Paging Manichaeus, paging Prophet Manichaeus … please pick up the white courtesy phone …
'Using the GOP Establishment as a launching pad to ensure that Reagan-style conservatives — the base of the Republican Party — are defeated by Establishment, statist Republicans. Republicans who will in turn so anger the GOP base that the base simply refuses to turn out in November. Thus handing President Obama and the statist forces of Big Government a victory they should never have had and in fact would be unable to earn on their own.'
I tend to be something of a centrist, myself — but my view of the center is where it was 40 years ago or so, not where the conservatives have shifted the Overton Window of politics to.
Still, it's interesting how similar the RINO vs DINO and base-withdrawing-support arguments from both sides sound.
I do have to say, it's been a while since I heard the word "statist" thrown around so much.
'You see, the GOP establishment is lying to you. They benefit from being Big Government Party #2. They, and their crony capitalist friends, do not believe in "free markets" as we do in the Tea Party movement. They use the power of big government to pass laws and regulations that benefit their financial contributors. It's an ugly, unpatriotic arrangement that is a detriment to our great nation.
Never have I so agreed with something the Tea Party has said.
'GOP leaders tell us repeatedly that all will be well in the world as long as Republicans control the presidency and both Houses of Congress. Well, guess what? We did that! For a significant portion of the George W. Bush presidency, the GOP held the House and the Senate and they CHOSE TO GROW GOVERNMENT!'
And deficits.
'We must elect more principled, Tea Party candidates like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul. Electing a majority of GOP RINOs will only continue to push our country over the cliff!'
Well, I agree with the latter sentence, at least. Though probably not in the way the writer intended.
Time to pop some popcorn. This election cycle should be interesting.
And that's only half of it.
The Democratic Party presidential race leading up to 2008 was, at the end of the day, a two-person race.
I don't know that it will be limited to two people this time around.
And if Hillary Clinton decides NOT to run, it will be a mad free-for-all with its own ideological issues.
The 2012 GOP race was a two-person race, too. They just kept switching out who was the second person who was the last, best hope to beat Mitt Romney in the primaries …
You're correct, though, about the Dems in 2016 — there are not a lot of big names circulating around out there besides Clinton and some forlorn Elizabeth Warren fans. (Warren's a possibility, if she wants to go for it this time — she'll have had as much experience as Obama had by then — but the Warren-for-President folks at the moment come across a bit like the Ron/Rand Paulists, more fanatical than thoughtful).
And, yeah, based on that, I expect to see a lot more ideological churn in the Dem race than we saw in Clinton-vs-Obama, where Kucinich was really the only guy not reading from the same play book.
I would love to have Warren in the race.
Also in the ring is Brian Schweitzer who I would vote for.
Very tired of Reagan/Rockefeller Republicans running as Democrats.
@bd – I think Warren would be good in the race for the things she’d raise (and the positions she’d make Clinton tack to, at least in the primaries), but I’m not sure she’s yet electable. I’ve heard of Schweitzer, but haven’t had a chance to research him as of yet.
It would be interesting — dangerous, but interesting — to see an unabashed liberal run against a Tea Party type.