Replies

Only the Republicans could choose to be defeated by this barrage, or strive for victory. 2010 was highly instructive, that by tapping into a grass roots that had been largely ignored (the T.E.A. people), the Republicans could undertake a much-needed renaissance.

But for 2012, the Republicans, instead of nurturing this important resource, have allowed them to either die on the vine, or have actively tried to shut them out. Ad hominem attacks against the T.E.A. activists were either ignored by the Republican establishment, or they seemed to join in them.

What was allowed to happen to Herman Cain was shameful in the extreme. Nobody in the establishment came forward with the counter arguments to the charges launched against Cain by the Chicago machine, when it was obvious to just about anybody that David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel were part of that manufactured crisis. It was too important to protect Mitt Romney from other Republicans

Could Herman Cain have won? The proposition was left untried because it was found to have been “too difficult”.

The “safe” candidate was not so much elected, as simply anointed. This “my turn” frame of thinking has to be phased out, else we have perennial candidates in every election cycle, with varying degrees of seniority, and a sense of entitlement not supported by actual accomplishments.

In it to win it, or go home. Sometimes “winning” is not the goal that is actually being sought.

“Social acceptance” is a very poor second.

Obama never had any power to diminish or destroy the Republican party in the least. Sure, he can call names, and run blitzes at them through the arm of the Democrat Liberal party known as the press, but that does not excuse foot-dragging by supposed elites among the Republicans in the least. I agree.

Only the Republicans could choose to be defeated by this barrage, or strive for victory. 2010 was highly instructive, that by tapping into a grass roots that had been largely ignored (the T.E.A. people), the Republicans could undertake a much-needed renaissance. I agree. I must add though..., that this problem actually reared it's ugly head in 1996. From Bob Dole on the Republican party has failed to embrace it's core base. Look at Bush unable to beat the likes of Gore or Kerry by more than the skin on his teeth. McCain and Romney were unable to beat the likes of Obama. Reagan would have clearly defined the differences between the two ideologies, and have won by a landslide.

But for 2012, the Republicans, instead of nurturing this important resource, have allowed them to either die on the vine, or have actively tried to shut them out. Ad hominem attacks against the T.E.A. activists were either ignored by the Republican establishment, or they seemed to join in them. I totally agree. That's why I read comments by folks like Pribus, and wince. He'll say this now, and then he'll help kill off any Conservative that runs for the prescidency in 2016. He'll join talking-head forums where a guy like Rove will slander Conservative after Conservative, and sit there quiet as a church-mouse. The RNC IS THE PROBLEM. I wouldn't donate a dime to the Republican party if my shorts were on fire and they had a bucket of water handy. They'd pour three quarters of it into a Democrat bucket, and spill the rest on the ground and tell me to roll in it, before simply pouring it on the fire.

What was allowed to happen to Herman Cain was shameful in the extreme. Nobody in the establishment came forward with the counter arguments to the charges launched against Cain by the Chicago machine, when it was obvious to just about anybody that David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel were part of that manufactured crisis. It was too important to protect Mitt Romney from other Republicans. I agree. The stupid (Republican) party thinks they can only win by going Left. Someone needs to remind them that if a person wants a Leftist, the Democrats are running the real thing.

Could Herman Cain have won? The proposition was left untried because it was found to have been “too difficult”. Whether he would have won or not, it certainly would have shut the mouth of the folks who say our criticisms of Obama are only about race. No, it's about failed disgusting policy.

The “safe” candidate was not so much elected, as simply anointed. This “my turn” frame of thinking has to be phased out, else we have perennial candidates in every election cycle, with varying degrees of seniority, and a sense of entitlement not supported by actual accomplishments. Once again I agree. May I introduce Bob Dole as exhibit # 1.

In it to win it, or go home. Sometimes “winning” is not the goal that is actually being sought. I'm not sure where you're headed here. If you explained it a bit, I'd probably agree.

“Social acceptance” is a very poor second. Agreed.