The Candidates
Featured Archives
To hear Mitt Romney speak in person is something strangely magical. I had the pleasure in October, 2007. I was about twenty feet from what most commenters on this site would call, “The Aura of Mitt.” When you’re listening to Mitt Romney, you forget all those silly objections and questions and you just want to believe him. I knew how the prophet Samuel felt in the book of 1 Samuel when he was looking to crown a new king for Israel and Jesse’s first son came in and Samuel thought, “Surely, the anointed of the Lord is before me.”
However, Mitt pandered too much and misrepresented a book I’d actually read at the end of the speech. The spell was broken, and I remembered all of the flip flops and doubts, and remained unconvinced.
That said, this piece isn’t about being convinced. This is about whether Mitt Roimney will run for President in 2012 based based on the five factors that I’ve discussed regarding other candidates.
1) Desire: Before the election, Mitt Romney told a Louisiana TV Station he was “unlikely” to run for President again. 2008 was a tough year for Romney and if he had to begin a campaign in October, 2008, I’d doubt he’d do it. But 2012 is another matter. John McCain has said the only thing that will cure his desire to be President is embalming fluid, and I suspect the same is true with Romney. It should also be noted, Romney changed positions on wanting to be VP this time around, so I suspect ambition is very much alive.
2) Campaign and Personal Finances: Usually, these are two separate categories, but I think they are inextricably linked in his case.
There has been some talk in the comments that Mitt Romney could run again and win without tapping into his personal wealth. Romney had to spend more money to get known this time, the argument goes. He outraised every other candidate (except Rudy) when his wealth wasn’t included. Now that he’s more known, he doesn’t need to tap into his personal fortune.
Anything wrong with this thinking? Just about everything. It assumes that Mitt Romney can win in 2012, spending less of his own money than he did in 2008 by either:
1) Raising $47 million more from private contributors.
2) Spending $47 million less.
The, “He lost with $107 million, but he’ll win with $60 million.” school fails to grasp the real world economics of campaigns. So does the idea of reaching $100 million raised without putting his own money in. Were he not to finance part of his campaign himself, it would likely end up reducing his contributions from other sources. Imagine, if someone’s asking you to invest in a business and they stop investing. Romney is dealing with Wall Street people as his financiers, and if his own money’s off the table, don’t expect them to pony up.
Romney needs the money to buy ads, hire consultants, and produce strong strawpoll showings. Romney spent $5 million at the Iowa Strawpoll alone. Does anyone really think he can run that type of campaign on $60 million?
This presents a real rub for Romney. While I’m sure Romney has been fairly bright with investments, it’s almost certain that the Romney fortune has shrunk through the current economic crisis. Portfolios of both Real Estate and stock have lost value quickly. The average Millionaire has lost 30% of his net worth. Even if Romney has lost 20%, that means the money he pulls out to run for President would be taken out after having taken a beating already and take an even larger chunk out of the old Romney estate. On the other hand, if Romney’s portfolio recovers before 2011 and selling properties and stocks wouldn’t mean taking such a big chunk out of the family fortune, that means a recovered economy. In a better economy, Romney has little chance of beating Obama.
3) Family: There have been news reports that Romney’s family doesn’t want him to run. We don’t know for sure whether the Romney boys are ready to head out across the country and take a year off to campaign for their dad, but we do know Ann Romney has had health issues. At 65, Romney will have a tough choice come 2012 in regards to his family.
4) Oxygen: Romney will most assuredly have a forum should he choose to run.
In the end, the challenge of a Romney 2012 campaign may be nothing less than this: rewrite the dynamics of modern Republican Presidential politics. If Romney runs, he’ll be facing either Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin. While Mitt supporters may cheer for both to enter the 2012 race, Romney’s not going to be that lucky.
South Carolina has picked the last four winners of Contested Republican Primary Contests and despite spending millions in the state, Romney finished fourth. Romney surpassing Huckabee or Palin in that state seems a remote possibility, so he has to find a way around SC. The best solution to taking SC out of play would be a run by South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. Unfortunately, Sanford would also likely drain financial supporters and voters from Romney.
Romney could try to focus his campaign on winning New Hampshire and then focus on winning big states like New York, California, and Florida. However, making a political strategy based on the result of the New Hampshire Primary is going to be tricky. While Romney narrowly won Republicans voting in the New Hampshire Primary, Independents play a huge factors and there will only be one primary for them to vote in. New Hampshire’s Independents are incredibly unpredictable, going for Pat Buchanan in 1996 and then splitting between John McCain (R) and Bill Bradley (D) in 2000.
In the end, I think that Romney is more likely to run than not, but if it doesn’t look like Obama’s beatable, you can definitely count him out.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Romney could have beat McCain this year without SC if he could have won FL so he could just use the same strategy in 2012.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
We can talk about strategy all we want, but Romney just doesn’t strike a chord with many conservatives. Right now, he’s the frontrunner by default, but only because his two main competitors are widely seen as incompetent and/or unelectable. Get a good, mainstream conservative to run against Romney, and Romney will disappear quickly.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
“Romney could have beat McCain this year without SC if he could have won FL so he could just use the same strategy in 2012.” He would have had to win it big. After losing SC, Mr. Romney have to win FL to prolong the contest, For Mr. McCain, it was icing on the cake. Mr. Romney might get away with losing SC in 2012, but coming 4th most likely won’t cut it.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Four points:
1) On money: McCain won the primary with far less money than Romney came in second with. What is the main difference? McCain already had name recognition. Now, Romney will have to raise more in 2012, but he should have no problem winning he nomination without significant personal contributions. Raising more shouldn’t be a problem, since he will START the election with at least 5x the support he started 2008 with…
2) Mitt Romney’s family will support him in his decision. That doesn’t mean that all his sons will quit their jobs and barnstorm Iowa again, but they will not try to stop him from doing something he wants to do. Ann could be a different story because of her health – which is about the only thing that I see keeping Mitt out of it.
3) Huckabee and Palin are both extremely ambitious, and come pre-packaged with rather large egos. They aren’t going to consult each other on 2012. Just as with Romney, embalming fluid is the only cure for Presidential ambition. One may run, both could, or neither might jump in – but the decisions will be made independently.
4) As the last few elections have shown – notably 2008 and 1992 – you simply cannot predict the likelihood of victory two years out.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“We can talk about strategy all we want, but Romney just doesn’t strike a chord with many conservatives. Right now, he’s the frontrunner by default, but only because his two main competitors are widely seen as incompetent and/or unelectable. Get a good, mainstream conservative to run against Romney, and Romney will disappear quickly.”
You completely mis-read and underestimate Mitt.
Whether you are blind, or willingly closing your eyes hoping that wishing makes it so…I don’t know.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
“Huckabee and Palin are both extremely ambitious, and come pre-packaged with rather large egos. They aren’t going to consult each other on 2012.” With all due respect, why do they need to consult each other. Let everyone who wants, throw his or her hat in the ring and let the best man or woman win.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I should had read the autor of this post before read the whole thing.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Note to future; See Guiliani and 2008 Primaries.
Rudy’s ineffectiveness to live up to expectations in both NH and FL are in no small part linked directly to McCain winning both states and the Primary. There is absolutely no doubt that Rudy’s supporters went to McCain in a last minute switch when he all but conceded. In Florida, Rudy all but said “don’t vote for me vote for John”.
Had Rudy actually campaigned in both states like he wanted to win Mitt probably would have been the nominee.
How that plays to the future. Huck and Sarah draw from the same base and could in the end do the same Rudy-McCain tag team to another front runner.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
#7- Yup, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Whether Romney runs or not depends on even more factors than the ones mentioned. I believe he will probably run, and if he does he will probably win. He made enormous strides during the 2008 campaign, and there is a strong case to be made that in the end, it might have been a blessing for his chances of actually winning the general to have lost the nomination in ‘08. Mitt has the right stuff to play the role of economic savior in 2012, and I think that will be what the nation will be searching for.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Romney must win NH in 2012 and FL and he would be the nominee. Huckabee is a lock for Iowa if he runs but Romney could probably win Iowa and NH if Huckabee doesnt run. I am not sure how Palin – Romney would play in Iowa without Huckabee but I think Romney would edge her out there and if he then took NH his momentum would carry the day most likely even if he loses SC in a close race.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I think a lot of people misunderstand the situation. Romney isn’t going to make the decision based off of those factors, nearly as much as whether he believes he has a good chance at winning. But to be honest, if Obama is popular come time for primary season, Mitt’s path to the nomination would be an easy one. Maybe he’ll bet on a similar situation to this year. Does everyone remember that McCain and Obama were essentially even in the polls until the economy went south? That was what sunk McCain’s campaign. If some even happens in 2012 that effects how people feel about the future and presidency, than it could change everything. I personally think Mitt will run, but if he wants to win he will have to drastically change his strategy. DON’T HIRE THE SAME ADVISORS. They were horrible for him. Romney was sunk just as much by his negative ads and the way he spoke in the debates. I’m sure a lot of that was because of his advisors tones. It’s like they all believed he was better than everyone else, and his campaign was terribly smug. I couldn’t believe how they handled Iowa when the Huckaboom happened. Negative ad after negative ad. It was pretty dumb if you ask me. I really think the tone has to change, and Romney needs to focus on his credentials and values, not his opponents.
Romney can win, and he can convince the people(including conservatives) to vote for him. But he has to start changing things now.
Mitt Romney-Intelligence, Wisdom and Apologetics
That’s the key for Mitt. Not a theme for him, but where his focus has to be. Defending conservative principals, all the while projecting wisdom and intelligence. Don’t focus on Obama, focus on the building blocks.
It’s identity stupid! The personal identity matters more than slamming obama’s policies. It’s not about contrast, it’s about faith. If people have faith in Mitt and his ability to lead, than they will accept his policies.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Lol Romney will smash your Huck!
January 12th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
“To hear Mitt Romney speak in person is something strangely magical.”
Can we leave the political mysticism and the irrational fawning of politicians to the left and to the MSM?
January 12th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Adam G – I believe your opening paragraph is disingenuous. I highly doubt you were taken by Romney until he said that people can have values without religion. I think you are misrepresenting him. It just doesn’t wash.
I think Huck and Sarah are both very likely to run, MatthewK is right. They both love the spotlight too much. Palin wants to strike while the iron is hot, and Huck can’t help himself. I can’t imagine how either actually believe they have shot after 2008, or that they are truly qualified, but no matter. I hope they both run, but it doesn’t matter, Mitt will beat both of them either way.
Nobody knows if Romney wants to shell out more cash, so I don’t think we should assume anything. However, he did it before and we know that if he loses, he’ll be able to replenish it easily. He’s not called the best businessman in America for nothing. So I don’t think it’s a huge factor. Ann’s health is.
Adam, Even when you take SC into consideration, I don’t see a plausible path for Huck or Sarah to the nomination. It’s Romney’s to lose. He will not only have a forum, he will have the nomination unless something really strange happens.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
From my observations, I don’t think Romney or his sons care as much about money as everyone assumes. Romney wants to be president because he believes he can do some good, and because it’s the ultimate challenge. He’s dying to get his hands on fixing the things he truly believes he can fix.
If you ask him what’s more important to him, I’m dead sure he won’t say money.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
In other words – success is what drives him, money has been one of the by-products.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Adam G – I must say I’m a little disappointed.
I thought we were going to get your “Romney Has No Core” stuff. Did you reform, or are you afraid to say what you really think?
January 12th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Today is Show Mitt the Money day!
http://themittblog.com/2009/01/12/show-mitt-the-money-jan-2009/
January 12th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Today is Show Mitt the Money day!
http://themittblog.com/2009/01/12/show-mitt-the-money-jan-2009/
January 12th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
I have no idea why that went twice. Only pressed submit once.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
All of this sounds like wishful thinking from a Huck fan, and I know little to nothing about the author.
The world has changed considerably since late 2007. If the reality we have now existed then, Romney would have won the GOP nomination going away. Think ahead two or three years from now. What possible problem will exist that Huckabee or Palin holds the solution to? Terrorism? The Economy? Government Spending? Romney either draws or outshines the both of them in all of these areas. McCain topped Romney on Iraq, and in the early primaries, this was significant. As long as Romney keeps from cross-dressing on national TV, he will have enough social con creds to get by, especially as the election is not likely to focus there. Where the Hell was Huckabee’s congregation or Huckabee himself in the prop 8 battle? Oh that’s right, he was busy promoting his book.
Can Romney get by on 60 million? Name the candidate with as much name recognition and a large support base that will spend more. Romney doesn’t exist in a vacuum, these mythical challengers he will compete against are known commodities now. Who shows up with more money, a better message, and a larger built in base to start? Name names.
If Mitt wants it, he is the front runner by a mile. Huck’s pastor network in Iowa will not provide the same surprise boost a second time, even if it can pull off the state for him this time around, people will expect it and laugh at, not with, Iowa. If Palin is in she probably beats Huck here ending his campaign. Romney takes NH and every state up until NC, I would be willing to bet that unless Sanford gets in and survives until then, Romney places well there and wins Florida.
Name a real candidate that derails this plan.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Martha, how much does the Romney campaign pay you to spam this site? I hope a lot.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
[...] Graham at Race 4 2012 has a piece up examining the factors going into a Mitt Romney run for president. His conclusion is a sentiment [...]
January 12th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Greg A – I think if they want to pay someone it should be Framer, don’t you? He said it well.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Wasn’t there an article about Romney spending 90% of his PAC money on his own political staff?
There’s your answer.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I looked back on some our little race42008/2012 polling we’ve done, and found something interesting when comparing an August 16th poll for vp, and a November 8th poll for 2012 Presidential nominee.
As you recall we ranked our 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice candidates.
Just using the three that are being called the front runners, we have:
for VP: August 16th
———————first——second——-third
Romney —————19———–8———–5
Palin —————-10———-10———–3
Huckabee—————1———–2———–0
As you can see, pretty good enthusiasm for Palin, hardly any for Huckabee. Palin came in 2nd in this poll.
Now look at who we wanted for President in 2012:
November 8th:
——————–first———–second——–third
ROMNEY—————-43————–4————–5
PALIN——————4————–8————-12
HUCKABEE—————9————–2————–1
Notice how Palin fell way down, and Romney went way up? Huckabee seemed to gain some strength also. It looks like at least on this site that immediately after the election there was a feeling that Palin needed more time, and Romney had his strongest showing of any previous of these polls. Romney has won all of them handily, but in this one he was particularly strong, with Huckabee actually drawing the second most first place votes with his 9.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I don’t know if Romney will run or not. I sincerely doubt if Romney even knows himself. I hope he does. The GOP and the country benefit from having candiates of his caliber running for President.
