Patterico's Pontifications

9/29/2014

Weighing Out Mitt Romney

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:17 pm

[guest post by Dana]

So, Mitt Romney: will he or won’t he? He certainly remains popular and admits he is “carefully weighing the pluses and minuses of another run.”

Ross Douthat, while hoping Mitt doesn’t run, points out why he is back in the spotlight:

Part of the answer can be found in Henry Olsen’s helpful analysis, from earlier this year, of how exactly Republican presidential primaries tend to shake out. Olsen offered a four-group typology of G.O.P. primary voters — secular conservatives, religious conservatives, moderate conservatives and Rockefeller-Republican centrists — and argued that the nomination almost always goes to the candidate who can rally the moderate conservatives and co-opt elements from the other constituencies while fending of challenges from the right and (sometimes, though less often) the center. There are different ways to do this (as evidenced by George W. Bush and John McCain’s very different paths to the nomination), but the trick doesn’t change that much from cycle to cycle — you want to seem conservative enough but not too right-wing, electable but not a liberal sellout, a safe choice for donors who also makes the party’s activists feel respected. You don’t win by running against those activists (as McCain did in 2000, and Jon Huntsman did in 2012), and you also don’t win by running as an ideological insurgent; you win by straddling dispositional and ideological conservatism, raising lots of money, and promising the best chance of victory in November.

Or shorter, per commenter Dustin: “The GOP doesn’t have to live up to any standard… it just has to be less awful than the opponent.”

Meanwhile, Jennifer Rubin offers 15 reasons why Mitt should not run. Readers can decide for themselves the validity of her claims. Here is a sampling:

7. It is hard for him to make the argument that Hillary Clinton has been around forever and it’s time for someone new.

8. In promoting an anti-elitism message, the GOP has the upper hand against Hillary — unless Romney runs.

9. There are a number of fresher, more interesting candidates who would likely shy away from running against him (e.g. Rep. Paul Ryan). Even if others do run, Romney would suck up donors and operatives who would otherwise gravitate to a fresher, more electable figure.

12. With the exception of the first presidential debate against Obama, he seemed to lack the skill and desire to go for the jugular. Anyone going up against the Clintons will need that.

14. He is not well situated to break off parts of the Democratic coalition (minorities, women, young voters).

15. He is likely to widen, not shrink, the gap between the establishment and the tea party sides of the GOP.

In the meantime, Ted Cruz is playing it close to the vest, Rand Paul is waiting for his wife’s full support (and trying to figure out how to distance himself from his father), and Rick Perry is still trying to find his footing and make a comeback after the disappointment of 2012.

–Dana

173 Responses to “Weighing Out Mitt Romney”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  2. Harold Stassen, anyone?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  3. ==In the meantime, Ted Cruz is playing it close to the vest, Rand Paul is waiting for his wife’s full support (and trying to figure out how to distance himself from his father), and Rick Perry is still trying to find his footing and make a comeback after the disappointment of 2012.==

    And Chris Christie has lost much weight and looks nice and has raised a lot of money for GOP gubernatorial candidates ….
    And Marco Rubio now says we need border security before any Immigration reform legislation can occur.

    elissa (f0352a)

  4. I can not think of a single prominent politician whom I would consider voting for. Rand Paul probably comes closest, although I am not impressed by his apparent pandering in foreign policy.
    There is a good deal of sense in the Ann Barnhardt Rule of Politicians: the fact that someone in this day and age is willing to run for public office is prima facie evidence that they are morally unfit for public office.

    kishnevi (2a9a02)

  5. Elissa…the matter has quietly faded into background, but Rubio did apparently engage in financial shenanigans while he was a state representative here in Florida, the sort of thing the Tea Party was meant to get rid of. If he does run, expect to hear a lot about it from opponents.

    kishnevi (2a9a02)

  6. and Boehner should run again and McConnell should run again and definitely definitely definitely Meghan’s coward daddy for sure should run again

    if you’re gonna be a stagnant loser party bereft of passion and ideas you shouldn’t be half-assed about it

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  7. Kishnevi, Sadly, I think that the Barnhardt theory you mentioned seems to fit with most presidential candidates, (although I do not think it applied to either Reagan or Romney both of whom I consider to be moral men despite certain flaws.) I think the same generality can be said for senate candidates as well. Perhaps a few House congress critters start out with honor and good intentions but that all too soon fades when they get to D.C. and are exposed to the fame and “opportunities” that politics and power present. This is why primaries are important and why the Washington herd should be culled regularly.

    elissa (f0352a)

  8. I don’t think that format will work in 2016.

    I know it won’t with me. Not after 40 some years of the same
    old BS and the same old results.

    Isn’t that the definition of insanity; doing the same thing
    over and over and expecting different results?

    I’m over that. The R’s will have their chance over the next
    two years to show me something I have yet to see in any of their
    leaders so far.

    Impress me. Go on, I dare you.

    jakee308 (d409c2)

  9. it makes no difference whatsoever if Weirdo Willard was right about Russia

    he was so desperately horrifically wrong about health cares

    he should go away like Johnny Carson and Tina Turner I think

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  10. Romney also wasn’t that great a debater

    Candy Crowley kicked his ass

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  11. I think Mitt Romney epitomizes the “well fed” wing of the party and would provide an excellent foil to the likes of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Mitt’s presence would communicate not only the lack of new ideas that is the hallmark of the party elite, but also the lack of new blood. The man is “your father’s Oldsmobile”, or maybe Rambler. What better way to sort out the internal divisions of the party? Run, Mitt, run.

    ThOR (130453)

  12. >>14. He is not well situated to break off parts of the Democratic coalition (minorities, women, young voters).

    This is the strongest reason. What new argument will he be able to articulate
    that will allow him to expand the GOP coalition. If you go with the moderate/establishment
    candidate, at least go with Jeb. He will be able to appeal to large numbers
    of disenchanted Mexicans. He would take Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado
    off the table for Dems, with his ability to gain conservative leaning Mexicans.

    John Anders (ca726f)

  13. Jeb’s last name is Bush. Not his fault, of course, but it’s an electoral problem of great magnitude.

    elissa (f0352a)

  14. The fact remains we will elect a new President in 2016 no matter what anyone thinks of politicians in general, the primary field in either party, or the eventual nominee. The winner will be either the Republican or the Democrat, whoever they may be.

    One of the anti-Romney columns lately – can’t recall whose – claimed Nixon was the only defeated nominee to win the White House subsequently. Not true, as Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland could attest, but the point is these ‘never before’ scenarios hold up until they don’t. No Democrat had won without the Solid South until Kennedy, or without at least four Southern state until Clinton did it.

    The GOP has the most open and democratic nominating process in the world, even reserving fewer seats for bosses, donors, and activists than the Democrats. Quit whining. If Romney is so weak, he won’t win again. If he does win, maybe he’s not so weak after all.

    Estragon (ada867)

  15. For purely tactical and strategic reasons, I think Romney should sit it out. While I imagine he’d be annoyingly squishy as president when it comes to certain crucial matters, he wouldn’t be nearly as bad as any Democrat or dyed-in-the-wool liberal (and one is pretty much the other in 21st century America). But what would be squishy to me would still be too ideologically Machiavellian — or too let-them-eat-cake Daddy Warbucks — for others. And Romney is too naive or goody-goody to understand or get around that.

    My assessment is based on the degree of loony liberalism that has become infused throughout this society, and an awareness that far too much of the electorate is guilty as charged. The reason? Opinion polls that show scroungy Hillary Clinton still makes the hearts of far too many Americans bleed and flutter. That all by itself shows just how debased things have become.

    Mark (c160ec)

  16. Romney is my sentimental favorite, but he had his chances and he lost. Any horseplayer will tell you that you will go broke betting on sentimental favorites who keep on losing.

    We won’t find the perfect President. Looking back, the best of the bunch in my lifetime was Bush 41 and I voted for him reluctantly. I thought he was too “country club”. Now, I want some stodgy, small “c” conservative, with a deep investment in an America he wants to preserve and not hopes to change.

    As a corollary to that, if all four of your grandparents were not U.S. citizens, and if your parents were not natural born U.S. citizens, I’m not voting for you. I want a President whose childhood hero was Davy Crockett not Simon Bolivar (or Jomo Kenyatta).

    nk (dbc370)

  17. Jeb’s last name is Bush. Not his fault, of course, but it’s an electoral problem of great magnitude.

    elissa (f0352a) — 9/29/2014 @ 10:21 pm

    True, but like a lot of Americans, I’m Bushed out. I don’t see a trifecta happening with the father, the son, and the other son.

    Bill H (f9e4cd)

  18. And Marco Rubio now says we need border security before any Immigration reform legislation can occur….

    …And while I’m happy to see the other side ignoring him until the last minute before the vitriolic character assassination begins, How is it that no one whatsoever is even mentioning Scott Walker here…?

    True, but like a lot of Americans, I’m Bushed out. I don’t see a trifecta happening with the father, the son, and the other son.

    Agreed. Let’s wait another generation before we seriously consider a Bush again. Not to say I actually think ill of the family or its leadership history, it’s simply too close to hereditary leadership itself, and America, of all nations, needs most to be wary of such…

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  19. Dr. Condoleezza Rice ?

    jim2 (cd2fc9)

  20. “…there is nothing more dishonest than labeling those who reject Mitt Romney, an outright socialist, as “purity of essence folks”
    His entire life is about using government to get insanely rich, just as Chelsea Clinton, another child of a politician, has.

    A lot of this Romney stuff is really about elitists spitting in the faces of conservatives, AKA the former base of the GOP and now independents. ”

    – Lemuel H. Lemming IV

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  21. It will be Jeb or Perry or Both

    Its painfully obvious :)

    be gentle..

    EPWJ (fa0e23)

  22. 20. Oh great. The Republicans are at it again jawboning ‘the next time it’ll be different’ in a Sam Ting sorta way.

    Drop dead, the lot of you.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  23. Direct quote from one of your kindred spirits, gulrud. Don’t you have some Jihadis to hunt up there in Skeeterland?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  24. 23. Thanx, Col., for making my point. Virginia possum is non-existent around here anymore and am seeking options.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  25. Romney won’t run, don’t get your panties in a bunch.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  26. GFY Cornyn, you have nothing to do with me.

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/cornyn-to-pjm-time-for-arguments-within-the-family-has-passed-if-conservatives-want-to-win-senate/?singlepage=true

    Purple MN has an emo cripple up for re-election as Governor and a fool for Senate and the GOP can’t field a team of oxen to oppose.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  27. Beldar, Harold Stassen had an odd little hobby. He was a competitor only in 1948, though managed at least to appear on the radar screen in 1944 (winning one primary) and 1952 (winning one primary and about 1.6% of the convention ballots). He never again attracted any notice on the part of Republican voters or delegates. He was a consequential office holder at an abnormally early age (31 when elected Governor of Minnesota) and was blessed with abnormal longevity and physical vigor (living to age 94 and still energetic enough to give public speeches past 80). That’s why he seemed such a fixture.

    Romney has run twice and was runner up once and the nominee once. Stassen at his best never achieved either; Nelson Rockefeller achieved the former once but not the latter. Robert Taft managed to place twice (1948, 1952), but died before a third campaign might have been appropriate. While we’re at it, Ronald Reagan was a candidate for the nomination four times, showing once (1968), placing once (1976), and winning twice (1980 and 1984). Robert Dole was a candidate three times, making no impression once (1980), placing once (1988), and winning once (1996).

    Gov. Romney, Gov. Perry, and Gov. Huckabee have adequate preparation for the office having had considerable experience as executives. Gov. Jindal and Gov. Walker are appealing bar for their youth. The presidency is a country for old men. Sen. Cruz is both too young and lacks time as a like administrator. Sen. Santorum’s appeal is likewise compromised by an absence of time in executive positions. Not one among them has Gov. Romney’s accomplishments (though Gov. Perry has the time in the service Gov. Romney lacks). We could do worse than Mitt redux.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  28. Besides, those were all well-chosen words from that individual that go along way toward showing the mindset shared by one component of of the right-of-center cohort.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  29. You generally have in Republican contests one or two ambitious politicians and one or two who rally an abiding constituency among primary voters. The latter are commonly publicists and the identity of the constituencies does change. The liberal constituency which John Anderson rallied has largely dissipated. The last time, your constituency candidates included two office holders (Santorum and Paul) of whom one might be classed as a working politician. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater were constituency candidates who were also working politicians. Santorum’s the only example in the last 28 years who manged at least to show during the primaries.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  30. Oh, there was Gov. Huckabee as well. Better candidate than Santorum, IMO.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  31. Whoever wins the R nomination will get my support and vote. I’m not a back or ankle biter, nor am I a second-guessing armchair general.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  32. And Marco Rubio now says we need border security before any Immigration reform legislation can occur…

    He’s never run anything but a law office with one employee. He was conned by upChuck Schumer and then tried to con everyone else. Read some of R.M. Kaus’ columns on Rubio’s shuck and jive regarding immigration law. The best you could say is that he’s a mark trying to save face rather than a blatant fraud like Kelly Ayotte.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  33. Well, Colonel Haiku, the worst Republican is better than the best democrat.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  34. A very simple truth, Hoagie. Yet some will sit on their thumbs come Election Day.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  35. 33, 34. There they go again, bitchin’ about no help.

    Don’t you think the big donors and the Chamber of Commerce need to know you’ve absolutely nothing to sell?

    Will that not change the spending patterns of some?

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  36. One other point I’d like to make. If the Republicans loose this election for the Senate and if they loose in 2016 regardless of who runs on our ticket, the democrats will hold an Iron Grip on all levers of power and turn the United States into a de facto One Party State. If we loose this one boys, we loose for good! So if you know anyone who is intending either not to vote because so-in-so isn’t the “perfect” Republican Conservative or who intends to vote Libertarian, beat the living crap out of him and call him what he is: Traitor! I guarantee you every member of the communist, socialist and socialist workers parties will vote for whatever candidate the democraps put up and if the Tea Party (like myself) and the Libertarians don’t join together like the radical leftists do our nation is doomed as we know it.

    First win the power, then fight and bitch among ourselves. That’s what the left does….very successfully!

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  37. If the Republicans loose this election for the Senate and if they loose in 2016 regardless of who runs on our ticket, the democrats will hold an Iron Grip on all levers of power and turn the United States into a de facto One Party State.

    Take a pill.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  38. You know what Art Deco? If the Republicans run Marco Rubio and the dems run Hillary or Fauxahontas and you don’t vote Rubio, you’re the problem! I don’t care what Rubio has run, he ain’t a pinko! He ain’t perfect, but he ain’t a pinko!

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  39. What does “take a pill” mean? You don’t believe that if the dems keep the Senate and a dem wins the White House who do you think will pick all the federal judges and at least one or two Supreme Court judges? That is a One Party State whether you like to admit it or not.

    I’ll take a pill, you take a reality check.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  40. Hoagie, I’ve been hearing for forty years that one party or another was soon to be electorally destroyed. The electoral position of the Republican Party is far stronger than it was in 1975 (when they controlled about a third of Congress and four state legislatures).

    I’ll cast a ballot for Rubio if necessary, unless the Democrats run someone like the late Robert Casey (which they never will). Rubio’s inadequate, though, for the reasons stated.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  41. Art Deco, I too have heard over the years this-n-that about a party being irrelevant. But never in my life time ( and I’m 63 ) has almost 50% of the electorate been on the dole. Never before has 48 million Americans been on food stamps and soon, tens of millions more will come to believe the government owes them all health care from flu shots and contraception to heart surgery and transplants (not to mention “gender” changes). It is now urgent that we Constitutional conservatives understand that even if we have to have a coalition with our “more liberal” Republican friends it is better than living under the thumb of our democrap enemies. The appointments of judgeships and Supremes over the next four to five years makes this unified coalition a must.

    I really believe, Art Deco, that if we fail we will loose the Republic we love for ourselves and our posterity.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  42. I thought 2012 was the election of our collective life times? I voted, we lost, past the tipping point, cleared the cliff and the GOP has moved goose step to the left.

    Some memory hole that.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  43. Apparently you guys here disagree with me. gary gulrud, do you believe the last election of 2012 was the end? I don’t. Especially since we still cling to the House albeit, we can’t get a vote from Reid in the Senate who currently sits on 300 bills he will not allow to be brought to a vote. We can change that and send Reid a-packin’ but all the factions of the right must band together like the left does to win.

