going to defeat hillary clinton, you better have a heck of an organization, a bunch of money, a bunch of funders willing to back you. it s not like somebody happens to be there and the ball s fumbled and they pick it up. as you point out. the lack of a primary means it s hard for the party to get her on the record on stuff that they care about. the only hope is that she ll be good on the issues if you re a democrat, a centrist, or a liberal. and primaries have the base of the party and members of the party exerting some control over what the party s platform is. it can work in all kinds of different ways. but people use the primaries as a way to bird dog. we saw it in the democratic primary in 2008. and without that, again, it s that sort of top-down vision of how this is going to work. and policy arguments matter. and policy flows out of primaries in a real way. it s going to happen on the gop side. they re going to figure out what the party is going to do on immigration as a re
you have to organize. warren is not doing any of those things. your point being, if you are going to defeat hillary clinton, you better have a heck of an organization, a bunch of money, a bunch of funders willing to back you. it s not like somebody happens to be there and the ball s fumbled and they pick it up. as you point out. the lack of a primary means it s hard for the party to get her on the record on stuff that they care about. the only hope is that she ll be good on the issues if you re a democrat, a centrist, or a liberal. and primaries have the base of the party and members of the party exerting some control over what the party s platform is. it can work in all kinds of different ways. but people use the primaries as a way to bird dog. we saw it in 2008. and without that, again, it s that sort of top-down vision of how this is going to work. and policy arguments matter. and policy flows out of primaries in a real way. it s going to happen on the gop
house because then what would they talk about? they would have to become devoted to that president which doesn t help their ratings. ted cruz is following the model of the people who least want to win elections, but he s using and claiming that could help win elections. it s so ironic but the reason why people like steve schmidt lose credibility among the base because they believe rush and it will help to us win the white house when clearly that s not what rush probably wants. steve schmidt, the backlash seems to be under way by establishment republicans in washington against ted cruz. there s no glory in losing election after election and there s no glory in committing yourself to strategies that are self-evidently defeating the purpose of trying to build a majority that can win elections. so i think that people want to see a healthy republican party advancing conservative principles making conservative policy arguments not to see
house because then what would they talk about? they would have to become devoted to that president which doesn t help their ratings. ted cruz is following the model of the people who least want to win elections, but he s using and claiming that could help win elections. it s so ironic but the reason why people like steve schmidt lose credibility among the base because they believe rush and it will help to us win the white house when clearly that s not what rush probably wants. steve schmidt, the backlash seems to be under way by establishment republicans in washington against ted cruz. there s no glory in losing election after election and there s no glory in committing yourself to strategies that are self-evidently defeating the purpose of trying to build a majority that can win elections. so i think that people want to see a healthy republican party advancing conservative principles making conservative policy arguments not to see conservatism generate into a cult of personality a
everybody. it s just not true. you know, you can make policy arguments, libertarian arguments, ayn rand type arguments, and we ll see how well things work a year from now. but he s out there with rhetoric that is just has no basis in reality. and for his side, it doesn t matter. well, i think you re all right. i have no idea of his religious beliefs, but his political beliefs are clear. challenging everything in america saying i m rallying against the people back in texas. it s interesting you point out the fact he doesn t see himself as a u.s. senator but a texas senator. thank you. by the way, the right wing of texas. thank you both. is the roman candle about to burn itself out? or more like the flesh eating virus that s going to take over the gop? looks as if it s going to take a civil war in the republican party to get the answer. i think that s begun.