It was quite just after November 6th. There were wounds to lick, time needed for the shock to abate, Fox pundits to be fired but not for long. Stirrings of Campaign 2016 soon were in the air.
Mitt and Ann showed their faces on TV. Rand pitched a filibuster. John and Lindsay didn't like it. Jeb wrote a book, so did Sarah. Chris raised some bucks. Bobby gave advice. Paul offered his budget, again. Yes folks, the White House strain of Potomac Fever is on the loose. The D version is still muted although some think Hillary never fully recovered from a previous infection and Joe was born with it. The R version, however, is already wide spread. Besides Rand, Jeb, Chris, Bobby and Paul, there's another Paul, two Johns, Mike and Marco and lest we forget, the stars from 2011-12 Republican debates, Rick, Michele, Newt and the 9-9-9 pizza guy. If the War on Women is over, we might even see, Susanna of New Mexico, Kelly of New Hampshire or Nikki of South Carolina. If wining the Black vote is the goal, Dr. Ben might be the outside choice. The Republican debates could have more people on the stage than in the audience.
If nothing is done to thin this crowd down to a few who could actually win, the GOP will repeat the circular firing squad of the last presidential race. The first Republican debate was on May 5, 2011 followed by over twenty more running well into 2012 yet the nominee, much bloodied by the contests, was not firmly decided until a few weeks before the National Convention. Fortunately, something will be done. Read the report announced by Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus, "Growth & Opportunity Project" also known as the "Republican Autopsy." Pay particular attention to the section titled, "Primary Process" which covers recommendations to streamline and control the debates and primaries. No debates until after September 1, 2015, limit the number of debates at ten to twelve, announce schedule in 2014 or early 2015, hold the national convention in June are some of the ideas.
Reform decisions need to be made now, not just for the 2016 presidential race but also the 2014 congressional battles. Reversing eight years of Obamanism depends on it.
Posted by warrenpeterson at March 21, 2013 08:55 PM | Email ThisChris Christie, like it or not probably runs stronger than anyone else against the strongest Democrat (Hillary C. if she even runs). If he loses 80#, he will be ready to run in 2016, but that is not a given. Republican debates should absolutely not be moderated by anyone from NBC, ABC, CBS or CNN. Jim Lehrer would be acceptable though. If they are, the Republicans are once again chumps and the stupid party.
Posted by: KDS on March 21, 2013 10:14 PMIf you Rpublicans are smart, you can come up with a candidate to beat her.
We'll see.........
Posted by: Ten Years After on March 22, 2013 08:38 AMNo, the primary process resulted in the most electable candidate, Mitt Romney. But all the candidates, and their party, stood for positions that most Americans reject. A more streamlined primary process won't change that fact.
Posted by: Bruce on March 22, 2013 09:14 AMWith a cynical mindset like that, the Republicans will never win the black vote, let alone the entire country's vote.
Posted by: Bruce on March 22, 2013 09:25 AMThere are a few candidates mentioned who have that potential (i.e. Christie, Paul). Hillary also has blood on her hands from Benghazi. The republican candidate - must be prepared to successfully exploit that issue, just as the Democrats would if the roles were reversed.
There are other outlying and significant factors such as crony capitalism - practiced by both sides, unless checked will continue to corrupt the government no matter who is in charge. The Republican candidate has the opportunity to expose this issue, but I doubt that they will have the guts to do that.
"If wining the Black vote is the goal, Dr. Ben might be the outside choice."
"With a cynical mindset like that, the Republicans will never win the black vote, let alone the entire country's vote."
That was a cynical comment in its own right and an outright racist comment too & typical from the left.
Because of the corrupt campaign reform though, I doubt if Dr. Carson will end up being the candidate because he would not have big money raising apparatus, nor does he have previous political experience.
Posted by: KDS on March 22, 2013 10:15 AMRather, you need to thin out the base, Warren. What you lose in votes you'll more than regain through broader appeal. Then you'll get your better candidates. However, if continue letting backwater, crawl-out-of-the-woodwork guys like Krazy KDS, Silly Shanghai Dan and Ridiculous RickD elect transvaginal wand-waving, gun-totin', government-hating krazies then you're likely never going to win a national office again.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on March 22, 2013 11:34 AMTranslation: "We Republicans need to get more stupid people to vote for us by convincing them that we know what's best for them."
Wow, what humility! What self-reflection!
Posted by: Bruce on March 22, 2013 11:52 AMPosted by Bruce at March 22, 2013 11:52 AM
@9 Democrats like yourself are in denial, have a very weak self-awareness have morphed into a cult and are similar to the Islamists in that they often refuse to admit they are wrong even when it stares them in the face. Some conservatives are that way to an extent, but they are less evasive of the truth.
Yes, even if leftists appear to be civil on the surface, they try to shut down viewpoints different from their own with obfuscation and hyperbole and other offensive tactics and are not open to reason. One suggested that the reason the left does not care about the debt left to our grandchildren is because deep down, they don't believe we will exist in 50 years (i.e. nuclear holocaust)
That's the only logic I see that seems halfway reasonable.
Posted by: KDS on March 22, 2013 12:08 PM@8 - Colin Powell would not run for President. He refused to in 1996. Besides, he holds a grudge against Bush/Cheney and Republicans after he saw himself as the fall guy for sending troops into Iraq- a war which I disagree with. I can't fault him for that. However, Powell's ideology has gone too far and he is a big government Republican who prefers Democrats.
Even if he decided to run, he would have less chance than Carson of being nominated, as he has spit in the face of conservatives/libertarians too much with his support for Obama twice and his reverse-racist rants against conservatives.
So sorry you find a person who thinks Government should abide by the rules to be silly. I think it says more about your views than anything else...
But then, you probably never heard of (or choose to ignore) the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 22, 2013 12:22 PMHave we ever discussed projection? It's a Psych 101 thing that afflicts wingnuts.
OK, so you're laughable, unhinged, love to chase your tail and your diaper needs changing. Got it, KDS. Projection. Sometimes it reveals far more than I ever wanted to know. I think this is one of those times, KDS.
"But then, you probably never heard of (or choose to ignore) the 10th Amendment"
Oh, blah, blah, blah. Whatever. Go ahead and put some lipstick on your transvaginal wand, Dan, and we'll just wait see how that works out for you in 2016.
Say, Warren, remember how you Republicans used to marginalize people like Dan and KDS? You might recall that that was when you were winning national elections. Something to think about.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on March 22, 2013 01:06 PM"Say, Warren, remember how you Republicans used to marginalize people like Dan and KDS? You might recall that that was when you were winning national elections."
Oh yeah, that was when Nixon was president. He had a fine record and did marginalize conservatives and resigned in disgrace. You're chasing your tail again with more blatant nonsense.
@10 plays out again. You made the points again for me such as; "you have a very weak self-awareness today's Democrats have morphed into a cult and are similar to the Islamists in that they often refuse to admit they are wrong even when it stares them in the face."
Something to think about, Warren.
Posted by: KDS on March 22, 2013 02:30 PMWhat do you want the Republican Party to be, Warren? The party of Reagan or the party of KDS? I believe that many of you know what to do but that you've been afraid to do it because it will cause your party to lose. No, I say it will make your party winners again, and a party worthy of governing this nation.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on March 22, 2013 02:51 PMDo you want to govern the nation again, Warren? IMHO, instead of rejecting Chris Christie, look to him to lead your party from the wilderness and just say no to Rand Paul, Paul Ryan and the likes of KDS and Silly Dan. Do that and Democrats are crapping their pants. Embrace your extremist ideologues and you become irrelevant as a national party. Think in terms of lessons learned, Warren, and you should know what to do to turn it around. I'd be rooting for you to pull it off because it'd be good for the country.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on March 22, 2013 03:17 PMHowever, he can govern and command respect of the people, which is something the last two presidents have been unable to do.
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio also deserve second looks - they are both good communicators as well, and the left are concerned about that. Ryan is not presidential material, sorry folks.
