Althouse: "No, what we need as the Republican nominee in 2016 is a man of more glaring disqualifications. Someone so nakedly unacceptable..."

April 15, 2014

"No, what we need as the Republican nominee in 2016 is a man of more glaring disqualifications. Someone so nakedly unacceptable..."

"... to the overwhelming majority of sane Americans that only the GOP could think of nominating him. This man is Rand Paul, the junior senator from a state with eight electoral votes. The man who, as of this writing, has three years worth of experience in elected office. Barack Obama had more political experience when he ran for president. That's worked out well."

Bret Stephens gets very sarcastic in The Wall Street Journal.

108 comments:

Tank said...: Yes, we want an electable candidate, like John (I am an idiot) McCain or Mitt (dog torturer) Romney. A good loser.

Actually, Paul has the open borders policy that the WSJ loves (being corporatists).; 4/15/14, 7:46 AM
Ann Althouse said...: All the Republicans are unelectable.

Settle back and adjust now: Hillary will be President.

Unless she chooses not to run (or has some health/old age issues).; 4/15/14, 8:04 AM
Carnifex said...: Yes. The Republican party has done so well with the candidates that are "main stream", and "electable". Why don't you grow a pair and run a conservative or libertarian R's? Oh, that's right...you'd rather lose than be associated with "those people". Fine. Lose then.

The only people that hate conservatives more than D's are the R's.; 4/15/14, 8:07 AM
Bob R said...: Rand Paul is a terrible candidate because spending as much as team blue on social programs and twice as much for defense while not touching entitlements and opposing immigration, abortion, and gay marriage is such a great formula for success.; 4/15/14, 8:07 AM
Carnifex said...: Sez the woman who thought Zero was a good choice. ;-); 4/15/14, 8:08 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I like Stephens - he is the guy who wrote a column stating Obama is not very smart.

I think almost anyone who gets thru med school is way smarter than Obama and GW too. We need a technocrat or a turnaround guy- that is why Romney would have been good and Hillary will be very bad.; 4/15/14, 8:08 AM
Brando said...: Tank, you'd still want an electable candidate. It's just that the blue bloods--the so-called city fathers--need better judgment about what is electable.

Plus, it would help if their process of nominating someone didn't make their nominee less electable.

I agree with Ann though--sad to say, I'm having a hard time not picturing Hillary winning this one. Things can change, but right now the odds are in her favor.; 4/15/14, 8:13 AM
test said...: It would be easier to take Brett seriously if he weren't so dismissive of the other candidates drawbacks (Jeb's last name, Christie's Bridgegate). The idea that it's obvious Paul can't be elected while it's obvious others can is fantasy.

He also betrays his only concern is getting a Republican elected. But what good would it do to elect Bush if he then signed an amnesty which in turn caused Republicans to abandon the economic policies best for America?; 4/15/14, 8:14 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Hillary will be President.

A multiple un-indited felon. A giver of 'aid and comfort' to the enemy, and currently accepting bribes, in the form of outrageous speaking fess, right under our noses.

And folks wonder why respect for the 'law', and authority in general, are in rapid and dangerous decline.; 4/15/14, 8:18 AM
rhhardin said...: I'd run but have better things to do.; 4/15/14, 8:19 AM
Bob Boyd said...: Ann Althouse said...
All the Republicans are unelectable.

Even Scott Walker?; 4/15/14, 8:19 AM
Tank said...: @Althouse

What are Hillary's accomplishments besides marrying Bill and having a vagina?

OK, she's already had the shoe thing.; 4/15/14, 8:19 AM
Jazzizhep said...: When did having friends who are racist or conspiracy nuts make a person unelectable? I thought such qualifications were prerequisites. Paul just needs his wife to say she was never proud to be an American, and then treat religious gun owners with contempt.

His election would be a foregone conclusion. All the racist whites who didn't vote for Obama would vote for him, and he would sew-up the Code-Pink, DailyKos, Occupy Wall Street crowd with his rhetoric. His major problem would be the "war on women" crowd. Perhaps he could become a eunuch to show solidarity with women?; 4/15/14, 8:19 AM
chickelit said...: 2014 mid term election distraction.

The 2014 race will profoundly change the 2016 landscape.

