Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: jjsheridan5
The problem, ever since Reagan, has not been that there have been too many non-establishment candidates running in the Presidential primaries. The problem has been that there have been too many awful non-establishment candidates running in the Presidential primaries, but no electable ones

Not only were most of them unelectable, but they were pseudo-conservatives (i.e. conservative rhetoric on some hot-button issue, establishment on all others). Cases in point: Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee. They sound "far right" on social issues, but on economic issues they were probably more liberal than Romney. Another example (and an even bigger clown than Rick or Huck) was perennial candidate Alan Keyes, who supported affirmative action and slavery reparations.

57 posted on 03/23/2015 7:11:41 AM PDT by ek_hornbeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: ek_hornbeck

That is why I said “too many non-establishment candidates”, and not “too many conservative candidates”. I couldn’t bring myself to call idiots like Santorum and Huckabee “conservative”. But “non-establishment” is, as you point out, also incorrect. Maybe these candidates defy any label other than “unelectable”?


59 posted on 03/23/2015 7:29:09 AM PDT by jjsheridan5 (The next Ronald Reagan will not be a Republican, but rather a former Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson