Posted on 03/09/2019 7:34:10 AM PST by Monrose72
Roy Moore said he is "seriously considering" a 2020 rematch against the current incumbent Alabama senator. The fiery and controversial candidate, who became the first Republican to lose a U.S. Senate race in Alabama in 21 years for his defeat by now-Sen. Doug Jones, a Democrat, says that he is open to the idea of running for the GOP's nomination again. “I’m seriously considering it. I think that was stolen,” Moore said of the race during a Friday interview.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Isn't that what they did in 2017?
The candidate they desired is named Doug Jones.
No, they're not.
Kavanaugh has been a fixture in the D.C. Republican establishment for decades. There was no way the GOP was going to let that nomination fail.
His nomination to the D.C. Court of Appeals was held up for more than three years by Democrats in the U.S. Senate. The fact that he let that process play out for THREE YEARS tells you that he wasn't going to walk away from a U.S. Supreme Court nomination.
I kind of agree. The Rats are a far more disciplined bunch when it comes to party loyalty. They never take their eyes off the prize - holding office & power.
Agree!
He’s just trying to raise money to pay off the last fiasco.
As I stated before, I don’t know much about him other than the fact that he was tossed off the court and what happened during the campaign. Whether he has no charisma, no appeal outside of his base, hasn’t demonstrated any knowledge of the legislative process or would have shown up on a regular basis, I’m just saying that if the President of the United States needed a reliable, Yes, on votes in the Senate, he’d get one, IMHO.
The President doesn’t get that with Jones.
Jones is keeping a low profile until the next election. He’s playing it safe, just trying to get sent back there. If he does, he will not hold back, because he’ll have 6 years to turn the place upside down.
I think it’s presumptuous for you to assume that anyone in Alabama was “fooled” in 2017. It’s probably more likely that they knew exactly what he was all about ... and more than 600,000 of them who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 couldn’t be motivated to even walk across the street to vote for the guy.
In electoral politics, there is a thing called “loser”.
You can nominate a leftist. You can nominate a neocon. You can nominate an economic or social conservative.
But never nominate a proven loser.
People will vote for candidates they perceive as winners. They have no interest in supporting awful candidates who are losers. Nobody had to be fooled into recognizing Roy Moore as an unappealing loser.
Mo Brooks called for Mitch McConnell’s ouster as Senate majority leader, and called him “head of the swamp”. That must have pissed off McConnell, who threw all of his support to Strange in the primary and then the runoff.
Trump’s endorsement of Strange was not a good decision on his part, but he was dependent on McConnell’s cooperation to move his agenda forward and as you say, Strange was a reliable vote. I’d say that was a “rock and a hard place” situation.
But to say that without Moore in the primary, Mo Brooks would have won is pure 20-20 hindsight speculation. Brooks couldn’t muster even 20% of the vote. Strange and Brooks would have split Moore’s vote, but it’s practically impossible to know with any certainty how that split would have gone.
We do know that McConnell threatened an ethics investigation if Moore had won. What would he have done if Brooks had been the nominee? Would he have withheld party support as he did with Moore? And if Brooks had won against Jones, what would he have done?
And what would the Rats have thrown against Strange if he was the nominee? You can be damn sure they would have made an issue of the slimy way in which he oozed into the Senate. What else would they have come up with? Bimbo eruptions? Financial misdeeds?
We will probably never know, but we can be pretty certain they would have come up with something damaging what with the power of the compromised FBI working hard to dig up dirt, and to invent dirt if necessary.
Would that, along with the ever-growing problem of vote fraud, have been enough to give Jones the victory over Strange? That seems unlikely, but again, that’s impossible to know.
But if the Republicans can’t come up with someone better than EITHER Moore or Strange, they deserve to lose.
*****He’s been burning bridges with the GOP for years .*****
****Personally, I wonder if Roy Moore has been an establishment GOP tool for years. His only purpose in running in 2017 was to keep Mo Brooks from beating Luther Strange in the primary.*****
Jeez dude, show some integrity in your posting. You sound like a turd flinging monkey with no direction.
I love people who burn bridges with the GOP. They are nothing but a bunch of hypocritic thugs.
Trump endorsed Moore only after Moore won the GOP primary. Trump endorsed Luther Strange in the GOP primary.
You're right -- I forgot about that. That was a completely unnecessary blunder on Brooks' part, and Moore later doubled down on it in the runoff.
It's one thing to call for the ouster of a sitting party leader in the Senate when there's a credible challenge to his leadership, but in this case there wasn't even a hint of a challenge to McConnell from any other GOP senator. Why the hell would a Senate candidate antagonize a guy who was going to be his party's leader in the Senate for the foreseeable future?
The guy seems to serve no purpose at all.
We have a similar guy here in New Jersey named Steve Lonegan who runs in primaries every couple of years but never gets more than 30% of the vote. I'm always willing to support him, but it's hard to take him seriously when he's never won an election for any office higher than a local mayor.
No sale.
Roy, please no. I liked what you did as judge, but no, enjoy your life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.