A very interesting take on the Establishment v. Grassroots movement of the Republican Party. While I do not agree with her entire thesis, I think she has made some good points which I never previously considered. Things such as Bill Clinton’s triangulation policies undercut traditional conservatism in 2000 forcing W. to go the “compassionate conservative” route, Reagan’s picking George H.W. Bush as V.P. instead of Jack Kemp actually undermined Reaganism post 1988, Nixon was to the left of JFK, Bush’s 1988 victory and 1992 defeat brought his sons into “the family business” and that conservatism does well in elections when liberalism overreaches. Also as much as I despise John McCain and his inept 2008 campaign, the fool did remarkably well considering he was never committed to victory, the lingering unpopularity of the War, his refusal (for reasons known only to God) to bring up the Rev. Wright issue, the financial meltdown six weeks before the election, his lackluster campaigning skills, the hostility of the media, and the general malaise from the out going administration. If we had a better candidate that was actually committed to total victory, we still might not have won but it would have been a lot closer and we would have saved several Governorships, House, and Senate seats.
Her description of the 2012 field
The 2012 primary campaign has been an exaggerated version of this dynamic, with one credentialed ex-moderate running against a social conservative who served only five years in the House, a marketing whiz who was a political half-wit, a former speaker dethroned by his caucus, an ex-senator who lost his last race by 18 points, a 76-year-old member of the House with an eccentric agenda, and a four-term Texas governor whose résumé was impressive, but who tripped over his tongue and his feet. It took no manipulation by sinister forces to eliminate most of them. Conservatives did run, but not the best of them. This was not a dark RINO plot.
is quite accurate. Please read the whole article before hurling insults.
We should have a great chance because Obama has been a rotten president but if we spend our time in debates yammering about contraception, abortion and school prayer – we will go down like the Hindenburg.
by Noemie Emery
Late in 2003, Charles Krauthammer coined the phrase “Bush Derangement Syndrome” to describe the rage of the left at our 43rd president, a loathing so intense that when the president was reelected his anguished opponents needed grief therapy simply to cope. This morphed in time into Palin Derangement, which infected the elites of both parties. And now some on the right have come down with a similar affliction—Establishment, and/or RINO Derangement—the belief that a Republican party elite is conspiring against them and is behind all of their woes. The symptoms are a sense of intense persecution along with one of perpetual grievance, and a feeling of having been wronged by unscrupulous people, endowed with magical powers that allow them all too often to triumph, in spite of their being so wrong. Out of this has grown a series of what Mona Charen calls fables designed to make the victims feel better and avoid looking hard at their vulnerabilities. This may work in the sense of affording condolence. But the myths are simply not true.
Myth number one is that in every presidential election since 1984 (when Ronald Reagan ran for the last time) conservatives have been held down and forced to suffer the torments of Hades as one inept RINO (Republican In Name Only) squish after another has been shoved down their throats. George H. W. Bush won once but paved the way for Bill Clinton by breaking his pledge not to raise taxes. Bob Dole lost, taking the glow off the 1994 midterms. George W. Bush won, and then won again, but spent too much money, wasn’t really conservative, and led congressional Republicans astray. Then the RINO par excellence, John McCain, failed to succeed him and gave us Obama’s long night.
All of these men, of course, were challenged in primary contests by a legion of more conservative figures, who fought to derail them and failed: The elder Bush was challenged by Jack Kemp, Pierre du Pont, and Pat Robertson (and by Pat Buchanan, in 1992); Bob Dole by Phil Gramm, Steve Forbes, and Buchanan; the younger George Bush by Orrin Hatch, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, and Gary Bauer; McCain by Mike Huckabee (a social conservative), Mitt Romney (a fiscal conservative), Rudy Giuliani (a law-and-order conservative, though a social libertarian), and Fred Thompson, a total conservative who ran rather less well than them all.
Save for 2008, when all the contenders were serious (and four of the five were distrusted by movement conservatives), the “establishment” candidates were far more credentialed than their conservative challengers (save for Kemp, Gramm, and Hatch, who never gained traction). George Bush the elder had been a congressman, director of the CIA, and ambassador before serving two terms as vice president; Dole had been Senate majority leader and a congressional fixture; George W. Bush the younger, a successful governor of one of the biggest states in the Union; and McCain was a multi-term senator, widely seen as a leader on defense and foreign affairs. By contrast, their challengers tended to be vanity candidates, preachers and pundits, people who might be seen as trying to raise their profiles or lecture fees, activists for one or more boutique causes, people whose time to shine had long vanished, and those whose time never came.
The 2012 primary campaign has been an exaggerated version of this dynamic, with one credentialed ex-moderate running against a social conservative who served only five years in the House, a marketing whiz who was a political half-wit, a former speaker dethroned by his caucus, an ex-senator who lost his last race by 18 points, a 76-year-old member of the House with an eccentric agenda, and a four-term Texas governor whose résumé was impressive, but who tripped over his tongue and his feet. It took no manipulation by sinister forces to eliminate most of them. Conservatives did run, but not the best of them. This was not a dark RINO plot.
Was there ever a case of a thumb being put on the scale for an establishment candidate? Yes, it turns out that there was. In 1980, Reagan chose the elder George Bush as his running mate to win over the country club voters, and this mixed ticket won. Eight years passed, and Bush began running for president, presenting himself as Reagan’s helpmeet, successor, and heir. Running against him was Jack Kemp, who was a much closer fit with the Reagan agenda, but Reagan could not disown his loyal vice president. His lack of endorsement was fatal to Kemp, who always believed it was Bush’s positioning of himself as Reagan’s legitimate heir that sucked the air out of his campaign. This not only led to the first Bush presidency but inspired Bush’s two elder sons to enter what was becoming the family business. As a result, a generation later, people are still discussing the possibility of a third Bush as president. And who kickstarted this so-called establishment dynasty? None other than Reagan himself.
Myth number two is that George W. Bush almost destroyed the conservative movement, first by running as a bleeding heart or “compassionate conservative” and then by spending too much once he was in office, trashing the brands of the cause and the party, and leading to setbacks in 2006 and 2008. But in 2000 he ran as a compassionate conservative because the original kind had worn out its welcome. Clinton’s triangulation had pushed politics back to the center, the economy was booming, and aggressive cost-cutting was not in vogue. In fact, it might have been a distinct liability. As National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru has pointed out, “Republicans were more popular in Bush’s first term, when they were expanding entitlements, than in his second term, when they were trying to reform one. . . . His expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs . . . was overwhelmingly popular. . . . It’s hard to believe that Bush would have won Florida in 2000 without promising to match the Democrats on the issue, or that he would have won Ohio in 2004 without having made good on the promise.”
Spending was not an issue in the 2006 or 2008 elections, and did not become one until later, when Barack Obama’s tripling of the debt and expansion of government forced it front and center, and the collapse of the eurozone made it clear that the welfare state as known in the West was approaching the end of its tether. The GOP took a pounding in the 2006 midterms, but largely because of Mark Foley, Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Hurricane Katrina, and the fact that 2006 was the worst year, and October 2006 the worst month, in Iraq since the war started. The party took a bath again in 2008 because Lehman Brothers collapsed in September, almost bringing down the Western financial system with it—an event traceable less to Bush in particular than to both parties’ connivance in the housing bubble, a disaster that no party in power could have hoped to survive.
[......]
Myth number three is the belief that McCain ran and lost in 2008 as a moderate, failing as promised to win independents, and losing an election a conservative should have been able to win. But in fact he did a remarkable job in a difficult year—people were war-weary, and all parties have trouble holding the White House for more than two terms in succession—drawing close to Obama through most of the summer, and pulling ahead with independents in early September, before the financial implosion kicked in. At the time of the financial implosion on September 15, McCain was leading in all the key swing states (some of which Bush had lost in both his elections) and among swing voters, who were moving in his direction. But after the economic crisis, he quickly lost ground and never regained it, losing independents by 8 points, and losing most of the states that had been in his column, including some that had not gone Democratic in years. Most of the losses came in states which had large cities surrounded by large, wealthy suburbs, in which real estate values and stock market holdings had fallen most sharply, suggesting that circumstances and not ideology were a key driver.
To conservatives, this proved that Republicans should never nominate anything less than a true-blue believer, but it may prove only that having a financial meltdown less than two months before an election when you hold the White House is really bad planning. And who really believes that they can hold power forever, when history shows us that control of the White House tends to turn over in fairly regular swings?
Myth number four is that moderates are losers, going back to the election of 1948, when northeastern moderate Thomas E. Dewey was chosen over Robert A. Taft to face Franklin Roosevelt and then Harry Truman, and lost. But there is no reason to think that Taft would have done any better, and a look at history after this happened suggests that this theory is wrong. In the next two elections Dwight Eisenhower won twice as an Eisenhower Republican (in other words, as a moderate) and became very popular; Richard Nixon won twice and governed to the left of John Kennedy; Ronald Reagan of course won twice as a Reagan conservative (i.e., as a real one); George H.W. Bush won once and lost once as an establishmentarian; and George W. Bush won twice as, according to Democrats, a ferocious right-winger, according to his friends, a compassionate conservative, and to his foes in his party, a big-spending, big-government squish. Around and between them, Nixon lost once as Ike’s heir and vice president, Barry Goldwater lost as an ultra-conservative, Gerald Ford lost as a moderate (and victim of Watergate), Bob Dole lost as a sort of acerbic Main Street Republican, and John McCain lost as a maverick in a star-crossed and difficult year.
