" Republicans Forget to Run Presidential Candidate for 2008 "

[saltpoint]

Seems unlikely, but on careful examination, it appears that the Republican Party has forgotten to run a presidential candidate for the 2008 nomination.

Which is not to say that there wll not be Republican names on primary and caucus ballots, only that none of the names represented will be real presidential candidates.

Among many other commonly identified qualifications for the nominee job, electabilty holds primacy.

The Party, embarrassingly enough, has not bothered to field an electable presidential candidate for the 2008 race, rendering their primary and caucus efforts absolutely pointless.

McCain is not electable owing to his parrot-squawking support of Bush's Iraq surge.

Romney is not electable in large swaths of the South where Protestant fundamentalists distrust Mormons. And because he's such a creep.

Giuliani is not electable in large swaths of the South where Protestant fundamentalists distrust Catholics. And because he's such a thug.

Brownback is not electable because he leans so far right he tips over. And because he's psychologically unstable.

Thompson is not electable because he is a philistine yahoo. He's not much of an actor either.

Etc.

Ordinarily the Republicans run a candidate, don't they? It seems I recall them running candidates in previous elections. Perhaps I am mistaken. In any case, they appear to be withdrawing from contention this year in the presidential sweepstakes.

It's puzzlin'.

[HughBeaumont]

1. What's even more amazin than that . . .

. . . are the folks who tell us "You vote third party or stay home rather than hold your nose and vote for Hillary, look forward to eight more years of Republican rule!"

Uh, WHAT?

Among THESE bozos?

I'm sorry, but if a Dem, ANY DEM, loses to any one of the sand-dune-boring, Reagan rehash rum-dums from possibly the WEAKEST GOP field since 1996, then that's just damned SAD.

Save the fact that there's no name recognition to be seen . . . people are starting to wake up to the fact that the country goes to complete dogshit once a Republican (especially a fanatic fundamentalpatient fascist Republican, who ALWAYS has the worst of the bunch emerging on top of their ticket) takes office. And for the past seven years, it's been nothing but a STACK of it. That ALONE should seal the deal for us no matter WHO runs. I don't think any amount of MSM Dem-nigrating is going to work this time out. People have HAD it with the way the country has been ruined by these pricks.

Anyone ever think maybe the problem isn't with the VOTER? "They suck, and . . . but . . . but . . . we suck LESS! Yeah, that's it . . . vote for me!" SIGH. Over and over and over again until America finally gets it right, I guess.

[saltpoint]

4. In the 1976 primary campaign, Carter didn't belabor his audiences in the

media with proposals and specifics. Instead, he assessed his campaign's chances in a given state's primary.

"I think we're going to do very well here in New Hampshire."

Or

"I think we're going to do very well here in Iowa."

And so forth.

Turns out, he did pretty well right down the line.

I think the Democratic Party is in a similar posture for 08. Plenty of hard work to do, certainly, but hard work worth doing.

[madrchsod]

2. that`s what struck me about the republicans too.

the only guy that had a chance would have been chuck hagel. he would have been a tough guy to beat in the general election. i guess he just got fed up with politics

[alfredo]

7. I wonder if he would have gotten any support by his party?

His stand on the war would have put him down near Ron Paul, nearly off the stage.

[madrchsod]

24. not a chance in hell...he`s way to liberal

[alfredo]

They are in a position where they are having to consider electability

over ideology.

[opihimoimoi]

3. No REAL Candidate because the Party is made of Deluded Peeps sucking for a deluded Philosophy

[Lars39]

5. the Repblican candidates are all "busy work", meant to keep us busy

and occupied and distracted.

[sandnsea]

6. Bush wasn't electable

because he was a mediocre boor who destroyed everything he ever touched. Oh wait.

[saltpoint]

8. Well, he wasn't elected either. He cheated a good man. He paid Jim Baker

to call the requisite yahoos throughout Florida to stop the process. The Florida State Supreme Court was overruled by the Republican-dominated SCOTUS, padded with Poppy's cute little rightwing judges.

None of the current crop of Republican candidates is as well-positioned as to be able to cheat his way into the White House. The blood line is cut off.

[sandnsea]

9. Ya think?

You really think they won't help Romney cheat his way in, or whoever they decide to push through. I'd sure like to think they won't.

[saltpoint]

10. Agree that we have to be vigilant, but my hunch is, now that BushCo has

made its money, and Halliburton has the exclusive no-bids in their pocket, the immediate appartus of cheat-to-win can coast.

Jeb might have inherited the earth, but Dubya splattered paint all over the kitchen floor and it ain't comin' off the lineoleum.

Iraq. Katrina. The privatization of Social Security. Neglect of veterans. Unfunded educational mandates. This is a DISASTROUS legacy.

The remaining "candidates" for the Pukes will spend the money and try to rile up the fundies against the gays and so forth -- all the familier GOP theme buttons -- but this time the trendlines are turning a very deep shade of blue.

