Posted on 02/10/2007 2:16:42 PM PST by EveningStar
Two days ago, in blogging about the abortion records of the serious GOP Presidential prospects (McCain, Giuliani, Romney), I provoked a great deal of anger by writing off the other current contenders (Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, Ron Paul, Gilmore, Thompson, Duncan Hunter) as "lesser" candidates who stand no realistic chance of winning primaries or grabbing the nomination. No matter how much you may admire these people, their candidacies are irrelevant – more a bid for attention, or a preparation for future races, than a realistic bid for power...
When, in the last 60 years of Presidential politics, did any obscure underdog manage to defy the odds and win the nomination of the Republican Party?...
(Excerpt) Read more at michaelmedved.townhall.com ...
Not in the last 126 years. And he got shot.
Looks nice as a tag line, LOL.
"Hey, that gives me an idea...no, never mind."
yes, it would be silly to vote your convictions. There is nothing conservative about Rudy G.
I fear you are right FRiend. Their power is slapping vitriol into a keyboard.
I am glad you mentioned that. Your first statement is true. Your second statement is false (as I suspect you know, so I am going to let it pass as mere hyperbole).
I do support the war and I disagree with Ron Paul on the war. But I understand his position and it is a well thought out and principled position. Ron Paul opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning because he did not believe that Saddam Hussein's despotism in Iraq was the most immediate threat to the security of the United States. I would say history has been kind to his view.
I think we need to finish the job we started in Iraq. But my enthusiasm for the war diminished greatly once the mission became bringing democracy to everybody in the middle east.
Period.
" but they ALL are probably more accomplished than Dan Quayle (with a couple of exceptions)."
(FROM WIKI)
In 1976, Quayle was elected to the U.S. Congress from Indiana's Fourth Congressional District, defeating an eight-term incumbent Democrat. He won reelection in 1978 by the greatest percentage margin ever achieved to that date in the northeast Indiana district. In 1980, at age 33, Quayle became the youngest person ever elected to the U.S. Senate from the State of Indiana, defeating three-term incumbent Democrat Birch Bayh. Making Indiana political history again, Quayle was reelected to the Senate in 1986 with the largest margin ever achieved to that date by a candidate in a statewide Indiana race.
During his tenure in the U.S. Senate, Quayle did legislative work in the areas of defense, arms control, labor, and human resources. He served on the Armed Services Committee, the Budget Committee, and the Labor and Human Resources Committee.
Add to that the fact that he has no and will not get any big political backing and he has yet to do anything about putting a team together. Oh yes, and he has NO chits to call in.
Medved said on his show yesterday the Newt has zero chance. I actually think he's right, just because of what the media will do to him. Bush's MSM coverage would be considered positive compared to what Gingrich would receive.
You sound like another one of the keyboard commandos in your mom's basement who can't face the truth.
Excellent point, and you're right. However, I don't think Medved is addressing these candidates, or saying they shouldn't run. I think he's addressing the voters who think these candidates actually can win.
Projecting?
Warren G Harding was an amiable, lazy, manipulable Senator who got the nomination in the famous 'smoky backroom'. He would be a vanity candidate today, too, but he won.
IOW, don't knock the vanities. That's what the campaign trail is designed to test. The fact that it's starting this soon is what's sickening.
Yeh, and in 04 Dean was annointed by the media to be the next Dem nominee.
How did that turn out?
===
Any of the 'lesser' candidates could emerge.
Heck, Obama became a household name overnight. Talk about a lesser who became a frontrunner! Obama has 2 years of Senate experience. Even Edwards had a full Senate term, and Hillary a full plus re-election to a second.
Come to think of it, all three of them could be considered 'lessers', yet they are the presumptive frontrunners on the Dem side.
Hi! Yep, here I am getting in trouble again. There sure are a lot of people here who take themselves waaayyyyy too seriously!
So what does that have to do with me?
Right now I'm dedicating myself to fighting the left wing of the Republican party. Later on I'll worry about Hillary and her bunch.
Top priority... take down Rudy Guilianni.
Did you read the article? Your comments indicate that you did not.
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.