Posted on 06/15/2011 7:35:03 AM PDT by no gnu taxes
I can't think of it. I mean McCain wasn't even the front runner last election for most of the race, and at this time in 2007, he was in serious trouble. But he was definitely the establishment guy and he ended up winning.
Is there any way we don't end up with a nominee Romney? I can only say that it's better than nominee McCain.
Mitt may be the designated place holder for the establishment at the moment, but I think that they’d be just as happy with Rooty, T-Paw or several others whom they could set up to take a dive for Obozo.
>> Dole could have been a good President. It was a shame her husband ran instead.<<
You’re kidding, right? She’s much worse than he. One of the worst senators and ran the absolute worst senatorial campaign ever from NC.
A little revisionist history going on here.
Many people forget that George W. Bush was not the early establishment choice, he was too tongue tied and too conservative. In 2000, his main opponents were Steve Forbes and John McCain, and it wasn’t until Bush won South Carolina (until then, not considered a major Primary) that it seemed inevitable that he would be the nominee.
Ronald Reagan almost defeated Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976, setting himself as the candidate most likely to win the nomination in 1980. He was the establishment choice in 1980.
The NON-establishment guy Paladino crushed the GOP hand-picked debutante “Little ricky” Lazio
Then the NY GOP (or D’Lite’) political organization took over control and made sure he lost to Cuomo
I would respectively disagree. Bush was The GOP choice going back to early 1999. McCain was an upstart. McCain's win in in NH was an orgasm for the MSM. Bush won a tough battle in SC, and then lost in MI. Frankly, Bush had a network set up over the US as a whole which made his candidacy a foregone conclusion, but the MSM was giddy over McCain's early success. After MI, Bush pretty much took over.
Everybody should read Phyllis Schlafley’s “A Choice Not an Echo.” This same thing has been going on since 1940. The elites wanted Willkie over Taft, Dewey over Taft, Dewey over Taft, Eisenhower over Taft, Nixon over Goldwater, Goldwater succeeded in 1964, Nixon over Reagan (although Reagan was a late-comer), Ford over Reagan, Reagan succeeded in 1980, there wasn’t really a real conservative choice in ‘88, Dole over Buchanan, Bush was more conservative than McCain though barely and succeeded in 2000, McCain over Romney/not much choice.
George Shultz was the architect of Bush’s groundwork. The organization of people on the ground for Bush was truly amazing, but if you listened to the pundits, Bush was destined to fall to Forbes or McCain because he didn’t speak well and was “unelectable” in the general election because he was so conservative.
The problem is using the term “establishment”. What do you mean by that? I don’t think you will find almost any candidate getting double digit votes that isn’t supported by someone in the “establishment”.
George W. Bush was the overwhelming pick of the GOP governors and the state party functionaries. There was some resistance to him on the Hill, but he overcame that early because the party pros didn't have another horse to back. McCain was even less popular with them than with movement conservatives. He's always been a loose cannon and the professionals knew that better than anyone. Before NH Bush was widely regarded as inevitable (which he very nearly was).
There was a brief moment when a few wishful-thinking leftoids in the media thought McCain might catch him. That moment lasted from the time the polls closed in NH to the time they closed in SC. In reality, McCain never had a prayer. The establishment was with W and conservatives considered him the less imperfect of two very flawed candidates.
In 1980 it may have been Reagan's turn, but he was hardly the establishment choice. The party professionals were desperate to field anybody but Reagan. They went through a RINO Who's Who in their effort to stop him, finally settling on Bush, Sr. They didn't succeed, but it wasn't for want of trying. Reagan was so unpopular in a certain segment of the party that Congressman John Anderson mounted an independent campaign against him that netted something like 6 per cent of the vote.
The Republican apparatus is progressive and Reagan wasn't. The pros reconciled themselves to him with great reluctance, and some of them never did. Regan was the antithesis of an establishment candidate.
Youve got to be kidding. Bachman is TEA party
After the Oklahoma City bombing, people from the local area began to pour gifts of food, clothing, household goods, even some cars upon the families of the victims.
Elisabeth’s Red Cross ran an add urging people to stop sending things directly to the families, and give to the Red Cross, which would then handle distribution. They then sold everything and put the money in their general fund.
When this came to light, Oklahomans were naturally incensed, Elisabeth was defiant, and Bob Dole refused to comment. When Bob later ran for president, people in the plains states made sure this was not forgotten.
When’s the last time this country was headed for default? Never.
Things have changed in the last 3 years.
With the Tea-Party still gaining strength, the old models don’t apply anymore.
It is no guarantee that the Establishment GOP will steamroll the grassroots today like they have in the past.
Perhaps there are degrees of “establishment”. A person whose family has been in the business of politics on the Federal Level for generations would be the most “establishment”. This could apply to the mover-and-shaker families of either political party.
Look at him laugh with the fellow behind him.
“You LOVE Romney”
I love no politician. Frankly you’ve been stalking me with these lies for weeks now and I am getting pretty sick of it. Post a link to me saying how much I love Romeny or STFU!
Maybe, but he had already fought a tooth and nail battle with Ford to prove himself a viable candidate and after his Convention speech that year, it seemed almost inevitable he was going to be the next GOP nominee.
no she established her tea party caucus to CLAIM the title of leader of the tea party.
Bachman is a typical politician taking the position to get herself elected.
(remember she supported jimmy carter)
Hardly. He may have been the front-runner to win (since he almost beat Ford in '76 and many regretted he didn't after the fact) but Reagan was never the establishment's choice. They didn't trust him and thought he was too aggressive, too divisive and too conservative. Bush I ultimately was the establishment choice which was why he won the Iowa primary. You forget the Nashua, NH 'I am paying for this microphone Mr. Green' moment
Fast Times At Nashua High (an awesome rendition of this classic story)
Long the front-runner for the Republican nomination, Reagan suffered a stunning upset in Iowa at the hands of George H. W. Bush on January 21. Worse for Reagan, his campaign’s internal polling showed the former California governor falling 21 points behind Bush in New Hampshire. If Reagan lost to Bush in New Hampshire, his campaign would be over. Forever. There was no tomorrow. This was it for the Gipper.
you raise a good point if not a tangent.
NEVER donate to the red cross. They do not give direct support.
They have their red cross vests for photo ops and after every disaster they beg for money to go to their general fund.
In 1976 over half the voters in America supported Jimmy Carter. You really want to hold someone to what happened over 30 years ago?
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.