    You gotta understand, the democraps bring together blacks who have nothing in common with gays who have nothing in common with unions who have nothing in common with welfare people who have nothing in common with abortion rights folks….you get the point. They all have their own narrow self interests but come together to defeat the forces of constitutional republicanism. Under normal circumstances a union guy would loathe a welfare queen but they all vote in lock step…to defeat us, the very people who are paying the freight! Why can’t we do the same thing? Why can’t we get the Libertarians and the Tea Party and the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives and the pro-Israel Jews and the anti-abortion Catholics and the pro gay Protestants et al, together to defeat the radical leftists who are “fundamentally transforming” the United States into a European crap hole one policy at a time. If you believe that America is exceptional, like I do, then America needs no fundamental change. If however, you believe America is flawed, then you most likely want to make it look more like France.

    We Republicans or should I just say we conservatives keep treating the radical left democraps, which is all that remains of the once great Democrat Party, as political foes all the while they treat us like ideological enemies. They have more regard for ISIS than the Tea Party. They fear our humanity more than the inhumanity of Islam.

    We need to realize that in order to win the war on terror we need first to defeat their allies at home. They would be the open border dems, the “workplace violence” dems, the “religion of peace” dems. Then we can send the rest to allah.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  44. And just to emphasize what I believe we need to do to win and save America, if Art Deco and gary gulrud and any other conservative on this blog were to put up any Republican you can name for President, whether I agreed on every single policy or not I’d vote for him to stop the dems. Hell, I’d vote for Art Deco himself to save this nation.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  45. Art Deco, I too have heard over the years this-n-that about a party being irrelevant. But never in my life time ( and I’m 63 ) has almost 50% of the electorate been on the dole.

    No. The complaint has been that 47% of the public are impecunious enough to be exempt from the federal income tax, not that they are ‘on the dole’.

    About 16% of the population receives Social Security or Medicare. Another 5% or so (at any one time) receives unemployment compensation or SSI. IIRC, TANF rolls and general relief rolls comprehend about 1.5% of the populace.

    About 15% of the population lives in households which receive food stamps; nearly 20% of those in these households are elderly or disabled, and some others are drawing SSI or unemployment, so the non overlapping population is around 10%; again, food stamp benefits amount to about $3,000 per household per year. Shy of 3% of the populace receive federal housing vouchers; these amount to about $5,000 per person per year on average, and there is a great deal of overlap with the population of food stamp beneficiaries and Social Security recipients. About 21% are eligible for EITC returns. These largely overlap with these other constituencies and amount to somewhat under $1,000 per person per year.

    About 21% of the population is signed up for Medicaid; a small share of these are nursing home residents. Actual benefits paid are contingent on circumstances. Excluding the nursing home residents, I think the mean beneficiary receives about $6,000 in benefits per annum. Again, this population overlaps with other populations.

    So, you have about 22% of the population on the dole, about 3/4 of them elderly or disabled and about half the remainder circulating on and off every few months. The elderly are not particularly committed to the Democratic Party. There’s an additional 18% who receive income supplements worth an average of roughly $3,700 per person per year. There are single digit share more that receive contingent medical benefits.

    And again, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and housing subsidies were all paid out in 1975 as well. The population has aged some since then and the medical sector is comparatively larger, so the first three are contextually more important. TANF, however, is a contextually much smaller program.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  46. Santorum was using Team Huck, if you detected certain common rhymes, that was why.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  47. we want a candidate that makes us feel, like he or she understands, the precarious nature of the crisis we face, and all our enemies foreign and democracy, they should display conviction, preferably with a sense of humor, because you can’t take this brouhaha potentates and poobahs seriously,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  48. No. The complaint has been that 47% of the public are impecunious enough to be exempt from the federal income tax, not that they are ‘on the dole’.

    That was Romney’s statement, or should I say misstatement since people can’t stand to hear it. My statement was “But never in my life time ( and I’m 63 ) has almost 50% of the electorate been on the dole.” And I do want to thank you for breaking down exactly which dole and for what amount they are on but it doesn’t change a thing. About 50% of Americans get some sort of government subsidy, tax break or plain old Treasury check. That means about 50% are bought and paid for by the democraps with our money. You can break it down and try and justify the guy on SS, the guy who guys an Obamaphone, food stamps or a $10,000 rebate for his $85,000 Tesla. It really doesn’t matter to me. Some government payouts like SS are justified because they were paid in to, but these guys still want their checks even if they’re millionaires and will vote for the party who provides them. Now, if we conservatives can sell the idea that nobody will be getting a check if we leave the Dems in charge because they’re bankrupting the country, perhaps we can get a chunk of these people to vote our way.

    Frankly, Art Deco, if we’re going to sit around and parse out every general statement we’ll never arrive at a consensus. The object here, in case you’ve missed it, is to beat the leftists not dissect the good and bad social programs but to stop more social programs, identify our 17 trillion dollar debt and come to grips with the other 140 trillion in unfunded benefits/liabilities our future holds. We can’t address these things until we take power.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  49. 17.Jeb’s last name is Bush. Not his fault, of course, but it’s an electoral problem of great magnitude.

    elissa (f0352a) — 9/29/2014 @ 10:21 pm

    I don’t think that’s a real problem at all, except maybe in the mind of some members of his family.

    John Anders (ca726f) — 9/29/2014 @ 10:11 pm

    . If you go with the moderate/establishment
    candidate, at least go with Jeb. He will be able to appeal to large numbers
    of disenchanted Mexicans. He would take Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado
    off the table for Dems, with his ability to gain conservative leaning Mexicans.

    That won’t be so easy. It’s very easy to get tripped up by immigration, and the only way to gain votes is to alienate part of the Republican base.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  50. @Jennifer Rubin offers 15 reasons…

    1> Awful campaign operation. Correct. It was good at attacking people who either had no defense or didn’t know how to defend themselves, but that’s all.

    2> Worsens the party’s over-emphasis on entrepreneurs. A big irrelevency. Doesn’t matter.

    3> No reform conservatism. Very true, but there are almost no good reformers. Refirm doesn’t mean favoring the middle and lower classes. It means changing things so they make more sense.

    4> 47% True. A problem.

    5> Immigration. A problem for all of them.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  51. #9 is the most salient

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  52. narciso, I don’t know where to go with your post #47. What the hell does how a candidate makes you “feel” got to do with what he stands for? That statement sounds like an obamatron, all hope and change and no real substance. We need a candidate that makes us proud to be Americans once again and who unapologetically tells leftists they are idiots and completely discredits their policies. A candidate who calls a terrorist a terrorist, islam the religion of death and socialism the economics of Hitler and Stalin. A candidate who doesn’t lie through his teeth every time he opens his mouth. A candidate who as President will read his daily briefings, spend more time on the economy than golfing and address foreign policy from the White House and not Martha’s Vineyard. And who won’t blame everyone else for his mistakes nor take credit for the successes of others.

    If you want a candidate to make you “feel” something, then make it pride in America and what we (used) to stand for when we won wars, sent men to the moon and invented almost every new idea in the world. But to have pride in one’s country one must have pride in himself. If we’re going to subsidize every other American in one form or another we’re going to have a populace with no pride in themselves or their country. And if the C in C cannot be trusted to tell the truth then he should be put out of the job.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  53. Well practicing sociology without a license, rarely works, however, that wasn’t the main problem, there was little pushback to the insane notion propounded by Red Squaw Warren, that all our efforts are collective,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  54. nd I do want to thank you for breaking down exactly which dole and for what amount they are on but it doesn’t change a thing.

    Yes it does. Your statement was incorrect and the appropriate metric is the change in the situation since 1975.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  55. the good news is, since i live in #Failifornia, it doesn’t matter which “electable” RINO the GOPe pushes in 2016, my vote won’t make a difference, so i won’t have to hold my nose.

    good luck Mittens! how are you planning on throwing this race?

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  56. My statement, Art Deco, was a broad generalization to frame the concept I explained in the post: “The object here, in case you’ve missed it, is to beat the leftists not dissect the good and bad social programs but to stop more social programs, identify our 17 trillion dollar debt and come to grips with the other 140 trillion in unfunded benefits/liabilities our future holds. We can’t address these things until we take power.”

    If you are going to spend all your time knit-picking and correcting everything the guys on your own team say then I think the team is doomed to failure. If you are the type of person who can’t see the forest for the trees we are not going to be able to talk. I’ve run into this many times. As an economist I talk in broad swaths and general ideas but my accountants always try and pin-point me into their little cubby holes. They’re so busy combing over the details they fail to see, let alone reach, the goals. I hired a manager like that for one of my restaurants. I finally had to terminate him because he was more interested in the position of the ash trays than the quality of the service. He missed the entire concept of “the hospitality industry” because he would loose himself in the details. Therefore, it really matters not that “There’s an additional 18% who receive income supplements worth an average of roughly $3,700 per person per year.”, what matters is we beat the bejeazers off the left. It’s that simple.

    I would suggest you dedicate more time toward picking apart the oppositions fallacies, numbers and statistics rather than our allies. As I said, once we defeat THEM we can bitch at each other all we want.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  57. Really I don’t see it that way, the nominee at least the last two races, spits up at the base, because they are more sophisticated, and then does a pratfall at the general election, ‘he’s in over his head’ how did that strategem work out. he was accused as an employee killing, dog torturing, tax dodger,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  58. Interesting statistic, linked today by Morning Jolt, published spring 2013::

    Puffington Host: Black Voter Turnout Rate Passes Whites In 2012 Election

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  59. Again, who was this mysterious candidate who would’ve won the last election handily? Who was this Brave Sir Robin?

    WHO?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  60. 55… that’s the spirit, red! He’s been down, but not like this before!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  61. he was accused as an employee killing, dog torturing, tax dodger,

    You’re kidding me right, narciso? You also do realize he killed no employee, tortured no dog and has paid millions in taxes. When the left owns the narrative, the delivery system (the press) and Comedy Central what the hell would you expect? They own the media and determine what goes out as news and just as importantly, what’s left out of the news. And they do it because regardless whether they’re gay or Code Pink, or black or Hispanic or whatever, they all pull together to stop us. If we could get half the loyalty toward our party the leftists get toward theirs we’d be invincible. We have the talent, we have the integrity, we have the pride in America what we lack is the ability to create a cohesion between the different sects that comprise the right.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  62. Well said, Hoagie!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  63. BTW, the dems use fear and terror to win elections so why shouldn’t we? Remember back in the 60’s the little girl picking daisy’s and an A-bomb goes off behind her? Remember grandma in a wheel chair getting thrown off a cliff? How about we do one of children dying of diseases because of illegals brought in by leftists? It could read: They let your children die to get votes! Or how about scenes of terrorism including beheadings and ask: where was Obama and the democrats? How about shots of Benghazi with: Ambassador Stevens awaits Hillary at 3am. They us a club, we use a knife. They use a knife….well you know. The Chicago Way.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  64. 59. We are not interested. That is all.

    gary Gulrud (46ca75)

  65. as I’ve said before, I’d prefer a Reagan, I’ll take a Nixon,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  66. Nixon and reagan are burning in hell and will be joined mutt romney.

    pat (5d5dfb)

  67. It should be noted that Rubin’s real and unstated reason is that she wants Jeb Bush, and knows that most of his support will go over to Romney if he runs.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  68. as I’ve said before, I’d prefer a Reagan, I’ll take a Nixon,

    Nixon governed from the center-left. He implemented most of the Great Society and accepted the welfare state. He started the War on Drugs, imposed wage and price controls(!), endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment, and generally behaved as a Democrat.

    We already have a Nixon.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  69. The GOP bench is vastly better than the Dems’ and they’re likely to run a re-tread (Hillary). I’m quite confident that the GOP can find someone who hasn’t lost after a previous GOP nomination, whose name isn’t Bush, and who’s better than Hillary. I can list 20 such names off the top of my head.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  70. Romney is consumed with an obscene lust for power and validation

    he needs to repent

    i will pray for him

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  71. As a candidate, besides Nixon was a piker, compared to Obama, the Politico piece, has not one named source,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  72. dear God please help Mitt Romney not be so consumed with an obscene lust for power and validation. He used to be a nice person and if you slap him upside the head with your God powers I know one day he can be a relatively decent person again or at least not be so consumed with being president all the time. Ok thank you God have a good week I might call you later about Jeb but for now let’s focus on helping Mitt. Amen.

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  73. He implemented most of the Great Society and accepted the welfare state. He started the War on Drugs, imposed wage and price controls(!), endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment, and generally behaved as a Democrat.

    Drug prohibition antedated Mr. Nixon’s administration by more than 50 years, the “Equal Rights Amendment” had been in the Republican platform for 25 years when he took office, he was not in a position not to ‘implement the Great Society’. Statutory law is not repealed when a new president takes office. He did persuade Congress to replace the Office of Economic Opportunity, which was the signature Great Society program. You seem to forget that a large swath of the Democratic Party was advocating unilateral withdrawal from Viet Nam in 1971. He was not behaving like a contemporaneous Democrat.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  74. You’ve got Romney wrong, happyfeet. He’s an old man; he wants to retire. He saw how Obama did it, in luxury, on the taxpayers’ money, and he wants to do the same thing. Wouldn’t you?

    nk (dbc370)

  75. I’m not nit-picking Hoagie. What you said was way wrong and misleading.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  76. I can list 20 such names off the top of my head.

    Now get one of them past the sectaries who populate these boards.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  77. 59. We are not interested. That is all.

    gary Gulrud (46ca75) — 9/30/2014 @ 3:06 pm

    You are a cricket, sir. If what I’ve just said is true, tell me… am I lying?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  78. 7. It is hard for him to make the argument that Hillary Clinton has been around forever and it’s time for someone new

    No Republican nominee should base their campaign on that argument.

    First of all, it’s a spin/perception type of “issue”. The Dems/media will spin it that she’s so incredibly qualified compared to the Republican trying to make that argument. It’ll be a textbook case of trying to turn a supposed weakness into a strength, like a good spin doctor does, and it’ll succeed. Republicans can’t win on spin/perception.

    Second, it’s the kind of stupid thing the typical GOP consultant would advocate – meaning it avoids a discussion of core principles (remember Hillary Care?).

    Finally, it would implicitly suggest the Republican is conceding that Hillary knows what she’s doing and has the right ideas for the country – otherwise why would you even be talking about that?

    Gerald A (d65c67)

  79. this was part of the reason, Douthat’s columns are snorfle ready:

    Yes, it’s true, some events since 2012 have made him look better vis-a-vis Obama than he did during their contest. But he won’t be running against Obama: In a campaign against Hillary Clinton, with her distinctive strengths and coalition-unifying profile, he’d be pretty much the perfect foil, the living, breathing proof that the G.O.P. is so much the party of old rich out-of-touch white guys that they keep … nominating … the same … one.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  80. Today it’s reported black people’s voting rates of participation have exceeded those of whitey.

    Statistics, where would we be without them?

    “the worst Republican is better than the best democrat”

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  81. Interesting statistic, linked today by Morning Jolt, published spring 2013::

    Puffington Host: Black Voter Turnout Rate Passes Whites In 2012 Election

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 9/30/2014 @ 2:34 pm

    As I’ve pointed out before, the vote total dropoff from 2008 to 2012 was on Obama’s side (Romney’s vote total slightly exceeded McCain’s), and the total white vote declined by a few million as well from 2008 to 2012. The obvious conclusion is that those were whites who voted for Obama in 2008 who stayed home. Another conclusion is that it suggests the massive character assassination campaign against Romney made the difference. Those no-show white voters realized Obama was a failure but couldn’t pull the lever for Romney.

    Gerald A (d65c67)

  82. 77. The GOP is dead, long live the opposition.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  83. mitt is so weird Mr. nk he’s just not normal

    i have no real understanding of him other than I think he has great teeth but he doesn’t drink red wine or coffee so that’s kind of cheating

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  84. “living, breathing proof that the G.O.P. is so much the party of old rich out-of-touch white guys that they keep … nominating … the same … one.”

    Requiem for Schtoopid.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  85. Statistically its looking pretty good for the old white guys chances of taking 1/3 of government.

    But with shutdown, slowdown and rescinding appropriation off the table are they going to gum the EPA to death, suck the life out of the IRS, piddle on the VA’s leg, what?

