Powered by TypePad

« Fitness Buffs Clutch Their Hearts | Main | CNN Joins The Choom Gang »

August 07, 2013

Comments

Some Guy

Suppose the party bigwigs had backed more conservative challengers like Toomey back in '04, or Laffey vs. Chafee in '06, or any of dozens of other examples where squishy incumbents were supported over challengers

That’s because the only organized or cohesive portion of the GOP is DC-centric. It’s all self-preservation and maintaining the status quo.

Ironically, any GOP presidential candidate that has spent significant time in DC will lose, and therein lies the disconnect. What little ‘leadership’ or ‘organization’ that does exist, is part of the problem not the solution.


Sidenote - Why did ANYONE in the GOP support Spector after his 'I vote Haggis' charade?

derwill


Sadly, given the state of the MSM, and the fact that so many voters can't think anymore, but only "feel", but I'm afraid the only GOP candidate who might be able to overcome "it's a woman's turn" meme is someone who is younger than Hillary and ethnic--like Rubio (I know, I know) or Cruz. Or better yet, Susan Martinez--being a woman as well younger and ethnic.. Maybe Nikki Haley and Jindal, but I'm not sure their kind of ethnicity would "count."

Susan Martinez doesn't seem to be running, though. But it is early days yet.

Atrollpasinthru

In 2008, the whole world held its breath and waited for old Mr. Magoo to simply tell them the reasons why a Republican candidate was the only one qualified to be POTUS. But, inexplicably, he kept his reasons a secret even from his VP choice.

By 2012, the whole world already knew the answers to their questions, only to find that, like old Mr. Magoo, Romney preferred to answer questions which weren't even asked, or to be secretive about his answers, or to simply digress.

Threadkiller

If a voter is looking for a political party that represents his gender/race/age bias when it comes to who will secure his vote, what can the GOP offer that the Dems haven't already covered?

Janet

I would add that I'd rather lose with a principled candidate (like Goldwater in '64) than lose by a slightly smaller margin with someone who won't fight for those principles but will try to be more like a Democrat.

Amen to this from jimmyk. Then there is "truth" to come back to after things fall apart with the lib ideas.

Annoying Old Guy

jimmyk;

Isn't Sarah Palin the best example of your thesis? I think she would have crushed Obama in 2012 had the GOP supported her during the 2008 campaign and afterwards. Instead they tossed one (if not the) brightest star in the last couple of decades to the wolves, some of them with active glee. McCain and crew gave up the moment she wasn't pure profit (that is, they have had to make an actual effort on her behalf). No investment, no payoff.

narciso

With her, the edited out the context, for him they 'revised and extended;


http://twitchy.com/2013/08/08/lapdogs-fess-up-ap-admits-wrongly-inserting-words-to-fix-obama-gaffe/

Frau Venus von Willendorf

Janet, you have no idea how correct you are about the Sierra Club.

jimmyk

I agree, AOG. She didn't play by the book, and the establishment felt it "wouldn't be prudent." Whether a candidate or not, she's a valuable asset who is consigned to the sidelines.

Myp2p Myp2p

Hey there just wanted to give you a quick heads up.
The words in your content seem to be running off the
screen in Opera. I'm not sure if this is a formatting issue or something to do with browser compatibility but I figured I'd post to let you know.
The layout look great though! Hope you get the problem resolved soon.
Cheers

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame