The GOP Deserves to Lose

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Jan 24, 2012 | Bret Stephens

[KeyLargo]

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

JANUARY 24, 2012 By Bret Stephens

The GOP Deserves to Lose That's what happens when you run with losers.

Let's just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.

It doesn't matter that Mr. Obama can't get the economy out of second gear. It doesn't matter that he cynically betrayed his core promise as a candidate to be a unifying president. It doesn't matter that he keeps blaming Bush. It doesn't matter that he thinks ATMs are weapons of employment destruction. It doesn't matter that Tim Geithner remains secretary of Treasury. It doesn't matter that the result of his "reset" with Russia is Moscow selling fighter jets to Damascus. It doesn't matter that the Obama name is synonymous with the most unpopular law in memory. It doesn't matter that his wife thinks America doesn't deserve him. It doesn't matter that the Evel Knievel theory of fiscal stimulus isn't going to make it over the Snake River Canyon of debt.

Above all, it doesn't matter that Americans are generally eager to send Mr. Obama packing. All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won't be another fiasco. But they can't be reasonably sure, so it's going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know.

Is this the best they can do?

As for the current GOP field, it's like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.

[Beagle8U]

Romney is a worthless @sswipe, but that doesn't change the fact that Mitch Daniels is a dull moderate candidate.

[Maverick68]

Our most pressing problem is that we have a man who hates this country, Jews and whitey intentionally pushing us toward ruin.
I don’t give a damn about any of the candidates running, but I fear ALL of them less than I fear Obama.

[Reo]

"Who does he want us to run, Harold Stassen?"

Never thought about this before, but Mitch Daniels does look kinda like Harold Stassen's little kid.....

[Venturer]

Your choice. That’s why they call it Freedom.

Of course every vote against the Candidate (whoever it may be)is a vote for Obama.

[ontap]

Pick any four new candidates and the same would be repeated at some time during the campaign.

[Logic n' Reason]

Of course every vote against the Candidate (whoever it may be)is a vote for Obama.

Dearest Venturer....you misunderstand COMPLETELY!!!!!!!!

By voting AGAINST the stain - which I most assuredly shall do, does in fact mean that I will have to vote for - repeat FOR - whatever candidate happens to fall into the nomination from the rino camp.

GET IT???

Unfortunately, there is no "NO" block to check on the ballot - tho there should be. So in order to vote AGAINST the stain, I shall have to vote for - repeat FOR - whatever rino candidate is on the ballot.

It does not matter who that is.

The stain is by far and away....the absolute worst thing that has ever happended to this country. Therefore, I will do whatever - in my limited power - is necessary to eradicate it!

OK???

[Venturer]

Hey: That’s cool, I wasn’t sure who you were calling the Stain, and many here have definite opinions of those they do not like.

ABO is my motto-—anybody but Obama.

[Logic n' Reason]

Hear! Hear!

And...the word "stain" (in that it refers to the thing that somehow or other wound up in the "wh" and the office of president of the US) most definitely does not need or deserve capitalization!

ABO!!!