Even sadder, if so. ;)
Posted on 07/08/2010 3:37:04 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
I think he likes Ron “shrimp boats” Paul
Besides Bush years were only bad in the MSM narrative that comes apart day by day. Carter years were genuine and utter disaster.
And finally, what actually do you have against Palin’s policies. Mondale was a candidate to return the country back into the Carter's abyss. Even if everyone assumes that Palin takes country back to Bush's time, majority will agree that it ain't bad at all, especially considering the present glorious leader...
The polls show Palin would probably not be a successful nominee, regardless of whether its her own fault or the fault of the massive campaign against her. Romney would fare better, but is still an unlikely winner, IMHO. I wonder who the author thinks WOULD be a good nominee? Mitch Daniels? The Huckster? Pawlenty?
Even sadder, if so. ;)
You're getting desperate. Don't worry, so are a lot of others.
R and D victories have totally different dynamics.
Democrats win by painting the Republicans as mean-spirited ... corrupt hypocrites, racism, starving children, etc. The Republicans often cooperate by painting themselves as mean-spirited.
Republicans have won in the past two different ways
a) paint the Dems as weak, naive, incompetent on national defense and international affairs. Bush won on this both times.
b) taxcuts and fiscal sanity.
Usually the Dems need nothing more than their one trick pony.
Usually the Republicans need 2 or more issues to bring a coalition together.
Don’t try to bring logic or consistency to this analysis. Democrats can be a corrupt and mean-spirited as they want and benefit from the double standard that exists, whether you like it or not.
Jimmy Carter can seem to have a great success with the Israel’s Begin-Egypt’s Sadat peace agreement and get no votes for it thanks to incompetence on Iran.
A Romney nomination all but guarantees a Tea Party candidate and a Dem plurality win.
I think it’s undecided whether that Dem will be Baraq or Hillary.
Looks like you don't read his (Daniel Larison's) blog.
That's not surprising as it's usually a long slow slog.
Anyway, he hates Romney more than I'd have believed it possible for one human being to hate another.
You can see some of that at the end of this post: "In many ways, Romney has a much easier path to the nomination, and he has just reminded everyone why he would be a spectacularly unsuccessful general election candidate."
I suppose Romney probably would be unsuccessful as well, but don't share Larison's contempt for the man, which is in line with his general contempt for Republicans but is much more intense than his dislike of Bush or McCain.
Daniel Larison's coming from some strange paleocon fantasy place -- maybe it's RonPaulLand, I don't know. Anyway, Romney's not his man.
Mitt-hatred isn't confined to loyal Republicans by any means. Larison's feeling that Mitt might be the nominee isn't a sign of his respect for Romney, but of his contempt for most of the Republican Party.
I doubt it. I don’ think Ron Paul will figure in any more than he always has.
Using him as an excuse is downright weird, but also convenient.
What is this goober smoking? McCain is the face the failed Republican party machine. Palin was McCain's hail Mary attempt to capture the base that STILL despises him.
Utter claptrap. Republicans would be saying "We are nominating a conservative candidate this time".
Folks, I remember the Carter years, I remember the Reagan years, and I remember Walter Mondale. Walter Mondale, in style and substance, is so much not Sarah Palin (and Sarah Palin so much not Walter Mondale) that the comparison is pure comedy.
“What is this goober smoking?”
Palin and Mondale should only be mentioned in the same sentence if someone confused her with Reagan.
Leaving aside his leftism, Mondale is establishment and elitist to the core. Reagan, although the incumbent, was the populist, anti-Establishment candidate in 1984, as Palin will be in 2012. I don’t know where this nitwit was in 1984, but he sure wasn’t following Presidential politics. Yet he tries to draw analogies. After all, he has a Ph.D from the University of Chicago. How impressed are we all!
Humor and irony to the max.......
Daniel Larison is one massively deluded nutball if he really believes that above statement. He could not be more wrong.
Sarah Palin does not represent the establishment RINO face of the party; in fact does not even resemble it. She actually represents the GOP Platform, which the RINOs obviously have never bothered to read.
Prolly in diapers, if that.
Palin won’t run in 2012
Christie is green and is mature enough to recognize his immaturity at the present time. He has a bright future in the party.
DeMint? Strong possibilities.
Jindal? Though he has exercised strong leadership in the face of the recent Gulf disaster, the bad taste from his SOTU response 18 months ago yet lingers.
Huckabee? No thanks; enough compassion, enough politicians. We need principle and leadership.
Newt Gingrich is perhaps the biggest bat we have on our bench. The man knows the law, knows the political landscape, is a genius.
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.