The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: jmyrlefuller on July 21, 2014, 01:14:21 am
-
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2014/07/20/rick-perry-continues-shoring-up-2016-support-n1863913
by Kevin Glass
July 20, 2014
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who entered the 2012 GOP nomination race but exited with a whimper, has been making moves hinting at a 2016 bid for President. Most recently he's been to Iowa multiple times, and the Associated Press is reporting that he's been shoring up support with donors and strategists:
If Texas Gov. Rick Perry runs for president and loses Iowa to some other Republican again, it won't be for a lack of trying.
The 64-year-old Perry is on his fourth trip to the state in eight months, meeting Saturday and Sunday with veterans and conservative activists in the northern Iowa communities of Algona and Clear Lake.
Although he hasn't said if he'll seek the White House in 2016, Perry has been raising funds for GOP candidates and seeking advice from political insiders since November.
Perry entered the 2012 presidential race with much fanfare, but quickly stumbled. He finished fifth in the Iowa caucuses in early 2012 and quit the race two weeks later.
As Real Clear Politics' 2012 polling shows, Rick Perry had a comfortable but brief lead in the GOP nomination chase , putting a dent in Mitt Romney and flattening the other candidates. He soon stumbled in debates, though, and fell back to the pack and out of the race for good:
(http://media.townhall.com/_townhall/uploads/2014/7/19/7.png)
Perry may contend with a broader and deeper GOP field this time around, as all the candidates will be longtime politicians with established track records. If he's to make a serious run he'll need to have a better showing than last time.
-
Flavor of the week time, back then when those peaks and valleys appear for Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum and finally solid plodding steady Romney.
-
a little distressing seeing how Santorum shot up just as Perry, Bachmann, and Huntsman dropped out.
-
a little distressing seeing how Santorum shot up just as Perry, Bachmann, and Huntsman dropped out.
That was also about the time Gingrich made his moon colony comments. Basically, Santorum was the last Romney opponent who hadn't been destroyed yet.
You had Rick Perry with his countless debate gaffes.
Herman Cain had the affair accusations.
Bachmann shot herself in the foot with the vaccine/autism statements.
Huntsman was, well, Huntsman.o
Ron Paul had the racist newsletters come back to haunt him. (Of all things.)
Then Gingrich started going off on that moon colony.
Of course, Santorum also had some pretty disturbing statements on the role of government, but those mostly were forgotten by primary time.
That left Romney, who seemed to have no skeletons in his closet (or at least a much more effective way of burying them), at the end.
-
what's disturbing is that it appears from the chart that those who had supported Perry, et al, jumped over to Santorum once their first picks were no longer available. Twixt Santorum and Romney I cannot fathom that significant numbers would favor the former over the latter.
-
Flavor of the week time, back then when those peaks and valleys appear for Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum and finally solid plodding steady Romney.
As a RINO cheerleader for the GOPe I'll vote for whoever the primary voters pick for me before my WI vote makes no difference so late in the process.
There were many good choices for conservatives in 2012 unlike 2008, but the flavor of the week was actually white soft serve anti-GOPe both elections.
In 2008 the popular pejorative for GOPe among conservatives was Rudy McRomney, but the guy they hated the most was traitorous POW John McCain. After Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore and Alan Keyes fizzled out before they started Anybody But McCain was the conservative slogan and conservatives lowered their standards from least worst RINO Fred Thompson to next worst Guilliani, to next worst Romney, to Huckabee, and finally to the worst RINO Jaun McCain. And woe to posters on TOS if they endorsed McCain until long after there was no other choice.
A similar pattern happened in 2012 with conservatives reusing the Anybody But Romney strategy. He soon became the villian to personify the GOPe, even though Romney said "I am the only candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat, who has never worked a day in Washington,”...“I don’t have old scores to settle or decades of cloakroom deals to defend.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-plays-outsider-status-washington-speech_626576.html
It was stunning to behold the former Speaker of the House establish his outsider cred. “The idea of a Gingrich presidency actually changing Washington, of my ignoring all the powers that be — I have no ties to Goldman Sachs, for example, the biggest single backer of Romney; I have no ties to the power structure. I think that they are very frightened at the idea of a genuine outsider. And I’ve managed to remain a genuine outsider."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/gingrich-romney-will-lose-in-florida/2012/01/23/gIQAkzTJLQ_blog.html
Conservatives have no idea who they want, but they do know who they don't want...the guy with the best chance to attract moderates or crossover votes. I expect conservatives will be disappointed with the 2016 GOPe nominee, but we will win this time.