Wait and see.; 4/15/14, 8:35 AM
Unknown said...: Acquiesce to Queen Benghazi.
Travels the world in style all while her department loses 6 billion.; 4/15/14, 8:35 AM
Bob Ellison said...: The last time a twice-elected President resulted in a newly elected President was 1988. Before that, it was pretty rare. Truman was already President when he was elected again.

Ford got thrown out. LBJ got pushed out. Obama threw out McCain, Bill Clinton threw out Bush, W defeated Gore...

If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2016, historians will have to bow before that happenstance. Obama's presidency has been a horrible disaster, filled with corruption and scandal and untouchable issues (he's black, you know).

During every election, every single one, the candidates say "this is the most important election of your lifetime". In 2016, that might be true. If a Democrat, a member of the party of corruption and lies, wins again, then we might as well give up.; 4/15/14, 8:37 AM
virgil xenophon said...: "Hillery will be President"

As long as she can keep the fact that she and Obama denied "cross-border authority" to American armed forces elements that could have been decisive in aiding the besieged at Benghazi, walked away and went to bed with the full knowledge that they were consigning Americans to their deaths the night of the Benghazi attack in order to make sure their lefty "narrative" wasn't sullied and double-dealing illegal ME arms-trade policies exposed..; 4/15/14, 8:43 AM
Henry said...: Settle back and adjust now: Hillary will be President.

Aren't her two terms up already?

Maybe that young, up-and-coming Senator from Illinois will finally get his chance.; 4/15/14, 8:46 AM
Unknown said...: You'd like some quirky, unconventional, albeit imperfect, candidate who speaks of freedom and liberty? No. You cannot have it. You must swallow the Clintons. You will vote for Shamwow.

btw- I thought hating on the Halliburton was OK? It was all the rage for many years. What happened?; 4/15/14, 8:49 AM
Big Mike said...: @Althouse, I just lost my breakfast reading your comment. To quote Abe Lincoln, "I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”; 4/15/14, 8:51 AM
Peter said...: Mitt Romney was an electable candidate. Or would have been if he'd had a competent campaign. Instead, he allowed the opposition to define him as a heartless bureaucrat.; 4/15/14, 8:52 AM
Unknown said...: At this point I'm not sure what Hillary gains by being pres., and it's possible she could ruin her place in history.

Although the Democratic party and it's core principles are damaging the country, I actually don't believe Republicans are electable if they get the Meany tag and (to a lessor extent) the Stupid tag, and I believe any Republican running for president is at least going to get the Meany tag from the mainstream media, and they will try hard to tag him/her as willfully ignorant and niave. I don't fault the media for believing it, but I really don't think they should be selling/using the viewpoint as the basis for news.

(The classic method for teaching is repetition, and the people are learning not from independent thought and analysis, but from hearing the same thing over and over expressed in myriad ways.); 4/15/14, 8:55 AM
Mr. D said...: All the Republicans are unelectable.

Yep. Surrender, Dorothy!; 4/15/14, 8:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Bret Stephens gets very sarcastic in The Wall Street Journal.

"Sarcastic" is a bit too dignified a descriptor. I'd say more "petulant adolescent sneering", which is the standard tone Republican establishment lackeys adopt when berating their base for existing.

My dear Mr. Stephens, "a humbling landslide defeat" is exactly what the GOP needs. Not because that would get anything through the thick heads of the party operators or their hapless candidates (they're still clueles about what went down in 2012), but because the GOP is useles and needs to die.; 4/15/14, 8:55 AM
Roger von Oech said...: Ann said: "Settle back and adjust now."

Odd tone. If that's what you think, why don't you just say BOHICA.; 4/15/14, 9:00 AM
Oso Negro said...: Americans voted for a man in 2008 because he was a mulatto. A mellifluous mulatto, to be sure, but his primary qualification was his color. We got our just deserts in a man who could no more pass a calculus exam than he could dunk a basketball. Why not vote for a candidate because she has a vagina? It may be an aged, drying, wrinkly vagina, indeed it may lack the orifice tension that once put the bite on future Presidential timber, but it is a sure enough vagina. What can possibly go wrong?; 4/15/14, 9:05 AM
Roughcoat said...: All the Republicans are unelectable.

