Quote:
Originally Posted by Crapshoot
Jesus Christ, does the GOP know any better? Reagan was a brilliant politician (once in a lifetime), but if the GOP's entire strategy is to wait for another one, how realistic can it possibly be? I try reading RedState at least once a day, and it always fascinates me about the lack of pragmatism - apparently, the solution is to run a candidate who's even more right-of-center (which is when I see the ranting about Specter/Snowe etc, I want to laugh - do they actually believe any other Republican could hold those seats)? I mean, they constantly rail against moderate Republicans - would they prefer them as Moderate Democrat's instead? The entire thrust of the idiocy thus espoused is that even though Barack Obama got the greatest presidential mandate since Reagan, even though his approval ratings are sky-high, the solution is to run further to the right. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the GOP seems to espouse this.
|
It's not just the GOP. Both sides have fringe elements at the extreme that somehow believe that when they lose, it's because their candidate wasn't liberal/conservative enough. They live in a different reality than the rest of us though so it's hard to convince them of the need to be moderate.
Funny thing is that if a more conservative guy like Brownback or Thompson won the nomination, Obama would have won with 400+ electoral votes. McCain was their best hope and if they didn't screw it up with the Palin selection and Ayers crap, he may have had a shot at winning.