Candidates have to be able to deliver the goods and if they can’t attract volunteers and workers, and if they can’t seal the deal with the local party for help, both $$ and organizational, then IMO they’re not credible.

That the party structure is solely responsible for winning elections.

A candidate can turn out voters as well. The party apparatus is there to help. And that help is finite so they have every right to be somewhat strategic. The buck stops at the candidate. Reagan won the California governorship with little help from the GOP. Gingrich won his district in 78 with the establishment rooting for him to lose. I don’t even need to give the example of Lincoln. Great candidates find a way, don’t give up, and don’t blame others for losses.

Take your loss as a lesson to not let it happen again. And put everything you have into figuring how to win. Stop blaming others.

You have $5 a gallon gas, MINIMUM coming. Add to that all the other financial disaster coming our way. Anyone who runs a half-decent campaign against Obama blows him out of the water. (Figure of speech, big sis, I know you’re watching.)

I know about Newt’s sitting on the couch with Pelousy; that’s not any worse than Coburn calling that communist cow a nice lady. Sorry if that peeves anyone, but it’s the truth. As for his global warming views, I would refer you to many, many ‘conservative’ republicans who helped push us into the current food problems we face by supporting ethanol subsidies. (Kristi Noem, anyone?)

I hate the global warming fraud. And I don’t trust Newt on that issue. But to say that he’d lose to Obama is not entirely accurate, I believe. Gingrich is much smarter than Bamster. He can communicate really well. He has experience, and he knows government processes than anyone else mulling a run in 12. He’s the only high-profile potential candidate I’ve heard talk about abolishing bad courts as a tactic in dealing with the activist left.

As much as I love Palin, she’s shown herself to be too thin-skinned in reacting to the media, she is not yet savvy enough to maneuver a la Reid/Pelosi and she gives the same danged speech everytime: MSM this, ‘drill here drill now’ that. Aside from Palin and Gingrich, who could run? Herman Cain? Real good guy, probably be a good president, but you know as well as I do he’s gonna get beat over the head for having no executive experience. Besides, outside the conservative blogosphere, who knows who Herman Cain is? Allen West, Marco Rubio, etc.? No way. They’d have to start campaigning the day they take office as freshmen. Mike ‘I agree with Michelle Obama’s control of America’s diet’ Huckabee? Mitch Romneycare? Mitch ‘Trucer’ Daniels? I could go on.

There is no candidate that I would get excited about right now, but I will vote for just about anyone but Obama. I have a feeling a lot of people feel that way.

Whether or not Nancy is a drunk is beyond the point. It’s tit for tat. Worthless bickering back and forth between left and right virtues or policy or personalities. Earlgrey, how many problems were solved today by saying Nancy Pelosi looks really bad for her age or implying she does a lot of drinking? What is your point?

I’m not going to defend the democrats and their policies. Thousands of Democrats have been elected over the years. If good government is accomplished by merely electing Democrats then why are we in this mess? But thousands of Republicans have also been elected. Their’s plenty of blame to spread around. And, it’s my opinion that the vast majority of all elected officials are there to personally gain from the position anyway. So how could we possibly get a government that has our best interests at heart?

My point is only that for every Nancy Pelosi there is a Michele Bachmann. Nancy has her agenda and so does Michele. Nancy has been caught in lies and so has Michele. I’m not defending Nancy or vilifying Michele. For every anointed one there is an anointed one. Get it?

He fought an uphill battle that no one would want to fight today. And he won that fight off of pure politcal talent.

The defining moment that led to his triumph was the 1976 convention where everybody chanted Reagan. It is actually a key subject in the study of movements. Everybody thought that they were in the minority by believing that conservatism was the right way forward. It was when that chant occured that everybody realized, “there are more of us than there of them.” (Us being conservatives and them being establishment republicans).

That is also the same thing that was realized in the NYSE when santelli made the comments that sparked the tea party movement. That was also the situation when the Pope visited Poland in 1979. It was also the case during the Iranian protests that will eventually by determined to be the week that was key to the triumph of freedom over tyranny in Iran.

So for future reference if anyone wants to spark a movement a key for it to work is a powerful moment when everybody looks around and says “there are more of us then are of them.” History has shown if that event doesn’t happen your movement is much more likely to fail.

As far as Obama and Reagan it is a story of 1 being a good salesman of a good product and the other being a good salesman of a bad product. There is a grand canyon sized difference.

Reagan was packaged as a hero because he was one–a hard-working, self-made man, a cowboy, the man who won the Cold War. He is idealized, but not idolized, always earthbound and human.

Obama, on the other hand, has been presented as a messianic figure–destined to transform America and bring her a salvation of sorts. This is a man who said, about himself (specifically, his nomination to be the Dem candidate):

“[I]f we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.”

There is no comparison, outside of the asylum, for such ardent, sincere messianic self-proclamation. I predict that on the next two years, he will intone: “Why do the Republicans rage and the tea partiers plot in vain?”

powerto
She would never trample over the will of the people, and then gloat about it.
Bachmann is definitely head and shoulders over the trash we call pelosi.

did you make a wrong left turn when you meant to go right? I know being a moron is a required trait for rightist, but you took a double dose.

To even try to compare that stank arrogant witch Michele with Pelosi shows you really need to stop drinking the kool aid. Pelosi is far from perfect, but on her worst day she stands head and shoulder above the trash we call Michele. Period!

blah-blah-blah, I heard it all before.