-
You think the gop will win in 2016? That is a leap of faith. Thousands of conservatives are willing to write in a candidate or not vote if a rhino is the candidate. You can't win without us and after seeing what the rhino's have done to this country along with the democrats not one of us will change our minds.
-
That was also about the time Gingrich made his moon colony comments. Basically, Santorum was the last Romney opponent who hadn't been destroyed yet.
You had Rick Perry with his countless debate gaffes.
Herman Cain had the affair accusations.
Bachmann shot herself in the foot with the vaccine/autism statements.
Huntsman was, well, Huntsman.o
Ron Paul had the racist newsletters come back to haunt him. (Of all things.)
Then Gingrich started going off on that moon colony.
Of course, Santorum also had some pretty disturbing statements on the role of government, but those mostly were forgotten by primary time.
That left Romney, who seemed to have no skeletons in his closet (or at least a much more effective way of burying them), at the end.
They weren't forgotten, they were overlooked by his base. They want to initiate their view of America and use the government to do it.
-
You think the gop will win in 2016? That is a leap of faith. Thousands of conservatives are willing to write in a candidate or not vote if a rhino is the candidate. You can't win without us and after seeing what the rhino's have done to this country along with the democrats not one of us will change our minds.
"You can't win without us"????
Who is "us"?
-
You think the gop will win in 2016? That is a leap of faith. Thousands of conservatives are willing to write in a candidate or not vote if a rhino is the candidate. You can't win without us and after seeing what the rhino's have done to this country along with the democrats not one of us will change our minds.
I heard Rush talking the other day about this. He said look at the Dems, they do whatever they can for their base. Look at the Reps, they hate their base.
It explains a lot.
-
"You can't win without us"????
Who is "us"?
"Us" would seem to be people like the 0.5% that supported Buchanan in 2000.
Their whining is a lot louder than their vote count. And being so unreliable, not worth pursuing.
The fact is Reagan would be unacceptable to them today, based on their checklist method of disqualifying almost anybody.
-
I heard Rush talking the other day about this. He said look at the Dems, they do whatever they can for their base. Look at the Reps, they hate their base.
It explains a lot.
The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party.
-
The fact is Reagan would be unacceptable to them today, based on their checklist method of disqualifying almost anybody.
If you believe that to be the case, you will never win again, because you can't win without us.
A good friend of mine is a political barometer to me. A very good one. He leans left, but will vote Republican when it makes sense to him. In the coming elections, he would love to vote Republican, if for no other reason than to punish the Democrats. However, when he looks at Republicans, he sees a group that is particularly slimy that stands for absolutely nothing. If you vote R, what do you get? Not a Democrat? Maybe, but some R's vote and govern like D's.
I don't care anymore. The country is headed to the trash heap of history, and your beloved establishment types are helping to grease the skids. So, if they never win again, I'm ok with that.
-
The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party.
Until enough people understand this, the folly will continue, unabated.
-
If you believe that to be the case, you will never win again, because you can't win without us.
A good friend of mine is a political barometer to me. A very good one. He leans left, but will vote Republican when it makes sense to him. In the coming elections, he would love to vote Republican, if for no other reason than to punish the Democrats. However, when he looks at Republicans, he sees a group that is particularly slimy that stands for absolutely nothing. If you vote R, what do you get? Not a Democrat? Maybe, but some R's vote and govern like D's.
I don't care anymore. The country is headed to the trash heap of history, and your beloved establishment types are helping to grease the skids. So, if they never win again, I'm ok with that.
#RememberMississippi 'nuf said.
-
You think the gop will win in 2016? That is a leap of faith. Thousands of conservatives are willing to write in a candidate or not vote if a rhino is the candidate. You can't win without us and after seeing what the rhino's have done to this country along with the democrats not one of us will change our minds.
Then we can thank the SoCons for President Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Quite honestly, the GOP's problem here is one of fence-sitting. If it went whole-hog with attempts like Paul Rand's to make the effort to explain itself to so-called "nontraditional" voters, then it would very quickly no longer need the SoCons at all. As it is, though, it remains wedded to the SoCons, a strategy that used to win elections but which no longer provides much comfort for upcoming elections. It's time for the GOP to get off the fence and look to the future - the "nontraditional" future - and unhitch itself from a shrinking base.
