The Candidates
Featured Archives
The next Presidential election is slightly under 4 years away… About 2 years after the next Congress.
Forget for a moment that Barack Hussein Obama hasn’t even been inaugurated yet. For all we know he could govern like Chairman Mao, FDR, or anywhere in between.
Suffice it to say it’s a bit early to be serious about a Presidential candidate. The main issue in 2012 could be our defeat in Afghanistan, the continuing recession or the discovery of extraterrestrial life (ok, that last one isn’t going to happen).
Of course many of us have our favorites.
In 2008 the candidate who won had three things in common.
1) He was popular in New Hampshire.
2) He was the second place choice for most other candidates (Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney supporters all had McCain as their second choice in polls at various points when McCain wasn’t tanking).
3) He won the South Carolina primary.
So let’s get some the bothersome 2012 silliness out now.
Here are my answers:
November 14th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
1. Romney
2. Very difficult to say. NH has now joined the ranks of the blue. Independents have become MUCH more Democrat-leaning in this state since 2000. In 2012, Democrats are not going to have any contest on their hands, so Independents will tend to vote in the GOP primary. That will tilt the contest to the left. I don’t think that bodes well for Palin or The Huckster or any other candidate that resonates with southern or rural culture. It’s going to be interesting to say the least.
3. Palin, Huckabee, Jindal. Romney will have a tough go here.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
1) Romney
2) Romney, Gingrich
3) Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Sanford, Gingrich – really any GOPer should be able to win SC.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I think Act Blog is right. Gingrich would have an easier time in NH than Palin or Huckleberry, provided his campaign got traction initially. If that were to happen he would be just fine in SC. But I don’t think he is going to run.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
1) Mitt Romney
2) Mitt Romney easily
3) Mitt Romney just unless Sanford runs
ps totally agree it’s too early to be so focussed on 2012. I bet the eventual winner doesn’t do much in 2009/2010. I mean Huckabee didn’t do anything until about Feb/March 07 and went close to winning! Sarah is making a big mistake but being so keen for it.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
#3, I didn’t even think of Gingrich.
I bet Romney and Gingrich would have the best chance to win the NH primary.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
1. Newt Gingrich and Bobby Jindal
2. Mitt Romney
3. Mark Sanford’s being in the race may invalidate the whole SC-primary-winner-takes-all rule. I think that Huckabee has the best chance, besides Sanford. Gingrich 3rd, perhaps.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Oh, I also like Sanford, by the way. Gingrich, Jindal, and Sanford.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
I’d have a hard time supporting Pawlenty, Palin, or Romney in the general and would not support Huckabee.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Yes. I do too. I didn’t mention Romney for NH because your instructions said in big bold letters, Besides your favorite candidate… , but Act Blog had something different in mind.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
#8, what makes you so intolerant of Pawlenty and tolerant of Jindal?
(I already know your hang-ups with Romney and Palin).
November 14th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
10 – Pawlenty is, like Palin, part of the Cult of the Mediocre, glorifying Joe Six Pack, assaulting meritocracy, reason, and the Enlightenment tradition. I may be willing to forgive this if he shows proficiency on foreign affairs, but given that he’s basically Mike Huckabee on every other issue, I find this doubtful.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Jindal, on the other hand, is an intellectual. He represents merit and thoughtfulness, but does not turn off “Joe Six Pack” in the meantime. He’s a uniting figure for the party, so far as I can tell.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
well, I don’t think its a given that a favorite candidate does well in a certain state.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
If DaveG, MetroRepublican, and Alex Knepper can support the same candidate as Doug Forrester and the Rombots, we probably have ourselves a winner with Jindal.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
My only concern is that Jindal is too young.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
#11, Pawlenty is a lawyer. His wife is a judge. Pawlenty was even VP for a software company at one time.
In speeches Pawlenty used to regularly come across as a policy wonk (especially on healthcare, agriculture and transportation issues).
Calling Pawlenty anti-intellectual is about the most unusual criticism I’ve ever heard of him.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
A former federal official, university system president, Congressman, and Governor? I have no hang-ups with Jindal’s youth. Age ain’t nothin’ but a number, baby.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
This “Sam’s Club Republicanism” nonsense is what I’m referring to. He’s from the Ross Douthat wing of the party, so far as I can tell. I don’t see how he’s much different from Mike Huckabee.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
normally true, but if obama flunks…
November 14th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
#18, Pawlenty never brings up religion or pseudo-religious rhetoric (which pleases me). There’s no reason for a politician to bring up religious rhetoric in a divisive way.
I think it’s important to reach out to middle class voters. The difference between Pawlenty and Palin/Huckabee (with respect) is that Pawlenty offers conservative substance in a blue collar style.