[orleans]

13. (some people never change) n/t

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

11. Four words:

The Fix Is In.

Whichever figurehead they want out front will be IT. It's all over except for California- with the voting machines decertified they have to figure out a new way to rig things there.

I'm betting Thompson, because all the opiate-of-the-masses addicts already know his face, and that's good enuf for them.

[saltpoint]

16. Your avatar represents the last good Republican. Well, scratch that.

It represents the ONLY good Republican.

[shanti]

65. either that

or there won't BE an election. we shall see...

[Kazak]

12. They love yahoo philistines.

:puke:

[saltpoint]

LOL!

[losthills]

14. Hilary nor Obama are going to be president.

So I don't see anything to gloat about. If we want a Democrat in the Whitehouse then it's time to wake up.

Because I think the Democratic party has already lost this election...

[saltpoint]

17. Well, we disagree. I think the demographics simply are not there this

time for the Pukes.

In a close election for the Ohio 2006 gubernatorial race Kenneth Blackwell might have tweaked the machines and stolen a victory.

But he was overwhelmingly defeated.

I see a similar scenario playing out in 08 nationwide, with considerable pickups at all levels of the ballot, another dozen or so House seats and maybe 4 new blue Senate seats.

There's no national Republican presidential contender with ballot-wide, all-region resonance to win for the Republicans in 08.

[Betty]

15. maybe the repugs know it's going to be impossible

to clean up the clusterfuck that bushie has created and would rather have the whole mess be ultimately blamed on a dem. Unfair as that would be, there is such a short collective attention span in this country that people will forget that this is all bush's fault and will blame whoever comes after him for the horrible mess that will be sure to be hanging over our heads for many years to come.

[frogcycle]

18. who else do they have?

the party has so subjugated itself to the rule of K Street, that all they have are toadies. There is not a person who exhibits a smattering of "leadership quality" and calls him/herself a republican. All the movers and shakers are the PNAC slimes like Kristol, Wolfowitz, etc., who could never get elected dogcatcher. There was a time when they were touting C Rice as a possible - but she's a disaster. Nope. Nobody.

[saltpoint]

22. Agree. And a very solid point on Kindasleazy. The earlier talk about her

was all promising and has since soured.

Maybe Newt Gingrich thinks this is his big moment. I don't see it for ol' Newt. I really don't.

[NanceGreggs]

19. GREAT post, my friend!

And on the money!

In addition, the lack of enthusiasm on the other side is palpable. While perusing some RW websites, I've noticed a lot of bashing of the Democratic nominees (a lot!), but not word one about their own choices.

You don't see the usual fare you would at this point in a lead-up to an election, no "Giuliani is our guy!", or "Thompson will beat anybody they've got!"

Nothing but silence when it comes to discussing their own ...

[saltpoint]

20. Nance! A warm howdy! Thanks for throwing in on this thread, too.

You're a brave soul to be cyber-wandering in enemy territory. It's clear you've got more stamina than I do. I'm sensing that they just don't have a candidate who can maintain Bush's states plus pick up one or two more.

It feels more like their losing at least one, maybe two southern states, and two, maybe three western/southwestern states, plus Ohio.

And we hold everything Kerry/Edwards won plus those pickups in the south and west.

That's good for Democrats at all levels of the ballot.

So good to see you tonight on DU.

[NanceGreggs]

54. And good to see you as well, my friend!

I'm glad you posted this, because it's an interesting topic, and has yet to be discussed here.

We are all familiar (way too familiar) with that legendary GOP Noise Machine. And yet, in the lead-up to a presidential election, the silence is rather deafening.

Even the GOPers on the talk shows don't go on and on (as is their usual course) talking about what a great field they have to choose from, and how so-and-so is wowin' the crowds, etc.

I realize that common sense dictates that the GOP is, for intents and purposes, DOA come '08. I just didn't think they would be obvious about the fact that they, too, have accepted their fate.

They could have distanced themselves from the disasters of BushCo - but that would mean displaying a chink in that infamous 'party loyalty' armour. They could have distanced themselves from this war - but that would mean admitting they've been wrong in supporting it all along.

I think they've simply given up, and are focusing on 2012.

I guess that's what happens when you're caught between Iraq and a hard place.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saltpoint]

23. Poor form, laddie.

[saltpoint]

25. I refer to those two individuals as Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.

And recommend same.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saltpoint]

31. I think some of us kinda like our chances.

[Aristus]

32. What do you want on your tombstone?

Pepperoni?

[NanceGreggs]

67. Okay ...

... you owe me one new keyboard!

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

36. Why do you even bother? Are there no reruns of "Get Smart" on

this evening?

[Aristus]

38. "Get Smart"? The repukes don't know how.

Pity... B-)

[EFerrari]

46. Maybe they should run him! He's apparently willing to take on

a suicide mission.

[frogcycle]

61. would you belieeeeve...

thick crust?

[Aristus]

26. Ooh, that's ugly.

Alert.