Will Sarah Palin run? I hope not. I speak as a Palin supporter, not as a Romney supporter. She needs more seasoning, and I am afraid that three years is too short of a time to fully ripen her. The woman has a state to run, a campaign to win, and a Downs baby to rear. That’s a pretty full plate for anyone.
Will Huckabee run? It all depends. If he is sincere about wanting to be President, he might. But then if he was truly sincere, it is not the smartest thing to go around picking unnecessary fights like he has been doing for nearly a year now. If he really isn’t interested in the job, then stirring up publicity for his books and his TV show is a smart move.
So he is either stupid and sincere, or smart and insincere. Either way, he does not make a very attractive package, does he?
Howabout Jindal? While he doesn’t have Romney’s exceptional business aplomb, or his executive experience, he is making a good solid name for himself in Louisianna. I definitely have my eye on him.
Newt is a non-starter. He has far too much baggage to make an effective run.
Jeb Bush would likely be a great President, but that name is poison for the next four to eight years. It’s a bummer, but who ever said life was fair?
My impressions of Crist are not very good. The little I know of him, it isn’t a pretty picture.
As for the others, I have nothing to say since I know so little about them.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Mitt Romney’s desire to win the Presidency stems from a deep desire to achieve atonement for the Romney family patriarch, George Wilcken Romney’s loss in 1968. Mitt believes with all of his heart that his Father was cheated and rightfully deserved to ascend to the Presidency. This feeling of “restoration” and “retribution” for the Romney family is very strong and the choice for atoning George Wilcken’s loss will be either Mitt or Tagg, should Mitt chose to forgo the Office of the Presidency in 2012.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
nate.#26
No there wasn’t. Why do you ask?
January 12th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
JA Pruce – oh brother. That borders on malicious.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
JA Pruce.#29
And you know this because……..?
January 12th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
#31,
Malicious?????
I have spoken with people close to the Romney clan who suggest that Tagg is the true political natural, even more so than his Father. But he won’t start getting mentioned seriously until he gets elected to something – possibly Congress in California.
George P. Bush/Tagg Romney 2028!!!!!!!!
January 12th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Oh, so you spoke to the hair dresser of the third cousin of the taylor of the brother of the garbage man who empties Romney’s sister’s pediatrian’s trash?
January 12th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Comparing Romney’s desire to SERVE as President and McCain’s and feeling that he DESERVES to be President is a mistake.
Romney right now is focused on working with the powers that be to get the country moving in as good a direction as possible. If Obama is doing even a halfway decent job in 2012, Mitt will not be running.
Unlike Huckabee and Palin, who have a strategy of turning a run for President into a career booster (Huckabee did really well in this regard), Romney didn’t aim to get anything other than the chance to serve and have a voice out of his run and certainly wasn’t looking for a career boost or to improve his income. Huckabee will run or pretend to want to run to keep his base (fans, income stream) fired up. He has nothing to lose by running again and staying in again until the bitter end to keep his base fighting for him (communications empire growing). Palin will follow the Huckabee model and spin a run into various other rewarding opportunities even if she doesn’t have a shot at the nomination or the presidency. The potential to profit from the identity politics in part of the Republican party is just too tempting for both Huckabee and Palin to resist. (And frankly, they don’t feel a need to resist it.)
If Obama is not doing a good job. Mitt will put out feelers to see if he has greater support from the party this time, especially in the Northern and Western states as well as Florida. With the Huckabee/Palin identity politics going full steam in places like Iowa and South Carolina, Mitt won’t be interested in running for a lost cause. Unlike Huckabee and Palin, he has no desire to create his own personality cult and profit off of it.
So, Mitt will only run if 1) there is a need and 2) if he thinks he has a decent chance at getting the nomination.
Without 1) and 2), I’m pretty sure Mitt will be happy just to enjoy his life and continue to support other promissing and descent conservative politicians and causes.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
marK – “Oh, so you spoke to the hair dresser of the third cousin of the taylor of the brother of the garbage man who empties Romney’s sister’s pediatrian’s trash?”
Not quite, but you never know where good info will surface.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
All right, second cousin. Sorry I missed it.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
marK,
If Mitt loses the nomination in 2012, I will guarantee that Tagg will make a run sometime in the future. Mitt has to establish the narrative that he is “next in line.” That mantle wins Republican primaries and ownership of that mantle is somewhat clouded for next cycle with Palin. If Palin establishes herself as the new titular head of the GOP, she will be very hard to knock off.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
#33 You said,
“Mitt Romney’s desire to win the Presidency stems from a deep desire to achieve atonement for the Romney family patriarch, George Wilcken Romney’s loss in 1968. Mitt believes with all of his heart that his Father was cheated and rightfully deserved to ascend to the Presidency. This feeling of “restoration” and “retribution” for the Romney family is very strong . . .” Blah, blah, blah.
I NEVER heard Romney say that he felt his father was cheated, in fact, exactly the opposite. “You win some, you lose some” kind of attitude. Romney wasn’t even home when it happened and said he didn’t feel the full effects of how disappointed his father was.
You made Romney sound like some sort of nut job! You went right past insane and ridiculous, and headed straight for malicious, because FLAT OUT LYING is malicious. You have no clue how Romney actually feels.
But I do know that Romney wants to be president because he wants to be president. It has NOTHING TO DO with atonement or retribution. He revere’s his father, but he’s not doing anything remotely close to what you stated.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Its just money. There is more where that came from. I don’t think he’ll have to use his own next time, but if he thinks he needs to, he will.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Adam Graham…
Several of the things you quote Mitt Romney as saying (on the link to Renew America) are not true of all Americans.
“He talked about no matter what region of the country he was in, the values were all the same across America. He began to list these American values: “We believe in hard work; we believe in education; we believe in the sanctity of life; we believe in marriage; we believe in God.” At this point, the speech took a bizarre turn. “Even those of us who don’t believe in God believe in something greater than ourselves, as Rick Warren calls it, ‘Purpose Driven Life.’”
I think Mitt was saying that the majority of America (and Americans) share these values, not that everyone shares them. Further, atheists and agnostics aren’t anarchists (generally), so they do believe in something greater than themselves. I’ve never read “Purpose Driven Life” but it certainly seems that though you and I (believers in God) might see God’s influence in an atheist or agnostic (or Deist, or what-have-you), they won’t themselves see it.
This is all rather a stretch, it seems to me.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Show Mitt the money!!! Mitt is a great guy. I think he will run in 2012 and I hope that he does.
By that time, perhaps people will have a clearer picture of the great and contribting man that
he is. MItt’s only desire is to serve America which he has done and continues to do.
By the way, what is the book he supposedly misrepresented that turned Adam away from Mitt???
January 12th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Martha,
I didn’t mean to paint Mitt as some sort of egomaniacal “nut job” but the loss his Father, George Wilcken suffered in 1967 was profound and loomed large on the young Mitt. Mitt is not into a run for the Presidency for his own self aggrandizement. Mitt has worked as a missionary to suffering people and has served as a bishop and president of a collection of Churches in Mass. doing a very good job of spreading the Mormon faith to New England. He takes up causes that he believes in, not for power.
Mitt has often spoken of his own “resurrection” (Romney was pronounced dead “Il mort”in a an auto accident) in 1968 as as a metaphor for his Father’s loss and caused a renewed spirit of purpose and meaning in his life.
Mitt is a man of sacrifice and personal commitment. If Mitt thinks that America needs his leadership, he will run.
As the author L. Ron Hubbard once stated, “Never regret yesterday. Life is in you today, and you make your tomorrow.” This is an axiom that Mitt lives by.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
“Romney was pronounced dead “Il mort”in a an auto accident”
A story that would have made a very good ad – a missed opportunity, I think…
===
About Mitt saying he wasn’t going to run again – don’t believe it. For Romney to say that he was even considering a 2012 run until after McCain has lost would have been seen as a recognition of the nominee’s slim chances.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
I’m sure the $20.12 pledges have some meaning. Did they start this up without his knowledge or permission? I’m not sure.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
JA Pruce, it’s all good.
Romney was on his mission to France when his father dropped out. I think I heard Mitt say that he was out of the loop on it and by the time he came home, it was just water under the bridge.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
#4:
1) On money: McCain won the primary with far less money than Romney came in second with. What is the main difference? McCain already had name recognition. Now, Romney will have to raise more in 2012, but he should have no problem winning he nomination without significant personal contributions. Raising more shouldn’t be a problem, since he will START the election with at least 5x the support he started 2008 with…
That’s a pretty simplistic analysis. McCain had the media and he had “big mo.” going into Super Tuesday.
2) Mitt Romney’s family will support him in his decision. That doesn’t mean that all his sons will quit their jobs and barnstorm Iowa again, but they will not try to stop him from doing something he wants to do. Ann could be a different story because of her health – which is about the only thing that I see keeping Mitt out of it.
But here’s the thing. You’re looking at less effort than went into defeat leading to victory.
3) Huckabee and Palin are both extremely ambitious, and come pre-packaged with rather large egos. They aren’t going to consult each other on 2012. Just as with Romney, embalming fluid is the only cure for Presidential ambition. One may run, both could, or neither might jump in – but the decisions will be made independently.
I doubt they’ll consult, but Huckabee has indicated that Palin’s decision about 2012 could have a lot to do with whether he runs.You may think there’s some Egotistical jolly in being shelacked in a Presidential run, but there’s not.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Like I have said, I am open to Mitt this cycle (he probably hovers around 2 or 3 on my preferred candidate list I am compiling). But I believe that one of the weaknesses that we have to exploit in 2012 is to go after that working class vote and PUMA vote in the midwest and I don’t know if Mitt is the man yet.
I would like to see Mitt broaden some of his economic acumen with some populist working class appeal. He would be well advised to spend the day with Joe the Plumber in Toledo and work on his blue-collar street cred. If he does that, he could position himself as the working class, joe lunch bucket hero against effete, arugula-eating, late-sipping Barack in 2012. Until he does that, Sarah will be looking better electorally speaking.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Adam G. You know your guy is going to run.
There certainly was some heavy-duty egotistical jolly in losing for Huck! He was too dense to drop out in a dignified manner and he seems incapable of embarrassment.
He doesn’t even care if he gets traction. He will do it for no other reasons than to soak up more spotlight, keeps his followers clapping hands, and for the irresistible urge to dig Romney some more.
Point 2 – less effort? In 2008 Romney was a virtual unknown. He is now the front-runner. He’s starting from a very good advantage. If he runs, he’ll give it 100% whether his kids can take off another year of their lives or not.
Who would you rather be right now? Not Huck, and not Palin. You write as if Romney is in the perilous position. Both Huck and Palin know Romney is the enemy. That should tell you something.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Here’s a good indication of why Romney is the front-runner: Today he was speaking to GOP lawmakers about how to move forward with good economic policies. He was invited to speak for obvious reasons. They did not invite Palin or Huckabee.
This week, Palin was whining about the media, and telling Couric she’s not the center of the universe.
Huck’s column today tells us that the customer is always right and he recounts his trials with his cell phone co, and the airline he recently flew on.
I don’t know about you, but my decision in 2012 is going to be a piece of cake.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
#27:
The Race42008 poll shows Mitt can be elected President of this blog. That’s no surprise.
#35:
Wow, with such above board motivation, it’s truly a shame that you can’t be canonized in Mormonism, because you’re making Mitt sound like a candidate for sainthood.
#41:
Mitt Romney specifically refrenced Purpose Driven Life to make a point in opposition to what the book says. Atheists and Agnostics do not have a “Purpose Driven life” according to Rick Warren.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
The way to settle the “front -runner” question would be for Palin, Mitt and Huck to each give speeches at the same time in Iowa then NH and then SC and see which candidate draws the biggest crowd and media contingent at his or her rally.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Adam, you’re reaching, and you know it. Romney was most likely just using the title of the book (because everyone is familiar with it) to make his point that non-religious people have values. There’s no way he was trying to distort the message of the book. Absurd.
As far as #35 – I would say that it’s obvious Romney had a more altruistic motivation when he ran in ‘08 than either Huck or Palin. They are both very self-centered politicians. Palin is either dense or stunningly arrogant to believe she was prepared to be VP or POTUS. (After the first Couric interview, she admitted she wanted to pull the plug on the remaining sessions she knew she did so poorly, yet, she can be VP? Ha, ha.) Have you noticed that Palin is numero uno in her family? Everyone else’s needs are secondary to her political career, even her new special little guy. So, yeah, Palin’s motivations are questionable. And we most definitely know Huck’s are.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Adam G – Do you have an answer as to why Romney was leading in nearly every VP poll prior to McCain choosing Palin? Most of the time he was in the 70% range compared to the next person down at 5% or so. Huck was leading by a small margin in one, and Palin by a small margin in another.
Do you also have an explanation of why all of talk radio was on board with Romney? Why did Romney win CPAC 2 years in a row? Why is Romney the most requested GOP speaker? And why did Romney come in 2nd to McCain?
Apparently, he is far more popular than you will acknowledge.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
“That’s no surprise.”
Actually, it kind of is.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Yeah, when I first visited race42008 (after McCain won the nomination), it was mostly hostile to Romney. I think there are quite a few converts here to Romneyism. Watch out Adam!
January 12th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
BREAKING: ROB PORTMAN (POTENTIAL 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OR VP NOMINEE) TO RUN FOR SENATE SEAT IN OH.
VERY GOOD NEWS!
January 12th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Well, who exactly is the current front-runner is clearly open to debate. If you ask the party professionals, the city/county/state/national people, they overwhelmingly select Romney. If you ask the base, they split Romney/Palin/Huckabee/Jindal, depending upon the exact group being asked, what the questions are, and who is doing the asking. Usually if it isn’t Romney, it is Palin.
Those are the four people on the top tier as of January 2009. Of those four, I can see Romney, Palin, or Jindal winning the nod. Huckabee has pretty much hit a cealing. I cannot honestly see him rising any higher. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings about the gentleman. Live by identity politics, die by identity politics. You cannot ride identity politics to Presidential victory as a Republican, you just can’t. We are a minority party, and we must be inclusive to win. Identity politics at its heart is exclusive — us versus them. Well, there just ain’t enough of ‘us’ Republicans to win against all of ‘them’. Instead, we must convince enough of ‘them’ to join ‘us’. But telling them that we are ‘against’ them is no way to accomplish that. That makes playing identity politics as a GOP Presidential candidate is a sure-fire way to lose.
