Republican voters are going to pick a challenger for President Obama who is a pragmatic member of the party’s establishment — or they will coalesce behind a firebrand whose primary appeal is to the Tea Party movement.The only "establishment" candidate left now that Christie said no — according to the article — is Mitt Romney. So there's Romney, and then a bunch of others fighting for position as his non-establishment competitor.
Aides to Mr. Romney have long predicted that the nomination fight would produce that kind of philosophical contest. His top strategists often compare the Republican primary to a college basketball championship, with two separate brackets.Romney has already won his bracket.
So is the choice "stark"? If the bracket image is apt, then people who want an establishment type have no choice to make. It's Romney. Those who like the other bracket have a set of candidates to keep looking at. Where's the stark choice? We'll only get a stark choice after the other bracket plays out.
पोस्ट्स
५२ टिप्पण्या:
I said it before, and I'll say it again: if Romney is the nominee, I'll vote for the SCOAMF. If the country is to collapse in flames, better a Democrat at the helm to take the blame than a pantywaisted RINO collaborator who'll only pour half a can of gasoline on the fire instead of a whole can.
Romney is the only establishment candidate?
What about Gingrich? Perry to some extent?
Santorum?
Ron Paul looks better every day.
John Henry
Still liking Herman Cain. The more I think about how a successful businessman might address some of the absolute idiocies of government (ie, SUV's bought with federal money sitting idle for years), it gives me a warm fuzzy, which I promise not to play with...much.
How is Perry, governor of one of the biggest states in the country, not establishment? Because he's from Texas? How is Gingrich not establishment? Unelectable, sure, but part n parcel with DC.
I am with Christopher.
Better Obama than Romney.
John Henry
So is the choice "stark"?
The choice is stark if you're the New York Times because it's a choice among republicans. If it was democrats it would be 'a wide field of attractive alternatives with nuanced differences in policy approaches.'
A riff on the "Republicans better not dare nominate an extremist!" bit.
The Tea Party = Reaganism.
President Reagan was the most successful president in recent memory. His policies led to a 25 year period of economic growth and prosperity.
The left thought he was stupid and unelectable, too.
An addendum -
Having perused the Christie thread and seeing C4 (among others, but he's the most vocal) say that Romney is the one who will put a meat axe to the budget, all I can say is that if anyone believes that, they don't know his record.
Yes, he can point to a balanced budget, but every one of the 57 states except for Vermont requires that. In Massachusetts, it's usually accomplished with the same off book smoke and mirrors the Tea Party despises in the federal budget.
He claims to be a tax cutter, but at the same time, he raised fees in over 50 categories, including marriage licences and home buying.
Romneycare is a joke, with even the bow-tied bumkissers at the Boston Globe admitting that it's over budget and unworkable.
And for all his tough talk, Romney folds faster than Superman on laundry day when faced with real opposition. If he had a Tea Party House and / or Senate, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, but having seen him in action here, he is much more of a "my friends across the aisle" McCain than an "I won" Obama. And frankly, that's what I want. A candidate who will beat Little Black Jesus like a rented mule and, if elected, will tell the Democrats to FOAD. And that is most emphatically not Mittens.
Perry may not be "establishment" (by which they apparently mean east coast?), but he's certainly not a crazy fringe candidate. I am going to be really pissed if the republicans go for the "it's his turn" guy this time around. Cause that worked so well last time.
Romney is in the McCain sub-bracket of the Obama bracket. Why vote for the a lite-version of the real thing, when you can have the real thing.
The "others" are in the small-government bracket. That is not stark. It is distinct.
I disagree with Christopher in MA, I would vote for Romney over Obama. Without hesitation.
I think Romney is too pragmatic, too tenative. I am a Herman Cain sort of guy (I am a Fred Thompson sort of guy!). But Romney is far more capable a guy than Obama on issues like the economy and provided Congress is conservative and pushing him in the right direction his "Massachusetts" tendencies can be mooted.
The damage Obama is doing has to be stopped. Obamacare is an abomination that will serious hurt this country. I would prefer Cain at the helm, but I would prefer Romney over Obama.
Christopher in Ma, I hear you, but that just means we have to work harder in the primaries. And if Romney ends up winning...pause, take a breath, and think of Eric Holder.
Sems to me there are no "stark choices." There are lots of choices with different strengths and weaknesses--They are running against jug ears, and I think at this point, the American people would vote for big bird over zero.
Lots of choices out there--considerably more than the democrat party has to offer.
All of this navel gazing will sort out over the next 6 months, although I am a bit leery of the state's rush for early primaries--not a good thing IMO
Anyone who votes for the SCOAMF to spite the RINOs is a fool and an enemy. If the plane doesn't pull out of the dive, everyone on board dies; at least put someone in charge who isn't trying to crash the plane. If SCOAMF wins again, it will be cited as a mandate from the American public to put the plane in a 90 degree nosedive.