Palin/Huckabee were more focused on blue collar style than on the actual policies they supported.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
1) Mike Huckabee *ducks*
2) Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich
3) Mark Sanford
November 14th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
There is definitely something to that. Pawlenty is not in the same category as HuckaPalin in my book.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
The criticisms of Pawlenty as an “anti-intellectual” are flat-out wrong and totally unfair. He is an intellectual in the mold of Bobby Jindal and is obviously on the right-side of the Bell Curve in the IQ Dept.
He has a BA in Political Science from the University of Minnesota and graduated from a Top 20 Law School. He was VP of a Tech Firm and excelled in private practice as an attorney.
If you were to rank our bullpen in term of IQ, Pawlenty would be in the Romney-Jindal tier. The most intelligent person I have ever known knows Pawlenty well and is totally blown away with his intellect. My friend identifies him as the most intelligent person he has ever met in private or professional life, bar-none.
His rhetoric is populist, but he is by no means a “common man.”
November 14th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
He used to have a mullet too.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
1) Mrs. Palin, Mr. Jindal, in reality I doubt either will get far in 2012.
2) NH / Mr. Romney
3) SC / Mr. Sandford if he survives that long, otherwise Mr. Huckabee.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Jindal would be the youngest president ever! Not to mention the first Indian-American.
Why the rush?
He could wait 8/12 years. Also why wouldn’t he run in an open year – much easier.
I like him but gee he’s starting to look very over-rated. We don’t need another Obama like celebrity superstar. If the economy keeps tanking we just need a sensible practical bread and butter leader and we can win.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Alex K, I think you’re probably off-base on Pawlenty and populism.
He does populism lite, but does not assault intellectuals in the way Palin and Huckabee do.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Kavon – I didn’t mean that Pawlenty himself was an anti-intellectual. I’m sure that he’s quite an intelligent man! I meant that he, like Huckabee and Palin, advocates a departure, substantively and in his rhetoric, from the Enlightenment tradition, to a more folksy, sleepy city in a valley United States (h/t Big S). “Sam’s Club Republicanism,” whether from a let’s-reach-out-to-the-plebes standpoint or a the-plebes-are-alright standpoint, is not something that I want anything to do with.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
#28, I guess Reagan bothered you with his appeal to the virtues and wisdom of the common American.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
1. Charlie Crist- Cross over appeal and an amazing speaker
2. Tim Pawlenty
3. Mitt Romney
4. Jindal-No prayer in NH or South Carolina
November 14th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
29 – Reagan, like Jindal and Gingrich, knew how to appeal to the common man without deifying the average. It’s one thing to say that people best know how to run their lives, as opposed to government. It’s quite another to say that the greatest ideal that anyone can aspire to is to be Joe Six-Pack. I’m still open to Pawlenty, but it ain’t lookin’ good right now.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I actually have to agree with Kavon here on Pawlenty. I was extraordinarily pleased with his comments the other day in which he called on the GOP to become a more high-tech, wonkish party and where he lambasted Sarah Palin’s “Drill, baby, drill” party, which is one of anti-intellectualism and shoot-from-the-hip slogans instead of ideas.
But Jindal is clearly a truly impressive intellect.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
#31, I think you’ve not seen much of Pawlenty if you think that he is even laying out an ideal.
Pawlenty is just a guy who is culturally blue collar and reaches out to blue collar folks without being awkward (unlike most Republicans). It’s natural for blue collar people to not see themselves as inferior. That’s different than setting that up as ideal.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Shut up, DaveG, “Drill, baby, drill” is awesome!
November 14th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
We need Mitt Romney so we can reach out to blacks.
“Who let the dogs out? Who, who?” “Oh, you got some bling bling right there?”
November 14th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
1. Mitt Romney
2. Gingrich, Jindal
3. Sanford, Palin, Huckabee, Bush
November 14th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Unfortunately, the days of a relatively unknown candidate coming up to win a nomination appear to be over. Americans are so tied up in their own lives and pop culture that they don’t spend the time to really know the lesser-known, but potentially capable, candidates. Obama was a phenomenon, and McCain’s chief attribute was that people knew who he was. The only two Republicans who reach that threshold are Palin and Gingrich. If they run, one of them will probably be the GOP nominee in 2012. If it’s Gingrich, the ticket is likely to be Gingrich/Jindal. I don’t know whom Palin would choose as her VP, but Romney wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
1. Mitt Romney
2. Jindal
3. Mike Huckabee
Sorry, but I don’t think Gingrich will run at 69 years old.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Shut up, DaveG, “Drill, baby, drill” is awesome!
