the Chomsky line on foreign policy. That means the “non-interventionists” are going to have to switch to decaf, which will be the end of them. </blockquote> It's rather odd then that even as far back as 1992, and again in 1996, a Republican Presidential candidate was able to legitimately threaten much more well funded candidates with defeat, partly by taking a line on foreign/defense policy almost identical to Paul's position. Heck, he even won the New Hampshire primary in 1996! Now, what was his name again...

OTOH, all Republicans hate Noam Chomsky. None of them are going to go for the Chomsky line on foreign policy. That means the “non-interventionists” are going to have to switch to decaf, which will be the end of them.

It’s rather odd then that even as far back as 1992, and again in 1996, a Republican Presidential candidate was able to legitimately threaten much more well funded candidates with defeat, partly by taking a line on foreign/defense policy almost identical to Paul’s position. Heck, he even won the New Hampshire primary in 1996! Now, what was his name again…

]]> by: Koz http://larison.org/2007/12/08/cobbled-together/#comment-8289 Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:48:18 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/12/08/cobbled-together/#comment-8289 Patrick Ruffini wrote about this a month or so ago, http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/7bec946b-bc0e-4a5f-a73f-5eef4f7913dd and I think he gets the better of the argument. People support RP to satisfy their itch to Flip the Bird to The Man. Once that's gone, what else is there? The libertarians inside the party usually want to pick fights with James Dobson, legalize weed, abortion, support gay rights, etc. All that stuff is being swept under the rug for the sake of the RP campaign. OTOH, all Republicans hate Noam Chomsky. None of them are going to go for the Chomsky line on foreign policy. That means the "non-interventionists" are going to have to switch to decaf, which will be the end of them. Patrick Ruffini wrote about this a month or so ago,

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/7bec946b-bc0e-4a5f-a73f-5eef4f7913dd

and I think he gets the better of the argument. People support RP to satisfy their itch to Flip the Bird to The Man. Once that’s gone, what else is there? The libertarians inside the party usually want to pick fights with James Dobson, legalize weed, abortion, support gay rights, etc. All that stuff is being swept under the rug for the sake of the RP campaign.

OTOH, all Republicans hate Noam Chomsky. None of them are going to go for the Chomsky line on foreign policy. That means the “non-interventionists” are going to have to switch to decaf, which will be the end of them.

]]>