Posted on 05/18/2011 5:25:30 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Top Republicans are increasingly convinced that President Barack Obama will be easily reelected if stronger GOP contenders do not emerge, and some are virtually begging Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to add some excitement to the slow-starting nomination race.
It’s a sign of the GOP’s straits that the party is depending on the bland, wonkish Daniels for an adrenaline boost.
But interviews this week with longtime party activists and strategists made clear that many in the Republican establishment are unnerved by a field led by Mitt Romney, who could have trouble confronting Obama on health reform; Tim Pawlenty, who has yet to ignite excitement; Jon Huntsman, who may be too moderate to get the nomination; and Newt Gingrich, weighed down by personal baggage and a sense that he is a polarizing figure from the 1990s.
Despairing Republican lobbyists say their colleagues don’t ask, “Who do you like?” but instead, “Who do we back?”
“It’s not that they’re up in arms,” said a central player in the GOP money machine. “It’s just that they’re depressed.”
And a huge swath of operatives, donors and strategists remain uncommitted, in the hope that the field is not yet set.
So instead of solidifying against the overwhelming force being amassed by Obama’s reelection campaign, the GOP is indulging in an embarrassingly public — and probably futile — search for a more compelling standard-bearer.
House Speaker John Boehner, the nation’s highest-ranking Republican, confessed that he did not watch the first GOP debate of the cycle because he believes there is still time for more candidates to emerge. He said last week on NBC’s “Today” show: “I would expect that we haven’t seen all of the candidates.” He then proceeded to plug Daniels.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Can't do it. The nominee probably will not be ideal and I'll more likely than not vote for them anyway. But if that sack of crap Romney gets it? No. I have to have confidence that the nominee won't destroy the party if they are elected.
I wouldn't vote for McStain again if I had it to do over either.
I agree! No way in Hell I vote for Milt, I’ll blank it, just as I plan to do for the US Senste race.
I agree! No way in Hell I vote for Milt, I’ll blank it, just as I plan to do for the US Senste race.
Bullsh-t.
Between his fascist bailouts, his appetite for increasing Federal control and power (DHS, No Child Left Behind), his backing of attacks on the First Amendment (McCain/Feingold), and his support for the expansion of socialized health care (Medicare), Bush was one of the worst presidents from a conservative perspective, only eclipsed by Carter, Nixon (another Big Government Republican), Bush I, FDR, Wilson, and Obama.
What's even worse - under Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress, the *once-in-a-lifetime* opportunity to fundamental reform the Federal tax code (as EV noted in another post) was thoroughly pissed away.
And you know why?
Because Bush and the Republicans were far too busy trying to pass the Democrat agenda of amnesties, bailouts, Big Government bloat, and attacks on the Constitution instead of trying to pass a conservative agenda.
Aside from the:
A)Judges
B)Tax cuts
C)Mexico city policy
D)Failed attempt to reform social security
Bush’s record was that of a democrat.
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.