1) Mitt Romney - Gov. Romney remains in the best position to win the GOP nomination in 2012. He continues to do everything right; good interviews, smart policy critiques of Obama without the red meat attacks, joining the he National Council for a New America, etc. He gave a wide ranging speech on national defense spending and budgets to the Heritage Foundation, the most convincing sign yet that Romney is all in for 2012. Until someone else emerges clicking on all cylinders, he will remain poised as the undisputed front-runner for 2012.
2) Sarah Palin - The tabloid stories seemed to have quieted down, as Palin’s fans welcomed news of the Governor’s book due out next year. Palin continues to weigh in on national issues, firing off press releases either countering the President’s policies or giving her own opinion on national events. She continues to compile an impressive email list and grassroots network that could make her a juggernaut in the early states. However, until she proves she can take the heat in interviews and debates without self-immolating, she will be on the outside looking in.
3) Mike Huckabee - Huck is staking out a solid anti-establishment position, attacking the GOP rebranding effort led by Rep. Eric Cantor. He had decided to endorse Marco Rubio over Charlie Crist, stoking his anti-establishment cred even further and setting himself up as the top populist in 2012. However, as long as Palin looks likely to run, Huck will likely end up on the losing end of a populist brawl with the former VP nominee.
4) Tim Pawlenty - Minnesota’s governor has the proven ability to win in the bluest of states (even Reagan never won Minnesota) with his blue-collar Republican message. I imagine T-Paw’s Sam’s Club populism could be quite effective in 2012 after years of bailouts and debt. He is also an evangelical, and could give Palin and Huckabee a run for the support of values voters. Governor Pawlenty could appeal to all sectors of the party in ways that the Big Three from 2008(Romney, Huckabee, Palin) have failed to do. Having decided against a third term bid, Pawlenty is now free to build a national organization and shape his message for a GOP primary.
5) John Thune - Senator Thune is the most likely member of the Senate to get the GOP nod in 2012. He has the conservative resume to win over the base, the looks and communication skills to win over the broader electorate, and a chance in the Senate leadership to become the rhetorical counter to Obama the next four years. His lobbying ties and strong religious values could hurt him some with moderates. It seems more and more, however, that the Senator is making all the subtle moves to run. He has become the strategic point man to defeat Obama on Card-Check, Cap and Trade, and other legislation. Senator Thune could emerge as a unifying figure in a field with a number of candidates who have difficulty winning over certain parts of the party; Romney with evangelicals, Huckabee with fiscal cons, Palin with moderates. Sen. John Ensign’s scandal all but eliminates him as a potential 2012, and Thune stands to gain the most from it politically. Not only does it eliminate a fellow senator and rival, but now Thune is the leading candidate to replace Ensign in the Senate Leadership, proof of Thune’s rising star.
6) Mark Sanford - The fiscally conservative Governor of South Carolina is quickly becoming a favorite for both insiders and the Libertarian Ron Paul supporters. That kind of combination could make Sanford the real dark horse in 2012. His stimulus fight with Obama may be lost in the short term, but it could potentially set Sanford up with the moral high ground against the President. Sanford’s stance against both the Iraq War and the bailouts could position him as the major populist candidate, both on domestic and foreign policy
7) Jeb Bush - Bush joined the National Council for a New America, signaling his desire to take on a larger role in the national GOP. His name hurts now, but his popularity in Florida shows that he can outrun his brother’s shadow. As of December his brother’s approval rating in Florida was 29%, while his was 65%. His passing on a guaranteed senate victory is telling though. The National Council for a New America gives Jeb a new forum to reintroduce himself and his family name in a much different light, showing people that he is much more the pragmatic and thoughtful leader his brother never was. His name has started to come up from both welcome sources (the Daily Beast) and unwelcome sources (Dick Cheney) as a potential candidate. Expect those calls to get louder and louder, especially with Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the SCOTUS possibly creating even greater losses for the GOP among Hispanics and Jeb’s proven appeal to the Hispanic community.
8 ) Mitch Daniels - A very successful Rust Belt governor, Mitch Daniels proved himself by running what many call the best governor’s campaign of 2008 despite the dreadful climate for republicans. He is a graduate of Princeton and Georgetown, and served as Director of the OMB, while also sitting on the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council. Oh and he’s Arab-American(Syrian to be exact), proving once again that the GOP is far more inclusive then advertised. Recently Daniels has stepped up not only his criticism of Obama’s policies, but of the GOP’s current standing too, sounding a lot like someone who wants to lead the party out of the wilderness.
9) Newt Gingrich - The former Speaker continues to get some positive coverage, and is making moves that indicate a possible run. It’s clear Gingrich is staking his claim as leader of the party, and is even teasing a New Contract with America in 2010. Gingrich has reformed his image somewhat, from the polarizing figure of the mid-90s to the idea-man of American Solutions. A ‘New Contract with America’ could be a big vote getter and help the former Speaker once again lead a Republican Revolution back into power.
10) Haley Barbour - Governor Barbour is perhaps the greatest strategist in the party. Putting those considerable skills to use, he could build a strong campaign and give himself a good chance to win the primary. However, Barbour is also the man who virtually invented modern lobbying and ran the most powerful lobbying firm in D.C., and while this may make him a legend to the inside-the-Beltway crowd, it would make him a tough sell to average voters. Barbour is still going to be a very important player in the rebuilding of the party, whether he runs or not.
11) Rudy Giuliani - America’s Mayor is gearing up for a run against Governor David Patterson in 2010, and if that race happens, a likely victorious Governor Giuliani could instantly be back among the front-runners in 2012. Rudy remains a popular figure in polls both among Republicans and independents, and in an environment of a poor economy that is likely followed by high crime rates, the former mayor and potential governor could find himself in a strong position. Lessons learned from 2008 could serve Rudy well in the early states, and with no McCain to compete with he could become the consensus leader among the GOP’s moderate and national security wing. If another Presidential bid isn’t in the cards, a VP slot may not be far off. Giuliani and Gov. Sarah Palin recently took in a Yankee game together, and it seems that Giuliani is the biggest GOP name that Palin has warmed up to. Palin/Giuliani ticket anyone?
12) Bobby Jindal - At this point, Jindal seems focused on reelection, and that will almost certainly take him out of the race, just as Huntsman’s appointment and Crist’s Senate bid having taken them out of the running. Until he commits to a second term run officially, he will remain a top potential candidate, but as he reelection big seems more and more likely, he will continue to slide on this and other lists. His recent rough patch may force Jindal to target 2016 anyway. However, a VP nomination remains a strong possibility. Jindal has asked the leaders of a Draft Jindal for President effort to dispand, furthering the notion that he will run for reelection and pass on 2012.
13) Jim DeMint - The purity candidate to say the least, Senator DeMint is as about as conservative as they get, and if the party is truly headed to a purge of moderates, then Senator DeMint stands in good position to be king of what remains. He has a rock solid conservative record and is likely to be a visible opponent of Obama these next 4 years on virtually everything the President wants to do. Senator DeMint happily endorsed Club for Growth head and former Congressman Pat Toomey against then-Republican Arlen Spector, followed by an endorsement of Marco Rubio despite establishment support for Charlie Crist, showing just how far DeMint is willing to go for an ideologically pure GOP as well as sending a message to disloyal Republicans in name only. With a record that can win over Iowa’s GOP and a home base in South Carolina, DeMint could emerge as a GOP Howard Dean, leader of the Republican Wing of the Republican Party.
14) Kay Bailey Hutchison- Senator Hutchison’s likely election to the Governorship of Texas could serve her well as a platform to launch a national bid. More moderate and experienced than Palin, Hutchison could succeed in winning over women voters where Palin came up short. Her moderate views would make it difficult to win a GOP primary, but defeating the more conservative Rick Perry would be a good example of how she can overcome those odds nationally. If Texas says she is conservative enough, maybe Iowa will as well.
15) Colin Powell - Now that ex-Governor Huntsman has joined up with the Obama Administration as the US Ambassador to China, and Gov. Charlie Crist has launched a 2010 Senate bid that will likely not lead to a Presidential run in 2012, that leaves the party without a true moderate voice. As McCain proved in 2008, there is room for a moderate with certain qualities to navigate a tough GOP primary, and in 2012 the GOP will start off with a big moderate void. Others like Pawlenty, Romney, and Thune may end up appealing to those supporters, but as of now, it’s wide open. Enter Gen. Powell. Colin Powell has thrown himself into the fissure in the GOP, taking more public political stands now than ever before in his career. Perhaps the General is truly sincere about remaking the Republican Party, as his claim of a New Republican Party’s rise on the horizon indicates more interest from the General in politics than I recall him ever taking. The longest of long shots, the then 75 year-old Powell just might be ready to take his shot in remaking politics in this country in his own image, inspired by Obama to finally get off the bench and take action. Perhaps the General finally realizes it could have been him, not Obama, to have rallied a nation as the first African American President. Could Colin Powell take this final chance to make history? Maybe. Ok, maybe not.
Previous Rankings:
1) Mitt Romney
2) Sarah Palin
3) Mike Huckabee
4) Tim Pawlenty
5) Mark Sanford
6) John Thune
7) Jeb Bush
8 ) Mitch Daniels
9) John Ensign
10) Newt Gingrich
11) Bobby Jindal
12) Kay Bailey Hutchison
13) Jim DeMint
14) Haley Barbour
15) Colin Powell
* This list is updated monthly, except when current events dramatically change the rankings, i.e. Huntsman’s appointment and Ensign’s scandal.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Pretty decent list and rationale. No major objections. I would just quibble with putting Powell on the list at all, but in fairness, who the hell else is going to be #15?
June 18th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
I agree with your number 1 spot, anyways. But he still isn’t #1 enough, soon enough. I want to add to the “Obama you scare me” theme reverberting throughout cyberspace. Obama, you scare me because you are a strangely unfeeling OR cowardly person in an enormous position of power. I could go on. Do you think the guy knows somethings a brewin’ over in Iran? HELLOOOOO….
June 19th, 2009 at 12:18 am
great list, thune is the guy to watch.
good to see rudy back
June 19th, 2009 at 12:25 am
#2. Um… huh?
June 19th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Michah,
It’s Liz.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:50 am
No more Bushies. Ever.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:54 am
1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13
are the ones with a winnable narrative against Obama in 2012. That is they can effectively attack his weak point of an overreaching government and out of control spending.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Oh and 7 too, but I doubt he can overcome his Brother’s reputation by 2012. 2016 is more likely for Jeb.
June 19th, 2009 at 1:02 am
Are narratives really built around issues anymore? Think about the narratives that Bush and Obama used to win the last three elections. They were a lot vaguer than what you describe as the winning narrative. Compassionaite conservative…change you can believe in.
June 19th, 2009 at 1:28 am
#6. As the wise Al Sharpton says, “Stay out of the BUSHES”.
June 19th, 2009 at 1:54 am
Thune, Bush, Gingrich, Barbour, DeMint… none of these people has even the smallest chance of being president – ever. The GOP is in a really sorry state if this is a list of the top 15 contenders for the nomination. Luckily for the party, the authors of lists like this are usually as divorced from reality as most of the politicians listed, and rankings like this are pretty much useless.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:16 am
Until someone else emerges clicking on all cylinders, he will remain poised as the undisputed front-runner for 2012.
Who hasn’t led in a single poll…
June 19th, 2009 at 2:51 am
How can you be taken seriously with Palin ahead of Huck? Huck has been WINNING the polls for months. Palin is a joke who has just spent a week in the mud with a aging “comedian”.
Fix this up and your ratings will be given the respect they deserve as there is a lot of good things there.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:54 am
Gingrich should be higher than Daniels as he’s twice as likely to run.
And Jeb Bush wtf??
June 19th, 2009 at 3:07 am
#2; You are exactly right, Obama doesn’t have emotion or kindness in voice when he speaks either. He starting to look downright mean and heartless.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:14 am
John Thune would be a good V.P. candidate, but don’t think Senators are going to be very popular for a long time.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:41 am
Romney/Thune – dream team?!
