I see three big openings in 2012: an alternative to Romney for moderates who were turned off by Romney’s true-conservative 08′ pitch; a credible option for the grassroots- now that Palin looks unlikely- who doesn’t have any glaring RINO-red flags and; a credible def-con, for the security first conservatives. At first-blush, these openings seem meant for three different candidates, but I’d argue that there are obvious ways to bridge the gap and fit into all three niches. Here are three suggestions on the issue:
1. Soft-sell social issues- The party’s most outspoken moderates have a particular bug in their ear about social issues. In their narrative, Arlen Specter was pushed from the party not for his stimulus support, but rather due to his tolerance on social issues. Not that these folks opposed the stimulus, mind you, but they’re less likely to pin the “extremist” label on fiscal conservatives. For now anyway. This doesn’t mean that a social moderate will be any more palatable for the rest of the party in 2012; it does mean that a social conservative would be well advised to sound more like Fred Thompson and John McCain, than Mike Huckabee.
2. Play-up the disconnect between Washington and the public- Sarah Palin’s supporters are particularly receptive to anti-Washington, anti-elite pleas. Almost every non-Senator Presidential Candidate has tried this narrative on though few did so as explicitly as Palin. Still, it has real historical legs; Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan used it effectively for example. Point out that while Americans go without luxuries in troubling financial Times, government is spending it’s way into bankruptcy. Example speech: “They promised us recovery. 4 years later we have less money, fewer jobs, and thinner wallets. But, a few things have gotten bigger. Unemployment has increased; nearly doubled in some places. Inflation has increased, and the dollar of today will only buy what 3 quarters would have bought you at the beginning of this administration. And government grows, without bounds, without reason, gorging itself, feeding it’s lackeys with our money as the middle class dwindles” etc. This allows a candidate to appeal to Palin’s conservative base without moving substantially to the right.
3. Criticize Obama on foreign policy mistakes early- The next GOP nominee will be a Governor or former Governor; bank on it. Securing the def-con vote won’t require, as it would have in 2008, a illustrious war-record or expert crisis management amid burning rubble. It will require a willingness to engage Obama on foreign policy, even if these criticisms don’t initially seem natural coming from a Governor. Demonstrate some comfort on foreign issues and these folks will be forced to give you a look.
I don’t see why a candidate couldn’t be forcefully anti-Washington/establishment, a mild social conservative, and vocal about the importance of defense, thereby filling all three gaping holes, and making some sense of a muddled GOP electorate.
-
Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com
July 9th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
A Pawlenty trip to Israel and talking about Obama’s failure to appreciate the settlements, etc might assist int he foreign policy stakes (#3).
Its hard to see any Governor other than Barbour & Pawlenty coming through now that Sanford has self-destructed & Huntsman has gone to China (good for his foreign policy cred, but not until 2012). Which one is better able to negotiate this path do you think Matthew?
July 9th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
JayPe,
I think it’d probably be easier for a modest Minnesotan to soft-sell social issues; it’d probably be easier for Barbour to criticize Obama on foreign policy (if only because he has a more mature/serious demeanor); it’d probably be easier for Pawlenty to play the anti-establishment/Washington, pseudo-populist card, because he doesn’t have Barbour’s lobbying problems and his Washington connections, and his more experience with “government needs to behave like individuals” soft-populism. So 2 for 3 for Pawlenty I guess. But, I think maybe Daniels- if he were interested- could best Pawlenty on the defense and soft-selling social issues score. It’d be closer anyway.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
What about John Kasich? Former congressman, but he left before the fiscal conservativism from the class of ‘94 was replace by “compassionate” overspending, and if memory serves he was a tightwad and militantly anti-pork even by the standard of the GOP in 94-98.
I would also assume he acquired at least some experience in a foreign policy/armed services, etc. committee he could point to for National Security experience, and he was never a vocal so-con, although I wouldn’t be surprised if he checked all the boxes.
Only catch is he’s currently running for Governor of Ohio and might find campaigning difficult if he wins (plus he’d be pretty non-viable if he didn’t), but right now we’re just at the fantasy stage so why not?
July 9th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Kasich can win in Ohio. In fact, if Obama is hovering below 50 in the Buckeye State in 2012 and unemployment is over 10 percent – that means he won’t be able to help Strickland and Strickland will be blamed for the economic woes anyway.
It’s early, but I really like Kasich’s chances.
That said, I don’t see a viable path to the presidency in 2012 for him. He would have to start running in 2011 – and that is the same year he would be starting out as governor of Ohio. He’d be a great go-to guy in 2016 if we lose in 2012 though.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
But, based on the big openings you describe, it wouldn’t hurt to be in the shoes of a Governor Giuliani come spring of 2011.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Giuliani can’t win. I like him a lot. But I think after 2008 it’s pretty clear that a pro-choice Yankee is never going to be the GOP candidate.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Sounds like Romney to me. But this site has it in for Romney. But get over it, Romney right now looks like he has the inside to getting the nomination, and talk like this will only turn of REAL CONSERVATIVES like myself. One has to wonder if anyone here really knows what a conservative is.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
That may well be true, but it all depends on the scheduling of the primary calendar.
I don’t think the GOP is going to win another presidential election until it’s pretty clear that a pro-choice Yankee could be the GOP candidate.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
The phrase “real conservative” is becoming as annoying as the phrase “real American”.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Amen to #9.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
So is calling someone a RINO.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
#8
“I don’t think the GOP is going to win another presidential election until it’s pretty clear that a pro-choice Yankee could be the GOP candidate.”