    We’ve seen the last DC-selected Republican POTUS.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  86. He’s a Mormon, happyfeet. He doesn’t smoke, do weed or chop heads off either. So what?

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  87. 81. It’s not just one thing. There’s different kinds of voters.

    Anyway, the 2012 election is unusual, is that it is one where an incumbent President lost votes compared to his first election, but not enough to actually lose.

    Sammy Finkelman (ca4c0f)

  88. The end of QE Eternity:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/09-overflow/20140830_POMO.jpg

    Eternity had to take leave ’cause collateral is nonexistent. Remember a year ago when the total was $85 Billion each and every month?

    What will the DOW do now?

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  89. Anyway, the 2012 election is unusual, is that it is one where an incumbent President lost votes compared to his first election, but not enough to actually lose.

    I’ve read that between 6 and 8 million Republicans didn’t even bother to vote because they didn’t “like” Romney. Wonder how they’re liken’ Obama?

    And that’s my point. If you want to argue about the perfect Republican that’s fine, but beat them first.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  90. it’s just so mysterious

    we know all about the beverages he avoids but very little about the beverages he enjoys Mr. Hoagie

    I can’t vote for someone like that

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  91. Hoagie (4dfb34) — 9/30/2014 @ 3:03 pm

    Remember back in the 60′s the little girl picking daisy’s and an A-bomb goes off behind her?

    Rob Astorino has reshot that commercial (which in 1964 actually ran only once, but the idea was around) except that the bomb exploding is Governor Cuomo going to jail.

    Cuomo was making a deal with his pulling of the Moreland Commission, but it is probably not criminal. Meanwhile OObama may nominate the U.S. Attorney who’s looking into all of this to be Attorney General.

    Remember grandma in a wheel chair getting thrown off a cliff? How about we do one of children dying of diseases because of illegals brought in by leftists? It could read: They let your children die to get votes!

    Well, if you want to be condemned by everyone, you could do that.

    There was just now one ebola case detected in Texas, but it wasn’t brought in by anyne illegal, just by somebody who travelled on a commercial airplane from Liberia. No details about him, exceptteh date and that he was not a health care worker – just somebody present in Liberia.

    The CDC assures everyone nobody got infected. They’re a little bit too dogmatic about it, but it is probably true, and it is also true, taht when have very few cases, it can be contained. We now have one case. There’ll be more if this gets bigger in Liberia.

    And a virus doesn’t know if the person being infected is a U.S> citizen or permanent residnet traveling abroad or not.

    Or how about scenes of terrorism including beheadings and ask: where was Obama and the democrats? How about shots of Benghazi with: Ambassador Stevens awaits Hillary at 3am. They us a club, we use a knife. They use a knife….well you know. The Chicago Way.

    Everything gets fact-checked. At least anything not done by the DNC or the Democratic nominee.

    Sammy Finkelman (ca4c0f)

  92. There’ll be more if this gets bigger in Liberia.

    there’ll be oodles more if a plucky terrorist infects himself with it and saunters across the border and starts flicking ebola boogers at people

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  93. 7. It is hard for him to make the argument that Hillary Clinton has been around forever and it’s time for someone new

    Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/30/2014 @ 4:52 pm

    No Republican nominee should base their campaign on that argument.

    It’s the weakest argument you could make against Hillary, one that could also one day be applied againmst a Republican nominee.

    It’s sort of like impeaching Bill Clinton for lying under oath instead of so many other things he did, like murdring the Branch Davidians at Waco.

    The big case against Hillary is that she is dishonest and has no principles.

    Sammy Finkelman (ca4c0f)

  94. 89… almost makes me regret providing transportation to voters in need iof same . Hard to understand that mindset, other than they’re the sort prone to self-abuse and l-l-l-l-l-l-losing.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  95. 94. I don’t know why you can’t be happy losing Colonel, it seems deliberate.

    Are you aware of confliction?

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  96. Brave Sir Robin (W) in 2016!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  97. But with shutdown, slowdown and rescinding appropriation off the table are they going to gum the EPA to death, suck the life out of the IRS, piddle on the VA’s leg, what?

    gary gulrud (46ca75) — 9/30/2014 @ 5:15 pm

    What is that supposed to mean? You want to do what exactly?

    Gerald A (d65c67)

  98. it is not merely the candidate, but the strategists involved, will Fehrnstrom , Madden and co, be signed up by any campaign, then dead man walking,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  99. #98

    Strategists should not create the message. The candidate has to know the message from the start, even before he hires anyone. If you have a candidate who needs strategists to decide the message he’s a loser.

    Gerald A (d65c67)

  100. Amen to Gerald A. The candidate is the message and if he can’t articulate that then he shouldn’t be the candidate. It should be a message of pride in America and the strength of our people, not dependence.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  101. Kennedy had “Ask not what your country can do for you…”. Reagan had “A shining City on a hill”. Obama has “you didn’t build that”. We need to be the party of inspiration not degradation. The party of “can do” not “you’re a victim”. The party of pride, not envy. Whomever the candidate is better know that or we loose again.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  102. Chicken Little is alive and living in Minnesota!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  103. That’s true, Hoagie, but Lee Atwater got Bush 41 in, in 1988, and if he’d been alive in 1992, Bush would have been re-elected, and the whole course of American history would have changed. Obama has his Lee Atwater in David Axelrod, now. Every general needs a good chief of staff.

    nk (dbc370)

  104. 102. Here’s another abdication of purpose the GOP is sucking on in New England.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/09/ok-district-court-no-subsidies-on-federal-exchanges/

    Rather than lead the GOP said from Jan. 2013, “Its up to America to beat back 404care”.

    All the progress has been in the liberal Judiciary. The Chamber spends big bucks in NH on Obamaneycare messaging to no audience. Immigration and ISIS are the voters’ priorities.

    ESAD Republican.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  105. Islamist Crack Whore runs in to opposition:

    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/09/commando-vs-community-organizer.html

    Against an Israeli. Talk about sitting on our thumbs.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  106. and if he’d been alive in 1992, Bush would have been re-elected

    Have to disagree, nk. I was sitting at my bar the afternoon 41 announced his tax plan. The first word out of my mouth was: F***! I looked at the bar manager and said “we just lost the next election.” “Read my lips, no new taxes” is as plain as “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”. Only difference is 41 didn’t have 2,000 talking heads on TV covering his ass. Or a (D) after his name. Apparently it’s okay for them to lie, perhaps even expected.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  107. 106. And it was Sunnunu’s idea, WH CoS, accredited genius.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  108. You Republican’s keep talking up you democratic primaries and caucuses as reliably selecting horseflesh.

    Try using your ph#cking brains.

    You have repeatedly told the middle class, your majority of opportunity, “You’re on your own. Help us”.

    WTF?

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  109. Yeah, there was that teensy, bitsy little thing. 😉 The way I figure it, though, is that there would have been campaign of Pat Buchanan in a three-way with Clinton and Jennifer Flowers by the time of the convention. 😉 For sure, Hillary would not have succeeded in covering up either Jennifer Flowers or Juanita Broadrick, with her vast right-wing conspiracy horse****. Atwater knew how to bring a gun to a knife fight.

    nk (dbc370)

  110. campaign *ads*

    nk (dbc370)

  111. I wish you could see your way clear to run for local office, gary. To test ideas, messaging, and to help get some of your issues out there before the voters. I am serious. And I think it might be therapeutic and more effective than heckling from the sidelines.

    elissa (090163)

  112. 97. Near term fight.

    Long term abolish the IRS with a flat tax of some sort. Remove delegated regulatory authority from federal bureaucracy, e.g., the EPA is a data mining operation, same with the DPE, fire all the lawyers at the SEC and hire accountants in their place. Eliminate swat teams from all extra-DHS agencies. Abolish the TSA. Lay off 200,000 Postal Service employees, 50,000 NSA employees, or three quarters of Federal employees. Add a sunset to every regulation. Return 90% of impounded Western State lands to the sovereigns…

    Medium term terminate the Federal government, with prejudice and call select survivors to a Constitutional Convention, Rev. 2.0.

    Nothing major.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  113. 111. I accept your well-intended criticism as of value. It’s just the time for that tack is not propitious. More pressing is a need for preparations against social upheaval worldwide, and in the US corresponding to the Civil War.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  114. For the old SoCal folks out there, this ought to be a blast from the past: “Tina Delgado is alive, alive!!!”

