I’d reiterate to the right that we’re shooting ourselves in the foot every time we field a candidate designed to appeal to the fringe in the middle that often votes for the left. If a voter leans left, know what they REALLY want? ANSWER: The guy the left nominated.
There is a low enough voter turnout overall that either side could win a landslide IF they could turn out most of their natural base. We’ve avoided fielding a hardcore conservative for 2 cycles because we don’t want to offend the left. The result has been to alienate the base. They stayed home. Game/set/match.
Does the left field people aimed to appease the right? NO. As a result, the right’s lost two elections in a row. The left’s candidate isn’t making even a modest effort to appease us, they’re just trying to turn out their base.
I say offend the living hell outta the left. Nominate a fire-breathing / hardcore / take-no-prisoners rightwing candidate that eats lefties for breakfast then picks his teeth with their bones before napping contentedly on their vanquished carcass.
Think R Lee Ermey in a suit. In a bad mood. Those of you that haven’t ever stood on yellow footprints can cover your eyes for the rest of this line… but I would like to see a candidate that uses the word “skull-fuck” in proper context in the course of a presidential debate.
Screw timidity. The meek will inherit the earth when the bold are done with it. Grow a pair ladies, it’s time to take the gloves off.
3 thoughts on “Note to RW: The meek will inherit the earth, but do you REALLY wanna wait that long?”
I’m fully aware of the international trend these days to adopt the “one size fits all” approach to just about everything. In politics, this leads to an effort on the part of the candidate to please as many people as possible to secure the election. As Mr. Murphy would no doubt be pleased to learn, this often backfires.
Our last exercise in futility was a perfect example. Between Romney and Obama, it was basically a choice between the lesser of two evils. Many of us abhorred the Marxist-in-Chief and wished to send him packing. But look at our other “choice.” Heavens to Elizabeth! Romney, at one time or another, had embraced nearly every stance held by the Anointed One, from gun control and abortion to the role of the federal government. And I’m supposed to hold my nose and vote for such a creature simply because he has an “R” beside his name?
Here’s a thought GOP. How about putting a clear choice out there. Give me a candidate that favors a small government.That embraces the Constitution and conducts his administration in that fashion. Give us a person who will get government out of the way and let the people loose to better themselves, free of interference, so long as they harm no other. Give me a person who will get our economic house in order, instead of redistributing income to buy votes and spending us into oblivion. I’ll vote for that candidate in a New York minute, said candidate’s race and/or gender not even being a factor in my mind. I have a strong feeling that I would have much company.
Good points. Basically the right needs to field a rockhard candidate for once, and THIS time build a coalition. For God’s sake the Dems have gays and muslims on the same team even though Muslim countries HANG gays.
We on the other hand can’t stop Baptists and Methodists from murdering each other at the lunch table over whether the milk on Oreos should be sprinkled or dunked.
It wouldn’t hurt if the GOP had a few actual solutions to our country’s problems as part of their platform. The “hey at least we’re not Obama/Liberal” strategy didn’t work out so well in the last election.