So, keeping score, Reagan won two landslides as a movement conservative, but nonconservatives managed to win seven times, with Eisenhower, Nixon, and George W. Bush being elected to two terms apiece, and Bush the elder elected to one. The right holds up Reagan’s two landslides as proof that conservatism is electoral magic, but the fact remains that in all of our history he is the only movement conservative to have been crowned with success on the national scene. And he was in some ways an anomaly, having been a celebrity before running for office and an ex-liberal, who voted four times for Franklin D. Roosevelt and used New Deal language in making his case. He was also a monster political talent (as had been Roosevelt), succeeding a failed president of the opposite party at a time when the failures of the other side’s theories had painfully come to the fore.
Seeing election results through the ideological lens flattens out and omits other dimensions, whose role in the outcomes is equally great. Circumstance matters: In 1964, the country was still in the shadow of Kennedy’s murder; 1968 was roiled by violence; in 1976 Ford carried the anvil of Watergate; and 1964 and 1972 each featured candidates whose ideas were so far removed from the national mainstream that two of the least pleasant figures in history won epic landslides (and then lost favor not long after that). In more normal years, the edge goes to the larger political talent, who understands the fine points of coalition assembly, and excels at the art of rapport. Eisenhower was a better campaigner than Adlai E. Stevenson; Kennedy was better at connect-and-inspire than Nixon; Reagan much more so than Carter or Mondale; George H.W. Bush was more so than Michael Dukakis, though neither excelled. And he was less so than Bill Clinton, one of the more extravagant natural talents, who also was better than Dole. Barack Obama was a brilliant natural candidate (whatever one thinks of his tenure as president), whose hope and change mantra (and lack of specifics) put away two more-battleworn veterans, his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, and of course John McCain.
If there is one guarantor of conservative triumph, it appears to be liberal failure or overreach: Jimmy Carter plus the Great Society blues paved the way for the two Reagan landslides; Bill Clinton’s first two years’ overreach (and failure of health care) for the 1994 Congress; Obama’s first two years’ overreach (and the passage of health care) for the Tea Party Congress of 2010. The next time a movement conservative rails against Dole or McCain for having lost as a “moderate,” he ought to be asked to name a contemporary conservative he thinks could have won against talents such as Obama and Clinton in circumstances that favored the Democrats. Many conservatives ran against both men, and failed to convince even a Republican primary audience of their superior theories and gifts.
[......]
That “they” managed to do this was declared with assurance, though the mechanics of how this was managed were never described. Did “they” first discourage all of the stronger conservatives? Did they go to all the non-Romneys early last year, and, knowing that each had a following and yet was too weak to dominate the others, convince them their moment was now? And once all were in, how was a proper balance maintained? If one were too strong, he would dominate, and become a genuine threat and contender. If some were too weak, they would be forced to drop out, or cease to drain the right number of votes from the others. This had to be handled with infinite cunning: A false move made in either direction and the entire grand scheme would implode.
It’s one thing to say this dynamic has helped Romney—it has—or that it’s what he would do if he did have the power—he undoubtedly would—and another thing entirely to say that he does have the power, and did. As Jim Geraghty notes, movement conservatives tend to believe that their base is larger than that of the moderates (as well as more virtuous) and that their ideas are more popular; hence defeat in a fair fight is not possible. Thus if they lose, the fight must not be fair, and there must be a reason. If no reason seems clear, then one must be invented. Hence the belief in strange plots.
Hence the belief that an establishment, as opposed to mere voters, must have foisted Dole, McCain, and Bush père et fils on a helpless Republican party, and now plans to do this again. But this is a whole lot of foisting, and bypasses two critical things. One is that there is no evidence of any foisting since 1968, when Democratic insiders gave their nomination to Hubert H. Humphrey after the murder of Robert F. Kennedy, a show of muscle and arrogance that led to changes in both major parties that have made it next to impossible for anyone to do the same again. Since then, potential nominees have foisted themselves on the voters, often to the dismay of their party leaders, flooding the zone with eccentric, unlikely, and vanity candidacies, and leaving it to voters to sort the wheat from the chaff. Party elites, who would give all their teeth for the chance to foist anything, have been forced to gesticulate from the sidelines, while Howard Dean, Herman Cain, Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, and Pats Buchanan and Robertson disported themselves in the main arena. What’s a poor foister to do?
