Rand Paul: Chris Christie the "King of Bacon" | Independent Journal Review

 

So if I heard that correct Christie was laying into Rand (and Kentucky) since the Federal government spends more in Kentucky than it takes in. And in NJ that is reverse.

 

But the quick response from Paul was to question if Christie wants to shutdown two military bases. Apparently those drive a good chuck of the Federal spending in KY.

I assume you would equate Rand Paul's chances similar to Cruz's.

 

What's your reasoning these fellows wouldn't win? Will there influence wane in the GOP?

 

Basically, yes to the Paul question.

 

It will always come down to the middle 1/3 of the voters. IMO Paul and Cruz will not play well to that middle segment. They play really well to some segments but not enough IMO. Of course, it's 2013 so I fully realize things can change.

 

As to debate skills I think that has a very small long-term impact on who gets the nomination.

 

I assume you would equate Rand Paul's chances similar to Cruz's.

 

What's your reasoning these fellows wouldn't win? Will there influence wane in the GOP?

 

I think Paul's chances are interesting, if not overstated. I think he has the good sense to attempt to appeal his ideology to outside the traditional conservative block. He faces the classic trade-off of tailoring his views on foreign policy and social liberties to conservatives during the primary, but then alienating the rest of voters he'd tempted. He's already trying to walk both of those lines at the same time.

 

Cruz is a demogague. His interest extends only to rhetoric, not governance. That makes a group of extreme conservatives feel good, but it's not serious. Paul is a serious contender, Cruz is not.

 

This spat between Christie and Paul has been overblown anyway. Christie was specifically asked about Paul, it would be unlike him to duck it. Though, I think the security/foreign policy divide will be a major issue for Republicans in the next primary (and it's interesting Paul defended his Sandy comments by invoking military spending). Unfortunately, "establishment" candidates tend to win these types of things.

So if I heard that correct Christie was laying into Rand (and Kentucky) since the Federal government spends more in Kentucky than it takes in. And in NJ that is reverse.

 

But the quick response from Paul was to question if Christie wants to shutdown two military bases. Apparently those drive a good chuck of the Federal spending in KY.

 

New Jersey has nine military bases. This is not a fight Paul needs to be making, unless he wants to pawn that pork responsibility off on McConnell and Hal Rogers.

NJ received $63.9 Million from DC per capita around $7,400 while paying around $121 million

KY received $35.9 Million form DC per capita around $8,400 while paying around $23 million

Basically, yes to the Paul question.

 

It will always come down to the middle 1/3 of the voters. IMO Paul and Cruz will not play well to that middle segment. They play really well to some segments but not enough IMO. Of course, it's 2013 so I fully realize things can change.

 

As to debate skills I think that has a very small long-term impact on who gets the nomination.

 

If he ends up doing well in New Hampshire, I think it will be a good sign he will do fine with middle of the aisle voters. But I cannot stretch this enough. -- getting the middle/independent vote will NOT win the presidency. Playing to the middle voters and alienating your main base will not work. Romney and McCain are great examples.

 

There is a reason Obama ran as the progressive candidate and Hillary the conservative democrat. It goes back to the 2000 elections when everybody blamed Nadar -- who was the progressive candidate -- for losing the election for Gore. He replied: "Well maybe the democrats will pay more attention to their progressive base."

 

They then ran Kerry. Same problem. Didn't get his base out; didn't work; didn't win.

 

I think Paul plays more to the middle in foreign policy and that will attract people -- especially if Obama continues the perpetual war on "terror." Foreign Policy will be a huge topic come 2016. Christie's FP will turn people off, as did McCains.

I think Paul's chances are interesting, if not overstated. I think he has the good sense to attempt to appeal his ideology to outside the traditional conservative block. He faces the classic trade-off of tailoring his views on foreign policy and social liberties to conservatives during the primary, but then alienating the rest of voters he'd tempted. He's already trying to walk both of those lines at the same time.

 

Cruz is a demogague. His interest extends only to rhetoric, not governance. That makes a group of extreme conservatives feel good, but it's not serious. Paul is a serious contender, Cruz is not.

 

This spat between Christie and Paul has been overblown anyway. Christie was specifically asked about Paul, it would be unlike him to duck it. Though, I think the security/foreign policy divide will be a major issue for Republicans in the next primary (and it's interesting Paul defended his Sandy comments by invoking military spending). Unfortunately, "establishment" candidates tend to win these types of things.