Agreed. But control of Congress is within reach. The question, as always, is what will the Republicans do if and when they gain control. Will they grow a pair and actually exercise control or will they roll over like sniveling dogs? The critical issue will be what happens with the Supreme Court. The Republicans will need to Bork every candidate that President Hillary (or whomever) puts up for the job. Will they do it?; 4/15/14, 9:05 AM
Amichel said...: The only electable Republican that could possibly unite the disparate factions of the party is Scott Walker.; 4/15/14, 9:07 AM
Michael said...: Hillary would be a welcome relief and possibly a good president who could patch up some of the incredible divisions that have been purposely created these last five years.

That there are no electable Republicans is, of course, absurd. I personally would be happy with Republicans in control of the house and senate and Hillary in the White House. That would be the absolute best for business and for the country.; 4/15/14, 9:07 AM
Nonapod said...: Out of all the potential candidates, Rand Paul is the one I dislike the least. I've never had an illusions about him actually being electable though.

We may be doomed to have Hillary inflicted upon us for our sins. The majority may feel that 8 years of Obama aren't enough penance, we need to continue to be punished.; 4/15/14, 9:13 AM
Carol said...: Yep, short bench. I still hold out for Scott Walker but he needs to go all RR and develop a rabid national following via the rubber chicken circuit. But I don't think he has it in him.; 4/15/14, 9:18 AM
lgv said...: Wow, talk about living in the bubble. Experience? Like GWB, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon?

We all now that turned out.

There are many skeletons in HRC's closet. It's whether the press decides to keep it all in the closet.; 4/15/14, 9:20 AM
Strelnikov said...: Based on the intro I thought it was Jeb Bush.

of course, the description applies to so many potential Republican candidates that it was difficult to tell who they meant.; 4/15/14, 9:20 AM
Unknown said...: No one is inevitable, not even Hillary(wasn't she inevitable in 2007?). Especially after 8 years of a failed Democrat president.; 4/15/14, 9:21 AM
James said...: Bret Stephens get a lot of mileage by noting how similar Establishment GOP candidates to Democratic politicians (Clintons and Obama)that are most detestable to Republicans.; 4/15/14, 9:26 AM
Jim said...: Did he just find an editorial from 1980 about Reagan, cut and paste Rand's name where it said Reagan? Rand will look like he is debating his Grandma. Susana Martinez for Veep and we're good to go.

I've got a feevah and the only cure is more Rand Paul.; 4/15/14, 9:34 AM
rhhardin said...: The trouble is all the vaginas on the voter rolls.; 4/15/14, 9:38 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: The military-industrial complex begins its campaign for president. Not surprisingly their candidate is not Rand Paul.; 4/15/14, 9:40 AM
test said...: Bob Ellison said...
During every election, every single one, the candidates say "this is the most important election of your lifetime". In 2016, that might be true.

That was 2012, the last opportunity to stop Obamacare before it bankrupted America.; 4/15/14, 9:44 AM
tim maguire said...: The quote you pulled sounds reasonable, but there are too many straw men to count in the opening paragraphs and by the time I waded through them, I didn't feel like reading any more. So I didn't.

I came back here and typed instead.; 4/15/14, 9:45 AM
Sam L. said...: Rand would not get my vote...unless he's running against a Democrat.; 4/15/14, 9:46 AM
tim maguire said...: At the moment, I don't see a promising candidate in either party, but somebody has to win. I wouldn't call Hillary Clinton the prohibitive favorite, but she is the favorite.; 4/15/14, 9:48 AM
Unknown said...: We've gotten to a dangerous place in American where we allow the media and Hollywood to not only select the nominee, but to select the winner.

Both sides have flaws, imperfections and baggage, but that only matters on one side of the scale. There's a thumb on the other side.

Add to that to our fraud-riddled vote system, and it's difficult to have faith that we the people actually have the right to make a choice.; 4/15/14, 9:53 AM
traditionalguy said...: The B Actor Ronald Reagan also seemed un-electable to most of the Wall Street guys.; 4/15/14, 9:56 AM
Mid-Life Lawyer said...: I give people under thirtyish a pass for voting for Obama the first time, due to their general idealistic stupidity. I think many of us are still pretty innocent then. But I don't put much stock in the "electability opinion" of anyone who is old enough to know better and was fooled by that obvious fraud, even the first time.

Anyone who voted for Obama the second time has no excuse that I can imagine other than emotional issues to such a degree that they are incapable of being intellectually honest about some matters.