Not much apparently, as shown by the story thus far. For months on end, “establishment” figures have busted their guts trying to push other establishment figures, many of them well to the right of Mitt Romney, by hook or crook into the race. In fact, a field picked by the Republican establishment would probably be more conservative than the one that we have, featuring the likes of John Thune, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, and Tea Party star Marco Rubio, as well as entitlement-cutter Chris Christie. And the GOP “establishment” is not what it was. In South Carolina, the establishment is Jim DeMint, Tim Scott, and Nikki Haley, all Tea Party figures. None did a thing to stop Romney, and Haley endorsed him. In Florida, Marco Rubio, a true-blue conservative and a Tea Party hero, a protégé of Jeb Bush (from the establishment), did not endorse anyone, but made himself useful to Romney. If you can’t tell the players without a scorecard, you frequently can’t tell the teams either, as they keep changing and trading players and sides. This makes it incredibly hard to sustain a conspiracy.
Read the rest here: Tales of Woe
Tags: Bill Clinton, Herman Cain, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Noemie Emery, Rick Perry
Reagan’s biggest mistake was picking Poppy Bush for VP and supporting him over Kemp in 88. This one decision is why the GOP is dysfunctional.
This is all well and good, but why Romney?
Personally, I HATE the GOP, and that’s probably where most of my disagreements with others stems from.
It’s not so much that the GOP’s blessing of Romney, but their adamant refusal to consider running someone with a least a little cred with the grassroots. If not Romney, they say, they will insert Jeb Bush.
WTF?
To continue to pretend that the grassroots are just a bunch of populist amateurs that have no idea what they’re talking about, and that their refusal of Romney is “RINO Derangement Syndrome” is laughable.
I could just as easily make the case that the establishment is suffering from “Tea Party Derangement Syndrome.”
What good is winning elections if your candidate doesn’t at least somewhat represent your views? If that’s truly an immobile political reality, then the country is screwed because the GOP truly IS a permanent “opposition party”.
I refuse to accept that, just as I refuse to accept that the GOP MUST be our only path. My loyalty consists of my registration card, and not beyond.
Now, the argument could be made : “Who am I? I’m just some guy on a blog talking out of my ass.” But apparently there are enough of “me” that the GOP are scared (are they capable of anything else?).
which is the exact reason why questions along these lines are all that is asked. The MSM understands this, and as such, we can expect that unless we bring the record to the forefront, it’ll remain hidden from view.
No one has brought us school prayer but you. And you are probably going to get what you want. Romney is probably going to be the nominee, and when he loses, yes, I will say “I told you so”…
@ Flyovercountry:
I’m laughing at how the media is all in a twist over high oil prices.
When Bush was President, it was bad. With Obama its good.
Once it gets close to 5, people will finally turn on the American Pharaoh.
@ Iron Fist:
Personally I think Romney is a fall guy. The elites want Jeb so they are pushing Romney to lose in 2012 and they can get Jeb in 2016.
@ Iron Fist:
My goal is to deny the GOP their Mittens.
I’m angry, but not deranged.
I’ve given the GOP every opportunity to show me that they’re serious about conservatism, and my ears are still open, but they avoid it like the plague. Consistently. It’s a pattern. I honestly don’t think I’m being rash, which the term “derangement” suggests.
Has anyone noticed that Romney is keeping the Tea Party at barge-pole arm’s length?
just sayin’
ok, morning break over, back to work
@ Flyovercountry:
Economists are predicting this will be a boom year despite high oil prices!
Rodan wrote:
Not that it matters but Nancy Reagan always thought that picking GHWB was a mistake.
Flyovercountry wrote:
The way you handle them is like this
Senator Santorum what is your position on contraception?
Mr. Stephanapolous it is none of your business.
@ Speranza:
It was a huge mistake. That’s why the GOP is in its current mess. The Bush family ruined what Reagan was trying to build.
Bumr50 wrote:
That is actually the easier case because it happens to be true. And I’ll argue that eityher Santorum or Gingrich stands a better chance of winning this November than the supposedly “electible” Romney. It’ll be hard going no matter whom we run, but Romney has only harsh words for the base, and nothing but sweetness and light towards the real enemy. And there are persistant rumors that he’ll pick Leftist Republican Chris Christie as his running mate. I won’t vote for that ticket. No way I’ll pull the lever for Chris Christie. His stance on gun control and Islam are two strong reasons to vote against him.
Iron Fist wrote:
Yeah because Santorum who got creamed by 18% is the guy whom the country wants to turn its lonely eyes to.
Rodan wrote:
His “voodoo economics” comment turned me off to him.
eaglesoars wrote:
Exactly! Romney has done zero to reach out to the Republican base. He figures he can win it based on the Establishment’s backing alone. One thing the author fails to note is that the Establishment backed all of the losers she brings up over their more conservative counterparts. Kemp would have likely been a two term President, so who would have done better in 1996 is academic. Who would have been Kemp’s VP? It changes the whole picture. Rodan is right. Picking Bush I as his VP was the worst mistake Ronald Reagan made in his term of office. He might have had no choice for his first term, but he should have replaced him for his second term.
