Posted on 02/12/2008 11:21:30 AM PST by Anti-Hillary
FLUSHED AND AGLOW the thrill of defeat, some movement conservatives have their crystal balls out and are busily whipping off comeback scenarios in which all will be well. They will lose now to win later on; they will give the White House to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, and get Congress back two years later; they will get it all back in 2012 with their new hero, Mitt Romney, who four years later will be assumed to have made even more money and developed the combat skills in the mean time he so notably lacked this time. This year will be the new 1992, when Republicans lost everything to Bill and Hillary Clinton and came roaring back two years later to win both houses of Congress. This year will be the new 1976, in which Ronald Reagan lost the nomination in his first serious bid to be president, and came roaring back four years later; won two landslides in rapid succession, and went on to alter the world. (Or, he's the new Gary Hart, who runs, loses, is seen as the great hope of the upcoming cycle, and then goes to pieces. But the people who look into crystal balls for their futures don't like to think about this sort of thing.)
There are two or more things wrong with this picture, as you may have guessed. Sometimes you lose now AND lose later (as Peggy Noonan said on a talk show the other day), and the problem with the future is that it's so . . . unforeseen. You never can tell what it might come up with. It stuns you with things that you never see coming. It often blindsides you with the last thing you expect.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Yeah, that plan sure worked for Rudy! LOL!
I said in a post the other day that everyone expects that when we lose it will be to a Jimmy Carter. Instead it could be to an FDR or Lenin, or to someone that appoints a Bismark regardless of their own abilities. No thank you, too big a risk to just hope that they will be a failure. FDR didn’t have to make the economy better . . . he just had to act and act and act to give the appearance of doing something while “empathizing” and “giving hope.” No success is needed if a politician is good enough.
Yep we can’t count on history repeating itself.
In 1976, Jimmy Carter defeated President Ford. The imcompetence and impotence of the Carter administration helped lead the way to Reagan’s election in 1980. It’s possible that a lot of people voted for Reagan because they were voting against Jimmy’s re-election.
It would be nice to see Billary or Obama go down in flames in 2012 after seeing their incompetence and impotence after four years, BUT, we can’t count on that happening.
The author fails to point out that Reagan, despite of all of Carter’s problem, was not slam dunk. Reagan won the 1980 election after a surge the weekend before the election.
Also, John Anderson’s helped out a lot too.
“...they will get it all back in 2012 with their new hero, Mitt Romney, who four years later will be assumed to have made even more money and developed the combat skills in the mean time he so notably lacked this time.”
Wrong! Romney will be the same rejected liberal in 4 years that he is today.
The Rocky-Fellers dug him out of the scrap pile after all the conservatives were out and tried to brand him as conservative.
It will never work because voters know he is a liberal pro-gay, gun grabber.
Give it up Mutt, you will never be POTUS!
It is foolish to want to lose and hope you will pick up the pieces later. Yes, Carter led to Reagan, but a Dem presidency will end up changing the rules. Talk radio will be under seige. FR will be under siege as a hate site. If Hillary gets the power, she will change everything forever with executives orders. What, is someone going to try to impeach her?
McCain would be worse than Bush. If he somehow wins in ‘08, the Dems will displace him in ‘12 anyway.
presidents are almost never as left or right after elected. I refuse to fear it. We have endured worse.
no way i vote for mccain,no how,no way at any time for anything.
*****FDR and RR were Man O War and Secretariat, talents that come along twice in a century, while most times, a horse is a horse. Picking your horse this soon before the next Derby can be fraught with peril. By that time, the whole world can change.****
We shall breed a new stable of thoroughbreds and build a new race-track then!!!!
McCain would be worse than Bush. If he somehow wins in ‘08, the Dems will displace him in ‘12 anyway.
Good point that the McSoros crowd doesnt want to admit.
Real conservatives do not want to waste their vote between two liberals in the general election in 08.
So many neo-liberals will try to justify voting for McSoros....because they already see the writing on the wall that McSoros has little chance of winning in 08
The best move is to punt on fourth down and long....and work to get better field position for later
How about: vote for McCain, and lose now and lose later?
Strict Conservatives sat out in 2006, and now we have McCain in 2008. If they sit out again, we will get someone even worse than him in 2012.
I’m with you all the way. As a matter of fact, I will be voting for McCain this afternoon in MD. (Along with all of his delegates—”unite” is the theme for me today.)
Have no fear. I will NOT allow them to experience the humiliation and dishonor of having McCain as president.
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.