Posted by: KDS on March 22, 2013 03:28 PMHmm, psycho-laughs. Heh. That isn't good. Somebody's condition is continuing to deteriorate.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on March 22, 2013 03:47 PMKDS@6: "What needs to be done is to have a candidate which causes low information voters to think (for a change) about future consequences..."
KDS@17: "...they are both good communicators as well, and the left are concerned about that..."
Let me get this straight: The problem for the Republicans is that the left is concerned about listening to them, but doesn't want to think about what they say, so the Republicans need better communicators like Chris Christie, who will bluntly tell leftists how stupid they are.
Good luck with that. But I'm sure the national Republican party is looking to Washington State for advice on how to choose winning Republican candidates!
Posted by: Bruce on March 22, 2013 03:54 PMI'm not sure what you're talking about "transvaginal wand"... But I prefer to consider what is right and proper to be more important than simply winning. A few people left actually do have ethics and morality, and value doing the right thing over winning at all costs.
If you choose to ignore the 10th Amendment, that speaks volumes about you.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 22, 2013 04:22 PM"If you choose to ignore the 10th Amendment"
What, Dan wants a slave or something? Anybody know WTF he's babbling about? Good grief, if he'd just drop the wingnut babble-speak for a minute maybe I'd give him more respect than just laughing at him and making him the butt of jokes.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on March 22, 2013 04:41 PMAnd if you don't know what Steve means by "transvaginal wand", you haven't been paying attention to what some Republican lawmakers have been up to in Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, etc.
Posted by: Bruce on March 22, 2013 04:44 PM"Let me get this straight: The problem for the Republicans is that the left is concerned about listening to them, but doesn't want to think about what they say, so the Republicans need better communicators like Chris Christie, who will bluntly tell leftists how stupid they are."
Where did you pull that out of ? Christie is blunt and the best medicine for much of the left is a 2" X 4" up side the head in the hope of knocking some sense into them - there's always a long shot of that happening. The problem is that low information voters like you don't think about much beyond yourselves as the world around you continues to go to hell, but you would rather cheer it on, because of your cynical, self-hatred and it seems beneath you to care. That is a good reason why Chris Christie would tell you how stupid leftists are, if he indeed does that.
"Good luck with that. But I'm sure the national Republican party is looking to Washington State for advice on how to choose winning Republican candidates!"
Posted by Bruce at March 22, 2013 03:54 PM
Are you trying to be funny ? Not likely. There are numerous other states with a better organization than the WSRP and better candidates. The WSRP is like an accident waiting to happen (i.e. winning an election). Actually, there was a measure of success in State Senate races in November, where the fiscal conservatives control the Senate 25-24.
You reveal a lot with your phrase "low information voters like you" (referring to me). Of course you are welcome to call me stupid or evil or whatever. But "low information" refers to people who don't know much about the candidates or issues. Those people can be found on all parts of the political spectrum. Amusingly, you have evidently decided that anyone who disagrees with you, by definition, must be low information. This is not a reasoning technique that is going to get you far in life.
Posted by: Bruce on March 22, 2013 05:50 PMOK. Not evil and judging from the lack of breadth and perspective in your comments that's you, Bruce all day long - you own that. I don't totally blame the low information voters; I also blame the corrupt, manipulative statist media for disseminating the swill that the uncurious sheeple swallow, that omits anything that makes the current administration look bad. Just like Pravda.
"KDS, the fact that even a partisan like you thinks that your best candidate has "a long shot" of doing what it takes to win says a lot."
You are making that up. I didn't say that about all of the candidates/not Christie.
Posted by: KDS on March 22, 2013 06:21 PMI Agree steve, so I did what you said to do and am in full agreement with his assessment.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."~ Ronald Reagan
Can't argue with that logic, Mr. President
Posted by: Rick D. on March 22, 2013 06:21 PMIn other words you're as likely to see another Republican president as Governor Chris Christie is to look down and see his penis.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2013 07:00 PMThe Republican Party is experiencing an existential crisis, born of its own misguided incongruity with modern American culture and its insistence on choosing intransigence in a dynamic age of fundamental change. Instead of turning away from obsolescence, it is charging headlong into it, becoming more strident and pushing away more voters whom it could otherwise win.