-
"Us" would seem to be people like the 0.5% that supported Buchanan in 2000.
Their whining is a lot louder than their vote count. And being so unreliable, not worth pursuing.
The fact is Reagan would be unacceptable to them today, based on their checklist method of disqualifying almost anybody.
Yes Reagan would be unacceptable to many today. But perhaps not. Maybe they would overlook his abortion position as governor, the Marine Barracks, his tax increases, his increased deficits and debt, and of course his amnesty law. In his nomination acceptance speech, his only social position and his first promise was to meet with all the governors to eliminate discrimination against women, and even add statuses for women if necessary.
The GOP has an outstanding chance in '16 even against Hillary. We'll see a lot from the "My Way or the Highway" crowd, but I suspect after 2008 and 2012, in the end they'll be there, regardless of who emerges from the brouhaha they call primaries.
-
Off topic but related. Romney would have made a good president and I'm not convinced he won't run again; Reagan ran twice before grabbing the brass ring. With a minor image make-over Romney could be viable in '16.
Here's an interesting tidbit. When there is an incumbent in office, Democrats always nominate a party favorite. Examples are Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. But, when there is not an incumbent in office, Democrats have NEVER selected a well known name to run in that year. It's always been an outsider like Carter, Clinton and Obama.
Therefore, with no incumbent in office, Hillary will be the next example of a party favorite to NOT be selected nominee -- with Democrats likely choosing Elizabeth Warren.
By the way, it's the exact opposite with Republicans. They always select nationally well know party favorites when there is no incumbent in office. Examples are Nixon, Reagan, Bush (and perhaps, who knows, Romney).
-
Off topic but related. Romney would have made a good president and I'm not convinced he won't run again; Reagan ran twice before grabbing the brass ring. With a minor image make-over Romney could be viable in '16.
Here's an interesting tidbit. When there is an incumbent in office, Democrats always nominate a party favorite. Examples are Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. But, when there is not an incumbent in office, Democrats have NEVER selected a well known name to run in that year. It's always been an outsider like Carter, Clinton and Obama.
Therefore, with no incumbent in office, Hillary will be the next example of a party favorite to NOT be selected nominee -- with Democrats likely choosing Elizabeth Warren.
By the way, it's the exact opposite with Republicans. They always select nationally well know party favorites when there is no incumbent in office. Examples are Nixon, Reagan, Bush (and perhaps, who knows, Romney).
Interesting stat. And I do agree with you about Romney. He would certainly have made a hell of a better president than we have now, and he may well run again.
-
Yes Reagan would be unacceptable to many today. But perhaps not. Maybe they would overlook his abortion position as governor, the Marine Barracks, his tax increases, his increased deficits and debt, and of course his amnesty law. In his nomination acceptance speech, his only social position and his first promise was to meet with all the governors to eliminate discrimination against women, and even add statuses for women if necessary.
But who was his competition in the primary? John Anderson, Bob Dole, Howard Baker, former Democrat John Connally, and Phil Crane. Of those, only Crane was to the right of Reagan, but he was only a member of the House and ill-equipped to run a primary campaign—much the same as the elder Duncan Hunter was in 2008.
-
I don't care anymore. The country is headed to the trash heap of history, and your beloved establishment types are helping to grease the skids. So, if they never win again, I'm ok with that.
Your remarks need to stand alone, with no elaboration from me whatsoever.
-
But who was his competition in the primary? John Anderson, Bob Dole, Howard Baker, former Democrat John Connally, and Phil Crane. Of those, only Crane was to the right of Reagan, but he was only a member of the House and ill-equipped to run a primary campaign—much the same as the elder Duncan Hunter was in 2008.
For the most part of course, no one knew of the positions Reagan would take during his presidency. Hind sight is usually pretty strong, and the issue is would he be a favorite of the Party's right wing today? I say yes he would, and that speaks volumes for selective political principles.
-
Then we can thank the SoCons for President Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Quite honestly, the GOP's problem here is one of fence-sitting. If it went whole-hog with attempts like Paul Rand's to make the effort to explain itself to so-called "nontraditional" voters, then it would very quickly no longer need the SoCons at all. As it is, though, it remains wedded to the SoCons, a strategy that used to win elections but which no longer provides much comfort for upcoming elections. It's time for the GOP to get off the fence and look to the future - the "nontraditional" future - and unhitch itself from a shrinking base.