The media is so corrupt that it will be difficult for a Republican to win president but there are numerous candidates out there who are electable. I do think Rand Paul is a tough choice for many of the reasons that Stephens noted, primarily that he suffers from the lack of experience as President Affirmative Action. Having said that, I think that Stephens tone is unfortunate but indicative of how the Republican establishment eat its young, these days. Christie, Walker, Perry, there are others, are all electable. Jindal maybe. Not Huckabee. I like Cruz but he's been Palinized pretty much, already.; 4/15/14, 9:56 AM
RecChief said...: I haven't read the article, but I like Rand Paul's instincts on the Constitution and the role of government. His lack of experience didn't scare me off, but his foreign policy pronouncements lately show that his apple fell a little too close to the Ron Paul crazy tree.

Republicans are looking for a Mr Smith to go to Washington. I fear, yes fear, that Hillary! will be the next president.; 4/15/14, 9:59 AM
cubanbob said...: To Althouse Hillary maybe inevitable ( assuming she is serious). Why not? Althouse is as secure in her job as it humanly possible-a tenured professor at a state university. For those of us who live and labor in the private sector Hillary's inevitabity is far from a certainty. Being ObamaCare's baby moma is hardly a resume enhancer.; 4/15/14, 10:01 AM
Saint Croix said...: I am totally on board the Rand Paul express. And the WSJ editorial board can stick that toy plane in that special place.; 4/15/14, 10:03 AM
RecChief said...: "Tank, you'd still want an electable candidate. It's just that the blue bloods--the so-called city fathers--need better judgment about what is electable.

Do you think that Establishment Republicans are really concerned with who is in the White House? As long as they are able to dole out the money, in order to get er-elected, what do they care which branch of the American Boyars sits in the White House? As we saw from 2000 to 2006 and Ryan's budget with Patty Murray, Republicans are not overly concerned with spending and growing the power of the Federal Government. There really isn't much difference between them and the Democrats when it comes to fiscal issues, nor Constitutional ones, I'm afraid.

It's all about maintaining their pseudo royalty. It's why the Tea Party worries them so much, with their talk of diminishing the power of the Federal Government. I think what they really fear is that they can't keep the game going much longer, and there will be another revolution.

Just my two pessimistic cents.; 4/15/14, 10:06 AM
virgil xenophon said...: PS: Confirmation of my Mid-East arms dealing thesis and the fact that State was up to its elbows in it may be seen in the latest missive/expose by Sy Hersch in the 14 April London Review of Books entitled "The Red Line and the Rat Line."; 4/15/14, 10:09 AM
RecChief said...: ""Settle back and adjust now.""

Sports week at Althouse
First, baseball
Now you're channeling Bobby Knight; 4/15/14, 10:09 AM
RecChief said...: There are many skeletons in HRC's closet. It's whether the press decides to keep it all in the closet.

We have a palace guard media in place, at outlets where the majority of independents get their news, that credulously believes the White House assertion that "Liberal groups were targeted too!" in the IRS scandal. Even though the scandal came to light, via a planted question at a conference, where Lois Lerner stated that conservative groups were targeted!
What story will get out? no the story that " all Republicans are unelectable". This isn't the first place that you will see that assertion.; 4/15/14, 10:18 AM
Fen said...: Yay! 4 years of "thats sexist!" to wash away 8 of "thats racist!".

At least we'll get the affirmative action hires out of the way, back-to-back. Only then will *competent* blacks and women get elected President. Because race/gender won't need to be their only qualification.; 4/15/14, 10:20 AM
RecChief said...: But control of Congress is within reach.

Big effin' deal. They don't exercise any of the powers that they have now. In fact, Republicans are just fine with spending big money and expanding the power of the Federal Government. They're just quibbling about priorities.; 4/15/14, 10:21 AM
Fen said...: The question, as always, is what will the Republicans do if and when they gain control

Oh thats easy - just like the last time, they won't be able to keep their hand out of the cash register, they won't be able to keep their pants zipped around the female staff. In short, they'll fritter it all away.; 4/15/14, 10:22 AM
David Smith said...: Smart-ass kids seem to just get older all the time - this Stevens kid is 40. According to Wikipedia he was given a Pulitzer last year - is teen-aged snark all it takes now a days, or does he have a serious body of work?

