GOP establishment has chosen their candidates...

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Pabster
You're wrong (as usual...) Senseamp. There's a real rift now between 2 distinct factions of the base. The fiscal conservatives, and the religious right. It's hardly a united party, as much as you and your ilk would try and paint it so.

its still probably a bit more unified than the democrats

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Listen to the right wing blowhards Rush, Hannity et al and note the regurgitated talking points.

They claim not to take sides but it's clear by the bashing of Huckabee, McCain and Ron Paul who the "establishment elite" want, Guliani, Romney or Thompson.

They've also made a living for the last 6 months bashing Hillary now the bashing of Obama has begun. The right wing consirasy is still in play.

First, I don't think they are part of the Repub establishment. The Repub establishment controls the RNC purse strings and commands state organizations. It's not the "talking heads".

Secondly, McCain & Huckabee have records and/or hold positions unpopular with many republicans. McCain's campaign finance and illegal immigration work is highly unpopular. Huckabee's tax record and illgeal immigration stance is too.

Guliani? He's got probs with stance on some issues too (gun, gay, abortion and wife/family issues). I don't see any such backing for him.

Romney's an outsider currently blowing his own dough.

Thompson they might like if he was a more vigorous candidate.

Thirdly, I'm pretty sure that they haven't "chosen" anyone yet. I think there's some added confusion/caution at the moment because they're starting to think they need a candidate to run against Obama, instead of HRC.

Finally, contrary to your conclusion recent reports by inside sources indicate the so-called establishment is looking at Mccain & Huckabee. So at this point (which is still premature IMO) looks like one of those two will get that support.

Fern

Because all the blowhards are spouting the same story I know it's RNC talking points.

Precisley, they are "blowhards". While they may some ability to influence the party establishment (vis-a-vis their audience), they are not the party establishment. They are just talking heads who can influence the debate. That's all

As for McCain, why were the establishment putting him down in 2000, before campain finance and immigration?

He was a maverick back then, i.e., didn't go along with the otehr Repubs. Plus, and this is pretty big, he badly dissed the religiou right/social conservative chunk of the party back then in 2000. Attempting to alienate a large constiuency of the Repub party sure as h3ll doesn't go over well with teh party establishment.

Remember the only people not being trashed are Romney, Guliani and Thompson. They have many conservative shortcomings but the blowhards make excuses for them while trashing the others.

IMO:

If Thompson could campaign worth a damn he'd the choice of the party establishment. I just don't see where there are policies differences between and the establishment, none whatsoever I can think of.

Guliani has a store of goodwill built up from 9-11. He also talks very tough on terrorism and national defense. That's a very powerful attraction for them. If the party establishment moves to endorse Rudy before the primaries are over, I'll take that as a sign that there are very social conservatives amongst them. I.e., they are composed of fiscal conservatives.

Romney, what's to criticize? He was a fairly liberal repub gov of a strongly Dem state who has since moved so far to the right he almost stands alone. IMO, the Repub question about him is would the social conservatives/RR accept him. Possibly another indication that the SC/RR do not have much control in the party establishment.


They haven't chosen one yet but I can tell the ones they want gone.

Does anybody really need to address why the establishment doesn't like Ron Paul, also known as "Dr. No" by the Repubs in DC?

McCain has been covered already. Although I suspect they may eventually support him if only in a "controlled failure" situation. As has been pointed out elsewhere a McCain candidacy may help prevent a large loss of seats in Congress. And if McCain is supported this cycle and loses, he's finished if only because of his age. They won't have to support him again.

To me, Huck is the most interesting when considering this issue. In the past it has seemed to me that the fiscal conservatives were "in charge" and pulled in the support of the social conservatives/RR with various promises (anti-abortion SCOTUS nominations etc).

This time, with Huck it would be the opposite - Social conservatives/RR in charge and pulling in support from the fiscal conservatives with promises.

Fern

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Vic
Well yeah, but see my post above. They're shooting themselves in the foot for the short-term gain of getting Hillary out of the race.

