Why do the Republicans internally select the most extreme radical people to be their nominees?

In 2006, the Ohio Governor Republican Primary;

It was Jim Petro vs. Ken Blackwell

Petro was a nice, sensible guy.

Blackwell was part of the corrupt Taft administration with a 6% approval rating and had countless scandals.



Guess who they nominated? Blackwell.





In the 2010 Ohio Governor Republican Primary;

It's John Kasich vs. Kevin Coughlin

Coughlin's an intelligent guy with a lot of knowledge about how government works.

100% of Kasich's campaign is: "free market and less government"

Kasich has no ideas to improve society.

Guess who's the big front runner for the nomination? Kasich.





the 2010 Iowa Republican Governor primary:

There are 5 candidates.

4 of them decent people.

the 5th; Bob Vander Plaats, who's platform is: He promises to issue an illegal executive order to overturn the supreme court's decision to legalize gay marriage in Iowa.

The other 4 candidates are smart enough to realize that's illegal.

Those 4 candidates are trying to tell him that the only way to ban gay marriage is to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.



Guess what the polls show?

Vander Plaats has 48%

Chris Grants has 17%

The other candidates are in the single digits.







2000 U.S. Presidential Election

Bush vs. McCain

extremist vs. moderate

naturally, they nominated Bush.





2008 U.S. Presidential Election

When they realized McCain abandoned his moderate views and pushed the Karl Rove agenda, he got the Republican nomination.

Of all the candidates, McCain was the only one to promise "permanent presence" in Iraq.

Many insisted leaving Iraq would be a "mistake".....

but McCain was the only one who emphasized "100 years" and "permanent presence."Why do the Republicans internally select the most extreme radical people to be their nominees?
Because the only way to get the nomination is to align yourself with the Party "core". And the core is extreme and radical
Bush and McCain were nowhere near extremists, McCain was even known to be liberally prone



"So forget he's a jackass who's liberally prone, Oh it's time for some campaigning!"Why do the Republicans internally select the most extreme radical people to be their nominees?
WTF, President Taft was long dead by 2006, are you nuts?



William Howard Taft (September 15, 1857 鈥?March 8, 1930) was the 27th President of the United States and later the 10th Chief Justice of the United States.







Liberals have official become raving loons.
You're actually going to ask that question only 200 days after electing the most extreme left wing politician who has ever occupied the white house?



Most Republicans are mission the good old days of Clinton, when all we had to do was worry about a scandal here and there...Why do the Republicans internally select the most extreme radical people to be their nominees?
McCain.....extreme and radical ????



Didn't you guys elect Al Frankin? And Nancy Polosi? And Chris Dodd? Harry Reid? Ron Dellums? Joe Biden? Etc....etc........etc



By the way, Obama is still in the Middle East - perhaps McCain was telling it like it is rather than sugar coating the issue.
The Republican Party doesn't select the best candidate, they award it to the person with the most power. Power is the fuel for the Republican party and with all the ideological talking points, it all comes down to whose on top.
Exactly why they are losers and have the minority in the country. The majority of Americans are sick of their nonsense.
You are using a debate ploy known as "building a straw man". Please limit your questions to real people or ideas.
This odd, obscure rant means very little.
who else is running in either party?
What made liberals so stupid? Is there something in the tofu?



All of our nominees over the last 20 years have been moderates.



Ron Paul was extreme. That's about it.
they are trying to be like the dems
they don't democrats do.and i would like to add Bush is not an extremist.
were just trying to save the u.s. from total disaster
Nicely put! I was amazed to see that after the election, many Right wing bloggers were saying that the reason they lost was because they hadn't gotten nasty enough! They never understood that a large part of why they lost was BECAUSE of the nastiness. Now the party is largely purged of moderates, who have nowhere to go, and the remainder, the "base", continues to radicalize. There comes a point in every discussion where rhetoric becomes action. That begs the question, when will they act?
Ok, I'm just going to come out and say it.



The Conservative Party of Canada (currently in charge federally..barely) emulates the American Republican Party to a noticeable degree. That same standard applies to provincial parties.



Earlier this summer, the Conservative Party of Nova Scotia went into an election as the incumbent government. They dropped down to third (out of three parties that had any chance of winning seats)



Why? For one, the Premier was poorly qualified, and did nothing but spew talking points. The main reason, however, was the nastiness of their attack ads.



The same thing is shaping up for the Federal Conservatives. They are being nasty on an unprecedented level, and voters are getting sick of it.



I can only imagine the same holds true in the US. Elections are no longer about scholarly debate between gentlemen (and ladies as the case may be) about what is best, it has degraded into a filthy shouting match with only the flimsiest of facades to hide that fact. Neither side offers any real, constructive ideas, they simply try and tear the other down to a new low, act smug, and gloat or whine depending on how it works out for them.



A new level of higher discourse is needed in politics, but it is only going to get there is people stop playing the shouting game that persists. Stop rewarding people who hurl insults around with an election into office. Elect those who have strong ideas and present a solid case for them.



Elect someone smart, and stop making it out as though that was a bad thing.



Elect some reasonable, and stop pretending that reasonable means weak.



Elect someone who can admit they made an error in judgment, or a mistake, and change their mind without pretending as though they are flip-flopping on an issue. A politician who says "in light of new evidence" is going to get raked over the coals for changing their mind. Stop it!



It is better for them to change their mind than to continue on a course proven wrong.



Elect someone who is a strong leader, not someone who undercut their opponent to a greater degree.
Pol Pot calling kettle. BTW,looks like the nit wit Dem governor of my state (NJ) will be getting his a(( kicked. And rightfully so.