You forgot the other part, actually do something that resembles what you promise.
-
Your remarks need to stand alone, with no elaboration from me whatsoever.
You're a hoot. Not only are you filled with self importance, and contempt for those that don't agree with you, you're about as disingenuous as any leftist.
No context, you founds something that you feel proves your point. What a buffoon you are.
-
You're a hoot. Not only are you filled with self importance, and contempt for those that don't agree with you, you're about as disingenuous as any leftist.
No context, you founds something that you feel proves your point. What a buffoon you are.
For somebody claiming to not care, you sure are quick to grab the meal off the hook.
But he on only got 0.5%, and me being the one saying it, doesn't make it less of a fact.
I know, I know; you'll say: "...but there's more of us, this time. You wait and see. Without us, you can't win."
I think you overestimate your importance. Pragmatic, practical realistic folks see courting your vote as losing 2 or 3 votes, just to please you.
-
For somebody claiming to not care, you sure are quick to grab the meal off the hook.
But he on only got 0.5%, and me being the one saying it, doesn't make it less of a fact.
I know, I know; you'll say: "...but there's more of us, this time. You wait and see. Without us, you can't win."
I think you overestimate your importance. Pragmatic, practical realistic folks see courting your vote as losing 2 or 3 votes, just to please you.
Here's part of the problem, you are media driven, just like other lefties. Oh, did I say "other", sorry, I know you're what? A conservative? :silly:
Anyway, your media driven "intelligence" causes you to think anyone who doesn't agree with you is either a far left radical, or a right wing, knuckle dragging, SoCon, Tea Partier. It's my opinion, that given a choice, you'd prefer the leftist radical to the Tea Party type.
You ignore what most of us here call for, because it doesn't fit your view of us. I'm still not quite sure why you choose to dirty yourself in with our company, but that's another story. What we are calling for is Republicans to make a stand, and stick to that stand. Sure, I'd like to see small government, fiscal conservatives, but whatever the heck it is Republican means, stand for it, do it. They won't, and they don't. That is why I don't care if they ever win again, because what exactly is being won? A comfortable life for someone who claims to be something other than Democrat? Bah!
And that leads to me. You attack me as if I were the Ohio Tea Party chairman. I'm a libertarian, if I had to choose a tag. I'm also a realist. While I'm not a SoCon, and generally don't care what others do to themselves, I do appreciate family values and the American culture, what's left of it. If Republicans would stand for small government, and fiscal responsibility, I could work with that. But I'll be darned if we can find anyone that will stick to that. So, to hell with the bunch of them.
-
Oceander wrote above:
[[ It's time for the GOP to get off the fence and look to the future - the "nontraditional" future - and unhitch itself from a shrinking base. ]]
Nonsense, pure horse manure.
The "base" that the GOP should be trying to attract still represents about 72% of American citizens, if not more.
If only 5% more Euro-Americans had voted Republican in a few key states in 2012, Romney would be in the White House today.
For every vote that the leftist Republicans think they can win from your so-called "non-shrinking base", they will lose two or more from their -real- base, without which they have no hope of remaining a national political party.
Prediction: the Republicans will never win more than 5-7% of "the black vote" again, if that much. Obama has sealed that deal for decades to come.
Prediction: the Republicans will never win more than 15-25% of "the Hispanic vote" (when averaged nationally). The more illegal Hispanics you transform into voters via amnesty (oops, you call it "immigration reform"), the more lopsided the Hispanic vote will become for the democrats in real numbers.
Prediction: the Republicans will never win more than 25% of "The Asian vote". As improbable and amazing as it seems, the percentage of Asians who voted for the democrats was higher than the percentages of Hispanics who did in the last election.
The "future" for the GOP lies in locking up "the white vote", as it has done down south.
Whites in the south vote overwhelmingly Republican as a matter of "survival politics", which might also be called -- the dreaded word -- "identity politics".
If they didn't, they'd be ruled by the democrats, and that "rule" would be largely black, because the southern states have 35-40% black populations and there are more black democrats there than white democrats.
Call this "racist" if you wish -- the whites who live in those states call it "reality".
The "white identity politics" of the south (beginning with what was once referred to as Nixon's "Southern Strategy") has resulted in an astounding transformation: what was once "the solid South" (the solid democratic South) has now turned 180 degrees to become the most "reliably Republican" region in the country.
