Looking it up, he actually “informed” them that the NAACP was founded by Republicans, not that Lincoln was one (Their reaction was “Well duh!” anyway). Same point, though, and it still reflects Republican desire to have people forget the last half century.
I stand corrected. Of course, he screwed up in several ways.
sigh… It’s my fault for using the word ‘liberal’ I guess, let’s get that out of the way. That said, please stop doing this. I am talking about a specific guy, Rand Paul, and reasoning from specific things about him to make a point. You are talking about this straw man ‘liberal’ that as far as anyone knows exists only in your imagination- basically you are talking to the voices in your head. I hate it when people do that. Stop it. Talk about someone specific instead the next time you feel the urge to pontificate on ‘liberals’.
The NRA snubbed him (and Chris Christie, but that’s a lot less surprising) when sending out their convention invitations. I’m guessing it’s because they’re not happy about his old man dissing them as too wobbly and compromising (compared to the more hardcore Gun Owners of America).
Let me clarify then. No Democrat, and certainly not Hillary Clinton, will propose a program that even comes close to matching the scope of the problem. Your best bet is to find a Republican like Bob Corker who supports a carbon tax.
Considering Paul is likely to be hit on his “moderate” immigration stance, and is very deliberately making a big deal about courting the Black vote, I cant imagine how anyone could be more wrong in this post.
Is there anything more anathema to the Republic orthodoxy than taxes? It’s hard to imagine. Maybe a bill to find and kill Jesus again.
Republicans like replacing income taxes with sales taxes(some of them anyway). If it’s revenue neutral, you can get some Republicans on board.
Corker’s version, which he co-wrote with Mark Begich back when Begich was still in the Senate, would have been revenue neutral in that all revenues received from the tax would go back to taxpayers in some form. I’m guessing the idea is that everyone gets back the same amount, so that if you have less than median energy consumption you profit. I personally prefer replacing the payroll tax with a carbon tax. It’s a plus-plus. You tax carbon emissions, so you get less of that, while reducing taxes on work, so you get more of that.
Rand Paul’s never been afraid of novel ideas. By getting behind something like this he could really separate himself from the pack as a different kind of Republican.
Yeah, and someone sure as hell is taking him seriously.
Two ads from the FSPA in a week about Paul trying to knock him out of the race early. Whoever he pissed off is sure hammering.
Taking bets for who funded the million dollar ad buy! Takers?
This “Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America” was founded by Rick Reed of SwiftVets fame, in 2008, to support McCain’s campaign.
Huckabee is too liberal to get the nomination. The ONLY conservative thing about him is his religious views.
I like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker the best. While Bush’s name is a hindrance, it’s also a help–among other things, it gives him a built-in fund raising advantage. Scott Walker has shown that he can beat any obstacles that his local liberals throw up against him.
Christie is both too liberal and too scandal-prone.
Well, broad generalizations about Democrats aren’t really any better than broad generalizations about liberals. I want you to post things you can back up. But whatever.
I’m not sure why you think Democrats are weak on addressing ‘the scope of the problem’. First of all, they tend not to deny it is a problem. They are at least less in bed with fossil fuel interests than the GOP (at the cost of being in bed with other interests of course). Democrats have proposed more AGW-inspired policies than Republicans, who, in contrast, pass things like The McKinley amendment (extra liberal cite because you will enjoy it more that way)
Can you see why I have my doubts about Republicans on this issue? To repeat, every single Republican in the House voted for climate science denial.
I’d be in favor of a carbon tax, but I’m not sure I want to go with all the conditions Corker wants to hang on it.
Does not compute. Climate change is not a Trojan horse for right-wing ideology about Social Security etc. The Left and the Right are going to have to get used to compromising and working together, but you guys will have to be more sincere than that.
Aside from revenue neutrality, I’m not sure why you think the carbon tax is the only thing that can effectively address AGW though. First you say, “No Democrat, and certainly not Hillary Clinton, will propose a program that even comes close to matching the scope of the problem.” Then you limit the possible responses to a single tax policy. Why?