He's probably too young to have heard of Reagan's 11th commandment.; 4/15/14, 10:33 AM
Big Mike said...: Being serious for a moment, much as I like Rand Paul and love the way he is willing to take on the Democrat establishment and "hit back twice as hard," what disqualifies him in my mind is his Carteresque belief that the US should not be the world's policeman. Five years of Obama's "reset" convinces me that absent the US in that role, whether we like it or not, the world becomes a very dangerous place.; 4/15/14, 10:35 AM
Tank said...: Dear God,

I've tried to live a good life. On this Passover holiday, I ask respectfully, what have I done to deserve the Hillmonster after the Zero after the Bushidjut? Is it a plague thing? What number are we up to?; 4/15/14, 10:35 AM
damikesc said...: Hillary would be a welcome relief and possibly a good president who could patch up some of the incredible divisions that have been purposely created these last five years.

I think you're mistaken here. Hillary is an incredibly divisive personality and one who has no actual accomplishments in her 30+ years of "public service", outside of getting her and her hubby rich as sin.; 4/15/14, 10:42 AM
Brian Brown said...: Hillary will be President.

This has about as much veracity as your claim that "a picture of a naked woman is not porn" which was corrected within an hour.; 4/15/14, 10:50 AM
Æthelflæd said...: Saint Croix said...
"I am totally on board the Rand Paul express. And the WSJ editorial board can stick that toy plane in that special place."

Threadwinner.

I am not 100% on the Rand Paul Express because I would prefer our candidate to have some executive experience. However, he beats most of the other options, and I think he is more electable than people think. He is slightly more dovish than I would like, and I don't like his stance on amnesty, but I would vote for him happily.

I am socially conservative, but Huckabee makes me puke. Christie and Jeb Bush are a big no for me, too. I am sure Jeb is a good guy, but, no, just no.

If the establishment picks the candidate again, the Republican party is done. Stick a fork in it.; 4/15/14, 11:01 AM
Saint Croix said...: I'm like this on my Republican preferences:

1) Rand Paul
2) Marco Rubio
3) Scott Walker
4) Bobby Jindal
5) Rick Perry
6) any random Republican
7) any other random Republican
8) Jeb Bush
9) Chris Christie

That's how far Christie is down. He's beneath Bush.

It's bizarre not to mention Scott Walker or Marco Rubio. Jeb Bush, for fuck's sake. Chris Christie!

I think this accounts for the shrill tone, the wild-eyed panic. You are running out of corporate tools who will sign off on corporate welfare projects.

You might have to vote Hillary, Bret Stephens!; 4/15/14, 11:01 AM
MadisonMan said...: Hillary!!! is back?

Well, if the Senate/House are solidly Republican, I wouldn't mind her.

That's a pretty big If though.; 4/15/14, 11:02 AM
Michael K said...: "We need a technocrat or a turnaround guy- that is why Romney would have been good and Hillary will be very bad."

Hillary would, if possible, be even worse than Obama. She is a hard lefty and paranoid. On the plus side, she has very poor political instincts.

I still think Romney could be talked into another run. I was in the Rand Paul camp until he attacked Cheney. That is moonbat territory.

The Republicans have to go with a governor.; 4/15/14, 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...: The only electable Republican that could possibly unite the disparate factions of the party is Scott Walker.

And the Republicans who refuse to "unite" under the Walker banner will have Veritas sicced on them and taken out of the game.; 4/15/14, 11:09 AM
bbkingfish said...: Please note: Rand Paul is being savaged by Republicans, not Hillary or the librul media.; 4/15/14, 11:09 AM
Clayton Hennesey said...: Oh, come now, let's think this through.

Hillary gets elected and triumphs by successfully overcoming the ticking time bomb problems left by the first/last black president.

Hillary gets elected and fails by unsuccessfully not overcoming the ticking time bomb problems left by the first/last black president.

In which of those situations does Hillary win? In which does she lose?; 4/15/14, 11:11 AM
JPS said...: Prof. Althouse:

"Settle back and adjust now: Hillary will be President.

"Unless she chooses not to run (or has some health/old age issues)."

Wasn't Hillary! inevitable for awhile back in 2008?

Are you trolling your readership, or is this really your prediction?; 4/15/14, 11:26 AM
garage mahal said...: No love for Scott Walker?

Busted unions. Kicked the poor. Expanded poverty. Denied health care access. Redistributed money from the working poor to the rich donor class. Eliminated environmental protections in a massive way. Signed mandated vaginal ultrasound legislation. Severely curtailed voting access.