If SCOAMF wins again, the next round of Supreme Court nominees will make Sotomayor and Kagan look like originalists.
If SCOAMF wins again, it's full speed ahead for the Peron-Castro-Allende-Chavez-Obama banana republic crony socialist regime. Supporters will become rich beyond their wildest dreams; opponents will be bankrupted and prosecuted.
If SCOAMF wins again, the military will become his private guard to deploy at his whim without debate or justification, abroad or at home.
OK--i'll bite..SCOAMF obvioously refers to Mr Obama, but what the hell does the acronym stand for?
I have no idea how the German word "stark" meaning:
strong, powerful, heavy, potent,
became an English synonym for:
harsh, grim and desolate.
But I'm pretty sure the NYT was involved.
SCOAMF = Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable Failure.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SCoaMF&defid=6027973
Mad as Hell: probably the same way the german work ficken (to pound) transmorphed into the english colloquialism for sexual intercourse. Although the NYT probably wasnt involved in this one.
Clyde: many thanks--makes perfect sense now that it has been 'splained to me.
They are all better than McCain, and the new Obama is a lot worse than the old one. The new one isn't as hopey and changy.
Take a closer look at Herman Cain. At least read his Wikipedia article. The common view of this man as just a guy who got lucky with a pizza chain is completely wrong. He's a smart, well educated, rags to riches man who has basically succeeded at everything his entire life which has included huge challenges. He has turned around financial basket cases repeatedly. Sound like something we might need about now?
He has actually done things. He's the antidote for Affirmative Action, he's the walking truth about success that a lot of people have stopped believing. He is what a lot of people were hoping they were voting for in 2008, but they were just hoping Cain is it. He will be more than just the first Black - he'll be the first Black man.
agree with bag (sorry for the truncation). My GF's mom, born and raised in the Mississippi delta, thinks a lot of Mr Cain. Anecdotal evidence means nothing of course, but it does seem that he resonates. I hope he can stay above the fray of racial politics. I thought his shot at Perry re "niggerhead" was ill advised, but it doesnt detract from his resume.
Stark is a word taken from the list of Bad Words. The NYT knows that vocabulary list well.
Harmony and acceptance are favorable words, but Stark implies the lack of an acceptable solution and a desperate situation like being caught naked.
The fun part will be reading the coming flood of a woo woo headlines implying that Cain has made stupid blunders...you cannot trust a dumb black man you know, you know.
Reading the full articles will reveal extreme intelligence and good a leadership style, but the headlines will tout a twisted Cain disaster story of the day until the NYT has whittled him back down to another discarded Romney foe.
The liberals are so silly. The governor of the most prosperous state in the union is an outsider. The former speaker of the house during the greatest modern productivity we have experienced is a nobody. They really fear the tea party. That makes me so toasty!
Trey
There is no other bracket for the GOP nomination.
The Gray Lady concern trolling. They see the rest of the field as wild-eyed Conservatives.
A year from now, though, even Milton may look good compared to GodZero.
Assuming he makes it.
He looks good in the debates, but he's had 4 years' rehearsal and he's got tons of money - although that didn't help last time.
It's early yet and a lot can happen, including Perry getting his act together and a late-comer (not Miss Sarah) jumping in.
John said...
Romney is the only establishment candidate?
What about Gingrich? Perry to some extent?
Santorum?
I'd put Newt in the "to some extent" slot.
Also, Santorum is more Establishment than some may think. He had a Fulbrightesque arrangement with the people of PA - if he always voted against abortion (PA is very Catholic), he could spend all he wanted. And he did.
Libertarians notwithstanding, Bobby Casey nailed him on spending, not social issues.
Well, if you would-be Romney voters don't want four more years of Obama, then you'd better make damn sure that Romney is NOT the candidate.
The only thing you elect when you have to hold your nose to vote, as we would have to with Romney, is something that stinks. No more. It is bad enough that we have a foul stench to begin with, but to be the ones who voted for it? No. Not again.
So, if you do not want four more years of nation-destroying Obama, then you better stop with the go-along with Romney ideas and make sure that he is not the candidate. If we get Obama again, you have only yourself to blame.
If SCOAMF wins again, the military will become his private guard to deploy at his whim without debate or justification, abroad or at home.
I saw the same fearmongering argument about W. Didn't believe it then, don't believe it now.
I still see up to 25% of Republican voters willing to support Romney for the nomination and the other 75% looking around for anyone who isn't Romney.
Well, McCain isn't running this time around...so we've got THAT going for us.
**If SCOAMF wins again, the military will become his private guard to deploy at his whim without debate or justification, abroad or at home.**
I saw the same fearmongering argument about W. Didn't believe it then, don't believe it now.
____________
You don't believe it? OK, the idea of a Praetorian Guard is a bit overblown, but would you believe Libya?
Mitt Romney is a weasel. He would be a really crappy nominee.
Still, no way will I vote for Obama.
