View Full Version : Is the GOP throwing this election?

02-21-2012, 11:53 AM
Some thought this was true in '08, when McCain was seen as a weak and uninspiring candidate for them (and some thought it was on purpose).

Just as they mention below, had the GOP taken a third term in a row after the two W terms, THEY are the ones who would have been dealing with the poor economy, the high unemployment, and etc.

And it's still an interesting point going forward. These problems are lingering, and the next term, whoever holds it, will be economically mediocre at best.

I hadn't heard the RNC told their better candidates to stay out, as is claimed here, but other than that, this is all quite plausible.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Is The GOP Intentionally Tanking The 2012 Election For 2016 And Beyond?
by Annabel Lee

In chess, players think moves ahead from where they are at now. They know when to sacrifice their pawns in order to free the queen or bishop. They know their opponents next moves in advance, sealing a victory down the road. The world of politics is a lot like chess, where parties attempt to set up victory years in advance. The Republican party appears poised to sacrifice a pawn today to win a bigger prize later.

Back in 2011, Republican candidates declared themselves in the race for the White House. The base wondered why the most popular candidates were not running for office this cycle, when it seemed an easy victory against an unpopular incumbent. Rather than the high-profile candidates, the Republicans got a grab-bag of disappointment and mediocrity. The most notable player being Mitt Romney, the polarizing candidate who failed to stay in the contest until Super Tuesday in 2008.

Why did the other Republicans not jump into the weak field of candidates and run? The RNC told them not to run. The RNC told the top-tier of candidates not to run in this cycle for one reason – it was not the best move for the party. The candidates listened, remaining out of the contest for 2012.

The RNC move happened for two reasons. The first reason is Mitt Romney. Many believed he was the heir apparent to the Republican throne. The party knew he would continue to run and be a thorn in their side until a major defeat. The second reason is economics. The economy is in shambles, but slowly improving according to the government. Taking responsibility for the problem now would hinder the chances if unemployment persists until 2015 or 2016. That would give the Democrats an opening to take the White House back after four years.


How is the GOP ensuring a President Obama reelection in the fall? In addition to the weak candidates in the field, the positions held are extreme, even within the GOP. The base does not agree with most of the talk coming from Romney, Gingrich or Santorum. The talk has moved to the right by a large amount. Taking the extreme positions alienates the center of the nation. Independents will return to Obama, begrudgingly. The appeal to the center begins again, for the benefit of the 2016 class of candidates.

The positions held today are extreme by design. The GOP is actively trying the turn off voters by being extreme. It is why the GOP has pushed against the poor, unions, Hispanics, African-Americans, the unemployed, the elderly. With so many potential voters left in the cold, the GOP’s poised to rebrand under Obama’s second term. Their top candidates are ready, waiting to unite the base and the middle. A surge of support will sweep the GOP into office in 2016, with the groundwork laid for 2020 and 2024.

The RNC is laughing that their plan is working. Only, they forgot to tell the candidates running in 2012 that their moment in the sun is just a pawn sacrificed before checkmate.

</div></div> From Doubledip politics: (http://doubledippolitics.com/2012/02/09/is-the-gop-intentionally-tanking-the-2012-election-for-2016-and-beyond/)

This is somewhat seconded by Joan Walsh from Salon, who's written and stated on cable that she thinks Rush is a secret Democrat, because he advised the party to go into the weeds of the culture war issues as a winning tactic.

Secret Democrat, probably not. Taking strategic orders from on high (K. Rove?) to deliberately sabotage this cycle, in order to ramp up their looming crop of young attractive candidates next time? Maybe. Rush has already admitted that he 'carried water for the GOP' that they didn't deserve to get carried, so we know he does say things he doesn't believe, for a given partisan purpose.

02-21-2012, 12:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some thought this was true in '08, when McCain was seen as a weak and uninspiring candidate for them (and some thought it was on purpose).
</div></div>Interesting idea, I had not thought about it. I thought McCain was terrible and thought Palin made it worse so my thoughts were that the Rep party was in trouble because they were the best to offer. Now I see 4 years later we don't have anything better to look forward to. Maybe they are just throwing in the towel while the economy sucks.

If that is their strategy and the economy turns around in spite of the Dems then the Dems will get the credit for doing it and the Reps will have nothing to say about it.

I hate these games though. Why on earth is it so tough for politicians to go in and do the job they are tasked with TODAY, and quit posturing for tomorrow.


02-21-2012, 01:12 PM
I heard it a fair amount last election cycle (which doesn't make it true, of course).

I'd like to ask the author if the claim of the RNC telling candidates not to run is based in fact, or rather a conjecture.

02-25-2012, 09:55 AM
I'm not sure if it would be purposeful throwing, or simply a staggering lack of viable candidates.

Of the very few Republicans I'd feel almost halfway comfortable voting for, none of them have even hinted at running over the course of this cycle.

If your smart enough to be president, you're smart enough to know you don't want to be president right now /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif


02-26-2012, 12:08 PM
I found some other commentary to the effect that it was not the RNC that kept out more seasoned reasonable candidates, but really, the Tea Party.