LOL
November 14th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
I feel sorry for the fool who does not want to drill. That is just foolishness.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
40
It has nothing to do with not wanting to drill. It’s just that drilling alone isn’t going to solve all of our problems. And it’s also that “drill, baby, drill” reminds me of Bush’s calls for us to “go shopping,” i.e., it’s a way of telling people to shut up and wait for things to get better because Bush, Palin, etc, aren’t inventive or creative enough to come up with actual policies or ideas to help things get better. That’s why Pawlenty said that drill, baby, drill does not ON ITS OWN constitute an energy policy.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
No drilling alone won’t solve all our problems, but it is not a bad place start.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
You can forget about Mark Sanford. He has made public statements to the effect that the gov’t should just let GM and Ford go under – who needs ‘em. Whether or not you agree with that sentiment, or whether or not you think it wise, he has just made himself radioactive in Michigan and Ohio, and that means,,,,,fuggedaboutit.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
1.Romney
2.Pawlenty
3.Palin/Huckabee
I think Jindal is a fantastic canidate and could win either NH or SC, but Pawlenty seems like he would be more appealing to the northeasterners and Palin or Huckabee I think would grab the southern evangelical vote. All that notwithstanding I think Jindal could beat out Pawlenty or Huckabee overall…Palin would be a much a closer race.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
1. Jindal
2. Romney
3. Palin
These are going to be some fun debates in ‘12
November 14th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
1) Gingrich
2) Gingrich, Romney
3) Anybody. Wide open. Pawlenty and Romney would likely experience trouble here, but they could show up.
I haven’t been as impressed with Jindal’s intellectualism and great speaking abilities as everyone else apparently. If we want a true intellectual, I think we want Gingrich. I’m quite surprised at how consensus he’s been, too.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
1. Who is your favorite candidate? A: Bobby Jindal (T-Paw, Huck, Sarah close behind)
Besides your favorite candidate who do you think could win the New Hampshire primary? Romney
Besides your favorite candidate who do you think could win the South Carolina primary? Huckabee or Palin.
I would be happy with many of these people except for Newt (too old, too divisive). Someone needs to adopt Newt’s ideas. He likes Bobby Jindal. I’m a big fan of any candidate who can offer conservative sensible solutions to our economic concerns like health care, foreclosures, education, cost of living but can speak fluently in blue-collar language. Pawlenty and Jindal are briliant. Huckabee has that quality too– convincing, genuine working/middle class appeal But probably bothers too many econ conservatives– I’m with ya, Adam Graham… the knock on Huckabe is ridiculous. Palin, who I admire a great deal, needs a stronger resume/record as governor of Alaska on these issues (on Greta’s show and at the GOP Governors Conference, she sounded very interested in doing that). If energy is one of the top 2 issues in ‘12, she could be THE candidate. I’m keeping my options open. But Jindal is really catching my attenttion right now. But like Palin, he has to prove himself as governor before 2012.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
When I say Newt is too divisive, hes not really divisive today. I think his ideas should be whats sold by the GOP candidate, just by a different person. But there is no doubt his divisive behavior from the 90s will be a source of much oppo research from the Dems (and some of his Rep. opponents). also tend to believe that youth is a huge factor we need. Obama’s youth didnt hurt him this year. I think long-term for the party, younger candidates if they are good sensible conservatives should be the choice. The GOP is pishing to have 40% of its 2010 candidates be under the age of 40 (40 under 40 plan!). Great plan IMO.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Actually… most people appreciate and allow for the existance of life outside of our planet. The “discovery” of this life may be debatable, but the existance of life beyond earth isn’t really that big of a contraversy given the relatively very little that we know and understand about the billions of universes out there.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
1 Palin 2 Romney 3 Palin or Sanford. 4. Pawlenty is smarter than jindal. Pawlenty could sell Bernie Sanders on his platform.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
1. Jindal
2. Pawlenty
3. Palin
November 14th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
#50, if you think Pawlenty could sell his message pretty well, why do you NOT have him as your favorite?
November 14th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
52, because retail politics means nothing on a national campaign.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Some people on this site should put an effort in to researching jindals positions and votes. He has a mixed record on some issues.
November 14th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
1. Romney
2. Jindal
3. Palin
November 14th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
#49, “billions of universes”
Umm, did you mean planets, galaxies or solar systems?
We’re only aware of one universe, hence the name.
Discovering extraterrestrial life before our species goes extinct is extremely unlikely.
November 14th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
BTW… as much as like Huckabee (and actually am liking Mitt more), I think either Mitt or Huck would divide the party too much. Look at what went down in this year’s primary and imagine them as the two last men standing. Pretty ugly IMO. I think if one of them runs, the other won’t run for the sake of not dividing the party too much.
If Mitt runs, the field by 2012 I think will be:
1. Mitt Romney (former Gov. of MA)
2. Sarah Palin (Governor of AK)
3. Tim Pawlenty (former Governor of MN)
4. Bobby Jindal (Governor of LA)
5. Charlie Crist (Governor of FL)
6. John Thune (Senator SD– if he wins in 2010).
7. Mark Sanford (Former Governor of SC)
The pre-Super Tuesday primaries would be VERY interesting if they stay in the same order/dates they were this year… IA could be a dog-fight between Palin, Romney, Thune, Pawlenty. NH could be another dog-fight between Romney, Pawlenty, and Jindal. MI would be Romney’s to lose. SC would be an epic battle between Palin, Sanford, and Jindal. FL would be Crist’s best chance IMO but would he adopt Rudy’s “go-for-it-all-in-FL” atrategy?
November 14th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Any word on whether the Northeast states are sticking with the “winner take all” strategy for delegates in the next Primary. That really blew up the race, IMHO. Is there no to get folks from the various states all on the same page?
November 14th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
MacisBack – Huckabee was happy to divide the party in 08, he’ll do it again. Heck, I think he’ll run, even if he has no chance, just to bug Romney. He seems obsessed with him.
Anyway, Huck will run. He loves the limelight too much and has his army out there hoping to see him on 2012.
November 14th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Mitt Romney
Gingrich,Sanford
Sanford,Jindal(although I think Romney could pull off an upset here if he’s got momentum going in)
November 14th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Martha the Huckster should run for Senate in 2010.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Agree with Sean. I think the GOP will be able to convince Huck to run against Blanche Lincoln in 2010. She would have a tough go against him. If he does that, you can pretty much bet against him running in 2012.
I think 2012 will come down to Palin, Sanford and Jindal. Those three, along with Eric Cantor and Rick Perry will be Top 5. Romney won’t run, his family is dead-set against it.
My favorite candidate is Palin.
I think Palin, Jindal and Cantor could win NH.
It would come down to Palin and Sanford in SC, which will just like 2000 be the “deciding” primary.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Actually “Drill, baby, drill” was Giuliani’s thing. I’d be surprised to hear Knepper criticize Giuliani. It came out during his speech at the convention. Palin is going to surprise everybody on this forum…IMO.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:20 am
These are my silli answers for 2012 silliness out now.
Who is you favorite candidate?
GOV SARAH PALIN
Besides your favorite candidate who do you think could win the New Hampshire primary?
CONDOLEEZA RICE
Besides your favorite candidate who do you think could win the South Carolina primary?
RUDOLPH GIULIANI
November 15th, 2008 at 1:27 am
57,
There is no way more than a couple heavyweights get in. At the most three will get in.
1 – Romney
2 – Pawlenty, Gingrich, Sanford, Huckabee, Palin (Romney will win)
3 – Sanford, Huckabee, Gingrich, Romney, Pawlenty, Palin
November 15th, 2008 at 1:29 am
I think Palin if Palin runs in 2012 she will be found wanting.
I also think (really hope) that Jindal doesn’t run. I don’t want to waste the best candidate we are going to have this generation against an incumbent who will have more money and more positive press than anyone in history.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Actually “Drill, baby, drill” was Giuliani’s thing. I’d be surprised to hear Knepper criticize Giuliani. It came out during his speech at the convention. Palin is going to surprise everybody on this forum…IMO.
I think it was Steele’s. But it came into primetime during Rudy’s or something.
November 15th, 2008 at 2:30 am
1. David Petraeus
2. Bobby Jindal
3. Gingrich/Palin/Jindal
petraeus would easily be the best candidate, a non-partisan super soldier who is both stronger and smarter then president obama. could build a ‘like-ike’ movement around him, positioning him as a non-partisan leader who can tackle the toughest problems.
jindal i think would take NH because of what NH’s issues are. they do not focus much on social issues there, education and healthcare are their top concerns as well as the economy. jindal is an expert on healthcare and education, and is more then smart enough to set up solid economic proposals.
palin would have a natural advantage in iowa and SC, but i don’t think she would survive the debate schedule. 10 or so debates? against PhD’s like petraeus and gingrich and a rhodes scholar like jindal???
November 15th, 2008 at 2:47 am
“Bling bling” was said to a baby!
There’s no racism with Rommney – just occasional cringeworthy moments!
You gotta love the Mittman though.
Can’t wait to see what the likes of Kris & Metro do in Feb/March 2012 when Romney wraps this up early.
November 15th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Romney’s family is absolutely NOT against Mitt running again. Stop posting this nonsense from annonoymous “sources”. In the off chance they were we would not know about it anyway.
Mitt is just being smart. The republican brand is not selling well at the moment and Palin is a walking talking unmitigated joke to all sensible people.
He’s being smart letting Palin have her time in the sun – content in the knowledge that the more she speaks the less chance she has of ever winning the nomination!
He need not do anything for 18 months. As if all the talent is going to rush to Huck or Sarah don’t make me laugh! Even Hillary didn’t do anything till Jan 07, and Obama wasn’t even running till Oct 06.
To put it bluntly he will crush her just as easilly as one would expect the republican heavyweight to crush any irrelevant lightweight like Sarah the fashionista.
