Well is it us conservatives we should blame or the 3 liberals & 2 uppity broads named herein?
Cannoli Send a noteboard - 11/01/2012 04:06:32 AM
Five People Conservatives Should Blame if Mitt Romney Wins
Posted by Ryan Lizza
136581662_10.jpg
The 2012 Republican race has largely been shaped by the Republicans who declined to run. Mitt Romney has run a very smart and competent campaign, but he has also been unusually fortunate in that his competition over the last year has been almost comically inept. Here are the people conservatives can blame if Romney ends up winning.
1. George W. Bush
More than anyone else Bush is responsible for decimating the ranks of qualified Republicans who could take on Obama. A successful Presidency can produce a new crop of future Presidential candidates for the party that controls the White House. The vice president and cabinet officials, as well as governors and senators elected over the course of the administration, are historically major sources for a party’s next round of candidates. The Bush years had the opposite effect. It was unthinkable that his vice president would run for higher office and much of his cabinet left Washington tainted by the President’s unpopularity.
Posted by Ryan Lizza
136581662_10.jpg
The 2012 Republican race has largely been shaped by the Republicans who declined to run. Mitt Romney has run a very smart and competent campaign, but he has also been unusually fortunate in that his competition over the last year has been almost comically inept. Here are the people conservatives can blame if Romney ends up winning.
1. George W. Bush
More than anyone else Bush is responsible for decimating the ranks of qualified Republicans who could take on Obama. A successful Presidency can produce a new crop of future Presidential candidates for the party that controls the White House. The vice president and cabinet officials, as well as governors and senators elected over the course of the administration, are historically major sources for a party’s next round of candidates. The Bush years had the opposite effect. It was unthinkable that his vice president would run for higher office and much of his cabinet left Washington tainted by the President’s unpopularity.
Aside from Bush Sr., you know who the last VP elected to succeed his president was? MARTIN VAN BUREN. PotUS#8. Oh NO! What ARE we going to do without a VP to step in as a candidate! I believe the last cabinet member elected was Herbert Hoover, but then a lot of idiot liberals believe Archie Bunker actually had his finger on the pulse of the Republican party, so we really COULD use a man like him again.
And even if one of these supposed good conservative candidates had been Dubya's VP & annointed successor, he'd have been running last election, when Republicans had a snowball's chance in hell. Even if you don't subscribe to the idea that Bush poisoned the well for a GOP win in '08, no Republican would have had a fair shake against Obama. Accepting for a moment the preposterous delusion that the self-confessed 90% Democratic-voting media turns off their political biases when reporting, the frequent response to charges of prejudice or preferences among the media is that they are interested in a good story more than seeing their side win. Nobody in 2008 was a better story than the First Black President. Anyone from Bush's administration would have run against the headline-in-advance jackpot that had not yet been allowed to expose his own tarished image.
On the other hand, you know who makes a good anti-Democratic candidate? A victorious general (William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower). The first two men were the only non-Democrats elected between John Adams & Abraham Lincoln. But then you need a winnable war to get one of those...
Moreover, Bush helped sink his party in the 2006 and 2008 elections, thus depleting the ranks of potential Republican candidates for 2012.
The Republican Party rebounded in 2010, but it will take longer than two years for many Presidential-caliber candidates to emerge after the wreckage of the late Bush years.
Of course, there were many others who also declined to run, including Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, Haley Barbour, Sarah Palin, George Pataki, Paul Ryan, John Thune, and Rudy Giuliani.
Why are we taking seriously an article that seems to think this is a list of conservative alternatives to Romney. Giuliani? Christie? Huckabee? Pataki? Even Palin's conservatism has worn thin as the last four years have revealed her to be a much better fit for John McCain than was believed when she was nominated - both are purely political animals who are exactly as conservative as they believe they need to be to succeed.The Republican Party rebounded in 2010, but it will take longer than two years for many Presidential-caliber candidates to emerge after the wreckage of the late Bush years.
Of course, there were many others who also declined to run, including Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, Haley Barbour, Sarah Palin, George Pataki, Paul Ryan, John Thune, and Rudy Giuliani.
In the absence of Daniels and these other high-profile Republicans, Texas Governor Rick Perry decided he could fill the vacuum left by their timidity. He had a great resume and a fairly solid conservative record, but was found lacking after a series of embarrassing debate performances. (He still has one last chance to make an impact in the race in the South Carolina primary.)
Perry has long had a higher national profile than Daniels, due in part to his connection to the supposed heart of conservative America.4. Barack Obama
Jon Huntsman is making his last stand in New Hampshire, and there is some upward movement for him in the polls. But if he doesn’t defeat Romney there (or at least come in a close second), we can trace Huntsman’s loss to his decision to accept Barack Obama’s offer to be ambassador to China in 2009. That single decision transformed Huntsman from a successful, popular governor from the most conservative state in the country into an employee of Obama, the most despised figure among G.O.P. primary voters.
Yes, if not for Obama Romney 2.0 might have had a chance to defeat original Romney! Jon Huntsman is making his last stand in New Hampshire, and there is some upward movement for him in the polls. But if he doesn’t defeat Romney there (or at least come in a close second), we can trace Huntsman’s loss to his decision to accept Barack Obama’s offer to be ambassador to China in 2009. That single decision transformed Huntsman from a successful, popular governor from the most conservative state in the country into an employee of Obama, the most despised figure among G.O.P. primary voters.
5. Justice Anthony Kennedy
With so many potential candidates declining to run, and with the decline of the three Republican governors who did end up in the race (Pawlenty, Perry, and Huntsman), Romney was left facing a talk show host (Cain), a defeated senator (Santorum), a former House Speaker who resigned in semi-disgrace (Gingrich), and two of the most extreme members of the House of Representatives (Bachmann and Paul). These kinds of fringe candidates and ex-politicians trying to revive their careers run every four years (think Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich on the Democratic side in 200
, but they are not the kind of people a party nominates for a Presidential race.
And yet, given the populist sentiment seizing the Republican party, perhaps 2012 could be the year for one of these far-right outsiders to win. If that doesn’t happen, conservatives can partially thank the Supreme Court and specifically Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the court that decided the 2010 Citizens United case. “We now conclude,” Kennedy wrote for the majority, “that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
With that opinion, Kennedy and the court gave rise to the so-called Super PACs, political groups that raise unlimited money from individuals, unions, and corporations and which greatly advantaged Mitt Romney in Iowa, where a Super PAC that supports him pilloried Gingrich with millions of dollars in negative advertisements. The court’s decision, championed by conservatives, seems to have shifted the balance of power in the Republican primaries away from grassroots candidates who rely on a wide base of small-dollar donors to the establishment candidate, who benefits from seven-figure ad campaigns with the help of a few hyper-wealthy allies.
With so many potential candidates declining to run, and with the decline of the three Republican governors who did end up in the race (Pawlenty, Perry, and Huntsman), Romney was left facing a talk show host (Cain), a defeated senator (Santorum), a former House Speaker who resigned in semi-disgrace (Gingrich), and two of the most extreme members of the House of Representatives (Bachmann and Paul). These kinds of fringe candidates and ex-politicians trying to revive their careers run every four years (think Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich on the Democratic side in 200
, but they are not the kind of people a party nominates for a Presidential race.And yet, given the populist sentiment seizing the Republican party, perhaps 2012 could be the year for one of these far-right outsiders to win. If that doesn’t happen, conservatives can partially thank the Supreme Court and specifically Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the court that decided the 2010 Citizens United case. “We now conclude,” Kennedy wrote for the majority, “that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
With that opinion, Kennedy and the court gave rise to the so-called Super PACs, political groups that raise unlimited money from individuals, unions, and corporations and which greatly advantaged Mitt Romney in Iowa, where a Super PAC that supports him pilloried Gingrich with millions of dollars in negative advertisements. The court’s decision, championed by conservatives, seems to have shifted the balance of power in the Republican primaries away from grassroots candidates who rely on a wide base of small-dollar donors to the establishment candidate, who benefits from seven-figure ad campaigns with the help of a few hyper-wealthy allies.
Fund-raising is the one thing Paul, the most (or only)conservative candidate in the field, has never had to worry about.
In other words, if Romney wins, conservatives have only themselves to blame.
The left-most president in American history, the creator of No Child Left Behind & CiC of the Iraq War, a screachy broad poking her nose out of the kitchen and another who fails to give proper obeisance to her lord and master, and an-all-too-often leftward swing vote on SCotUS, are the people most to blame for Romney's success, but we'll only have OURSELVES to blame? Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/01/the-lizza-list-five-people.html#ixzz1j4NY8TBI
No thanks.
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Five People Conservatives Should Blame if Mitt Romney Wins
- 10/01/2012 03:27:18 PM
941 Views
2 completely useless points.
- 10/01/2012 04:12:35 PM
441 Views
Very good points. Essentially, this article was a pile of shit. *NM*
- 10/01/2012 04:19:35 PM
184 Views
#2 makes me laugh. Pawlenty was a joke from day one, just like Santorum.
- 10/01/2012 04:18:54 PM
390 Views
Well is it us conservatives we should blame or the 3 liberals & 2 uppity broads named herein?
- 11/01/2012 04:06:32 AM
460 Views
I see the New Yorker is displaying their typical rock solid grasp of republican politics *NM*
- 11/01/2012 01:55:51 PM
165 Views
The whole thing is pretty weak but #4 is total bunk.
- 12/01/2012 02:10:10 AM
454 Views
4 is not bunk
- 12/01/2012 04:28:55 AM
469 Views
Bullshit.
- 12/01/2012 04:41:19 PM
458 Views
Do you honestly not believe that running against your boss would hamstring you in the primary and
- 12/01/2012 06:07:11 PM
413 Views
Most Americans hate their boss. I can think of few actions that Americans would greet more warmly. *NM*
- 12/01/2012 09:03:17 PM
184 Views
He had to accept the position in the first place, he chose his boss *NM*
- 12/01/2012 09:46:50 PM
184 Views
He chose to serve his country, just like a soldier. *NM*
- 12/01/2012 11:22:03 PM
197 Views
Not quite the same and you know that
- 13/01/2012 02:09:59 AM
427 Views
No, it is. You're arguing a position with no evidence to back it up.
- 13/01/2012 02:08:12 PM
369 Views
Most Republicans I know...
- 13/01/2012 02:56:12 PM
667 Views
The fact that he was in a hair band makes him cooler. He should advertise that more. *NM*
- 13/01/2012 08:05:23 PM
175 Views
No, it is. The whole article is probably one of the most poorly-thought-out I've seen.
- 12/01/2012 09:02:17 PM
372 Views
Your #4 description is WAY off.
- 13/01/2012 12:03:51 AM
391 Views
Which make his ravings about gold and the fed even more extreme 
*NM*
- 13/01/2012 02:12:18 AM
201 Views
*NM*
- 13/01/2012 02:12:18 AM
201 Views
Re: No, it is. The whole article is probably one of the most poorly-thought-out I've seen.
- 13/01/2012 05:48:17 AM
425 Views
funny how liberals think that is what is stopping the GOP from picking their favorite candidate
- 12/01/2012 03:37:43 PM
392 Views
You know, I was going to respond but I think it best to leave it and you alone. *NM*
- 12/01/2012 04:45:48 PM
158 Views
Good idea, you typically don't do well when you try. Stick to debating with people who agree
- 12/01/2012 06:18:20 PM
419 Views
I found nothing offensive. I have learned that nothing will satisfy you. There is absolutely nothing
- 13/01/2012 05:37:39 AM
380 Views