Or else, wait.
Not in the general election, they wouldn’t. We will never live to see an America where a TP purist is acceptable to the majority.
Or, more likely, a DLC Democrat.
Just the primaries, that TP candidate would lose in a landslide against absolutely anyone.
Which is why that TP candidate has never been nominated. And Romney to the right of Reagan? On what issues?
Citing taxes is all well and good if you forget that Reagan only raised taxes because he cut them so much and revenues did not increase as much as anticipated. The 1982 tax increases undid only one third of the tax cuts. Then came tax reform, which lowered rates further.
I can’t think of any other issue on which Mitt Romney was plausibly more conservative than Ronald Reagan.
Immigration.
Reagan did an amnesty because it was supposed to solve the problem and make future illegal immigration preventable through better enforcement.
Learning from a failed policy does not make you more radical. Reagan would not favor an amnesty today, because the last one didn’t fulfill its promise.
Besides, given the way Democrats talk about immigration enforcement, they are all more right-wing than Ronald Reagan on the issue. Or, more likely they recognize the political climate won’t allow for another bait and switch.
Considering your extremely poor record at analyzing the minds of people who are live, I’m skeptical that your opinion of Reagan’s views are any more accurate than a coin flip.
This is not helping your argument.
Reagan is more ‘liberal’ than most of the GOP now on the issues, but more on tone – he did not demonize his opposition, and would have treated Obama with friendliness and decency. That alone is enough to make him a ‘RINO’, according to the tone of much of the GOP base.
The Women of Fox News. Quantity has a quality all its own.
So why would you want one to be nominated, knowing he can’t win?
Because as I said before, winning elections isn’t everything. Moving the conversation to the right over time is far more important.
If the Obama is indeed an “Eisenhower Republican”, then doesn’t that mean that the Republicans always win? That all elections are essentially Eisenhower vs. someone to the right of Barry Goldwater?
The wind whistles freely through the canyons of her mind and playfully bats tumbleweeds across the wilderness of her ignorance.
(I’m glsd I didn’t say “bewilderness of her ignorance”. I was tempted, but that would be wrong.)
Does the Tea Party actually exist as a discrete entity? Does it reflect the essential quality of being a thing? What is the official Tea Party platform, where can I get a copy? Is the Tea Party Express the governing and organizing body, as would be implied by using their name as the backdrop for the “official” Tea Party response to the SOTU.
Where’s all those rallies? Used to be a lot of them, where’s the silly looking guy in the Johnny Tremaine getup? Is the Tea Party gonna vote, pick their nominee? A convention, maybe? Maybe send out ballots to all the Tea Party members. If there’s a list. With names and addresses.
Scrappy populist outfit like the Tea Party thrives on the small donations of average patriotic Americans, Joe Sixshooter. Five bucks here and there, pledge week. So where do these donations get sent? Which bank processes the checks, what accounting firm is responsible? You wouldn’t have a problem figuring where to send a donation to the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, or even the Libertarian Party. Where do you send a donation to the Tea Party?
If government need not go about the mundane, passé business of governing, what makes you think a party must undertake such irrelevancies as having a platform or nominating candidates?
The Tea Party is called a “party” because it’s named after the Boston Tea Party, not because it’s a political party. It’s not. It’s a loosely organized movement.
… with nearly all of its alleged leaders on the Fox News payroll.
In your world, maybe that’s true. I’ve never been there and I don’t particularly much like the glimpses you’ve given of it.
In my world, every actual issue has moved leftward since Eisenhower. Adlai Stevenson didn’t envision a social universe of such staggering liberality; the Great Society added new social programs to the New Deal; the overwhelming and unthinking fealty given to the military has been mostly shattered; Keynesian thinking now rules mainstream economics.
In short, except for the anchors that the Neanderthal conservative keep throwing at decent people, the center of American thought is so much farther left than even Socialists believed could happen in the 1930s that the 50s center is not even visible in the rear-view mirror. And nothing - nothing whatsoever - will be moving it an inch backward in any foreseeable future.
I’m a liberal too, but I believe in facing reality…
Which are now struggling to survive.
True, though the military and spy agencies are getting away with all kinds of fun new things.
Well, not like it used to.
Don’t delude yourself. It doesn’t help.
Oh, and how’s abortion doing lately?
Ah, yes. Shifting the Overton Window.
But, when Nader ran in 2000, did that succeed in shifting the Overton Window to the left any?