June 19th, 2009 at 3:52 am
Heath,
The dream team is Pawlenty/Jindal. Anything romney, is a nightmare
Not really, but i’m more impressed with pawlenty every day, and jindal is the most intelligent guy i’ve heard(for a politician) than anyone in a long time.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:59 am
President Romney / Vice President Thune, sounds good.
June 19th, 2009 at 5:56 am
Former Gov. Mitt Romney won’t get the nominee in 2012. I think Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska and Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota will be a good choice for 2012.
June 19th, 2009 at 7:14 am
If you would your money where you mouth is, you could become a rich man on intrade.com.
“jindal is the most intelligent guy i’ve heard(for a politician) than anyone in a long time.”
I like Jindal, and I think he’s intelligent, but how could you make a statement like this when Mitt is in the conversation. Nobody has educational credentials greater than Mitt’s and noone has success in life in solving problems, so I just can’t see it being legitimate to claim Jindal smarter than Romney.
June 19th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Very good list and close to accurate. Although if we go by the PPP poll we would most likely have to change Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Romney, putting Mr. Huckabee in first and Mr. Romney in third. By a slight margin, Mr. Hucakee remains PPP’s strongest candidate and has the Republican and CoNservative demographic groups to back him up. While Mrs. Palin is a weakwer candidate overall, she is stronger than Mr. Romney among Conservatives and Republicans and that is what counts. Many argue that Mr. McCain was able to win with moderates and liberals so Mr. Romney can just do the same. Among other things, Mr. Romney is not as strong in South Carolina as Mr. McCain, but Mr. McCain also received a good chunk of the Conservative vote. Yes, Mr. Romney will receive a chunk of the Conservative vote, but the bottom line is that his overall numbers are too weak at this point.
The Romney camp claims that they can win more delegates per capita than the other candidates because, Romney states are winner take all and Huckabee states split there delegates. While this argue is good, it only goes so far. As MWS pointed out yesterday, if Mr. Romney is so strong in some parts of the country, he has to be weak in others. As for the delegate math itself, states could change their rules and as it is many states give all (or most) delegates to a certain candidate after a certain level, but are not winner take all states. Further, the GOP vote in 2008 is part of the 2012 delegate formula. If Mr. Romney get even 33% nationally and gets 95% in a few of his strong winner take all states, while he’ll get all of delegates in those states, his vote would be so centralized that he’d get few delegates elsewhere. If these numbers hold, Mr. Romney is not only going to lose the winner take all state of MO, it is difficult to see how he get mant delegates in Ohio and Texas. Meanwhile, Mrs. Palin’s overall number among Conservatives and Republicans that she would not only have a great shot at Florida, she’d at least rack of delegates in some of the biggerr quazi-split states.
As for candidate strength, the Romney camp complained that many Conservatives would vote for Mr. Obama in a general election against Mr. Obama according to PPP. In the end, most of these Conservatives will not vote for Mr. Obama over Mr. Romney in the general elections. On the other hand while the Romney camp may brag that Liberal Democrats hate Mr. Romney a little less than Mr. Huckabee and a lot less than Mrs. Palin, I also doubt that these liberals will vote for Mr. Romney in a general so it is somewhat of a wash. Finally, both the Romney and Huckabee camps can brag that their negatives are not as high as Mrs. Palin; thus they say that if one of the Ms lead us, many Dems would quietly stay home, but they would come out in droves to defeat Mrs. Palin. There may be some truth to that, but on the other hand, may Mrs. Palin would encourage a few crazys to go and vote against her instead of staying home, until Mr. Romney can draw big crowds, I am also comforted that Mrs. Palin would also drive many Conservatives to the polls instead of staying home.
June 19th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Last time Romney staged a campaign event in NJ just a few weeks ago, he drew about 50 people. On June 6th, Palin drew over 20,000 in Auburn NY, on June 7th she received a very warm welcome from 12,000 at the Autism walk on Long Island, later that day she received an award from Independent Group Home Living Foundation with over 1,000 attending, and on June 9th she brokered a deal between ExxonMobil and TransCanada to get the gas pipeline underway. Regarding the dustup with Letterman, one of her harshest critics, the National Organization of Women (NOW) even came down on her side. From what I’ve heard NOW members demanded that the old guard leadership speak up. This was a pretty solid victory for Palin.
No one on your list can draw any type of crowd. When Jeb Bush appeared at that event with McCain, and Romney, they had to give away free pizza to get about 100 people to show up.
Of major interest will be the FEC reports filed in July by the PAC’s of Palin, Romney and Huckabee.
June 19th, 2009 at 7:27 am
Tid bit from Arkansawnews.com.
Where’s Huck in this poll?
A new Gallup Poll released today shows that Republican voters, when asked to name “the main person who speaks for the Republican Party today,” answered:
Rush Limbaugh – 10%
Newt Gingrich – 10%
Dick Cheney – 9%
John McCain – 6%
Michael Steele – 2%
Mitt Romney – 2%
George W. Bush – 0%
Mike Huckabee didn’t register in the poll, [...]
June 19th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Wow Greg what happened you sound like a totally different person there?!
June 19th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Its not about big crowds. If Palin were in town, I would certainly go see her, but she is down several notches on who I would vote for.
OJ, I think you attempted to be fair in your analysis. First of all, people who claim themselves to be conservative who would vote for Obama over Romney are either not actually conservative, or else they are bigots. Or, they are knowlingly lying. Lots of people realize the power of polls and have no conscience about lying on them to make one candidate or another look weaker. I repeat, people identifying themselves as conservatives that claim they would vote for Obama over Romney are either liers, bigots, or are not actually conservative. When it came to actual votes last time around, Mitt kicked everybodies’ butts with the conservative vote.
June 19th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Greg, no doubt Palin has a large following. But claiming entire crowds of people gathered for another reason (autism, Alaska commemoration, fun in the sun) as being “drawn to the event by Palin” is about as loony as the Ron Paul people who claimed all the people at the tea parties were Paul supporters.
Let’s wait until Palin holds a pure fundraising event with her as the only guest like Romney and Huckabee have before we “start counting our chickens.”
June 19th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Anyone watch Huckabee on Jon Stewarts Daily Show last night?? This is how Huckabee will win over the independents and youth. Notice how he talks about the prolife issue-respecting Jon’s point of view, but sticking strongly to his own convictions. Huckabee can do this on a wide range of issues. He is likeable and can win back those indies, Reagan dems and repubs who left the party to vote for change.
http://thedailyshow.com
June 19th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Yes Strong America, not every Tea-partier is a Paulite (I for one am a non-Paulite Tea-partier) and yes not every person who comes to see Mrs. Palin is a hard-core Palinite. However, she does appear to be at least a little better than most at getting people energized.
While I try to call things as I see them Illinoisguy, I do not pretend to be fairer or wiser than anyone else. In any event, I am glad that you clarified that there is a difference between not voting for your candidatre in the primary and not voting for your candidate in the general.
June 19th, 2009 at 8:21 am
The prime time of Sarah Palin
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/97807/The_prime_time_of_Sarah_Palin#
June 19th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart Discuss Abortion on The Daily Show (Part 1)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=231388&title=mike-huckabee-exclusive
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=230696
Remainder of interview begins at the 14:54 mark.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Why do you continue to put Jeb Bush on this list. He is not running in 2012, nor should he. America will not vote for a Bush in the next election.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Illinois,
“I repeat, people identifying themselves as conservatives that claim they would vote for Obama over Romney are either liers, bigots, or are not actually conservative.”
What about people identifying themselves as conservatives that claim they would vote for Obama over Huckabee?
June 19th, 2009 at 9:37 am
I fear that might be a double standard MWS, some of us are either bigots or stupid if we do not vote way some want, but we are not allowed to use the gender card, race card and so forth. I am tempted to propose a deal; those who vote for Mr. Obama over Mr. Romney are stupid or whatever name you want. However, those who vote for Mr. Obama over Mrs. Palin, Mr. Huckabee or Mr. Pawlenty are also stupid or what have you.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Max,
I’m having trouble understanding your list. Are the rankings based on your speculation or is it supposed to be a current snapshot of the “race?”
While I’m not a supporter, every poll suggests Huckabee is currently the leading Republican in 2012, closely followed by Romney and Gingrich – with Gingrich’s 14 Million raised at the Senate/House fundraising dinner propelling him to an even second place tie. Palin has huge support within the base, but again, current polling suggests she’s increasingly disliked by not just the nation as a whole, but within the party itself. Pawlenty should follow in fifth because everyone is intrigued by him, but as of now he’s just potential. He hasn’t done anything yet to demand a higher position, but after announcing he won’t run for re-election, he’ll be a constant 800 lb gorilla in the race from 2010 on.
After that, there’s a deep gap between these probable 2012 candidates and the “possible” 2008 candidates, Sanford, Thune, and Barbour. In that order.
Daniels, Bush, and Jindal seem extremely unlikely to run – with Daniels publicly ruling it out of the question.
I don’t think, nor would I like Huckabee to win in 2012, and I agree with your point that Palin’s shadow could loom large over Huckabee in a potential race, but strictly using current data it’s clear that Huckabee currently has the edge on her — and furthermore any other Republican.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:44 am
MWS Says: What about people identifying themselves as conservatives that claim they would vote for Obama over Huckabee?
There is a major difference, and I am sorry if you can’t see it. Romney didn’t go out and attack Huckabee’s Religion, but Huckabee did, end of story.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Steve: It’s not always about polls, but about possible delegates, and right now, Romney is in a much better position than Huckabee is.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:54 am
huckabee has zero chance of being the nominee, president, dog catcher etc. the people who cling to cnn polls of huck are desperate to explain how a guy who is hated by every gop fundraiser in the country will somehow compete with obama’s billion dollar machine. huck is a big government baptist, just like bush. no thanks. and i saw him on the daily show, he had no clue what in vitro fertilization was.
and Big S, are you some kind of clown? john thune is not only likely to be on the ticket in 12 but may very bell beat obama in 2012. jeb bush has won a majority of hispanics in every race he’s run, if he did that against barry, its a landslide, not to mention jeb can keep pace with obama fundraising.
barbour, demint, and gingrich probably cant win the presidency, but can contend for the nomination.
i find it funny when dems try to mock who we have. we have a ton of young governors and senators on the rise and will have a deep bench for years. after barack what do the dems have? a washed up hillary? a million year old biden? a fat montana cowboy governor? maybe senator burris can be obama’s successor!!! without obama the dems are a minority party with no leadership. better hope he wins big s, or else it will be a loooooooong time before you ever see a D in the white house again.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:55 am
With respect Thunder, let’s assume, Mr. Huckabee was guilty, are Mrs. Palin, Mr. Jindal and other also guilty of attacking Mr. Romney’s religion because if I understand correctly, the charge of stupidity was leveled at not just Huckabeeites. I’ll take the charge of stupidity with a grain of salt, but if the charge of stupidity is going to be intertwined with bigotry, then that is a different issue.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:57 am
and if palin runs huck shouldnt even bother, he’ll have 0 money and no chance in iowa, and iowa is the only state he’d have a shot.
evangelicals wont stay with huck when more electable social cons like thune pawlenty and sanford will be in the mix.
run for senate huck, spare yourself the embarrassment in 2012.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:58 am
“What about people identifying themselves as conservatives that claim they would vote for Obama over Huckabee?”
MWS – I’ve come down pretty hard on Romney supporters who would vote for Obama over Huckabee. Its not quite as bad, because Huckabee has given them a very legitimate reason to vote against him. However, in my opinion, you have to overlook that when you see what Obama is doing to this country. They do not fall into the liar or bigotcategory, nor are they lying about being a conservative. But, imho, I don’t think it wise to vote for Obama under any circumstances.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:58 am
“huck is a big government baptist, just like bush.” For starters, I believe that Mr. G. Bush is a Methodist.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Palin Proves Conservatives Can Fight Pop Culture and Win
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32362
June 19th, 2009 at 10:02 am
“MWS – I’ve come down pretty hard on Romney supporters who would vote for Obama over Huckabee.” Honestly, you for one have been consistant on this Illinoisguy.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:04 am
For all the talk about Bush’s big government ways, people forget that George W. Bush had the stones to veto expansion of SCHIP to 300% above the poverty line. Ask yourself how many in the top-ten would have the stones to use such a veto? #2, #5, #6 are the only three I would place a bet on using that veto.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:05 am
In this thread, who was talking about stupidity OJ? I said those who would vote for Obama over Romney are either lying about who they would vote for, lying about being conservatives, or they are bigots.
