That’s true of the rank and file membership. But the leadership isn’t going to just sit back and watch events unfold. They already see their day-to-day role as managing events - why wouldn’t they be trying to manage a presidential election?
I think the leadership has its hands full trying to figure out who their candidate is going to be. I would guess that the pros in the establishment already recognize that Obama is more of a threat than Hillary but the media mouthpieces are so programmed to “Destroy Hillary” that they just can’t stop themselves, even when they’re rooting against their own best interests.
I like the Yankees-Red Sox analogy. I think it’s pretty apt. My “Hillary” would be the Packers.
I don’t exactly have my fingers on the heart beat of US conservatism these days myself, but my guess is that your calculation is different than their calculation as to who is the bigger threat. Additionally, as others have said, politics isn’t a science…it’s about emotion. Conservatives REALLY don’t like Clinton…any Clinton. And they REALLY don’t want to see another Clinton in the WH…evah.
Perhaps. I grant you he oozes charisma. I’m not so sure his politics are in line with the main stream US…but then again ‘change’ seems to be striking a huge cord these days, so maybe he will win the top spot on that alone. Presidents aren’t always chosen by the people on their politics, but often on their message or even on their charisma. Obama could very well be that way.
But I think you are jumping to conclusions that the conservatives/Republicans are ‘stupid’ to make the calculations they are. YOU might think Obama is the biggest threat to them…but they may be looking at different factors than you. They may not think ‘change’ is all that important or even desirable…or perhaps that ‘the people’ don’t actually want that. Or perhaps ‘change’ to them is different than ‘change’ is to you or me. Remember when the Republican revolution started and conservatism first got started? Were folks who didn’t see that bandwagon moving out ‘stupid’? Or were they simply basing their calculation on different perceptions, different data, a different outlook?
-XT
I don’t see how conservative media could be shooting themselves in the foot by making bad recommendations/coverage of the wrong candidate. After all, by positioning themselves as the “alternative” and saying that they’re sticking it to the man, they can benefit from a liberal administration moreso than a conservative one.
ETA: so maybe they are being crazy like a fox (NPI!)
I didn’t know conservatism started in 1994. That’s very interesting.
Seriously, though, electoral politics is about personalities, not individual issues. Newt’s little coup in '94 was about Bill Clinton, not about policy. When’s the last time any presidential election was really about the issues? As shallow as it may be, presidential elections are personality contests. Hillary presents badly, Obama presents like Elvis.
In the first Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960, people who listened to it on the radio thought Nixon won – substantively, he had better answers – but people who watched on television thought Kennedy dominated. Substance didn’t matter, never has, never will. It’s all about charisma and force of personality. There isn’t anyone on the GOP side who has the wattage to survive next to Obama during the debates.
It also helps that Obama has more substance than most of the GOP field. I think Romney is the Republican Edwards – a purely political creature and kind of an empty suit. Guiliani has the albatross of trying to defend the Iraq war around his neck, Huckabee…well Huckabee is a good natured doofus with some ludicrous beliefs. Thompson comes across like a party-line idealogue and I think he would totally come across as a redneck in contrast to Barack.
McCain has some substance, or at least he used to, but I don’t think he has charisma and I think he’d look old and tired in contrast to Obama.
Some of those guys could probably still beat Hillary with enough negative campaigning, but it’s going to be hard to go negative against Obama. Even on the Freeper site th best they can cme up with his that his last name rhymes with “Osama.” I don’t see how the Republicans are going to beat him. It certainly on’t be because they make persuasive arguments against universal UHC or for torture.
While I think it’s an uphill battle for the Pubbies, let’s not forget last time when even a clown could’ve beaten Bush. Part of the problem is thinking that all the Pubbies stand for is anti-UHC and pro-torture.
The election isn’t a science test where there is only one right answer.
I’m sure some people said that (hell, I might’ve, for all I remember) but it was hardly a consensus view at the time.
What you think might not be true.
Romney lived most of his life outside of politics, where he gained quite a reputation as a business leader and a venture capitalist. Lots of companies owe their growth to his leadership - including Staples. Before Bain Capital invested there they had one store - today they have over 1,700, and are a major employer.
His leadership of Bain & Company at various times helped to ensure that the firm could remain innovative and profitable in the field of management consulting.
When the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee was nearly destroyed by mismanagement and scandal, they needed someone with unquestionable integrity and business sense to set things right again. They chose Mitt Romney.
This is completely aside from his political activity.
Now, I actually like Barack Obama, but really, he has achieved nothing of this scale. To say he has more substance than Romney is just false, frankly. It would be false to say that about Giuliani as well, considering everything he did even before becoming mayor of New York. It would be false to say about McCain, considering his long military career and extensive Senate service.
Why don’t you just say that you prefer Obama for policy reasons, and leave this “empty suit” business alone? Pressing this issue might highlight either your dishonesty about your reasons for preferring Obama or your ignorance of the candidates on the other side.
