Budget talks: This is getting nasty

I don't have the exact numbers, but this is wrong. Not all 84 are Tea Partiers. Most are, but not all.

 

Then your strategy is to marginalize them. Of course, you can't wait until they are already on the defensive to do it. Look at Romney today. He's separating himself from the fray by going after Obama over jobs. There isn't much appetite from the mainstream of the GOP on this.

 

Brian -- you're talking about marginalizing a movement that not only got 84 House seats (give or take a few R's), but also won governorships nationwide. You can't marginalize the Tea Partiers without risking marginalizing anyone who thinks government spending is a problem. Also, that marginalization would be much easier if Boehner and the like would have their own "Sister Souljah moment" (remember that?) and confidently say that these people are unrealistic, but they have completely cowed to the Tea Partiers because the Republican party has no future without them. Shit, when Richard Lugar is voting in lockstep because he's afraid of getting primaried, you have a beast that's difficult to slay. In a sense, the only way to "marginalize" the Tea Party is to let them govern, and let people decide that, say, the scorched-earth policies of a Scott Walker and Rick Scott are not what they thought they were getting.

 

I'm curious why none of the other GOP candidates have really gone after Romney hard on his various vulnerabilities.

Have the money powers they need for future political campaigns or lobbying jobs ordered them to quietly concede the nomination? Are they doing so on their own in the hopes that if they play nice Romney will give them the VP slot or a plum cabinet post?

 

Generally speaking, it's a more diverse coalition. The liberal interests don't speak to all, or even necessarily a larger number, of Democratic voters. There are unifying themes, but I think even the language is changed between different groups in the same coalition. There are a lot of other reasons one can go into, but I think if there's a single, bottom-line reason, that's it.

 

I agree, partially. That's not to say the electorate can't be convinced with a few hundred million dollars worth of TV ads that one of those candidates is Ronald Reagan re-incarnated.

Could Rick Perry enter the race and become that type of figure?

 

Oh, they're deciding. They know they were had by Koch-smokers such as Walker.

 

I'd say Boehner NEEDED Obama to go on the offensive. If Obama would have come out aggressively, Boehner could have played good cop to it and gotten something done here. I'd suggest that if Clinton was weak, then the right wing of the house in the 1990s could have come out looking uncompromising too.

 

Reagan wasn't conservative enough for the current PTB driving the GOP.

 

No. It's a bad sign for the GOP that they're still praying for a miracle candidate to come in.

 

TARP aside, of course.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA...yeah, the Republicans are in TERRIBLE shape for the 2012 election. Right. Keep telling yourself that. As things are the Republicans could run a bicycle tire against Obama and win.

As for why there are no liberal radio personalities...it just doesn't translate. This remains a center-right country and a liberal on the radio just couldn't get the ratings on a national level. Look at Air America...great idea, well-executed business plan...no interest in the product.