by Smitty
You can despise Greenwald all you like, but I have the puke-coming-out-my-nose feeling he’s spot-on here:
How do you feel about the early presidential jockeying?
Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she’s been around forever, the Clinton circle. She’s a f_____ hawk and like a neocon, practically. She’s surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere. But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. It’s going to be this completely symbolic messaging that’s going to overshadow the fact that she’ll do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power. They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing.I hope this happens so badly, because I think it’ll be so instructive in that regard. It’ll prove the point. Americans love to mock the idea of monarchy, and yet we have our own de facto monarchy. I think what these leaks did is, they demonstrated that there really is this government that just is the kind of permanent government that doesn’t get affected by election choices and that isn’t in any way accountable to any sort of democratic transparency and just creates its own world off on its own.
And. Still. I. Will. Not. Vote. For. Jeb.
Can we emphasize this point enough for the Vichy GOP? No amount of Hillary Angst is going to get votes for the next Dole/McCain/Romney. Especially if non-reformer #4 is Yet Another Bush.
If you want to impress me, Mr. Bush, don’t run. Show that you care about the country, and it’s not about you, by Not Making It About You. Get together with Sarah Palin, tour the country on the Tea Party Express, connect with the people, and support someone else. Get behind the Convention of States in an honest way that will make the Founders smile as they look down from Eternity.
We’ve got 300+ million people in this country. If the only way somebody who is nominally conservative can win a Presidential election is to bear the name ‘Bush’ (as has been the case since 1988) then just screw us to the wall.
I voted Perot in ’92, and I’ll write in the old codger again before I vote for another Bush. Sure, I’m just the one vote, but I’m far from alone. If the Republican party wants to turn the 2016 vote into a suicide pact, Then So Be It.
via ZeroHedge
The best thing we can do is persuade Jeb to stay home. Jeb will lose, just like Mitt lost. No Jeb, not Kris Kristiekreme, no losers.
You want to make their heads explode?
PALIN/NUGENT 2016.
(No, Sarah would never win in this climate of voter fraud, and I’m not real keen on some of Uncle Ted’s views. But put that bumper sticker on your car and prepare to call an eco-friendly ambulance.) 😉
I don’t despise people who I might disagree with, but do make me think. Greenwald, Paglia, um…problem is, there just aren’t very many who fit that bill, anymore.
And you think that a Democrat, any Democrat, isn’t?
Unless you live in a swing-state, and most of us don’t, our individual votes are irrelevant. The worst part is that if I did live in a swing state my vote wouldn’t count either because it would be nullified by a legion of illegals and dead people. If you smoke, you deserve cancer. If you weigh 400 pounds you deserve a heart-attack. If you run with the bulls…you deserve the horns. If we nominate Jeb Bush, we deserve Hillary. It’s what people sometimes call reaping the whirlwind.
Dittos on steroids. With this post what I see is tea partiers throwing down the gauntlet, saying they’ll NEVER vote for a mainline Republican, and would rather stay home than vote for Jeb. Welcome President Hillary. Thanks a lot.
Me, I in no way want Jeb to be the nominee, but if he is, you bet I’ll vote for him over Hillary. Any day of the week.
Mr Ashley wrote:
[LOL] So, you’re telling me that I ought not to bother you and insult you, and then proceed to insult me?
Since you have such a “deeper understanding of what’s going on” than I do, pray, educate me; share your brilliance with someone of my obvious lack of knowledge and sophistication — try to use simple words, to help me with this — so that I can more fully appreciate your superior intellect and wisdom.
Alas! Pennsylvania is almost certainly going to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee, but our congressmen, our state senators and representatives, our borough council members, zoning commissioners, just a lot of offices will be up for election. I never fail to vote.
Even if you believe that you must vote for the Libertarian or Communist or a write in candidate in the presidential election, you ought to vote.
Then write in someone, or vote for a minor party candidate, but at least vote. But if you don’t vote, you have agreed to let other people take the decisions for you.
Why would you even ask?
“I can’t stand Candidate X, but if he’s the nominee, by God I’ll vote for him!”
That just tells the Stabs they’ll keep getting their way, so why not three-peat their guaranteed-loser trajectory?
When confronted by a mugger who’s stolen from you twice before, do you tell him that, no, as matter of fact you still haven’t started carrying a gun?
He’s on the same road, just that Crist is much further down it.
The TEA Party is right on a lot of things, but they haven’t put forth too many good candidates, and candidates win elections. We ought to have Republican senators from Arkansas, Indiana and Delaware, and would, except that lousy candidates won the primaries, and lost in he general election.
Sarah Palin would not win a completely clean, no illegal immigrants election; the left managed to paint a picture of her as a thoroughly dumb bunny in 2008, and even if that picture is unfair, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
If I could simply select the next President, it would be Rick Perry, because he has a long record of actually getting things done, and fostering a government environment that is friendly to business and job creation. But he managed to prove that, whatever his abilities in actually governing are, he’s not a good candidate.
