Except you’re forgetting that the teabaggers are really nothing more than rebranded (louder) Republicans. They might throw away a congressional seat in Nowhere, New York with a third party run, but when it comes to the Presidency? No way. Even if they did run a third candidate they’d eventually drop it - probably with a deal to be Secretary of State, or something equally terrifying.
A teabagger isn’t winning the Presidency, but the people funding those fools aren’t going to let the Presidency get thrown away because of a bunch of trailer parkers they no longer need.
I believe they would oppose anyone, Republican or Democrat who did not strap on the Tea Party suicide vest and support their far right wing agenda. They think they are invincible.
The folks angrily screaming from their Hoverounds, sure. But the people who pay for the buses to get them to the events to do their screaming? The people who buy the hot dogs? Nope.
Could you give some examples? He was House Minority Leader, and in those days you didn’t get there by being a radical. And remember Reagan ran against him for the nomination in 1976 on his right. One reason Nixon appointed him as VP was that he was not someone who anyone hated - I don’t remember any strong (if any at all) Democratic opposition to his nomination. He also appointed Nelson Rockefeller as VP, hardly the sign of a far right winger.
He is appealing to the sane wing of the party - we’ll see how big that is (not very is my guess.)
He’s flip flopped so much that there is no way of telling if he believes the crap he’s now spouting or not. He might conceivably not destroy the country if he got in, unlike the rest of them.
Religion is probably more of a problem for the far right than the general population. I know plenty of Mormons, and I’d take them over evangelical fundamentalists any day.
The negatives of the Tea Party are soaring. Any Republican who gets nominated supporting that position is either going to have to keep supporting it in the general, which will create big negatives, or turn their back on the Tea Party, which is going to make them desert.
Romney is acting like a pussy and is standing aside afraid to wade in and get dirty. The race is passing him by. The only thing he said of note lately was “of course corporations are people”. He is blowing it.
Perry is saying dumber and dumber things by day. As more of him gets revealed , there is less and less to like.
Palin is a joke, a bad one.
Bachmann is a fringe candidate that will wear out her welcome soon. She has said and done too many loony things to explain away.
Ron Paul has zero chance when his crazy libertarian beliefs get known to the masses.
At this time the cupboard is bare.
The Rocky appointment was appeasement, a moderate to offset fears of Ford’s reputation as a right-winger. Reagan was able to box him in (or try to) from the right, because Ford had to govern as a moderate, which is what I said above, far more moderate than his voting record in the house. People LIKED Ford personally–he was apparently a genial, outgoing, decent fellow personally, so Congressmen would support him for VP–he was one of the boys, and a far sight better than some other rightwing nutjob who had a reputation for deviousness, dishonesty and unreliablility. People said Ford was Nixon’s insurance policy against getting impeached–they thought Nixon chose him because NO ONE thought he could actually serve as president, the lefties because of politics, the righties because they didn’t think much of his abilities, ideology aside. But the evidence mounted and this congressman whom NO ONE in two decades of service had EVER thought could run for President was now President. Why had no one ever suggested Ford might someday run for President? Because of his voting record in the House.
Part of the calculus for Ford, was that there was no chance he could be elected president. The Dems had no intention of providing the power of incumbency to the next Repub. Ford cranked off 35 years in the house and did not seem to be ambitious. He had like one bill on his own. He was just occupying space.
You don’t become House Minority Leader by not being ambitious and just occupying space. It was also 25 years, not 35. And, no, he didn’t introduce a lot of legislation, but that wasn’t the type of congressman he was. He spent most of his career playing inside ball, serving as a middleman and compromiser between the various wings of the Republican party.
Seniority will get you a long way in congress. That is how you get to be a head of a committee. It gives you power whether you earn it or not.
In 25 years, (i was wrong about 35), he did not write a single piece of meaningful legislation. That is taking space.
Yeah, honestly, anyone who thinks Ford is A) some sort of extremist and B) just a space filler isn’t doing their reputation for political analysis any favors.