@ Iron Fist:
Gingrich I agree with you on. Santorum is not liked by Economic/Fiscal Conservatives because of his Economic Liberalism. If he’s the nominee, many will vote for for the Libertarians.
@ Bumr50:
The big lie that the Tea Party is just a bunch
of extremists ready to get violent at any moment,
has been told over & over.
Even people who are generally supportive think that
they have to control their extremist elements.
Who & where are these extremists?
@ Iron Fist:
Jack Kemp would have been good.
@ Speranza:
He would do better than Romney. He might even win it. At least he’s willing to run against Obama. Romney won’t. He’s too busy saying what a swell guy Obama is.
Iron Fist wrote:
I completely disagree. He is a total turn off to too many people and he comes off as a self righteous, whiny, sanctimonious, sour puss of a kill joy.
@ Rodan:
The Libertarians are never going to be more than a fringe party. 1-2% might vote for who is it? Gary Johnson? I don’t even know the guy’s name, but 1-2% might vote for him. Yes, if it is as close as I expect it to be that could be enough to turn it, but you must not mistake Ron Paul’s numbers for real votes. Many, perhaps most of those voters will pull the lever for Obama in the General Election. They are voting Paul to send a message, and to stick a finger in the eye of the Republicans.
@ RIX:
Well The Tea Party has a bad image because some people with a different agenda hijacked movement and it turned alot of people off.
@ Iron Fist:
Its not about Ron Paul. I know many Economic Cons who told me that if its Santorum, they vote Libertarian in protest. It will be like 92, when Economic Cons broke off and went for Perot. I know there was a Gun issue as well back then.
Santorum is a bridge too far for many.
If Santorum is the nominee, The Libertarians will get 15%.
@ Speranza:
If Santorum is the nominee, it will be like 92 again. Economic/Fiscal Conservatives will break off and go 3rd Party.
I hope there are some Michiganders keeping a close eye on their State GOP officials.
In the last tight race in Maine, their GOP committed election fraud.
Replace the names with A, B, C, and D, and it becomes elementary.
@ Rodan:
Then they are effectively voting for Obama. I don’t think it will be in numbers approaching what you are talking about. I know this: Romney will not win. Where this campaign will likely be decided is in which side can turn out their base better. Obama is the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT. Do not underestimate this fact when considering how his base will turn out. Blacks will come out in droves for him, as will white Liberals. If we have a nominee who doesn’t excite the base, they won’t vote for someone else, but they won’t bother to vote at all. That will be just as devistating to our side. Look, I’d rather Gingrich was the nominee, but he isn’t pulling the crowds. He has one more shot, Tuesday-week. If he can’t rack up some serious wins on Super Tuesday, he is done. Then it is either Santorum or Romney. What I am hearing you say is that either way we are fucked. Get used to four more years of Barack Hussein Obama.
@ Rodan:
It’s already $5 for premium in L.A. Like I said – we have a luscious soundbite of “I have no problem with gasoline costing $5 a gallon” and the “under my plan, energy costs will necessarily skyrocket.”
Man, that so going to come back and bite that charletan in the ass.
Rodan wrote:
Too many people tried to bootstrap onto it.
But, anybody who goes to one of their rallys
will not feel surrounded by extremists,
This is Democrat astroturfing,
@ Iron Fist:
The GOP ALLOWED us to have Gingrich and Santorum to run against Romney, by virtue of ignoring them for most of the primary season.
They’re both “target rich” for the MSM.
Anybody but Romney.
@ Rodan:
This one decision is why the GOP is dysfunctional.
I think the GOP is dysfunctional due to their choices of action, or lack there of, and rejection of conservatism and not a dead President’s choice of VP 32 years ago, but to each his own.
@ Buckeye Abroad:
They’ll take the conservative’s votes, but they have no intention whatsoever of delivering any policy victories to them. Mitt Romney is at least honest about this. He’ll take the conservative’s votes, but he rejects the conservative base entirely. I think the Republicans are flirting with ditching even the sembalence of a conservative Party, to become something like the Torries in Britain. Yeah, that’ll probably guarantee them a permanent place as the “opposition”, but I am convinced that some of them consider that to be a feature of the strategy, and not a bug at all.
@ Iron Fist:
That and he has a cult of personality. We are dealing with a quasi religious movement here.
@ Buckeye Abroad:
But the Bush family lead to this. They used Social Conservative rhetoric to please Conservatives, while pursuing a Liberal economic agenda. If Reagan had picked someone else, we have all these Bush cronies running the GOP.
@ RIX:
When Michelle Bachmann declared with the assistance of the nemdia the leader of the Tea Party, that turned off alot of people. She’s very nasty and angry.
@ Iron Fist:
Mitt Romney is at least honest about this. He’ll take the conservative’s votes, but he rejects the conservative base entirely.