Simple but obvious question: despite how you feel about the political positions of Messrs Cruz and West, what have any of them ever actually run before?
No, I don’t assume that Mr Bush would defeat Mrs Clinton, and I don’t think that any Republican would defeat Mrs Clinton if she runs; my guess is that she won’t, due to health.
Mr Ashley wrote:
Then you have to be involved in both the primary and general elections; we need better conservative candidates in the primaries, not nut cases like Christine O’Donnell or Todd Akin.
But if your preferred candidate does not win in the primary, it’s still important to vote for the party nominee in the general election, unless his election is either so assured or so impossible that you can “send a message” with a third party vote.
It seems to me that the “I won’t vote” attitude isn’t telling the mugger that no, you haven’t started carrying a gun, but that you are cowering in the house, afraid to leave.
Colonels are well trained in administration, personnel, and leadership.
Double so for those who used that experience in war. West is more qualified to BE president than anyone who’s run in the primaries in the last two election cycles.
Cruz has been in governmental roles, director roles, was State Solicitor of Texas, and has argued cases before the Supreme Court. He’s earned his position the hard way, and he’s proven he can win tough elections.
If you want a business operator, fine, but I’d rather have someone who’s proven competence in a range of fields, and also shows full knowledge of Constitutional law. I know many fantastic businessmen who would be horrible leaders. So I don’t get real excited abut that one particular qualification.
If they’ve never done a damned thing but posture and pontificate, like barack, that’s another story.
Sent him some orange skin paint, and Mitt is good to go!
“And. Still. I. Will. Not. Vote. For. Jeb.”
Amen, and preach it, brother. If this is the best the GOP can do, it deserves to die.
But consider the Republican Senators we have from Texas, Kentucky, and Utah now thanks to the Tea Party.
You can’t win every election.
You’re seeing parallels instead of lessons.
Because the phrase “shall not submit” implies cowering or something, I guess.
These “Any GOP is better than X” arguments actually play very well for 1973. They stopped working with much success in the Nineties, and now they are simply vaporous nonsense.
It comes from people still believing we haven’t …quite …yet gone over the cliff.
The image of zombies with bits of wreckage protruding from their necks, while shambling about the sundered decking in imitation of live crew comes to mind.
It’s dead, Jim. Republicans are no help in a wreck like this. None at all.
Exactly right.
The majority of the Tea Party candidates were very good candidates. Only the same few names keep cropping up again and again as “proof” that the Tea Party sucks.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin’s record of endorsees makes Karl Rove’s list insignificant.
Does Ray Stevens know you’re plagiarizing him?
I’m ambivalent about Santorum at the moment. He’s the only “essentially pre-announced” conservative, so you have to wonder what the other conservatives are thinking. (His speech at the Freedomworks thing was as close to a pre-announcement as you’re going to get from anyone).
On the other hand, I see no way in hell he can win. His last outing just wasn’t strong enough, even though it was strong in places. I suspect he’s not as philosophically sound as he is “idealistically sound.” And idealism just isn’t the real deal.
Perry really didn’t do much to foster that environment in Texas. The Texas Governor has influence, but not an awful lot of authority. A question I would have is the type of appointments he made as Texas Gov. Bush made some really sorry appointments and I could see he was a Lib before he snowed Limbaugh in 2000.
But if we don’t, the GOP will lose again. And probably die.
They’ve had the best back-to-back performance in elections to the House of Representatives since 1928 and control 29 state legislatures. It was a bit de trop when Tip O’Neill and Tom McCall used to talk this way, but they were at least confronting a situation where the Democratic Party had controlled both houses of Congress for 38 of the previous 42 years and the Republicans controlled 4 state legislatures.
“The left” has not been electing your candidates. The 20 million or so adult Americans who cast ballots in Republican primaries and caucuses do. The sort of candidate you profess to fancy does not run, or runs and is rejected out of hand by Republican voters (Jack Kemp), or runs and competes passably and then is spoken of with disrespect by the sort of people who populate boards like this either because of the riffs in his substantive policy preferences (M. Huckabee) or because of aesthetics (R. Santorum). The beaux ideals du jour are Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, neither of whom have the background in executive positions.
Did it ever occur to you that the nominating process just stinks? It benefits people willing and able to organize interminable national publicity campaigns. Is that really the sine qua non of a capable chief executive? (The current incumbent demonstrates it is not). How would Gen. Eisenhower have fared with this system? If the answer is ‘not well’, it’s time to change the system.
Fair enough.
not nut cases like Christine O’Donnell or Todd Akin.
It’s a reasonable inference that Miss O’Donnell has some heavy problems. Mr. Akin is an engineer and retired military officer with more than twenty years experience in legislative bodies. He’s also an example of the degree to which the media is now an extension of the Democratic National Committee and an example of how the GOP central offices are run by careerists and the terminally other-directed. When the mob comes to get the old man, you start firing from the upper floors; you do, not Reince Priebus.