The perfect Republican?; 4/15/14, 11:28 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: "No, what we need as the Republican nominee in 2016 is a man of more glaring disqualifications. Someone so nakedly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of sane Americans that only the GOP could think of nominating him. This man is TedCruz,…"

Mark my words,...; 4/15/14, 11:33 AM
test said...: Michael K said...
The Republicans have to go with a governor.

If you're ready to give up on the current hopefuls Mike Pence is available.; 4/15/14, 11:36 AM
cubanbob said...: Michael K said...
"We need a technocrat or a turnaround guy- that is why Romney would have been good and Hillary will be very bad."

Hillary would, if possible, be even worse than Obama. She is a hard lefty and paranoid. On the plus side, she has very poor political instincts.

I still think Romney could be talked into another run. I was in the Rand Paul camp until he attacked Cheney. That is moonbat territory.

The Republicans have to go with a governor.

4/15/14, 11:07 AM"

No. If he couldn't run a campaign well enough to win in 2012 with a bad economy and other scandals of the previous four years what makes you think he can pull it off in 2016? I voted for Romney in 2012, I still think he would a made a fine president, certainly better any Democrat out there but I didn't get the feeling he was all out in winning. If you aren't willing to crush your political opponents to get the job dealing with Congress will be an excercize in failure. Ideology aside, a successful Administration has to make sure Congress doesn't wander all over God's creation when it comes to legislation- a lesson Obama has provided for any future Administration. There is a lot to be said for staying on time and on target.; 4/15/14, 11:45 AM
chillblaine said...: "Settle back and adjust now." In other words, close your eyes and think of England.

2009-2017: Dog-whistles and white people calling other white people racist.

2017-? Dog-whistles and men calling other men sexist and patronizing; 4/15/14, 12:01 PM
Revenant said...: The establishment is circling the wagons in panic.

Whether or not Paul gets the nomination, I consider that, at least, to be a very good sign indeed.; 4/15/14, 12:27 PM
befinne said...: Denigrating a man because he hasn't worked in government long enough says more about the critic than the politician.; 4/15/14, 12:43 PM
campy said...: Althouse is right. Stick a fork in the GOP; it's done.; 4/15/14, 12:57 PM
Sam L. said...: I forgot to mention the Circular Firing Squad. Silly me!; 4/15/14, 1:07 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: It is funny how stupid you people all are.

WE HAVE THE KOCHS.

You got jack squat. All your unions, your lawyers and their underground malfeasance, and your media are nothing compared to the Kochs. You know it and I know it. Why has Crack cracked? Ha. Koch.

We win it all. We are unstoppable and ready to Koch you all away into oblivion.

This a here contest is OVER.; 4/15/14, 1:37 PM
hombre said...: "... Because maybe what the GOP needs is another humbling landslide defeat."

Naw, what it needs is more vilification of possible candidates by GOP "insiders" based on shallow, fatuous columns in the Opinion pages of the WSJ and elsewhere. It needs more of the same old political hacks committed to the same old, corrupt beltway, or new hacks with the same old commitment.

Or maybe what it really needs is to begin to listen calmly and patiently to what newcomers like Rand Paul have to say and incorporating the good into a new, revitalized party, while rejecting the not so good.; 4/15/14, 1:39 PM
hombre said...: Hillary will take it because neither competence nor ethics matter to Democrats.

All that matters is adherence to the template and, by now, membership in some PC tribe or another.; 4/15/14, 1:45 PM
JD said...: So you have the Kochs. Yes you do.; 4/15/14, 2:01 PM
Simon said...: That line about fearing corporations that get too big is an astonishing line for someone who wants to portray himself as being against big government. What does he propose be done to who, and by whom?; 4/15/14, 2:20 PM
Simon said...: befinne said...
"Denigrating a man because he hasn't worked in government long enough says more about the critic than the politician."

It doesn't. Back in 2008, we criticized then-Senator Obama for having neither qualification nor experience (if those are not in fact two sides of the same coin), and that was prescient. The irony of the 2008 election season was that the only person on EITHER ticket who had ANY relevant experience was the woman who was, incredibly, mocked and belittled by the MSM for, wait for it, lacking experience.; 4/15/14, 2:22 PM
Kirk Parker said...: I'm with cubanbob re Romney.

