Consider how desperately the Republican establishment wanted to defeat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 2010. Did the party want Sharron Angle as the GOP nominee? Of course not, but the radical base didn’t much care. The establishment didn’t want Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, either, and was crushed when Mike Castle lost the primary, but there wasn’t much the party’s leaders could do about it.Yes! Both candidates offered a choice rather than a reflection. And the voters chose. And both candidates lost in the General Election. But at least the Republican registered voters got a chance to express themselves. I dislike being treated like someone's lapdog.
Mr Benen sums up his view here:
In fact, I find it very easy to imagine Gingrich benefiting from this dynamic. It’s not as if rank-and-file Republican voters are necessarily enamored with the GOP establishment in Washington. I can imagine Gingrich running an ad saying, “If you want a candidate popular with D.C. pundits and power-brokers on Capitol Hill, I’m not your guy. But if you want a leader with a vision, fundamental fundamental fundamental, etc.”And, Newt is the man to do just that thing.
Regards — Cliff
♠ When it comes to story titles I am torn between doing it the way I think I learned (capitalize the main words) and the way the lazy, sloppy typesetters and English teachers of today do it. Ths time I went with the typesetters.
1 comment:
I am not certain what is worse, a GOP searching for its roots and relevance via its candidates, or a DNC that is locked into liberal fantasies and abject dismissal of any who "just don't get it."
I think Newt would have value, perhaps not to the GOP, but to the country. We desperately need leadership...and at this point....a leader that leads us SOMEPLACE will be a refreshing relief. We need a leader instead of a political lapdog, beholden to those whole reins he is holdin'. How can you tell when George Soros is talking? When the dummy's lips are moving at 1600 PA.AVE. W wasn't much better and in many ways, much worse....a playboy who grew up to be President...well...."grew up" is perhaps an erroneous term to use.
We need a guy who is comfortable in hand to hand combat inside of the beltway and the back alleys of Federal government, as well as a man of grand strategy in large scale maneuver warfare. I'm sorry America, put some sickie sweet, squeaky clean Hollywood pretty boy or charlatan with a smooth silvery tongue and no street sense is simply no longer....well.....relevant. If the "will" of the people is to nominate and elect Nitwit Mitt, we should maybe just cancel the elections all together and stick with the mule we have already in the yoke.
I think if the Gods smile down on Newt...and by some miracle he becomes the GOP anointed one...and gets his wish for 3, three hour long Lincoln/Douglas style debates with Uncle BoBo, America may come to appreciate Newt's suitability.
Oh he isn't a pretty guy from the PC point of perspective. He is a divorcee and most likely has bedded a number of women at various times in his life...and he has spent a lot of money..some of it foolishly at least by WASP standards....but "hey" we are electing a President...not a Puritan Prince or a Pope. And so what if he has "changed his views" on any number of national issues. That is what intelligent, thinking people do. When the conditions change, one had better be ready and willing to change with them. Why is it that America insists that what a candidate says is then etched in stone for all eternity....and any deviation is proof of his or her unsuitability for anything public.
As I write that last paragraph, if one scours Newt's record, he comes out pretty much like a choir boy compared to many of the Founding Fathers (a number of whom fathered a whole bunch of folks from different females). Among them were drunkards, perverts, philanderers, and of course, everyone's current barb....demogogues...and ideologues. Oh the horror!!
Post a Comment