Well that’s not happening if social conservative voters remain in the GOP.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I used to think that way but I don’t anymore. The only prayer we have is to get all of the so-cons on the reservation – because we can’t depend on minorities to swing our way. If we don’t maximize the so-con vote, we’re simply not going to win in Ohio. We have no viable path to the presidency without Ohio. Same thing with Virginia. There are too many people in the north that will never vote for our candidates. The way to counter that is to run up the score in the rest of the state. That does NOT mean we need to make a fetish out of so-con issues and talk about them at the expense of what moderates are concerned about. But we DO need to get them to man the phones and get to the polls. It’s not going to happen with a pro-choicer.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
What’s interesting though is that the GOP is curerntly enjoying a comeback in the northeast.
Its early days, but its telling that the GOP is attracting top talent in the Senate races in CT, NH, DE races while struggling in the naturally red states elsewhere (e.g. CO, NV)
July 9th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I agree, however, a candidate has to more than just pro-life, he also must be a fiscal conservative (leaves out Huckabee) and must be a Defense conservative.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Yep.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Which means we need a candidate who doesn’t turn off North East voters, Which makes Romney a very good candidate.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
What is a “Defense conservative”.
I favor a strong national defense but I’m not a neoconservative. Do I qualify as a “Defense conservative”?
July 9th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Doug,
I think at this point, you do qualify. After the Iraq War – regardless of whether or not it’s turned around considerably – I am pretty sure that in the future the GOP is going to weigh very carefully all the pros and cons and all of the intelligence gathered before pulling the trigger.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
What I mean is that I don’t see the next Republican president itching to invade Iran to the same extent that Bush clearly wanted to go into Iraq.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Yup, your a Defense Conservative.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Aron,
Maybe. He could certainly plug 2 of the 3 holes assuming no one steps up first. A Rudy-run is problematic though in the sense that he’d, at minimum, need to wait until late Summer of 2011 to declare; by then the field will have shaped up pretty clearly and a lot of those holes will be plugged. Rudy doesn’t need to enter early for name recognition; he may need to enter early- which he can’t- to prevent someone locking things up (Romney), or plugging the only Giuliani shaped holes (Pawlenty, Daniels, Thune, etc). And of course I’m with Adam on the so-con problem. Rudy might benefit by getting in late if everyone else stumbles, in the sense that their won’t be time for a “stop-Rudy” movement, but he’s unlikely to have any chance to unify the party even if he somehow sneaks into the nomination on a tidal-wave. He’ll then be in the McCain position, of having to mollify a substantial portion of the base in the general, and he’ll likely end up with McCain results- embarrassment, incoherency, and total disarray. Secure the base while no one’s watching…only…big…lesson…you…can’t…ignore. Rudy simply CAN’T do that.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
It depends, if Iran drops a nuke, all bets are off. But frankly, why use a sledge hammer when a tack will do. One bullet would have solved Iraq. But we also can not allow terrorist to be in position to get a nuke.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Sure. If something major like that were to happen that clearly is a security threat then a Republican president would do whatever he thought he needed to do.
But I suspect that after Iraq and the subsequent electoral “thumpin’” – to use the Bush term – Republicans are going to be much more small c – conservative when it comes to military force. What good is it to go guns a blazing when it means that in two years Democrats are going to win power and undo all of your planning?
July 9th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
#14, JayPe,
Let’s see if our candidates actually WIN in the Northeast. They all look weak to me, except for Castle.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Reply to 24 Adam.
I think we are on the same page. We use to use the CIA to covertly take of business. But since Jimmy Carters days, they CIA has had their teeth pulled out. We need the old CIA who would quietly assassinate individuals when they became a threat. AKA one bullet in Saddams head would have solved the problem.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Matthew,
Great post as usual.
1. Soft peddling SoCon issues will work if it’s a real, trusted, died in the wool SoCon, like Pawlenty, Huck, or Palin. Obviously, most of the country is not as focused on abortion and gay marriage right now. But less than trusted “SoCon” who soft peddles might make SoCons cool. So the only ones who can fill number 1 are the ones who can actually get away with it.
2. I think a soft populism has the potential to be THE winning theme of ‘12. Marry Obama to Wall Street, K Street, Acorn, the Daley Machine, etc…. It’s the people vs. the powerful, not the rich vs the poor. Both rich and poor are suffering right now, in their own way. It’s only the powerful that are living high on the hog, as they buy and sell influence in massive, trillion dollar programs. Kitchen table talk about budgets and deficits are also key here.
3. I have to admit less enthusiasm for this one, as a Buchananite. Though like Buchanan, I believe in a strong defense, and Obama’s international miscues are legion. Obviously there is a gaping hole for DefCons, just as there was for SoCons in ‘08. Someone could start with a withering critique of Obama’s trips to Latin America, where he does BFF fist bumps with Hugo, and listens silently while socialist dictators trash America.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Doug is NO Neoconservative.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Kris,
No one said he is. He said is isn’t. He was wondering if that disqualifies him as a DefCon. The consensus seems to be no.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
I believe that the statement outlined in this blog is correct in how the conservative message needs to be package to face Obama in 2012. The challenge is not in what we want said, but agreeing with in the political party who can be best convey it. 2012 will be between Romney, Palin, and Huckabee. I believe that with Palin’s pre-mature departure from the governors office in Alaska. Huckabee and Romney will end up going head to head on the campaign trail. I believe that Huckabee is more likely to connect with the people and be able to challenge Obama in 2012 due to his gifted speaking ability.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
And… Romney does not quit the job he was hired to do!
July 9th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Benjamin. With all due respect to the squirell cooker, He’s a regional candidate. Huck appeals to a thin and narrow group.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Knickers,
First off, it’s a “squirrel.” If you’re going to imply that someone else is a stupid backwoods hayseed, at least be careful with your own spelling and punctuation.
Secondly, not everyone from the South is a redneck, just as not everyone from Massachusetts is a pansy, blue blooded, caviar eating, elitist jackass. Word is that some of those guys from Massachusetts even hunt vermin, just like folks in Arkansas!
July 9th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
“Huck appeals to a thin and narrow group.”