We're in an Apollo 13 scenario right now, and the best a Romney could do is to help us all die with dignity.; 4/15/14, 2:56 PM
dreams said...: I don't think a Republican can win when the liberals control the media and the culture.

"Baseball Great Hank Aaron Flooded With Racist Hate Mail After Defending Obama."

The liberal media sees Hank Aaron defending Obama whereas I see him accusing me of being a racist, accusing me of being just like the KKK.

The liberals control the narrative.; 4/15/14, 3:27 PM
The Godfather said...: Hillary was inevitable in 2008, until she wasn't.

She's inevitable now in exactly the same sense.

It is 6 months too early to start handicapping the election. Yes, Paul has problems. But he may do something to address them. Or events in the world may mean that his strengths are more important than his problems. Or not.

A few months ago, a bunch of people were saying, Christie in the great hope for the Republicans; then something happened.

Jeeze, let's wait for the Congressional elections.; 4/15/14, 5:15 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: dreams said...
I see him accusing me of being a racist,

Pretty sure Hank Aaron doesn't know who you are. Might want to be a bit less sensitive.; 4/15/14, 5:39 PM
n.n said...: Obama lacked executive experience. His legal skills are good for legislating, but they do not qualify him to manage.

As for Paul, he is unelectable. Too many Asses, and not a few Pachyderms, cling to money (e.g. redistributive change) and abortion/murder. Paul will not promise rainbows and unicorns.; 4/15/14, 5:46 PM
chickelit said...: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin...I like them all and the new ideas they bring,

I'm just not very worried about 2016 right now.

And Hillary is far from "inevitable."

The D.C. punditry and housing market bubble needs to burst a little. Maybe 2014 will do that for them/us.

I hope so.; 4/15/14, 5:48 PM
Humperdink said...: Garage said: "Kicked the poor. Expanded poverty."

I love you Baghdad Garage. More poverty today that when the left declared war on poverty. This after trillions have been spent. A Guiness world record for the number of food stamp recipients.

And the culprit? None other than Scott Walker.; 4/15/14, 6:40 PM
dreams said...: "Pretty sure Hank Aaron doesn't know who you are. Might want to be a bit less sensitive."

He accused Obama's critics of being racists. Back in the late fifties I was a fan of Hank Aaron, Eddie Mathews, Warren Spahn and Lew Burdette while they were Milwaukee Braves teammates playing in the World Series. It occurs to me that a lot of Hank Aaron fans were disappointed in his slur of those of us who don't share his opinion of Obama. I wonder how many of those racist hate mail letters were in reality just people expressing their disappointment in his public remarks.; 4/15/14, 6:51 PM
test said...: AReasonableMan said...
Pretty sure Hank Aaron doesn't know who you are. Might want to be a bit less sensitive.

Revealing ARM never considers the problem might be asserting people who disagree with your political opinions are racist rather than that people are "sensitive".

Not very Reasonable.; 4/15/14, 7:10 PM
Rich Rostrom said...: Obama had "12 years experience" in elected office, as of 2008.

Years of previous experience in elected office of other elected Presidents or Vice Presidents who became President:

6 - GW Bush
14 - Clinton
4 - GHW Bush
8 - Reagan
8 - Carter
6 - Nixon
24 - Johnson
14 - Kennedy
0 - Eisenhower
18 - Truman
6 - FD Roosevelt
0 - Hoover
15 - Coolidge
12 - Harding
2 - Wilson
0 - Taft
5 - T Roosevelt

Neither Obama nor Paul is out of range.; 4/15/14, 7:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Oddly enough, I agree with the sentiment behind this author.

Only, it needs to be done in another way. The next time we get a Romney or a McCain, we need to make sure they are defeated so soundly, that talk of having a squish for a candidate is verboten for the next 10 or so election cycles.

I completely understand where this guy is coming from. Election after election the "moderates" raise a hue and cry, "We have to compromise! The far right needs to do their best during the primary, but when it comes to the general, they need to suck it up and vote for the candidate who won!"

The funny thing is, the "moderates" don't do that. If the far right gets themselves a Tea Party candidate, the "moderates" work with the media and the Democrats to leak and destroy them. To undermine their campaign from the shadows. This is all so that they can say, "See! See! We told you such a far righty could never get elected! See!"

