Why Can’t the Republicans Nominate a Genuine Right

Why Can’t the Republicans Nominate a Genuine Right Wing Nut?
Conservatives just need to come to grips with the fact that it's always going to be a Mitt Romney-type who leads the ticket.


Conservatives are fired up. Thanks to the Tea Party and Obama’s general left-wing bungling, we’re mad and ready to go for the throat on government spending. So who does Intrade show as having a 70% chance of winning the Republican nomination for president? Mitt “Social Security is just fine” Romney.

The left is always shrieking that the Republicans are going to nominate some right-wing nut for the presidency; if only that were true. The Republican base’s perfect candidate would be someone who emerged from his bomb shelter toting a shotgun with the sole purpose of dismantling government. We want someone who can barely restrain himself from violence when talking to the normal useless, arrogant, tax-and-spend politician. Someone who, when given a bill to raise taxes, wouldn’t only veto it but would also publicly burn it and then hunt down the perpetrators who wrote it.

So who have the we nominated for president in the past? John McCain. George W. Bush with his “compassionate” conservatism — not that mean old conservatism that holds people responsible for their actions. Bob Dole. Exciting, right?

Obviously there is some sort of disconnect between what the conservative base of the Republican party wants and who the party ends up nominating for president. The states that go first in the primary and thus hold the most influence — New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, Florida — seem random, but from the results in past elections one has to conclude they were chosen by some sort of RINO genius to ensure that only a milquetoast right-of-center candidate will win the nomination. Right now the country is a car speeding towards a cliff due to out-of- control spending, and conservatives want a president who will seize the wheel of that car and turn it around. But the Republican we nominate is always someone who only promises to ease up on the gas a little.

The left don’t have this problem. They nominate impractical left-wing nuts for president all the time. In fact, their more centrist candidates like Bill Clinton are the exceptions, not the rule. So why is that? Are the left just more devoted to their cause than we are?

[SamSpade]

We have them. We have good conservative candidates. The problem is they don't want to step into the swamp. They don't want their children humiliated, their wives ridiculed, their slightest indiscretion - however irrelevant to the office - blown out of proportion and as of the last several years - they don't want a barrage of outright lies as they try to fix the country.

So what do you get? Someone who LIVES in the swamp. Someone for whom the muck and dirty dealing is their home.

The thing about dirty, slimy tricks in politics is, it works. And you either get someone up there that is either very good at the dirty tricks, or is clever enough to dodge it. You will NOT get someone who avoids the crap by simply being squeaky clean because the truth doesn't matter - it doesn't matter if you have nothing to hide and no skeletons in the closet, your opponents need only to make people think they are there.

Coulter has this bit in today's column--

"John Brooks, Chicago's former fire commissioner, filed a lawsuit against Daley six months ago claiming Daley threatened to smear him with sexual harassment accusations if Brooks didn't resign. He resigned -- and the sexual harassment allegations were later found to be completely false."

See, you can beat a good person with utter fabrications, because your political connections are better than someone else's.

The reason we have slimy politicians is because the good ones can't survive the battle. Only another snake can beat the snake.