I occasionally listen to Conservative talk-radio; Mark Levin's ability to whip himself into a frenzy is something to behold; Sean Hannity sometimes helps me pass some afternoon drive time. Both of these guys lately though have begun to act in a manner I find a bit quizzical. Both I believe, remain "neutral" in the GOP Primary race, though Levin's vitriol toward Governor Romney is manifest (I believe Levin supported him as the "conservative" alternative to John McCain in 2008). What I find these guys doing---and now Sarah Palin has joined the fight--is that they are getting their collective underpants all up in a wad worrying about the "tactics" of the Republican Primary. This is nonsense, and the tone and tenor of this primary is NOTHING compared to the billion dollar juggernaut coming our way from the President's re-election campaign.
What we are seeing is THE PROCESS of picking a candidate. Mitt Romney's campaign has successfully beaten back EVERY challenger who has come forward in this cycle. Do they land punches? Yep. Do they win primaries? Yep (let's remember--three candidates have each won one primary). But each time, Romney gets up off the mat and comes back stronger. Each time, the challenger's 1) inexperience 2) temperament 3) record or 4) electability undercut their rise, and Romney's 1) organization 2) preparation and 3) electability sustains his. We are watching the eventual Republican nominee grow before our eyes into the kind of candidate with which most of us will be comfortable. Politics is a contact sport, and the fires of this campaign will forge a candidate worthy of the great challenges ahead of us in November--whether that is my guy or one of the others.
Of course I want it to be Romney--but if you were a Newt fan, were his tactics prior to SC not exciting? Did they not make him rise in your eyes? The man questioned Romney's approach to capitalism STRAIGHT UP, and he made a lot of hay doing it--eventually winning the state. I reject those who took Gingrich to task for his tactics--my complaint was that Romney wasn't answering them effectively. Lo and behold, he's gotten his act together and he is answering those charges more effectively. This is what makes a winner.
I think it is time for those who take great pride in considering themselves "Conservatives" first and "Republicans" second to take stock of the fact that this is a REPUBLICAN primary, not a CONSERVATIVE Party Primary. The candidate we nominate must appeal to a broad base of voters, and the sturm und drang of the campaign trail is necessary to getting to that candidate. There's a reason we only have TEN Commandmants, and Saint Ronald of California's 11th--while a nice concept--only works when your candidate is Ronald Reagan.
Fight on Newt, Rick, Ron. You're only making my guy better.
AN ANTI-PUTIN RALLY in Putin’s hometown….
37 minutes ago
Posts
12 comments:
I agree that a good knock down drag out is good for the candidates and good for the party. I think what Levin and Hannity are questioning is some of the attacks come straight out of the Democrat playbook. How was Bain described "vulture capitalism"? And then there's that King of Bain load of bs. This is how leftists attack free market types and THAT my country club, button-downed, establishment Republican friend, is the problem.
But, I recognize it's good that Romney gets hit with this stuff sooner rather than later. But it still worries me that good Republicans use the rhetoric of the left.
When you are battling for the very life of the Republic, voting for a guy with a demonstrated desire to go along to get along all the way through his political life is not the answer. What are we looking for, someone who will move us to the left, but only more slowly than the Democrats, or someone who will stand or fall on principle? If this be the end of that which was the United States, I'd rather go down fighting than go down compromising.
I'd agree with you, Anonymous, if I thought this were the end of the United States. But it isn't. So the relevant question is, would you rather go down fighting, or win by compromising?
Spot on Hammer. Your distant cousin, Dr. Kraut-Hammer had a great piece on this a week ago (The GOPs Suicide March). This desperation attack from Gingrich and Perry on Romney's taxes and vulture cap is only lending credence to Obama's platform that the rich are the root of all middle class evils and the GOP is out to keep the middle class down by supporting the rich. It's a BS platform and ALL Republicans, especially those seeking to be the GOP nominee, ought to be dismantling it every time they have a TV camera on them. Look, Mitt, good as he is, has some liberal history that still has me feeling lukewarm about him although he is the only one to whom I have contributed thus far, mainly for the reasons CW has highlighted on his electability with which I happen to agree. But I would like an equally electable more conservative option if one could emerge. Gingrich could be coming at Mitt as the more conservative option--NOT trying to defeat him in the primaries with the same utter nonsense as Obama is going to use in the general. But Newt has had too many of his own experiments in recreational liberalism and these recent episodes of political cross-dressing have me more pissed than ever at him. If Gingrich used his considerable talents to hammer home how utterly absurd Obama's platform is, as opposed to using Obama's talking points to attack his GOP opponents, he might enjoy a little more of my support. But after last week, he's pretty much lost me, and I pray lots more conservatives, for good. Go Mitt--and get those liberal basal cells excised completely before they become malignant.
CW - if you haven't seen it yet, go see "The Iron Lady" and try to take Romney with you. There was a leader who saw her nation in peril, spoke about it in public, and was willing to stand or fall by her beliefs. In the end her trumps were so great that even Hollywood could not diminish them in a paid for hit piece.
On another topic, having seen Romney's breadth of vision regarding space on display this week, I actually had to wonder if only allowable for Democrats to dream anymore.
Anonymous, you're whip-sawing me--lets start with space--you open this discussion intimating that the Republic is in jeopardy, then you move to Romney having a lack of vision in space--presumably because he doesn't go for Newt's ideas? C'mon. Which is it? Are we going to hell in a handbasket or do we have a few trillion lying around to throw against a moon colony.
Secondly, have you watched a single minute of the debates or listened to even ONE Romney stump speech? He is CONSTANTLY talking about the peril we are in and what the President has wrought.
How do you know that Anonymous is Anonymous?
83 of 84 charges dropped. The one charge, "Using a political consultant to develop the Republican legislative agenda." Why is this not explained by the MSM rather than portraying in the worst light?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/101198.htm
Any who do not see the demise of the United States of America on the far horizon are politically blind. Keep in mind that "compromise" to the Democrats and the left has always meant doing it their way. With that, I must agree with anonymous. I to would rather go down fighting than go down compromising.
...but would you rather go down fighting or win compromising?
CW the worry is you establishment Republican types look to compromise first and win second.
Now go have your prawn sandwich and chardonnay.
Post a Comment