And again, this is the result of whites who have "switched sides" to the Republicans for reasons of "racial reality".
If it has worked in the South, it can work elsewhere, particularly in the wake of the current alien invasion and border breakdown.
Yes, like you said, it's time for Republicans to "get off the fence" and get busy.
The opportunity is out there for the Pubbies: seal the border, send the illegals back, defend states and local communities against housing the illegal flood.
Do this, and whites will rush to the Republican party side.
Go the way you want to go, and the Republican party will be dead in less than twenty years, possibly in ten...
-
align care wrote above:
[[ Off topic but related. Romney would have made a good president and I'm not convinced he won't run again; Reagan ran twice before grabbing the brass ring. With a minor image make-over Romney could be viable in '16. ]]
Romney lost in 2008 -- to John McCain.
Romney lost in 2012 -- to Barack Obama.
Guess he wants to try for a three-time loser, eh....????
-
The "base" that the GOP should be trying to attract still represents about 72% of American citizens, if not more.
And the latest polling shows that 82% of adults nationwide consider immigration reform as somewhat to extremely important. Wonder if some of them are "Euro-Americans"?
-
The opportunity is out there for the Pubbies: seal the border, send the illegals back, defend states and local communities against housing the illegal flood.
Do this, and whites will rush to the Republican party side.
Go the way you want to go, and the Republican party will be dead in less than twenty years, possibly in ten...
But if you do, you still have the breeding component. The white vote is getting rapidly older and is not having enough children.
Take a look at this graph, especially the right side:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/PartyVotes-Presidents.png)
Notice something about the trend from the 1972 election onward?
If you guessed a slow but steady growth in the Democratic Party's base, you would be correct, and that directly corresponds to the ethnic shifts in the country. If you think you can stop that by closing the border, you're fooling yourself: it has been estimated that white non-Hispanics are no longer a majority of live births in this country, or that we are at least very close to that tipping point. That means, without a fundamental shift in the way we approach childbearing and sex, within two generations there will no longer be enough white people to maintain such a party.
You're simply prolonging the inevitable.
-
[[ You're simply prolonging the inevitable...]]
Perhaps.
But given the choice, would you rather prolong "the inevitable", or accelerate it?
-
Interesting stat. And I do agree with you about Romney. He would certainly have made a hell of a better president than we have now, and he may well run again.
Definitely agree with you and aligncare on that one.
-
Oceander wrote above:
[[ It's time for the GOP to get off the fence and look to the future - the "nontraditional" future - and unhitch itself from a shrinking base. ]]
Nonsense, pure horse manure.
The "base" that the GOP should be trying to attract still represents about 72% of American citizens, if not more.
If only 5% more Euro-Americans had voted Republican in a few key states in 2012, Romney would be in the White House today.
For every vote that the leftist Republicans think they can win from your so-called "non-shrinking base", they will lose two or more from their -real- base, without which they have no hope of remaining a national political party.
Prediction: the Republicans will never win more than 5-7% of "the black vote" again, if that much. Obama has sealed that deal for decades to come.
Prediction: the Republicans will never win more than 15-25% of "the Hispanic vote" (when averaged nationally). The more illegal Hispanics you transform into voters via amnesty (oops, you call it "immigration reform"), the more lopsided the Hispanic vote will become for the democrats in real numbers.
Prediction: the Republicans will never win more than 25% of "The Asian vote". As improbable and amazing as it seems, the percentage of Asians who voted for the democrats was higher than the percentages of Hispanics who did in the last election.
The "future" for the GOP lies in locking up "the white vote", as it has done down south.
Whites in the south vote overwhelmingly Republican as a matter of "survival politics", which might also be called -- the dreaded word -- "identity politics".
If they didn't, they'd be ruled by the democrats, and that "rule" would be largely black, because the southern states have 35-40% black populations and there are more black democrats there than white democrats.
Call this "racist" if you wish -- the whites who live in those states call it "reality".
The "white identity politics" of the south (beginning with what was once referred to as Nixon's "Southern Strategy") has resulted in an astounding transformation: what was once "the solid South" (the solid democratic South) has now turned 180 degrees to become the most "reliably Republican" region in the country.
And again, this is the result of whites who have "switched sides" to the Republicans for reasons of "racial reality".
If it has worked in the South, it can work elsewhere, particularly in the wake of the current alien invasion and border breakdown.