If that’s true then it doesn’t really matter as Mitt will simply try to manage the decline as his and Barry’s policies flop and the country dissolves. The outcome won’t change.
@ Iron Fist:
They hate the TEA Party until they need them. Earlier in the campaign Romney talked how he was the real TEA Party candidate. Of course those of us in the movement went “huh.”
I’m not too happy about these self-proclaimed TEA Party “leaders” coming forth and endorsing people. The whole idea behind the TEA Party movement was the idea that it was “citizen activists” coming together to express their opinion toward a common goal. There are some who have tried to catapault themselves into leadership roles or which the media tried to cast as “leaders.” There are local organizers, of course, but I do not take my marching orders on opinion from anyone. And that includes the Koch Brothers. What did they do? They created an organization called “Americans for Prosperity” and now suddenly they are financing a grass-roots movement. Well, I’m still waiting for my check for gas to get to the rally.
The GOP Ruling Elite may mistakenly believe that the TEA Party has essentially dissolved and is not a force to be reckoned with in the election. They’ll be back rallying in the summer, dudes. We have jobs and we have enough sense to stay out of the cold weather and the rain. When the rallies start up again, the RINOs will be attending them, begging for our support, and the GOP will be telling us how much they need us to give them back Congress.
@ Carolina Girl:
It didn’t help that Michelle Bachmann declared herself the leader of teh Tea Party.
Rodan wrote:
Yes, he would have brought along the Football Vote!
@ Buckeye Abroad:
That is essentially what I see him wanting to do. He’ll spend about 87% as much as Obama, meaning the US will be bankrupt 13% slower. If that isn’t “managing the decline” I don’t know what is. We don’t have the option of picking a perfect candidate here. No on eperfect ran. Everybody has some negatives. Even Reagan had some negatives, especially when he was running for that first go-round. I am beginning to question whether we can win or not at all, which would no doubt warm Obama’s cold little heart if he knew it. We may win the Senate back, but to what end? There are enough sell-outs in the Senate that Obama won’t hhave to worry about any of his executive orders being overturned. That leaves the Supreme Court as our only shield against the Depredations of the Obama Administration, and that is a scant shield indeed.
@ Macker:
You know he played with OJ Simpson?
@ Rodan:
If Reagan had picked someone else, we have all these Bush cronies running the GOP.
Well, the Bush family had its hooks in politics despite Reagan, so I think the would have still entered the US political scene along the way. I think life is a bit more complex than laying the blame, and interests, on one family’s feet. Not sure if a Goldwater/ Reagan candidate would ever make it through the primaries these days.
I think American conservatives will be fighting a rear gaurd action till judgement day and we’ll be mocked, derided and hated every step of the way.
Rodan wrote:
That would guarantee Obummer another 4 terms. Unless Luap Nor is the nominee we better get behind whomever wins the GOP nomination.
@ Rodan:
But of course!
Rodan wrote:
That’s a fact. The whole attraction of the Tea party
is that they are organic.
@ Speranza:
Romney is more disgusting to me than Santorum.
I’ll vote for either, but will never, ever, “support” or “get behind” him.
@ Buckeye Abroad:
You’re right. Reagan or Goldwater would be considered too Conservative for today’s GOP. Most Republican voters want a nanny state. They just disagree with the Democrats on what that nanny state should be.
@ Speranza:
I’m just telling what will happen. It will be like 92. Santorum will run on a culture war like Poppy Bush did and it will turn off many Economic Conservatives. Someone will fill the void and 15% will break with the GOP.
Obama gets re-elected under any scenario, but its better a 3rd Party hold him under 50% of the vote.
Santorum guarantees a 3rd Party.
@ Bumr50:
Romney and Santorum both represent what I hate about today’s GOP.
@ Carolina Girl:
That’s exactly right & that is why the Tea party
is so effective.
Pols try to alterantely use & then run away from the
association with the Tea Party.
@ Rodan:
If I can vote for Romney, you can vote for Santorum.
Third party is idiotic. A protest against an entity that doesn’t give a crap about you.
I HATE Mitt Romney but will vote for him in the general. The time for a third party is after the election, starting at lower offices.
@ Rodan:
No it didn’t. She based all of that on the fact that she was able to rally something like 5,000 people on 3 days’ notice to come to the Capitol to protest the potential passage of Obamacare.
What was totally lost on her was the fact that Mark Levin had agreed to speak at the rally. It was Levin that was the draw. Not Bachmann. And she should have known better.
@ Carolina Girl:
To me Pat Toomey and Allen West represent the Tea Party. Bachmann is an opportunist.
@ Bumr50:
Santorum is another Bush. No thanks, I’m sick of Compassionate Conservatism aka Religious Progressivism.