Exactly. In contrast, look at all the non-Mormons Romney has shilling for him on this blog!
oh, wait……….
July 9th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
MWS,
That’s not fair. Romney did considerably better among a more diverse group of Republicans in the 2008 primaries. He scored a respectable 25 in Iowa in addition to coming darn close in states like Missouri and Georgia. Huckabee, in contrast, performed abysmally outside of the Bible Belt.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
By the way, I’m not a Mormon.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
This blog is not like the general electorate.
Most people who supported Huckabee on here in 2007 weren’t Evangelicals.
Most people who supported Romney on here in 2007 were (and remain) Mormon.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Adam,
Well, it’s not fair to characterize Huck’s support as “thin and narrow” either. He bested that 25% of Romney’s that you were bragging about in Iowa, and won about as many non-Southern States as Romney won non-caucus states that he didn’t have some home town connection to. All ‘12 polls show them within the MoE of each other, so it’s stupid to try to characterize one candidate as having legions of devoted disciples from all walks of life while the support of the other is “thin and narrow.” That’s not thought or analysis, just stupid shilling.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Correction to #33.
People from Massachusetts don’t hunt vermin.
They hunt varmints.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
The fact remains that outside of the evangelical bloc, Huckabee’s support is equal to that of a third-tier candidate. Virtually all of Huckabee’s support comes from one region of the country. That’s going to be a major stubling block when it comes time to rack up delegates in the 2012 contest.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Adam,
“Virtually all of Huckabee’s support comes from one region of the country. ”
Gosh, considering Huck is polling 25% and the South is about 1/3 of the country, if what you are saying is true, he must we polling, what, 75% of the Southern vote? Yet at other times, the Rombots claim that Mitt runs even with Huck in the South.
Which is it?
July 9th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
MWS and other Huckanuts.
You forget one thing, Huckabee’s Religious bigotry has turned off so many voters that millions of Republicans will not vote for him even if it means 4 more years of Obama.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
I don’t think anyone ever claimed that Mitt runs even with Huck in the south. Certainly I never did. The south may be 1/3 of the country but it’s no doubt worth closer to half of the GOP total vote. Huck’s problem in racking up delegates is precisely that he isn’t winning 75 percent of the southern vote…and he isn’t going to add much to the tally outside of that region.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
And before you respond, claiming that Romney ran respectably in Missouri, Florida and Georgia and ran competitively in the south overall (all of which are true) is not the same as claiming that he ran even with Huck in the region.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Head of the Class, Who’s the Boss, Perfect Strangers, WKRP in Cincinnati, Growing Pains, Golden Girls, Mr. Belvedere
You know what all those shows have in common?
They are all old and out of sync with modern culture just like the stereotypes about the South and Evangelicals.
Evangelicals are a majority of the Republican primary electorate in several Northern states.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Thunder,
“You forget one thing, Huckabee’s Religious bigotry has turned off so many voters that millions of Republicans will not vote for him even if it means 4 more years of Obama.”
Yadayada, heard it 3 trillion times here. Trouble with that Rombot fantasy is the recent 2012 poll that showed only 10% of Republican voters wanted Huck to win the least. Romney was at 9%. Both numbers were actually quite impressive. So please, please, don’t extrapolate the opinions of your church potluck on the whole country. The data just doesn’t bear it out.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
I dunno. Maybe. But certainly not any of the ones with high delegate counts. Not CA, IL, NY, MA, CT, VT, NH, ME. And not CO, NV or NM.
There’s a lot of real estate on the map that just isn’t Huck friendly.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Adam,
Well, they’re within the MoE of each other, so I’ll let you play with the math.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
It would be nice if there where facts to go with your assumptions. Here is a fact.
Georgia Primary Results
Huckabee : 34%
McCain : 32%
Romney : 30%
4% is not what I call a wide margin of victory. All Romney has to do is pick up enough of McCain voters to overcome 4%. Bottom line, we don’t know who will actually win the south.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Thunder,
In a two-way contest between Huck and Romney, Huck wins most of the south. But it’s not enough to win the ball game.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Thunder,
So where do YOU think Huck is polling all that thin and narrow support that puts him +/- a couple points of Romney?
July 9th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Actually, they do.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8322.html
July 9th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Adam,
“There’s a lot of real estate on the map that just isn’t Huck friendly.”
Don’t make the classic French mistake of fighting the last war. If you think you will be facing the same Huckabee as 2008 you are sorely mistaken. For starters, he has about 20x the support he held at this time last cycle. He has essentially 100% name recognition, a large donor list, some IOUs, and experience. And yes, Romney has those things too. Either man would be foolish to think they were getting a carbon copy of 2008.
But I hope Romney takes the Knickers attitude, and assumes he is running against a hillbilly buffoon. Somehow though, I think he is a lot smarter than that.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Thunder,
I cited a poll that came about about a week ago. You are citing a news story from the Politico that is well over a year old. 10% is 10%. Romney was at 9. Sorry to burst your bubble dude.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
I don’t know, haven’t seen any recent poll numbers in the South. But, the south isn’t what it used to be, especially Georgia, which has had a flood of people move there in recent years. (Mississippi is another story).
Don’t know, but 65% of the voters in Georgia voted for someone else besides Huckabee.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
That’s a really bold claim. I see no data to suggest that Huckabee has expanded his support beyond his Evangelical comfort zone. That he is only at 25 % and Evangelicals make up somwhere between 1/3 and 2/5 of the total GOP sort of suggests that your claim might be a little more than overstated.
We’ll just see. All this is right now is educated guesswork.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Didn’t see any poll numbers your talking about, unless your talking about the national poll numbers and they are meaningless. It’s delegates that count.
