‘That’s What Happens When You Run With Losers’

When you read one of the most entertaining pieces I’ve seen in a while in the WSJ, that lays out the ineptitude of Obama combined with the impotence of the current crop of GOP contenders, you’ll go to bed tonight wondering how we ever got ourselves into this mess. I don’t care what kind of logic the left throws at us, there is absolutely, 100%, no way in hell President Obama should have even a sliver of a chance at re-election. But yet, here we are.

The money paragraph from the piece by Bret Stephens:

It doesn’t matter that Mr. Obama can’t get the economy out of second gear. It doesn’t matter that he cynically betrayed his core promise as a candidate to be a unifying president. It doesn’t matter that he keeps blaming Bush. It doesn’t matter that he thinks ATMs are weapons of employment destruction. It doesn’t matter that Tim Geithner remains secretary of Treasury. It doesn’t matter that the result of his “reset” with Russia is Moscow selling fighter jets to Damascus. It doesn’t matter that the Obama name is synonymous with the most unpopular law in memory. It doesn’t matter that his wife thinks America doesn’t deserve him. It doesn’t matter that the Evel Knievel theory of fiscal stimulus isn’t going to make it over the Snake River Canyon of debt.

Above all, it doesn’t matter that Americans are generally eager to send Mr. Obama packing. All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won’t be another fiasco. But they can’t be reasonably sure, so it’s going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know.

Although I’m not entirely ready to resign myself to the fact that Obama may very well be elected, the GOP has proven in the past and is proving once again that they have the ability to blow this thing all to hell. And if they do, well then, good on ya’.

Don Surber gives me a glimmer of hope by pointing out just how dissatisfied the Democrats were with their choices in 1992. That may be, but my argument there is that George H.W. Bush was nowhere near as dangerous to the health of this country as Barack Obama is. Plus, Bush wasn’t really a weakened incumbent yet, thereby lending the perception of a “missed opportunity.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
"1000 Days"
Restoring American Exceptionalism – Chicago Townhall
  • Pingback: Video: Thoughts on the GOP and Newt | Thoughts and Rantings()

  • GarandFan


    But they can’t be reasonably sure, so it’s going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know.”

    So continue on the same road of insanity?

    Ya can’t fix STUPID!

    • Yes, because people really prefer being economically screwed by someone they ‘know’ to even a slight uncertainty that they might not be economically screwed if they elect someone else.

      I’m starting to get the feeling the pundits just want to hear themselves blather – it doesn’t matter about what, all that matters is getting the media recognition.

  • Meiji Man

    If the Repubs blow this, and there is even money they will. It’s time for a third party, And send these  Neo-Whigs on their merry way to obscurity 

    • If you can’t take control of one party from within, how do you expect to win the support of the country from scratch? 

    • Olsoljer

      Have to wait and see.  If the house and senate get an additional infusion of TEA Party backed candidates, we won’t need a third party.  The conservative movement is like a titanium rod being shoved up the ass of the republican party, it hurts and they are squealing like hell, but will be better for it when it is done.

  • First it was an “America hates Gingrich” post on primary day, now it’s an “Our candidates are a bunch of losers” post. Anything else you can do to help? Sheesh.

  • LiberalNightmare

    There is one thing that all of the republican candidates have in common.

    The democrats dont like them.

    How about we quit letting the democrats tell us who we can and cant elect?

    • Wrong. Democrats see Mitt Romney as the least objectionable jackass in the pack.

      We want MItt! We want Mitt!

      Of course, we could be saying that so that you won’t choose Romney, who is the most electable of the bunch, and will choose a slob like Newt instead.

      We want Newt! We want Newt!

      poor babies — they’re so confused!

      Hint: Don’t think you know who the Dems like and don’t like. You haven’t a clue.

      • makindescene

        Actually we are not confused.

        We don’t want Obama! We don’t want Obama!

      • cirby

        No, Democrats see Romney as the guy they can beat.

        Romney is basically running on “see how nice he is?  Vote for him.”

        Once it gets into the real campaign, the Dems just have to use Chicago Politics 101, and trash him on a daily basis until November.  They’re counting on “he claims to be nice, but see all of the bad things people say about him?”  That’s how get won his first election, that’s how he won his Senate seat, and that’s how he won the Presidency.

        On the other hand, if Gingrich gets the nod, they have to spend that time saying “He’s a bad man,” while the Republicans can come back with “Yeah, he’s a jerk, but he’s a smart, practical jerk who gets things done.”

        Look at that drive-by poster we had last week, where some gal claimed that Newt would be in single digit popularity with women – and the same day, he got over 40% of the married female vote in a primary.  We know what kind of person he is – he’s a bad husband who chases women.  We also know that he’s a politician with a huge amount of experience who actually succeeds.

        • Commander_Chico

          How did Newt do among unmarried females?

          • If you go by Jezebel.com, it’s going to be Obama by a landslide.  He’s just so dreamy and Michelle is so AWESOME!!1!
             
            That’s an odd site, to be sure.  Typical of ‘unmarried females’ thinking?  Heck if I know – but it’s an interesting window into folks who don’t seem to have grown out of the whole high-school clique/popularity crap…

          • LiberalNightmare

            As far as I can tell, hes three for three.

    • herddog505

      I suggest that it’s less the dems telling us who we can and can’t elect and more them (through MiniTru) telling the candidates what they must and must not say and what the rest of us are supposed to think about it.

  • retired.military

    I am voting ABO.  Doesnt matter who the republicans put on the ticket.

    • Pretty much… 
       
      ABO – that’s about all that matters.  Any chance Hillary might run as a Republican?  LOL.  I’d vote for her.  She understand the first rule of sheep-shearing. (Or clippin’ the taxpayer, whichever you prefer.)
       
      You can shear a sheep many times.  You can only skin it once. 

      Obama’s doing his damndest to skin the country – I don’t believe Hillary (for all her Queen-Bee-ness) would double-down on her mistakes – I think she understands that when she walks away after 4 or 8 years that the country has to be objectively better off, and simply telling folks that they’re better off with high debt and high unemployment isn’t going to cut it…

  • Brian_R_Allen

    Bret Stevens is entitled to his opinion of the men who – thus far (there is still the possibility of a brokered convention) – chose to run for the Republican Party’s Nomination for president and I’ll grant that none of them is particularly inspiring.

    But the suggestion is a bloody insult that any of them is an inferior candidate when ,easured against the dangerously-dullard coke-headed marijuana mumbling mobbed-up Mussolini-modeled modified-Marxist murtadd-Muslim mother’s milquetoast presently pretending to what passes as a “presidency.”

    And/or is to give too much weight to the fact the “Democrats” control of the nation’s machinery of elections and owns every criminal-alien, felon and the long-dead-stuffed electoral roll moves the result of every election ten points Left.

    Or similar weight the the other awful truth about American “elections” that the Fascist (formerly “mainstream”) Media — of which Mr Stevens is part — moves the electorate another ten points Left.

    Twenty stolen percentage points to the “Democrats” and my money: New York City to a single brick; still says Obama’s defeat is a lay down misère!

  • I agree with Bret Stephens’ assessment of the current GOP candidates, which is why I call them the Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time Players. As for the GOP “A” Team, I do not consider Haley Barbour and Jeb Bush to be on that team.  The nation would not agree to a third Bush in the White House, and Barbour would only have regional appeal.

  • If you think Gingrich cannot beat Obama in the general election you have not been paying attention.  Gingrich will keep the focus on Obama and what his record as President has been, where his policies come from and where he intends to take us.  (Read Saul Alinsky’s books)  Gingrich is a fighter who has not lost a general election.  Not something Romney can say.