re: #388 Hobbes

So you are comfortable with the idea that there will be no Republican leader who can challenge the reelection of the Messiah?

Frankly, as long as the GOP (my party, BTW) defines the Presidential candidacy as the exclusive property of the party’s Washington upper echelon, no, I don’t see them being able to limit The Exalted One to a single term. George W. Bush, like Ronald Reagan before him, was a fluke- the RNC prefers that candidates for POTUS be drawn mainly from the ranks of those inside the Beltway. The Democrats have pursued similar policies for decades, the only exceptions being “outsiders” (such as governors) who will toe the party line and render obeisance to the “proper authorities”, i.e., the party’s voting blocs. This was how they lost Presidential elections in 1968, 1972, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004. This last time around, either way, it was going to be a Washington “insider”, i.e., a Senator, no matter who won.

There is no fundamental difference between Obama, John Kerry, and Michael Dukakis. There are significant differences between the two Presidents named Bush. The elder represents the party’s leadership. His son, like Reagan, was viewed as an interloper when he first began running for President. And as his policies have become more “acceptable” in the eyes of his party’s Washington “insiders”, his popularity in the wider realm has plummeted. Reagan never made the mistake of doing what the “Washington lifers” wanted him to.

The moral being, if the Republicans want to win back the White House, the last thing they want is another U.S. Senator as their standard bearer. And any governor they tap should have at least a nodding acquaintance with not doing what pleases the inside-the-Beltway crowd.

cheers

eon