And trust me those who Huckabee has attacked have not changed their opinions and will not vote for him under any circumstance, you can take that to the Bank.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
MWS,
I’d also note that Utah isn’t the country, and the number of states, even in a primary, with enough Mormons to meaningfully tip the balance, can be counted on one hand; and none of them would have been prime Huckabee targets, regardless of the supposed hatred vast swaths of Mormons have for him. I mean, if Huckabee loses Utah, Idaho, and Nevada in the primary, I suppose he’ll have to content himself with competing in…I don’t know, the other 47 states.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
55 Thunder,
Oh sure, Romney could pick up a state or two. But if you want to look at just the states of the Confederacy, you have to give Huck the edge.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Adam,
“That’s a really bold claim.”
Not really. It’s math. In 2005, Huck was polling between 0-2%. He is now at around 25%.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Adam,
He said “at THIS time last cycle”. At this time last cycle Huckabee had the support of his family and his pastor.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I put a lot less stock in the assertion that Mormon anger is going to doom a Huckabee candidacy.
My argument is that CULTURALLY – Huckabee has major hurdles to overcome.
Matthew, you know just as well as I do that Huckabee is going to be an awfully tough sell in New Jersey. Right?
July 9th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
My mistake. I misread and thought you meant that he increased his suppoer 20x since the end of the campaign.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
So you are willing to throw those states away in the General Election also?
In the old south, you may be right, but not in the new south. States that are more modern (in that I mean they have had an influx of people) like Georgia, its not the same old south.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Thunder,
“Didn’t see any poll numbers your talking about, unless your talking about the national poll numbers and they are meaningless. It’s delegates that count.”
We’re not talking delegates. We’re talking about your claim that millions upon billions of Republicans will never vote for Huck, even if he ran against Satan himself.
The poll I’m referring to was posted on the front page a few days ago. It asked (among other things) who would you LEAST like to see win the nomination. Huck got 10% on that negative question, Romney 9%.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
#61,
LOL!
July 9th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Adam,
Yes, Huckabee might be a tough sell in New Jersey. But, then again, maybe he won’t be. My political science seminar full of Democrats unanimously agreed a few months ago that Huckabee was the only reasonable national Republican. On the other hand, my sister and significant chunks of my family think he’s a wingnut intent on imposing a theocracy. I think a lot of it depends on level of political engagement. The folks who only paid light attention to the 2008 primaries got the “he wants to impose God’s law in the constitution and lock up AIDS patients” meme the MSM relentlessly pushed after he started to seem a bit threatening. The folks who paid more attention remember his very non-wingnutty attacks on Wall Street, and his compassionate pleas for the working man. Truthfully, there’s not a whole lot of market among Republicans for the latter sort of message (even moderate Republicans aren’t, generally, that kind of populist or that kind of moderate) but it’s the kind of message which can absolutely break through cultural barriers; I’ve seen it happen. I wouldn’t be at all surprised, in fact, if outside the South Huck cobbled together a primary coalition of evangelicals, independents, and cross-over Democrats, while frightening the bejeezus out of rank and file moderate/conservative Republicans.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Anyway, I’m no longer a Huckanut, but will defend him out of some combo of intellectual honesty, knee-jerk loyalty, and a sinful delight in tweaking Rombots.
My man for 2012 is Pawlenty, whom I think many of you Rombots find more palatable.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Maybe you’re right. But I keep remembering that McCain and Romney largely took a hands off approach to Huckabee after South Carolina. So that means that the only negative advertising where he forced to defend himself was against Romney in the friendly home turf of Iowa. Do you think he’ll be able to stay afloat when his primary opponents turn fire on him? When Romney reminds voters in places like New York and New Jersey and California about “arrogant bunker mentality” I don’t see Huckabee as able to defend himself. Same thing when clips are shown about “taking back this country for God”
I could be totally off – but I just don’t see Huckabee pulling this off among voters that aren’t like minded on religion.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
While I wouldn’t support him in the primary over Romney, I could certainly vote for him in the General (unlike Huckabee). So, yes he is a more palatable candidate. Certainly better than either Huckabee or Palin. And if there is a real threat to Romney, it would be Pawlenty. However, he has his own issues (as does any other candidate) and they will all come out, time will tell.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Look, Pawlenty has already united a former Rombot (Matthew) and a former Huckanut (me). He might even add a former Rudyite (Metro) who is still holding out for someone more suited to his liking, but certainly finds T-Paw acceptable and electable.
Granted, this is one silly anecdote, but for what it’s worth, I think it shows that Pawlenty has the potential for being a unifying force. I’ve already picked out his slogan:
“It’s the deficit, stupid.”
July 9th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I’d be fine with Pawlenty. But in a contest between Romney and Huck – it ain’t going to be Huck.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Adam,
“Do you think he’ll be able to stay afloat when his primary opponents turn fire on him? ”
Maybe. For one, he’ll have a lot more money. For two, it looks like he can start by appealing to non-evangelicals, where he had to spend almost all the last primary securing his natural constituency. Look for fewer references to God. Finally, it would be suicidal for any candidate to attack Huck on religion. Do you REALLY want to go to war with the evangelicals?
July 9th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
#68:
I’m still neutral, but I’m moving towards Pawlenty, Barbour, or if he runs, Daniels myself. The last thing we need is fresh divisions within the party, and a Romney or Huckabee nomination will bring just that.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Reply to 71 MWS
Remember, other than Political Junkies and Minnesota, Pawlenty is basically unknown. It may be hard for him to over come the lack of name recognition (which hurt Romney at the beginning).
However, right now if I had to venture a guess, Huckabee and Palin will not run in 2012. Pawlenty and Romney will, and while I think Romney will win the nomination, Pawlenty will set himself up for future run. (not saying he can’t win, but we haven’t even had one debate).
I can also see a Romney/Pawlenty ticket
July 9th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Y’all notice how everyone calms down and gets a lot more rational when we start talking about Pawlenty instead of Huck or Romney?
hmmmmmmmmmm……………..
