Rick Perry, one of just two Republican primary contenders to have served in the military (the other is Senator Lindsey Graham), called for Trump to withdraw from the contest.Hold on. Let's ignore the Trump business for a minute -- after all, he was never going to be the candidate. Is it really true that only Graham and Perry have served? Since neither of those two will be nominated, then it is a certainty that the eventual Republican nominee will be a chickenhawk.
The Dems have gotta go with Webb. He'd clobber Scott Walker or Jeb Bush.
9 comments:
Jim Webb will never be elected as a Democrat.
The reason I say this, is because he advocates for the poor whites in the south. That'll never fly in that party. (I saw this in his video where he said he was thinking of running...)
Look, I admit that I've hurled insults at southerners in the past. I've done so because so many of them have spoken condescendingly to me. They always presume that I must be a drug-using hedonist because I don't share their views on Jesus or sexuality. (And never mind the fact that drug usage and out-of-wedlock parentage is worse in the south than in the north.) I just got sick of being hectored by condescending southerners who arrogantly think that they have the right to talk down to me or to give me lectures on morality.
So I decided to return fire. Since so many of them think that they have a right to insult me, I have the right to insult them. When they stop, I'll stop.
That said: Someone has to break through the brainwashing that rules in the south. Poor whites in that region have been governed solely by the Republican party for decades now. Have their lives improved?
Only Jim Webb has ANY chance of getting that message across. I can't talk to people who live in the south. He can.
did Obama serve? Did Hillary? Did Bubba?
Anon: Did Reagan? Did Dubya?
Despite the results of 2004, I still think that military service is a net plus. In 2004, a decorated veteran from Massachusetts could not attract many southern votes, and could not defeat a Republican in the general election. But in 2016, a war hero from Virginia has a very good shot at accomplishing both goals -- in my opinion.
Of course, I will admit that these things can be hard to judge. In 1972, both McGovern and Nixon were veterans of World War II. McGovern's war record was extraordinary, while Nixon's service -- though honorable -- was rather more modest. Nevertheless, McGovern suffered a spectacular electoral loss.
Winning in the general election means nothing to the Democratic leadership, better to lose than to return to the horrible 1932-1978 years. John Glenn polled well against Reagan and since he could have won, to DLCers, it was better to support Mondale and later Dukakis, knowing that the Democratic party's loss was their gain.
S, I certainly can't agree that winning in the general election means nothing to the Democratic leadership. In fact, i think it means a great deal.
I do think that Glenn would have done better than Mondale, although I liked Mondale. Glenn did poorly in an initial debate and his support fizzled. Well, in truth, I saw that debate and I don't think he did THAT poorly. But the perception was that he blew it.
I cannot see how anyone in the party gained from the failures of Mondale and Dukakis.
"I cannot see how anyone in the party gained from the failures of Mondale and Dukakis."
And you can't see that Reagan was able to win in 1980 because he helped make sure Ford lost in 1976...read Reagan's convention speech, until Obama Back stabbed Kerry/Edward's in his convention speech...it was the record holder for betrayal.
You need to read up on the rise of the DLC and their very intense grip on party politics
Boy, S, you and I have very different memories of those days. It's true that Reagan and Ford represented different wings of the GOP: Ford was part of the "We're all Keynesians now" wing (he even called for price and wage controls during Reagan's presidency) while Reagan was more intent of rolling back the New Deal. But when it counted, Reagan always invoked the 11th commandment.
The DLC came into being precisely to recapture the White House. So the argument that they don't care about winning in the general election is inane. The whole idea is unsupported by any facts or quotations you could cite. At any rate, I've argued in the past (back in 2008) that the DLC is not the all-powerful bogeyman that a lot of progressives seem to believe it to be.
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/04/aieeee-itsthe-dlc.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-p-Nuu8hYQ
Post a Comment