The 2016 Republican
Presidential nomination campaign silly season is upon us already and it’s
shaping up just as it did the last time when the ultra right wing religious
fanatics in the Party forced Mitt Romney, the best moderate candidate way too
far to the right and, as a consequence, he lost a general election which should
have easily been won to the incompetent socialist, Barack Obama.
Here we go
again.
Will the
Republicans ever learn? Once again it ought to be an easy contest in 2016.
After all, Obama has been a terrible president. His socialist agenda has made
him extremely unpopular with the folks.
But the GOP
extremists are dead set this time around on sabotaging the chances of any well
qualified Republican moderate who has a chance of winning a general election from
getting the nomination and beating the next and already crowned incompetent socialist
in line, Hillary Clinton.
As I expected, archetypal right wing
extremist, Sen. Ted Cruz,
R-Texas, predicted
last week that Democrats would keep the White House in 2016 if Republicans
selected a moderate nominee next year. This guy actually believes that only if
his Party selects an extremist, like himself for the nomination, will the GOP have
a chance to win back the White House.
"If we nominate another candidate in the mold of Bob
Dole or John McCain or Mitt Romney," Cruz explained, "the same people who stayed home
in 2008 and 2012 will stay home in 2016 and the Democrats will win again. There
is a better way."
If Sen. Cruz is right, perhaps his Party ought to simply
select Sarah Palin right now and forget about any contest to pick a winner from
the moderate field. Clinton would make mince meat out of Palin or any other
right wing religious nut.
There are more than 20 Republican presidential hopefuls
who will be running this year. It’s going to be like a pack of rabid wild dogs
ripping each other apart, thus guaranteeing that the last man standing,
probably a moderate like Mitt Romney, Scott Walker or Chris Christie, will be
going into the general election severely wounded and at a substantial disadvantage
compared to the socialist Clinton who will no doubt breeze through the Democrat
nomination process unscathed.
I sure hope I’m wrong but it looks a lot like...
Here we go again.
I must have missed the part where Romney was forced to the right. In the presidential debates, his main talking point seemed to be "I agree with Barack Obama on everything, but if it's me doing it instead of him it will actually work because I'm Mitt Romney."
ReplyDeleteThe republicans lost because the only person who could have won over Obama - Ron Paul - was marginalized by the mainstream media at every turn and juncture. The fix was in - they were hell bent to lose the election.
ReplyDeleteJust as they were when they previously nominated McCain - an aging, nasty prick of a man against a charismatic, young candidate that had no baggage at that time.
Romney for his part ran as if he was hoping to almighty god that he wouldn't have to actually be president. There was about as much oomph in his campaign as a cow's breath. He made Al Gore's campaign seem positively feisty. (Which of course he won - but lost. Same with John Kerry.)
We'll now get Jeb Bush against Clinton. That fix is in. Vote if you like - it won't matter. What did Uncle Joe Stalin say? It doesn't matter how many people cast their votes, it's who counts those votes that matters.