July 9th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
I don’t think Rudy is going to run for President again. I prefer Palin or Pawlenty. Mitt Romney won’t get the nominee in 2012. He is not a conservative.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
#75:
Either Huckabee or Palin won’t run, but it seems to me to be very unlikely for both of them to sit out. 2012 is probably Huckabee’s (and Romney’s) last chance for the nomination without becoming VP. If Huckabee wants to be President, he’s got to go for it in 2012.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
I was never a Huckanaut, obviously, but I’ve always defended him (even when I was insanely saying I’d vote for Obama before Huckabee) against the accusation that he’s incapable of appealing to non-social conservatives, or that his agenda was particularly heavy on social conservatism. I think it’s just demonstrably false, and a brush that he was unfairly tarred with in the primaries by an MSM who, after having ruined Romney and Rudy, were determined to ruin the only other credible, capable candidate; no John McCain was never credible or capable and his “electability” was the greatest myth ever perpetuated on a primary electorate, without any real help from his allies.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
No, it’s just Huckabee. There is nothing wrong with Romney.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
McCain wasn’t the top pick of Evangelicals – and he was able to win. I could see Romney following a similar path.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
#81:
McCain learned his lessons from the 2000 election. He managed to mend fences with the late Rev. Jerry Fawell, and at the least make the relgious right neutral towards him instead of bitterly opposed to him.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
I’m a Pawlenty guy but I certainly think Huckabee is a potential nominee.
Putting him in an Evangelical box will be hard as he doesn’t really have to compete for that segment if Palin doesn’t run. He’ll be free to play the good natured populist shtick that won Buchanan NH.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
This is very true. I believe that Obama didn’t win, McCain simply lost. A better candidate could have taken Obama apart.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
“No, it’s just Huckabee. There is nothing wrong with Romney.”
LOL! Let’s let that one die down tonight.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Jonathan,
Romney paid his dues and kissed Evangelical ass too. He doesn’t need to be the top choice of Evangelicals. He just needs to not toally fall on his face. If he simply maintains his support among the Evangelicals that he got in 2008…AND…. takes the moderate vote that went to McCain, that will win him the nomination.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
#84, only Allah himself could have won.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Pawlenty is an evangelical who would take huge chunks of that base. Pawlenty is the evangelical without the baggage.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
#84:
No Republican was going to win in 2008 after the collapse of the financial market in October. If that hadn’t happened, McCain could very well have won. Once the economy tanked, our chances of winning the election went with it.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Thunder
#75
You may be right. Of the four I’d say in order of MOST likely to run:
1. Pawlenty- everything he’s said or done the last few months indicates the wheels are already in motion.
2. Romney- last chance, I think he really wants it, but family concerns may trump.
3. Huck- Not sure if he has the fire in the belly. I’m not sure if he’s sure. He would be a contender, but might be content with making millions and having influence throught the media.
4. Palin- doing mostly all the wrong things, and the resignation is indicating to me that she is going the celebrity route.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
I don’t agree with that. Had someone like Romney ran with his economic background, we will never know.
But after the botched selection of Palin and McCain’s inability to take on the issues of the economy, it was all down hill. Remember, at one point, after the select of Palin and before her first interview, McCain was actually ahead in the polls. But this is all guess work.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Doug,
“Putting him in an Evangelical box will be hard as he doesn’t really have to compete for that segment if Palin doesn’t run. He’ll be free to play the good natured populist shtick that won Buchanan NH.”
Indeed, plus his show is helping him get out of that box immensely. But that poll the other day indicated that he ISN’T competing with Palin so much for the evangelical vote. Her base was surprisingly much more secular. At any rate, both Huck and Romney are probably not going to have to deal so much with their main problems from last time (Huck as only a religious SoCon and Romney as a flip-flopping charlatan).
July 9th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
MWS. A friendly reminder: Mormons don’t talk about Huck at church picnics. Mormons just aren’t that political at church.
Your guy is Romney-lite. He has a tough road – I don’t see a path if Romney is around. He’s half as articulate, and has a mixed record. I like the guy a little, though. He’s 1000 times better than Huck or Palin.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Adam,
” If he simply maintains his support among the Evangelicals that he got in 2008…AND…. takes the moderate vote that went to McCain, that will win him the nomination.”
Those are two mighty big “ifs”.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
#88, I actually don’t think Pawlenty’s base will be Evangelicals.
I’ve never seen a legitimate reason to assume Pawlenty would be a religious right candidate. In fact it’s fairly preposterous.
He has spent his political career in Minnesota land of Lutherans and Catholics.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
anonymous = Flip. I’ve been gone a lot, but has this already been established?
July 9th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Not sure of the order of 1 and 2, but it doesn’t matter, both are looking like they are running. Huckabee maybe lots of things, but he is not stupid. On one hand, he has a very successful TV show and is doing very well on the other hand, he is a long shot (in my opinion) of winning the nomination. So why take the risk. He is having a blast playing his music and has a bully pulpit to speak from, which in many ways can have more influence than being President.
As for Palin, she is yesterdays news. Just like Dan Quayle, she just wasn’t ready and no will fade into history. Had she not been selected as McCain’s running mate, things may have turned out differently for her.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
95. Last fall when Pawlenty was being talked up for VP, everyone assured us that he would have the evangelical vote due to his wife being evangelical.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
MWS;
Huckabee won’t run again and lose that sweet 4 million $ a year job at FOX. Besides, he can’t use the Religion card again, he’s already been there and done that….
July 9th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
From the 2008 GOP Primaries:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I think it’s clear both Huck and Palin are running. Neither can resistt the limelight.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Martha,
Pawlenty is incredibly articulate. You should watch some Youtubes of his speeches. He speaks in complete paragraphs without a script or teleprompter. I think this one is a good example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufRozqwvKQA
July 9th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
lkv,
“Besides, he can’t use the Religion card again, he’s already been there and done that….”
