Posted on 07/01/2009 8:41:59 AM PDT by RobinMasters
The conventional wisdom, as recorded in the New York Times, is that the Republican party is in terrible trouble because of the confessions in the past two weeks of adultery by two possible presidential candidates, Nevada Senator John Ensign and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. I think this is overwrought, for reasons set forth in my Washington Examiner blog post. The Democratic party is surviving the confessions of adultery by 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards and former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, and the Republican party will survive the confessions of Ensign, who never seemed likely to be a serious presidential candidate, and Sanford, who seemed to have the potential to be an attractive candidate but whose quirkiness and eccentricity made him seem unlikely ever to be a successful one.
Nonetheless I still think Republicans are going to have a hard time coming up with a strong presidential nominee in 2012, as I reflect on their difficulty in doing so in 2008. For as I look back on that Republican nominating contest, it seems to me that none of the Republican candidates had a good strategy for winning the nomination. And if a candidate does not win the nomination, it does not really matter how strong he (or she) would be in the general election. Let’s look at each of the candidates.
(Excerpt) Read more at american.com ...
The real problem?
They`re F****D !
Why vote for the liberal-lite when one can vote for the real thing.
The end of the world as we know it?
The GOP is leaderless. Period!
THE ONE is a presidential phenom like no other. Because he is black, one can scarcely criticize him without being called a racist. The press worships him, and his shortcomings will never be revealed.
SARAH!
And just who might that be?
Didn’t you hear? Michael Jackson died...
And no, the MSM didn't expose Edwards ( a full fledged former member of the 'teacher's pets" club - sponsored by the MSM) The press didn't notice the Edwards stroy UNTIL a picture was published in the sub-press of him holding his love child. It's NOT the same.
“Because he is black, one can scarcely criticize him without being called a racist.”
Then we are all cowards, and America will fail under this Marxist power hungry dictator.
Perspective people. If you would have taken a poll of who to elect for President in 1992 right after the Gulf War in March 1991, the Democrats would have looked leaderless and George Bush Sr. would have coasted to a victory. That only took the span of 1 1/2 years. We still have 3 1/2 years to go before the 2012 election. It’s not even worth our effort to be considering who will run in 2012 to beat Obama. Concentrate on the 2010 congressional elections.
The economy is bad, bad, bad, and it isn't getting any better. Even with the the help of the media, it only lasts so long. Change is what people wanted and now they are starting to realize how change can be bad as often as it can be good.
By December around 5 million people will be unemployed but not receiving benefits. Actual unemployment will be at 12% or greater with real UE being between 17-20%. Your home will be worth around 40% - 60% of what it was at it's highest value and people will be more nervous than ever.
It has been over 75 years since the economy has been this bad. The amazing thing will be if the resident of 1600 is able to complete his first term.
Wrong STRATEGY? Good grief.
Could it be possible that Giuliani lost because he ran as a pro-abort and pro-gay, and not because he messed up in New Hampshire?
Could it be possible that Romney lost, not because he pretended to be a social conservative, but because his pro-abortion record and his constant flipflopping became overwhelmingly evident?
Sounds like another RINO lover here, still working from the ancient Country Clubber Playbook.
Go back to the first six months of 1997 -- when Bill Clinton was starting his second term in office after the GOP had put up one of the worst presidential candidates in modern history who wasn't named "Mondale" or "Dukakis." I don't remember any media coverage about prospective Republican presidential candidates for 2000 that included George W. Bush among them. And yet he pretty much came out of nowhere to win the 2000 election.
There's really only one issue when it comes to presidential candidates from either party: How much money can they raise? If the GOP can run a candidate with a lot of powerful financial clout, then it will present a strong challenge in 2012. It's really that simple.
It takes leadership to raise money in the Republican Party. Republicans tend to be financially astute people with some business savvy . . . which means they aren't likely to throw their money behind a loser.
The real problem is that we have nothing short of a criminal enterprise in the White House, which will also be controlling the “results” of the census and elections; a Congress full of socialists and jellyfish; a judiciary intent on rewriting our laws to be “empathetic” to perverts; and a media which will use its substantial power to spin and lie for all of them. Oh, and of course, a population full of 3rd worlders and mush-for-brains that care not a whit about any of it, as long as the nifty new digital cable holds out.
I think you underestimate what the sky rocketing unemployment rate can do to Obami’s approval rating.
Bush's fault®
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.