The numbers prove it: The GOP is estranged from America
In my decades of polling, I recall only one moment when a party had been driven as far from the center as the Republican Party has been today.[...] The Republican Party's ratings now stand at a 20-year low, with just 33 percent of the public holding a favorable view of the party and 58 percent judging it unfavorably, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.[...] I see little reason to believe that the staunch conservative bloc will wither away or splinter; it will remain a dominant force in the GOP and on the national stage. At the same time, however, I see no indication that its ideas about policy, governance and social issues will gain new adherents. They are far beyond the mainstream. Any Republican efforts at reinvention face this dilemma: While staunch conservatives help keep GOP lawmakers in office, they also help keep the party out of the White House.Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 23, 2013 09:38 AM
Mike BS's translated message; "Bend over, grab your ankles and say good bye to your freedoms with this administration - its all good though because the Democrats are in control."
Nothing to stop this from coming back and biting many so-called loyal Democrats in the a$$.
Here are examples of how today's Democrat party has gravitated;
A majority of the delegates at the Democrat Convention did not want to acknowledge God in their platform - even though it was adopted by the chairman without a rollcall vote, but I know and you know that it did not reflect the TRUE feelings of the delegates - they would have not voted a 2/3 majority for acknowledgment of God.
Another thing to consider is the equivalent of "Sharia law" by the left is giving the poor and targeted minority constituents the "habit forming narcotic" of free stuff (i.e. Obamaphones, food stamps, welfare, disability). The desired effect is to make them indebted to the Democrat party and big government, just as Sharia law makes constituents indebted to Allah. They have many blacks, illegal Hispanics and unwed single women among others on their plantation with Government strings attached and also addicted to free stuff to enhance their non-productiveness in society.
Posted by: KDS on March 23, 2013 10:42 AMIt all goes back to how do you turn around the party and then together, the nation? I think it'd be a great start by having a drink together, having a few laughs making fun of KDS, and then with a little give and take, solve a few of the nation's problems together.
Or we could just indulge in despising, even hating each other. Less productive, obviously, but that's fun too.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on March 23, 2013 01:14 PMGood grief! Get a load of KDS.
Earth to KDS! Earth to KDS!!
So your Big Plan for turning around the Republican Party is to somehow improve your messaging so that you can inform America's blacks, "illegal" immigrants, single women and unmentioned others that they're all "addicted to free stuff" and that they're "non-productive".
As a progressive, I full-heartedly endorse the plan proposed by KDS!
Gawd, you're stupid. Go back to babbling about your New World Order, Putz.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on March 23, 2013 01:34 PMWhat exactly do you consider to be a "progressive" ideology? I think of last century's progressives as prohibitionists and interventionists like Teddy Rosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. They knew they were "right" because they were never wrong.
Today's progressives seem to emphasize wealth redistribution, re-interpretation of the Constitution, and the collective over the individual. I see them as near polar opposites of Libertarians.
Sure thing, Skippy.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on March 23, 2013 06:40 PMGood grief!"
clown steve - no one except you has any idea what you are referring to. Ineffectively cherry picking your talking points and unable to connect the dots everyone else can, like the low information voter you are. When you stop orbiting the earth and smoking the potent ganga, your leftist rants might mean diddly squat.
That's occurrence is a pipe dream though. Hell, they don't even take you seriously over at HA.org
Posted by: KDS on March 23, 2013 07:08 PMYou deny the obvious ? You reveal yourself to be a true collectivist at heart who is perpetually in denial of the truth ergo a useful idiot !
Posted by: KDS on March 23, 2013 07:12 PMIt will take more than that to get many of those humans off of the narcotic of free stuff. It's a fact of life that those being subsidized by the Federal Government enhances their non-productivity because they don't have to work to make ends meet. That's human nature, skippy - plain and simple. As a progressive affiliated with the destruction party that passed Obamacare to find out what was in it, according to Madame Beeyotch Pelosi, the rest of us will blame the demise of this country on collectivist a$$holes like you with their heads rammed up their tuckus.
