Romney’s Road: Blast Obama’s Failures and Policy...

[Slowplay]

I'm not inclined to elaborate. I think we all know what a right wing wacko or a wild eyed liberal is. If not, search Wikipedia. Are Originalists wackos? No. Not close. Are anarchists? Yes, in my view.

You're right - you didn't really elaborate. Romney going after the anarchist vote (what you identify as a "right wing wacko") makes no sense. The anarchist-voting-block would seem to be a non sequitur or oxymora.

An election may be a referendum, but ideally it is an opportunity for the nation to select the best possible leader available at that point in time. Elections held during 'referendum years' sometimes result unintended consequences. Richard Nixon, a fine conservative, is a case in point in which the nation held a referendum on Lyndon Johnson and the Viet Nam war, and generally lost.

You are saying Nixon was a fine conservative tongue-in-cheek, right? Also, the '68 election wasn't so much a referendum on LBJ, as he dropped out and his VP didn't even go head-to-head against Nixon - remember Wallace (he won several States)?

You may be wondering how someone who values his 2A rights could not be an extreme conservative? Simply put, nothing is that black and white. If you think so, put on your stereoscopes so you can see things in more depth. The nation is composed of voters on a very broad political spectrum but most would likely describe themselves as non-extreme, placing themselves in the broad expanse of moderatedom. Some groups are more vocal than others, but noise does not always translate into votes at the box. Whoever the Republicans nominate, including the VP pick, is going to need to grab and inspire the moderate vote or they are doomed to second place.

No, I'm not really wondering, since you continue to use liberal/progressive lexicon..."right wing wacko," "extreme conservative." You throw out the "moderate" term a bunch, but a great number of dems keep repeating that Obama is more of a moderate and not liberal enough - interesting, huh?

It's a typical strategy for dems (and others, to be fair) to want to blur differences with opponents, except for "wedge" issues. They want to pound the "extreme" positions of their opponents on those wedge issues (whether true or not) into minds of "moderates" / independents / swing voters to scare them, if you will, into voting for the dem that's pretty much like their opponent, except for those "extreme" positions on the wedge issues.

[gdanaher]

You are saying Nixon was a fine conservative tongue-in-cheek, right? Also, the '68 election wasn't so much a referendum on LBJ, as he dropped out and his VP didn't even go head-to-head against Nixon - remember Wallace (he won several States)?

Wrong. You perhaps weren't old enough to remember back then, but the 1968 election was very much about Johnson and the war. His health wasn't good and the handwriting was on the wall. He would have been beat to death. He chose to let someone else take the beating. In the beginning, Nixon wasn't all that bad. He did some good things--in regard to the war and regard to trying to deal with PRC. He took a lot of heat from members of his own party for it as well. The problem though was that down inside he felt inadequate. His run for California governor was doomed from the start and he was wacked hard by Pat Brown who folks out there had loved for years. In the end, his personality quirks encouraged the Watergate incident, and his inability to confess that error in judgement eventually resulted in his resignation in anticipation of his impeachment. The evidence was there and public. He most certainly would have been convicted.

[gdanaher]

In regards to Nikky Haley,

we assumed from her talk that we were electing a tiger

what we got turned out to be a real pussy-cat.

I believe I saw a news piece in which she said she would not accept the VP position--that she had signed on to work for the people of her state, that it was a promise, and she was going to fulfill that promise.

[Slowplay]

You are saying Nixon was a fine conservative tongue-in-cheek, right? Also, the '68 election wasn't so much a referendum on LBJ, as he dropped out and his VP didn't even go head-to-head against Nixon - remember Wallace (he won several States)?

Wrong. You perhaps weren't old enough to remember back then, but the 1968 election was very much about Johnson and the war. His health wasn't good and the handwriting was on the wall. He would have been beat to death. He chose to let someone else take the beating. In the beginning, Nixon wasn't all that bad. He did some good things--in regard to the war and regard to trying to deal with PRC. He took a lot of heat from members of his own party for it as well. The problem though was that down inside he felt inadequate. His run for California governor was doomed from the start and he was wacked hard by Pat Brown who folks out there had loved for years. In the end, his personality quirks encouraged the Watergate incident, and his inability to confess that error in judgement eventually resulted in his resignation in anticipation of his impeachment. The evidence was there and public. He most certainly would have been convicted.

Well, we'll have to disagree. The election was certainly about what direction the country was heading, but I don't agree in calling it simply a "referendum on Lyndon Johnson and Viet Nam war" since that's quite an over-simplification and LBJ was not on the ballot. Many things were in play during that election cycle.

Also, I don't choose to conflate republican and conservative - and don't care to engage in further OT banter on the history of politics (besides, maybe one or both of us might not have been born yet and wouldn't have credibility to opine ).

[stroo]

gdanher: From your list, eliminate all males, and all females with less than 2 years experience at elected office. Then eliminate all those who have already said publicly that they have no interest in running. It's a short list.

Other than Christie, all of those people have more than 2 years of elective office. And Christie was a US Attorney for a number of years. So the list remains long.