Sarah Palin fell into that trap during the campaign with her comments about “real” Americans. Her numbers tanked even further when she did so. She seems a smart lady. Let’s see if she is wise enough to learn her lesson and stay away from that tarpit from now on.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I hope that we don’t have to have this argument for another 3 years. It is tiring already.
Why were people drawn to Huckabee and Palin? They were both authentic and were able to talk to the people, not down to the people. That is why voters hope they will both be in the 2012 race. Romney’s biggest problem was that he was not authentic and changed his political opinions according to how the political winds were changing.
Take the bailout. Huckabee from day one came out against the bailout on every show that he was on. He continues to do so and has given other ideas instead. Romney waited to see what happened and then came out against the auto bailout. As a former Michigander who watched Romney pander to the voters in Michigan promising to fight for every job,looks like he sold out Michigan after he won the primaries there.
If Romney wants to win in 2012, he needs to stick to his original political positions and fight for them. Stop pandering and trying to be a different politician than he is.
What does Huckabee need to do? Write some serious policy articles, proposals and then have wall street/economist on his show to argue those points. One of the detractions against Huckabee was that he did not go in depth on any major issue.
What does Palin need to do? Get some international foreign policy experience. Then do the same as Huckabee writing serious articles about these issues.
All three have three years to fix what they need to get done. We all need to watch and see if we like how they grow.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
#58 Mark, How is Romney good at identity politics. How is he inclusive when it comes to inviting others into the party. He was hard line against illegal immigration, which was hard against hispanics. He had no ability to talk to african americans-he said who let the dog out and bling bling upon meeting with their youth. So I do not see how Romney will appeal to them. Unless of course, he changes his policies to get their votes. Which again comes down to why people did not like him-he is not authentic.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
“I hope that we don’t have to have this argument for another 3 years. It is tiring already.”
You are on an election-related site, and have an aversion to talking about elections. What is wrong with that picture?
January 12th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
“But I believe that one of the weaknesses that we have to exploit in 2012 is to go after that working class vote and PUMA vote in the midwest and I don’t know if Mitt is the man yet.” Lately I have agreed with your opinions and analysis, JA Pruce, but this time, I only half agree with you if I understand you correctly. PUMA in its extreme form is just a collection of radical feminists and for the most part, it is a pipe dream to think that these characters would ever vote for Mrs. Palin or any other Republican for that matter. In the broader sense, the GOP needs to go after working class Ethnic Whites (both in the Midwest and elsewhere) and Hispanics (Hillary constituencies, but not PUMA per se.) In that sense, I agree with you that Mr. Romney might have an even more difficult time winning these people than the average Republican. I thus fear joining Mr. Romney camp for strategic reasons and I believe that you are correct that Mrs. Palin could actually end up in a better electoral position then Mr. Romney.
On the other hand, there is certainly no guarantee yet that Mrs. Palin or any other non-Romney candidate would do much better among Ethnic Whites and Hispanics (Clinton Camp people.) At the same time, Mr. Romney could (and probably would) do better than any other Republican among Suburban Whites. Yes one can win on the White vote alone, but it is a bloody strategy that I for one feel uncomfortable with. However, if we take the other extreme and focus on just Hispanics and Ethnic and throw the anti-Hillary demographics under the bus, the results are not much better.
While I for one actually like Mr. Steele, I disagree with promoting this man on the either the top or bottom of the ticket. It will be looked upon as pandering and unfortunately the reality is that African Americans will never vote for us in the near future anyways. While I do not intend to join a Jindal camp in 2012, I am more than willing to join a Romney / Jindal camp. With such a balanced ticket, neither Whites nor non White will be thrown under the bus. Putting Mr. Jindal on the ticket will show Hispanics that we are willing to promote minorities without directly pandering to them and we can keep suburban White happy at the same time.
It will come down to a contest as to whether Mr. Romney can solidify the Suburban vote (the anti-Hillary vote) without hacking off Non-Whites and Ethnic Whites (Hillary people if you will) too much versus the non Romney candidate (Mrs. Palin, Mr. Pawlenty or whoever) being able to once again crack into the Non-White and Ethnic White market (like Mr. Bush did in 2004) without scaring away Suburban Whites too much. To be clear, I am accusing no candidate or race of racism, but demographics are what they are.
It will be interesting to see who Mr. Obama make more mad, this should help dictate our strategy.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Illinois guy- The $20.12 of course has meaning. No we’re not in contact with Romney nor have any sort of connection with the PAC. In fact, as far I know it’s just me because no one else has responded. But I keep plugging for it. Need help from more promoters.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Texas – Hogwash. Romney didn’t wait to see what happened and then come out against the auto bailout. I don’t know what else to say to such BS.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Oh, Texasconserv. Not that tired old argument again. Let me try to explain it one more time. This time, kindly listen and think about what I have to say. Please?
Romney has a very consistent record on nearly every single issue except abortion. The misunderstandings comes from the fact the he is not an extremist. He plays between the 20-yardlines on nearly all issues.
Take guns. He is FOR hunting, sports, self-defense and AGAINST so-called assault weapons. So when he loosens the requirements to obtain hunting licenses and strengthens restrictions upon assault weapons, he is being perfectly consistent. And when he fights against the expansion of the definition of Assault Weapons to include hand-held revolvers, he is being perfectly consistent. Yet I have read upteen account about how he flip-flops left and right on gun control.
Take the bailout. He was FOR the credit bailout. He still is. His reasoning is that credit greases the wheels of commerce. It is necessary for ALL business, even the business of Government requires fluidly active credit markets. If there is no credit, there is no business. Commerce grinds to a halr. So it is in America’s interest to help out the credit markets. You might very well disagree with that stand. It’s a free country. But Mitt Romney has been steady on supporting the credit markets.
He was AGAINST the auto bailout. He still is. He wanted the big three to go through bankruptcy so that they can keep in business. So they can continue to employ all those people. Nearly every major airline has gone through bankruptcy in the last few years. They are still flying, aren’t they?
Detroit has to face up to the fact that labor AND management is costing too much. They have to cut it back. Get rid of the Job Shops. Get rid of the cradle-to-grave health insurance. Get rid of the corporate jets, and the private dining rooms and the multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses. Those are luxuaries that the market simply cannot afford. If they don’t take these drastic steps, it just postpones the inevitible. The bailout just kicks the can down the road. That isn’t fighting for any jobs. That is fighting for an uneconomic system that doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of surviving. Yes, he wanted to fight for every single job. He still does. But how can Detroit fight for every single job if they refuse to recoginize the dire straits they are in and act accordingly? He wanted to invest in technology Detroit could use. That is no bailout. That is value added.
Mitt Romney wants to fight for every job so that they are permanently secure. He does not want to throw money at the problem so that the jobs are in jepardy in another six months. He wants to fix the problem long term. Where is the inconsistency here?
And so it goes on and on with every issue. Because Romney comes out against one extreme, and later comes out against the opposite extreme, lazy people tagged him as a pandering flip-flopper. Please don’t be a lazy person. Study his actual record, not that as told by his opponents. You will find that in truth, the man is extremely consistent.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Texas, Romney is also a strong rule-of-law candidate. Romney is for enforcing the law consistently. If it is the law of the land, then you enforce it. I can’t think of any group that would turn away, except the felon vote.
The big problem is when law enforcement winks at or look the other way some of the time, and then does show raids the other times. That makes a lot of people very unhappy.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
#62,
Very good analysis Ohio Joe. I think your last sentence suggests the main calculus between now and 2011 – we don’t know yet how everything will play out.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Comparing Romney’s desire to SERVE as President and McCain’s and feeling that he DESERVES to be President is a mistake. Romney right now is focused on working with the powers that be to get the country moving in as good a direction as possible. If Obama is doing even a halfway decent job in 2012, Mitt will not be running. Unlike Huckabee and Palin, who have a strategy of turning a run for President into a career booster (Huckabee did really well in this regard), Romney didn’t aim to get anything other than the chance to serve and have a voice out of his run and certainly wasn’t looking for a career boost or to improve his income. Huckabee will run or pretend to want to run to keep his base (fans, income stream) fired up. He has nothing to lose by running again and staying in again until the bitter end to keep his base fighting for him (communications empire growing). Palin will follow the Huckabee model and spin a run into various other rewarding opportunities even if she doesn’t have a shot at the nomination or the presidency. The potential to profit from the identity politics in part of the Republican party is just too tempting for both Huckabee and Palin to resist. (And frankly, they don’t feel a need to resist it.) If Obama is not doing a good job. Mitt will put out feelers to see if he has greater support from the party this time, especially in the Northern and Western states as well as Florida. With the Huckabee/Palin identity politics going full steam in places like Iowa and South Carolina, Mitt won’t be interested in running for a lost cause. Unlike Huckabee and Palin, he has no desire to create his own personality cult and profit off of it. So, Mitt will only run if 1) there is a need and 2) if he thinks he has a decent chance at getting the nomination. Without 1) and 2), I’m pretty sure Mitt will be happy just to enjoy his life and continue to support other promissing and descent conservative politicians and causes.
Gosh, he’s just such a saint, isn’t he?
January 12th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Alex, Something about Sanford’s picture here isn’t right. It’s really bad, in fact. I’ve seen much better pictures of him. Can you get it switched? Crist looks horrible, too.
January 12th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
#68 – Yes, he’s a Latter Day Saint!
January 12th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Hey, I didn’t want to stop the thread with that. I didn’t see any comments about how Palin lost a lot of support on here immediately after the general election. I was wondering if you read into that what I hypothesized, that most people on here decided she would not be ready by 2012. The data sure seemed to support that. Now, the voting public may not be necessarily mirroring that, but they don’t know the candidates nearly as well as those of us on here.
January 12th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
“Comparing Romney’s desire to SERVE as President and McCain’s and feeling that he DESERVES to be President is a mistake. Romney right now is focused on working with the powers that be to get the country moving in as good a direction as possible.”
Come now, do we really want to start a comparison between Romney and McCain on issues of character. I could say many a good thing to Romney’s credit, but McCain is in a league of his own. And actually, it’s McCain that is doing the latter, which is the exact same thing that he’s been doing for ages now (and yet everyone hates him for it, because they want the Senate to be a permanent partisan food fight or something of that order). Romney is back working as a Marriott executive, so unless he gets us free room service or something, I find that unlikely.
Anyways, I hope Mitt runs in 2012 despite the factors against him, because I’m willing to bet by the likely dynamics of the race that he won’t pander (nearly as much) this time, and will thus be a respectable and viable candidate worth my support.
January 12th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
I also believe Mitt will be quite careful with his selection of comparison and informational ads.
January 12th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
#68:
Gosh, he’s just such a saint, isn’t he?
You know when you and I have the same reaction, that says something..
January 13th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Alex, Something about Sanford’s picture here isn’t right. It’s really bad, in fact. I’ve seen much better pictures of him. Can you get it switched? Crist looks horrible, too.
I don’t like the Crist picture — he looks like an imp — but I like the Sanford one.
You know when you and I have the same reaction, that says something..
It’s well-established around here that I am a Romney-loather of the highest degree. The man, as you have said, has no core. He’s a perpetual businessman, always trying to sell something. He was selling one thing in 1994, selling another in 2002, and then another in Iowa in 2007, and then another in Michigan in 2008, and now he’s selling something again in 2009: True Conservatism (TM)! Come ‘n’ get it!
January 13th, 2009 at 12:12 am
MPC, McCain ran the dirtiest campaign of the primary season by far so to say that McCain is so full of character is naive. His sense of entitlement changed him from who he was during the war.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:15 am
“He was selling one thing in 1994, selling another in 2002, and then another in Iowa in 2007, and then another in Michigan in 2008, and now he’s selling something again in 2009: True Conservatism (TM)! Come ‘n’ get it!”
I don’t think you followed the campaign as closely as I did. It was hard, I know, because the media didn’t show most of Mitt’s campaign because their focus was elsewhere, but his campaign did not change much and speaking of change, it would be interesting for some of you to look at who used change as a campaign theme first between Mitt and Obama. Mitt never made anything of it because the media was in Obama’s pocket anyway.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:42 am
He absolutely swiped the ‘change’ theme from Obama as soon as he won the Iowa caucus. It was mortifying to watch. I mean, the man just had no shame whatsoever. (At least he only told a black baby that he “had some bling-bling there” once, though.)
January 13th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Alex, #75 So much baloney it’s not even funny.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:43 am
79 – Okay, maybe Crist doesn’t look like that much of an imp…
January 13th, 2009 at 1:00 am
The big guns in the 08 GOP primaries were McCain and Giuliani. Being the Harvard genius grad he is, Romney ran to the left of McCain and Giuliani because that’s where the most voters were. The big guns in the 2012 election will be Palin and Huckabee. The more fruitful positions for Romney to take will be to the left of Palin and Huckabee (and Jindal and Sanford). The result is a Slick Willard that is completely unrecognizable to the Mitt Romney of 2008. Granted, he wont be the left-of-Ted-Kennedy-Senate-Candidate in the mid 90’s, but Romney’s base will eventually see him for the sellout that he truly is.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Before someone points it out, I will note that sampo meant to the right of McCain and Rudy.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:01 am
“MPC, McCain ran the dirtiest campaign of the primary season by far so to say that McCain is so full of character is naive. His sense of entitlement changed him from who he was during the war.”
Wait, I thought it was Huckabee who was running the dirtiest campaign…
He’s uncomfortable with dirty campaigning, something Palin didn’t much love about him in October, so there’s no way he’d pull it on Romney. If Romney was attacked (like on Iraq, most prominently) it was on the issues. Romney did, after all, let us know that his lawyers would be the best course of defense in a national security situation…
McCain has always had a sense of obligation to his character that he takes pride in. He’s proud and sometimes to a fault, but not because of some sense of entitlement.