Bumr50 wrote:
Exactly. Hell, you don’t even need a third party. Just do as the Tea PArty did in the 2010 election. If they can repeat their performance in the 2012 election, we will have something capable of slowly turning the ship of state. I should note that the Founders wanted everything about our government to be difficult. Quick fixes are rarely good solutions. It is hard to change America. The Left has been working on this for 100 years.
Rodan wrote:
Hell, Rodan, Reagan was considered too conservative for them back in 1980. They had resigned to losing the election to Carter, if I recall correctly. Heck, Carter was still polling positives up to about two days before the election.
It’s funny . . . but I think this time polling may be more skewed in Obama’s favor than it actually is. No one wants to say anything against him where others might hear or there might be follow up “why don’t you like him?” questions that will “hint” at racism.
But get in that voting booth, with no one looking over your shoulder, and anything can happen. After all, ask around these days to people my age and I’m shocked that McGovern lost the election, because I can’t find anyone other than me that voted for Nixon.
Rodan wrote:
I told Speranza in an email convo we’re having that I don’t like Santorum preaching to me any more than I like Fat Ass waving arugala in my face.
Iron Fist wrote:
THIS is why Обама keeps stating “America Can’t Wait”….
@ Carolina Girl:
Maybe it is me, but I haven’t noticed that Santorum is particularly preachy. Yes, he is an unashamed Catholic, but nothing more than that. At the same time, I noticed that Barack Obama has declared war on the Christian faith in America and on Catholicism in particular. While busily appologizing to any Mohammedan wh o will listen that Aemrica isn’t a Shari’ia State. We’ll see if he prosecutes some soldiers for burning trash in Afghanistan. That’d make a nice campaign issue, if we have a candidate who is willing to use it.
@ Carolina Girl:
Santorum should run for Pope. He would be the greatest Pope in my opinion. He’s in the wrong profession.
@ Iron Fist:
His reputation, much of his own making, is allowing him to be portrayed as “preaching” when in fact he hasn’t been RECENTLY.
I don’t like his SoCon stances, but I’ll vote for him six times before I vote for Romney once.
The GOP must experience a comeuppance at the ballot box, because it’s the only place they listen.
I by no means LIKE Rick Santorum, but Mittens has been anointed by the establishment.
And that makes all the difference in world to me this cycle.
@ Bumr50:
I am not thrilled by any of our top candidates. I wasn’t especially happy with the field to begin with. But you go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like to have. Santorum is better than Romney. I’d have preferred Gingrich, but he isn’t pulling in the numbers. I’d have preferred Rick Perry, but he shot himself in the foot on immigration and never recovered. He wasn’t ready for prime time.
OT- Not sure what’s up with all of the specific “demon” references from the Left, but it can’t be good.
Something to do with the morons who still aren’t sure whether or not to vote for Barry?
@ Iron Fist:
To my observations, I don’t think Rick Perry’s heart was in it completely enough to compete.
I don’t think he WANTED it enough.
@ Iron Fist:
Well, I may have utilized the wrong word with “preachy.” There’s a whiff of “holier than thou” that I get that I find off-putting. If he’s the nominee I would have no trouble voting for him, but I don’t know, it’s a squish reaction I get.
I dunno what it is with this election, Fist, but I want to be excited, enthusiastic. I want to feel like I did in 1980 when I was at the polling place at 7:30 a.m. to vote for Reagan.
Dear GOP – for the love of all that’s holy – don’t you GET it? We want to vote FOR someone – all you’re providing us at this point is an individual we vote for because it affords us the opportunity to vote AGAINST someone else. And that isn’t going to make people grab their car keys and head for the voting booth.
@ Iron Fist:
He probably will do it and the media will cheer!
@ Carolina Girl:
The only Republicans I have voted FOR were Rudy Giuliani as Mayor of NY in 93 and 97, Marco Rubio in 2010. At the Presidential level, the only one I voted FOR was Ross Perot in 96. Other than that, all my voted have been against and not for.
Carolina Girl wrote:
The problem is that they DO get it, but reject it.
The 2010 midterm gave them the perfect open door to walk through to at least begin to move towards the base. They not only didn’t go through the door, they slammed it shut.
@ Bumr50:
The GOP elites have an ulterior agenda.
Carolina Girl wrote:
That appears to be Romney’s strategy. He is trying to make Santorum and Gingrich unappealing enough that no one wants to vote for them, and then hopes they’ll go vote anyway and pull the lever for him. That may be sufficient to win him the nomination, but I don’t think that’ll work in the general election at all. People will just stay home, because Obama will give more than he gets when it comes to the nasty campaigning.
Like you, I want to vote for someone, but this doesn’t appear to be the election for it. The best we can hope for is a good choice to vote against Obama with. Santorum beats Romney in this race. I don’t know if he can win, though, but I am certain that Romney can’t.