 

Your "chances" will be determined by the candidates groundwork in the years prior to 2016. He is the favorite among evangelicals as is Cruz -- despite what you think of him. Rand does a good job at marketing his message -- whether its gay marriage, foreign policy, drugs, economics -- it centers around one thing: limited government. Whatever he is doing, its working. I don't care too much for polls, but him and Cruz are always in the top 1 or 2 spot.

 

I personally don't think Cruz will even run.

 

And it is overblown, but the GOP needs to hash it out. Rand has made non-interventionism mainstream in the GOP. That is something NO politician in the Republican party has been able to do. It's definitely an uphill battle.

New Jersey has nine military bases. This is not a fight Paul needs to be making, unless he wants to pawn that pork responsibility off on McConnell and Hal Rogers.

 

NJ received $63.9 Million from DC per capita around $7,400 while paying around $121 million

KY received $35.9 Million form DC per capita around $8,400 while paying around $23 million

 

Its interesting how 'family' members will fight over money - when it gets tight. Just like a real-world marriage.

 

New Jersey and Kentucky. Two states that couldn't hardly be much different in their make-up. It would be interesting to see how the Federal spending is totaled up. Paul seemed to imply that the large bases were the driver. But I would bet Corp of Engineers spending on dams would be another big difference. I think almost every major man-made lake in Kentucky is created from a (Federal) Army Corps of Engineers managed dam.

 

I personally don't think Cruz will even run.

 

 

Cruz may not qualify under the constitution to run. His father was a Canadian and he definitely was born in Canada. Is he a natural born Citizen as required by Article II, Section 1? Or was he naturalized at birth due his mother status as a US citizen. Given the views on the subject and ignoring of SCOTUS rulings on the subject its probably mute. It seems if your aunts brothers sister-in-law was a US citizen you can claim to be eligible for President as called out by Article II, Section 1. But that is probably a question for another thread...

If he ends up doing well in New Hampshire, I think it will be a good sign he will do fine with middle of the aisle voters. But I cannot stretch this enough. -- getting the middle/independent vote will NOT win the presidency. Playing to the middle voters and alienating your main base will not work. Romney and McCain are great examples.

 

T.

 

While it's a matter of degree I disagree that Sen McCain and/or Gov Romney played to the middle. They WERE the middle until they ran.

 

If he ends up doing well in New Hampshire, I think it will be a good sign he will do fine with middle of the aisle voters. But I cannot stretch this enough. -- getting the middle/independent vote will NOT win the presidency. Playing to the middle voters and alienating your main base will not work. Romney and McCain are great examples.

 

There is a reason Obama ran as the progressive candidate and Hillary the conservative democrat. It goes back to the 2000 elections when everybody blamed Nadar -- who was the progressive candidate -- for losing the election for Gore. He replied: "Well maybe the democrats will pay more attention to their progressive base."

 

They then ran Kerry. Same problem. Didn't get his base out; didn't work; didn't win.

 

I think Paul plays more to the middle in foreign policy and that will attract people -- especially if Obama continues the perpetual war on "terror." Foreign Policy will be a huge topic come 2016. Christie's FP will turn people off, as did McCains.

 

What evidence is there that a significant number of conservatives abstained in any of those elections? What evidence is there that this group outnumber "swing voters?"

While it's a matter of degree I disagree that Sen McCain and/or Gov Romney played to the middle. They WERE the middle until they ran.

 

It's a really tough case to make Romney was a right wing candidate.

 

He wanted to court the Independent vote -- and he did. In just about every swing state.

 

INFOGRAPHIC: Obama Lost Independent Vote In Almost Every Swing State - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

It's a really tough case to make Romney was a right wing candidate.

 

He wanted to court the Independent vote -- and he did. In just about every swing state.

 

INFOGRAPHIC: Obama Lost Independent Vote In Almost Every Swing State - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

 

 

Again, matter of degree. He went right as to compared to his normal position on the spectrum. Sen McCain did the same thing.

Again, matter of degree. He went right as to compared to his normal position on the spectrum. Sen McCain did the same thing.

 

True. And it still wasn't conservative enough. IMO, putting someone like Christie or Jeb Bush will result in the same outcome.

While it's a matter of degree I disagree that Sen McCain and/or Gov Romney played to the middle. They WERE the middle until they ran.

 

I disagree totally and feel this line has been a cop out for many people who claim to want a moderate or bipartisanship.