Yes, like you said, it's time for Republicans to "get off the fence" and get busy.
The opportunity is out there for the Pubbies: seal the border, send the illegals back, defend states and local communities against housing the illegal flood.
Do this, and whites will rush to the Republican party side.
Go the way you want to go, and the Republican party will be dead in less than twenty years, possibly in ten...
racism ill becomes you sir. the GOP is already withering on the vine precisely because of its emphasis on white SoCons to the exclusion of everyone else.
furthermore, a necessary albeit implicit conclusion from your position, if it's true, is that the principles and philosophy of the GOP and its base simply cannot be explained to anyone who isn't already a believer. That is not only sad but also proves out the democrats'/libs' argument that the GOP is nothing more than a dinosaur, an irrational, incomprehensible relic of a dead era. Finally, it also proves out the democrats'/libs' argument that the GOP is racist because it also implicitly concludes that non-whites simply do not have what it takes to understand, let alone adopt, the principles and philosophy of the GOP.
-
Here's part of the problem, you are media driven, just like other lefties. Oh, did I say "other", sorry, I know you're what? A conservative? :silly:
Anyway, your media driven "intelligence" causes you to think anyone who doesn't agree with you is either a far left radical, or a right wing, knuckle dragging, SoCon, Tea Partier. It's my opinion, that given a choice, you'd prefer the leftist radical to the Tea Party type.
You ignore what most of us here call for, because it doesn't fit your view of us. I'm still not quite sure why you choose to dirty yourself in with our company, but that's another story. What we are calling for is Republicans to make a stand, and stick to that stand. Sure, I'd like to see small government, fiscal conservatives, but whatever the heck it is Republican means, stand for it, do it. They won't, and they don't. That is why I don't care if they ever win again, because what exactly is being won? A comfortable life for someone who claims to be something other than Democrat? Bah!
Yeah! truth_seeker is one of THEM not one of US. :silly:
Childish pseudomindreading and easily refutable http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=17 . Why have you not deleted this post in embarrassment?
And that leads to me. You attack me as if I were the Ohio Tea Party chairman. I'm a libertarian, if I had to choose a tag. I'm also a realist. While I'm not a SoCon, and generally don't care what others do to themselves, I do appreciate family values and the American culture, what's left of it. If Republicans would stand for small government, and fiscal responsibility, I could work with that. But I'll be darned if we can find anyone that will stick to that. So, to hell with the bunch of them.
I'm a Republican. It's my party that I have endorsed, voted for, worked for, and volunteered for. I believe my team is immeasurably better than than the other team. I believe my team can win without the "I'm a Conservative, not a Republican" Tea Party people. The Tea Party sees no difference between the rats and the GOP. That is why they don't care that they cost us a majority in the Senate in 2012 based on my ESP powers.
After years of droning on and on about "NOT ONE MORE DIME RNC!" and empty threats of starting a third party, conservatives decided to take on the GOPe in the primaries and spectacularly prove their irrelevance. Thank you Freedomworks. Thank you Senate Conservative Fund. Thank you Club for Growth. Thank you Tea Party Patriots.
This year was really important because it's going to set the tone for 2016. It should be obvious that national politics is cyclical. The US Presidency has traded parties every eight years, 7 out of the last 8 times.
FDR/Truman
IKE
JFK/Johnson
Nixon/Ford
Carter/Reagan (exception)
Reagan/Bush
Clinton
Bush
Obama
We discovered in 2012 and were reminded last October that we can't win with "conservatives." 2016 is going to be a big GOP year. The big question is "will the GOPe be able to prevent a "conservative" takeover?" And the answer is yes.
I'm equally pleased to report that according to the polls I've read the Tea Party has not put any state at risk this year. Good job little buddy. I don't know of any congressional district in danger because of conservatives either. Is it an improvement over past years because the Tea Party has gotten smarter? Maybe. Or maybe the voters just ain't that in to you.
The witches, legitimate rape philosophers, cock fighting enthusiasts, and nursery home photography aficionados all got rejected by the Republican base. Real Republicans will no longer contribute to the election of rats.
-
Real Republicans sit by and dutifully vote for a political team that is nearly indistinguishable from the opposition. Okay, so for 100 years Republicans and Democrats took turns forcing this soul–stealing behemoth in Washington DC on we the people. Okay, so some of us want to change that. That's politics, baby.
