Posted on 09/10/2012 3:11:38 PM PDT by tsowellfan
"If Obama wins..."
The republican party will be over with. True.
We will all have 4 years, or more, to think about where this country is going, and wonder what might have been. Corrected.
And Hillary?
If Obama wins in 2012, and the two prior assumptions are correct, and if indeed there is a presidential election in 2016;
Hillary will be the conservative candidate.
Think about that when you toss "RINO" into the debate.
Sorry.
Coulter should be Ingraham...
And I don't even have an excuse.
I agree with Laura. If we cannot beat Obama close it down.
The RINO’s can join the Democrat party , that they already vote with, and we can form a new party of Conservatives.
Yeah, and during the primaries she was all rah=rah for Romney. Sometimes you get what you want and it ain’t pretty.
You are not the only person to say this though so I'm not doubting you. I do remember her trying to encourage Santorum and Gingrich to become one ticket and go after Romney.
Perhaps Laura got behind Romney after all that was left was him and Ron Paul?
I should have noted in my earlier post that once she was in the tank for Romney I quit listening to her show and I have never returned...nor will I.
I don’t remember it that way.
“If they lose—Dump the GOP and restore the Whigs, or Federalists, or start a new 3rd Party thyat listens to the people—A Tea Party.”
**********************************************************************
You do realize, don’t you, that a goodly number of us have been working hard to try to turn the Republican Party INTO the Tea Party. Progress is being made on that front but more folks need to get involved and suspend their incessant whining. IMHO
I think she probably joined the Romney band wagon and that's when I stopped listening and I did it so quickly that I merely forgot about her sudden change to Romney.
For Newt to be the nominee he needed to win more than 2 states. Fact conservatives chose Santorum overwhelmingly tells volumes about Newts lack of electibility. Santorum beat Newt in Alabama and Mississippi.
primary voters usually choose the most electable candidate. Sometime they don’t like Ford in 76, but they usually do. Kerry was eminently more electable than Howard Dean. Bush more electable than McCain in 2000. To claim a candidate that won only two states would be up by 10 is a stretch. It’s also irrelevant and a waste of time.
“”Exactly as it should be. If a party and/or candidate cannot convincingly make their case to the electorate””
So the reason no GOP candidate, except Arnold, has won statewide in CA since 1994, is all because they were bad candidates? All of them? Tom McClintock a bad candidate?? It is because CA is liberal and no GOP candidate regardless of ideology, competence or achievement can over come it.
I used to listen to her too, years ago...until one morning she was remarking about a flight she had to make somewhere where she had to ride in coach, and how irritated she was that she had to ride with the ugly people. She described her distaste for their physical appearance, their odor, and their national origin in great detail, using all the tonalities of disgust her nasal snobbish voice could emulate.
In short, she was completely and utterly vile, and I never listened again.
So the reason no GOP candidate, except Arnold, has won statewide in CA since 1994, is all because they were bad candidates?
Re-read what was originally posted -- particularly the portion emphasized in bright red, this time -- and try again.
Santorium? What's that?
According to the Urban Dictionary ... oh, never mind ...
So which is it? Dome people say a ham sandwich can beat Obama. You say Romney’s case is limp. If Obama is that bad it should be self evident. If a case needs to be made, then that means the default is reelect Obama. If Romney loses there is going to have to be a discussion on just how center right the american voter really is.
"It" is precisely as I stated, above: Mittens' campaign is (demonstrably) flagging, and -- barring any sudden, miraculous change(s) in the status quo 'twixt today and Election Day -- will most likely result in failure, and four more years of The Won.
Whatever your argument with those advancing the ham sandwich postulate, you need to take it up with those actually bruiting same. (The "dome people" you mentioned, whoever the heck those are supposed to be.) I'm only responsible for my own arguments, thank you.
If a case needs to be made, then that means the default is reelect Obama.