Alex, to be a little fair to Romney, he was selling true conservatism in 2007 as well, so he flopped, but did in fact manage to flip back
. I suppose I’m holding out with optimism, for now, that after a few years of reflection on politics he figures out that he needs to be publicly loyal to something a bit deeper than conservative ideology or he will remain “plastic” and fake. His business background probably causes him to narrow his scope of things a bit too much, preventing him from grasping the bigger picture.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Wait, I thought it was Huckabee who was running the dirtiest campaign…
Anyone who runs against Mitt is running the dirtiest campaign ever.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:26 am
No worries Alex. No one pays any attention to Sampo anyways.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:54 am
Sampo:
I understand, that under certain scenarios, the Romney camp might feel the to veer Left. However, if Mr. Romney goes too far to the Left, it will back-fire. He might have to pick a hard Right VP to win some of us back over, haha! In reality, most candidates do have a little bit of wiggle room to repackage themselves and move slightly to the Left or Right, but anything too severe had better be done with care.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:43 am
“but Romney’s base will eventually see him for the sellout that he truly is.” Unless, he does a complete 180, (not just a few minor tweaks) it is quite harsh in deed to call him a sellout. Yes, if a non-Romney camp can materialize with its act together, some of Mr. Romney’s current supports might at least flit with other camps, (like other camps might flirt with other camps or even the Romney camp itself) but I doubt they will consider him a total sell-out.
Some in the Romney camp knew what they were getting just like some of us in other camps had a very good idea (or hey, at least we think) what we were also getting. Politics is not perfect. I truly believe that for the most part, those in non-Romney camp are rather harsh when they bring out the flipper charges. Yes, if he totally repackages himself, it will backfire, but just like 2008 circumstances were not exactly like 2004, I’ll bet there will be a few changes in the landscape in the next few years. Positions will thus change a little and camps themselves will shift at least slightly.
Look, I never hated Romneyism in the first place, but among other things, I still do not think that Romneyism is 100% appropriate for 2008. I have a much better opinion of Romneyism than I did 6 & 12 months ago to the point where to a degree, I am even flirting with the idea of someday joining his camp. Although, I am certainly flirting with joining the Palin camp to a greater degree. The Romney camp will just say ‘that is because you understand Romneyism a little better than you did’ Perhaps, but I do think that Romneyism is changing a bit for the better.
On a side note Huckabeeism much also change a bit for the better, but so far I am a little disappointed that Huckabeeism is not changing for the better enough (in my opinion,) but we still have a few years to go.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:03 am
NOOO not Palin! NEVER PALIN!
January 13th, 2009 at 9:00 am
romney is the front runner for a reason. He’s smart, he’s experienced, he has a wonderful family who lives the faith they practice, there is no double standards or double messages comming from this guy. AND he’s faithful to the cause.
Palin is just dumb, and I’ll be donating the max to both the GOP who challenges her, and the democrat who runs against her, should she accidently win the nomination for re election.
People of AK are proving they have no active braincells. Must be the Oxy pushed by Bristols babydaddy’s mamma.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Brad Hanson:
For the record, I doubt that you are a member of the Romney camp. I think that is a level of decency in the Romney camp and you sir do not rise to it. I suspect that you are a Liberal Democrat troll and you are a disgrace. Not everyone in the anti-Palin camp shares your extreme opinions. Go ahead, make my day, donate the max.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:36 am
look up my name, Ohio. You’ll get an eyefull of who Palin really is.
Also, until this bimbo got put on the GOP ticket, I have never voted for other than GOP. I voted for Obama this time, for the first time voting for a democrat. Why? Becauase I was insulted that someone was so dumb and empty of ideas and experience was picked to be on the ticket. McCain received a letter just prior to this panderpick from the so call ‘christians’ who said MCcain would lose their votes if a “Mormon” was picked. Hum? Can we say BIGOT. So, Palin was picked. and I bolted. If McCain can bow down to these BIGOTS, he’ll bow down to anyone.
I know you all like to overlook the walrus in the room, but facts are facts. Palin helped McCain lose. And I helped by not voting for these two lightweights. I also tire of the double standard you overlook with the princess. Illegitmate grandson, druggie kid now in military, druggie grandma to trip (poor kid. A normal name might help get a job later). AFFAIR WITH BRAD HANSON. But, she goes to the ‘right’ church.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:40 am
#62 OHIO JOE – I’m really hoping for a Romney/Jindal ticket in 2012. Unless one or the other of them does something crazy between now and the primary, I think that’s what we’re going to get. Palin has a shot if she plays all her cards right, but I just don’t know if she will. Romney was the most attacked candidate by the media in the primary this year, which made his job that much more difficult. I think the media has found someone they hate just as much in Sarah Palin, so that might make Romney’s path a bit easier this go-around.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Brad, I doubt you intend to help Romney with these statements, but if that is what you are intending, its not working. We don’t need anti-Palin conspiracy nuts, Romney can beat Palin fair and square.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Wow! This does take the cake in deed, so Mrs. Palin is now a bigot and everyone who voted for her is a bigot too. Yes there are a few bigots in this country, but there were also a few Communists in this country during the McCarthy Era. A Communist (a bigot under every rock!!!)
“McCain received a letter just prior to this panderpick from the so call ‘christians’ who said MCcain would lose their votes if a “Mormon” was picked. Hum?” So does that make Mrs. Palin the only non-Mormon candidate to choose from?
“Illegitmate grandson, druggie kid now in military, druggie grandma to trip (poor kid. A normal name might help get a job later).” So we are back to personal attacks?
“AFFAIR WITH BRAD HANSON.” Mr. Hanson, not that it is my affair, but I doubt that you had sex with Mrs. Palin anymore than she banned books from her local library to name one of the many lies that you people tell about her.
“But, she goes to the ‘right’ church.” So all of a sudden, 45% of Americans are Pentecostal. I guess my priest is just disguised as a Catholic instead of a real one. Oh BTW, did you firebomb Mrs. Palin’s Church? Bigotry is a two way street sir!
Frankly, this is a disgrace. It is one thing to trash Mrs. Palin, to go after Bristol and company is truly disgraceful.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:07 am
For those who do not know, Brad Hanson is the person Palin is alleged to have had an affair with.
Brad Hanson’ voice is a person who thinks Palin is unqualified for various reasons — including some personal ones.
The truth is that Palin did hurt McCain in 08. There’s no denying that a sizable majority of Americans were offended by the selection of a completely and utterly unqualified person.
I’d like to hear how her supporters think she can possibly overcome the first impression she made. I don’t believe a crash course is going to cut it for Palin. She does not have the foundational requirements to make a serious run in 2012.
It’s a joke — on us. If she wins the nomination, the GOP will become a complete laughing stock. No other possible nominee could hurt our brand as much, with the sole exception of Huck.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:10 am
GetReal:
I hit the send button before I read your comments, not that it matters. I agree with much of what you said. Yes, if Mr. Romney or Mr. Anyone else defeats Mrs. Palin (or anyone else) fair and square, this is OK. Yes, unfortunately, politics gets nasty, but I do not believe that this Dude is in the mainstream by any means. I truly believe that it is over the top to start trashing the children of our famous people, this is not human behavior.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Lets remember that Mr. Romney actually lead in polling at one point in the state of SC it was his two losses in Iowa and New Hampshire that hurt him if he won those two it’s likely he could have won South Carolina or atleast come in 2nd.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:13 am
OHIO – There was the religious element in the Sarah pick by McCain. Did you read all the blogs after she was chosen? For many people, her religion was a key factor.
And, McCain was threatened by pastors to not select Romney, and many of them came right out and said it was his faith they objected to.
Mark DeMoss at beliefnet.com
“I’d like to see evangelicals look for competent, qualified candidates who share our values, whether or not they share our faith or theology. I believe it’s wrong to oppose a candidate because of his faith (Mitt Romney), and equally wrong to support a candidate primarily based on common faith (Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin).
Along the campaign trail I met so many people, including pastors and religious leaders, who could tell me only that their choice for president was a “good Christian,” or “one of us.” This, in my view, is a dangerously inadequate approach to choosing our highest leaders. We don’t choose people for any other positions using this test; why would we apply it to one of the most important positions on the planet?”
January 13th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Ahh sorry for the run on sentence.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Sean, thanks for reminding me about SC. Didn’t Romney drop out of SC and focus elsewhere?
Romney can win SC.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:16 am
“For those who do not know, Brad Hanson is the person Palin is alleged to have had an affair with.
” Yes, the key word is ‘alleged.’ It is one thing for you to have opinions about various candidates, but let’s try to stick to the issues as much as possible. Let’s be careful what we allege. Such extemism is a dangous game and it might back-fire, but hey, you run your own camp as you wish.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:19 am
His campaign there pulled the plug on tv ads shortly after the loss in New Hampshire.After he won in Michigan the ads went back up on air.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:27 am
#95 “I’d like to hear how her supporters think she can possibly overcome the first impression she made.”
I’m not a supporter, but she might be able to overcome it by strong activism on a national topic, and by stringing together interviews where she seems articulate and knowledgeable. Only time will tell if she does.
“I don’t believe a crash course is going to cut it for Palin. She does not have the foundational requirements to make a serious run in 2012.”
Time will tell. I tend to agree she won’t be ready in ‘12, and I think a rematch of ‘08 should be avoided in any possible way (much as VP Gore didn’t run again in ‘04).
“It’s a joke — on us. If she wins the nomination, the GOP will become a complete laughing stock. No other possible nominee could hurt our brand as much, with the sole exception of Huck.”
If she wins the nomination in ‘12, it will be because she has successfully rebranded herself from ‘08 (unless, of course, other elements focus on personally trashing her from now until then, in which case she won’t need to rebrand to appeal), and the standards we judge her on now will be obsolete to the public.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:28 am
“Romney can win SC.” Fine, OK, it is possible that Mr. Romney will win SC as well as many other states. How does that excuse this sick Hanson Dude to go after Bristol and company.
“There was the religious element in the Sarah pick by McCain.” Oh, C’mon, do you really think that Mrs. Palin is the only ‘religious candidate’ (what ever your definition is anyway) in the country. Look, our local radio host likes Mrs. Palin, but he supported Mr. Romney in the primary and he is neither Mormon or Pentacostal. You complained that there was a religious war between Southern Baptists and Mormons and now you are trying to stir up a religious war between Mormons and Pentacolals. This makes little sense.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:32 am
“If she wins the nomination in ‘12, it will be because she has successfully rebranded herself from ‘08 (unless, of course, other elements focus on personally trashing her from now until then, in which case she won’t need to rebrand to appeal), and the standards we judge her on now will be obsolete to the public.” There is a lot of truth to that, but the extremists fail to see it.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:46 am
OHIO – What I’m saying is that the people who opposed Romney based on his faith were thrilled with Palin because she was 1. NOT Romney (not Mormon) and 2. Because she was evangelical.
That is why I posted the DeMoss comment. Some people did support Sarah based on her faith.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Sorry, folks. Palin can’t transform herself in 3 years. She had one shot to make a good first impression, and she blew it. Thinking she can break free from the disaster of 08 is a fantasy. She needs 8-10 years like Ann Coulter suggested. Her main problems of articulation and lack of knowledge do not lend themselves to crash-coursing.
BTW – So many people continue to harp on Romney for a couple of stupid comments made 14 years ago. Yet they are willing to wipe Palin’s slate clean after a month or two!
And you don’t think this has anything to do with identity, OHIO?
January 13th, 2009 at 10:52 am
My sister and her family supported Sarah because she’s a hunter. Not all voters are very deep or put much research and thought into their vote, that’s why we so rarely end up with better than mediocre presidents.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:55 am
GetReal,
For a lot of men, the fact that she is an attractive woman who can shoot and skin a moose is all they need to know!
Rush, Lowry, Kristol, and others seriously need a Palin intervention. They should be forced to watch the interviews and the debate over and over again until they go nuts.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I am not a theologian, but in the strictest sense of the definition, Pentacostals are neither Evangelicals or Evangelicals. In short, Pentacostalism is essentially a unique religion (or denomination) with Christianity. As a side show I’ll open up “the can of worms,” I do not know what the exact teaching of my Church says on Mormonism, but the other day, Illinoisguy and other person explained part of the Mormon view of Baptism. From this view, we must conclude that Mormons are Christians (not that it matters politically) While, Mormons are Christian, they are a unique type of Christianity, like Protestantism (which has several sub groups) Pentacostalism, Episcopalianism, Catholism and Orthodoxism. You are thus on shaky grounds if you believe that one type of Christian group would vote for a Christian group other than itself, but not Mormon Christians. Yes it is true that some Christians do not believe that Mormons are not Christians, but some Christians also believe that anybody, but their own brand of Christianity are true believers. So you almost have to argue the Mormons are the odd man out if you take this arguement to the extreme. Yes, I will admit that I for one feel more theologically comfortable with certain Christians over certain other Christians, but not to be flip or dodge the subject, this should not matter politically. Let’s say for the sake of arguement that I believed that there was no way any Mormon could be a Christian, why would I vote against one who shared my values. If take things to the extreme than we should accuse all Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox who support Mr. Romney as being anti-Pentacostal.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I never watched the interview with Couric, but the debate with Biden is where she really let me down. I was routing for Romney and was a bit disappointed when he picked Palin, it seemed like such a transparent pander to Hillary voters and a total missed opportunity (although I was relieved that he didn’t choose someone worse, like Graham.) However, her convention speech was great and I thought perhaps I had misjudged her.
Then the debate with Joe Biden happened…she came across to me as totally unprepared and not terribly intelligent. I think she’s probably of somewhat above average intelligence, but it certainly didn’t come across that way in the debate. Biden lied through his teeth, making up facts left and right, and Palin didn’t know enough to dispute him. She kept going back to her same talking points.
Then there was the vapid rhetoric (McCain was just as bad on this) about Joe Sixpack, Joe the Plumber, Tito the Builder, Wendy the Waitress, it sounded like the cast of a poorly written children’s show. I felt my intelligence being insulted every time I saw McCain or Palin speaking. By the time the election rolled around I couldn’t wait for it to end. I expect the Democrats to be misinformed, I don’t expect it from Republicans.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:16 am
“Rush, Lowry, Kristol, and others seriously need a Palin intervention. They should be forced to watch the interviews and the debate over and over again until they go nuts.” Not to be crude, but this sex appeal arguement only goes so far. I cannot change the fact that Mrs. Palin uses the other rest-room as Matthew K would say and I cannot change the fact that she is good looking, but what kind of Palin Calendar do you think we have? I’m ready to make you a deal, find a man without any sex appeal who supports Palinism, and I’ll join his camp. What are we supposed to do, trash Mrs. Palin just because she is a good looking woman?
I guess you have a small point Martha M, Mr. Jindal for one, apart from not being up to the job, 9haha) cannot play Hockey or shoot Moose. Haha.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Sorry if my joke offended the Jindal camp.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:18 am
GetReal, exactly.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:20 am
GetReal:
You do realize, that our side did not dream up Joe the Plumber?