That’s a logical conclusion…
June 19th, 2009 at 10:08 am
#45 – WHat in the heck do you base that on? Romney vetoed or line itemed vetoed more legislation than all the others combined. Prove me wrong!
June 19th, 2009 at 10:10 am
And since you again brought up BIG Government Tommy Boy, let me remind everyone that Palin governs over a budget 300% higher per capita than any other state in the union.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:12 am
romney, huck and palin all have problems with a good portion of the party. this is why a thune, pawlenty, or sanford are more likely nominees, they can unite mitt/huck/palin people while not angering entire portions of the party. mitt and huck are unlikely to be able to unite each others followers without being on a ticket together, and can anyone see those 2 coexisting?
June 19th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Illinois,
We’re talking about SCHIP. I believe he signed the following bill into law. Chapter 26 indicates an expansion of SCHIP to 300%.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/sections.pdf
I think Thune, Palin, and Sanford are the three who are hard-right on healthcare.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Don’t think #7, 8, 11,12 14 and 15 will be on the race track. I would flip huck and palin in the 3 and 2 spots but could easily see huck not run if palin jumps in, which would be the smart move for him to not get in that spat and wait for another cycle. I would be absolutely shocked if the gop 2012 nominee isn’t choice 1-4 and #6, can’t see anybody else getting the nomination at this point, so its down to 5 individuals.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:16 am
First, Illinoisguy, I stand correct with regards to your specific point with regards to stupidity that you were only refering to Huckabeeites and Palinites who would fail to vote for Mr. Romney in the general and not the primary. Further, I can take you a little easier with a grain of salt than others because whenever you imply (perhaps tongue and cheek) that the rest of us are not as smart, you are not saying that we are stupid per se, the term is just used relitively. However, I do think that perhaps the word stupid flies around too much (I am not singleling you out.) Perhaps it is mostly in jest, but when the term gets mixed up with the term bigotry, it becomes a bit more of a serious charge. I’ll admit I (among other) may not be as sharp as some, but I do not believe I am particularly bigoted for one. Yes, there are a few bigoted people out there, but I also think that perhaps, this word flies around a bit much as well.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:20 am
30. Thanks for the Palin link, Aron. I just think it’s too good not to share:
“David Letterman joined Tina Fey as a member of Sarah Palin’s supporting cast last week. The Alaska governor, who is nothing if not resourceful, worked up an Oprah-esque feud with the television host over crude jokes Letterman told at Palin’s expense. It was a good deal for both parties. Letterman got cheap laughs and attention; Palin got a fresh supply of umbrage—and attention.
Palin is both comfortable and adept at these tabloid squabbles—certainly more than she seems ever likely to be in a substantive environment. Parrying political opponents about policy, or responding to serious queries about the state of the world is just not what Palin does. Even her attacks on President Obama have a canned quality, something along the lines of … “socialism, yadda yadda yadda.” She leaves the details to Romney or Huckabee or perhaps next week’s guest star.
By contrast, Palin seems genuinely animated by her contests with late-night comedians and she is always well-versed in the subject matter, which is, in order:
1. Sarah Palin;
2. What the cultural elite thinks of Sarah Palin;
3. What her supporters properly understand about what the cultural elite thinks of Sarah Palin;
4. Why Sarah Palin, and people who identify with Sarah Palin, are correct to resent the cultural elite for what it thinks of Sarah Palin.
With other politicians, comedians occasionally connect personality to policy dots: Cheney to “enhanced interrogation,” Bush to the War on Terror, Obama to bailouts. The late-night focus on Palin is overwhelmingly personal for a reason: What else is there?
True, Letterman’s joke about Palin’s “slutty flight attendant” appearance would have been better targeted at John Edwards (who is far easier to imagine peddling “coffee, tea, or me”). But for all his self-destructive philandering and meticulous hair mussing, Edwards is still more than the sum of his narcissism. He mastered a difficult profession—trial law—and made an effort to understand at least one complex issue in American society—poverty.
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm shares a more Palinesque profile. But the way their paths diverged is telling. Granholm, like Palin, was once a local beauty queen. She tried her hand at Hollywood and even appeared on The Dating Game in search of celebrity. But when her Hollywood dream went bust, Granholm attended UC Berkeley, applied herself, and graduated Phi Beta Kappa. She then went on to graduate with honors from Harvard Law School and build a career in law and politics.
Palin, on the other hand, still wants her celebrity straight, no chaser. After her beauty queen days, she tried television news. When that didn’t pan out, there was never a period of buckling down. She just found a different route to the spotlight.
Palin knows she has pizazz, and she’s sticking to it. As long as the conventions of television enable it, her skillful deployment of attitude—charm, hurt, outrage, flirtatiousness—can substitute for answers. It’s hard to argue with the results: She has become a famous politician without actually mastering anything in particular.
That apparently includes politics itself. Palin’s on-again, off-again, on-again saga at the Republican Party’s June fundraiser in Washington suggests she doesn’t even tend to the fundamentals of the trade absent a camera. After being offered the keynote speaking slot, she failed to confirm her acceptance and lost the high-profile job to Newt Gingrich. Then, after saying she wouldn’t attend, she showed up for the dinner anyway, alienating party operatives with her unpredictability and blame-shifting. Her sparkle before the cameras covers for dysfunction offstage. What she brings to the table is not a public agenda or a talent for executing someone else’s, but a self, via satellite and cable.
Ronald Reagan said “politics is just like show business.” But Reagan used his showbiz shtick and ease before the camera to sell ideas—some of them consequential. Palin’s showbiz is an endless, self-referential loop. Her media bashing—whether she’s condemning Katie Couric for her rudimentary queries or extending the sell-by date on Letterman’s put-downs—is simply a means to reflect attention back on herself. It’s a cost-free way of holding the spotlight a little longer, a chance to say something attention-grabbing without actually saying anything that matters.