As if Romney would have spent what $50,000,000 of HIS OWN MONEY – AFTER HE LOST if he wasn’t investing in 2012.
We just have to pray for Ann’s health as he’s no Edwards.
November 15th, 2008 at 5:30 am
“Bling bling” was said to a baby!
Yeah.
A black baby! In a black parade! Aye!
Romney would have never said that to a white baby, or have said the cringeworthy “Who Let the Dogs Out? Who? Who” thing to white kids.
It was like Robotney’s mind went off: “PERSON APPROACHING > AGE: YOUTH > RACE: BLACK > DATA RETRIEVED > METHODS OF INTERACTION > SLANG > RANDOM > MUSIC > WHO LET THE DOGS OUT”
November 15th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Yes, Mr. Romney is no racist, but unfortunately, he is not popular with many non-Whites. Let’s hope that if he is our nominee that he can really turn out the White vote. Most other candidates might due a little better among Hispanics, Asians and Others, but won’t likely do quite as well among Whites. So we will have to sit back and see which candidate can win the most overall votes with hacking off one ethnic group too much. The fact that both Mr. Romney and Mrs. Palin are strongly disliked by African Americans is what it is, unfortunately no Republican can win this group. So we need to win moderate Whites and or other non-Whites to make up the difference. It may sound racist, but that is the demographic reality.
November 15th, 2008 at 8:10 am
1) Huckabee, but still open.
2) Jindal, Romney
3) Palin, Sanford, Jindal
November 15th, 2008 at 8:54 am
“Yes, Mr. Romney is no racist, but unfortunately, he is not popular with many non-Whites.”
Fairly or not, the MSM would make an issue of the LDS fairly recent position on blacks as clergy, especially with Romney running against a black candidate. That was a concern I raised in the last primary.
November 15th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Given Obama’s choice of place of worship they wouldn’t be on very firm ground.
November 15th, 2008 at 9:41 am
1. Romney
2. NH: Pawlenty, Jindal (maybe)
3. SC: Huckabee, Palin
–> If Sanford runs SC doesn’t matter. Everyone will put their efforts elsewhere and concede to Sanford. The same can be said about FL if Crist runs.
November 15th, 2008 at 9:46 am
1. Sen. Susan Collins
2. Jindal
3. Jindal
November 15th, 2008 at 11:01 am
1. Jindal 4 Prez!
2. Romney or Pawlenty
3. Pawlenty or Palin
I think Pawlenty and Jindal are probably our best compromise candidates – the vast majority of the posters here are well-disposed towards them. Gingrich takes honorable mention – though does anyone think he’d be electable given his 90’s role as House Speaker and Bill Clinton’s #1 rival? Great ideas, probably could convey them well, though the baggage just might kill him.
Also, if foreign affairs begin to trump domestic, I’m all for Petraeus.
November 15th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Heath, I agree with you about Romney and Palin. Romney is being a perfect gentleman, as always, and letting Palinmania run it’s course. She is fast approaching her jump-the-shark moment. Her not so subtle play for 2012 this week didn’t help her and made her look even more foolish, especially with the interviews in her kitchen.
More decoding needed this week:
“Sitting here in these chairs that I’m going to be proposing but in working with these governors who again on the front lines are forced to and it’s our privileged obligation to find solutions to the challenges facing our own states every day being held accountable, not being just one of many just casting votes or voting present every once in a while, we don’t get away with that. We have to balance budgets and we’re dealing with multibillion dollar budgets and tens of thousands of employees in our organizations.”
November 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am
HA!
November 15th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Palin makes John Kerry seem succinct.
November 15th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Adam, here’s the link:
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/11/12/cracking-the-code/
November 15th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I’m keeping an open mind for now. So far I’m quite pleased with the positive aspects of any of the likely contenders, and I by far favor sending someone into the final battle who is in a current or former executive post, i.e., not a legislator.
I like Sanford most amongst those that haven’t been widely discussed so far. Yes, he recently committed the heresy of saying Detroit’s Big Three should not be bailed out. But Chapter 11 is the best place for those carmakers to break free of their onerous union contracts — one of the reasons that Dems are adamant that the companies should be rescued by taxpayers.
No one has yet explained, though, why the federal government should spend scarce resources rescuing the Big Three, which will put the foreign makers with production plants in states beyond Michigan at a disadvantage.
It’ll be interesting to watch these candidates as they negotiate the tough times as governors or GOP mouthpieces over the coming two to three years. I look forward to learning more about each.
November 15th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Here’s mine.
- Palin
- Newt or Pawlenty
- Huckabee
November 15th, 2008 at 11:38 am
I’ll clearly have to add Martha M to Act Blog and Heath in the “must ignore” class of commenters. The concept that Mr. Romney “lets” things occur on the national political scene is so risible to be offensive. Such astronomically nonsensical claims made by his most flaming supporters made the poor fella unpalatable to me. And to think that such commenters make claims about the intellectual prowess of others defies credulity…
November 15th, 2008 at 11:38 am
I feel it will be hard for Romney to gain any traction, due to him being out of the spotlight and not holding any political office. He might do better moving to a state where he can become a Senator or House member.