January 13th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Ohio Joe: Joe Wurzelbacher is an actual man, “Joe the Plumber”TM was more of a cartoon character. I liked the guy, thought the nickname was a little silly and took away from the seriousness of his points, and then when the whole train of characters came down the line, it got ridiculous. These people have real names, after all.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:32 am
“Drill baby Drill!” “We’re Mavericks!”
Oh come on. We’ve got to do better than this!
January 13th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Yes, I do not know the man personally and I myself am not a Plumber. And yes, while I do not drink, I have heard the expression Joe Six Pack, but perhaps I am missing something, I never heard of Tito or Wendy. Were these characters made up by the campaign of by you as joke?
January 13th, 2009 at 11:35 am
The Republican Party is in such disarray, so devoid of leadership, so accommodating to Pres.-elect Obama, that I suspect that 2012 will be another losing year. What better politician to step forward for a suicide run than Romney, who can pretty much fund his ill-fated campaign from the inheritance of his five sons.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:37 am
“Drill baby Drill!” “We’re Mavericks!”” So, you did not want to drill Martha M back when gas was $4 per gallon. I admire Romneyism for promoting low gas taxes, but that in and of itself is not going to produce gas.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Greg,
You really have a problem with people better off than you, don’t you?
January 13th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Martha,
I would not say it was impossible for Palin to turn things around in three years. That is practically an eternity in political terms. I will not disagree that it will be very hard. It’s not like she has nothing else on her plate during those years.
I, for one, am more than willing to see how she does in the next three years. If she does manage to turn things around, that will be some achievement. It will certainly make her worthty of consideration for the nomination.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Every time I hear the phrase “Joe the Plumber” my blood pressure shoots up and I start getting these awful convulsions.
It’s bad.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:45 am
“You really have a problem with people better off than you, don’t you?” I know this is not directed at me, but I’ll take it. As a middle class voter, I believe in balance. I for one have no trouble with Mr. McCain having 7 houses, I have two, I am not jealous of Mr. Romney’s wealth, Mr. Bush’s wealth or every other number of people. They directly or indirectly have created jobs for the rest of us and they are hard workers. At the same time, it is not right to trash Joe the Plumber or any other struggling person. I believe that I, not the government, should share some of my Blessings with those less fortunate.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Ohio Joe, why do you think that Palin was chosen?
By the way, I have yet to meet someone who isn’t a heterosexual Republican male who thinks that Palin is brilliant.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:49 am
At the same time, it is not right to trash Joe the Plumber or any other struggling person.
Joe the Plumber is not struggling. He’s quite well-off.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:54 am
And no one is actually trashing Joe here. We are trashing the concept of “Joe the Plumber”. By using that phrase, I think we actually hurt ourselves even more as we drove away more suburban whites. It was just one more aspect of the “real americans” crap that they tried to sell us. Divisive can be ok, but only when you are with the majority. Clearly McCain/Palin misjudged.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:57 am
“Ohio Joe, why do you think that Palin was chosen?” Gee, not the pass the buck, but Mr. McCain chose her, not I. However, it could be that a segment of Americans like what she stands for (yes image does not hurt) or it could be that she is the best or at least one of the best Governors in the country. Oh, sorry, Alaska does not count. Oh well.
I cannot help the fact that you have not meet any non-heterosexual Republican males who think she is brilliant. Prehaps Alaska Jake can introduce you to some. Hey, what can I say.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:59 am
“Joe the Plumber is not struggling. He’s quite well-off.” No, he certainly was not wondering where his next meal was coming from, but if it were not for Mr. Obama visiting him, I’m not sure, he’d be so ‘well off.’
January 13th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Republicans peddle their own version of the “Two Americas” crap that we mocked Edwards for.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
“By the way, I have yet to meet someone who isn’t a heterosexual Republican male who thinks that Palin is brilliant.”
Actually, my mom quite admires her. My dad, who is more politically agnostic, however, thinks that she is – in his words – a “dimwit”. I was surprised when I heard it, because my dad usually is much more reserved about his opinions.
Palin is all about cultural identity, but I’m not sure that too many people can identify with her outside of rural America. My mom is a native of small-town Idaho, so it doesn’t surprise me that people from a similar background love her. Her burden lies in overcoming that barrier with the remainder of the electorate.
It is something of a nuisance that all of the leading candidates (Romney, Palin, and Huckabee) have for varied reasons problems communicating with the electorate at large. Pawlenty may have a duller speaking style, but I think the average voter would tend to relate to him much better than the above three.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
However, it could be that a segment of Americans like what she stands for (yes image does not hurt) or it could be that she is the best or at least one of the best Governors in the country. Oh, sorry, Alaska does not count. Oh well.
The best governor in the country? Are you kidding?
She’d only even been in office for a year and a half.
She hadn’t even had time to be the best governor.
No, he certainly was not wondering where his next meal was coming from, but if it were not for Mr. Obama visiting him, I’m not sure, he’d be so ‘well off.’
Does he not have a six-figure income?
January 13th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
“It is something of a nuisance that all of the leading candidates (Romney, Palin, and Huckabee) have for varied reasons problems communicating with the electorate at large. Pawlenty may have a duller speaking style, but I think the average voter would tend to relate to him much better than the above three.” I am not saying that I agree entirely, but there is our catch 22 or double edge sword. Chose somebody that part of our base (or potential voter universe) can identify with or chose somebody that the other part of the base can identify with. Apparently, compromise also has its pitfalls. Chose somebody exciting, but with detractors or chose somebody who excites few, but hacks off few.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
“Does he not have a six-figure income?” Again, Maybe I missed something, sorry if I did, but I understood that he wanted to have a six firgure income (i.e. the majic $250,000.) I wouldn’t mind such an income either, but that in and of itself make be rich any more than complaining makes me poor.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Tito the Builder and Wendy the waitress were both cited by McCain and Palin in speeches. Tito was interviewed on Hannity and Colmes, Wendy may have been made up by McCain, I have no idea. I didn’t make them up, although I think it proves my point that you thought I might have. That’s how silly it sounded, it SOUNDED made up to the average voter. I don’t have a problem with Joe Wurzelbacher aka Joe the Plumber. I’m glad he stood up to Obama. I had a problem with how they presented him, along with a laundry list of other characters as talking points. It was fine to reference the guy a few times, especially if they had just called him by name, but it got very annoying.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Thanks very much for clarifying GetReal. It is a double edge sword, I for one certainly would have voted for Mr. McCain even if Joe the Plumber never came on the scene. Even though he is from, my state, I do not identify with him, I may be a Joe from Ohio, but I am not a Plumber, I do admire him for standing up to Mr. Obama and company and the media trashed him for it. On one hand, many people did in deed identify with him, while I guess, others did not.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Personally, I think it’s neat that Joe became “Joe, the Plumber”. There is nothing wrong with an outspoken “common man” (whatever that means) getting a voice on the national stage. My only gripe is that McCain had such a pathetic economic message during a time of economic crisis, that he had to grasp at any straw that floated by to cover for him. And Joe was it.
Don’t blame Joe. Blame McCain.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I’m not blaming Joe. I was blaming McCain and Palin for talking about him almost nonstop, and not just stopping with him but adding a bunch of other members to their menagerie of middle America. I think, if they wanted to make Joe part of the campaign, they should have just shot an ad with him, Tito, whoever else they wanted, and had them talk about their issues with Obama’s economic plan and how it would hurt them. Don’t just talk about them all the time. When I brought up Palin’s overuse of the term “Joe Sixpack” I just threw that in there because it all lumped together in my head. It was corny.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
120 Ohio Joe – I almost missed that comment. During the Republican Primary debates, I believe Romney was the only one calling for opening up ANWR for drilling, something McCain remained against although Palin agreed strongly with Romney.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Thanks for clarifying that GetReal, I realized that Mr. Romney was the only major candidate (before Mrs. Palin came on the scene) that was in favor of keeping gas taxes low and I agree with him on this one. To be honest, I was not sure what his exact position on drilling was, but was Martha M mocked drilling, I assumed her candidate did not promote drilling per se. I guess I should let Mr. Romney speak for Romneyism and take his camp members with a grain of salt.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
It sounds like we are on the same page, GetReal. “Joe the Plumber” et al, were symptoms of a failed campaign for President — no more, no less.
McCain was the wrong candidate running in the wrong election. This is further proof of the sheer lunacy of having the primaries effectively over before Groundhog Day. That is a full NINE MONTHS before the election. The economic meltdown was only a blip on the horizon at the time. Many people did see it coming, but not enough. The majority of people were still in “National Security” mode, at least by default. With all his faults, there is no argument that McCain certainly had the best Nat-Sec cred of any of the candidates.
But by the time of the election, the Iraq war was pretty much won, and the economic crisis was upon us. What was McCain’s response? He stumbled about like a duck who had been hit on the head. First he railed about Wall Street greed. Then he mumbled something about not liking earmarks. The most obvious response — use Romney in some way or form, he could not do because of his petty, vindictive pride. Then, Glory be, Joe appeared on the scene.
Contrast that behavior to how Obama handled the Palin nomination. They were totally flumoxed. That was obvious to everyone. But within a week or ten days, they figured out a strategy and implimented it. Life threw them a curve, and they recovered. Life threw John McCain a curve, and he never recovered.
Under the circumstances, who can blame the American people for voting in Obama?
January 13th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
When is the earliest mitt can open up a exploratory comittee like time frame of thanksgiving 2009 and january 2010?. i am guesssing he would want to be the first to announce?
January 13th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Also Mccain know pretty much he does not have another chance in 2012 or do you think he run’s again HE LOST THE RACE PALIN DID NOT I think? AS of now i want to back Mitt?
January 13th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
There really isn’t any hurry, Greg. Patience is a virture. If Romney runs, he will likely announce post 2010 mid-term elections, possibly around New Year’s 2011. Definitely before spring.
He can’t wait much longer than that if he is serious about it. There is just too much to be done in a modern Presidential campaign. Guiliani and Fred! attempted to do that, and it ended up costing them.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
MCCAIN KNOWS he does not stand a chance in 2012 to be the so called ”comeback kid” correct ?
January 13th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Yes, “Joe the Plumber” and all the rest basically proved once and for all to the American people that McCain didn’t know beans about the economy and had no real plans or ideas on how to fix it. That is not the image you want in the handful of weeks leading up to the election.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Well, even if the odds were a million to one, there is still a “chance”, right?
No, I think McCain is finished as a National ticket, and I suspect he knows it. He is the GOP’s John Kerry. John Kerry ran in 2004, though few people were really that excited about him. He was “the most electable”. At least Romney, Palin, and even Huckabee have excited supporters. McCain never really did. He was a Bob Dole re-do.
Why would the country need McCain in 2012? What does he bring to the table that we would need? Tenacity perhaps? That’s about it.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I think the RNC NEEDS A GOOD HOUSE CLEANING TOO! we keep losing these national races MID TERM ELECTIONS ect. and makes me sick!.I hope we elect a good new rnc chaiman and throw mike Duncan the gop chair now out! we need to use high technology like using internet ( like obama did!) we can’t win elections going old school! Right now I worry about my state terry mcauliffe is running for gov in nov. ugh!
January 13th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Greg, I highly doubt McCain will run for president again. If he does, he won’t win the nomination, he’s damaged good in the public eye after this recent election. Also, I think we’re all on the same page with Joe, as well as with drilling. I don’t believe Martha was mocking the idea of drilling, just the use of a catch phrase. That one didn’t particularly bother me. I did, however, cringe whenever I heard the term “Maverick.”
January 13th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I meant damaged goods.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
OHIO JOE – Heck no! I’m not against drilling for our own oil! Romney WAS the only one calling for drilling in ANWR during the campaign.
I was against using the inane term “drill baby drill” ad nauseum the way Palin did. She even found it necessary to correct Biden during the debate because he did’t say it right!
She’s was like a wind-up barbie doll during the campaign. She knew about 10 sound bites and kept repeating them over and over whether they were in context or not.
This is why I say she will probably not be able to overcome her deficits in 3 years.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I liked the way she fixed (corrected) Mr. Biden in the debate.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
In my mind, Brad Hanson is not a true Romney supporter. If he were, he wouldn’t have cast his vote for Obama. Romney and Obama are completely at opposite ends of nearly all spectrums.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
#120 – OHIO – Do you not know that Romney has been very strong on drilling, including Anwar? He would have tried hard to persuade McCain if he would have been the VP. He’s strong on alternative fuels also, of course, as he should be. He wants to be energy independent, or very close to it as soon as practicable.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I think Palin was pretty strong on trying to persuade McCain about ANWR, that’s one thing I’ll give her credit for. Romney would have been too, of course, but It isn’t her fault McCain is so stubborn.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Martha, you went from “can’t” (#107) to “probably not” (#151). Very good.
I agree that the odds are against her. However, I learned a long time ago to never underestimate anybody. As I mentioned in #122, if she does beat the odds and manages to turn it around in three short years, that will be quite an accomplishment. She will have earned a second good, hard look.
I really believe it would be better for her (and the country) to set her sights on 2016 and later. It will give her a chance to really refine her skills.
I think Jindal stands a very good chance of being ready by 2012. It all depends upon him continuing to do well in Louisianna.
I really expect Romney to run in 2012.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Illinoisguy, I’m pretty sure that “Brad Hanson’ voice is indeed a Romney supporter, and a true conservative. I know this person from another site (for 2 years, I think now). She voted for Obama basically because she was disgusted with the anti-Mormonism in the party, and because she was insulted by the selection of Palin over the more qualified Romney. Her point is that the party needs fixing. I agree with her, but I didn’t vote for Obama.
