Posting primarily because this is my take-away from the election loss. And I think it well-put.

From my comment and followup on a thread at Neoneocon's (quoted in full):

@neo-neocon : at 6:03 pm What Republican but an egomaniac would consider running after this, with so much arrayed against him/her? (Actually, I wondered that already back in 2008, when I saw the feeding frenzy against Palin).

I would add to that a bit to ask "Will the RNC ever advance the hoary chestnut again that the most important political attribute of a ‘viable' candidate's selection in the primary consists of the RNC's affirmation of said candidate's general campaign ‘electability', after failing disastrously with probably the very best candidate to run on that vacuous canard in the past 40 years”?

…this asked by someone who came to like and admire …and deeply respect (and agreed, as I learned more about him, that he was a good choice) â€¦Romney (but also someone who was livid throughout most of the primaries).

Romney was all about his so-called "electability” in the primaries; his supporters hammered us about that time-and-again. And I haven't forgotten that.

Are we finally going to reject some vacuous claim of "electability” in the future as the incredibly weak sauce that it proved to be (i.e., when we nominated a candidate based 9 parts precisely on the nostrum of electability)?

Electability be damned.

My two bits.

Yeah. Color me bitter.

…as for Palin, that's about the exact same time I came to find the Left not merely wrong, but despicable-bordering-on-evil. All of ‘em.

I've now added inbred-Darwin-Award-fodder to that judgment's description. And have included vast swathes of the Democrat base to the group.

…let me clarify in far fewer, and plainer, words:

Electability as prognostication of electoral outcome is utter bullshit as a valid argument OR valid predictor.

Posted by: fairwhether at 11:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.