He won’t have to.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Then you haven’t done your home work.
http://minnesotaindependent.com/4300/pawlenty-and-the-evangelicals-where-he-stands-on-religious-right-hot-button-issues
July 9th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Martha;
Neither can resist the money either.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
lkv – I think Huck won’t be able to stop himself from running. Look at how well he is doing in the polls. He still has his loyal fan base. They WANT him to run.
I also think he will play the religion card again, although more subtly. He has key people who will do the dirty work again.
Huck loved campaigning so much he stayed in 6 extra week when he knew he had no shot. And heck, he hates Romney so much, he will run just to get in a few more digs.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
How about this scenario:
Say it does come down to Romney, Huckabee, and Sarah. Can you honestly say that Huckabee and Sarah won’t split the Evangelical vote much like Romney and Huckabee did? That would leave an opening for Romney, (the same that McCain walked through) to go ahead and snatch the nomination. My personal opinion is that the reason why McCain got that nomination was due to this fact and the assasination in Pakistan, something that spoke to McCain’s strong suit. Romney hands down is the economic guy and I don’t see our troubles magically disappearing in the next decade, let alone three years. The weakness in all the other candidates beside Romney is that they have yet to define themselves as the ______ guy or gal. Sarah could do that with energy. (I thought that was what all the hubub was about with Boone Pickens on Monday was going to be about, but no another opportunity missed.) I just hope that the GOP doesn’t go down the same path as the DEMs and pick as some on this board have pointed out, “a good speech deliverer” and they pick the person who can do a job being President.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
102. MWS, I heard Pawlenty try to help McCain. He stumbled a lot. Other than that, I have not seen him much.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
#94:
The key for Romney is to show that he has moved beyond the controversies that dogged him in the 08 primaries. If Romney can become Mr. “I Can Unite the Party” and not try and portray himself as Mr. “I’ve Always Been A Reaganite Conservative”. People just don’t believe that image of Romney, and perception is what matters in politics.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
#98 That’s a pretty silly idea.
Evangelicals aren’t going to vote for someone in the primary just because they belong to an Evangelical Church.
They didn’t rush to McCain did they?
July 9th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Palin is a one-trick pony: Energy. So what? All the other candidates share her views, so she brings almost nothing to the discussion. She also believes GW is man-made – at least in part. For that matter, so does Pawlenty.
Palin quitting midterm doesn’t do anything for her energy creds, either. The gasline is FAR from happening.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
110. That’s what a lot of people were saying back then.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Martha,
” I heard Pawlenty try to help McCain. He stumbled a lot.”
In fairness, that is a very difficult task.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
#104
I’ll quote the article you linked to (did you read it?)
“Back home in Minnesota, ironically, Pawlenty’s religion is little known and seldom discussed.”
Pawlenty isn’t known as a religious right politician and that’s not how he runs. Thanks for linking to an article that makes that point.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
MWS. You know what I meant. He didn’t do well in interviews. He didn’t seem to know how to answer some questions. Anyway, even when I read some quotes, he doesn’t sound articulate. Especially that one about not listening to people who don’t believe in GW.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
114. Maybe not in Minnesota, but it will surely be an asset if he runs. It was in all the talk about VP.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
That’s a selective quote, let me give you another one.
I think he can compete quite well for the Evangelical voters without dealing the Religious card from the Bottom of the Deck.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Just trying to gauge something here.
Thunder, Martha what do you think is the probability that Romney is not the GOP nominee in 2012?
The way you guys carry on I assume you think it’s 90%.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Here you go, MWS.
“Climate change is real. Human behavior is partly and may be a lot responsible. Those who don’t think so are simply not right. We should not spend time on voices that say it’s not real.”
Rest my case.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
#14, I meant you guys assume it’s 10%.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
118. I think Romney has a very good chance at the nomination. At least 60%.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
BTW Doug. I didn’t really carry on about Romney here. I simply said Pawlenty is Romney-lite.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
#121, OK that explains a lot. Thank you.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
123. It’s not rocket science. There are 3 in the top tier. 2 have bigger problems to overcome than the third.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Martha,
I don’t suppose I could cut and paste any Romney quotes that he might want to forget?
July 9th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
#12, I’d say Romney is Pawlenty-lite. A third the experience in government and much less electable. YMWV
July 9th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
That’s hard to tell since we really don’t know who is really running yet or how many serious candidates there will be next time. From a historical point of view, Romney looks in good shape. And I also have to admit my bias on this. Maybe 60-70%. Believe it or not, Romney’s chances are actually higher if Huckabee is in the race. If he is not, and its only Pawlenty, then his odd’s go down. But if Huckabee, Pawlenty, and Palin are all in, then his odds go up to 80-90% (depending on who drops out). If Jeb Bush gets in, Romney’s odd’s go down to 51%. Being from Florida, I know Jeb Bush is the real deal and is much better that both his brother and his father.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
125. True enough. But no one does a better interview on a wide range of topics than Romney.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Martha,
“It’s not rocket science. There are 3 in the top tier. 2 have bigger problems to overcome than the third.”
It’s 2009. If history is any guide, the top 3 will probably look different in 2 years than it does today.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
I’m curious. Hypothetically speaking, what if Romney doesn’t run in 2012, for whatever reason. Who do the Romney supporters go to then? Yall seem pretty firm that it won’t be Huckabee or Palin, does Pawlenty get the Romney supporters by default? Or do they go shopping for a different candidate?
July 9th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
“I’d say Romney is Pawlenty-lite. A third the experience in government and much less electable. ”
Amen to that.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Depends on if you are talking about government experience or business/government experience. If only government experience counts you are right, but if you include all executive experience, you are wrong.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Martha;
yes he does hate Romney, but he sure gets his digs in on his show.
