Posted on 12/01/2008 9:54:02 AM PST by GOP_Lady
The Republican ticket that could have won ...
A look backward ... What if?
Posted by: Martin Knight
Friday, November 28, 2008 at 04:28PM CST
My view of most conventional wisdom, especially when it comes to politics, is that all too often, it is long on convention and woefully short on actual wisdom. One such is the constantly repeated conventional wisdom - particularly popular with liberal cocktail circuit chatterers and the "moderates" in the GOP that are forever trying to impress them - that there is a huge untapped "centrist" or "moderate" majority, distressed by the "bickering" in Congress, dismayed by all the "divisions" in politics, crying out for a return to the "civility", "moderation" and "Bipartisanship" of a bygone era. These voters, we are told, have been "turned off" by all the "rancor" and "controversy" which has made them "turn away in disgust" from politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
And that ticket would have been... who???
Just another..”we should have run Mitt” post...
I do wish Mitt didn’t give up so soon. He told us one day he’d stay in, and the next thing you know, he’s giving a concession speech.
Certainly he thought McLame would have selected him for VP, and while I love Sarah, I do think Romney would have brought gravitas to the ticket, especially with the economy turning the way it did.
Too bad - we’ll never know.
“Bipartisanship” of a bygone era
At least the Democrats of that era weren’t determined to destroy the country.
The ‘Progressives’ we face now come from the CPUSA and The SDS.
You don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
I have nothing in common with these ‘Progressives’.
Romney definitely looks better than McCain, who doesnt ???. But Romney may also have a problem being rich, looking like another country club establishment republican ala GWB. He looks and sounds conservative, but didnt GWB in 2000 and 2004? OK, Romneys WAY more articulate than GWB.
A more serious note: Our priorities First Georgia, next 2010 congress. The white house is not everything. Pelosi had the strategy to get everything 2006+2008.
Huckabee would have been a stronger candidate than both McCain and Romney...and I don’t like any of those three.
Huck might have been the strongest candidate—and worst president of those three. And I’m with you: I didn’t want any of them this time around, and I’ve not interest in Mitt or Huck in ‘12 either.
Just about anyone except McLame
We already know that Mitt on the ticket would have led to a bigger Obama landslide.
Exit polls show that many 2004 Bush voters didn’t show up, even with the excitement Palin brought to the ticket. The millions of votes she brought far outweigh the possible independent votes that Mitt may have attracted.
Romney was the only viable alternative. That said, I don’t think ANY Republican could have won given the situation.
And if the GOP continues to kid itself that Conservatives aren’t central to the party’s success, it will continue in 2010 and 2012.
When you have a race between a liberal and a mushy moderate, you only have one clear ‘message’ politically, from the liberal. Mods like McCain by definition cannot have a ‘clear message’ and as such you can’t win politically.
The only question is how many election cycles does the GOP have to lose before waking up to this rather basic observation.
On top of that, Mitt would never have picked Palin. Couldn’t stand the thought of somebody prettier than himself on the ticket.
Whomever would have won the Nomination instead of McCain surely would have started organizing their on the ground effort much, much, earlier then McCain did, by the time Sarah Palin was touring the country, Obamao had millions of volunteers already out and working.
I think Mitt would have done that, he has that sort of mind for it.
Thompson could have won, in my opinion, and I would have loved that. Huckabee could have won, and that would have been better than Obama by a wide margin. Romney had less of a chance than anyone save possibly Giuliani. The simple proof to this is that for all the money he spent, he could not win a primary, only a caucus where the money could buy the organization to win.
So instead you propose a race between a Liberal and a Liberal?
I think Fred was the best of the bunch. But he didn’t have much of a chance. And I doubt Hunter would have been able to win the election if he had somehow managed to break through and get nominated.
Would Mitt have been better than McCain? Not a whole lot. But he had his chance, he had plenty of publicity, he had plenty of money, he was the front runner for months, he had reasonably favorable press, and he just couldn’t do it.
If nothing else, the debacle of 2008 should help to clear the field of the crowd we had this time around. McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee - all are has-beens. Unfortunately, so are solid conservatives like Thompson and Hunter.
BUT.
The field is cleared (and I don't just mean nomination for the Presidency) for solid conservatives like Palin, Jindal, Sanford, Pence, Barbour, Steele, McClintock, McCotter, etc. The grassroots conservatives in the party need to retake the GOP and get behind the conservative leaders we have. We have a lot of solid conservatives out there - but we've let the RINOs run things for too long. Change that, and we'll see the party win again.
Maybe I should add to that that Romney had every chance to win, yet he lost. The same thing happened to McCain in 2000. He had the entire press on his side, he had huge exposure, yet he lost to Bush because he screwed up.
So the damned party elders thought he should have ANOTHER chance. It was his turn. Well, we see how that works out. He lost fair and square, he ran again, and he lost fair and square again. (I’m not saying Obama WON fair and square, but I’m afraid McCain was the guy most responsible for his losing—twice.
So, let’s not nominate Romney for a second run, just because it’s his turn. Eh? That is NOT a good idea.
I really don’t think any of the 2008 Republican contenders could have been elected. The people want Socialism by name now, not socialist-lite.
Losing to Obama is better than winning with Romney.
now I wish Romney won the nomination. He’d pick huckabee, they’d lose anyway and we’d have killed 2 birds with one stone.
all pointless.
the GOP had NO INFRASTRUCTURE.
no internet networking,
no satelite cable channel devoted to all candidate all the time.
no rapid response team to put out CONSRVATIVE points to counter nonsense.
we had nothing. It was sheer will power of conservatives that kept mccain from losing to an even higher clueless state.
Even now the MSM is pushing christine todd WHITLESS (!) as a counter to palin because the country club powers that be do not want small town america in their DC domain.
You could have at least included the proposed ticket in your excerpt.
“He lost again in 2008 running in Republican only primaries but won run running in open primaries.”
Wrong. McCain won nearly ALL of the Closed GOP primaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008
We had Bush. They had ‘history.’ How could we have hoped to win?
Romney could have won.Thompson could have won...if his heart was truly in it.
against Obama (Blessed is his name!) when the entire economy was tanking? come on. It was either checkmate in 10 moves or 2 and mccain/palin was checkmate in 10.
****I really don’t think any of the 2008 Republican contenders could have been elected. The people want Socialism by name now, not socialist-lite.****
Amen!
The stupid people want a combination of American Idol & Jerry Springer (Clinton) or Diddy & Denzel (Obi) - and the MSM spoonfeeds them to oblige. We have surrendered our children to decades of Hollywood fantasy, public school propagandists and largesse lard@ss politicians.
We are the stupid ones.
yeah you’re going to send a CEO from Massachusetts when so many were laid off or fear they are about to?
He would have had commanding performances in the debates (both in substance and delivery) and he has more courage of his conservative convictions. (Please recall that many superficial types ended up going for Marxist Obama simply because of his speaking ability.)
I know that Mitt has made some changes in his belief systems. (So have most of us, n'est ce pas?) At least he's gravitated toward OUR side of the aisle.
I'm still wondering whether Mister Huckabee may have worked to derail Mitt mainly because of religion-based spite. I'm not convinced, but I remain suspicious on this.
.
You have to read well into the article to get to the info.
I don’t think Thompson actually wanted the job.
No, I suggest next time the GOP run as a full blown opposition party to the Democrats, instead of trying to ‘meet them halfway’ as they did this time around.
Its never worked before, it didn’t work this time, and I assure you it won’t work in the future.
Give voters a clear choice. If its between a Conservative v Liberal, the Conservative wins.
If its a mushy moderate v liberal, the liberal will ALWAYS win.
Romney would have won utah, idaho, a few other mountain states and that’s it.
He wasn’t appealing, the social conservatives and gun owners would have stayed home and he would have been creamed in Obama’s class warfare.
McCain had money but he didn’t look like he had money. You don’t send in Richie Rich during a recession.
I completely agree.
Romney I am certain would not have done worse than McCain. I think he would have done better. Obama would have had a much harder time, tying Bush to Romney. Two, Romney is an expert on the economy and is quite able to speak about it, the election was decided on the economy. Romney could deliver a solid message regarding tax cuts, unacceptable that Obama won the tax-cut message. Romney won or did well in almost every debate; he could have stood toe-to-toe with the Obama in the fall debates. Issues, Romney could talk about immigration, global warming nonsense and several other conservative positions that McCain ran against. Finally, Romney I don’t think would have given Obama the massive fundraising edge by taking public money, plus Romney wouldn’t have held off on Wright, Ayers, etc. He would have unloaded on Obama early and often.
I would totally 2nd that!
I don’t know about picking Peter Pace over Palin, but I felt McCain lost the election after he failed to respond effectively after the crisis. Instead of going after the Dems and linking them to the disaster, McCain blamed “greedy bankers” and had Palin do the same. They never recovered. It was only until the full brunt of the blame had fallen on Republicans did McCain make some feeble gestures towards blaming the crisis on the Dems. He was almost totally incoherent on the cause of the crisis, and that in my mind cost him the election.
“I know that Mitt has made some changes in his belief systems. (So have most of us, n’est ce pas?) At least he’s gravitated toward OUR side of the aisle.”
Romney didn’t “gravitate” to our side, he was a lifelong liberal from a powerful liberal family.
Romney was liberal during the Vietnam war, Roe vs Wade, the Cold War, the Reagan Revolution, the Clinton years, The contract with America.
Mitt Romney was his own natural liberal self in private and in his political campaigns, until it came time to write his business plan for winning the presidential slot for the republican party, that is when he rewrote himself, that is when he became the life member of the NRA, a lifetime hunter, pro life, anti amnesty etc., including the biggest switch of all, he went from an anti-Reagan (he has campaigned as such)to the supposed second coming of Reagan.
If you had seen him actually campaign, rather than what the MSM wanted you to see, you might have formed a different opinion.
Mitt Romney and Peter Pace.
Mitt alienated Republican liberals, moderates, and conservatives by flip-flopping on all the issues. He reminded me of a New Car Sales Manager.
I see we agree then, running Romney is a big mistake. A Liberal vs. a Liberal is a Dim win.
I voted for Romney. He wasn’t perfect, but he was far, far better than useless idiot Juan McCain.
I seem to recall the New York Times always beat on Romney and praised the "moderate" McCain. The anti-Mormons were always vocal. The anti-abortion crowd were vehemently beating on Romney. I recall Romney had a lot of enemies. He had far more than one would expect from a politician who was relatively clean, one would think. In hindsight clean was his problem.
My take is that Romney lives somewhat apart from the wealthy elite. I don't think he hobnobs with the bankers and financier types. I rather think he stays close to his Mormon connections. The wealthy elite such as Polosi's husband, Bush's cronies, and the general pack of bloodsuckers running the Treasury and Federal Reserve probably detest clean Romney. I would not be surprised to hear that they fed the MSM with messages to cripple Romney. I think of all the Republican contenders, that he alone would have had the best insight into the financial machinations of thieves running America's banking system and how to fix it. That made Romney their enemy. He's not one of them.
He won the Michigan Primary.
McCAIN could have won...if his heart was truly in it, too. He talked about 'fight' but he didn't fight. He pulled almost every punch.
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.