“When politicians … have no other aim than to sell their leadership to the public,” wrote Christopher Lasch in The Culture of Narcissism, “they deprive themselves of intelligible standards.” The author was thinking of Nixon and Kennedy, two politicians at the dawn of the television age, for whom appearing “presidential” was a sometimes dangerous preoccupation. But Lasch also warned of “the contagion of unintelligibility” represented by politicians whose sole focus is themselves. Lasch didn’t live to witness the prime time of Sarah Palin. But you have to admire his foresight. He saw her coming.”
June 19th, 2009 at 10:27 am
http://www.tacinc.org/Docs/HH/Mass_MainstreamMatrix.pdf
According to this, the Massachusetts plan uses 133% above poverty as the limit.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Your list is decent. Mine would be:
1) Romney
Giuliani
2) Huckabee
3) Palin
4) Sanford
5) Pawlenty
6) Gingrich
7) Thune
9) Hutchison
10) Jindal
11) Barbour
12) Paul
13) Ryan
14) Perry
15) Cheney
I’ll comment on a few of my picks. Okay, first, I think Mark Sanford is the dark horse candidate that could really sneak up and take it all. I also think Giuliani could build momentum if he became Governor of New York, which is certainly possible. I would vote for him over Paterson.
Hutchison is kind of a strange pick, but she fills a fairly large gap in ideologies, she’s the only real moderate on my list. If she ran, it’s possible she could attract moderates and sneak away with the nomination.
As for Jindal, I don’t think he’s running. He would have to run for President at the same time as he ran for reelection, and it would be too hard. So that’s why he’s at 10. If I thought he was going to run, he would probably be 3 or 4 on my list. He has a very bright future.
Ron Paul. Yeah, he’s a bit wacko, but you never know. He’ll probably run, and who knows, maybe his libertarianism and gold standard beliefs will really take off, especially if we have bad inflation. I doubt it, though.
Then we have Paul Ryan. He’s a bit of a longshot, but it could happen. He’s young, smart, good looking and was rather prominent during the stimulus debate. I doubt he’ll even run, but watch him for the future, or a VP slot.
Rick Perry is next. He may have a chance. If he can fight off KBH and win an unprecedented third term as Governor of Texas, it may be a good stepping stone, and all of his state’s rights, anti-federal government talk would be a good campaign narrative. But probably not.
Lastly, Dick Cheney. He’d never run, but I wish he would, because I think the primary electorate would possibly be stupid enough to pick him as the nominee. Haha, wow. That would be amazing.
Okay, I’m done.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:31 am
yeah, palin is a celebrity type but people/US magazine sells a lot better than the nation or nat review. If she can handle the heat, she would eat up any rivals + she could place a wonk in the veep spot, say romney, daniels or even gov rudy, and its a pretty good ticket. Yet, i think she should pass on running in 2012, run for senate in 2014, than run for the white house from that spot, time is on her side.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:34 am
OJ, just think what I said through logically:
Someone claims in a poll to be conservative.
That same person claims they would vote for Obama over Romney.
I concluded they are either:
. They are lying about being a conservative, or
. They are lying that they would actually vote for Obama over Romney, or
. They are a bigot.
What do you conclude? If I’m missing a piece of logic here, help me out.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Illinois,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_2006_Health_Reform_Statute#cite_note-Boston-Globe-Lazar-2008-08-20-0
“Through the law, Massachusetts provides subsidized health care for residents earning up to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level, and partially subsidized health care for those earning up to 300% of the FPL, depending on an income-based sliding scale.”
The source is not solid but the first source I cited is solid as it’s a state government document.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Di you read what I posted Tommy Boy? It would be worth your while.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:51 am
http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/massachusetts-schip.pdf
WHO’S COVERED IN MASSACHUSETTS?
“Massachusetts covers children with family incomes up to 300 percent of poverty
($51,510 for a family of three in 2007).”
June 19th, 2009 at 10:55 am
i agree that sanford is the dark horse and i think he takes a lot of natural mitt suppoters. him gaining steam is not good for romney.
i am also not so srue i agree with the much stated point that if palin is in huckabee is out. I am not so sureo f that. I would like to see the first iowa polls before i hopped on that notion.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:00 am
OHIO JOE Says: With respect Thunder, let’s assume, Mr. Huckabee was guilty, are Mrs. Palin, Mr. Jindal and other also guilty of attacking Mr. Romney’s religion because if I understand correctly, the charge of stupidity was leveled at not just Huckabeeites. I’ll take the charge of stupidity with a grain of salt, but if the charge of stupidity is going to be intertwined with bigotry, then that is a different issue.
You are completely wrong in your assumptions, and you know what they say about assumptions. Huckabee is the only one I put in the category of I will vote for Obama rather than Huckabee. If any other reasonable Republican wins the nomination (Ron Paul not being one of them), I will hold my nose (if necessary) and vote for them. Huckabee I will go out of my way to vote against him.
My issues with Palin are completely different, but she has a chance to convince me if she does well in the debates. Gov Jindal doesn’t have to convince me of any thing, I like him, but he is not running as of now.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Yes, I think I now see your point Illinoisguy And I am sorry if I sounded rough. What I find interesting is that when a poll shows Mrs. Palin having trouble with Conservatives, we hear ‘ha, she cannot even win Conservatives, we need a real candidate, not her.’ However, when we see a poll that shows Mrs. Palin doing well among Conservatives, charges of stupidity and bigotry appear to start flying. Yes, as a Palinite, I for one would certainly vote for somebody other than her should that person lead us against Mr. Obama. However, if it is a two way street, what do you call somebody who claims to be Conservative, but will vote for Mr. Obama against Mrs. Palin in the general. Yes, to be fair, you for one have said that you would not vote for Mr. Obama period, but it seems like not everybody is singing that song.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:01 am
If the author did any research at all, they’d realize Tim Pawlenty has won in the bluest of states (as it mentions, one Reagan didn’t even win) because he ran against 3 candidates from the left. There has always been a Democrat, liberal-leaning Independent, and Green Party candidate. Pawlenty has never come close to a majority, typically receiving about 45% with the other 3 candidates from the left taking the rest.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Responding to 63 Ohio Joe: No one has claimed that Palin is either a bigot. I don’t know where you get that from. Palin problems are that she did not show well as McCain’s running mate.
