If we have to check the source to see what part of the quote/cite is original and which is your thoughts, you are doing it wrong.
A link would have made that possible.
Conversely, the Dems dream ticket is ABC : Anyone But Clinton.
It’s going to be a weird election.
Why can’t the Republicans run Condi Rice?
Is she too old? Not an illuminatus?
To closely associated with the Iraq War.
Plus, she’s never expressed any interest in running for office.
I suppose that’s true about Iraq, though it could be spun positively.
Think she’s electable as VP? If she were inclined to run?
Anyone But Clinton? Really?
As far as Condi goes:
1- Iraq
2- No interest in running for office
3- Has the warmth and appeal of a wet dog turd
4- Not married. How can you represent the party of family values if you haven’t formed your own family?
It isn’t going to be Christie. He’s way too moderate and was seen bonding with number 666 himself, Barack Obama.
It isn’t going to be Rubio. The Republicans nominating a minority is completely unthinkable.
I’m afraid the GOP is going to be stuck with Santorum or Rand Paul.
Well, the source Singanas is quoting is the Wall Street Journal, which might well have. Which also accounts for “Now that the 2008 Herald of Change has brought us a giant step closer to ACA national health care and one baby step closer to Big Brother government” and similar bullshit.
Because she was part of the Bush administration.
-
Because she is almost certainly a lesbian. A Cabinet-level official can get away with that, just ask Janet Reno, but a candidate for POTUS or VEEP comes under a higher-magnitude spotlight.
-
Because she has said over and over whenever the subject comes up that she has no interest in it.
-
And, of course, because she was part of the W Admin. We may never feel clean again.
Mainly because the runner up last time, and presumptive heir, is Senator Frothy Mix himself, but also because there is no member of the GOP Sane Caucus with any real stature right now.
Mitch Daniels was the Great White Hope last time. They could also give Portman a try (Bush’s budget director, yes I know).
He’s the heir to McCain’s mantle as Favorite Sunday Morning Talk Show Guest, but that’s all. That doesn’t reflect any leadership or stature outside the studio, only his ego.
Or Cruz. But at any rate, if they go teabag, which is about the only option they have left, maybe this will finally be the fever-breaking election, the Goldwater moment, they’ve needed for a long time.
I don’t agree with that, I think if Clinton chooses to run (it’s conventional wisdom, but color me not 100% convinced she’s up for it all again), she will win the nomination and most likely the Presidency.
Well… possibly. She’s got a lot of negatives, it would be hard to win the election.
But it would depend on who she was running against, I suppose.
Personally, I’m scared of her. Not because she’s a lefty, but because she’s so Nixonian.
Her negatives are mostly among those who wouldn’t vote for her anyway. Better yet, they’re all warmed-over stuff from her husband’s administration, and no longer have the power to convince anyone who isn’t already convinced that she’s a demon incarnate. So, just not a consideration.
It’s up to her to decide if she’s young enough and eager enough for the job, and she won’t know until after she’s fully decompressed from the SOS gig. It could go either way.
If you’re in the Republican choir, you believe the anti-Hillary sermon. If you’re anywhere to Rick Santorum’s left, you probably don’t believe everything you’re heard about Hillary. A lefty? Not really. Bill Clinton was no liberal, neither is she. And if the Benghazi pseudo-scandal gets any traction with you, you probably have never voted nor would you ever vote for a Democratic president.
Re-evaluate your metaphors. Goldwater’s defeat in 1964 was the beginning, not the end, of the far-RW takeover of the GOP.
Nixon’s defining characteristic was complete disregard – well, not for the truth, but definitely for the notion that a politician has any obligation to tell the public the truth. I don’t see that in HRC, and don’t gimme no bullshit about Benghazi.
If you allow for a generation-long lead time, maybe. GOP candidates were pretty reasonable, even liberal, for several elections after Goldwater.
I date the hard right turn, and resorting to demonization, to Gingrich’s rise to lead the House GOP.
Be careful what you wish for. The Goldwater moment led directly to Ronald Reagan and the mainstreaming of conservatism. I’d take 16 years in the wilderness to see President Rand Paul or Paul Ryan in 2028. Although I’d prefer to see it in 2016.
People often confused hard right partisanship with hard right policies. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Orrin Hatch, etc. come from a pretty far right place, but they also recognize that we live in a republic where it’s very hard for one party to dominate, so compromises have to be made. Their first instinct is always to deal, and they criticize their own party as much as the opposition.
The Tea Party isn’t much further to the right of those guys ideologically, but they believe in standing on principle first, and getting 95% of the loaf and the other 5% a week later. However, Rubio and Paul have shown a willingness to work with the other side, so I’m hoping for some maturing as time goes on. You have to understand that a lot of those 2010 candidates were revolutionaries, not typical politicians. And they hate Democrats. A lot. They have only slightly less hatred for their own party leadership.
The equivalent to the Tea Party would be if the Greens decided to compete in Democratic primaries, won many of them, and captured about 50 House Seats and 10 Senate seats.
Well, you won’t. Conservatism can be to some extent mainstreamed, but libertarianism cannot. You’ll see socialism mainstreamed first.