Brad Hanson is the guy Palin supposedly had an affair with. I don’t know or care if she did, but when you read the facts about it all, it leaves you wondering. If this were Romney or anyone else being accused, there would certainly be a bunch of hullabaloo. Palin is untouchable, I guess.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
MarK,
Romney, Sanford, Jindal, or Pawlenty are the only guys I can see supporting right now. But who knows, things change. Of the 4 Romney is more qualified and ready to lead by far.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Well, I’m not sure I understand the “Thought Process” behind voting for Obama if you’re a true conservative. There’s always the option of a write-in or third party candidate if for some reason you can’t vote for the Republican nominee.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Well, Martha, Brad Hanson voice does not help Mitt’s cause on here by being a total jerk(ess). You and I push the limits of what is appropriate… He/she is way overboard…and I wouldn’t have voted for Obama if someone would have offered by a cool 10K.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
GetReal and Illinoisguy, I think her thought process was that she lived in a state where it didn’t matter anyway. So do I, so I wrote in Romney for the heck of it. Never did ever find out if my state counts those votes anyway.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Illinoisguy, Me neither. I consider my voting record rather special.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
the ‘12 race will break down as follows:
first of all, obama will be beatable. the best case scenario for the economy is a short term bump followed by hyperinflation and even stagflation, kicking in around 2011. also there will still be tens of thousands of troops overseas. and i wouldnt count out a primary challenge from a certain sec. of state whose only goal in life is the presidency.
now, i believe there are 4 top contenders as of right now: mitt romney, mark sanford, charlie crist, and mike huckabee. the next level of contenders are sara palin, john thune, tim pawlenty, and newt gingrich.
bobby jindal will NOT be running in ‘12 unless he drops out of his reelection bid for gov. the gov race is nov 2011, giving him 2 months after that to organize for a prez run. trying to run for both would damage his chances at reelection. he is young and not stupid, he knows he can afford to wait and he will. i would, however, say he could be a vp contender, maybe even the top contender by late summer ‘12.
sarah palin could be a top tier contender, and as of enthusiasm and fundraising she is. but unless she dramatically improves her interviews, debates, and all around knowledge of national issues, she will never survive a primary debate and will never get the nod. until she shows signs of improving, she is second tier. her reelection bid for gov will be a good indication of whether or not she will be ready.
huckabee remains in the top because of his proven ability to win iowa. however, with better conservative alternatives then in 08, i think huck will not duplicate his 08 success.
sanford is probably the top contender of the unknowns. he is experienced as governor and former congressman, he is well liked by nearly all wings of the party, fi-cons, social cons, and even the ron paul libertarians like him for his strict spending and tax cuts. he is skillful and smart, with a beautiful family etc. and he would corner the market in south carolina, the most important historically of GOP primaries. as of today, i would mark down sanford as romney’s biggest challenger.
john thune has a lot of potential, and could become more visible these next few years in the leadership in the senate. his reelection bid in ‘10 will attract a lot of attention and will determine if he is a player or not. at the very least i would think thune will join jindal as a top vp choice.
pawlenty has a shot of moving into the top tier. he is a so-con who can win in blue states, and he might have the key economic message for the new gop era. the sams club repub thing could go far. however, he has shown not to be skillful at building grassroots ops and fundraising, so i think he stays 2nd tier, and again tops the veep lists.
spkr gingrich is an interesting candidate. the old newt is a polarizing figure, as polarizing as hillary. but the new newt is much more statesman like, and an idea machine. if nothing else newt will own the debates. newt, like biden, could use the primaries to put himself in vp or cabinet position.
romney is in the best position as of now. he is already building org, will help get a number of candidates elected next time, and will have no mccain to his left to scoop moderates. if the economy is bad, expect mitt to be the go to guy. i have a hard time seeing anyone other then sanford or a ‘new and improved’ palin stopping mitt.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Martha.
You pegged me. Keep the ’secret’, Ok girlfriend?
January 13th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
That was a pretty good analysis Max, better than I could do. There is little I could argue.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Adam,
The pseudo-religious worship of candidates is a characteristic found in Palin and Huck supporters. It is fairly obvious you don’t care for Mormons by the tone of your aticle but as a non-Mormon Mitt supporter I am attracted to his intelligence, competency, personal morality and effectiveness. Most other Catholic supporters of Mitt agree with me. We are obliged to vote for the candidate who is most representative of Catholic values. For all of Sarah and Huck’s in your face identity politics, there personal lives are not in order.
That said, on the political front, if the primaries had been closed Mitt would have been our candidate. Dem crossovers and independents gave us McCain. The statistics state by state bear that out. Mitt consistently won among those self described as conservative to extremely conservative, high income and well educated. Sarah and Huck take the blue collar, mid to lower income conservatives. Surprisingly, they did not take the religious vote at large.
What we have now is a party embroiled in an internal class warfare.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
aticle=article.
there=their
sorry for the typos. I can’t see half the posting field.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Good analysis, max. I agree with about 92.37% of it.
I noticed that you placed Crist in the top tier, yet did not analyze him. Care to finish? I am curious to hear your thoughts on him.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
What happened to all of the Giuliani, Thompson, McCain supporters on this site? Looks like the majority of those left are for Romney. Has this now become the go to site for the Romney Camp or will this be a fair and balanced site that takes a good look at all candidates? Seems like a lot of Palin and Huckabee bashing going on here. I for one want to watch and see how all of these “top” candidates evolve over the next three years. Rather than just tear two of them apart, because, they might have a lot to offer the GOP. Maybe each of the top will bow out for different reasons, but they each have something to offer. Why not look at those instead?
January 13th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Martha M, understand you promoting your candidate and I understand that by and large we cannot control those that are in our camps, but frankly it is a little over the top to defend this Mr. Hanson Dude. It may be a lark, but it is not doing your camp or frankly our party any benefit. Others in your camp have the decency not to engage in such trashing. I think that they are setting a good example.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Well, if Rudy wanted to run or McCain could have another go and knock a few years off, I’d be the first to sign up. Without them, Pawlenty sounds like my birthday wish this time.
You are right, though, in that being judgmental isn’t any good, though I’d bet for every one loud Romney supporter there are five skeptics who have only started to make sketches of their impressions, myself among them.
“That said, on the political front, if the primaries had been closed Mitt would have been our candidate. Dem crossovers and independents gave us McCain. The statistics state by state bear that out. Mitt consistently won among those self described as conservative to extremely conservative, high income and well educated. Sarah and Huck take the blue collar, mid to lower income conservatives. Surprisingly, they did not take the religious vote at large.”
Most of those crossovers were, of course, voters positively dispositioned towards McCain, and the majority probably fair game for him in the general election. If Romney doesn’t get independent loving, then it probably ought to sting him a bit.
If Romney stays where he is at, won’t get much out of the McCain-Giuliani supporters in 2012. Coupled with attacks to his right from Palin and Huckabee and the then-probable dark horse to further his woes, he’ll be left just as flimsy as this year. Which is why Romney is going to have to drop his 2008 “savior of conservatism” image. It’s not convincing enough to corner that market apparently and yet it manages to send running everybody else, this year into the arms of McCain.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Texas, we very, very rarely have a Romney posting, and even more rare anything pro-Romney. If we wanted to get fed anything positive by the posters, we would go somewhere else. Its pretty much this way nationwide. Of those that are informed, most are for Romney. That’s why he excelled in the caucuses.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
If Romney runs in 2012 will have the ”Age issue” questions to answer like mccain had to deal with the media?
January 13th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
lol – No, Greg, he won’t. That was pretty lame.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
crist’s strategy would be the mccain-path, try to corner the market on moderates, essentially try to horde all the mod repubs and indies like mccain did after rudy dropped, letting mitt/huck/palin split the base. crist would also likely have a better org then mccain, more money, and a key foothold in a very delegate rich state. the thing that could stop crist early on could be a smear campaign about the rumors we’ve all heard. the same way some evangelicals pigeonholed mitt on the mormon issue, the crist rumors could drive away voters, even moderates who older etc. crist’s best path is beating mitt in NH placing in the top 3 in SC and winning florida. he could be the guy who soaks up those northeast and california delegates. also, a registration drive to register new voters would be a likely part of his strategy considering more establishment types dont care for him.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
mitt will be 65, but he still looks young, and its really appearance that matters regarding the age issue. reagan and mccain were both late 60s 70s, but mccain looks about 90. part of that is his natural alibino-esque look, white hair since he was 30, robotic movement due to injuries. mac looked older then HW bush, even tho HW has 12 years on him.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
I could be wrong, and have little to base it on, but my gut feel is that Crist will not catch on with the voters.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Texasconserv.#169
We had an election, and Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain all lost. Every single one of them. No one really expects them to run again. So their supporters have to shift their alligences to somebody.
Many people are taking a wait and see approach. They may lean towards one candidate or the other, but most aren’t about to commit just yet.
Of those who have changed their affliations, Romney seems to have picked up the competent executive vote from Rudy’s supporters. McCain supporters (there weren’t that many to begin with) appear to have split fairly evenly. Fred’s supporters seem to have primarily gravitated to Palin and Romney with a few of them switching to Huckabee.
If you think that this site doesn’t tear into Romney, then you haven’t been paying close enough attention. Just re-read this thread if you don’t believe me, especially from about comment #70 on.
Beyond a doubt Romney is far and away the most qualified candidate we have at the moment. Is he the best candidate for the job? Some say yes, others say no. So the debate continues.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
so let me get this correct Mitt will be 65 by 2012 race and obama (he’s 46 now) will be 51 that kind worries me any body else worried?
January 13th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
mitt wins if there was no huckabee. the strategy was to shift right, to appear to be overtly social conservsative and win while mac and rudy divide the mods and indies. but it all fell apart when a real minister is standing right there. it just made mitt seem a little fake. and thats all the right needed, they already didnt like the mormon thing and huck gave them a reason.
toward the end mitt started winning them over, and at CPAC really seemed to win some converts. he has a lot of work to do, but he has the pole position going forward. with no mccain, he has NH in the bag (unless crist gets in). and from there he can out-organize his way to a win.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
It should worry you at least a little. But then what do you suggest? Run a very young guy like Jindal?
I really don’t think age will be that big of a factor. Remember the baby boomers are all in Romney’s demographic. They are the biggest voting block of them all.
Also remember that Mitt Romney is not slowing down one bit. The man takes very good care of himself, and exercises regularly. More important, he keeps his mind active and nimble.
Now Ann Romney is a different story. Her MS is in remission but could flair up at anytime. That is a bigger concern that Mitt’s health, I would say.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
#171
The only person I’ve ever seen billed as the “savior” of conservatism in 2008 is Sarah Palin. Outside of the so con faction, she and Huck have no proven appeal.
Mitt does get some independents, just not as many as McCain or Rudy. To prove how divided we are, most of the population sees Mitt as some conservative extremist, while the far right sees him as some kind of RINO new to conservatism. He’s not perfect, but the man’s personal life speaks volumes for his conservatism.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
I want to ask who is REAL competition for Romney in 2012? PLEASE NOT RON PAUL! I don’t think palin is is she?
January 13th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
what peaks my interest is what would happen if mitt and huck teamed up. would obama still crush them, or would the duo pull enough of the right levers to regain a majority of the publics trust; mitt the smart, competent, super-executive and the charming and likable minister who holds down the morality fort. if the two could ever come to terms (mitt pres first since he is older) it would make an interesting situation.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Ohio.
I guess the name bothers you. It also bothered Mrs. Hanson, as she divorced the scum for having the affair.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Ohio.
I guess the name bothers you. It also bothered Mrs. Hanson, as she divorced the scum for having the affair.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
crist is one of the few repubs who is enjoying great approval numbers. i dunno, i think he could be a player. he’s smart, he’s savvy, i think he could def pull it off.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I can’t take Palin credible. She reminds me of that preacher on the TV who with tears in his eyes (after getting caught with his pants down) cried “I HAVE SINNED”. Being moral is doing so even when others are not watching.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Max. Huck is too much of an ego and a bigot, to have teamed up with Mitt. His only goal was to get him out of the race.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
#184
Huckabee would have to stop making potshots at people. Beyond that, he would have to stop making those stupid gaffes like the comment about assasination attempts.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
#189 “[Huckabee's] only goal was to get him out of the race.”
And you know this how, exactly?
January 13th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Max. Crist is gay. It’s an open secret in Fla. He must hand clap at the ‘right’ church for you all to over look that little tidbit.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
#163, I agree with much of your analysis. I do think you overestimate Romney’s appeal, given all of his flip-flopping, but his $$$ and organizational skills will put him in the top-tier, at least initially. I’m guessing Romney will also get a lot of endorsements from the GOP establishment, who will take an “anyone but Palin/Huckabee” attitude.
I think the media may be more pro-Romney the second time around, because he will be seen as the “moderate” candidate running against all those “evil” conservatives (Palin, Sanford, etc.)
I think Crist would be a good VP choice, especially given the importance of Florida to the election. I don’t see him as a Presidential candidate, and I doubt he will run.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
#192
Well good for him. We need more careful, lively, and fun-loving people in politics.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Great, so much for convincing anyone to back Romney, with this joker posting silly unsubstantiated rumors about Palin and drawing all of the backlash to the Romney camp.
There are plenty of legitimate issues that might concern people about Sarah Palin without sinking to that level. She doesn’t seem to be much of a one-on-one debater, for instance. She doesn’t have a good grasp on foreign policy, or many national issues such as illegal immigration which don’t effect the state of Alaska. She didn’t turn out to be the quick study on policy many assumed she would be. Not to mention a sizable portion of the voting public consider her to be a complete idiot (I’m not one of them.) There’s no need for spreading scandals with scant evidence of truth.
As for Huckabee and Romney teaming up, I still don’t see it. Aside from many of their supporters loathing each other, Huckabee seems to have a personal vendetta against Romney that has carried on way past the primary and even the election.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
is ay body worried romney might skip 2012 because i was flipping channel the other night on tv and I thought I heard obama is already planning 2nd term and this 2012 is in the bag for him?
January 13th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
is any body worried romney might skip 2012 because i was flipping channel the other night on tv and I thought I heard obama is already planning 2nd term and this 2012 is in the bag for him?
January 13th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Oh and now she’s going after Crist…
January 13th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Greg, nobody knows how things will be by 2012. Obama has the media covering for him, but he’s also inexperienced and may be in over his head at this point with a struggling economy and enemies abroad. I wouldn’t say anything is in the bag for anyone yet.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
“Max. Crist is gay. It’s an open secret in Fla. He must hand clap at the ‘right’ church for you all to over look that little tidbit.” Among other things, proof?
January 13th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Why is anyone even talking about Crist? He’s not top tier material.
Hell will freeze over before Mitt teams up with Huck. He needs Huck like he needs a hole in the head. 2nd – Huck despises Romney.
People, get a clue.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
“Why is anyone even talking about Crist? He’s not top tier material?” Gee, somebody tell me.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
OHIO – I didn’t defend Brad Hanson’ voice, I explained.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Isn’t there a guy who comes here and says “Huckabee must die!” every once in a while? Nobody cares too much about it.
