Quasimodo wrote: I'm at a loss as to who the Republicans will field. Any thoughts?
I'll be surprised if Scott Walker of Wisconsin isn't one of the names who makes it at least out of the Iowa straw poll and into real contention for the primary. With the release of his book last fall and his arguments during the government shutdown for how to not be an obstructionist conservative but rather a productive conservative it seemed he was setting the stage for a national presence that could resonate with a broad base of conservative republicans.
Jindal, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Rubio, etc., also fit the profile I think the Republican party is going to seek in it's nominee: Someone true to solid conservative values fighting government growth and spending while having a track-record to point to rather than just an ideology. I think that favors candidates with state leadership backgrounds over members of the national legislative branch, though.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
I'm not convinced that a RINO is that much more electable than a true conservative.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Quasimodo wrote: I'm at a loss as to who the Republicans will field. Any thoughts?
I'll be surprised if Scott Walker of Wisconsin isn't one of the names who makes it at least out of the Iowa straw poll and into real contention for the primary. With the release of his book last fall and his arguments during the government shutdown for how to not be an obstructionist conservative but rather a productive conservative it seemed he was setting the stage for a national presence that could resonate with a broad base of conservative republicans.
Jindal, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Rubio, etc., also fit the profile I think the Republican party is going to seek in it's nominee: Someone true to solid conservative values fighting government growth and spending while having a track-record to point to rather than just an ideology. I think that favors candidates with state leadership backgrounds over members of the national legislative branch, though.
This is going to be interesting. I think that the Republicans need to have a candidate that appeals to a broader range of voters than they have had in the last two elections. McCain came closer than Mitt, but we saw how that turned out.
Rand Paul, Ryan and Rubio might me able to pull that off, but I'm doubtful. Jindal (my own opinion) is not of the caliber to make a serious run. I think he may be a very poor candidate on the national scale. Imagining a debate between Hillary and Jindal seems comical.
Walker's actions against unions will be a problem for him in a national race. Plus, the recent release of private emails between him and subordinates is starting to sound a lot like the problems Christie is having. That may sink his boat before it gets under sail.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
ajax18 wrote:I'm not convinced that a RINO is that much more electable than a true conservative.
I agree that no Republican is very likely to win another national election as long as the party continues to alienate women and minorities. Christie has had the best numbers, and he would lose his own state, even before all his recent troubles.
That said, "RINO" is a very odd term. "Republican" IS a name, by definition, which any person can claim to be, and is no more or less legitimate in that claim than any other person.
Ownership of the term has been claimed by the most extreme right to define anyone who has done -- or even just said -- something the least bit moderate. And since the party originated as a progressive party, and has been been fairly moderate for a lot of its history, the question as to who is a genuine Republican is an open one.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
Has "great American" Hannity started to call his radio show the "Stop Hillary Express" again yet? It took him a while to recognize his error in 2008, but one day the show suddenly changed into the "Stop Obama Express."
We all know how well that worked out.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
honorentheos wrote: Jindal, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Rubio, etc., also fit the profile I think the Republican party is going to seek in it's nominee: Someone true to solid conservative values fighting government growth and spending while having a track-record to point to rather than just an ideology.
Track-records? Ideology? The one with the sharpest fangs and most feral look in his eyes will get the nod from the back room.
Quasimodo wrote: I'm at a loss as to who the Republicans will field. Any thoughts?
I'll be surprised if Scott Walker of Wisconsin isn't one of the names who makes it at least out of the Iowa straw poll and into real contention for the primary. With the release of his book last fall and his arguments during the government shutdown for how to not be an obstructionist conservative but rather a productive conservative it seemed he was setting the stage for a national presence that could resonate with a broad base of conservative republicans.
Scott Walker is a moron. Palin-esque. I have a hard time imagining him making it out of a Republican debate process. Not only is he something of a dunce, he also lacks a college degree. He'll be viciously attacked by his nominee opponents on that front. His current status in conservative circles exists in a critique free bubble. When the bloom comes off the rose, it's hard to see him as a frontrunner. Anything is possible, and he is an accomplished fund-raiser, but I see him getting raked over the coals and having a hard time avoiding the media-fodder blunder moments.
krose wrote:I agree that no Republican is very likely to win another national election as long as the party continues to alienate women and minorities. Christie has had the best numbers, and he would lose his own state, even before all his recent troubles.
If Democrats are in power long enough, Republicans will win by default, regardless of the positions they stake out. Presidential elections are in significant part driven by being a referendum on the party currently in power. The popularity of the party in power, in addition to being influenced by things like the state of the economy, erodes simply on the basis of length of reign. If a Democrat holds the office long enough, a Republican will eventually win by default.
That's the best reason why you should have a vested interest in making sure the internal politics of the party you do not favor is healthy. If you sit bemused at religious right lunatics rising to the top of the Republican power-structure knowing that this hurts their national election chances, eventually the result is going to be national power being handed over to religious right lunatics.
I agree that no Republican is very likely to win another national election as long as the party continues to alienate women and minorities.
The people conservatives alienate are those who like social welfare programs. Having an Allen West, Ted Cruz, or Michelle Bachman get the nomination would prove that.
the result is going to be national power being handed over to religious right lunatics
The focus of the Tea party is very narrow. The Tea party is fighting to keep taxpaying Americans more free and less enslaved by the high cost of social welfare programs and the debt that continues to skyrocket out of control. Mike Lee pointed out that Tea party candidates that lost their congressional seats were those who got mired down in social issues. I don't see any religious fanatics or focus on abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization or other nonissues. It's a simple call to live within our means and to make people free again.
Last edited by ICCrawler - ICjobs on Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.