Mark sounds very heavy-hearted. But he’s right. Mitt is still in there and he should get everyone’s support right now even if it doesn’t seem likely.
FOX News is establishment.. or worse.. Whores..
O’Really has the principles of a democrat.. even worse a smart democrat..
(will deny it)-you know like a smart democrat..
(sic) If a democrat had any sense they wouldn’t be a democrat..
Bill is a Union drone..in the collective.. maybe he’s upgraded to be a QUEEN!..
He runs FOX News you know..
I’m discouraged, too, but also a realist.
One might recall that after the 1968 primary season, Richard Nixon had by far the most delegates as well as the momentum, but Ronald Reagan and, to a lesser degree Nelson Rockefeller continued to vigorously hunt for delegates and came within 25 votes of denying Nixon a first-ballot nomination--which might have opened the way for a Reagan stampede by the southern delegates, among whom he was wildly popular, and a come-from-behind win for the Gipper.
Mitt is “anybody but Obama” and that is enough reason to support him.
Can anyone name more than one time when the republican establishment didn’t get it’s way?
I’ve been through the Reagan wars and have been told that some of my stuff might be in the Reagan library and I’ve had success with candidates I’ve handled.
To back Gingrich and I like him but he doesn’t even come close and didn’t carry where he should have is a waste of time unfortunately, and most importantly he didn’t step up to the plate and bring up Eugenics...like Santorum did
The only outlet I see where conservatives can make any noise is to have Santorum take Pennsylvainia. He’s got some organization there The turnout for Romney is going to be depressed because Romney is not going to be throwing tons of money against Rick because he’s suspended operations.
If Santorum withdrew there might be questions but any vote he gets must be counted and most importantly any of his delegates get a carrying vote even though they are not committed as they are an other states pledged to cast their first vote for him carry the district they probably would . But if those living in Penn’s woods swing it ....that’s a needed kick in the dupa.... http://www.theusmat.com
Yes, it did but it took a lot longer and was more taxing to the establishment than ever before. There’s more resistance than ever.
I will NEVER vote for Mitt!
Destroy the Republican party!
(before it destroys us!)
I learned yesterday of the term GOP-e, the establishment. I think I can accept that as a generalization that for me is preferable to the misused RINO. RINO creep it seems had become GOP-e. ........ but I digress.
I like to take a long view of events and as I back off and look at the events that have unfolded I see the GOP-e dominant and the conservatives unable to compete and then prevail. It seems that while there is a strong conservative force, it is not really large enough nor cohesive enough to raise money and to prevail.
Rush likes to say that America is a conservative Nation. I would argue that may not be the case. Conservatives in spite of recent Tea Party events and gatherings are actually unable to muster and concentrate the political energy and force adequate to nominate a Presidential candidate. I would also argue that Conservatism is not homogenous nor monolithic. There are folks with conservative views that see Mitt Romney as the winner and therefore vote for the presumed winner. That conservative minded person thereby becomes a moderate. My cousin is just such a person.
The good news about 2012 was that there were several outstanding conservatives battling for the nomination. I had difficulty deciding which I liked best and would support. Alas Herman Cain was destroyed and that left Newt who is hanging on by his fingernails.
In America we have two parties rather than a host of small parties. These parties nominate a presidential candidate that is and always will be a compromise to the strength of the various coalitions that are also coalesced into the party. If you think of the big tent, those inside mingle in groups that are in turn a mingling of smaller like minded groups that loudly shout their views and hope to prevail.
History has shown that while the strength of one of the subgroups that might even be part of a larger sub group leaves the tent, it fails to be effective. That is, all talk of a third party being ascendant is bravado,chest beating, ineffectiveness.
Rather than despair, I have confidence that the conservative message will be delivered and have some effect. That effort ill be made in the House and in the Senate. It may not totally prevail, but it will be a positive force.
If we carry the big tent and mingling groups a little further, if the candidate of the tent is developed in a primary, why do we not end the conservative multiple candidate quandary by having a secondary? That is, the sub sub mingling groups some of which are sub-sub-sub groups have their battle prior to the primary and present one candidate supported as a unified base?
Rather than chest beating and a third party, I propose a secondary in which the sub minglers coalesce around the support and financing of a much stronger candidate for the primary.
Posted this the 13th day of April, in the year of our Lord 2012
I must’ve missed the overwhelming victories at the polls where Santorum or Newt garnered enough actual votes to win the nomination.
Did the Republican establishment somehow make these votes disappear?