GOP and Occupiers

Post Being Critiqued

This article initially caught my attention (embarrassingly) due to the title's use of the word "occupiers" and my lack of knowledge of what an "occupier" is.  Turns out an occupier is just someone protesting on Wall Street.  Leave it to me to have no idea that was going on.  However upon realizing what an occupier is after reading the article, it all made very clear sense.
The audience for this article is relatively flexible in my opinion.  Obviously members of the Republican Party, but I even think moderate Liberals, especially people in favor of bipartisan compromising are entirely thought of in the creation of this piece.
I'd say that this author is actually very credible on a multiple of levels.  The author is Erick Erickson who went to Mercer University and Walter F George School of Law and is a columnist by profession.  The article is featured on the website redstate.com, which is not only relatively renowned, but also just looks nice and new and updated frequently, which are telltale signs of website integrity.
The argument of the piece is plainly stated:
"The point is that we need to re-level the playing field and make it a fair competition between entrepreneur and corporation again."  The article basically says it's not rich people that make the economy and market a harsh place for the little man, but that they're the only ones who had the capital to withstand the change over time, and that it's really government regulation and policies.  "Abraham Lincoln said that in this country, unlike any other on earth, 'every man can make himself.'  As government grows and creeps into every aspect of our lives, that is less and less true except of those who have the means to pay off government and cover the increasing costs of doing business."  Not to forget: "The playing field does not need to be tipped back in favor of others.  Just level it.  An upright tower built on a slope will topple the moment the slope is laid flat."

Is the Tea Party Over? (NY Times)

Editoral Critique

This opinion piece about the right-wing political contest basically says that it's scattered and there isn't much of one.
It begins saying, "The Republican establishment was AWOL, leaderless, or intimidated" (at the beginning of the race), which I entirely agree with, and which I think is pretty indisputable.  After all, we did have, (in the newspaper's words:) "the Sarah Palin tease, replaced by the short-lived Michele Bachmann infatuation, after which everyone swooned, briefly for Rick Perry.  Herman Cain is having a little fling."  (and basically Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are laughs.)  Which is sad because I originally wanted to vote for Gingrich, but he said something I (and a large portion of the Republican Party) disagreed with.  I forget what it was...but it was important.  Healthcare maybe?  Anyway, and Ron Paul too, but by this point, who's voting for Ron Paul?
Ultimately, says the article, the two Right-wing candidates remaining are Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, which does seem true.  Mitt Romney has been a strong possibility since 2010 at least and Perry is simply strong.
My idea with Perry is that he's basically a newer Bush, an idea which is supported in the 7th paragraph.  (He's not necessarily slick, but serious, etc.)  And as popular as Bush became, that was largely among Democrats, upon whom he wasn't highly popular to begin with.  And even so, he definitely didn't start that way.
Later in the article, it mentions how many people call Perry an opportunist, which I disagree with.  (I agree with what the article says.  Yes, people have called him that.  I disagree, however, with him being called that.)  However, I will note that he did switch parties back in the day.  (In 1984 he was running for Democratic...something or other, then changed in 1989, which is a notable switch unlike Ron Paul's Libertarian to Republican.)
However, I think everyone can develop and change without being an opportunist.

Other Notable (yet respectable switchers include):
Ronald Reagan
Strom Thurmond
Michele Bachmann (Although she was in high school.  I changed parties in high school too.  Who doesn't?)
Joe Lieberman
Theodore Roosevelt
Donald Trump
And more.

It later outlines his bipartisan pragmatism in Texas (which is exactly what we need as a nation, is it not?)

I wish this article had talked more about Mitt Romney, though...  And, you know, the Tea Party.

Ron Paul on the Horizon

Ron Paul Proving To Be a Force in GOP Contest

This article describes Ron Paul's recent increase in popularity and whether his role in the upcoming presidential election is one of a spoiler or a potential frontrunner.
My struggle with this article is the idea that all Ron Paul will be is a spoiler.  I see where the author is coming from of course, with the swinging from Republican to Libertarian to Republican again and with two failed runs for president, but it seems like something is different this year.
The piece begins using the phrase "passionate conservative".  In this nation's current state, that's exactly what people are looking for, a Republican in order to get us out of the rut we've been in, but someone a little softer who citizens could relate to.  Not to mention the subtle yet entirely noticeable comparison to George Bush, the original "Compassionate Conservative".  (We all remember:)

Anyhow, he also is on several financial committees as the representative of the 14th Congressional District in Texas which is a virtue at the point of our economic status.  Something that might stunt his ability to be a true contender in the Republican race would be his fringe subjects, but there's certainly hope with the rise in popularity of Tea Party, his improving campaign strategies, etc.

There's a lot of talk that Paul is simply going to take votes away from Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, but with Perry's popularity drop lately and Herman Cain's recent rise, it's quite the toss up.

(This article was linked to from the Houston Chronicle)