Posted on 01/23/2014 3:24:59 PM PST by Kaslin
As the Republican National Committee begins meetings in the winter wonderland of Washington, D.C., there is a hope for sunnier days for future Republican candidates. Some of the GOP's brightest minds, such as longtime GOP Committeeman, activist and Newt Gingrich protege Randy Evans, have been behind the push to rearrange the dates of both the next presidential primaries and the 2016 Republican National Convention. That's potentially good news for the GOP.
But here's the bad news: Some politicians still don't get that the public, even those actively involved in politics, "get it" as to the way they operate. Witness the mess Gov. Chris Christie is facing in New Jersey, the indictment of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.
What both men reflect is an ongoing problem that haunts the Republican Party in particular. First, there is an issue of perceived myopic friendships with individuals based purely on donations and not on merit. While McDonnell's conduct hardly seems criminal, his accepting all sorts of gifts and being cozy with one individual who likely flaunted his power over the governor is becoming standard fare in many areas of the nation.
Then there is an issue of perceived political bullying using state resources.
Christie is a victim of his own style. We know that because we've all seen his brusque public edicts and pronouncements over the past few years. Clearly his staff felt that they were the crowned little princes and princesses of New Jersey. And likely one had to pass through their tightly guarded gate to even reach the king. So why not close a public bridge here or threaten another political leader there with the power of the state? Right?
Wrong. The Democrats control the Justice Department and they rule, as best one can tell, with an even heavier political hand than any GOP bully these days. It appears easy for them to launch an investigation of the closing of a bridge by a Republican administration or a close relationship between a Republican governor and a donor, or to basically clear the IRS of any wrongdoing in a targeting of conservatives. They know that most of media will let them do so.
But the rules are different for Republican leaders, and some of their thick advisors and palace guards don't recognize that. The fact is that if any bully pulpit should exist, it should be one of ideas, advocacy and persuasion. Not the closing of bridges or cordoning off of access to elected leaders with decisions being made purely by their unelected staff.
Of course, as noted many times before, Republicans love to keep the masses out of their king's court and are notorious for attacking one another. And that brings us back to the potential change in the GOP nomination process.
Having nominated two individuals whose appeal to the American heartland and "middle class" (I still hate that term) was minimal, leaders such as Mr. Evans are seeking a new calendar for nominating a candidate for president. It would preserve traditions such as Iowa and New Hampshire as early contests, but would force other states to hold off until later. The real goal is to give the Midwest, once a major part of any GOP victory against the Democrats, a chance to have a real say in who becomes the GOP nominee.
That's a very smart move for a party that has seen its nomination wrapped up relatively early and generally by whichever candidate wins a relatively early Florida primary. If it could help bring a state like Ohio back into the Republican fold, it would be a stroke of genius. That is if the architects of the new schedule don't forget that they must include Florida as a critical player or risk continuing to lose its massive electoral vote to the Democrats.
As for an earlier national convention date, that too makes sense. In recent years, the GOP has held its convention so late that the nominee hardly had time to blink and the race was over. And with so little time to respond to the natural attack on whomever they nominate for Vice President, the GOP ticket was left with little time to respond to media "gotchas" and slurs.
Now if only the GOP's leaders and advisors can get their act together so they can have a nominee worth supporting.
read post 19.
open primaries or closed primaries, it does not matter.
We will pick the guy who is next.
We do this because the guy who is next has been vetted the time before, campaigned in front of a lot of people and is a proven campaigner, has seen and understands how a national campaign works and has made a lot of donors believers in him.
We will pick from Ryan, Romney, Santorum or Bush.
Lucky us...
2016 primaries are still very important to determine who is next in 2020 or 2024.
But actually the nominee for 2016 was probably determined in 2012.
No thank you to the list. How about someone with spine and guts and not a RINO suck up?
Let me explain this one more time.
The GOP does not nominated some rookie first timer to be president.
The choice will be from Romney, Ryan, Bush or Santorum because they are not rookies, they have been vetted and are experienced politicians on a national scale.
If you want someone to be president, they must first run for president and likely lose as a rookie but show enough promise in their first run to be considered an experienced, vetted, national politician in their second run.
So whoever you want, they need to run in 2016 to become viable in 2020.
Rookies are losers.
The schmucks you listed are proven LOSERS, wimps, gutless, RINOs; case closed. Listen to Rush and Levin and they will tell you the same thing. The base has rejected these spineless, gutless losers as well. Because of the destruction of our Constitution and our country, what happened in the past won’t be tolerated by the base. What was has proven useless; look around and smell the DC inside-the-beltway hypocrites.
I'm gonna have to agree with you there. Apart from exceptional figures (i.e. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force during WWII), the vast majority of GOP nominees have been the next guy in line (even GWB, who was the second coming of Bush I). I think Eisenhower got the slot because of the prestige of his job and the allied victory in Europe. If MacArthur had actively run in 1948, he could have secured the GOP nomination, and won the presidency from Truman, and Eisenhower's name might never have been associated with the 1950's.
If you want your guy to win, he/she will have to do it like Reagan who ran in 76, lost and run again in 80 and win.
Run once, lose, learn from the loss, improve, build a base, then run the second time and win.
The country, our freedom, our Constitution, our security will not survive your scenario.
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.