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 ...
I dunno, either.
However, a moderate squish who wins is likely to do less damage while in office than a genuine liberal.
Bill Clinton ran against GHW Bush when no one else would because of Bush's high ratings coming out of Desert Storm. We know who won that one.
By the way, you know better than to think a poll on Free Republic gives a meaningful sample of probable Republican voters, don't you?
Your prior posts over time indicate you do.
It's weird the lengths that big name republicans are going to discredit conservative candidates and trying to make Rockefeller republican candidates look inevitable.
And the thing is, they just don't get it. Even if they get their way all they are doing is insuring an Democrat victory because conservatives WILL sit home rather than vote for a liberal just because he has an R in front of his name.
When Cindy Sheehan gave a list of her favorites in congress, Ron Paul was among them as they share the same views on the War on Terror.
This strategy worked out really well last fall, didn't it?
I agree that none of these guys would make strong candidates for the number one spot, but they ALL are probably more accomplished than Dan Quayle (with a couple of exceptions). Politics, indeed, makes strange bedfellows. I don't think Newt wants to bother. He's making too much money on the outside looking in...and throwing an occasional bomb over the wall.
Excellent and worthy of repeating. Wish I had said that.
Have you ever considered using it as your tag line?
worked fine for me. If the Reps are slow getting the message, then it will just have to be delivered again.
OK....make that 48.
" They better enlarge the tent, unless they like being powerless."
True conservatives are ideologues who don't want their essence, per the Strangelove movie, being polluted. Their tent is the size of a 'sno-cone. You know, 's no queers, 's no liberaltarians, 's no atheists, 's no pro-choicers in here!" The morally absolute 'sno-cone.
Most who say they haven't decided yet are ashamed to say who they are for and can't take the heat of having to support their candidate.
Well that will make Hillary's day. Your kind of thinking has already given us a Dem congress and senate....why not go all the way?
"...insuring an Democrat victory because conservatives WILL
sit home rather than vote for a liberal just because he has an R in front of his name."
Your definition of liberal may not agree with most of the voters in the country.
National elections are balancing act. Reagan won because he pulled votes from Democrats. You win presidential elections in the center, not from the base.
Though a stupid base can certainly lose an election, and elect someone in 2008 who will not defend the country.
Gingrich is a weird case. If he got in and took it seriously, it would be a big 4. But he doesn't have money and can't run a protracted campaign. He claims to be hedging his bets, but if he doesn't get in now, he's done.
Some good sense from the smartest and most sensible talk show host on the radio, Michael Medved.
"Most who say they haven't decided yet are ashamed to say who they are for and can't take the heat of having to support their candidate."
That's an interesting statement, got any evidence of that? It's got nothing to do with my thinking. Oh wait, you said most, you are off the hook. I'm not like "most." Whew!
Anyone who thinks that Duncan is a viable candidate, needs to 1)find out more about him 2) learn just how politics works 3)realize that money is the mother's milk of politics and accept the fact that he isn't going to be able to raise enough.
From Medved's article:
"Yes, Democrats have had a few off-brand, odd-ball contenders who came out of nowhere to beat bigger names – including Carter in ’76, Clinton in ‘92 and, arguably, Dukakis in ’88. But even Democrats hand nominations reliably to front-runners like Stevenson, Humphrey, Mondale, Gore and, most likely, Hillary.
"In the GOP, however, front-runners don’t just usually win; they always win.
"The last time a genuine underdog grabbed the Republican nomination was 68 years ago, when a celebrity lawyer with no political experience named Wendell Wilkie managed to stampede a divided convention."
You have your answer. They like -- truly like -- being powerless.
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.