    Sam Riddle… the Real Don Steele… Robert W. Morgan… 93 KHJ… just reminiscing…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  115. and Jihad in Minnesota!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  116. Wahlid alWalleye

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  117. Mahmoud Muskellunge

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  118. I believe some of you think me, well, over the top, and with reason.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-30/if-something-rattles-ponzi-scheme-life-america-will-change-overnight

    I prefer to think you ‘math-challenged’.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  119. You are not helping, Col. I am sincerely trying to focus Gary on a more positive and worthwhile path of resistance. I think he does understand this even as he rejects the idea.

    elissa (090163)

  120. I work with a guy who thinks Durden’s a prophet. I just hope and pray he isn’t

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  121. I am fairly sure I will vote for the Constitution Party candidate in 2016.

    I am fairly sure I will never vote for a GOP candidate again.

    I am tired of getting lied to by the VichyGOP.

    And do us all a favor and keep your LoTE comments to yourselves. That argument isn’t going to change my mind.

    WarEagle82 (b18ccf)

  122. i keep getting more and more behind on my acronyms

    and you know what?

    i’m ok you’re ok

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  123. I am fairly sure I will vote for the Constitution Party candidate in 2016.

    I.e. the crank collection favored by the likes of Howard Phillips and Joseph Sobran.

    Long term abolish the IRS with a flat tax of some sort

    Someone still has to collect that flat tax.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  124. No, feets, I’m okay, you’re so-so…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  125. I think what he’s saying, Art Deco, is he’d rather have a marxist democrat as president than an imperfect Republican. Makes sense to me, that’s how we got our current douchebag.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  126. 120. Durden simply filters the financial blogs of money managers. At most he’ll introduce a link with a paragraph of editorial introduction.

    Dismissing with a wave, these disparate voices, sans argumentation and then turning around and recycling failed aphorisms from yesteryear impresses no one.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  127. What does anyone here mean by a “flat tax” anyway? One or two rates? How does that simplify anything given that we already have tax tables? I don’t even hear the idea of collecting the tax at the source and avoiding teh necessity to report income.

    There’d be all sorts of consequences if people didn’t have to file income tax returns. Financial aid is calculated on that basis, and loans made. No tax return = no financial information to give away. Is anyone prepared for that? Why no talk about that?

    Or does somebody mean a consumption tax? which has the problem that many people paid income tax already on their savings, and aren’t earning much income any more.

    In either case there is still the IRS, whch would ned to make audits.

    You can come up with a simple to administer tax, but you need to make a lot more changes than making a tax flat – whatever that means.

    You could pull all bills higher than $10 from circulation and tax electrnoic transactions between different people, with maybe a few caveats.

    Sammy Finkelman (ca4c0f)

  128. Every time I see an appeal to the black communities to stop supporting democrats I see arguments that their interests have not been advanced despite loyal support over decades. Detroit is a shambles, the schools are failing, etc. There was an ad like that about Sen Landrieu up on Instapundit that got me thinking along the same lines: has the GOP advanced the conservative agenda? We hold our noses and buy into this party over and over, yet where does the party stand today on debt, immigration, freedom, privacy or really anything, when compared against the GOP twenty years ago? They haven’t just gone in the wrong direction, they have raced there.

    I’ve read that between 6 and 8 million Republicans didn’t even bother to vote because they didn’t “like” Romney. Wonder how they’re liken’ Obama?

    I knew the guy was unlikable by the bruises where I held my nose as voting for him, yet this surprises me. That’s powerful and worth taking notice of. I bet those who ignored this factor during the primary aren’t liken’ Obama either. Especially as economic indicators say it was clearly the GOP’s race to lose.

    No matter who runs, do not be one of those saps who, like me in years past, could be counted on to support someone who wasn’t going to advance your agenda. No matter what that agenda is or what party’s plantation you’ve called home in the past. You will be told, every single time, that the other party is so bad that the country will be doomed if they win, and that this is the most important election in history. You will be told to stray is roughly equivalent to treason. The most important election is the one where sufficient men and women refuse to play along, and force a correction in national policy. Would you rather be a part of that, or be the guy who pushed Mccain 4.0 across the finish line?

    And so there is something hopeful to take from the 2012 election, even though I admit I was not happy with the ultimate result.

    Dustin (801032)

  129. 128. “6 to 8 million”, and elsewhere “all of the drop in turn out was due to disaffected Obama voters”.

    Not that I aspire to perfection, both of these reports are wide of the mark. A week after the election Romany was down to McVain over 1.5 million with counting still to run a couple weeks.

    While the loss may have included Republicans, Romany did better than McVain with Independents as a percentage of the total.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  130. The most important election is the one where sufficient men and women refuse to play along, and force a correction in national policy.

    Impossible, Dustin. If every Republican stayed home and “refused to play along”, who would win? The democrap! You want Hillary? You want Fauxcahontas? Then stay home or vote Constitutional, or vote Libertarian or what ever cause you worship. But then the bad guys win. I just don’t understand what you guys are thinking when you say and do this stuff. You don’t want any more lying Republicans so you’ll hand it all to much, much worse lying leftist democrats? So what’s that prove? You’re pure of soul? This ain’t a religion to conservatives, it’s an election. Obama ain’t a god even if he and his followers think he is. He’s just a man.

    The enemy has a coalition of gays, transgendered, code pinks, blacks and black liberationists, communists, socialists, anarchists, national socialists, labor unions, Marxists, pro Palestinians, anti Semitics, anti capitalists, anti free marketers, pro abortionists, anti gun nuts, anti Christins, pro moslem, environmentalists, global warming nuts yet they all seem to come together in November, bury their differences for one damn day and vote against America. Why can’t we do the same to vote FOR America?

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  131. That’s why it surprised me, Gary.

    But there were so many grumbles about his likability from so many people that I guess I’m not sure.

    The electoral college is not ambiguous. The country by and large rejected the GOP candidate. The campaign did not work. With joblessness and inflation and recent national security failure, this is cause for the GOP to freak out. I just want the government to stay out of my personal business and balance the budget. Many people I know feel this way. A party in need of a reboot knows to head in that direction, and if it did so could dominate. Of course that means less power for our ruling class, which is why both parties ignore the appeal of this approach.

    Dustin (801032)

  132. Hoagie,

    I used to think as you do. I used to argue against those saying what I am now saying. I understand where you’re coming from.

    Let’s just take one problem. On the debt level, both parties are the bad guys. The difference between them is not sufficient to change a disaster that is nearly inevitable. Only one of these parties is blotting out the existence of a reform because so many balanced budget fans are sold on the boogeyman bad guy argument you are making, and always voting for the lesser of two progressives.

    And thus there is never any balanced budget. You say this is “for America”, but I say that the best path would be to break this cycle and get the reform block cleared, and then balance the budget. Thus, Republican candidates who I do not perceive as principled conservatives on the budget are extremely unappealing to me, and from now on I decline to support them “for America.”

    That’s just one issue, but it applies across the board.

    It’s not about proving anything. But note that the RINO type of candidates usually lose, due largely to their failure to effectively argue against policies they themselves have largely embraced at some point. These types aren’t even good tactical compromises anyway.

    Dustin (801032)

  133. == where does the party stand today on debt, immigration, freedom, privacy or really anything, when compared against the GOP twenty years ago? They haven’t just gone in the wrong direction, they have raced there.==

    And again Dustin, who is “they”? One could argue that “the party” in any given election is really just the people who choose to vote under that classification or rubric. Nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes it seems like you want a party king or a party titular head at the top of the chart dictating and/or driving policy to all below. Sometimes it seems like you want the candidates from across the country to all be national candidates rather than representing their local and state interests and constituencies. Is this what you want? If not, what do you want? Do you agree or disagree with the R party platform from the 2012 convention?

    elissa (68eca7)

  134. Who was this all-too-humble, deeply conservative candidate who chose to sit out the run up to the 2008 and 2012 elections. Who was this game-changing, Brave Sir Robin?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  135. Given all the blather, bloviating and bluster, it’s crickets when ANYONE asks who would’ve been the man or woman who would’ve sent Obama into retirement.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  136. the party establishment is blanc mange at best on immigration, pro life issues, in Mississippi, they went full ‘Macho Grande’ Delaware for those without the Rosetta,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  137. it’s crickets when ANYONE asks who would’ve been the man or woman who would’ve sent Obama into retirement.