That I find more realistic a suggestion, as the Tea Party has rejected formerly considered very conservative Republicans as RINOs.

02-27-2012, 04:55 AM
Nah,....the SAD fact is they are <u>trying to win at all costs</u> and are failing miserably. They have nothing to offer.

What happened to shared sacrifice?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“I’m willing to compromise. I’m willing to do what it takes to solve this problem, even if it’s not politically popular,” Obama said in his weekly radio address.

“And I expect leaders in Congress to show that same willingness to compromise,” he added.

“Simply put, it will take a balanced approach, shared sacrifice, and a willingness to make unpopular choices on all our parts.”

On Friday he said he had given top lawmakers 24 to 36 hours to talk to their rank and file and return to him with a viable plan. That time window essentially ends mid-day Saturday.

The US government reached its debt limit of $14.29 trillion in May, and since then the Treasury Department has used special measures to allow the government to keep paying its bills.

But unless the limit is raised by August 2, the Treasury says, growing spending and debt service commitments will force a default.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>On Friday, Obama renewed his call for a “grand bargain” which would cut domestic entitlement programs dear to Democrats.

“And it means taking on the tax code, and cutting out certain tax breaks and deductions for the wealthiest Americans,” said Obama, <u>although Republicans have flatly rejected his call for higher taxes on the rich.</u></span> </div></div>

Every single time time, the GOP have refused to bargain when it comes to taxing the rich a very small % more. They ARE the party of the 0.01%.



02-27-2012, 09:36 AM
The GOP isn't called the Stupid Party for nothing. You totally overestimate their ability to plan anything close to what you are suggesting. The GOP is the home of wimps and sissies with a few exceptions. The only thing worse are the Democrats, home of thugs and cheats and liars and narcissists. Politics in general do not attract quality people and that is sufficient reason to put strict limits on their power as the Constitution intended.

02-27-2012, 11:42 AM
I agree with you at the candidate level. These guys couldn't come up with such a plan, or execute it, particularly, not at the rank and file, or even candidate level.

But you have these gray eminences sitting behind the scenes, pulling strings. Maybe Karl Rove is one, maybe the Koch Bros. with Dick Armey. It's no coincidence that all the GOP governors who swept in after the '10 election all went for an identical set of new policies in their state, all courtesy of the ALEC group, a model law producing think tank. Not these governors themselves, but the force behind getting them in.

They might easily see that the defunding of the unions by changing laws, unions being their biggest independent political opposition, could take more than one election cycle to really make a dent in their financial and manpower capabilities, particularly with the strong pushback we and they have seen since beginning these efforts.

A question for you! Since the Constitutional Convention did consider term limits and reject them, and as they therefore are not in the Constitution, do you favor imposing them with a Constitutional amendment, contrary to the Founders' frame?

02-27-2012, 02:03 PM
Central planning is as equally unworkable and counterproductive when done by Democrats as by Republicans. It is the 'Fatal Conceit' of Hayek's final book, to think it is within any human's ability to plan for a greater society on more than the bare essentials and even there it is inefficient and done only as a necessity.

The reason these new governors are acting in unison is that the problems are conspicuously identical in all the highly unionized states...there pensions and other benefits are driving them into bankruptcy and must be rapidly adjusted. That solution is something that isn't open to Democrats because they are funded (bought off) by those unions but I bet many would agree in private.

I don't think amending a document that is given little more than lip service will accomplish very much. It is the power in DC that must be dramatically downsized to get America back to greatness again. It is simply playing whack-a-mole with these attempts to control that power as people have been trying to do for a very long time but only making it worse.

02-28-2012, 05:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Writing on his Facebook page last week, West charged that Obama's energy policy was "insidious political gimmickry."

"Here is the bottom line, last night it took 70 dollars to fill the tank of my 2008 H3 Hummer, what is it costing you?" he asked.

Politico noted that the 8-cylinder 2008 H3 Hummer only gets an average of 15.5 miles per gallon.

On Sunday, ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked Will if the eventual Republican presidential nominee could overcome conservative overreach on social issues like the proposed Virginia bill that would have forced women seeking abortions to have invasive ultrasounds.

"Right now they think they're going to float in on high gas prices," Will explained. "It's just preposterous."

"It is preposterous," former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) agreed. "Blaming the president for high gas prices is like blaming [former New York City Mayor] Rudy Giuliani for 9/11. It's totally ridiculous."

"Allen West from south Florida, a Republican, said he was outraged this week because it cost him $70 to fill his car," Will pointed out. "He drives a Hummer.<span style='font-size: 14pt'><u> Newt Gingrich said the American people have a right to demand $2.50 gas</u>. They have a right to demand to lobsters grow on trees. I mean, this is economic nonsense.</span>" </div></div>

Now newt wants subsidised gas! Geez, what ever happened to that 'the market knows best' thingy?


02-28-2012, 10:04 AM
The opportunity to have a two-tier pricing regime for oil, one international and one domestic, was ended by the deregulation first put in place by Jimmy Carter, then accelerated about a year by Reagan when he came in. The sainted market, doncha know?