Apparently, Princess Sarah is untouchable.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
“Isn’t there a guy who comes here and says “Huckabee must die!” every once in a while? Nobody cares too much about it.” Yeah, lately there have been a number of characters coming out of the woodwork around here. The Huck must die issue has been dealt with months ago. You missed that episode Martha M. Are you waiting for somebody to say Mr. Romney must die every once in a while? Pretty soon, I’m about to bang my head against the wall every once in a while.
“OHIO – I didn’t defend Brad Hanson’ voice, I explained.” And I thought I was a funny explainer.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
All I remember is Falz explained a long time ago that when he says “Huckabee must die”, he means he must die politically.
I don’t think Romney would ever ask Huckabee to be VP. Maybe Romney/Patraeus, romney/Jindal, Romney/Thune, Romney/Sanford.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
crist can rally the moderates and win the way mccain did, if the conservs are divided, which they may very well be. the way crist angled the endorsement this year shows he has interests, that and rushing to get married to crush stupid rumors. he was clearly willing to take vp.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
hey if crist is gay, maybe we can pick off vermont and massachusetts
January 13th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Illinoisguy, I would add Senator DeMint to a potential Romney VP list. If he wins the 2012 nomination I predict he will take a southerner as VP.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Yes, a pretty good chance that he would, and DeMint has been a loyal Romney backer.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
i would also put gov. perry and gov. huntsman on the second tier list
January 13th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
The grapevine is romney isn’t running in 2012 but i will only believe it after the fact…as for my other idea that he should run for the US senate in 2010 from utah, problem #1 would be not sure the current senator will retire…problem #2 is the gov of utah has a little feud with romney dating back to huntsman being passed over for running the olympics in favor of romney, so that might not work either. Yet, i have a hard time believing romney will walk away from the political world so if obama isn’t sky high in the polls, i think he runs.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
you dont make a PAC if youre walking away. romney runs unless obama is over 65 approval rating
January 13th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
They only thing I think will keep Mitt from running is Anne’s health. I don’t think Obama has a prayer of having a rating over 60 after a few years.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
#184
I agree with your analysis of how powerful a romney/huckabee ticket would be…clearly some of the die hard supporters of these two need to take a deep breath and open their eyes to some political realities and let some things stay in the past. As for romney forming a pac, it does go against the chatter of him not running but who knows, a lot time between now and the next election.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:19 am
by the fact that even though mathamatically not possible, huckles the clown stayed in the race until he got more than delegates than romney. Took him six more weeks, but he did it, and made a total fool out himself at the same time.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Mitt does not need huckles. Huckles needs Mitt.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:40 am
There is no competition Greg my friend.
The only thing standing between Mitt and the nomination is Ann’s health.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Palin doesn’t want us to believe what we saw in the campaign. She released a statement after her ill-conceived “you’re not the center of the universe” comment to Couric.
“As a public official, I expect criticism and I expect to be held accountable for how I govern,” the Alaska governor said. “But the personal, salacious nature of recent reporting, and often the refusal of the media to correct obvious mistakes, unfortunately discredits too many in journalism today, making it difficult for many Americans to believe what they see in the media.”
Sorry Sarah, I believed what I saw and so did Huck. He recently said that he thought the Gibson and Couric interviews were fair.
“Now I must say I did not think that either the Charlie Gibson interview or the Katie Couric interviews were unfair,” Huckabee said. “In fact, if anything, Katie Couric was extraordinarily gentle, even helpful. [Palin] just … I don’t know what happened. I can’t explain it. It was not a good interview. I’m being charitable.”
Okay, now. Let the games begin.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Oh…. Huck was a tad ‘testy’ towards the princess. I don’t agree much with Huck, but on this one I do agree. Couric tossed softballs. Really soft balls. She even tried to ‘guide’ her towards a coherent answer. Palin just could not follow along, and got lost in the questions. Gibson was a little more on what I expected from an real interview. I don’t know if it occured to Palin yet, or not. But YOU WERE RUNNING FOR VICE PRESIDENT. Answer the questions. Saying crap like “I’ll research it and get back to ya” is NOT an answer. It shows your not intelligent enough to be where you were placed. Thankfully the american people saw it too and voted against her. They would have cleaned Obama’s clock if he had said such a daft answer. And, if you want your family ‘off limits’, do what the Obama’s did. Don’t put them front and center and fob off your problems as a parent with a flippent “were just like any other american family”. You are not. My family more closely resembles the Obama family (Married before children brought into family), than the Palin family. I don’t need to wonder “Is the Obama girls HIS?” Yet, in light of the affair Palin had with Brad Hanson, I do wonder which of the children might be Todds. Heck, it’s a legit questions. After all, Palin put her family up as the all american just like yours, redneck family.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:31 am
““Now I must say I did not think that either the Charlie Gibson interview or the Katie Couric interviews were unfair,” Huckabee said. “In fact, if anything, Katie Couric was extraordinarily gentle, even helpful. [Palin] just … I don’t know what happened. I can’t explain it. It was not a good interview. I’m being charitable.””
I saw too saw this quote on a Left-Wing site last night in between commenting on this side. If we wait long enough, change will come. I never thought I’d see the day when Martha M would join forces with Mr. Huckabee, but then again, I have seen a lot of shocking things lately. It is truly funny how various diverse factions of the anti-Palin camp feel that they need to team up with each other. Let the games begin in deed!
January 14th, 2009 at 11:45 am
OHIO – Perish the thought. (Hell will freeze first.) I simply posted it to show the opening slavo.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:49 am
OHIO – I’m far more anti-Huck than anti-Palin, but neither one are acceptable candidates — for different reasons.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
“Hell will freeze first.” I do not know anything about Hell, but Ohio, for one state is frozen. So much for global warming. Haha.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
OHIO,
Politics does indeed make strange bed-fellows.
Now me, I took Huckabee’s comments as just more of the same ol’, same ol’ from Huckabee. The man insists upon picking fights that are totally unnecessary. I am still trying to figure out if he is indeed that stupid and petty, or if he is just doing it to boost sales for his books and drum up viewers for his TV show. I would not bet against either one, or both of them for that matter.
Whatever, I can’t imagine any GOP candidate for President wanting to tie that loose cannon to his ticket as runningmate. The candidate doesn’t need the headache.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
And I am most decidedly NOT anti-Palin. I think she is a woman of great potential that was thrust upon the National scene before she was ready. That’s McCain’s fault, not hers. She could have been better prepared since she spoke about being the VP months before the selection. She could have spent more time boning up on National issues. But I can’t really fault her for not really believing that the GOP nominee would select an obscure first term Governor from Alaska. Can you?
Will she ever be ready? Only time will tell. I am certainly more than willing to give her the time.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
To the die hard mormon/romney/anti huck folks…got this post from the ksl comment section about the huck radio interview that your demographic should think about:
To my fellow Latter-Day Saints: I was annoyed with Gov. Huckabee during the campaign and thought he wasn’t fair with Romney. But, then, Romney did some things I didn’t agree with also. It’s time to forgive and forget. A lot of things get said in the heat of a campaign that are later regretted. If Gov. Huckabee says he likes Mormons and wants to come to Utah, that’s fine and I’ll accept what he says and hope we make him feel very welcome if and when he comes to Utah. If we let hurt feelings fester, then we are have not forgiven and have the greater sin. I think it was Brigham Young who said: “A man who takes offense when no offense is intended, is a fool. And a man who takes offense when offense is intended is also a fool.” Lets be Christians and not fools.
Bottom line, a romney/huck ticket should be very plausible at this moment, if either supporters go ape about the thought than i think you can kiss any chance to win a general election for either guy, can’t have that civil war going on and think the gop can win…yet the ideal would be for the gop not to put up two white males in 2012 + there is a lot of events that will occur between now and than so who knows what the future will bring…another thing, try to picture what the 2008 gop primary would have been like if romney would have say run for re-election as gov in 2006 and skipped a white house bid in 2008…huck would have still done his target of evangelicals and boomed onto the scene, the guy has talent + remember the basis of his support wasn’t anti-romney, it was pro huck among that crowd.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
MarK:
As offensive as Mr. Huckabee’s comments may have been, I think we all have seen worse trashing of Mrs. Palin. I am not saying that Mrs. Palin is a Centrist in the traditional political sense, but often both ends are played against the middle. On the one hand, Mr. Huckabee would have been smarter to send a surogate to do the dirty work if you will, but on the other hand, it was a smart move on his part even if it was too smart by half. Just like the Romney camp wants to keep all its members in line, the Huckabee camps want to do the same. Don’t be surprised if the campaign unfold at least in a slightly different manner than Conventional Wisdom would dictate. I almost think that the potentential candidate know sometimes the rest of us don’t.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
OHIO and blue.
This has nothing to do with Romney or Palin specifically. This has to do with Huckabee’s delight in picking fights where none are unnecessary. The man is a loose cannon that no candidate will want as runningmate. They will not want the hassles. The will not want to waste precious resources on damage control after his gaffes.
Until Mike Huckabee gets control of that mouth of his, he will never be the runningmate for Romney, Palin, Sanford, Jindal, Bush, or whoever our 2012 or 2016 nominee is. That is a fact of life. You can take it to the bank.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Make that “This has to do with Huckabee’s seeming delight in picking fights where none are necessary.”
When can we get an “edit” function?
January 14th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
to be perfectly blunt Huckabee and Ron paul need to out of 2012 race we need real winners sadly to say and i don’t think they can get it done.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
For the record, MarK, Mr. Huckabee’s trashing of Mrs. Palin back-fired as far as keeping me in his camp, but rightly or wrongly, I think he was controling his mouth so to speak. I think he meant to say what he did. I disagree with what he said and his strategy, but I do not think it was totally a ‘loose cannon’ comment. Yes he picked a fight, but he probably thought he needed to. Although, I for one disagree with that need.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I am a strong supporter of Mitt Romney. I could see Romney asking Huckabee to be his running-mate. However Huckabee has to get control of his mouth first.
His window of opportunity is closing. Huckabee will have to show the ability to behave himself for several years before any Presidential Candidate in their right mind is going to be willing to risk his campaign on a potential loose cannon.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
OHIO,
It isn’t just knocking fellow Republicans. What about the “joke” he made at the NRA convention?
Look, I really don’t want to rehash all of Huckabee’s old gaffes. I am trying to move on. The bottom line is Mike Huckabee has got to learn to keep his foot out of his mouth before anyone is going to trust him as their running-mate. His recent comments about Palin, though fairly mild, are just examples on how he still has to go.
You know, if he is sincerely trying to turn over a new leaf, perhaps he should give up his TV Show. The opportunities and temptation it provides to make gaffes are enormous. Why make a recovering alcholic a bartender?
January 14th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
MarK, well I wish neither to sound like smart alec, nor disloyal to Mr. Huckabee, but for me, it would not be the end of the world if Mr. Huckabee is not on the ticket. I certainly do not even demand that we have somebody who believes 100% in Huckabeeism on the ticket, but 86% would be nice. I am not even going to dispute the fact that Mr. Huckabee for one has a tendency to be a loose cannon, I was just stating my opinion that this particular gaffe if you will was not a gaffe per se and I for one am disappointed in his for choosing the low road. In a strange way, I wish it was just a gaffe.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Huckabee is not running to be someone’s VP in 2012. As the new article just quoted Huckabee, he will run if he thinks he has a chance at winning.
On Palin-Huckabee went through some pretty grueling interviews with Hannity et al, who repeated misinformation even after Huckabee corrected them on tv/radio. So I do think that he felt Palin had it pretty easy in regards to the questions she was asked in her interviews. But he also defended Palin in the article: “He pauses. “I think it was overpreparation. She’d been hammered by McCain’s aides, ‘Say this, don’t say that.’ ”
As to a Romney/Huckabee ticket. I think one reason why Huckabee does not like Romney, and why many other candidates did not like Romney, is that Romney has this air about him that he is better than everyone else. Huckabee had more governing experience than Romney and had higher approval ratings than Romney, yet Romney said Huckabee was not a “major” candidate. Romney aides treated Huckabee aides as if they were just in the way.
As to Romney supporters, they always refer to Huckabee as a former Baptist minister-yet Huckabee had been a successful governor in a democrat state for 10 1/2 years. They also always put Romney at the top of the ticket and Huckabee at the bottom. But the reality is that Huckabee had less name recognition, less money, less organization, and less media support and still beat Romney in Iowa, and other states on Super Tuesday.
That is where the problem lies. If one is to compare the two, one needs to put them both on the same level, same starting point. But Romney supporters put Huckabee way down the list, and way behind in the race.
As a former Huckabee supporter, I am looking to see what/how Huckabee does over the next three years before I give my total support of him. I am even willing to look at Romney. But I am not going to treat Romney like he is beneath Huckabee or a loser in the race.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“I think one reason why Huckabee does not like Romney, and why many other candidates did not like Romney, is that Romney has this air about him that he is better than everyone else.” Yes, there is some truth in that. However, I blame this impression on certain camp members as opposed to Mr. Romney himself.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
marK is exactly right. Huckabee would do damage to any/every ticket. There isn’t any way someone would choose him when there are 100 other options.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Yeah, provided that these 100 other options get their reading list approved by Queen K. Couric.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Oh come on, OHIO. Palin failed on that question – a question that ANYONE could answer. Simple. She later tried to cover her embarrassment by saying the question wasn’t fair! Ha. Yeah, well it was, and so what if it wasn’t! When in doubt – ANSWER!
OHIO – remember that Palin admitted that the first segment with Couric didn’t go well and she wanted to bug out of the rest. The McCain camp said NO. You can’t run from the press, Sarah.
So, apparently, the “free Sarah” stuff was hogwash. It’s SARAH who didn’t want to do the interviews because she knew she was unprepared. She knows her strengths are a little more superficial.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
On Romney – I think people mistake his demeanor. I do not see it as arrogant, but as gracious. Rather than thinking he’s better than everyone else, he simply exudes competence and confidence. And why shouldn’t he? Listen, he’s the kind of guy who knows what to do in all situations – pretty much. He did have a couple of mess-ups. But remember how gracious he was to all the other candidates, even the slimy one? Time and time again Huck throws his stink bombs, and Romney takes the high road. It’s not because he thinks he’s better, it’s because he’s not going to demean himself by acting childish or stupid. People choose to take Romney the wrong way.
Romney thought of Huck as 2nd tier because that’s what he was, for the most part. Huck did win some states, but his appeal was such that he could never win a nomination.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Well, I do not know about you, but it is none of Mrs. Couric’s bloody business what I read.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Martha,
Huckabee would do damage to any ticket (including his own) at the present time.
Sarah Palin is not ready for POTUS at the present time.
