A classic debate of hawks vs isolatoonism. i dont think this is trivial. i think it is a healthy. debate for the gop.
I tend to side with Paul on this one. Christie's a more moderate guy but his version of power hunger is less easily checked than Paul's version.
Maybe, but Paul is bat **** crazy and has no hope in a general election. Christie is moderate enough to become the governor of NJ.
That's partly why I think Christie's more dangerous. He's more likely to be successful in becoming President. His regular guy thing has a lot of appeal but when he plays the 9-11 victim card to promote a surveillance society I get pretty wary.
I lean left on most issues and in most elections, but even I have to admit, Christie has a huge likability factor and I feel like he could steal a lot of votes.. like possibly mine haha.
I the most recent poll up on RCP they have Christie only -1 to Clinton. He is probably the best bet to run for President. It will be a big deal who he would choose as his VP. I could see him choosing someone like Rubio. I think the biggest problem will be the primaries. I hope we don't try and kill each other and put our most likely electable candidates forward. I think part of the reason Christie did the stomach surgery is he is serious about running for president.
Agree with this. The "base" seems to hate Christie. Whether the base has enough power to cause him problems, I'm not sure - they tried their best to boot Romney but failed, but there were unique circumstances there: all the alternatives were horrible, and they kept switching from one to the other. If there were a Romney and a non-Romney (like Hillary and non-Hillary in Obama), I think Romney goes down. Similarly, Christie needs a fractured primary to come out on top, I think. If he could get out of the primary, he probably has the best odds against Hillary. At this point, unless she doesn't run, it's hard to see her losing in the primary, so I'm just assuming that she's the Dem candidate.
This is the biggest problem facing the GOP...that the primary voters will only accept the farthest right of the far right. The primary voters nominate candidates that have no chance in a general election.
How do explain Romney? Major made a good point that the last GOP nomination was fractured. I believe it will be the same this time as well. Paul, Rubio, Ryan, Cruz, and others creatre a fractured primary I believe. I personally prefer Cruz, and Paul to stay in the Senate and let Christie/Rubio run. Keep the righty gun slingers in the Senate where they are needed and let the more moderate ticket run. That I believe is the formula to win 16'. I also think the GOP can take back the majority in the Senate by 16' as well.
Romney prevailed over the freak show because none of the others was even remotely viable. Of the 4 you mention above, Paul is the only one with a legit chance to win the nomination IMO. If Paul happens to puncture himself along the way, the path will open wide for Christie. I've felt all along a GOP governor would be nominated in 2016. Christie is the flavor now but it wouldn't surprise me if another gov ended up being the choice. When it comes to veep, Rubio may not even have legs 3 years from now.
Christie is big, but he's slow and his legs are weak. Watch for the vicious left-wing uppercut though. Paul is fast and lean, so expect a flurry of right-wing jabs. If the fight goes past 5, my money is on Paul.
Isolatoonism FTW! But for the record, Rand Paul would probably argue that there is a difference between cutting oneself off from the rest of the world entirely (isolationism) and the position that the US should not intervene in the internal affairs of other country's governments (non-interventionism).
The thing about Romney and 2008 is something which Norquist mentioned: as far as he was concerned, there were only three Republican candidates at all who were actually running for President: Romney, Perry, and Tim Pawlenty ( remember him?) Everyone else didn't care and was largely in it to sell books or fame or whatever. And honestly, there ought to be a way to restrict the nomination race to keep out the silly ones, not that there's a realistic way to do so. Tomato, tomatoe. Just like you just did yourself.
There is a significant difference. Plus, isolationist means different things to different people, whereas non-interventionist is just clearer. Use whatever word you prefer, but don't be surprised when you get corrected.
Isolationist is an epithet used against so-called "non-interventionists". The real debate is where the line is drawn. No elected official of any influence would use the term isolationist to describe themselves because the word itself has negative connotations. Going forward, it will be interesting to see how much Rand Paul tones down his "non-interventionism" on the GOP campaign trail. If he doesn't, his candidacy will definitely fail as other GOP candidates and bigwigs tear into him even more viciously. That is, unless there is an upcoming, game-changing world event that skews GOP opinion in his favor.
Proper discourse says if you are going to call someone 'crazy' you can at least explain how you came to that conclusion. Which of Rand's policies makes him crazy? Also being moderate is not something that is admirable.