The people at FOX really love him, at the end of the week when he starts to promote his show, they treat him like he is a king. I have to it off.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Jonathan,
I think it’s fair to say that Pawlenty benefits more than Huck. His support could possibly dissolve all over the place. Some Huck (yes), some Pawlenty, Palin, Thune, whomever. I don’t think it would necessarily shift as a bloc.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
126. That’s sort of laughable, Doug. Pawlenty doesn’t come close to having as much experience as Romney when you factor in his business and Olympic success, plus the last 2 years on the trail articulating his knowledge/ideas about the issues.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Generally speaking, I go with the most conservative candidate. (Huckabee is a non starter) and with Palin, I want to ask (wheres the beef). So, if I only have those three, it would be Pawlenty. However, I would have to watch the debates to see if I like someone more than Pawlenty.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
lkv. I’ve never seen the show, don’t think I could stomach that much of the Huckster.
Does he continue to snark about Romney? What a pathetic clown. Enough with the pettiness, Huck. You have some bucks now, you can get over it.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Martha,
“factor in his business and Olympic success, plus the last 2 years on the trail articulating his knowledge/ideas about the issues.”
Couldn’t get that second term though, could he?
July 9th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Thunder, dontcha know Palin has charisma?
July 9th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Martha,
I don’t know that Romney ever comes up on his show. You know, not everyone’s life revolves around Romney.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
MWS. He didn’t need it. And, he had the decency to finish his term.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Why wouldn’t fox love him, while his strong supporters are not enough to get him elected, they are more than enough to create great demographics. He must be doing very well in his time slot (which my main reason I don’t think he will run in 2012).
July 9th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
140. Yeah, but every chance Huck gets, he throws in a thinly veiled attack at Romney without actually naming him. Haven’t you noticed.
Personally, I’m glad he is so transparent.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Martha,
” He didn’t need it.”
Ah, but he could have saved RomneyCare!
But yeah, at least he finished the term. Palin can’t be running. If she is, that was a colossally stupid move. If she’s not, then I guess it doesn’t matter.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
#136:
I could see Daniels or Gregg picking up Romney support should he not run (I’m pretty sure he is, but 3 years is a long time). Actually, Daniels would fit well on a Romney led ticket. Popular, two-term, Midwestern Governor, fiscal conservative out the wahzoo, not a D.C. insider. If Romney runs as the fiscal answer to Washigton D.C., than Daniels could help. As for Gregg, no geographical balance (Bush and Cheney didn’t either, didn’t seem to hurt the ticket), but he has experience in D.C. and could help us carry New Hampshire.
Basically, the two most Romneyesque maybe candidates (Daniels and Gregg) could also be good ticketmates for Romney.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
I have only seen bits and pieces of it, but he brings in a lot of guess than share his opinion in a fun way. Plays a lot of guitar with famous individuals who happen also to be evangelicals (nothing wrong here). I think Huckabee has found a sweet spot, and I doubt he is going to let it go for what I believe is a long shot at the Presidency. (he just signed a contract that takes him into 2012.) So, he would have to break his contract to run.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
MWS. BTW – Remember how hard Pawlenty stumped for McCain? Romney won by a large margin. Remember how polls showed he would actually hurt McCain in Minnesota?
What’s all that about?
July 9th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Martha,
” Yeah, but every chance Huck gets, he throws in a thinly veiled attack at Romney without actually naming him.”
You just got done telling us you’ve never watched his show, so how could you possibly know that? When was his last thinly veiled attack on Romney, anyway?
July 9th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Pawlenty always looks too nervous and uncomfortable on camera, maybe he could get over it, but he hasn’t yet.
His voice is strong but his body language shows lack of confidence.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Martha,
I know that Pawlenty was popular enough to win two terms in his state, and would be the favorite to win a 3rd.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Jonathan,
I like what I’ve seem of Daniels too. He’s a guy who really turned his image around in the Hoosier state. Outran McCain by about 114 points.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
MWS, I didn’t mean on the show. I’ve never seen it. I don’t even watch FOX because it drives me crazy. Since the election, I’ve heard Huck take sly jabs at Romney on a number of occasions, including in Do the Wrong, er Right Thing. Trust me. I notice. It’s just more proof he’s a petty and jealous man.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Whatever you say, Martha.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
That’s because he also makes the Democrats happy (which I don’t know is a good idea.) He is a moderate except when it comes to social issues (particularly pro-life), the he is a heavy social conservative.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
There’s lots of time yet for Pawlenty to move up in the polls. And that would be a good thing. Wouldn’t he be a much more preferable choice to Palin or Huck? As to the environmental issue, we can give him an opportunity to clarify his position. He made a good start the other week when he came out against the Cap and Trade bill in the house.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
DanL. I agree with you. But he’s still Romney-lite, and I’d rather have the real thing.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Martha I still prefer Romney. I just like having a sane and decent person as an alternative in case Romney tanks in the polls and early primaries.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Thunder,
“He is a moderate except when it comes to social issues”
Not true. Did you see what he just did to the budget through unallotment?
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/06/16/unallotment_reaction/
I don’t think Romney ever did THAT!
July 9th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
157. Me, too.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
I am really annoyed by most things on Fox News. I like Shepherd Smith and I liked Brit Hume before he stepped down.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Then one good thing about being a relative unknown is that you get a chance to define yourself (but your opponents also get a shot at defining you).
July 9th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
MWS. Pawlenty is not a pure fiscal conservative. He’s ‘mdoified his position’ on some things. Of course, he did not flip-flop or antying like that! As we all know, only Romney does that.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Yes Fox News kinda sucks. I still like Cavuto and Brett Baer. Once in a while I can handle Beck, but I almost never watch Hannity anymore.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
#151:
Hoosiers thought Daniels was insane when he sold the toll roads and implemented daylight savings time. Now, with everywhere else in the country drowning in debt, Hoosiers think he is a genious, or at least, very far-sighted when it comes to fiscal issues.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
160. We finally agree on something.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
That is after he decide there was a possibility of a national stage (his early governorship wasn’t that way). And Romney certainly took on the liberals, but kept getting over ridden by that state assembly.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Thunder, so do I. How is that a pro-life position?
