I'm not sure whether or not government intervention in social affairs on behalf of a disgruntled party is the right thing to do. It could create a slippery slope, so perhaps government's intervention in society should be to ensure order and the enforcement of the laws.
Michelle Bachmann's candidacy has been squashed by Rick Perry's arrival. I believe this is an auspicious incident in some ways, but a lesser evil is still an evil. This is especially so when I have another candidate that fits my ideals. Such a decriable environment the Tea Party has, since it conjures up images of social conservatism in the eyes of most Americans. The Tea Party deserves a better reputation, except for its social conservatives.
The whole "slippery slope" thing is typically a fallacy, and indeed it is here as well. From a purely logical standpoint, you cannot connect government intervention in social affairs with...whatever exactly the slippery slope is sliding to (you didn't actually say), so it doesn't really hold water. Even in terms of common sense, our government is set up so that no one branch can become too powerful, and the entirety of the government itself has never been efficient enough, cohesive enough or, frankly, competent enough to seriously violate our civil liberties. Also, the courts help in this regard. I didn't mean to get sidetracked with this, but I feel like "well if we let the government do this, what other things might it do?" is a very flimsy argument since even without calling it a slippery slope, that is in essence what it is.
I agree about Bachmann though. She doesn't have mainstream appeal, and I believe that voters deserve a legitimate alternative to Obama, who has definitely had his struggles. I also agree that Perry isn't exactly an ideal replacement, but I just have a gut feeling that there's no way he will win. He just doesn't seem presidential. He has a gimmicky feel to me, kind of like a Sarah Palin type.
Paul/Rubio 2012!!!
Well, now that the latest debate is over, what are your guy's thoughts on it? It seems like these debates are turning into a bickering war between Romney and Perry.
I hope Romney wins the nomination. Whatever his flaws, he is clearly intelligent, refined, and is a more savvy politician than Obama was. I know most people view that as a negative thing, but I think that being able to work the system to get things done is quite alright. Obama constantly deferring to our mostly worthless Congress has not helped, even if it's not directly his fault. I feel like Romney is smart enough to understand that the best U.S. presidents weren't such passive and ineffective communicators...and if he's not, none of the potential nominees are.
As for Ron Paul, I think he's a decent choice. I actually think that his more radical positions that most people don't agree with won't matter a whole lot because I feel like the legislative and judicial branches could keep him in check if he ever went "too far." At least to me, his main appeal is the anti-militarism (his word, not mine) stance he takes against especially the Republicans. Also, as someone who is neutral on abortion and agrees with Paul on other social issues, I think he has legitimate appeal. However, I do think that his age is a downside, as is the fact that he has been anti-establishment for so long that I don't know how he would fare when suddenly he
was the establishment.
In general, the Republican nomination process intrigues me because for people like me (annoyed with Obama's inability to stand up against certain extremely conservative positions and his lack of leadership at times), this really decides who I vote for. If they nominate someone like Bachmann, they've blown it. I really hope they don't.