Tomorrow is another day.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
You know, I cannot for the life of me see how terrible that question about what someone reads to keep informed was. It seems pretty standard stuff to me. Does she read the papers? Does she read blogs? Does she read Ann Coulter books? What does she read?
What is so terrible or “gotcha” about that?
January 14th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Ohio,
What you read reflects upon WHO you are, and WHAT you know.
And Couric did not ask you, she asked the airhead, who could not answer.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I think the editing of the Couric interview was unfair, but not the questions necessarily. Look at Mitt or Rudy on Meet the Press if you want to see somebody face a total intense one-sided grilling by an interviewer. Not to mention that Rudy and Mitt were both able to face the onslaught without embarrassing themselves the way Sarah did. I’m keeping a somewhat open mind about Palin for 2012, though I’m in Romney’s corner for now. However, she really has a lot to prove before I think she’s ready to be President. I think she’s a good person with some great leadership qualities, however she just wasn’t anywhere near prepared for the job this time, and it made our party look foolish.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
With respect MarK, I do not think that other candidates must answer such questions. It is a no win. Depending on the answer, one can say ’see she reads liberal papers like the elite’ or ’see she just cares about her own state because she reads so many Alaska papers.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
What I read:
LA times, OC Register, SL Tribune, Deseret News, Washington Post, Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham, BofM, Bible, Newsweek, newsmax, Drudge, some family blogs, and other news blogs and on line papers.
Last book I read: The Christmas Sweater by Glenn Beck.
favorite all time Book: Slow Boats Home
Least favorite: Anything by Tolkin.
Best series I’ve read this quarter: The Great and Terrible by Chris Stewart. (six books).
I’m not afraid or ashamed of what I read. It’s a no brainer question for me.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Blue. And you belive huckles the clown? Not I.
What is that old arkanas saying? Fool me once, shame on me. fool me twice, shame on me.
I can forgive, but not fogret WHAT huck did and how he did it. Shame on him, and shame on anyone who even thinks of voting for this shyster.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Actually, OHIO, that question is a fairly standard question. It gets asked all the time, especially by female reporters. It is one of Barbara Walter’s favorites. I know, because the answer always interests me. I always take notice whenever it is asked. To take umbrage at such a standard questions just highlights Sarah Palin’s unfortunate lack of exerience on the National stage.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Then I stand corrected on this MarK.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Brad(ette), you certainly take the cake I thought was for Big S when it comes to crass, pointless, divisive rumormongering regarding Gov Palin. Why are you so full of hate and spite?
As for what Gov Huckabee said, I think it’s certainly fair for him to state he thought she just wasn’t up to standard based on her performance in the interviews. That’s actual performance, and not really off the mark. As for the wisdom of commenting about other Reps, well, it just shouldn’t be done by potential nominee candidates. The Dems will be spending enough time demonizing each and every single Rep that they might go against that we don’t need to help them.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
“I can forgive, but not forget WHAT huck did and how he did it.”
It’s lunchtime. Here is a little food for thought. According to Matt 7:2, we control the standard by which God judges us. He will simply use the same standard we use to judge others.
Now between you and me, I want God to use the most forgiving, quick to forget standard possible. How about you?
January 14th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I have had a question on my mind lately and that is since president bush is soon former bush should the RNC invite him still to the 2012 convention and get him on the 2012 campaign trail for or 2012 person ? Should he even endorse a 2012 candidate or will it look like bush should stay away now that he’s leaving? I don’t know what to think.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I have had a question on my mind lately and that is since president bush is soon former bush should the RNC invite him still to the 2012 convention and get him on the 2012 campaign trail for our 2012 person ? Should he even endorse a 2012 candidate or will it look like bush should stay away now that he’s leaving? I don’t know what to think.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
And while we are on the subject of Huckabee…
Like so many supporters of Huckabee’s opponents, I mocked and ridiculed his “Floating Cross” commercial. I had never actually seen it, mind you, but I had seen the stills. There was the cross as plain as plain can be. I never condemned the cross itself, mind you. I thought it a nice touch for a Christmas message. But I did condemn the obvious disingenousness of the response. Why didn’t they just admit that the cross was there?
Then about a week or so ago, I went on line and looked it up. It is still available. I watched it carefully, all ready to pounce on the cross. And you know what? There was nothing there. The famous “cross” was just a bookcase. Nothing more than a bookcase. It was in the background while they panned over to Huckabee. For a split second, the intersecting white segments formed a cross, but if you blinked it, you’d miss it.
That was IT?!?!? That was what all the fuss was about?!?!? For all of you that insist upon there being a cross there, I have to say, “Get a life, already!”
Chalk one up for Mike Huckabee and crew.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
As is the case with any high-profile person, Bush will campaign for the nominee if the nominee wants him to. Otherwise he won’t.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
256 marK, Huckabee’s campaign manager Ed Rollins already admitted the floating cross was intentional. A little phosphorescence and lighting goes a long way. For one thing…where were the books?
January 14th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
GetReal,
Actually, Ed Rollins admitted to no such thing. He did mention that the preceived cross was free publicity, but he never did admit to it being deliberate. Do you have a reference that says otherwise, one that actually quotes Rollins?
January 14th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Huckabee’s manager, Ed Rollins, admitted that they used commercials to their advantage, not to the floating cross. I listened to that interview and read the words myself. They did not plan it, but once there was a fuss about it, they let it roll so that they could get free media. Huckabee talks about it in his book. Remember, they had no money to be creating cool, floating crosses.
But God does work in mysterious ways. Think about how many people saw that commercial. Think about how many people were reminded that Christmas was indeed about the birth of Christ. Think about how many people went to youtube to see it replayed. No other politician was able to get across the true meaning of Christmas, in a season filled with commercialization, materialism and politics.
Chalk one up for Huckabee and having the guts to not fold like Bush and his Barney video where they say Happy Holidays 4 times, and Christmas zero. I missed that Floating Cross commercial this year.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I had no problem with having a cross in the commercial. It was that whole denial of the perfectly framed shot and acting like “oh its a miracle!” which fit in with Huckabee’s other statements acting as though he were God’s chosen candidate, which obviously in hindsight was not the case as he didn’t win.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
OK, upon further research, I guess the blog where I had read about Rollins comments misinterpreted them. This was awhile ago that I read about it. So no, Rollins never came out and admitted it, and I apologize for claiming that he did. However, with his statements that they made that ad with the intention of getting free media leads me to believe he was trying for a bit of controversy and I still feel it was intentional. However, that ad is not up there on my list of reasons not to back Mike Huckabee.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Huckabee was great at free media. Look at the Chuck Norris ad. Even his own supporters were nervous about his first political ad being a humorous one, but it was a huge hit and successfully gained him recognition on the campaign trail.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Yes Texas,
I find it interesting that Huckabee says right in the commerical that Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Christ. Nobody said boo about that. But a floating cross that may or may not be there? Hooboy. I’ve seen Independence Day Celebrations with fewer fireworks.
People can be funny that way.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
You’re all freaking kidding me if you don’t think there was a cross in the comercial and that it was on purpose. Please. This was just more “What, who me?” stuff from Huck, like the negative ad and the “innocent” question to the NYT reporter — who Huck would have us believe is an expert on Mormon theology.
It takes up 1/3 or more of the screen and pans right over to Huck’s face. It’s more than obvious. It’s not possible to believe it was an happy accident or “miracle.
Apparently not too many of you know anyone in the business of producing these kinds of things. Find someone who is and then ask them if it’s possible it was unscripted. They will laugh in your face.
WATCH. IT. AGAIN.
You are asking me to believe that Huck and everyone who worked for him are complete imbeciles. Sorry, I don’t. But I do believe they might all have an aversion to the truth.
As I recall, Rollins said they did those sorts of things all the time to grab headlines. While not specifically admitting it, his comments pointed that direction.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
I just did, Martha. I really, REALLY wanted to see a floating cross. I saw a bookcase. Sorry.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
The blatant cross bothered me only because Huck was already playing the religion card against Romney. It was another sly (or not) way to remind folks that “Mormons are not Christians”, but Huck is, or some such nonsense. (Oh, and in case your forgot, Huck was the “Christian Leader”, too.)
What really bothered me was the flat out lying about it.
I have no problem with a commercial about Christ at Christmas time. None at all. I do have a problem with a politican using Christ to play dirty political tricks.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
marK – so did I, and if you can’t see it, I can’t help you. Take my suggestion and ask someone who works in that business. There’s NO WAY this would have been unplanned or overlooked.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Martha, you really need to go see your bishop and ask him to help you forgive Huckabee. That is way to much hatred to be carrying around.
Huckabee devotes three pages in his book to the Christmas ad. It is well worth the read. In fact, I wish I could send you his book so that you could read his own words.
But I am sure that you will spend the next three years going over the same ol’ same ol’ about Huckabee. And if he does decide to run again, I am sure you will find a way to go to one of his rallies and protest.
Instead you could be using all of this pent up anger/energy to help promote conservative leaders within your own community. Maybe even run yourself.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Martha,
This is the group that non-released the negative ad to the press, remember? This is a guy who preached in SBC churches for years, spoke at an anti-Mormon conference in Salt Lake, who “innocently” asked a NYT reporter (a well-known expert theologian periodical) if Mormons believed that Christ and Satan are brothers.
They weren’t exactly known for their subtlety, were they? Huckabee continues today stomping around like a bull in a china shop picking fights where he needs not. And you are trying to convince me that they planned that cross? So they are ham-handed in everything they do, but they managed the floating cross with masterful skill.
I’m sorry. I suppose it is possible for them to get one thing right, but I’m not convinced. It is far easier to imagine them stumbling upon the floating cross forturisticly than to imagine they dreamed up and planned that exquisite touch. Especially since there isn’t a reason in the world for them to deny responsibility if they did it. They mentioned that Christmas was a celebration of the birth of Christ right in the text of the commerical. Why put that in, then turn around and deny the cross if they really had planned it? What purpose would it serve.
But go ahead and believe in conspiracies if it makes you feel better. Just be a little less harsh on those posters who call Mitt on all of that pandering they “KNOW” he’s made.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
marK, I believe pretending the cross wasn’t intentional and “just happened” was the whole point of it. Make it seem like God’s work, not Huckabee’s. That’s why he wouldn’t take credit for it. The thing is, a lot of Huckabee’s supporters really did take it that way. Huckabee didn’t miss any opportunities to co-opt God’s endorsement of his candidacy. There’s a possibility it was an accident, I think there’s room for debate, but I’m certainly not sold on the idea that it wasn’t intentional.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
I don’t argue with posters who claim Mitt pandered to people. I’m sure he has, I believe he pandered to Massachusetts voters to get elected there. The man is a politician, as is everyone else who makes a serious run at national office. I did, however, apologize for mentioning false information about what Ed Rollins said. Now I’d like to see people admit Mitt never flipped on gun control or gay marriage, as often as that lie gets repeated. Or I could just wait for Hell to freeze over, I suppose.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
As to asking someone in the business, I have. They tell me:
(1) The last image is usually the more powerful. People will remember it.
(2) The background should match the action.
With #1, if it was a floating cross, the bookshelf would have dissolved into a cross, not the other way around.
With #2, Huckabee starts out secular and ends up with the religious and family message about the season. So the bookshelf would match the secular, and the cross would have matched the sacred. In truth, they are exactly the opposite.
Watch the ad again, this time listening to the words being spoken. Huckabee starts out talking about things that aren’t really Christmas and ends up talking about the things that are really Christmas. If that bookcase really was a “cross” then that is being featured when he is talking about things that aren’t part of Christmas, and the tree is featured when he talks about the things that are truly at the heart of Christmas.
So the Christmas tree is a greater symbol for Christmas than the cross?
Are you still so sure about Huckabee deliberately (and professionally) putting that “cross” in there?
January 14th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
First you’re saying Huckabee doesn’t understand subtlety, now you’re saying he couldn’t have done it on purpose because it wouldn’t be professional enough?
January 14th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
For the sake of the argument, I don’t think this was Huckabee’s idea to begin with, but Rollins more likely came up with it. Either way, the only ones who know for sure one way or the other are Huckabee, Rollins, and probably whoever worked on the set. Its not a huge issue for me so I’d prefer to discuss other things, I’m just not convinced by this line of argumentation.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Have you ever thought about running for office Martha? You could really sock it to some liberals.
Personally, I think several people on here should run for office.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
GetReal,
Martha insisted that if I checked with professionals who make these sorts of commericals, they would confirm that the cross was deliberate.
Well, I did, and if the cross was deliberate, then Huckabee is associating the cross with what is bad about Christmas and the Christmas tree with what is good. Is that the message, subliminally coded or otherwise, that Mike Huckabee would deliberately try to sen to Christian voters in Iowa on the eve of the Caucus?
I think not. Verdict, the bookcase is just a bookcase. Huckabee just isn’t that subtle.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I would like to apologize if I’ve been rude or too blunt today. In reality, the floating cross ad isn’t even that big a deal to me, not compared to everything else Huck did!
Illinoisguy, The other day you said that you and I push the limits, but really you don’t and I do — you were just being nice. Sometimes I just need to calm down a little, I realize that.
No one in my family cares about politics too much, so I have to come here to vent!
January 14th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
marK – not to belabor the point, but the floating cross was not subtle.
I guess we’ll just have to disagree to disagree. You comments are always right on.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Ooops, I meant agree to disagree!
January 14th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I think if the floating cross ad happened in a vacuum, without all the other shenanigans going on around it, I would probably just pass it off as coincidence. Why isn’t the video centered on its subject? I don’t think they were trying to use the cross to say what was right about Christmas, or they just would have had a real cross, possibly even cutting away to show it. It was supposed to look unintentional so it wouldn’t look like a shot at Romney. I don’t think it was even intended as a shot at Romney (who didn’t “speak the language of Zion as a mother tongue,” like Mike Huckabee, I think it was to once again make Huckabee appear as God’s chosen candidate.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Mark – I don’t know positively whether it was or not. The commercial wasn’t a big item for me. However, several experts were interviewed on Fox and other channels, and they all scoffed at the idea that it was not planned. These are people who make these commercials.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
I agree with Martha that we might as well drop it. I don’t think we’re going to convince each other on this point. I’ve already harped on this issue too much today.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
“No one in my family cares about politics too much, so I have to come here to vent!” To a degree, all of us political animals can relate to that.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
If that was the only ‘coincidence’ I’d agree it’s a non starter. But it was not. I don’t trust someone who talks with such a forked tounge.