I have not had much of an impression of Romney aside from the aging Ken doll appearance and his big speech to assure evangelical Republicans that he’s just as extreme a Christian as they are. But I saw him in the last GOP debate and was struck by his evasiveness (twice) when pressed for answers about the Mass. health care initiative.
I guess we’re looking for different qualities in a President. :dubious:
I know I wasn’t saying that. Matter of fact, I played the part of Cassandra on the Kerry nomination.
This time around, though, I have a different vibe. I can see where Huckabee or McCain could possibly give the Democrats trouble (depending on a number of factors), but in general I have a very good feeling about where this election is headed, and even if McCain or Huckabee get nominated, I still think the Democrat will win. It will just be a closer thing.
There was another article in the paper today about how new voter registration is surging in Georgia. I’m pretty sure that’s not happening bacause the electorate is fired up about, say, Giuliani.
Sorry, Moto, but I see Romney as car salesman who will say anything to anybody to get elected. I also don’t see business experience as having any particular relevance to the job.
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate Romney. I think of him about the same way I think of Edwards and I actually think he may be the least offensive of all the Republican candidates.
When I talk about “substance,” I’m talking about actually having a core ideology, a vision and a plan. Most of these guys (on both sides) just want the job to have the job. It’s just ego gratification. What they would actually do in the job is of secondary importance to them. I think Obama actaully cares about doing the job, not just getting it.
Impressive. Just imagine the extent to which, using these same skills, he could expand the size (and payroll) of the federal government!
Uh huh. But if this is the case, I wonder why you are so fired up about Obama. I mean, I don’t doubt that he has an ideology, but he deemphasizes such in his campaign, preferring to talk about unity instead. And any talk of plans with him are quite vague indeed, so much so that the other Democrats regularly ping him for that.
I can understand why you like him, just don’t try to shine the apple too much. It makes you look silly. 
Scanning the AM dial over lunch, it was all about conservative hosts trying to tear Obama down.
I’ll fully admit to my own liberal bias but they’ve sounded scared the past few days. A very popular Democrat is surging ahead and proving to be electable and, on the other side, the Iowa caucus winner and probable NH primary winner are two people who establishment Republicans don’t really want to see in office so they’ve no victories of their own that they want to trumpet.
The problem with Romney is not that he is empty, it is that he is too full of a specific thing.
Mitt Romney’s willingness to have whatever policies he thinks he needs to have to get elected has been quite well documented.
Perhaps that doesn’t scream “empty suit” to you. That won’t surprise anyone.
I read his books. There is a depth of character and intelligence in his writing that pops off the page. I usually think books written by politicians ar the worst kind of self-serving drivel (The Clintons are as guilty of this as anyone), but Obama’s are different. His first one was was written before he went into politics and isn’t that political. The second on is politcal but not smarmy or fatuous.
Plus, he wrote them himself. No ghost writer, and he’s a good writer. I think I’m a sucker for a good writer.
Quite a fair criticism all on its own, but it doesn’t add up to an empty suit.
Look, for a criticism to stick, it has to have some basis in reality. Call Romney a panderer and people will nod. Call him a waffler and people will agree. Call him a dissembler, a flip-flopper, well, you get the picture.
But call him an empty suit, and people may recall those Salt Lake City Olympics, and wonder where the criticism of him was back then.
I’m not totally sold on Romney, really, but the fact remains that he is a man of genuine intelligence and accomplishment. I can criticize numerous things that he has done while allowing as much. And frankly I can say the same thing about most of the Democrats.
There is a pathology in American politics that causes very partisan Democrats to describe their opponents as idiots, and very partisan Republicans to describe their opponents as immoral. I think we see a good bit of the former on this board, frankly, and the latter is avoided only by a relative absence of partisan Republicans here.
There’s more overlap to these views than you might think. Quite a few on either side view their opponents as immoral idiots.
As to your big point about Romney, I have completely forgotten the Salt Lake City Olympics, except there was an American skier who kept falling down, or something.
More apropos, there was the story about Romney strapping his wife (or dog?) to the roof of the family car for a trip. Bit casual, that. 
I don’t think it’s going to be that much easier to beat HRC than Obama:
Obama can be made to read inexperienced & “foreign.”
Hillary is a known quantity, & exudes a sane, realistic competence.
Obama’s church’s pastor is an advocate of “Liberation Theology,” which can be (unfairly) be made to sound “Communist,” & has “Black Nationalist” overtones.
Hillary is a mainline (white) Protestant.
The GOP are kissing their butts goodbye this year regardless of nominees; Giuliani & McCain have some credibility as possible winners, but Romney is wasting his fortune, & Huckabee is basically doing a high-profile book tour.
So I think it’s simply wanting to see an old rival (or “enemy”) get some comeuppance. And I think they’re seeing what they want to see.
I really haven’t been supporting Hillary; Since seeing her in the Facebook N. Hampshire debate, I’m now taking her more seriously as a reasonable, “safe choice” candidate.