Quote:
Originally Posted by timpage
I gather you assume Rick Perry would drop out as a candidate if indicted. Why would you think that? And you, you'll have to school me on how grand jury investigations and potential or actual criminal indictments "work to the GOP's advantage." I don't doubt that there are some people on this board that could make that argument with a straight face but it surprises me you're one of them.
|
Think a little deeper. You missed the other alternative.
Who says he has to drop out? If he is under indictment or even just investigation, he is "dead man walking". No one is going to vote for him in the primaries, except hard-core Texas boosters. The rest of the country won't touch him. He will do even worse than last time. He would be lucky to clear 5% of the primary vote.
So, the rest of the GOP breathes a sigh or relief that a not-to-bright frat boy backed by the usual evangelical clowns and oil company interests bites the dust.
If the objective is to beat the Democrats in 2016 with a competent candidate, taking Rick Perry out early and hard is an unalloyed good for the GOP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timpage
As for your opinions regarding the Walker and Christie investigations, I don't know that I agree or disagree. I suppose we'll find out. The point is that they are ongoing criminal investigations. You can pooh pooh it or minimize it as you see fit, I suppose. Dismissing such things as insignificant or meaningless in the run up to a presidential campaign and election strikes me as pretty short-sighted.
|
The Walker investigation is bullshit that will be dragged out by Democrats for a long as possible to make it SEEM like a scandal. But what is the penalty? A monetary fine? And explain what the "crime" is so that ordinary people can understand it and get outraged about it. Improper coordination? Two PACs talked to one another within a certain time period before and election and were too specific about their objectives?
Walker will disavow any knowledge of any wrongdoing and say that it a smear job by the same unions that lost to him TWICE in the original and recall elections.
And he will be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timpage
And, are you implying that hardball politics or, to use the phrase you've borrowed from the RWW Clinton bashing machine "enemies lists and petty vendettas", has some similarity to a criminal grand jury investigation? I disagree.
|
I didn't borrow the phrase from anyone. It has been reported on in the newspapers that the Clintons maintain files on everyone that has helped or hindered them going back to at least the 1992 election. And apparently, no slight is too small. Dems who were neutral in 2008 primaries (Hillary vs. Obama) are just as hated as those who actively supported Obama. Perhpas you have heard the phrase "constant campaign" used with respect to the Clintons? That is a phrase used by Democrats, too.
And my point is that in every political party, there are people who like a politician who fights and they don't care if he/she fights dirty and breaks the rules. That is a separate issue from whether there is or is not a GJ investigation.
Some people will like Christie more JUST BECAUSE he closed the bridge (allegedly) and won't care about the GJ investigation.
So, unless the GJ can come up with solid evidence against Christie, he won't be hurt by it.
Which is why Democrats will attempt to prolong and delay the GJ investigation for as long as possible so that people are afraid to back Christie just in case he gets indicted. A similar scenario as the problem Perry faces, except that Christie is smarter and has a lot more GOP support outside of Texas.