So far she has shown nothing that would make me want to vote for her in the Primary, but then again, she really hasn’t had a chance to campaign on her own. VP’s candidates often get bum raps because of the handlers that the was the nominee assigns to them.
On the other hand, I don’t see what is so exciting about her. She really hasn’t done anything that would make me say, Wow, that’s my candidate.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Tommy Boy, you’re normally pretty fair, albeit you may not always post things not in favor of your point of view. Is that the case here. My source, if you would look at it says amongst other elegibility requirements,
Monthly Income – $2,145.00 for family of four (133% of Federal Poverty Level).
June 19th, 2009 at 11:10 am
To clarify at least a bit Thunder, I realize that you did not take a shot at Mr. Jindal, but it appeared that somebody else did in a subtle way. Again, I am sorry if I misunderstood.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:12 am
42
“For starters, I believe that Mr. G. Bush is a Methodist.”
Well, Mrs. G. Bush is a Methodist … so when W was born again, he joined his wife’s congregation.
But what worries me is not that Gov Huckabee and Gov Bush share the same denomination. What worries me is how they both seem to share the “God is on my side” attitude, which is particularly dangerous when added with the over confidence that one’s actions are meanings less because they have already been saved.
Should we invade Iraq? Sure … they’re evil, we’re good. God is on my side, and if we make any mistakes along the way, the grace of God will make up for them. Off we go to war.
I believe this over-simplified world view is not healthy for a modern president who needs to deal with complex problem and while one’s personal sins may be spiritually forgiven, a presidents actions have very real political consequences that the rest of the country will probably need to be deal with.
Bush rode the simple guy shtick all the way to the White House, but we all saw what happened once he got there. I see a lot of Bush’s problems repeated and magnified with Huckabee.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Illinois,
The sources I have cited say something completely different. If you notice, your source only listed that number under Medicaid and not SCHIP. There may be a complication that is not getting picked up.
However, the sources I have cited clearly state that in Massachusetts, children in families with incomes above 300% of the poverty line are covered.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:20 am
actually i see those problems more so with palin than huck…palin is a female bush in that regard
June 19th, 2009 at 11:20 am
I cannot speak for Mr. Bush, but I think that you at least slightly misunderstand him. To a certain degree it is natural that we think that GOD is on our side, but that does not mean that we believe that we are perfect and can never be wrong. I too believe in the Iraq War, but I do not pretend to claim that GOD is. I will have to wait until the afterlife to find out whether GOD was on my side or not.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Whatever!!! TB
June 19th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Fine with me Blue, Mr. Bush was not perfect, but he kept our country safe. I believe that should Mrs. Palin become President, she would do the same.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:41 am
You could argue clinton kept the country safe after the Oklahoma city bombing, there were no further domestic terrorists attacks during the clinton admin. The ? is what is the actual threat level. On paper, you can come up with some pretty scary events but i think a lot of it was scare mongering by the bush admin but better to be safe than sorry.
http://www.slate.com/id/2199927/
June 19th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Yes, Bush kept the U.S. real safe. No major terrorist attacks, or anything.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Well, I certain hope that it won’t be necessary for Mrs. Palin or anybody else to have to actively defend us, but Mr. Bush was not scare mongering, the world was not a safe place (and still is not as safe as it could be) but Mr. Bush was able to keep us safe despite the odds.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-10-ridge-alerts_x.htm
June 19th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
If DeMint purges enough moderates to become the nominee you can have
the GOP convention in the Larry Craig memorial stall at the Minneapolis
St. Paul International Airport and have room to spare.
Unless Palin gets some serious tutoring in the next two years she won’t
survive debates with Huck, who last I checked was polling better than
Mittens or Palin. New Hampshire is a fickle place. If Mittens loses there,
what are the Rombots to do? Where will they go? (Cue Rhett)
June 19th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Actually, Michael, you ask a good question. If Mitt doesn’t run, or if he withdraws early, where do his supporters go?
Speaking for myself, I would seek out the most competent leader left in the field. Unless she vastly improves over the next two years, it won’t be Palin. Huckabee has to aggressively deal with his Mormon problem before I could stomach him I have this things against bigots, and/or people who use bigotry to get ahead. I could easily settle on Jindal, but he appears to be taking himself out of the race. Pawlenty, perhaps? I know too little about him to be sure. Maybe Sanford, though I know even less about Sanford than I do Pawlenty.
I don’t know, who would be the competent leaders left after Romney pulls out? Jeb Bush? Nice guy, but he ain’t goin’ nowhere with that last name of his.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Tommy Boy, the document I referenced is a state of Massachusetts document, not somebody’s interpretation of what their program is. How can you insist your source is correct when mine states exactly (from the state itself) what the program is? This is when you really tick me off is when you stubbornly defend something that I have totally refuted. Look the document over thoroughly and then tell us why we should believe somebody’s interpretation of what Massachusetts health care program is like regarding Schip!
June 19th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Illinois,
The first source I cited was a governmnet document.
And no, your source does not state that SCHIP expansion covers only children in families up to 133% of the poverty line. The section pertaining to SCHIP does not say anything about the income level for which families receive coverage.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
http://statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=204&cat=4&rgn=23
June 19th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
It states that schip is combined with Medicaid in Massachusetts into one program called Masshealth. And Masshealth is the name of the program I pasted the 133% above poverty line for eligibility. I don’t know how much more simple I can make it that that.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
http://statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?cmprgn=3&cat=4&rgn=23&ind=204&sub=53
Going by your last post, Alaska is 300%
June 19th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
hahaha Illinois,
Read your link again. N/A is next to AK.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
ok, so maybe that’s where some of their state money is going to cause its budget to be 300% higher? Whatever their program is must be really expensive?
June 19th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=47945
Presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) said he would veto SCHIP legislation because the program “is a very expensive way to spend more money and not get us much down the track of getting everybody insured.”
June 19th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/10/04/presidential-candidates-respond-to-bushs-schip-veto/
June 19th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Back to the rankings:
I see one through nine as being correct, except Gingrich would move ahead of Bush and Daniels. Jindal could move forward to 10th, and leave the rest of them off….its not going to happen in 2012.
