"If it's 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we're headed for a blowout. That's just the truth."My response: if that's really going to happen, then so be it and 'so what.' I would rather lose running on principles that I believe in and those that I believe will strengthen the party, then to win by compromising my beliefs. For the millionth time, what's the point of winning an election if you had to compromise who you are to get there?
I know things are bad for Republicans right now and I'm not delusional as to how hard it will be to win in 2012 against Obama. That's why we fight, organize and prepare for it. We don't change who we are to get votes. We strengthen who we are.
Weaver is the strategist who was preparing former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman for a Presidential run in 2012. Huntsman just accepted an appointment in the Obama administration as U.S. Ambassador to China and is one of the most "moderate" Republicans out there. McCain name-dropped him several times over the past year and he's become the poster boy for party reform.
The Huntsman appointment has the MSM painting Obama as a post-partisan President reaching across the aisle, and Huntsman as a beaming example for Republicans everywhere. Kind of like how they painted McCain, before he won the nomination last year. We can't let the MSM decide who our leaders are.
"I firmly believe that Huntsman and people like him are the prescription for what ails us," says Weaver. "But I have the feeling that our party maybe won't order that prescription in 2012."Okay, just to nitpick, no one "orders a prescription;" a doctor prescribes it. But whatever. The point is, we had a moderate run for President last year and look where it got us. Do the "moderates" not learn? It seems so obvious to me. Palin was the one who got the base energized, not McCain. So logically it seems that our party is ready for someone who shares the same ideas as her.