____________
That is a false dilemma. It is not an either-or proposition.
In fact, in all but a handful of states, whichever way you vote will not affect the outcome one bit.
There are some states that will go for Obama no matter what, and there are some that will go against Obama no matter what. To cast a vote for Romney in those states is to make a whore of yourself for no real reason.
The better choice in those states is to not vote at all.
This Romney strategy of being the last person standing, of not winning the nomination, but instead merely not losing it, and to accomplish that end by attacking the people of his own party, both openly and in underhanded ways, is not going to work.
If Obama is re-elected, America loses.
If Romney is elected, America still loses.
The day that a President Romney takes the oath of office is the day that conservatives officially have an opponent in the White House.
NYT definition of "establishment" is "anyone from a state near New York."
You folks should really look at Gary Johnson. He is the real deal that people say they want. Social liberal and fiscal conservative.
When reading the Times' analysis it's good to remember that it would prefer that no one be nominated or, as an alternative, the least likely to be elected candidate get the nod. Who cares what the NYT thinks?
It's funny though because Romney isn't really that "establishment". I almost think many of the establishment types were against him the first time last cycle and where on the sidelines this cycle because he's not really beholden to their interests.
We didn't get taxes in Mass under Romney but we got tons of fees. Fees for fucking everything.
Romney has no core principles.
There's a reason he has such low approval ratings with republicans.
His past statements, which of course are all on video, are just so damaging, and they will be played over and over again.
The Boston Herald hates him.
**If SCOAMF wins again, the military will become his private guard to deploy at his whim without debate or justification, abroad or at home.**
I was indeed thinking of Libya and also Yemen, for which Obama neither consulted with Congress nor sought its approval to use military force. I was also thinking of the order to assassinate al-Awlaki; although he was a bona fide Bad Man, it is bad precedent that Obama did not bother to follow any formal process to strip him of citizenship or otherwise confirm that al-Awlaki should not be entitled to the legal rights of a citizen.
If Mitt would tell the Tea Baggers to go to hell he would win about 3 votes for everyone he would lose. Show some nads, act like an adult and tell the kids to shut up and go home and play in the sand box. He could win if he does.
A riff on the "Republicans better not dare nominate an extremist!" bit.
The Tea Party = Reaganism.
Shouting, you've hit on something I think is very important here. The implicit assumption in the NYT article (and on every MSM outlet) is that the Tea Party is VERY OOGEY BOOGEY BAD!!! They've totally distorted the movement and won't give it a fair shot at all.
I say that's an even better incentive to nominate a Tea Party-backed candidate. Get the message out as to what the Tea Party really is: a grass-roots movement to restore fiscal sanity at all levels of government, especially the federal one.
Let's not even get dragged into this supposed Hobson's Choice of Romney or anarchy. Let's get a candidate to explain to ProgLibs that the Tea Party isn't what they claim it is. Make the case time and again so that the squishy segment of independent voters get an accurate portrayal of the TP.
I'm willing to wait out the nomination process to see which candidate can do that the best.
If Mitt would tell the Tea Baggers to go to hell he would win about 3 votes for everyone he would lose. Show some nads, act like an adult and tell the kids to shut up and go home and play in the sand box. He could win if he does.
Pragmatist, why is the Tea Party bad? Please explain.
Titus, Romney has core principles. His core principle is that he will change his principles as needed.
Sooo...what sort of nominees would Romney select?
I think Romney has a much better chance than Perry in the general election.
Funny how the Mormon thing is barely mentioned these days:)
That's right Slimes, we want to replicate the founders with a firebrand against the present king.
Romney's main advantage seems to be that 'somebody else wants to vote for him.' Electing Cain not withstanding his successful business background would be a real exercise in electing 'the first 500 people out of the Boston phone book to govern us' as Wm. Buckley said. A guy who didn't know what the 'right of return is,' doesn't think Muslims have a right to build religious structures, jumps to the conclusion that Perry is whatever over the rock incident and that blacks have been brainwashed would probably need Norman Lear (or Archie Bunker) for Secretary of State. I suppose the hope would be that we wouldn't get in trouble with the Chinese because they would figure we were to stupid to know what we were doing which is kind of a subtle strategy.
Fred4Pres said...
Christopher in Ma, I hear you, but that just means we have to work harder in the primaries. And if Romney ends up winning...pause, take a breath, and think of Eric Holder.
=============
Think of Eric Holder on the Supreme Court if Scalia or Kennedy or Ginsburg die next Presidential term.
What was that woman so beloved by Democrats that lost to Scott Brown? Coakley? She would be Obama's kind of empowered female if a 2nd Justice dies, but she is cursed by white skin. Maybe the 1st Asian, like Koh instead?
Then he has all those NYC progressive Jews to select from on the faculty of Yale and Harvard Law or in office like Debbie Wasserman Shultz if a 3rd justice goes.
Someone with executive experience in government vs. people who don't.
Haven't we learned?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा