You would have been saying the same thing no matter who ran. Who has better credentials than Newt? No one; he singlehandedly took down the leading Democrats, putting some in jail, and then took the House, when Dole and other RNC losers were talking just like you.
So who? DeMint? What if he stumbled like Perry did, would you call him weak? Sarah? You'd be saying the media destroyed her, and that's why conservatives can't win. Jindal? Not ready. Rubio? Not ready.
You want to blame the field rather than place the blame where it belongs, with the GOPe and the media-e that they play footsie with. The fact is, no matter who got into the race who was conservative, that person was enemy no. 1 until they were gone. And it was Mitt, the GOPe and the MSM cooperating on that task. It went from Bachmann to Cain to Perry (or was it Perry to Cain, I forget) to Newt to Santorum. And in turn, each was attacked by Mitt's GOPe money and RNC insiders (like Rove, et al.) and the MSM, and they were ultimately done in by a process that lets Democrats vote in primaries that are held in the most liberal states.
No, it was not for lack of talent or fortune that conservatives were killed in this election. It was murder in the first degree.
Well, the problem in the last two primaries has been that the “moderate” gets all of the moderate and independent votes (and some of the conservative votes) while the actual conservative candidates split the votes of the actual party base. If this primary had been Gingrich against Romney from the start, Newt would’ve destroyed Romney running away.
The same thing happened to some degree in 1996 as well.
Yet a sizable number on here won't unify behind him even though he's the only one left.
So who? DeMint?
Perhaps, we'd have to see him actually build a campaign to know.
What if he stumbled like Perry did… Sarah?
Perry, the candidate, hurt himself and didn't recover in time to stay in it, Sarah teased but never entered. So, no, these two were not strong candidates, one wasn't a candidate at all.
A strong candidate would be one who A) Entered the race; B) Had and communicated a strong and effective message; C) Campaigned well on the stump and in debates; D) Built an effective organization and staff, including fundraising; E) Unified the base voters.
Who would that be? Obviously no one this time. We really don't have bench strength, though there may likely be others out there I'm not aware of, I've heard names I know little about, that may have been strong candidates.
You want to blame the field rather than place the blame where it belongs
Partly the field for the reasons above (and partly because they did not unify behind one nonRomney). But also us for not unifying, worse working to destroy each other. You may remember that Perry was severely trashed before he got out of the gate, etc. It's axiomatic that opposition to an incumbent has to be united or it fails every time.
he blame where it belongs, with the GOPe and the media-e that they play footsie with.
Here I think you misplace the blame. The party didn't make others sit out and it didn't prevent unity behind one other candidate, nor trash the field. And the media? They're against us for the foreseeable future and they've had their candidate beaten before. In any case, I don't see your strategy for defeating the media here.
It went from Bachmann to Cain to Perry (or was it Perry to Cain, I forget) to Newt to Santorum. And in turn, each was attacked by Mitt's GOPe ..
They were attacked on here also. Even if the GOP *and* the media disappeared, the notMitt vote was still split.
It was murder in the first degree.
If that's the analogy, I think I've stated my solution; what is yours? How does it work, what is the result?
thanks for your reply.