This guy.
Posted on 01/24/2012 6:31:02 AM PST by KeyLargo
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
JANUARY 24, 2012 By Bret Stephens
The GOP Deserves to Lose That's what happens when you run with losers.
Let's just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.
It doesn't matter that Mr. Obama can't get the economy out of second gear. It doesn't matter that he cynically betrayed his core promise as a candidate to be a unifying president. It doesn't matter that he keeps blaming Bush. It doesn't matter that he thinks ATMs are weapons of employment destruction. It doesn't matter that Tim Geithner remains secretary of Treasury. It doesn't matter that the result of his "reset" with Russia is Moscow selling fighter jets to Damascus. It doesn't matter that the Obama name is synonymous with the most unpopular law in memory. It doesn't matter that his wife thinks America doesn't deserve him. It doesn't matter that the Evel Knievel theory of fiscal stimulus isn't going to make it over the Snake River Canyon of debt.
Above all, it doesn't matter that Americans are generally eager to send Mr. Obama packing. All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won't be another fiasco. But they can't be reasonably sure, so it's going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know.
Is this the best they can do?
As for the current GOP field, it's like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
You post this - then essentially agree with it? The writer sounds like some 80’s gay queen looking down his nose at folks who don’t eat sprouts. What a boring, predictable, nose in the air load of yawn.
“So glad I stopped taking the WSJ”
****
Canceled WSJ yesterday. Annoyed by their open borders stance. Final straw was their support of both Mittens and SOPA.
"Finally, there are the men not in the field: Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour.What a pathetic piece of "journalism" from a pathetic piece of a "journalist"…
This was the GOP A-Team, the guys who should have showed up to the first debate but didn't because running for president is hard and the spouses were reluctant.
Nothing commends them for it. If this election is as important as they all say it is, they had a duty to step up.
Abraham Lincoln did not shy from the contest of 1860 because of Mary Todd.
If Mr. Obama wins in November—or, rather, when he does—the failure will lie as heavily on their shoulders as it will with the nominee."
You'll have plenty to cry over upon Newt's landslide victory.
Cc: bstephens@wsj.com
“Canceled WSJ yesterday. Annoyed by their open borders stance. Final straw was their support of both Mittens and SOPA.”
Illegals in, internet out. It’s a weird sort of fascist ultra-libertarian.
The writer will wake up the day after the election, and he’ll have to write a column explaining how the American people were so wrong to fire Obama and elected the GOP candidate who “deserved to lose”.
The writer has no understanding about how angry the American people feel right now, and how that anger is just going to be increasing until the election. The writer needs to get out of his ivory tower and get out amongst the people, and I do mean the real people, not the crowd he hangs out with.
The writer is either completely ignorant about how much the American people are seeking to replace Obama, or he’s just making stupid statements in the hope of making things happen.
This whole “bad GOP field” assumption is like the “bush tax cuts didn’t work” assumptive question thrown at Mitt last night.
The fact is, the field was not that bad. Is not that bad. It’s also not that good, but there is not much of a bench from which to pull candidates. And the Dems had the same problem in 2008. Look at Obama’s congressional record in 2008 compared to Newt’s now. Which one has more accomplishment? Which one is more qualified?
The problem is that anyone that REALLY could do a bang up job as president is not stupid enough to run for the office. The quality of the congress is not what it was, and the governors have similar problems because so many of them, even the Republicans, have abandoned their conservative roots.
The pool is just low quality, and its gonna bite us. And only part of that “bite” is in who gets elected (as in 2008) but, more importantly, what those elected end up doing in office.
What’s bad about electing the fox to be the keeper of the hen house is what he does once elected. And Gignrich, the front runner, is the closest thing we have to a conservative, but he’s no conservative.
Fortunately, the whold bureaucracy is about to collapse of its own weight so it doesn’t matter all that much WHO is elected. The only ones that have a chance of coming out of this relatively unscathed is the preppers, not any voters.
It’s time to revisit Claire Wolfe.
Go look at stories from 2008 about 0 and Hillary.
The dems were openly talking disaster in 2008 because McCain was running away with it while they were bickering.
Pardon me but did he just say Haley Barbour?
No it doesn’t
According to this author, a Speaker who oversaw major tax reform and reduction, a balanced budget, and served while the economy was flying is a joke, but Obama’s poverty express is worthy of four more years. Enough of this stuff. Newt has his clear weaknesses, but we saw great results and strong economic growth during the four years when Gingrich was Speaker.
Ok. At least tell us if your prediction is based on a known unknown or an unknown unknown.
“What’s bad about electing the fox to be the keeper of the hen house is what he does once elected. And Gignrich, the front runner, is the closest thing we have to a conservative, but he’s no conservative.”
Unlike Reagan and W Bush, Newt actually balanced the budget and eliminated a welfare entitlement.
Finally, there are the men not in the field: Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour. This was the GOP A-Team
..........................................................
Says who?
These guys haven’t faced months of scrutiny and attacks by the MSM like the candidates we have, had to. Who knows what the MSM would have dug up on them.
Christie is no Conservative
Jeb Bush—is a Bush. haven’t we seen enough of them?
Haley Barbour just pardoned Murderers.
Daniels and Ryan excercised their right not to get into this mess.
We have to go with what we have and Newt IMO is the cream of that crop.
What Republicans deserve is a level playing field.
That is exactly what they will not get.
The Media is owned and operated by the Democrats.
There will be no investigations of Obama’s alledged bi-sexuality, no investigations of his college records, No investigations of his illegal campaign funds or his traveling around campaigning on Air Foce One for free. No investigations ,no investigations of his allegiances to Rezco,or Bill Ayres, or to SEIU and his sellouts to Unions.
Meanwhile the MSM will be crucifying whoever is the front runner in the GOP.
“Except that America can not suffer four more years of Obama. The nation as whole does not deserve that.”
Agreed.
I don’t mind the flames or accusations of being a ‘troll’ because I posted this opinion column.
Actually for the past ten years as a freeper I was seriously feeling left out because I was never called a ‘troll’ before.:)
I think the essential problem with American presidential politics is the assumed advantage the incumbent brings to his re-election campaign. The party that doesn’t control the Whitehouse is pulled in 2 different directions — capturing the Whitehouse, or control of Congress.
Right now you’d have to say that A-list Republican presidential contenders would rather wait another 4 years and that Congressional leaders are fixated on capturing the senate. The assumption underpining both strategies is that the incumbent usually gets re-elected.
Romney is the “place-holder” nominee for the Republican leadership more concerned with winning seats in Congress. Perhaps they think that Obama will be a lame-duck the moment he gets re-elected? I suggest that Obama’s playing footsie with the OWS movement suggests his willingness to put mobs in the streets. Therefore, the priority needs to shift to defeating Obama himself.
Bravo Sierra of the highest order.
"The usual rap on Mr. Romney is that he's robotic, but the real reason he can't gain traction with voters is that they suspect he's concealing some unnameable private doubt. Al Gore and George Bush Sr. were like that, too, and not just because they were all to the proverbial manor born. It's that they were basically hollow men."
“Finally, there are the men not in the field: Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour.
This was the GOP A-Team,...”
At least the writer told us who his “A-team” is, although I think he threw in the Mississippian as a pander.
“All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won’t be another fiasco. But they can’t be reasonably sure, so it’s going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know.”
This doesn’t make any sense. they can’t be “reasonably” sure that it won’t be another fiasco, so will stick with the fiasco we have.
Sooo... if one was on the RMS Titanic, they need not jump into a lifeboat. Because one couldn’t be reasonably sure that one would be rescued and would ultimately suffer the same fate had one stayed on board. Right?
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.