The US could do a wide range of things. Some states require a certain % of power generation to come from renewables. This policy should apply to all states, where feasible, and should be subjected to increasing shares of power generation over time to come from renewables as the technology and capacity grows to allow it. Power storage is a limiting factor right now; it is debatable whether the government or the market can best prod that along. Probably both.
The carbon tax omits something very important: methane. Did you know that livestock raised for food emit more greenhouse gasses than the transportation sector? If we are serious about tackling climate change, we will address this, too. I propose a pork and beef tax, along the lines of your theory, “tax things you want less of”. Increase the tax until pork and beef production is halved. This idea is granted instantaneous induction into the Tough Sell Hall of Fame- even if Jesus Christ proposed this as His new teaching during the Second Coming, I think a lot of people would balk. Ranchers will raise hell about being forced to switch to hydroponic arugula farming, the Right in general will scream about government interfering with the market, but that is part of what I want to get through to you, adaher. Sometimes circumstances are such that it is highly desirable for the government to interfere with the market. And I don’t think Rand Paul with his libertarian philosophy gets that. Which makes him bad for America, along with pretty much every other GOP candidate in this election cycle.
ETA: Forgot to mention the Production Tax Credit. This credit is slated to be slashed at the end of 2016. The GOP seems cool with this- I think it would behoove the national interest to maintain it (or not cut it so much) through 2020, so that renewables can entrench themselves as strong economic competitors with fossil fuel generation of any kind. It’s inevitable any way you slice it anyway. No point in getting in its way.
ETAx2: I meant the Renewable Energy Tax Credit! :smack:
I agree that there are situations where the government should interfere with industry. Such as pricing externalities that the market doesn’t. I just don’t want to turn it into a new cash cow for the government, or create a self-defeating system where we punish energy consumers with one hand while subsidizing their high rates of energy use on the other.
If there’s one thing we should all have learned by now, it’s that the government can’t manage an economy. By trying to manage every aspect of the transition to alternative energies, from subsidizing the energy itself, to placing limits on fossil fuels, to subsidizing areas that are harmed by the transition, to shielding consumers from the pain, you get pretty darn close.
Dammit man! Capitalize! For* once*!
I have been saying it for months, the 2016 presidential election will be between Scott Walker and Hillary Clinton. Sure, Walker has his flaws and weaknesses but less so than any other contender at this point. And he has his strong “union fighting” record and image that is bound to be a very popular thing among all (R) voters. And his lack of college education, again, can work in his favor, not against it. This isn’t the Democratic nomination.
Not only that, but as flawed as Walker might seem, he wins. If you can win in Wisconsin as a right-wing Republican, you can win nationally as a right-wing Republican.
Bush also is fine as a default candidate simply because he’ll have the money and name recognition.
Huckabee is a sleeper if he can appeal beyond the evangelical base and I maintain that he’s a super strong general election candidate due to likeability and good speaking skills. His weakness has always been fundraising, because K street doesn’t like him all that much. He’ll be on public financing while Clinton spends a zillion dollars.
Rubio can also win under the right circumstances. But I don’t think he’s going to be trying that hard. He’s angling for VP or “next”, since unless you’re a Bush you have to lose the GOP nomination before you can win it.
Ben Carson, call me crazy, but something tells me not to bet against someone with his level of determination and intelligence. Plus there are a lot of people outside the Republican base that would at least give him a fair hearing due to the goodwill he’s built up over the years from speaking at schools and churches. Rand Paul wants to reach out to the black community. Carson’s been doing it for decades.
Problem with being whackadoodle, or even pandering to the whackadoodles, is that everything is still out there on the Tubes. He’d have opposed the Civil Rights Act, thinks Ebola is highly contagious, vaccines can cause mental disorders, people on welfare are “gaming the system”, Eric Garner died because of the cigarette tax, homosexuality is a choice, Obama was trafficking weapons to Turkey out of Libya …
But at least you’re certified to practice ophthalmology, right, Randy?