A Republican Do Over?
Here I go again – allowing my MS Word program to get me into trouble. I am a Republican, I am ticked off and I want a Do-Over. I have gotten spoiled over the last 28 years of my party putting together a strong national ticket of competent leaders who are able to win elections. Since I was 18 years old, from Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush, we have only had one sub-par presidential candidate. Heck, that wasn’t even Bob Dole’s fault, Bill Clinton was just Bill Clinton. If Bill were allowed to run today, he would wipe the floor with Obama and McCain with one hand behind his back holding a Krispy Kreme doughnut.
Our nominee has made one tactical blunder after another. The latest being the flip-flop on the debate. This has got to be the worst week ever for Republican presidential politics. In one day, we had a terrible V.P. interview on national television, followed closely by ticking off the most popular late night host on television, who happens to work for the same company in the same building. Did McCain think that Letterman was not going to find out that he was in the same building…taping an interview for the same network? We don’t want our leaders to lie to us but sometimes they do. However, this is a lie of a different sort – either it is sheer arrogance (thinking that people are idiots) or someone who does not have a sense of reality. Either way sets a dangerous precedent for someone who wants to be President of the United States.
I think I am not the only Republican who wants a do over. Is Huckabee or Romney still available or maybe we can lure Colin Powell out of political retirement?
Tonight – the debate is on. I will have my Ginger Ale and Orville Redenbacher popcorn ready…it should be great political theater.
12 Responses to “A Republican Do Over?”
The fact that you actually believe Dubya wasn't/isn't a sub par candidate pretty much explains why you are a Republican. Quit whining about do overs, you've gotten not only exactly what you deserve, but exactly what you wished for.
c'mon, Davebo. The guy served two terms. He has amounted to squat but what does that say about the two guys this subpar candidate defeated? Bush would have only been there for one term if the Dems would have put up anyone better than a subpar candidate of their own.
“The guy served two terms. He has amounted to squat but what does that say about the two guys this subpar candidate defeated?”
There's a big difference between being a good politician and a good president. Bush was great at campaigning. Governing? Not so much.
Elyas,
I wasn't sticking up for Bush the president. Bush was far from a subpar 'candidate'–he has just sucked as a president.
“Bush was far from a subpar 'candidate'”
Just because he won doesn't mean he was a good candidate as you yourself pointed out.
What skill did you find above par on the campaign trail. His outstanding oratory ability? His knowledge of the issues? Or does it all come down to the old “having a beer with” thing for you?
“Or does it all come down to the old “having a beer with” thing for you?”
Please…If that's all I cared about I wouldn't be commenting on this blog, or paying attention, or even asking questions. Bush was a great campaigner. He could raise money better than anyone before him (Obama has him beat now). He had people all over the country mindlessly cheering “4 more years!!” Some may even argue that he won a couple of his debates against Kerry, who was supposed to clean his clock. And his strategy was better, he went after people that Kerry largely ignored, and turned out people in record numbers (i.e. evangelicals).
I'll repeat, he was an excellent candidate–he won–he has just sucked as a president.
So how about you? Does it all come down to “anyone but candidate X” for you?
Yeah, Bush knew how to run a campaign very well. It was the next step that was a doozy.
Two points…
First – I wasn't talking about Bush (43) but for the record – decent campaigner, talented staff (Rove and Hughes), and boring opponents.
Second – I was talking about campaigning, not governing. Most of us agree that there is a big difference between the two skill sets.
Bush won because he had a modern day Machiavelli by his side, Karl Rove. Voters were warned off of voting for Democratic elitists– and picked the regular guy with the truck and cowboy boots. Why were they surprised when his performance failed to live up to the challenges of the times? There have been plenty of reports coming out of the WH that describe W as intellectually incurious. Now, when we face a severe financial crisis do you think he even understands what he's supposed to be leading us out of?
The fact that he got elected twice means nothing. He will go down as one of our worst presidents who made spectacular mistakes during his first term, and failed to make up for them in his second.
If McCain cared about anything beyond his own naked ambition he would not have offered the Vice Presidency to a political neophyte who is not ready for primetime. He would have picked someone who could fill in in areas where he is weak– like the economy. I'm not a big fan of Mitt Romneys – but he would have been a much better pick for the country AND the party.
Shame on you for disparaging your candidate. Your ties to Townhall and WeaklyStandard are done. Don't worry though, Larison and the conservatives at Atlantic are on your side.
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/25/mcca…
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/25/we-g…
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/200…
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/200…
[...] good friend of mine once said that everyone deserves a “do-over,” and i agree with him. someone else wants one too. honestly, i’m almost at the point where i pity the republican party so much that, if i had [...]