Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

“Really, this party is too dumb to live”
Legal Insurrection ^ | December 6, 2011 | Professor William A. Jacobson

Posted on 12/06/2011 11:38:42 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

Some people in the Republican Party want to follow John McCain’s policy of not going after Obama personally:

"Republicans on a private Republican National Committee conference call with allies warned Tuesday that party surrogates should refrain from personal attacks against President Barack Obama, because such a strategy is too hazardous for the GOP.

“We’re hesitant to jump on board with heavy attacks” personally against President Obama, Nicholas Thompson, the vice president of polling firm the Tarrance Group, said on the call. “There’s a lot of people who feel sorry for him.”

Here’s Michael Walsh’s response at NRO:

"I took some grief on the recent NR cruise by telling the group that I thought Mitt Romney would lose to Barack Obama rather handily. That for some mysterious reason Obama continues to have relatively strong personal-approval numbers and a substantial, reliable base, which Romney doesn’t. As a typical standard-issue Republican, Romney wouldn’t have the heart or the courage to take the fight to the president, but instead would debate around the edges, and lose…

Gee, if Obama’s personal-approval numbers are still high, why would you want to take them down? Let them stay there, lest the Democrat-Media Complex accuse you of being a blue meanie.

Remember, GOP: principles, not policies. Principles, not policies. Principles, not policies.

It’s not Obama’s policies that are the problem, it’s Obama and everything he represents and stands for. Engage the president on the deepest, most potent level, or join John McCain and Bob Dole on the ash heap of history."

Really, this party is too dumb to live.

I’m still formulating a response. Just as soon as I can calm down.


TOPICS: Campaign News; Issues; Parties
KEYWORDS: democrats; gop; obama; republicans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: 2ndDivisionVet

I think if we nominate Newt he will go after Barry every which way but loose.


41 posted on 12/07/2011 7:17:04 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wbill
Might be refreshing to have someone take the gloves off and say "You're a friggin' liar" instead of "My good friend and long time colleague may be slightly misinformed on the topic at hand".

Well said.
Give me fistfights on the House floor over that crap anyday.

42 posted on 12/07/2011 8:13:00 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn
I am not a purist. I just want 80% on my core issues. I can't even get that from the top 3.

I sometimes look at it as a direction, not speed, issue. If we elect -Blank-, would the government be bigger next year, or smaller. If it will be bigger under a Republican, then we are still going to wrong way, just (maybe) slower. Saying I want a smaller government isn't being a purist. I'm fine with $100 billion smaller instead of $1 trillion. And I mean smaller not $100 billion less bigger.

43 posted on 12/07/2011 8:22:18 AM PST by tnlibertarian (Things are so bad now, Kenyans are saying Obama was born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn; Jim Robinson
"Time for a third party? Hell I’d be happy with a second one."

I nominate the above post for "Post of the Year".

44 posted on 12/07/2011 8:26:53 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tnlibertarian
"I'm fine with $100 billion smaller instead of $1 trillion. And I mean smaller not $100 billion less bigger."

Yes, I want people in Congress who understand that to Cut a 4 Trillion Dollar Budget (or whatever the current budget is) it means next year's Budget will be Three Trillion Nine hundred and Ninety Nine Billion or less.

Not "well we were projected to spend Four Trillion Five Hundred Billion next year so if we only spend Four Trillion Four Hundred Billion we cut the budget 100 Billion!"

45 posted on 12/07/2011 8:35:21 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The Republican Party has so much baggage and corruption that any personal attack on Obama would backfire. It's like Mutual Assured Destruction - if everybody just shuts up about the other party's most egregious abuses, they won't be targeted for personal destruction (and the loss of their share of the take).

DC corruption is going to have to be attacked and subdued from outside the two-party power structure. I admit I don't see any easy way to do that.

46 posted on 12/07/2011 8:44:59 AM PST by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; SunkenCiv; Clintonfatigued; Just A Nobody; LucyT; fieldmarshaldj; randita; ...
Obviously, personal stuff aside, there are a slew of very important policy issues on which the GOP presidential nominee will have very legitimate grounds to attack Obama. Let's not get overly upset over a foolish remark from one relatively unknown Republican pollster who simply doesn't get it. No reason why the GOP can't take back the White House despite the RNC’s machinations: the 2010 results showed that Republicans can be successful regardless of the RNC’s RINOism.
47 posted on 12/07/2011 10:27:36 AM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’m wondering if the RNC staffer who inadvertently invited yahoo to the conference is still employed today??? S/he did all of us a favor.


48 posted on 12/07/2011 11:17:38 AM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tnlibertarian

If we don’t stop it and start reversing it in 2012 there won’t be anything left. We can not go for “direction” we must go for stop. The edge of the cliff is in sight. Only a president willing to apply the brakes can stop it. None of the top 3 are willing to do this.

We are screwed.


49 posted on 12/07/2011 3:20:47 PM PST by cableguymn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

My own reaction when I heard it, a while before reading about it on FR. I thought I was crazy and alone in my rage.


50 posted on 12/07/2011 3:25:01 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goat granny
If the republican party insist on putting up losers, conservatives might just as well break off to a third party...The republicans can lose without us, but maybe we might be able to siphon off some democrats and independents that are also disgusted with both parties..Since the Washington rep. party wants to lose, why should we stop them. There is going to have to be a choice made one of these years...

This is where I disagree with Rush, there is no way the elite will ever give up power and conservatives will never take over the republican party. The party in Washington is just a bunch of losers anyway..the house hasn't had a leader with balls and neither has the senate...Power never gives up power.

I agree and I think a new third party is the only political hope for our nation at this point. The GOP is corrupt from the top down. The GOP had it's make or break chance in the 1994 elections. The party ran conservative in 94 and won big then by early 1996 the party had promptly abandoned it. Every GOP POTUS since Bush Sr has been too the left of JFK and just about LBJ as well. Rockefeller Republican I think is the term which is used. That BTW is what Newt is. Newt worked for Nelson Rockefeller in 1968 as the southern regional director. Other than a few bones to conservatives as Speaker of The House to maintain slight credibility he has pretty much remained such.

The GOP refuses time after time to appoint competent willing to take a stand conservatives to leadership positions and instead chooses weak leaders even in the senate. Dole, Lott, and Frist, were major failures as SML. For that reason I support term limits for house and senate. The era of the professional politician needs to be ended and our government returned to "We The People" and not "We The Liberal Lawyer Oligarchy" which it has become

51 posted on 12/07/2011 4:18:27 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn
Time for a third party? Hell I’d be happy with a second one.

Well said!

52 posted on 12/07/2011 4:36:50 PM PST by Grizzled Bear (No More RINOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: drierice

Too nice!

Time to give them the same treatment Palin got and I do mean both parties!


53 posted on 12/07/2011 4:41:18 PM PST by Randy Larsen (I'm backing Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady

:’)


54 posted on 12/07/2011 6:51:22 PM PST by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson