- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I wonder if the last part of your quote that I highlighted would also apply in some peoples minds to Romney and Obama?
I would say that the answer in my case depends entirely upon the malleability a given candidate shows. Obama, for example (as evidenced by his flagrant disregard of bankruptcy law with Chrysler and GM) is extremely malleable to contributors hence has forfeited the benefit of the doubt--and is hardly alone in this regard.
What was the difference between them exactly?
I have no doubt that this "Operation Chaos" was nothing but a way to ensure that Establishment Republicans won their primaries. Think about it.
Establishment Gatekeeper Rush Limbaugh sent all the conservative-ish voters away to pointlessly influence the Democrat race. Meanwhile on the Republican side, the GOP Establishment can easily push its candidates past any meaningful competition.
Anyone who speaks of reforming the Republican Party should be working to throw out the Good Old Boys on the GOP side.
The difference, in my reckoning, is one of dedication to lower levels of bad, which doesn't amount to much. In the event of an uncontested primary as was the case with the GOP in 2008, at least for me, I felt no compunctions about having a little fun on the other side without loosing anything under the circumstances. I will agree about putting bootprints on the rear ends of the establishment folks. I believe Richard Lugar could say a little about this. More significant is that Sarah Palin was one of the few to engage in furthering this cause in a high-profile manner, for all the appreciation it has brought her.