Rodan wrote:
FIFY!
@ Bob in Breckenridge:
Thanks for that. This whole Obama Boom thing is BS! Hey did you see my special report? Allen Dershowitz is declaring war on media matters!
@ Iron Fist:
Look no Republican has a chance. Charles Johnson will ensure the Republicans lose. Just ask Doug Hoffman in NY-23!
@ Rodan:
One of the things I have against Gingrich was his endorsing that RINO bitch in NY-23. That, his tounging Pelosie Galore on the couch, his comments about the Ryan budget, hell, a number of issues, but I’d rather vote for him than vote for Romney. And I’ll use either of them to vote against Barrack Obama if it comes down to it.
@ Iron Fist:
The Ging is way too undisciplined.
Carolina Girl wrote:
He will not play well with the rest of the country.
I’m probably going to vote for “Pope” Santorum tomorrow in the AZ primary, as ours is winner take all and Pope Ricky the First is running a close second to Mittens… Gingrich isn’t even close the local polling.
Iron Fist wrote:
Look its not Newt’s fault. He was up against the Charles Johnson LGF machine. The GOP would have won bigger if Charles Johnson didn’t intervene and prevent the losses of an addition 2 Senate Seats and 15 House seats. The Democrats owe Charles Johnson big time!
@ The Osprey:
Charles Johnson and the LGF machine did him in. Don’t cross Chucky!
Rodan wrote:
A lot of good that’ll do. They’ll just pull an Acorn….
Speranza, do you really think we should vote for Mittens?
Not being snarky… Serious question. I was hoping I would not be as agonized over primary decision as I was in 2008, but here we go again…
Rodan wrote:
Not much of an aging ponytailed hippie bit in AZ except for certain
districts in Tucson and Flagstaff.
Rodan wrote:
How those Soros- funded lib hitmen that do nothing but attack conservatives and the GOP, but is supposedly non-partisan, so they’re not taxed, is a scandal in and of itself. It’s a fuckin’ joke.
@ Speranza:
True, but I would LOVE to see him take on Bummer in a debate strictly on the issues.
And that’s another thing. Once we are out of silly season and heading into the general, every debate needs to have one conservative member of the panel. And I don’t mean Frum or Parker or any other squish republican. And they should be on CSPAN. And Jerkweed doesn’t get to hand pick the crowd. 50% of seats to the Republican candidate. I’d like to see how he feels when he’s in front of a audience that isn’t pre-selected to treat him like the greatest thing since oleo in cubes.
@ The Osprey:
he really thinks he influences elections.
@ Macker:
Is someone really minting silver Quatloos, Macker or is that just a made up image?
@ Bob in Breckenridge:
Their status should be revoked.
@ Carolina Girl:
Charles Johnson will want questions asked on evolution!!!!!!
@ The Osprey:
I borrowed it from elsewhere. Just in good jest! I have the obverse side too!
Macker wrote:
Is someone actually minting those things?
@ The Osprey:
No, they were only rendered from what I can tell.
Macker wrote:
Ah. Someone should mint a Ronulan Quatloo with an image of Praetor Paul on it.
Rodan wrote:
He is a regular Clarence Darrow.
Only Dumbass Johnson cares about evolution/creationism crap. The rest of us just care about our jobs.
@ Speranza:
He thinks that the world revolves around him.
Rodan wrote:
He is a regular King maker. //
@ Speranza:
Well he has no hope of getting a job.
The Osprey wrote:
If the choice is between Obama v. Mittens yes. I don’t care who you vote for in a primary.
Rodan wrote:
He is virtually unemployable.
I wonder what selrahC in his heart of hearts really thinks about his posters at LGF.
@ Speranza:
He probably couldn’t get a job at Walmart.
@ Speranza:
he views them as subservient minions.
Interesting poll. It doesn’t speak well for Gingrich’s chances, but, then, it isn’t good for Romney, either…
New Thread.
Rodan wrote:
He thinks of them the same way Jim Jones thought of his followers.
If the GOP race winds up going to a brokered convention, with the intent of parachuting Jeb Bush into the nomination, as has been suggested, perhaps Sarah Palin can put a check on that.
She could come out and declare that if the convention does not select a nominee acceptable to the GOP base, i.e. some kind of a conservative, she will run third party. Give then fair warning, that if they nominate a squish, they’re going down. Because if they nominate a squish, they are probably going down, anyway.
What’s the difference between Romney losing 51 – 49, and Bush losing 51-25-24?
Conversely, if SP endorses either Santorum or Gingrich at a brokered convention, that should carry a lot of clout, if the GOP are genuinely worried that Obama can’t be beaten easily.
Rodan wrote:
Problem is he is married and the Pope has to die and it’s the Cardinals that vote who will be the next Pope. No election process!
