Romney's out, Christie's fading
Walker is rising, Rubio is promising
Huckabee is fantasizing
Yet, Bush is is still the man to beat.

In my opinion, of course. My prediction is that we'll be seeing a lot more of Jeb Bush over the next year or two.

he's got a few barriers to overcome with the general electorate.

one being his brothers legacy. the other being his personal hypocrisy on this issue.
Drug laws. And Rand Paul is driving that home pretty hard.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/2 ... east-once#

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015 ... story.html

I'm sure Jeb is a vastly superior candidate to his brother, but unfortunately for him he's still a Bush. I find it difficult to believe that the Republicans will want to turn the next election into Bush v Clinton redux, although I guess it could depend on who the main alternative turns out to be. If Rand Paul makes a strong showing early on then it might unite all of the non-libertarians (who must surely be the majority) to unite behind the least worst option.

Personally I'd love to see Paul get the nomination. I'm not convinced that he could actually win the presidency so it would most likely be a disastrous choice for the Republicans, but it would also be fascinating for a neutral observer like me to see libertarianism get the chance to fight a national campaign.

Dang, the omission of Rand Paul was accidental. I think he could speak to a lot of folks. He's not the establishment's candidate, but he would be a very strong breath of fresh air without all the baggage his father brings to it.

Any registered Republicans have someone they're interested in, or new name to pay attention to?

geojanes wrote:Any registered Republicans have someone they're interested in, or new name to pay attention to?

Not a registered Republican. They are too liberal for me...

You're more conservative than Steve, Brad?

freeman3 wrote:You're more conservative than Steve, Brad?

I think so.

bbauska wrote:

freeman3 wrote:You're more conservative than Steve, Brad?

I think so.

I think it is different however.

Example: World conflict. I do not want to be involved, but if forced to be involved, I am for complete and total annihilation of the enemy.

Example: Drug use. I don't care if someone uses drugs, but if a crime is committed while under the influence, take the punishment to the fullest extent, including death penalty.

Perhaps I am personally Libertarian, Isolationist, and extremely Hawkish.

Call me what you will. (I know many of you already do! )

Anyone have your interest Brad, or at least someone who you think might raise the level and scope of debate held during primary season? I'm ashamed I omitted Rand Paul, who I think is the most interesting Republican potential.

geojanes wrote:Anyone have your interest Brad, or at least someone who you think might raise the level and scope of debate held during primary season? I'm ashamed I omitted Rand Paul, who I think is the most interesting Republican potential.

I like Ben Carson. He is an honorable man, who is not a "Washington Insider".

Secondarily, I like Kasich.

geojanes wrote:Anyone have your interest Brad, or at least someone who you think might raise the level and scope of debate held during primary season? I'm ashamed I omitted Rand Paul, who I think is the most interesting Republican potential.

I think Rand Paul's timing is off. Although libertarianism is very popular from an economic and social perspective, most Americans realize that the US cannot ignore the world's problems. These things cycle ... from Sep. 2001 - 2006 we generally believed we must be involved ... Obama rode in on the notion that a less muscular foreign policy is better than intervention ... but now people see that there are problems with that approach as well.

It's not just a question of timing I think. Libertarianism is a minority view and always has been. I agree that Paul is easily the most interesting candidate but I don't think he could ever actually win. It would be great if he did get the nomination though because he'd turn the election into a genuine battle of ideas, which would be a very healthy development. He'd lose, but along the way he'd enthuse a lot of people and ultimately that would be great for American politics.

The one disappointing thing about Paul is his joining on the "audit the Fed" nonsense.

As we learned, the Fed is audited and it has independent oversight.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/annual-report/2012-federal-reserve-system-audits.htm

I have no doubt Paul knows this and his call for auditing the Fed is just to stir up mistrust. Hey, if you say something enough, people might just start believing it. But that's a pretty lousy way to make policy.

geojanes wrote:Hey, if you say something enough, people might just start believing it. But that's a pretty lousy way to make policy.

I agree with that. There has been plenty of racial divide speeches given for the last 50 or so years, and it appears that even though there are more equality than there was back in 1965.

Take a look at women's rights in America. There are more equality and gender opportunities than back in 1965, yet we have many who say that there is a war against women.

Hyperbole by both sides...