You're wrong on this one, Vic, at least in my case.

Hillary being tossed out of the race will be a victory for the American people. And I'll take the hits that may accompany that, including some other Democrat being President.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Listen to the right wing blowhards Rush, Hannity et al and note the regurgitated talking points.

They claim not to take sides but it's clear by the bashing of Huckabee, McCain and Ron Paul who the "establishment elite" want, Guliani, Romney or Thompson.

They've also made a living for the last 6 months bashing Hillary now the bashing of Obama has begun. The right wing consirasy is still in play.

First, I don't think they are part of the Repub establishment. The Repub establishment controls the RNC purse strings and commands state organizations. It's not the "talking heads".

Secondly, McCain & Huckabee have records and/or hold positions unpopular with many republicans. McCain's campaign finance and illegal immigration work is highly unpopular. Huckabee's tax record and illgeal immigration stance is too.

Guliani? He's got probs with stance on some issues too (gun, gay, abortion and wife/family issues). I don't see any such backing for him.

Romney's an outsider currently blowing his own dough.

Thompson they might like if he was a more vigorous candidate.

Thirdly, I'm pretty sure that they haven't "chosen" anyone yet. I think there's some added confusion/caution at the moment because they're starting to think they need a candidate to run against Obama, instead of HRC.

Finally, contrary to your conclusion recent reports by inside sources indicate the so-called establishment is looking at Mccain & Huckabee. So at this point (which is still premature IMO) looks like one of those two will get that support.

Fern

Because all the blowhards are spouting the same story I know it's RNC talking points.

Precisley, they are "blowhards". While they may some ability to influence the party establishment (vis-a-vis their audience), they are not the party establishment. They are just talking heads who can influence the debate. That's all

As for McCain, why were the establishment putting him down in 2000, before campain finance and immigration?

He was a maverick back then, i.e., didn't go along with the otehr Repubs. Plus, and this is pretty big, he badly dissed the religiou right/social conservative chunk of the party back then in 2000. Attempting to alienate a large constiuency of the Repub party sure as h3ll doesn't go over well with teh party establishment.

Remember the only people not being trashed are Romney, Guliani and Thompson. They have many conservative shortcomings but the blowhards make excuses for them while trashing the others.

IMO:

If Thompson could campaign worth a damn he'd the choice of the party establishment. I just don't see where there are policies differences between and the establishment, none whatsoever I can think of.

Guliani has a store of goodwill built up from 9-11. He also talks very tough on terrorism and national defense. That's a very powerful attraction for them. If the party establishment moves to endorse Rudy before the primaries are over, I'll take that as a sign that there are very social conservatives amongst them. I.e., they are composed of fiscal conservatives.

Romney, what's to criticize? He was a fairly liberal repub gov of a strongly Dem state who has since moved so far to the right he almost stands alone. IMO, the Repub question about him is would the social conservatives/RR accept him. Possibly another indication that the SC/RR do not have much control in the party establishment.


They haven't chosen one yet but I can tell the ones they want gone.

Does anybody really need to address why the establishment doesn't like Ron Paul, also known as "Dr. No" by the Repubs in DC?

McCain has been covered already. Although I suspect they may eventually support him if only in a "controlled failure" situation. As has been pointed out elsewhere a McCain candidacy may help prevent a large loss of seats in Congress. And if McCain is supported this cycle and loses, he's finished if only because of his age. They won't have to support him again.

To me, Huck is the most interesting when considering this issue. In the past it has seemed to me that the fiscal conservatives were "in charge" and pulled in the support of the social conservatives/RR with various promises (anti-abortion SCOTUS nominations etc).

This time, with Huck it would be the opposite - Social conservatives/RR in charge and pulling in support from the fiscal conservatives with promises.