November 15th, 2008 at 11:50 am
#85, If Romney made a stink about Palin, he would have no future in the party.
Romney may be a gentlemen, more importantly Romney is a shrewd operator.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
1) Huckabee, Watts
2) Romney, Pawlenty, Newt
3) Watts, Sanford, Newt, Jindal
Given that our president elect has no executive experience, what disqualifies JC Watts from this list? I’d like it if he were to run OK as governor for awhile, but this is a guy who could win at least 50% of the African-American vote and bring needed demographic changes to the GOP. He could name someone like Petraeus or Romney as VP to soothe any worries about his lack of experience.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I like Palin and Jindal, but neither will bring a significant number of new voters to the GOP, but JC Watts would.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
MarkG – by “let” I simply meant that Romney is laying low and not talking too much at this point. I did not mean to imply that Romney controls anything in the GOP, as I’m sure you realize.
I find it astronomically nonsensical that you place so much weight on supporters, rather than the candidate himself. Nothing I say can make Romney one bit less qualified.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
mac – flip that. Romney/Watts would be better.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
That he called himself “a free agent” and open to supporting Obama this year for one thing. That he is afraid to stand up to the overhwhelming majority of blacks and disagree with voting for Obama because Obama is the opposite of everything that Watts supposedly stood for.
If you think Watts would bring any more than a scant couple percentage points over from Obama then you don’t know the way the black vote works.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
So Watts wants to vote for Obama because McCain doesn’t have enough black people around him? Please. it sounds pretty chicken$hit to me. A conservative votes conservative regardless of skin color. Condi Rice is the current secretary of state and George Bush has the most inclusive cabinet ever. Watts was looking for an excuse.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67247
November 15th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Martha,
I think Romney/Watts is a loser, very few African-Americans would switch over if Watts isn’t at the top of the ticket, it would look like a pander.
Romney/Huckabee might win, not because it would bring any changes to party demographics, actually quite the opposite, but those two would so excite/motivate the base that the GOTV movement would be huge.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
“If you think Watts would bring any more than a scant couple percentage points over from Obama then you don’t know the way the black vote works.”
Ok, call me clueless.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Well for starters, Lynn Swann got a whopping 13 percent of the black vote in Pennsylvania in 2006.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/PA/G/00/epolls.0.html
November 15th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
And the website is being finicky with my post because of the link.
I’ll try again.
Lynn Swann got 13 percent of the black vote in PA in 2006.
h++p: // http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/PA/G/00/epolls.0.html
November 15th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
It’s not a coincidence that the last black Republican in Congress was from Oklahoma.
In 2004, 28% of blacks voted for Bush (74% of Hispanics voted for Bush).
I wonder what it is about Oklahoma that allows so many African Americans to vote Republican.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
#95, unfortunately I’d have to agree that Watts is more likely to run with Obama in his second term then run against him. But…I believe 2012 will be a hard win. If Obama’s numbers are down he will drop Biden from his ticket and replace him with Hillary. The problem with our side is that we only have a handful of stars…actually one…maybe two if you include Newt. Our next candidate needs to be on the scene now or within the next year.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Ken Blackwell actually got 20 percent of the black vote in Ohio in 2006. But that was after Bush got 16 percent of it in 2004. So the pendulum only swung four points.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/OH/G/00/epolls.0.html
November 15th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
It’s useless to try to play “Let’s reachout” for the black vote until Obama is gone. It’s nice to say but it;s true.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Also, we must hope the Green Party can get someone good to run to help take some of the votes away from Obama…since the Libertarian Party will definitely take votes away from us..
November 15th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Adam,
First of all, if the GOP could get 13% of the AA vote in OH and FL, that might be enough, but I think Watts has the potential to do much, much better than Swannie, especially in the south. My ‘evidence’ is all empirical, based on ‘gut’ feeling and the fact that I live, work and worship with African-Americans, Latino’s and West Indians. JC passes the ‘real’ guy test, he has a personal story that resonates, especially in the African-American community.
The comments he made in run up to the election are understandable given our history and the dismal effort by our candidates to reach out to African Americans.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
We don’t need the Green Party to bail us out. We need competent and RELEVANT conservative leadership that may be pro-life but doesn’t make a fetish of it and may be anti-gay marriage without making a fetish of it. The party needs to tout individual responsibility and talk about how hard work can pay off in this country. The party ought to stress that while there will always be some safety net there won’t be any more bailouts for bad behavior. That’s how the GOP will win. That’s how it will poach some of Obama’s soft support. We don’t need a 12-point program to woo hispanics or blacks. We just need a winning message that isn’t tailored for 1984. Then the votes will come.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
mcore,
It’s still an affirmative action move. Watts is (or was) ready to vote Obama apparantly because McCain’s inner circle wasn’t dark enough. That’s just stupid. Skin color shouldn’t be an issue for McCain, or Obama , or Republicans trying to fight their way out of the wilderness.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
It’s not about the Green Party bailing us out…it’s about an evolving political landscape that we must acknowledge, hopefully it can benefit us but we also must acknowledge the Libertarian’s role in Indiana and North Carolina.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Jersey,
Republicans have a lot fo work to do to repair their image. But states that our candidate won by 20 and 12 points as recently as four years ago aren’t suddenly out of reach now. Yes, minority turnout increased and that obviously didn’t help. But you know what the biggest factor in causing us to lose those states was? White support shifting to the Democrats. Like I said, we need to tailor our message to solving the problems the country faces. We can’t be out of touch with that. What we don’t need to do is make a checklist of individual ethnicities and find a way to pander to them to put us over the top.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Adam, I don’t believe I have said anything to the contrary. How do we apply conservative principles to the modern day, kitchen table issues our nation faces? How do we market them to the American people in a better manner then we have been for the past 2 to 4 years? I personally liked Giuliani’s 12 Point Plan as far as where to move the country. But, whatever route we take, we need a united front. So many, coming of age, voters believe Republican’s are racist, greedy, war mongerers, who have ruined the nation…now we know this isn’t true but how do we sell that to the American people?
November 15th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
That’s an excellent question. I think the first thing we do is show up. Last time any GOPer talked about conservative economic principles was the Reagan/Gingrich era. That he didn’t make any attempt to sell conservatism to the broader electorate is one of the biggest failures of the Bush administration. We need to showcase ideas. Part of it will naturally fall into our lap as no one can possibly live up to the expectations set for Obama. But talking about the market and about the virtues of free enterprise is a good start. Most importantly the party needs to hammer home HOW we got into this economic mess, and what led to the bailout, and we need to be very vocal that it can’t happen again.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
One of the great things our party always had going for us was we didn’t wait for a leader to pave the road with new ideas…we are the party of big ideas. The Democrats always relied on a leader to follow. Even though we scoffed at Obama’s remark…”We are the ones we’ve been waiting for…” that sentiment helped him gain his blind following. We need to be the ones to add substance to empty rhetoric. If we can do that, as a Party, and have candidates that can deliver our unifying message we will take back Congress and the White House.
Instead of arguing about which candidate is better for our party in 4 years…we shoud use this site as a grassroots, conservative think tank. We are the ones who face these kitchen table issues on a daily basis…we should be the ones to help mold the policy that will affect tomorrow’s issues.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I really really think it’s important that we win the narrative on the bailout. People are upset about it. It’s a perfect way to get the “no free lunch” ideas across the the electorate as a whole. Anyone that could sell that is going to be a winner in my book.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
“That’s just stupid. Skin color shouldn’t be an issue.”
Stupid, yes, but also reality on the ground. If any segment of our population can be forgiven for voting based on skin color it’s African Americans…given the fact that most of them live in the United States is due strictly to their skin color.
I certainly understand how his comments hurt him among some Republicans, but Watts is a talented politician who could spin the statements he’s made about Obama to his benefit in a general election.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
It’s a hard narrative to win when, the Democrats will be telling the story but, I believe, we need to outright refuse the notion of an automotive industry bailout. In fact, if the Democrats do get their 60, and the Republican’s feel the majority Democrats are going to unanimously vote in favor of the bill…the Republicans should not show up for the vote out of protest…the news media will have to pick up that story and it will give the opportunity for the Republicans to be heard. I know this is a bold suggestion and it would never happen but I think we need bold gestures and bold initiatives to get out our message.
November 15th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
MarkG,
“The concept that Mr. Romney “lets” things occur on the national political scene is so risible to be offensive. Such astronomically nonsensical claims made by his most flaming supporters made the poor fella unpalatable to me. And to think that such commenters make claims about the intellectual prowess of others defies credulity…”
What drives me nuts about some Rombots here is the premise that the VOTERS failed Romney, not that Romney failed to prove himself to the voters. No other candidate’s supporters talk like that. Nothing could ever possibly be wrong with Romney…. of course. If he isn’t made emperor by unanimous acclamation, America is lost…..
November 15th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Jersey,
“the Republicans should not show up for the vote out of protest”
Interesting thought, but the MSM (and probably most voters) would see it as the Republican Senators not doing their job. In fact, it might even make the GOP look petulant, and gives the Dems an excuse not to cooperate at all.
November 15th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
MWS, I see your point and I agree it would probably be spun in some fashion to make the Republican Senators look bad but I really do not believe the Democrats are going to cooperate…I may be wrong but that’s how I see it. Since we probably will not have the fillibuster to help us, then we need other ways to stand our ground and get out our message.