    That’s a good point, but counter-factual speculation is difficult to do well. The race was close enough that it was, I would wager, lost due to certain contingencies. Obama’s margin in 2008 would have been considered ordinary prior to 2000, and much of it likely derived from the eruption of a banking crisis just weeks before the election. I do not think Gov. Romney was a notably inadequate candidate and there’s no one whose run in the post-Eisenhower era who likely has a better idea of how to run a large organization. Thinking about it, his loss is an indicator of decadence.

    What some of the complainers never seem to glom on to is that the roster of people who run and who succeed in showing tell you something about who is recruited to public life and who can handle the manic donneybrook that is the contemporary primary contest, but they never advocate changing candidate screens (and it would be hard to predict results if you did). That aside, it’s not as if Republican voters do not have choices. A succession of candidates went up and down in polls ‘ere the mantle settled on the shoestring candidacy of Richard Santorum, so it’s not as if money and organization are all that matter.

    Republican electorates have a strong preference for the familiar, and the sort of constituency candidates you have do not typically make themselves familiar. They run once and then head back to their other employments. Ronald Reagan is the only exception. The candidates who make multiple runs are professional pols, not all of them properly termed opportunists or careerists, but certainly career men. George Bush the Elder, Robert Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney all have motors which trump programmatic preferences. You’re shot this time for a constituency candidate whom voters might find familiar is Gov. Huckabee. However, the people who utter nonsense phrases like ‘McCain’s a RINO’ despise Huckabee.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  138. Colonel, that’s a straw man. Neither I nor anyone else has suggested there was or is a candidate that was “game changing” or would have sent Obumbles into retirement. That’s not the issue I’m trying to point out. What I’m saying is ther never will be a candidate to retire a democrat and send their party into retirement if we keep looking for reasons NOT to vote for the Republican.

    You guys are killing me. We now have an opportunity presented to us where the incumbent is so out of touch, so bad at his job, so uncaring and lackadaisical toward the people and the country he’s making Jimmy Carter look good. But if we don’t stop bitching at each other we will loose to, well, losers. We need every Senate seat and House seat we can get and we really need the White House or we will have leftist activist judges for the next fifty years piled so high if Congress was made up for Breitbart’s we couldn’t pass anything that wouldn’t be over turned.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  139. Excuse me, Patrick Buchanan and Ron Paul are constituency candidates who’ve run multiple times. Both are eccentrics who’ve had no administrative experience and Paul in particular is an annoying goof. You cannot sell that inventory to anyone but a niche audience.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  140. I think Gov. Jindal is the most engaging candidate, though too young. Among the old men, Romney, Huckabee, or Perry will do.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  141. Old John McCain was primaried from the right in 2010, won the contentious primary in a squeaker and went on to win the general election to remain senator from Arizona for six more years. This was inexplicable (to me anyway) since he had just lost the presidential race and everybody pretty much knows/knew he is a contradiction in a suit and a loose cannon. You can call him a RINO if you wish, but not without calling the majority of Republican voters in Arizona who voted for him RINOs too. And that starts to look sort of silly.

    elissa (68eca7)

  142. Forgive me for interjecting myself into this but Hoagie, I’m pretty sure the Col’s comment was not directed at you. He was addressing another commenter’s position–a person who is pretty sure a “principled conservative” could have beat Obama in 2012 but is unable to say whom that might have been.

    elissa (68eca7)

  143. “Colonel, that’s a straw man. Neither I nor anyone else has suggested there was or is a candidate that was “game changing” or would have sent Obumbles into retirement”

    Sorry, hoagie, perhaps you haven’t been commenting at this site long enough to know what has gone on since November 2012.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  144. it is a question of strategy, and tactics, Clausewitz completely misunderstood,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  145. “What I’m saying is ther never will be a candidate to retire a democrat and send their party into retirement if we keep looking for reasons NOT to vote for the Republican.”

    You are preaching to a member of the choir, Hoagie. No disagreement on my end.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  146. Thanks, elissa… I just about choked on my delicious slice of Marie Callender’s Banana Cream Pie when I read that

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  147. Okay, got ya, Colonel, you too elissa.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  148. I like the focus of the comments and arguments you’ve been making on this thread, Hoagie.

    elissa (68eca7)

  149. It sure is fun to be lectured at.

    JD (285732)

  150. All right, all right, JD. I got the point. Yes, I’m new and don’t know you all that well. Gimme time. I do know ropelight from The First Street Journal and that moonbat, vota (Perry).

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  151. Yes, it certainly is. Especially when teh Legendary Brave Sir Robin remains an anonymous enigma cloaked in a mystical mystery.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  152. 135. I remember from some quarter during the primaries the challenge “Why not a conservative?” But it fell on deaf ears and was little pursued.

    I wonder if it wasn’t raised as now, by the Colonel, as an object of ridicule?

    Anyone?

    gary Gulrud (46ca75)

  153. Colonel – remind us how your candidate did in the last two elections.

    JD (285732)

  154. I am all for a conservative, gulrud. I hope one runs, wins the nomination and the next election. It would please me.

    Until that happens I say why not support whoever the nominee turns out to be, sans b*tching, moaning, armchair quarterbacking, revisionism or poor-mouthing.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  155. 151. Well, my position has been pretty consistent since 10PM Nov. 6 2012 that democracy has fallen and can’t get up.

    Y’all found the clapper? I think not.

    gary Gulrud (46ca75)

  156. 154. Said w/out a trace of self-awareness.

    gary Gulrud (46ca75)

  157. I hope I’m invited to the ceremony where you bend over and kiss your ass goodbye, gary. The suspense is killing me. RSVP?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  158. I submit it’s high time Amerikkka give up attending to Republicans.

    gary Gulrud (46ca75)

  159. To whom it may concern, the Colonel gets the heat because he can take it.

    gary Gulrud (46ca75)

  160. Hugs and kisses, gary…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  161. Alas, it is the VichyGOP that continues to provide me reasons NOT to vote for the VichyGOP.

    Given an actual conservative candidate, I would certainly vote for him/her.

    But I haven’t had that choice in a long time. Well, since Reagan…

    WarEagle82 (b18ccf)

  162. the GOP is stagnant and ossified

    it’s hopelessly mired in boehner and mcconnell and a bunch of geriatric fascists like John McCain and Thad Cochran

    mired like dinosaurs in the tar pits is how they’re mired

    and the more they struggle the deeper into the muck they sink

    poor lil dinosaurs

    they made bad choices

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  163. And again Dustin, who is “they”? One could argue that “the party” in any given election is really just the people who choose to vote under that classification or rubric. Nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes it seems like you want a party king or a party titular head at the top of the chart dictating and/or driving policy to all below. Sometimes it seems like you want the candidates from across the country to all be national candidates rather than representing their local and state interests and constituencies. Is this what you want? If not, what do you want? Do you agree or disagree with the R party platform from the 2012 convention?

    elissa (68eca7) — 10/1/2014 @ 3:34 pm

    Elissa,

    I’m happy to discuss this with you again.

    The distinction should be raised. For example, what is a RINO? I use the term as it’s easy to know what I mean, but it’s a stupid term. If this is the political party that nominates John Mccain for president, then of course it doesn’t make sense to call folks like John Mccain RINOs. The conservatives calling themselves Republicans are the RINOs now. Yet before the party transitioned to this point that term came to mean Republicans who couldn’t be relied upon to progress the agenda in a way that benefited conservatives. I didn’t come up with that… it’s just how language worked it out this time. Also, it was a criticism of their sincerity. Republicans who will act like democrats when the pressure mounts. Still fits. But back on point, I do not know why the GOP is the ‘conservative party’. Its origins are, of course, anti-federalism, and the only time in my life I can recall the GOP actually moving the agenda in the federalist or conservative direction for any length of time was the late 1990s. Why are conservatives like me considered the base of this party, and not moderates like you? That’s unfair to both of us. I don’t say that with any disrespect. I think the whole thing was a reaction to democrats in the 1930s and again in the 1960s and 70s. The whole thing is a confused mess of running as not something, instead of as something.

