a recent e-book. conservative and journalist is an oxy moron. recent e-book titled why romney lost. joe scarborough. not him. david frum. i prefer her answer. i only asked because he and nate silverhead i hope joe scarborough walks in. which presidential candidate tweeted this, honored to have chuck norris endorsement, he will make an excellent secretary of attack. i m guessing because he s crazy, mike huckabee? no. a candidate who i m going to steal all your tickers.
but said the way romney said it, that is the best argument that i think they have against a candidate who or a president who actually is well liked and who did inherit what people do say is a really bad situation. it would be a fair point if it wasn t in the context of, we ve already wiped away 47% of the american people. right, right. who don t take on their own responsibility. let s not forget, this is all one delivery. no, that s exactly true. wiping out the 47% of the americans, it makes it basically impossible for him to pick up those other. he has this, like this notion that there is this, like, 5% to 10% center that he refers to that is somehow distinct from this other 47% that he refers to. but that s crazy. you know, that 5% to 10% is going to see themselves as the same, you know, 47%, because the
between rick santorum and george mcgovern. well, let me asked barry goldwater into that, as well, a republican commentator, this week took the same position i think as i did but added goldwater into the mix. i think the question is, who is in charge, the political elite? the establishment, the elected officials? the money people who are going to pick the nominee, based on the electability or the grass roots, who are much more ideological and, you know, the street folks in the party. who are going to decide who the nominee is. and if you go back to mcgovern or back to goldwater, in both cases you had the sort of ideological wing of the party taking control of the nomination process, and, picking a candidate who, quite frankly, most people in the establishment thought couldn t win. this time, you have the republican establishment which is almost 100% behind romney. and you ve got a lot of people
anything i think his support is more impressive because he didn t buy it. but, he cannot raise the big money, and if cain holds this lead, you can bet republicans are going to start arguing that it would be political soon side to pick a candidate who, for whatever reason, will be financially outgunned, and they are right. after all, president obama is sitting on $150 million right now. but just step back and think about what this all means. we are now at a point where the inability to raise half a billion dollars is literally a disqualification for the presidency, no matter how popular you are. so there may be a lot of good reasons to oppose her mincain, but that s not just one of them. dylan. what is the money used for? we know now 94% of the time the person that raises the most money wins. we know our government is an auction pretending to be a democracy. you just made it very clear. why is it that 94% of the time the person with the most money wins? because it is so expensive to
unlike anyone with cpac and he can read polls which clearly speak of the happy hopelessness of the paul for president movement. joining me now, msnbc political analyst and the washington post columnist eugene robinson. thanks for joining me. great to be here. let s listen to what rush limbaugh said about cpac on his radio show today. the problem with cpac frankly is that rather than promote conservative principles, maybe it is new strategies, fine and danld ee. rather than do that, the principles are up for grabs. definition of a conservative is up for grabs. gene, rush seems to have a point there. by endorsing ron paul, cpac endorsed a candidate who, let me see, has no problem with gay marriage, who is against the wars in iraq and afghanistan, he s against our alliance with israel, he is for decriminalizing marijuana.