Just curious - what good Republican is still out there?

Obama's a lock to win, IMO. It's what the in-the-game conservatives prefer. A president to right of Clinton who's made to look like a socialist every day on radio and TV for four more years? Sign them up.

Why isn't there a good candidate? Because they have to nod to the same BS altars year after year. Can't raise taxes. Don't you dare touch defense spending. Have to love locking people up and burning more state dollars on drug prosecutions. Have to love subcontracting to private firms rather than using federal workers. Must loathe action in Libya but mortally fear an Irani dirty bomb. Must be socially conservative to the max - but do it with a smile. There's so many loyalties to check off that you end up not having your own ideas.

 

or 2004, party in opposition feels the incumbent is the anti-christ, but nominates a "safe" candidate that inspires nobody

 

Nice misdirection - same one that Rubio used - but ultimately immaterial to what is going on here. The point is that Rubio is the one who fudged the timeline to increase impact. He is the one who decided that exile post-Castro would play better than flight pre-Castro. You are correct and so is he, insofar as the Rubios still could not get back to their country.

The question is not whether there is sadness in not being able to return to one's homeland, or nobility in rising from those circumstances.

The question is simply why Rubio himself did not feel that that was a powerful enough narrative to present intact?

 

Did people really see Clinton as beatable in 1996? I sure don't remember it that way...

The 2004 comparison is a good one. I think Romney would connect with more voters than Kerry did, but not by any overwhelming margin.

Obama is in a position where he should lose, but that's meaningless if the republicans can't come up with anyone who can beat him.

I think Romney could beat him. I don't really think any of the other candidates can.

I think the best republicans can hope for at this point is Romney winning.

 

Clinton was absolutely beatable ... in 1994. Problem was, by the time they got to primary season, he numbers were back on the upswing, and the Republican voters couldn't coalesce around someone early because flavors of the week kept popping up (Buchanan for his isoloationist policies, Forbes for his rich guy knows money schtick, Alexander for using lots of exclamation points, wait, what is Perot doing now?) Dole, despite barely winning an Iowa that he stormed through in 88, losing badly to Buchanan in New Hampshire and needing a late rally to salvage second in Arizona, emerged as the safe choice in a field dotted with regional/single-issue candidates. The parallels to 2011 are pretty strong, because while Obama is weaker than Clinton at this stage, the GOP field is more fractured.

My guess: Obama 53-46 on popular vote against Romney, something like 310-228 on electoral vote.

 

I think the popular vote will be closer than that, but you're probably in the ballpark on the electoral vote. Of course, a lot can change between now and then. I think, under the right circumstances, Romney can beat him, particularly if he offers an economic plan that is sound or at least sounds that way to people. I have a feeling his record of cutting employees in the business world might come back to bite him, though. Hard.

 

What is going on here? You have a first generation American from Cuban extraction rising through strength of will and character to one of the highest offices in the land. His very example is a threat to a party whose leader thinks there are 57 States and whose VP thinks women will be raped if their policies are not followed blindly.

And by the way - can you come up with a quote where Rubio was misleading about his heritage? Or do you just buy whatever is printed hook line and sinker. Because the more you post about these things the more I'm convinced you are a person who can't think for himself but needs others to tell you how to think (and dress for certain occasions). Don't take that as a knock - take that as an observation that may help you to get the open mind you think you possess but really don't.

 

Rubio wrote a Politico piece confirming that he had presented inaccurately his heritage.

Everything else you post here is completely immaterial to the heart of the matter, which is that Rubio altered dates in his family heritage in order, allegedly, to make it more impressive. I don't question that his rise is indicative of high character. The question then, to me, is why he felt compelled to alter the narrative in the first place?

 

Exactly. The Republican platform is broken.

 

Dick - you support a guy who picked a plagiarist as his VP and you want to make an issue of this? Really? I don't think you understand how obtuse you have been getting.

I also don't think the word immaterial means what you think it means.

 

I am not making an issue out of it. The Washington Post made an issue out of it. I am asking if it will, indeed, be an issue for voters.

 

You are a parrot.

You bring up Rubio which you admit was not germane to the immediate discussion and then when I retort - you say that I'm just making the same diversion as Rubio. You don't argue that my argument is invalid - you just say that since others have covered it there's no need for you to worry your little head over it.

You bring something up but when someone calls you on it the retort becomes somehow immaterial. How dumb do you sound when you say you are not trying to make an issue of Rubio when you are the one who brought him up in the first place? Do you ever get embarrassed by the lack of thought that goes into your posts?