I’ve said it many times: if Hillary Clinton runs, she’ll win,
The last national candidate who vaguely resembled Hillary in his obtrusive durability and pockmarked surfaces was Richard Nixon in 1968. He was nominated by the challenging party against an incumbent party facing wretched head winds and he almost blew the election anyway. I cannot figure how you fancy Hillary is unbeatable.
Sure, that’s occurred to me, but what’s the alternative? Having some regional yahoo no one ever heard of rammed down our throats? If a candidate can’t create a national following, they don’t deserve the office. If you want to come up with a better plan, more power to you, I’ll be glad to hear you out.
And. Still. I. Will. Not. Vote. For. Jeb.
THIS ^^^^^ +++++ ONE MILLION
I’ve decided I’ll probably not vote for a Democrat out of spite. (for Reps and such)
But if they put another wish wash moderate Democrat wannabe, then I’m out of the Republican Party.
This also goes if they enact amnesty but then the GOP will be unable to get many votes by 2016 also.
But look at all the other damage they did.
No New Taxes
American with Disabilities Act.
No Child Left Behind
Going into Iraq without a clue
Medicare Part D (Give away to Big Pharma)
Religion of Peace
Nancy Pelosi
(my potential list is bigger than your list could ever be)
“…the sort of people who populate boards like this …”
Muffin and I were just saying the same thing over at the club. Awful people.
Just because Colonels in the Army, especially in wartime, get a great deal of “executive” experience is no reason to believe in any sort of qualifications. Those “army” people are so uncouth. I don’t care if learning leadership skills, motivation, and command responsibility is part of the job requirements. I prefer someone who’s made partner in a real law firm.
Same thing with directors of boards and men who serve as state solicitor. I don’t care if it’s a populous, geographically large state that has nearly every component of the Dow owning major office space there. It’s not like these sorts of people ever owned something important. Like a membership in Skull and Bones.
Regional yahoo? You’re not making sense.
—
1. Apportion delegates according to the sum of votes Republican congressional and presidential candidates have received over the previous 24 years.
2. Hold the primaries and precinct caucuses on a Saturday in April.
3. Have district caucuses in those states a week later to chose delegates to the convention.
4. As for the primary states, have each cut up into single-member constituencies and elect a delegate from each. Elect the delegate by use of ordinal balloting tabulated according to the conventions of the alternate vote (“ranked choice” they call it in Minneapolis). Maybe you put the candidate pledged-to by the aspirant delegate’s name, maybe you do not. It is important that you vary the order from one precinct to another of the aspirant delegate’s name.
5. Hold the convention in late May, under a rule whereby you have one ballot where all candidates nominated compete, a second ballot where those failing to obtain 2% of the votes on the first compete (n in number), a third where n-1 compete, a fourth where n-2 compete and so forth until you have a nominee.
—
Before anyone ballots, have public debates among aspirants for 10 weeks or so, no more.
–
I’m wagering this will break the candidate-centered process in favor of one where local elected officials exercise discretion. Older systems gave us Barry Goldwater, Dwight Eisenhower, Thomas E. Dewey, and Herbert Hoover. These were men of quality even if you disagreed with them (and they did not have to run themselves ragged and ruin their dignity for two years).
Nobody awful, just not taking an inventory of the collection of things they advocate over time.
Neither Ted Cruz nor Rand Paul were in the military, as far as I can recall. They both have their talents and virtues, as does R. Santorum. None have been line administrators, however. Having people learn public administration on the fly is unedifying, as the careers of Barack Obama, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson demonstrate.
killary will not be the commiecratic candidate. It will be fauxcahontas warren. Mark my words.
Sshhhhhhhh!
Fact is, this is all fallout from a fund-raising strategy that’s been raking in the dough for 20 years. It’s succeeded in turning even the most stalwart Tea Party-ish conservatives into fetal-position speedbumps at the merest mention of a certain former First Lady’s name in connection with a presidential run.
As if 2008 never happened.
Do you think that anyone who is Open Borders, ought not to be considered a Democrat?
I don’t know if his speeches are still on the Texas gov website, but he claimed he was in support of open borders back during his first term.
Having that on one’s resume is a tough obstacle. He may pull it off, but so far I’m not getting a sense he can.
Are you stupid? There is NO DIFFERENCE between the gop and the commiecrats. NONE. I held my nose and voted for mcstain. I held my nose and voted for romney. I WILL NEVER DO IT AGAIN. When the gop acts exactly the same as the commiecrats, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
You’ve arbitrarily limited the pool to such a degree that no one will be qualified but Mike Pence.
As much as I prefer solid admin skills, “W” proved that it doesn’t make one a good President. He had the admin skills and the commensurate MBA from the top school. So it wasn’t his skill set that was the problem.
It was his lack of grounding in what the founders created here that ruined his Presidency.
I want someone who’s demonstrated competence (something barack never did) follows well-reasoned principles (something most politicians do not grasp), not an idealist who happened to be a governor.
“Shrinkage” has definitely been happening. And yeah, I’d say follow the money.
Oh, come on. Say it with me!
Massive Headwound Hillary 2016!