[saltpoint]

27. Aristus, thank you. I alerted also. By morning we should be done with

this one.

[Aristus]

28. I got your back, buddy.

n/t

[frogcycle]

34. as did I

:)

[saltpoint]

35. frogcycle, thank you. Much obliged.

[Ghost in the Machine]

29. I hope your short stay was enjoyable...

:hi:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

39. You waited three years to post that?

:rofl:

[Aristus]

41. He had to work out the spelling first.

:rofl:

[saltpoint]

48. LOL!!!!

Wonderful!

[LostinVA]

45. Fuck!

I missed it.

:cry:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

47. Bridezillas always do.

:P

[LostinVA]

50. Bastard

Did you see my last PM?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

53. Yep, I replied to it.

[LostinVA]

56. Whoops, didn't see it until now

Just let us know in the next day what train you're taking.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

60. Ok.

[HughBeaumont]

72. Don't fret . . . I'm usually 50/50 on the soon-to-be-buried.

Missed this one too!

[Swede]

43. Ding dong. Pizza's here.

Your preference would be the Nazi/Fascist,no doubt.

[EFerrari]

33. There is a dispirited quality to their campaigns this time.

It makes it so much harder to steal an election when no one actually runs for your party. :)

[saltpoint]

37. LOL!! sfexpat2000, I needed a strong hit of your brains and heart, and

presto, there ya are. Thank you for droppin' in. Especially in light of the recent disruption by our night visitor from the Far Right.

Welcome, as always.

[EFerrari]

40. Well, thank you!

:hi:

[NanceGreggs]

68. Brilliant! n/t

[Arugula Latte]

74. Come on! Everyone is pumped up! It's like ... like ... BOB DOLE is running again!

Oh, wait ...

Nevermind.

[lonestarnot]

42. I don't recall ever a one! Well one.

[saltpoint]

52. Hey there, lonestarnot. If you're still up and typing, the world's better off for

it.

Howdy!

Are we talkin' about Abraham Lincoln as that one Republican?

[lonestarnot]

58. Yes he would be the ONE and only!

:toast: world is better for it in this the one and only case. :hug: How are you tonight Old Crusoe?

[saltpoint]

62. A strong hug right back, lonestarnot. All's well, I think. I'm stunned by

Admiral Fallon's remarks re David Petraeus ("(He's) an ass-kissing little chickenshit") and happy we are into the fall film season.

Those two things, plus Joni Mitchell's new CD (SHINE) is due in 2 weeks!

Hope it's smooth for you and that your autumn is a mighty good one.
:toast:
:hi:
:dem:
:hug:

[lonestarnot]

66. What a lovely hope for me! Thank you. I likewise hope that you autumn

is a dandy! I love Joni Mitchell! Thanks for the heads up on the new release. I forget to stop and smell the roses unless I get a reminder now and again. Thanks friend! :toast: :hi: :hug: :kick:

[frogcycle]

59. hmmmm

Ike was pretty progressive

[saltpoint]

63. Especially compared to the modern-day Republicans, and I'm negligent for

leaving out Paul McCloskey, Lowell Weicker, and a small handful of others.

It's just that overwhelmingly lately the Republicans have become a very ugly bunch. Coburn. Santorum. McConnell. Rice. Rumsfeld. Etc.

Wicked to the core.

[Flabbergasted]

44. Good one

[Aristus]

49. HERE LIES A DISRUPTOR. HE DISRUPTED POORLY.

:nuke:

[saltpoint]

51. To the Mods:

I appreciate your deleting the messages with the anti-woman, anti-Afro-American and anti-Democratic messages.

Thank you.

[Aristus]

55. Yes, indeed! Hats off to the Mods!

:patriot:

[frogcycle]

57. yep

well done

[shanti]

64. yeah...forgot

:eyes:

[Swamp Rat]

69. Thompson is the perfect candidate for a party of philistine yahoos

[Indenturedebtor]

70. Gah I missed the fireworks show :(

But really though... were we dealing with an informed populace that makes carefully considered decisions based on carefully sifted and more or less honestly and ethically presented information I would happily agree with you.

Who the hell knows what the drunk monkey and his organ grinder handler will choose? I'm just hoping that there's some sort of reality show finali on election day... to reduce a little of the booboo head factor in this one.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

71. One thing is for certain.

So far the media hasn't rolled over and drooled all over any of the candidates the way they did with dubya. You don't hear the talking heads blabbering about "having a beer" with Giuliani. The only one that comes close is Thompson, but their bizarre obsession with him will, I think, be short-lived.

[AuntPatsy]

73. The list of candidates they are offering now are no different then the one they ran in 2000

It didn't seem to trouble them then and I am not so sure they are bothered now, they stole two elections easily, we should be a bit concerned that a third theft is not unlikely.

[EFerrari]

75. The answer to their problem is obvious. Run Stephen Colbert.

He's got name recognition and an eagle!

[Lucinda]

76. If only they would....

:)