The important thing to realize when viewing non-modern elected officials is simply that times were different than now. There was a time when working together meant something on the Hill. Hell, I, in the 90s covering politics used to see fairly hardcore members of both parties out to lunch or dinner just for fun. Now that’s not it at all. Now it’s ‘my circle and none other’. It saddens me.
Ford was also Minority Leader in a time where the minority HAD to compromise if they wanted anything at all. When Ford was first elected to the post (over the much more conservative Charles Halleck) the numbers were 295 D to 140 R. The ONLY way anything R happens is if he works to build a plan with significant (VERY significant) D support. Ford was elected to do that because he was willing to be moderate in his beliefs.
Hell, even as VP he shepherded such legislation as the National Environmental Policy Act through as well as Tax Reform Act of 1969 which was designed (through the creation of the AMT) to increase tax levels on the wealthy. So making the case that Ford was some sort of extremist right-wing nutjob only provides evidence of your own lack of knowledge or perspective.
Oh, and ETA: Were Ford truly a right wing extremist would he has moved the VAST majority of completely dominant D Senators and Congressmen to vote for his appointment to the Vice Presidency? I think not. FTR, the votes were Sen 92-3 and House 387-35. I can’t imagine that sort of thing happening today.
-To people who think the ‘it’s the economy, stupid’ effect might be strong enough to unseat Obama, I say: that’s probably your best bet, but I don’t think it will work. It is too obvious that the nation’s economic problems cannot simply be laid at the feet of Obama, and also that the GOP is deliberately getting in the way of rational solutions. How does a party who is perceived as not wanting to solve the problem play this card?
-As for W getting elected as a pro-life, evangelical etc. candidate, I would point out that he was riding the “If elected I will not get a blowjob in the White House” wave. Regardless of Clinton’s job performance, his scandal turned a lot of people off and gave (me anyway) the feeling that the GOP was on deck. They had momentum and were freer to veer to the extremes and get away with it. In 2012 I believe there is still quite a bit of anti-GOP momentum, and the various candidates’ antics aren’t helping at all.
-I disagree that all relgions appear equally bananas when examined. Mormonism takes the usual crazy and adds an extra layer of crazy. That said, it doesn’t seem to make a difference in which people turn out to be crazier overall. I find Mormons to be very likeable and otherwise sensible, respectable people. Evangelicals very very often come across as screeching nutjobs. Go figure.
So maybe its no surprise Huntsman is the only one talking any sense. Funny though- it is as if some Mormons are only comfortable in the role of the outsider. Because let’s face it: Talking sense to GOPers is a lot like a Mormon talking to us about… Mormonism. It will be met with heavy skepticism and that’s all. Maybe Huntsman is setting us up for a false equivalency between accepting scientific conclusions and believing some religion or other.
Anyway, barring some extraordinary screw-up from Obama, I don’t think any GOP candidate has any chance at all in 2012, unless someone else shows up . The GOP has (to me) transparently devolved into a special interest group, not a party fit to govern. I hope they disintegrate and make room for a rational right-wing party.
Somehow I missed the continuation of this thread. Which one will cast more votes? The one with the most people, of course.
The question is, who is going to tell those people how to vote? Where do those low-information get their information on how to vote, and who bankrolls those media sources?
Of course, now that Perry has shown up I can see him being acceptable to the people who actually run things on that end. He’s enough of an empty suit that he’ll green light any and all money making opportunities. His populism is almost as believable as Dubya’s.
I’ve heard this before, but I don’t think so. In order to have both supported Ross Perot and now be a Tea Party member you’d need to either have had a fundamental shift in belief or some really creative mental gymnastics. Among other things Perot supported increased taxes and a national health care policy, both of which get the Tea Party foaming at the mouth.
Anyway, more on topic, I can easily see Perry overtake Romney in funding. His pay for play administration style is something that could gain him plenty of corporate backers.