I, for one, am tired of it.; 4/15/14, 7:43 PM
Drago said...: ARM: "Pretty sure Hank Aaron doesn't know who you are. Might want to be a bit less sensitive."

Yeah!

I mean, when was the last time a poster on this blog was accused of being a racist by someone who doesn't know them?

It's all so improbable!!; 4/15/14, 7:52 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: I honestly do not understand all the hysteria about being called a racist. I have always assumed that it was bullshit hysteria in a misguided attempt to gain a rhetorical advantage. I am I wrong on this?; 4/15/14, 8:49 PM
dreams said...: "I honestly do not understand all the hysteria about being called a racist. I have always assumed that it was bullshit hysteria in a misguided attempt to gain a rhetorical advantage. I am I wrong on this?"

My comment was about the liberal media being able to control the narrative and I provided an example of someone who has behaved badly (Hank Aaron) but is having it portrayed as good behavior by the liberal media because it advances their agenda.; 4/15/14, 9:37 PM
Gahrie said...: I have always assumed that it was bullshit hysteria in a misguided attempt to gain a rhetorical advantage

Tell that to Paula Deen......; 4/15/14, 10:59 PM
rcommal said...: I am not looking forward to the next two years.

Luckily, I don't have to pay attention all of the way through it.

I am paying respect to what, over and over, I have been told.

And that means that I won't get involved in any primary or caucus sort of thing.

Once you all sort it all out, there will be choices on a ballot. I will either tick a choice or I will not.; 4/16/14, 1:50 AM
Rusty said...: dreams said...
I don't think a Republican can win when the liberals control the media and the culture.

"Baseball Great Hank Aaron Flooded With Racist Hate Mail After Defending Obama."

The liberal media sees Hank Aaron defending Obama whereas I see him accusing me of being a racist, accusing me of being just like the KKK.

The liberals control the narrative.

And you take back control every time you challenge it. Challenge the narrative at every opportunity.; 4/16/14, 6:02 AM
grackle said...: Hillary … is a hard lefty and paranoid. On the plus side, she has very poor political instincts.

Slick Willie will be her campaign manager. He's proven pretty good on the "political instincts" thing.; 4/16/14, 6:34 AM
stlcdr said...: I really don't see the point of the column. It just read as a whole bunch of words, saying less than nothing.

Politics is a pseudonym for entertainment. Running a country is so old fashioned, and un-progressive.

But really it just feeds the same old meme that Republicans (and republicans) drown puppies, steal quarters from children, and beat grandma - all before breakfast served by slaves.

Unelectability has nothing to do with it.; 4/16/14, 8:12 AM
Justin said...: Hillary will be President.

My prediction: This is right but she'll only last one term. Unfortunately the GOP needs one more walloping in the general election to get the message that there are certain things, like gay marriage and immigration reform, they need to get on board with to have a shot among demographics other than the very narrow and rapidly diminshing demographic that is the core of their base.; 4/16/14, 8:51 AM
test said...: Calling someone a racist is an attempt to place them outside society.

If they aren't a racist it's the rough equivalent of the worst use of the N word, which is an attempt to return blacks to their slave-era position outside society.; 4/16/14, 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: "like gay marriage and immigration reform"

Yes, Republicans can't win until they become Democrats. You left out legalization of pot.

That should be the campaign slogan of the next Republican who actually wants to win, "Let's all become Democrats!"; 4/16/14, 11:21 AM
Justin said...: @eric

You're right, I left that one out. I should have included it.

I'm not saying Republicans should become Democrats. There are a lot of issues way more important than the ones I've mentioned -- fiscal responsibility chief among them -- where Republicans have better ideas, but they drag themselves down trying to appease a certain demographic group by taking positions on issues, like gay marriage and immigration reform, that increasingly lack significant support at the national level. The problem is that demographic group isn't going to be able to propel Republicans into office for very much longer, and Republicans need to deal with that fact.; 4/16/14, 11:59 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Marshal said...
If they aren't a racist it's the rough equivalent of the worst use of the N word,

I think this is the goal of the hysteria over this word but it is clearly not equivalent. Most people are in fact a bit racist, on all political sides. Realists like Derbyshire acknowledge this.; 4/16/14, 12:57 PM
test said...: Naturally the left wants to both tar the right as racist and delegitimize the right's ability to object to it.; 4/17/14, 9:53 AM