GOP is doing politics right

Why does the first round of primary balloting, on Jan. 3, have such an “end of the line” feel to it?

There seems to be this sense that the door will close once the voting begins and that everybody will need to have their opinions locked firmly into place by that time.

We have just three weeks to go until the voting begins!! Hurry up and make your choice!!

Hogwash. There’s an awful lot of campaigning yet to come, and a lot of opinions will change between now and the conventions.

He died in Jan. 2001 at the age of 70.

Yes, he manned a newspaper kiosk in Union Station in Washington, DC in the waining days of his life. Sad ending to such a flash-in-the-pan "conservative" of that era - complete with illegitimacy problems of his own, as you noted. I, too, heard him speak in person. My parents were JBS-ers and really into him at the time.

So again I ask: are our (R) candidates running today so "bad" as compared to decidedly thin talent pool we had back then?

John Schmitz and Tom Anderson (from Pigeon Forge, Tennessee) ran together on the AIP in 1972 and it must have been one million JBS members that voted for them. His was the step child effort of what you correctly identify as Wallace's effort left over from 1968.

You'll likely recall too that Wallace went back to his roots and tried to run in the Democrat primary in 1972 and was gunned down in a Maryland shopping center parking lot, which paralyzed him the rest of his life and ended his challenging bid to McGovern (who had trouble finding a running mate that was sober enough to run with him -- recall his selection of "substance abuser" Tom Eagleton and his tearful retreat from the ticket).

FReegards!

First you tried to charge me with saying Reagan was no better than the candidates we have now. Then I pointed out that I was saying past candidates were better. Oh well, nevermind LMAO...

Second you tried to criticize me since there was no election in 1971. Problem is, I never said there was. LMAO again...

Now in your third try, you want to debate me concerning the value of Nixon vs the people we have running now, and some no-names that you think make me look bad regarding my statement about our current slate.

I suppose I could debate this with you, but I'm not in the mood by this point. If you disagree with me, that's fine. With the exception of two people, we have a slate that includes a bunch of cameleons, some pretenders, some delusional characters, and some people with serious flaws.

Unfortunately one of those two decent people has dropped out. The other is in single digits today, not a serious contender. That's not my fault. They are not a good candidate, because they haven't been able to get their act together and pick up momentum. Perhaps that will change. I wouldn't mind seeing it, but by this time I am not confident their campaign skills will prove sound enough to route Obama. Therefore I have to come down on the side of them not being a sound enough candidate to carry the day.

I stand by the comment that I have not seen this bad a slate of candiates for the Republican ticket in over 40 years.

We have a man so clearly on the ropes that we could run Lassie, and just about beat him. Unfortunately, Lassie hasn't declared. A number of other dogs have.

As for Newt not being perfect, you're astoundingly astute. No he isn't. He isn't even close. And I've had my fill of being asked to back people who betray us at the drop of a hat, almost as badly as they have their wives.

That’s all they do is bitch and moan. They must be the most pathetically unhappy creatures on FR.

They fail to see how corrosive they are to morale on our side. People going to the polls is what wins elections and changes things. It's all about getting our people to the polls.

The Alinsky-ite (D)'s play on this tendency of presumed superiority-through-"perfection" to demotivate people in getting to the polls. And too often they win because of it.

They play upon what should be a natural Christian aversion for compromise by convincing the well-intentioned that no one is perfect enough so find a third party (go Schmitz-Anderson! "Will you be free in '73?" intoned the JBS-ers of the time), or maybe y'all just sit out voting to "teach 'em a lesson." How'd that work out for those types in 2008 I wonder...?

(D)'s win too often with this kind of self-righteous perfectionism and I'll bust the moaners and "concern trolls" around here every chance I get.

FReegards!

I’d have to agree that the system is indeed working the way it’s supposed to. The problem lies more in the caliber of the candidates who put their names in rather than the process.

But the process has been effective. Without a clear front-runner, most of the declared candidates have had their moment in the sun at one point or another, and in so doing have drawn a critical eye to examine them more in depth (if only Romney were subject to the same scrutiny, but that’s another story entirely),

Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.

For those worried about the influence of big money in politics, the GOP presidential primary has been a breath of fresh air. This primary has not been for sale - not to Wall Street, not to Big Oil, not to anybody. There has been less money spent in this cycle than in previous cycles. According to an analysis by Bloomberg News, the top nine Republicans have spent $53 million through September. That compares to the $132 million spent during the same period by both parties in 2004, $58 million spent by the Democrats in 2004 during the same period, and the $68 million spent by the Republicans in 2000 during the same time frame.

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.