June 19th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Greg. Palin did not draw 20,000 people. Her peeps put that out. the folks actually there estamate considerably less than that. AND added to the fact there was a fair going on, a parade and such… I’d venture to say that not everyone went there to see palin. In fact, I’d bet her next grandchild on it.
I want a president, not a aging rockstar.
June 19th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Yeah, some of us draw 200,000 to our little cities without any politicians (other than locals ones eating port chops)
June 19th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
pork*
June 19th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Haha, next time invite Mrs. Palin to your little city and you will have at least 200,002 (Tommy Boy and I.)
June 19th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I for one don’t care about crowd sizes or any of this nonsense.
But the AP reported 20,000 and there is no evidence supporting any of what Knickers has said. The lowest estimate is 10,000-12,000 in the Syracuse paper.
All we can do is go off newspaper estimates.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Like you say, it doesn’t matter. The facts are, the guys like her (for whatever reason) and the ladies don’t (for whatever reason.
If any of you recall, long before she was chosen for VP, I was trying to hammer home the thought that she was not going to draw women, as was planned, but that she would rather repulse them, and that turned out to be true. If you remember, I was telling you that the women wouldn’t want their husbands watching tv slobbering over Sarah Palin.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
While still a long shot, I wouldn’t count Powell out. He is more vocal than ever as of lately, and he seems very intent on letting EVERYONE know he is still a Republican. If he chooses to run, I find no reason why he shouldn’t immediately emerge as a frontrunner, if not THE frontrunner.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
As far as I am concerned No one has worked and helped the GOP as much as Mitt Romney has..since suspension of the primary..Mitt is speaking up to Obama’s lack of action in Iran. N. Korea is on the warpath and this President was against war…Hello?? People who vote for Obama over Mitt Romney would be un-American…So far, our Constitution is in direct violation, we are so far left, government sticking their nose in every entity out here..This is not the America we have loved and known and not the change we signed on for…Mitt has the brains, the experience, the private sector business no how…People, Mitt does not need the money…He has worked and earned, as promised by exercising the American Dream..Kudos Mitt, you have risen to the top, and you can be compared and are often to Reagan..No one in this group even comes close….
June 19th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
#96 – You have absolutely got to be kidding me! He has no prayer at all of getting the nomination. He may be able to get the Democrat one though.
June 19th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
#37,
How is it possible to remain objective if you don’t strictly use data like polling and current news?
June 20th, 2009 at 5:49 am
Steve, whose polls and current news?? Right now, many have Mitt Romney the Front runner and many liberal channels are touting Mitt Romney as the Front runner. Do they like it? Heck NO! They realize he has the tenacity to whoop Obama….
June 20th, 2009 at 10:57 am
53. Martha has good analysis… So, we would want Palin as a president WHY?
The fact that she’s ranked #2, along with the consistent focus in all of these descriptions of how each candidate is capable of countering the current administration, really emphasizes the lack of a constructive, secure and potent role for the party within government.
I want more. Democrats don’t have to have a corner on the market for a progressive agenda. Their image of serving the majority of Americans and the middle class isn’t exclusive and the longer the republican party stays positioned in a reactive and combative stance, the further away from relevance the party will drift. Given the vacuums in leadership regarding certain values, this is an exceptionally good time for the party to start redefining itself.
The country needs the following from this party:
Emphasis on enhancing accountability – both personal and corporate responsibility (vs. simply criticizing bailouts, “big government” or regulation/”socialism”). There’s a vacuum in this value niche at present in our government, but it’s a value ideally suited to the Republican party and its history. The issue with federal and state finances isn’t so much what we’re spending, as whether we’re spending wisely – what’s the best value for our tax dollars. We should be getting the best bang for our buck, and only therefore spending less. This value also means, of course, that the party has to divorce itself from current interpretations that it’s in the pocket of our nation’s upper 1% of the socioeconomic bracket. We should be moving further away from the image of a two party system divided into the party that serves “the rich” and the party that serves “the people.” This is dangerous and destructive. Republicans are ideally positioned to shift emphasis towards accountability rather than privilege.
Dedication to defending liberty and freedom of the individual. Application of this simple tenet to all races, both sexes, both orientations, and all religions is a must. It’s time our nation steps beyond the policy of trying to end racism, sexism, ageism, etc., and move towards the simple principle of opportunity for all and reward through merit alone. And here’s the hard part for our current party – The defense of liberty must include the decisive separation of church and state, relinquishing the pursuit of legislation reducing choice in reproductive decisions.
In order to preserve liberty and freedom for the individual, the party must have an emphasis on not only personal responsibility but loyalty and service to community. There needs to be healing of the twisted notions of patriotism presented by the Bush administrations when he defined critical thought and patriotic debate as a challenge to national loyalty. At the moment the emphasis on community seems to be Obama’s contribution. This mistake in thinking is being made by both parties. It’s not purely a democratic value. The republican angle on patriotism, community identity and responsibility to it will be different than that of the democrats – emphasizing that personal liberty is only garnered and maintained by equal dedication to accepting, supporting and serving our communities.
RESPECT for the democratic positions and candidates. The party needs, badly needs, to remove itself from knee-jerk opposition to all things democrat. This has led to a strong image of a narrow, negative, resentful, hollow party. There is a remedy. Rather, the party should be the first to tout the value and necessity of, at the very least, the two party system. The benefits of healthy debate, checks and balances, and the rich variety of views and opinions should by all rights be one of the hallmark values of the Republican party. Moral high ground is not a matter of religious fervor, and the party has gotten lost in that approach of late. It does not serve the greater citizenry of this nation and citizens know it.
Action rather than image. Once the party is engaged in action along these value lines, there will be much less need to be concerned with image or to use blaming, hyperbole, stealth, fear, or other destructive strategies for maintaining power or position. The image of the party will stand on its own merit. Moreover, it’s what our nation needs.
June 20th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Pawlenty has just infurirated Minnesota by unilaterally creating a budget to try and balance the state’s books. There will be no end to the criticism there.
June 20th, 2009 at 11:10 am
infuriated