tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post7420471589163374319..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: The Coming Republican Free-for-AllStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-14209015181263353152015-06-19T08:03:41.648-07:002015-06-19T08:03:41.648-07:00Free-for-all is a fun term, definition being "...Free-for-all is a fun term, definition being "a disorganized or unrestricted situation or event in which everyone may take part, especially a fight, discussion, or trading market."<br /><br />And like "equality", Orwell's animal farm we know "We're all equal, but some are more equal than others", like Trump's major talking point of his declaration for his candidacy sharing his account's "net worth" statement of 6 billion or something like that. So he literally could completely fund any major party candidate or independent all by himself, and who does he think is best for the job of president, of 100 million potential candidates (35yo+)? Himself of course! Really?! <br /><br />It would be fun to see how many donations he gets from his website. Perhaps along with having paid actors to cheer for him at his announcement, he might as well pay people to donate to his campaign, so at least it looks like someone wants to give money for a billionaire to promote himself.<br /><br />If we want to put some structure to this "free-for-all", I'd like to know on what grounds we can censor attention to "celebrity" big-mouth candidates like Trump.<br /><br />Or maybe we should use a "100 million dollars to play" entry fee, paid to a party? Maybe if the GOP made Trump put down his own money to open his mouth, knowing his money would be going towards one of his rivals in the general election when he loses, would that lower his enthusiasm? <br /><br />Then a 20-candidate free-for-all field (at $100 million a piece) would give the GOP 2 billion dollars to spend in the general election.<br /><br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-28530119475157815572015-06-19T06:46:58.110-07:002015-06-19T06:46:58.110-07:00"I still suspect that if Democrats could find..."I still suspect that if Democrats could find another viable candidate for 2016 they would quickly jettison Hillary Clinton."<br /><br />Agreed. But this highlights the core problem for Democrats: lack of bench depth. <br /><br />By the close of the Democrats' 2016 nominating "process" (complete with the nutty idea of a "superdelegate" within a party screeching about equality), Hillary Rodham Clinton will have been the "inevitable" nominee for more than a decade... and then some. Probably the last "inevitable" winner other than Hillary lost the general election as a result of Clinton fatigue: Al Gore. <br /><br />Hillary is vulnerable. And what does Bernie Sanders have to worry about in "going after her"? He's an Independent (Socialist) from a loony state where cows outnumber people. What leverage does the party have over him? O'Malley has a bright, shirtless future in a party that values taxes over citizens; and Chafee will pick another party before the 2020 primary. So the rest of the field is moot. It's like Ralph Nader... there's little they can do to shut Sanders up or shut him down. Hillary's camp knows this, which is why her opposition to the Obama trade deal (which she participated in designing through statecraft while SOS) was inevitable. She needs the unions and unpaid interns as volunteers, which is par for the course for a party carping incessantly about a "living wage." This is our future... Democrats want us all to volunteer for "the common good," as determined by them, of course. The State is the solution to everything, that mysterious jackpot (Obama's "stash") we are all entitled to... the rich bounty that comes from the ether. <br /><br />The Republicans are vulnerable in the way(s) Noonan suggests, but they can do better by making these candidates work their asses off. I mean like having all the candidates up in the dais for these initial debates and subject them to a cruel, 4-hour debate where people get the opportunity for long-form answers in a grueling exchange designed to show depth of understanding on issues and ability to think in their feet. A monkey can provide 90-second answer to a question he/she has been prepping for over a year on the stump. I suggest the debate process be long, arduous and cruel to those who are throwing their hat in who have no business doing so (e.g., Lindsay Graham). If it's so easy to become a candidate, make it brutal to remain one. And that goes for all of them, not just 1st- and 2nd-tier candidates, as judged by FOX News for the purposes of this first debate. <br /><br />Among all the candidates, there are a solid number of good, qualified and young candidates. This bodes well for the Republican future. The party needs a leader. The best thing that could come out of this crazy "free for all" is to find an articulate leader who represents the party's ideas and connects with Americans. I don't know who that person is, but hopefully we are setting up a process that will bear that out. Otherwise, it'll be a circus. Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.com