Pardon my bluntness... but: is this your very first election, as an active participant? ;) Yes, indeed: a convincing case always, ALWAYS needs to be made -- forcibly and repeatedly -- by any candidate attempting to dethrone a sitting incumbent. That's how an election works; that's what an election is, for pity's sake: two opposing sides and/or philosophies of governance, each attempting to c-o-n-v-i-n-c-e the electorate that they deserve office, at the expense of the other. Your (apparent) startlement at this self-evident, baseline truth leaves me, quite literally nonplussed.
If Romney loses there is going to have to be a discussion on just how center right the american voter really is.
Were Mittens genuinely conservative, in any meaningful or appreciable way... then, sure, absolutely. As facts on the ground (i.e., his highly public record of unabashedly liberal governance, while in the only political office he has ever held to date) incontrovertibly stand, however: not so much, no.
Infinitely more likely: what will need to be hashed out will be why the Republican party machinery, as presently constituted, has mulishly (and disastrously) insisted upon following the same inept and unworkable campaign strategy against the highly beatable (given the right opponent) Obama -- not just once, mind you, but a SECOND time as well:
1.) Ensure most aggressively leftward-leaning candidate available is ultimately nominated, by means of open primaries ("Liberals and 'Moderates' Welcome!") in virtually all the delegate-rich states.
2.) Further depress crucial conservative voting base by having said candidate run just scant micro-millimeters to the political right of the 'Rat candidate, in a repeatedly (and predictably) doomed attempt to appeal to liberal voters. (Said delusional attempts never, ever pan out; liberals already have their own 'Rat-supplied candidate: ready, willing and easily capable of out-libbing the other guy, after all. One cannot beat a voice, ultimately, with nothing but a weak echo of same.)
3.) In desperation, as base's lack of enthusiasm becomes increasingly and undeniably palpable, throw them a "sop" in the form of a sacrificial conservative in the VP slot -- Palin last time out, Ryan this year. (This handily serves a double purpose. as it gives the Karl Rove/National Review GOP-e faction somebody to blame, after the fact, for their anointed CINO du jour's inevitable electoral thumping in the general. I don't envy poor Ryan the shabby treatment he'll doubtless be receiving at the hands of supposed friends and political compatriots, just a few short months hence.)
That's the conversation that'll need to be had... unless, of course, you genuinely want to see Jeb Bush and/or Chris Christie go down in flames versus Dame Hillary, come 2016.
Here endeth the lesson.
Romney is an “establishment” candidate——conservatives are loathe to give the Repub/Estab any leeway b/c the Estab hates conservatives.....plus conservatives get ill when Karl Rove’s name surfaces.
That said-—to date, there have been odd flashes of brilliance in Romney’s campaign that the idiot McC did not have.
Also keep in mind, all Romney needs is a single one-liner-—and he’ll win handily.
Remember Mondale’s “Where’s The Beef” against Gary whatshissname in the primary ——and Reagan’s unforgettable debate retort to Mondale WRT RR’s age-—”I will not exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
Besides, conservatives hate Ohaha more than they hate Romney, Rove and the Repub/Estab.
I support Scott Walker in 2016 If he runs. I wouldn’t support Jeb Bush. I hope he doesn’t run. I’ve asked on other posts who exactly is the GOPe so we can purge them. No point complaining about the GOPe if we do t know who they are.
... and, again: start. with. those. GOP. CINO. apparatchiks. responsible. for. keeping. Republican. state. primaries. open. to. all. liberals. and. "moderates." in. order. to. suppress. any/all. viable. conservative. contenders. for. the. presidency. Just for starters.
Really not any particularly thorny strain or branch of rocket science here, honestly.
I remain, as ever, a steadfast admirer of both your lambent wit and undeniable pluck... even if I cannot, alas, share one scintilla of your optimism. ;)
If I'm wrong... then: I'm wrong, and you know I won't wriggle, if such turns out to be the case.
But with less than two months left remaining, Mittens has yet to close the deal with an immense (and electorally crucial) swath of the electorate -- against the most fiscally ruinous incumbent President in all of recorded American history, mind.
At some point, has yet to inevitably curdles into has NOT.
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.