Posted by: KDS on March 23, 2013 07:24 PMIt's really that simple, folks.
I saw the vast, diverse, clamoring for a true conservative at the Ron Paul rally at Sea Tac last year.
The old dog elitists across the country did their best to stifle what I saw at the rally.
And they lost.
They lost. Does anybody else get it?
I'm 57 and I get it.
Do you?
Posted by: Independent Voter on March 23, 2013 10:45 PMYou know I'm correct, Skippy-boy!
Posted by: Ten Years After on March 24, 2013 09:33 AMYes, it's too bad Ron Paul has left the House. He's. great man who the mainstream Republicans laughed at. Well, Dr. Paul is having the last laugh now! The Republicans are now the laughing stock of world politics.
Posted by: Ten Years After on March 24, 2013 09:41 AMWhich appears to be this president's style. He's
a clown in over his head and would prefer to play politics than lead a nation. If you can't see that fact, it's your problem. It really doesn't change anything.
Posted by Ten Years After at March 24, 2013 09:41 AM
There are laughs to be had. Priebus, the chairman of the RNC put out a plan to revive the party, but the plan did not say much of anything about making a difference in policies or philosophy - mostly a wasted effort. Nothing brought up about changing the culture and implementing measures to get rid of crony capitalism/socialism in DC that affects both parties.
Ron Paul's son, Rand looks like the next best hope for the Libertarian/republican party. Ron Paul has good ideas, a number of them which son Rand has brought forward. However, Dr. Paul (the elder) is too much of an isolationist. Rand's filibuster, while discussing drones attacking American citizens was aimed more at those who did not uphold the 2nd Amendment (i.e. Obama, Holder and Bloomberg - the main players). It succeeded in opening eyes and more events like this are needed to wake up the Lomovs (low information voters) and the elitists.
Posted by: KDS on March 24, 2013 03:39 PMTo do what? Continue destroying the mainstream Republican party?
"Rand's filibuster ... succeeded in opening eyes and more events like this are needed to wake up the Lomovs (low information voters) and the elitists."
Wait a minute. "Low information voters" -- people who don't know anything about the issues or candidates -- pay attention to filibusters?!?
Your comment about elitists is also ironic, since an elitist is someone who thinks a small group should be in charge, and there's no better example of that than one person taking control of the Senate through a filibuster.
Posted by Bruce at March 24, 2013 04:38 PM
You're attempt at misinformation is laughable. You purposely ignored the point of Paul's filibuster as I stated earlier. McCain and Graham, who are GOP elites criticized him too, because they like you failed to understand.
"Low information voters" -- people who don't know anything about the issues or candidates -- pay attention to filibusters?!?"
OK, Low information voters don't pay attention to filibusters unless the White House puppet media brings it up, which in some cases they did here, which is the only reason they paid attention to it. They like you, lack curiosity.
How did the filibuster "succeed in opening the eyes of low-information voters" if those voters listen only to "the White House puppet media"? And if Rand's filibuster was such an eye-opener to the horrors of Obama totalitarianism, then why did the White House direct its puppet media to publicize it?
And the "point" of the filibuster does nothing to reduce the anti-democratic -- i.e., elitist -- nature of one person's subverting the Senate's democratic process.
Posted by: Bruce on March 24, 2013 05:04 PMBruce; Did you ever consider the White House did not tell them to and the outlets that covered it, did so on their own ? Could be that Rand Paul put one over on the White House. If you disagree with that, why don't you tell us why they did in your all knowing style +
Now we know that you and Harry Reid would like to eliminate filibusters, a constitutional process that acts as a check to power.
Posted by: KDS on March 24, 2013 05:15 PMIsn't it obvious? The White House puppet media isn't controlled by the White House, you low information silly.
And the fillibuster is a constitutional process! It's right there, in Article Eleventy-something. I'm sure KDS can give us the exact reference.