Fern

Well Huck did say he wanted the Reagan Democrats. Those dems were social conservatives and liberal on fiscal matters. But really there hasnt been a fiscally conservative GOP president, in almost ever.... Now the GOP congress of the early and mid '90s pushed fiscal conservatism with more than just words. Everyone before and after its just been words.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Pabster
You're wrong (as usual...) Senseamp. There's a real rift now between 2 distinct factions of the base. The fiscal conservatives, and the religious right. It's hardly a united party, as much as you and your ilk would try and paint it so.

its still probably a bit more unified than the democrats

Thats actually quite true. What you cannot tell from the Dem primaries but from Congress, is there is a HUGE rift between liberal democrats and moderate democrats. It basically stems from the left wing of the democrat party not getting its way after the Dems got a majority.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Vic
Well yeah, but see my post above. They're shooting themselves in the foot for the short-term gain of getting Hillary out of the race.

You're wrong on this one, Vic, at least in my case.

Hillary being tossed out of the race will be a victory for the American people. And I'll take the hits that may accompany that, including some other Democrat being President.

Yep, *.* > Clinton/Giuliani. I'd take Eisenhower's rotting corpse over any of the current candidates, actually.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Pabster
You're wrong (as usual...) Senseamp. There's a real rift now between 2 distinct factions of the base. The fiscal conservatives, and the religious right. It's hardly a united party, as much as you and your ilk would try and paint it so.

Fiscal conservatives in the GOP. Bwahahahahaaha. Good one.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster
You're wrong (as usual...) Senseamp. There's a real rift now between 2 distinct factions of the base. The fiscal conservatives, and the religious right. It's hardly a united party, as much as you and your ilk would try and paint it so.

Fiscal conservatives in the GOP. Bwahahahahaaha. Good one.

I agree. With one paul, errr, I mean small, exception.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Fiscal conservatives in the GOP. Bwahahahahaaha. Good one.

Is hell freezing over? I find myself agreeing with Senseamp.

 

[HomerJS]

For anybody who still doesn't think Fox News and Sean Hannity are on the RNC payroll and getting daily talking points, why were they trying so hard to get rid of Ron paul during the debate and in the post debate coverage??

I thought fair and balanced Fox News were supposed to treat all the candidates equally?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Vic
Well yeah, but see my post above. They're shooting themselves in the foot for the short-term gain of getting Hillary out of the race.

You're wrong on this one, Vic, at least in my case.

Hillary being tossed out of the race will be a victory for the American people. And I'll take the hits that may accompany that, including some other Democrat being President.

Diebold may make sure Hillary gets the nomination.

 

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Vic
Well yeah, but see my post above. They're shooting themselves in the foot for the short-term gain of getting Hillary out of the race.

You're wrong on this one, Vic, at least in my case.

Hillary being tossed out of the race will be a victory for the American people. And I'll take the hits that may accompany that, including some other Democrat being President.

Diebold may make sure Hillary gets the nomination.

Kucinich is calling for a recount in NH for the Dems. Should be interesting.

 

[morkinva]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
For anybody who still doesn't think Fox News and Sean Hannity are on the RNC payroll and getting daily talking points, why were they trying so hard to get rid of Ron paul during the debate and in the post debate coverage??

I thought fair and balanced Fox News were supposed to treat all the candidates equally?

Here's fux censoring you know who out of an AP article Also, in their replay of the last debate, fux censored you know who's electability response out of the broadcast. It was very powerful and made the RINO's and the moderators look foolish.

I believe there was a fux memo to make sure to get a Republican candidate elected that will eventually LOSE in the general election; that is, any other candidate besides he who shall not be named will LOSE to the Democratic nominee because of the war issue. This is why they are so openly hostile and condescending to him: he's the only Rep who speaks out against the war.

I believe Hillary is their choice, and their job is to steer the Republican nominee as best they can into the rocks. Fux is not on the RNC payroll, they're on murdoch's payroll. He even hosts fundraisers for her.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Diebold may make sure Hillary gets the nomination.

What, is Ohio the make or break state again? :laugh: