Haha. Yea, I would vote for her-though not in a republican primary. If it came down to her or Obama, I know where I stand. I do not want 4 more years of his hope and change. Personally, I just don’t think she has the experience and if she decides to run, I hope other voters see that too…She’s hot?
Okay…I would vote for her, but she’s not my first choice. Then again, I don’t really have a first choice yet.
nationalreview.com/articles/275146/she-will-run-robert-costa#
), the veracity of that polling will be put to the test.I disagree that the Tea Party is in firm control of who the eventual Republican presidential nominee will be. The Tea Party may spit in the soup, so to speak, and ruin the campaign of some potential candidates they don’t like, but they won’t be able to dictate the candidate. As the campaign year moves on and it becomes obvious that some favorites of the Tea Party cannot win the election, you will begin to see those candidates seeking to influence the Republican Party by moderating their views, at least publicly, and offering support to a candidate who can offer an effective campaign against the Democrat nominee.nationalreview.com/articles/275146/she-will-run-robert-costa#
The National Review is also reporting that Tea Party political organizer Peter singleton is predicting that Palin will jump in to the race sometime in Sept. I really didn’t think she was going to get in the race, but she’s so very difficult to predict.
Like Paul, she has a core base of supporters that are, to say the least, fanatical about her candidacy. I don’t mean “fanatical” in any sort of pejorative way. I hope it doesn’t offend anyone. However, there is a large body of polling out there that suggests that most or many Republicans don’t want her to run and would not support her. If she jumps in, and today, I think she will (I may change my mind tomorrow
I’ll tell you, this Republican nominating cycle is interesting to say the least. I would think that at this late date the field should be shrinking but it’s set to grow instead. I think it’s a very harsh criticism of Romney’s candidacy. This guy has plenty of dough. He’s a strong campaigner and has a record that could potentially make him palatable to independents and even some Democrats. But, he just can’t seem to close the deal. I think it speaks to the tremendous power that the Tea Party wields in this process. They are in firm control of who the eventual nominee will be.
She’s more of a cheerleader than a presidential presence. I like everything she stands for, but she can’t beat Obama.
From an organizational standpoint there is no national teaparty.
Which is strategic on their part, because it allows them to be a moving target. Criticize something a Tea Partier or group of Tea Partiers does wrong and they can just say 'that’s not us though; we’re the real Tea partiers over here. That certainly doesn’t mean though that as a movement it cannot influence elections in a consistent way.
Their is nothing strategic about it. There is no national Tea Party , it has no central leadership& no party platform. It is nothing
Well, certainly, reasonable people can disagree. I guess we’ll see who’s more correct as the contest unfolds. I firmly believe that the Tea Party faction will dominate the process. While some may be technically correct about the Tea Party not being a national organization, it certainly has national influence. Their structure is more akin to a cell structure which is very effective. It makes them diffuse and difficult to attack since they have no “head” per se. Tsuwano, you are welcome to disagree, but I believe that no Republican can possibly win the nomination, in this cycle, without strong support from the Tea Party factions. I agree with you that they, meaning Tea party adherents, will seek a candidate that they believe is electable. However, I don’t know that what they perceive to be “electable” is the same as, lets says, the more establishment Republicans might think is “electable” or the average “Independent” voter might think is “electable”.
For big government conservative elites, Romney or Perry seem to fit the bill perfectly.
Is fair to say that Establishment Republicans could sbstitute for Conservative elite?
If what you are saying is true why have they not coalesced around either candidate? There’s evidence that both big money donors and large numbers of undecided rank and file Republican voters remain on the sidelines. Witness, the daily calls for, speculation about and outright cojoling of undeclared and more than reluctant candidates such as Christie, Ryan, and to some extent Palin. You may very well be right that Romney and to a lesser extent Perry are good fits for the Republican establishment, but the bandwagon still appears to be idling. Now, we hear rumblings that Pataki may jump in to the race. I’d be shocked if Pataki makes any sort of serious move to the front of the pack, but I suppose it’s no less possible than Paul making a move up the ladder. My question is what is preventing the Republican establishment from exerting their will over the process? why can’t they decide on a champion and impose him/her on the rest of the field? I have a theory but I’d like to hear yours instead.
The two terms are synonymous.
Ron Paul is a threat to the monied lobbying interests of the political apparatus because he cannot be bribed or cajoled into voting or acting against his conscience. His voting record, published books, and public positions are very clear on it.
I don’t think he is much of a threat to anyone. But he is doing better this year than in 2008.
I agree, but I wanted to make sure that Gilliam felt the same way to avoid getting sidetracked by a ticky-tacky debate over precise meanings of terms.
Not sure why my opinion matters on this. But I would say the two tems are pretty equivalent since the elite have been runing this country since Jackson.
Your opinion is always important to me Gilliam. I only asked because up to now we have been mainly using Establishment Republicans versus Tea Party or sometimes Libertarian factions. You used a term that is regularly used on the Politico website. I take them to mean the same group but often on these boards, people get off on diving in to debates about the precise meaning of certain terms and the Mods have what is for me a mysterious approach to deciding what is an epithet and what is accepted terminology. I want to avoid both. Although, it occurs to me that some of my Libertarian friends may very well take offense to me lumping them in to the Republican Party. I apologize. It’s just that, at least on these boards, I don’t see any self-described Libertarians interested in any candidates outside the current field vying for the Republican nomination for President.
Here is what the Republican field looks like if you look at the field in these terms (caveat, the chart was done by a Democrat, but one I respect.)
Well, maybe since Grant… One could argue Lincoln was not part of the political elite (he was called a baboon by many of the elite) but he really was an Illinois Republican insider, not someone from outside.