Posted by: scottd on March 24, 2013 08:30 PMSuburban republicans, or rather the right wing of the socialist party folks, seem to have this strange belief that we need to run big government liberals like Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, even Bobby Jindal in order to win. They marginalize the Reaganesque candidates and try to sink them before they become threatening to their true agenda, which seems to be getting a nominee that is very similar to Bill Clinton.
The GOP bloggers and establishment have firmly pushed the GOP agenda so far left that now they think Bill Clinton's political leanings is where we should be as a party.
Rand Paul and Sarah Palin really need to take control of the party to right it's ship, in more ways than one. And all the establishment and GOP bloggers that blindly support them can let their heads explode.
BTW, KDS - Mitt Romney was one of exactly three candidates from the outset that many of us could guarantee would lose to Obama at a time when Obama shouldn't be able to win - Romney, Paul, and Huntsman. Two of them because they weren't any different in deeds, and one because, well, he was too different.
Posted by: doug on March 24, 2013 10:29 PM"Rand Paul and Sarah Palin really need to take control"
I've got news for you twits. You want to take your country back? It never was your damned country. Criminy. Like this country has ever been run from Ward D or something.
You need to get a grip. Consider voltage.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on March 25, 2013 07:19 AMPosted by scottd at March 24, 2013 08:30 PM
Apparently, that's all you've got. Instead of mocking people in your collectivist manner, try doing some research. Question to you - Is the filibuster upheld by the constitution ?
Posted by: KDS on March 25, 2013 10:26 AMQuestion to you - does tin-foil make your head itch?
Posted by: Doctor Steve on March 25, 2013 10:58 AMOK, enough of the fun and games. Seriously, KDS, tell us more about how you connected the dots from hippy tree-huggers all the way to a New World Order.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on March 25, 2013 11:05 AMHeh. Just kidding. We'll probably have to wait another week or two for that to come out.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on March 25, 2013 11:42 AMBecause he's black, I suppose. Because Democrats only won the black vote when Obama showed up. It's not like it's your policies or anything.
Good grief, Warren. That's really sad that you'd still think that way in the 21st Century. I'd guess the years haven't taught you much.
"Obamanism"
What on earth is that, Warren? Is that like commie-fascist-jihadism or something?
Balanced budgets, no soldiers dead from foreign military misadventures, using government to protect women from violence -- yeah, Clinton was a real far-out nut-case. You guys should keep as far from such policies as you possibly can.
Rand Paul and Sarah Palin really need to take control of the party...
Mission Accomplished! You guys will make Jim McDermott's election results look puny under their enlightened leadership, no doubt. Good luck with that!
Posted by: tensor on March 25, 2013 02:57 PMExclusive: Congressional Ethics Probe Adds to Michele Bachmann's Political Woes
Paraphrasing what I said @29
You're as likely to see another Republican president in 2016 or 2020 as Governor Chris Christie is to look down and see his penis.
The 2014 midterm elections are looking increasingly worse for the Social Democrat party.
Leftist potty humor has run rampant !
Posted by: KDS on March 28, 2013 08:03 AMWho hasn't been mentioned, but who I think would be the strongest candidate, as long as the Club for Growth crowd is muted, is Huckabee. He has the charm, the religious right endorsement, and governor experience, plus he knows when to work together with the other side, as shown in Arkansas, which is why the Club for Growth needs to mute there criticism. Sometimes one has to work with the other side in order to get things done. I know this is a novel concept for the GOP, lately. It didn't used to be a dirty word, but the people like Club for Growth need to realize that getting 90% is better than getting nothing (in supporting losing candidates).
Posted by: tc on March 28, 2013 12:19 PMI agree that Huckabee is a stronger contender and if he would have run in 2012, the outcome may well have been different, but that's water under the bridge - he chose not too. I know that he would have been stronger in the debates than Romney was.
The Club for Growth needs more flexibility and the GOP needs to move into the 21st century. It doesn't matter if the chairman of the RNC is Steele or Preibus - neither one of them get it and am not sure if they ever will. That's why I like to separate the people/candidates from the party and steer clear of Karl Rove.
Posted by: KDS on March 28, 2013 01:05 PM