Replies

----"But I thought it was the voters who chose the Republican nominee. Is that not correct?"----

Oh come one. That's the same line the unions use every union election; you know it's not that simple.

The bigwigs in the party move the resources and people power to a candidate of their choice, thus leaving the other candidates with a deficit from the beginning. The GOP then tells us who's the front-runner, and said candidate has a head start. In this case, it's Rudy.

Yes, I realize that Romney and McCain are getting some of that machinery behind them as well. But McCain has to deal with a long-standing talk radio vendetta against him, and Romney is dealing with his own party questioning his religion and Conservative conversion.

Make no mistake about it, it's not just a matter of counting votes on a level playing field.

I agree that the playing field is not exactly level.

That said, I stand by my point. I do not believe that the rank and file Republican voter is helpless, powerless and the victim of Big Party Forces.

Sure, the party has ways of fostering candidates. And, frankly, that isn't the worst way always.

But that doesn't mean all the people posting here about how horrible they view the possibility of a Rudy nomination can, at the same time, sit back and say, "Not my problem. They (the mysterious, vaunted "they") are shoving 'their' candidate down my throat."

Do you dispute that the Rat Machine did nothing to raise up the Obama candidacy, and rather was forced into making room for him in the field by a groundswell of popular support?

Do you dispute that Howard Dean---long may he scream---also tapped into a new mechanism, external to the party apparatus, for making a solid, though ultimately unsuccessful run?

My point is this: the excuse that the MSM, the Party, TPTB, talk radio, or "They" limit who can break through is just that: an excuse.

I'm not saying it's not a huge mountain to climb. That's why most people around here have concluded that, for those not out of the gate yet, (Hunter et al.) a solid run is unlikely to happen.

But that is quite different from whining that voters are powerless.

The fact is if there were, by some chance, a huge groundswell of support for, say, Duncan Hunter, he would be the Obama, the Howard Dean of the Republican party this election cycle. But there is not. So what does that say?

That the "bigwigs in the party" (BOO!) are keeping him down? Or is it more realistic to say that the grassroots support necessary to boost him up DOES NOT EXIST?

True, Rudy has a head start. But I disagree that that's because the "bigwigs in the party move the resources and people power to a candidate of their choice." You really think that happened here?

Rudy has a head start because he is who he is. Just like MRS BILL CLINTON has a head start because she is who she is. Period.

And MRS BILL CLINTON, who absolutely controls the party machinery and is a master fundraiser, is looking mighty vulnerable these days. Why is that not happening---or, according to you, not possible in the Republican field?