I recall saying I would vote for Paul over Obama,regret not voting for Hilary and that I would vote for a primary challenger over Obama If saying that I would vote for Obama over the other GOP idiots is coming to his defense so be it
The inside the beltway types believe that obama is vulnerable if the republicans make the election a referendum on him. To do that, the republicans need a noncontroversial candidate like romney. Other than the mormon thing, which the media will harp on is he gets the nomination, he is pretty much "generic republican candidate." Obama's chance, as this theory goes, is for the republicans to nominate someone controversial he can run against and turn it into a choice between the known and a scary alternative. Bachmann or Ron Paul are the ideal candidates to apply this strategy against. The flaw is that the exact same argument was made in the 1980 election. Republican establishment types warned that it was a big mistake to nominate a true conservative like Ronald Reagan. Put up someone like George Bush, the Romney of his time. A safe, middle of the road republican who talked conservative but whose eastern, country club RINO roots made people assume it was all just campaign lies. They overlooked the fact that Reagan had charisma and a way with words and that his supposedly extreme positions resonated with ordinary voters. Of course, he went on to be our greatest president. Geroge H. W. Bush , forced on Reagan as his VP, served one term and is best known for breaking his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. Is Bachmann our Reagan? Hard to say. She doesn't have his experience or warmth, but she has a far greater ability to connect with republican audiences than anyone else in the race. Attacking her could be tricky for democrats, because an awful lot of suburban soccer mom types will identify with her and find her admirable. She certainly seems far more authentic and normal than obama, with his murky past and far left ideas.
Don't forget 1964 when Goldwater, painted by the DEMS as too extreme and dangerous, lost badly and setback the GOP for years. Seneca
But today it's the Democratic Party that is too extreme and dangerous. The party whose current government is now suing banks and forcing them to give mortgages to blacks on welfare and food stamps. (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...Launches-Witch-Hunt-Against-Biased-Banks.aspx) You just can't make this stuff up -- the Dems have learned *nothing* from the mortgage crisis, except to blame 100% of it on Wall Street bankers. The Democrats are eager to give citizenship to 20 million illegal immigrants. Why? Because they know that native born Americans who aren't black won't vote for them. Today's Democratic Party is a very different party from what what it was in the 1960s.