November 15th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
1) Romney
2) Pawlenty, although Romney will win it if he runs
3) Palin, although SC is pretty wide open
BTW, McCain got 56 million votes, only a couple of million less than Bush in ‘04. Obama received 62 million, which is 6 million more than Kerry did. What cost us the election was that something like twice as many Americans thought they would get a tax cut from Obama than from McCain. When Republicans lose the tax cutting issue, we lose. The other reason was the astronomical black turnout. It’s insane to go after the black vote when Obama is at the top of the ticket. But we need to carry the white vote by a significantly larger margin than the 55-43 margin we carried it by this time. Fortunately, we can win it by the 20 or more points we need to win it by simply by nominating the right candidate.
November 15th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Alex,
I’m going to have to agree with Metro, DaveG, and Kavon. It’s just ludicrous to lump Pawlenty with Palin/Huckabee. I like Palin a good deal, but she’s not a policy wonk. Pawlenty is. When Palin eventually comes up with a vision, it will either be explicitly populistic and somewhat gauzy in terms of ideology (ala Huckabee) or it will be a Joe the Plummer sort of ideology; conservative, principled, and sweeping, but less policy oriented. If she goes the former route, count me out, but I find the second possibility awfully attractive. Still, neither of those options look anything like a Pawlenty-pathway. Pawlenty talks about Sam’s Club Republicanism in the context of particular policies, most of which are broadly conservative. Ross Douthat, by the way, has basically been miffed by Pawlenty, precisely because Pawlenty’s “Sam’s Club Republicanism” because it’s still broadly conservative, rather then DLC-lite. I don’t understand why people find it so objectionable that Pawlenty uses more inclusive, less-hard edged language to sell conservative policies. Obama certainly attempted this with his extremely program and no one supposes (no one sane anyway) it’s actually going to result in less ideological policies. Why should we begrudge “Sam’s Club” language if all Pawlenty means by it, is that we should promote policies that help individuals get from Sam’s Club to the Country Club? This is really the essence of conservatism, after all.
November 15th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
disclosure: not a conservative, not a Republican, just find the subject interesting
1) there are things I like about Jindal, Pawlenty, Crist and even Huckabee.
2) Romney, though I could see Pawlenty doing well here
3) Huckabee or Palin, though if DeMint decided to endorse someone that person might get a leg up. Agree that SC won’t matter as much if Sanford runs. what would replace it in relevance? FL? NV?
does anybody think Giuliani might run again? does not being strongly anti-abortion make it an impossibility for him in general?
November 15th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Pawlenty would be far more attractive to me if he wasn’t on the wrong side of the global warming debate.
November 15th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
#118… if the GOP doesnt come to grips with the reality that most Americans believe global warming exists, they’re gonna lose a throng of young people and educated suburbanites in VA, CO, FL, NV, etc. We can find free-market solutions to the problem of global warming. I think Newt Gingrich has a book on this. Havent read it yet though.
November 15th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“I don’t understand why people find it so objectionable that Pawlenty uses more inclusive, less-hard edged language to sell conservative policies.”
This is what i LOVE about Pawlenty. Jindal is similar I think.
November 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
This is wgat Reagan mastered… inclusive, hopeful language, but deep conservative ideas/solutions to our most pressing problems.
November 15th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
BTw, has anyone looked at this proposed plan for the primary schedule in 2012??? Its called the “Ohio plan”… it basically has early states first, then small states, then big states. The first “early” states would be IA, NH, NV, and SC. How do you think this will impact each candidate’s strategy??? I’m thinking it would live FL and MI (big states that were in Jan. this year) out of the primary battle for a couple months. I’m guessing CA, TX, NY, FL would not go until at least late March (if they have the biggest of the big states last).
November 15th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Do we have to have a New Hampshire primary early in the process? I mean, can we force them to wait until later?
I know that for a long time, the New Hampshire primary supporters bragged that nobody had won the presidency without winning the NH primary that year since the primary began. Of course, they’ve had to modify that claim, given that Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all won the presidency without winning the NH primary.
Our goal should be to work out a primary schedule that will be conducive to finding a candidate who can win the presidency — not just to satisfying a few New Hampshirites’ desire for attention.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:54 am
It’ll be hard to break that tradition of NH being the First Primary. But I agree with you that given the fact that the last three Presidents have not won the NH Primary, their claim to being good at selecting our presidents is def beyond belief now. I think IA is even crazier though– no primary, but a caucus?? Thats how we got freakin Obama in the first place. I say get rid of caucuses and have all primaries. Caucuses are almost not even secret balloting and thus, really not as democratic as primaries (NOT EVEN CLOSE).
November 16th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
1. Mitt Romney
2. Ron Paul
3. Tim Pawlenty