If Rand doesn't understand how doing a conference call with Norquist and Bloomberg to promote immigration reform the day after the conservative movement scores one of its biggest political victories ever on the strength of a candidate who focused exclusively on opposition to immigration reform, then Rand needs to go back to being an eye doctor.
If you had written, 'I don't think Rand should' instead, you would be within forum guidelines. As is, you are guising a personal attack on Rand that isn't necessary to make your point. If you disagree with his choices, fine. But posting your disagreements here has no effect on Rand's actions. It only serves to highlight negatives about him to people reading about him. So, if you have a criticism, AND posting it will bring about postive action, then do so without personal attacks.
And even without the Brat thing, the past week has been nothing but non stop horror stories from the border.
That's a pretty exaggerated claim from my perspective, as I've heard literally nothing about immigrants for a few months.
INS busing illegals to Arizona and just dumping them off. Estimates that hundred of thousands of illegal minors will be arriving in the coming month. Detention Centers being overrun and them having to open military bases to handle the overflow.
Okay, so you believe folks are even moreso concerned about immigration right now, or more folks are concerned than usual. So... is there actual proof of that? And are these people potential Rand voters? Seems doubtful to me that masses of people are changing their minds right now on the subject of immigration. But that would have to be true for your claim that the context Rand is waltzing into, as you put it, has any relevance. Would you prefer he go back on previous statements about immigration? Shall he flip-flop?
This is the context in which Rand waltzes in to a conference call with the biggest Amnesty cheerleaders in the country
He should give interviews with big audiences, not just audiences you agree with.
and gives his typical mealy mouthed
That's not fair or true. You do not need to resort to these tactics to make a point.
immigration spiel that does nothing to dispel the idea that Rand's views on immigration are totally in line with Cantor, Boehner, Graham, and every other guy on the Conservatives most hated list.
There may be the roots of a good argument in there, I don't really know. But I read his 'spiel' and it was clear to me. Why not say 'I'm afraid people won't distinguish Rand's views from Cantor etc, wish he would say something that I think would distinguish him?' It seems you're trying to state as fact what is an opinion.
And I don't care if the conference call was "already scheduled". His remarks certainly weren't already scheduled.
OK. So it's not dumb to do the interview? But he should change his words? If you're on a mission to say Rand should change his words, first get facts on demographics and what actually is/isn't popular. Then make the case that Rand should say things to get votes instead of saying what he believes. Then go to someone who can get Rand's ear so maybe he'll change his mind for you. Or convince me that there's a good reason to post things to get Rand to change his words on this forum. Otherwise it will be seen as stirring the pot.
This "spin" was not unfair.
Saying Rand joins the amnesty movement is fair to you? After reading what Rand actually said? I can't imagine that.
It was not unexpected. What is "counter-productive" is pretending that Rand shouldn't have known better.
People who disagree with you are pretending?
I hold Rand to the same standards I held Cooch (who I initially supported before he also proved he was too incompetent to deserve our time or support).
Yeah I have no idea who that is. TARP or Patriot act guy?
Rand lost major ground today.
Doomsday predictors and defeatist posts will not be allowed in the Rand forum.
6) Dedicated candidates or politician forums are to positively reflect the issues and values of the representing individual / campaign. Messages should focus on serious news, issues and activism.
The following elements are off-topic:
• Material of non-support for the individual / campaign (except to expose and correct political spin).
• Issues not associated with the individual / campaign.
• Attacks on the individual, campaign or campaign staff.
• Vulgar language.
• Abrasive and unruly behavior or attitudes not inline with the individual / campaign.
• Attempts to undermine the political party of the individual / campaign.
• Attempts to undermine the value of electoral politics.
Members who dissent from the underlying principles or goals of any site supported candidate or politician must:
• Not use the candidates or politicians forum.
• Follow the Functional Debate Principles for any dissent.
Functional Debate Principles
The site has established debate principles to help achieve productive discourse, the usage of these principles is always encouraged and required for dissent to site established efforts that are working towards the advancement of our Mission Statement. The principles are:
• Follow the site's Usage Guidelines, taking particular care not to use ad hominem attacks and insults against others. This means don't say "You're [some derogatory term]"
• Debate only in proper context; start a new thread if necessary.
• Present your position in an intellectual manner, provide reasoned supporting details.
• Maintain a respectful disposition.
• Do not claim something to be true/false without presenting proof.
• Work to get along with other participants, ask clarifying questions before casting negative assumptions.
• Use extreme care to not misrepresent what you are arguing against. Ask clarifying questions before casting potentially inflammatory misrepresentation.
• Remember to be respectful and work to achieve the purpose of advancing the site's Mission Statement.
Sucking up to the elites on immigration
You do not need to use phrases like this to make a point. I have no problem whatsoever with making that point. Do it within the guidelines, in the appropriate place IF IT WILL CREATE POSITIVE CHANGE IN THE WORLD.
is not going to get him the votes of anybody
Using absolutist terms: anybody? Do you really need to claim that an interview Rand did will get him zero votes in this segment? People are not groups, people are individuals. Maybe your underlying point has merit - but nothing a logical person needs to believe it has been provided.
inclined to support Christie or Jeb, and it absolutely guts
absolutely guts? A strong argument stands alone, without having to resort to appeals to emotion. These literally illustrative visceral phrases should not replace logical thought.
his support among Conservatives who would have been open to supporting him.
The point is debatable, as to what will get the Conservative vote (not to mention, what is a Conservative? and, Who votes?) But where is it best debated? And how?
