"The dark ages since 1992"... really? The facts would say otherwise.
You do know that this is
the first time since it's inception in 1980 that a candidate who won the South Carolina primary did not
also win either IA or NH right ?
Gingrich didn't even place in the top three in either contest .....
......
we ain't in Kansas anymore Toto .....
Plus, poor ol' dubya - the dumb cracker from TX
Got that right !
Some would say
bought it, courtesy of the courts (
having the better lawyers - which I, regrettably, helped pay for) ...
Others would say won, courtesy of the votes of myself and many, many others like me .....
who, being once bitten, are now twice shy - and for some, even thrice shy .... if you consider those who voted for Obama in 2008 (I wasn't one of them)
We now see neither of the parties as being a solution - but only part of the problem for the most part .... since they are largely functionally the same.
A lot of us look with
absolute horror on what has happened since 2000 to present .....
and say never again, in terms of contributing to that insanity .... which is why it's a chuckle watching the pontifications of those who are so devoted to party above all else, that they have no regard or concern for the
character and
integrity of those that they would support ....
against the supposedly superior Democrat candidates that the mainstream media told us would blow him away - remember how the polls that told us he had no chance against Al Gore or John Kerry??
Nope - I wasn't paying much attention to the polls at the time.
Granted, the GOP had losers like Bob Dole and John McCain to even out the previously mentioned Democrat losers - but none of the above mentioned four was as bad as Barack Hussein Obama .......
In
who's opinion ?
It's all relative .... depending on
who is doing the looking ....
and he's turned out to be a far worse POTUS than candidate. That will change now that he's got a record instead of a fictional image. The notion that he's unbeatable is a myth promoted by the mainstream media; it's not only a myth, it's a joke.
Oh, it's not that he's unbeatable - he clearly is - but doing so requires the
right candidate ...
The problem with your narrative is this: it's one that's dreamed of purely from a perspective that chooses to ignore that there are those of us out here, which no longer see either of the parties as a solution but as the problem ...
that number has been steadily growing .... as polling clearly shows ....
It's dreamed of from viewpoint that deems the base constituencies of two parties are the only relevant ones .... they aren't ....
and they are becoming less relevant everyday ....
You should understand this from having lived through the 2008 election - but being a (so-called) "conservative true believer" you simply can't bring yourself to face it .....
Any one of the remaining GOP candidates - Newt, Romney or Santorum - will defeat Obama.
Ain't gonna happen .....
How ya think it's gonna go over when it comes out that Sick Rantorum has publicly stated that Islam
as a religion needs to be "eradicated ..... in a "long war" ..... ?
(
.... keeping in mind the general populace's current lack of taste for war generally, of course .... 
)
Seemingly, as a matter of course, that would include either the eradication (or conversion
) of all Muslims as well - that pretty much puts him in the same category as Al Qaeda for a lot of folks .... (I understand that you may personally have no problem with this, but there are more than just a few of us that would)
Next, we have the Newter ...... given his predilection for bellicose rhetoric, illusions of grandeur, and personal history of instability and general flakiness (to say nothing of the ethical baggage), you figger that there's any likelihood that a majority or a plurality of the populace is gonna get onboard with that ?
.....
for either of those two, cue the 2012 remake of Lyndon's 1964 "Daisy" ad against Goldwater:
Daisy
(I'll dig very deep to help fund that and keep either of these goofballs from getting anywhere near a trigger, nuclear or otherwise)
Newt has the
highest national
unfavorability ratings of any of the four candidates (26/60) .... and these are
getting worse as time goes on ...... probably because he's the best known ....
and I have a feeling that we'll be getting to know him alot better as time goes on .... mebbe Aunt Nancy will help ....
If you have any lines into senior GOP "insiders" then you probably already know that there is a
very real fear that if Newt is the nominee the GOP may actually end up
losing the House in November ....
might be why he's little short on any significant endorsements ....
He's a highly polarizing figure .....
Out of the three, the only one (besides Dr. Paul) that even has a prayer (and that's iffy, given what we've seen in the last week or so) is Romney, as polling indicates .... probably due to his business background, because he appears to be most level-headed (
even if somewhat "plasticy" and not "genuine") and the least bellicose on foreign policy of the three ...
And here's a final thought:
2016 .... remember - like I said, a lot of us are really playing
the long game ....
Despite what
Dr. Ron Paul might decide to do in terms of a 3rd party run or whatever, if there is a
neocon with an "
R" behind their name in the White House in 2016,
Dr. Paul The Younger will be unable to run against them ... so, as is typically said elsewhere:
"..... you know what to do ......"
Get it ?
The media would like for us to forget the 2010 midterm elections and their results - the voters will not.
Nope .... those who won't forget them are those that are
completely fixated on them - and cling to them as evidence of the "great conservative reawakening" .... or the "great liberal rejection" ......
FWIW, 2012 may be the year of "a pox on both your houses" .....