    You are certainly right that politicians from different places will represent their constituents differently. If you’re suggesting it’s then none of my business to criticize, I do disagree with that, but I respect the right of locals to pick their leadership. Yet come on… Romney attended Planned Parenthood fundraisers and raised taxes on gun ownership, whereas Perry signs abortion restrictions and shoots coyotes as he’s jogging. Should the variance be that extreme? Murkowski to Palin extreme?
    It’s certainly impractical. I do not know what that “R” means when I scan my ballot. I do not know, for example, that this R is next to the name of a politician who rejects the individual mandate, or wants to balance the budget, or supports gun rights, etc etc etc. I don’t vote to show my team spirit for the Republicans. Without this information, I do not know who to vote for. I usually know this info anyway, but the R itself means absolutely nothing. Sometimes I have no choice but to leave the ballot blank. If the R meant something I agreed with, I wouldn’t. Of course, you will recall I said upthread how team R is actually getting in the way, so I think it’s starting to take meaning, however that means I’ll just vote against them by default.
    Do I agree with the entire GOP 2012 platform? Do I agree with rainbows? That document is not a record formed in action. It isn’t Gov Walker standing up to unions. It’s just a pdf of things calculated to get votes. It is a nothing. Put Hillary’s name on top and more than 90% of democrats would agree with most of it. I want to see a record in office when I’m asked to vote for a presidential candidate. My standards are lower for other offices, but not that much lower; I need to know what they stand for, and I will be skeptical of double talkers and flip floppers. Now, your point was probably that if I don’t agree with the whole platform who am I to challenge others who stray, but with respect I think at the point where y’all are the party of Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham I sure can.

    Dustin (801032)

  164. . You’re shot this time for a constituency candidate whom voters might find familiar is Gov. Huckabee. However, the people who utter nonsense phrases like ‘McCain’s a RINO’ despise Huckabee.

    Art Deco (ee8de5) — 10/1/2014 @ 4:10 pm

    You’re right about this. Huckabee is not going to advance my vision of limited government an inch. I also think it’s difficult to predict what coulda woulda run, but also a little tacky. I mean, for dozens of threads we hashed out who we should nominate, so those saying ‘you won’t say who could won’ are either dishonest or forgetful. We all have said many times who we think would have won.

    I like that you mention Santorum, as he did exceed my expectations greatly.

    2010 was a referendum midterm. Sarah Palin was all over the country condemning this loss of freedom and the mess and burden being created by those who would manage our decisions for us. Tea Party rallies erupted everywhere, many of them quite critical of many Republicans and Democrats alike, as we had finally had enough of a long trend of spending, taxing, and growth in government. There wasn’t much call for party loyalty, but overall there were many Republicans elected to replace Democrats. It was an opportunity for the GOP to define itself more clearly. Of course, the opportunity to do this was our nomination contest.

    In 2011 there were many awesome Republican candidates for President. All of them were flawed, as we all are, and many of them trod similar ground in opposing many of the same policies. It was very competitive for the conservative side, but as usual, the establishment focused on a guy very early. It is a shame such tactics only work in primaries, but work they do. Throughout the primary, ‘someone other than the establishment guy’ was a majority preference, but each option was scandalized and destroyed. The conservatives went from one to another until they were left with Newt, who is ridiculous, and Romney, who is progressive and ridiculous. Read Rubin’s archives over the period to see how brutal this got.

    Pawlenty and Santorum had a great agenda that appealed to the lower and middle classes who probably felt some sting at that clumsy don’t worry about the 47%ers comment. They were running on their principles, which I think were legitimate. Herman Cain and Rick Perry also ran, both of whom showed many moments of fluster, yet they both had a coherent message, and Perry of course had accomplished a lot as LT Gov and Gov of a big state. Of these guys I think Pawlenty, Santorum, and Perry would have most easily defeated Obama in the general because the election would have been about the individual mandate, inevitably. Pawlenty and Perry both stood up to flack in rejecting Obamacare subsidies as they laid the framework for their argument on a major, current, winning issue for them. While Romney could talk about his 5923 point plan, these other leaders would just show very clearly what they had actually accomplished, be it the Contract with America or booming employment in their state. And more folks would believe these other candidates actually gave a flip about them. If I had to pick only one who could beat Obama (and I think most of them could in that particular election, given the joblessness) I think Santorum was the best survivor. The democrats would have wound up calling an awful lot of the voting public zealots on accident as it called many of Santorum’s views extreme.

    I, like many, predicted that Romney would lose, even though he laid waste to the GOP candidates. Romney had a tremendous advantage thanks to the media, and an establishment that gave him many favors, from unconstitutional ballot access tricks making he and Ron Paul the only remaining candidates (Saddam Hussein Style) to simply money bombing before the other candidates had found any footing. The other GOP candidates could show powerful distinctions between their records and Obama’s, Romney could not (the media preference now gone), and would be forced to run a ‘nice guy’ campaign, much as Mccain ran. Turns out Romney ran his campaign poorly to boot. Promises of the slick analytical manager turned out to be overstated. Obama ran a tighter operation.

    I am concerned that some establishment donors are more interested in preserving the status quo of access and bloat, whether that be a democrat or republican, so long as it isn’t some wide eyed idealist reformer.

    But there’s a little more to it than that. Romney didn’t just get a drubbing. He damaged the GOP brand itself. The acrimony is so bad the joke is that some prefer to ‘let it burn’. Many, many GOP candidates did more poorly than expected. This is often used to argue that Romney hit his marks and did well, but no, the party was harmed by running someone this out of step with its base.

    Running Santorum, Perry, or Pawlenty wouldn’t have caused that, and I think it’s likely they would have win the whole deal anyway.

    Dustin (801032)

  165. Dustin, hi- Actually my point about the platform was simply that as far as I know it’s the only thing that attempts to be a policy paper guide about Republicanism during a presidential election year. You say it’s a nothing (and i largely agree with you about that and in fact I disagreed with parts of it, too) but still you seem to want *something* –like an issues or values chart, or an insurance policy of some sort, that when you vote for an R it will mean he/she will actually do X. I understand why you’d like that or want that, but I don’t get where you think it would come from or who would write it or authenticate it, or how it would be enforced (for lack of better words). People get really goofy when they get to Washington and achieve power I’ve noticed.

    By the way, despite your categorization to the contrary, I consider myself a conservative. A conservative who usually votes for the most conservative candidate available to me which frequently means someone you’d prolly call a moderate or a RINO. :) In other words I do the best I can with what I have to work with. I like to think you’d do the same.

    elissa (68eca7)

  166. Elissa, do you consider Romney to be conservative?

    Dustin (801032)

  167. still you seem to want *something* –like an issues or values chart, or an insurance policy of some sort

    True and fair enough. I want a record, as I said and for candidates to explain how that applies to their promises. Like a job interview, where the employer wants to hear some examples, instead of just big talk about general concepts. It is very practical to have some sort of list of issues, as all candidates do and should, but like you I have noticed that these candidates do change when they get power. The record gives that real meaning.

    Funny enough, btw, I do not consider myself all that conservative. I can’t compromise on integrity, but I don’t really care about a lot of issues, as they aren’t as urgent as balancing the budget, which is not a conservative opinion so much as common sense. Most conservatives I know think I’m liberal and most liberals I know think I’m conservative. But we are so far gone that ‘spend no more than you have to spend’ is probably considered fanatically reactionary.

    Dustin (801032)

  168. The guy I voted for lost the 2012 election. How did your candidate do, JD? At which point in the process did his or her electability prove to be a case of “not so much”?

    Colonel Haiku (ed365f)

  169. Colonel – this is well traveled ground here. Some of us have grown weary of hearing the “most electable” crowd hector those that disagree, in light of the most electable candidates getting their teeth kicked in by SCOAMF for the last 2 presidential elections.

    JD (285732)

  170. Like the Colonel, the guy I voted for in 2012 lost. Now had 6 or 8 million Republicans who stayed home bitching about the candidate had voted, who knows. I do know I would have voted for JD had he run on the Republican ticket against the current Marxist in chief.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  171. That goes both ways, JD… no?

    Colonel Haiku (ed365f)

  172. I dunno Hoagie… maybe too close to the red button.

    Colonel Haiku (ed365f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8744 secs.