A new Name for the 2012 Presidential field?Vijay Ravindranis is chief digital officer at The Washington Post Co. He was chief technology officer of Catalist from 2005 to 2008.
His column in the Post yesterday, "Overlooking a Revolution," raised an interesting possibility:
In mid-2005, Obama was a first-term U.S. senator, not the object of intense presidential speculation. In all likelihood, the next Republican presidential nominee is not currently a star -- it is just as likely that the candidate will come from "the field," which already includes the dynamic young voice of Marco Rubio from Florida, as that he or she will be one of the "favorites" such as Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Palin.Rubio is the former Speaker of the House for the Nation's 4th largest State, which many might view as on par with a rookie US Senator who had served two-terms as a State Senator from Illinois.
15 Bloviations:
Lots of buzz about Santorum, also. Especially in light of his upcoming trip to Iowa.
Gross. Santorum and Rubo neither one represent Libertarian values. They are part of the religious right wing of the party that want to impose their religious views on all of society. I have no problem with religious people, but when you try to mandate religion through government policy, then I have a problem. It's time the libertarians reclaimed the Republican party from usurpers like those two. Barry Goldwater should be our model.
MARCO RUBIO IS GOING TO BE A SUPER STAR IN OUR PARTY! BUT OUR LOCAL PARTY "NRSC & RPOF" IS VERY MODERATE AND THEY ARE PUSHING CHARLIE CRIST DOWN OUR NECKS! BUT US REPUBLICANS LOVE MARCO RUBIO AND HATE CRIST FOR SUPPORTING OBAMA AND ACTING LIKE A LIBERAL! WE NEED TO GET THESE RINOS OUT OF OFFICE AND IT STARTS AT THE TOP OF OUR LOCAL PARTIES!
Anonymous, while I agree with you about how Barry Goldwater should be our model, now is NOT the time to put religious values into the equation. To do so is like finding information on the internet on how to throw a discus, and expecting to win a gold medal, during the next Olympics. In other words, you winning the discus throw, and putting religious debates into the next election, when we have a fiscal disaster on our hands is not going to happen. We are in a fight for our lives, not only for the economy, but civil liberities as well. I think those two fall under the category of liberty.
Anonymous, Rubio may pander to the religious right, but comparing him to the guy who said man-man sex was worse than man-dog sex is grossly unfair. The world isn't black and white, there are degrees of gray and the absolutists in the movement should wake up and realise this.
Agreed, William, but the problem is social conservatives want to destroy liberty by forcing others to adhere to their religious beliefs. That is equally as important as economic liberty. We can't sell our souls to the devil and not expect to go to hell.
Again, I am all for religious beliefs- I have them myself- but I think they are for me to adhere to, and not for me to force others to adhere to, and vice versa.
As Goldwater said, "I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."
"They are part of the religious right wing of the party that want to impose their religious views on all of society." (Oh My G-d!! Please Help Us!!)
Same old bvllsh!t lies. Odd, isn't it, how secularists constantly impose their "neutrality" while insisting that anyone of faith is also a theocrat. Secularists are the theocrats - better, atheocrats - imposing their values on the rest of us, primarily through the Courts. (Can you spell ACLU?)
I'm Jewish and very religious - and quite frankly, I'd be FAR more comfortable with a Palin-Rubio ticket than a secularist ticket in regards to the matters of religious privacy and social freedom.
I'm genuinely angered by the lie stated every time someone craps out "...but the problem is social conservatives want to destroy liberty by forcing others to adhere to their religious beliefs." (Yeah... Like, Ronny "The Hun" Reagan wanted to convert the entire US to Catholicism. Forcibly!!)
It's a deliberate, well focussed lie. A lie designed to drive a wedge between elements of the libertarian and religious Right. The 20th Century teaches that secularist governments are the ones who impose their "religious" values. More, the track record of "tolerant" nations such as Germany and Russia and Cambodia and China ought to be a clue to our dishonest pal above.
Yes, there *are* a handful of wacks on the religious Right, but they do not - repeat, do not - represent normative social conservatism. The American Spectator is typical of the strong unity and value consistency between libertarianism and social conservatism. RET is a living exemplar of the religious libertarian mindset.
Indeed, American conservatism is only conservatism if it is at its core libertarian. This is precisely why "squishes" such as David Brooks and Mitt Romney are rejected by core conservatives - Brooks and Romney, to name just two - flirt with authoritarianism.
Of course, Anonymous knows he is a liar. Then again, trolls exist as object lessons.
There is nothing libertarian about supporting theocratic aims of officials. I am more likely to vote for a religious candidate, for sure, as I believe religion is a backbone of any civilized society. However, it crosses the line when they try to impose that religion upon the rest of us. Mark Rubio is vehemently anti-gay, and that is not acceptable in libertarian philosophy. The government needs to stay the F*ck out of people's bedrooms.
I like everything about Palin except for the fact that she called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. PErsonally,. I don't think the government should be in business of defining marriage at all. Theta's for individuals to define. Everyone should have the freedom to practice whatever religion they want, and to enforce that religion upon their own family as they see fit, but when politicians start trying to pass laws that prevent others from practicing their own beliefs, they have crossed the line of liberty that our founding fathers very clearly drew in the sand.
You certainly have the right to disagree, but then you are not al libertarian, you are a theocrat. And if you like theocracy, move to Iran. IT seems to have worked out so well for them there.
情趣按摩棒,自慰套,角色扮演,按摩棒,跳蛋,跳蛋,
情趣,性感丁字褲,情趣,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲,情趣用品,跳蛋,男女,
潤滑液,SM,內衣,性感內衣,自慰器,充氣娃娃,AV,
按摩棒,電動按摩棒,飛機杯,視訊,自慰套,自慰套,情趣用品,情趣內衣,
.,
I feel that, barring some unforseen circumstance, Sarah Palin will secure the GOP POTUS Nomination in 2012.
If you agree -- or even if you don't -- I think some readers would be interested in knowing whether others share what is my view that Palin should appear in support of Marco Rubio in his GOP Primary candidacy for US Senate (FL) against Charlie Crist.
In the past, concerns were raised for Palin not to participate in the primaries or against Crist, for fears of alienation of some supporters and/or her previous commitments to Crist.
I think circumstances have changed (Rubio's current upward trajectory, Crist's error in failing to select a conservative temporarily to hold retiring Martinez's seat, Crist's previous support for and appearance with Obama coupled with Obama's downward trajectory).
Also, I've established a forum for exactly this topic in the event C4P feels this is jumping the gun.
See --
http://palinrubio12.blogspot.com/
Rubio has some Libertarian values. He would probably be the most conservative man in the Senate. The religious thing gets me, but I'll be willing to look the other way on that. Young republicans who were looking for change went to Jindal and he turned out to be boring. Great guy and I'd love to see him in the future, but nobody wants to here about the sheriff in your town. My only problem is does he have enough experience for the oval office?
I say give him time to shine and he will. Marco Rubio seems to have it together but we need to see what he can and will do as a member of the US Senate. He's a conservative first whom supports the constitution, smaller government, lower taxes, and rule of law in the judiciary.
The following domains have already been reserved according to godaddy.com's domain registration feature:
marcorubioforpresident.com
rubioforpresident.com
presidenturbio.com
and others...
Forget even things like supporting DADT, how can Rubio call himself a libertarian when he pals around with some of the most oppressive religious-right figures around? For God sakes, the loud ambitions of his friend Tony Perkins make some Muslim theocracies look like an oasis of religious liberty.
Post a Comment