-
racism ill becomes you sir. the GOP is already withering on the vine precisely because of its emphasis on white SoCons to the exclusion of everyone else.
furthermore, a necessary albeit implicit conclusion from your position, if it's true, is that the principles and philosophy of the GOP and its base simply cannot be explained to anyone who isn't already a believer. That is not only sad but also proves out the democrats'/libs' argument that the GOP is nothing more than a dinosaur, an irrational, incomprehensible relic of a dead era. Finally, it also proves out the democrats'/libs' argument that the GOP is racist because it also implicitly concludes that non-whites simply do not have what it takes to understand, let alone adopt, the principles and philosophy of the GOP.
Absolute perfection! :amen:
-
I agree, racism is wrong at its core. But, it's also part of human nature – expressed commonly in every racial group. How to deal with that? The U.S. Constitution.
-
I agree, racism is wrong at its core. But, it's also part of human nature – expressed commonly in every racial group. How to deal with that? The U.S. Constitution.
You were born with your own uniform.
-
Yeah! truth_seeker is one of THEM not one of US. :silly:
Childish pseudomindreading and easily refutable http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=17 . Why have you not deleted this post in embarrassment?
Why do you post garbage in defense of a fellow traveler?
I'm a Republican. It's my party that I have endorsed, voted for, worked for, and volunteered for. I believe my team is immeasurably better than than the other team. I believe my team can win without the "I'm a Conservative, not a Republican" Tea Party people.
I'll be civil and simply say we strongly disagree. I hope you enjoy President Warren's administration.
-
Why do you post garbage in defense of a fellow traveler?
I accept your apology on behalf of the GOPe
I'll be civil and simply say we strongly disagree. I hope you enjoy President Warren's administration.
We both would hate that I think, but God, I hope the rats nominate the squaw. 2016 is the year the GOP needs to shout as loudly as possible that "This election is a referendum on liberalism."
-
I accept your apology on behalf of the GOPe
We both would hate that I think, but God, I hope the rats nominate the squaw. 2016 is the year the GOP needs to shout as loudly as possible that "This election is a referendum on liberalism."
Do you live in Colorado? Because I think you've been smoking something that hampers your cognitive abilities.
Which GOP is it that would stand up to liberalism? I haven't seen that GOP. Especially if they're facing another "minority", (how do women count as a minority?). Barack Obama had as much if not more baggage than Warren, and the media went all in for him. They will do the same for Warren.
It's ok, you don't need the likes of me. Let me know how it works out for you.
-
Barack Obama had as much if not more baggage than Warren, and the media went all in for him. They will do the same for Warren.
I don't disagree, but if Pocahontas does challenge Hillary, it will be interesting as a lot of the media still loves Hillary. Still, after Obama's "leadership", I'm not sure they'll all jump in as quickly as they did for him.
-
I don't disagree, but if Pocahontas does challenge Hillary, it will be interesting as a lot of the media still loves Hillary. Still, after Obama's "leadership", I'm not sure they'll all jump in as quickly as they did for him.
Hillary is polarizing, even for Democrats. There was relief on the Dem side when Obama emerged. When Warren jumps in, there will be a lot of support for her. If Warren bests Clinton, the media will fall all over themselves to help coronate the first woman president.
There are women who call themselves conservative who will vote for a Democrat woman, simply because it's a woman, and it's time.
-
Hillary is polarizing, even for Democrats. There was relief on the Dem side when Obama emerged. When Warren jumps in, there will be a lot of support for her. If Warren bests Clinton, the media will fall all over themselves to help coronate the first woman president.
There are women who call themselves conservative who will vote for a Democrat woman, simply because it's a woman, and it's time.
I do agree much of the media will go for either of them against a Republican candidate, but it would still be interesting to see if they jump the Clinton ship in any meaningful way during the primary season. And of course the women's vote will go for either of them.
-
Which GOP is it that would stand up to liberalism? I haven't seen that GOP. Especially if they're facing another "minority", (how do women count as a minority?). Barack Obama had as much if not more baggage than Warren, and the media went all in for him. They will do the same for Warren.
It's ok, you don't need the likes of me. Let me know how it works out for you.
We agree that the GOP will succeed without your support. You see no difference between Dubya and Obama, fortunately the vast majority of voters do see a difference. Warren has no shot of attracting a majority of voters. The media went all out for Gore and Kerry too.