Like Mitt v1.0, T-Paw is another politician I’d be more receptive to had he not felt the need to flip-flop in order to accommodate social conservatives.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
#163 Hannity is really annoying. He makes Rush Limbaugh look like a deep thinker.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Martha,
“Pawlenty is not a pure fiscal conservative.”
Neither is Romney, or anyone else I can think of. Hell, what does “pure fiscal conservative” mean anyway?
July 9th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
#163:
Everytime I flip through channels and Hannity is on, I want to throw the remote at him. He just has his little talking points and repeats them over and over again regardless of what is actually going on. Hannity basically dumbs down conservatism. It is rather irritating.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Agreed on Hannity. You only have to tune into him once every 6 months to know everything he is saying in between.
Good night, y’all.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
I think Romney will get the nomination. Unless some unknown comes along to take it away, Romney is the strongest Candidate out there.
I don’t remember a Presidential race that seems so tailor made for a GOP White House win. Obama really underestimated the American people, he thought he had us in the palm of his hand.
unless he can perform miracles and undo everything he’s done and start all over, I can’t see Obama getting a second term.
Romney has done everything right this past year and has the advantage of learning from his mistakes of the 08 campaign, so he’s probably biting at the bit.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
#167, you pro-life radical!
July 10th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Michael Goldfarb’s take on national security hawks:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/07/hawks_like_palin.asp
July 10th, 2009 at 12:46 am
If republican see their real leader(Mitt)Obama isn’t the president, Mitt is the president now.I have never belief that McCain will be the winner.I saw Mitt is a Reagan 2 and he is the true America leader,Reagan and Mitt are same leadership style,same strength,same smart, both look powerful leader,and great president.2012 all America will see Mitt value and his leadership,so he will be the nominee and take back America from Socialism Obama,good luck Mitt and god bless America.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:47 am
What’s Sarah Palin’s Political Future?
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/whats-sarah-palins-political-future/?hp
Focus on Energy Policy
by David Winston, director of planning for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; is a strategic adviser to the Republican leadership in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
No Place in the Party
By Peter Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Has worked in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, where he served as deputy assistant to the president.
More Influence as an Outsider
By Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. He was the communications director for John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign.
She Deserves a Break
by Vin Weber, managing partner of Clark & Weinstock, a political consulting firm. Was a member of Congress from 1981 to 1993. He was policy chairman for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in 2008.
Still a Powerful Player
by Linda Chavez, former Reagan administration official; syndicated columnist and conservative commentator.
A Symbol for the Culture War
By Maggie Gallagher, a syndicated columnist and president of the National Organization for Marriage.
Levi Johnston talks about Palin’s resignation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903112_pf.html
Sarah Palin’s Criticism of Obama is Just the Tip of the Iceberg
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/07/09/a-final-palin-post/
July 10th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Democrats do Better Among the Most and Least Educated
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/democrats-do-better-among-most-and.html#comments
July 10th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Movin’ Out
ADVANCE COPY from the July 20, 2009 issue: Sarah Palin on why she resigned and what it means for her future.
by Matthew Continetti
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/708gpxia.asp
July 10th, 2009 at 1:01 am
The article that has David Corn fuming:
The Outsider: Where Is Sarah Palin Going Next?
By David Von Drehle and Jay Newton-Small
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1909442,00.html
My biggest beef with this article was on what basis could Jay Newton-Small make this statement:
“At the same time, she assumed the classic role of vice presidential attack dog, making insinuations about Barack Obama’s religion and patriotism.”
When did she make such an “insinuation about Barack Obama’s religion.”
July 10th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Miller,
On what basis do you conclude that McCain was not a credible candidate? Were we not supposed to take into consider his topline favorable number compared to Huckabee, romney, and rudy or his poll position compared to his opponents at the time of the primary?
July 10th, 2009 at 1:42 am
Newt’s Take, Part 1
From Obama’s czars to a possible second stimulus, Gingrich sounds off
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=14424847&ch=4226716&src=news
Newt’s Take, Part 2
Gingrich view on Pelosi vs. CIA and more
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=14424844
Blue Dog Democrats hold up health overhaul bill in House
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-09-bluedog-health_N.htm
Plumage — But at A Price
By Charles Krauthammer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070902363_pf.html
Illegal immigrants again in the budget spotlight
The economic downturn has activists pushing for a measure that would limit the services Californians provide.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-illegal10-2009jul10,0,3674786,print.story
State e-mails detail SC gov’s Argentina plans
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090710/ap_on_re_us/us_sc_governor/print
‘Iran could, but probably won’t build a bomb within a year’
Both the US and Israel believe Iran has the technical capacity to build one nuclear bomb within a year if it decides to do so, but both countries also believe the chances that Teheran will indeed make that decision are slim, according to assessments made known to The Jerusalem Post.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443770383&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Law will let Afghan husbands starve wives who withhold sex
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/law-will-let-afghan-husbands-starve-wives-who-withhold-sex-1740229.html
Survey Shows Gap Between Scientists and the Public
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/science/10survey.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
Qaeda Branch Steps Up Raids in North Africa
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/world/africa/10terror.html?pagewanted=print
Worst violence since US pullback hits Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq/print
Obama and Kadhafi shake hands
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090709/pl_afp/g8uslibya/print
July 10th, 2009 at 2:14 am
Adam gets in a plug for race!
Q&A with pro-Sarah Palin blogger Adam Brickley
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/07/qa_with_pro-sarah_palin_blogge.php
July 10th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Perhaps Jay Newton-Small was referring to the time Palin said of Obama: “He’s not one of us.” Whether Palin was insinuating that Obama wasn’t, like the crowd in southwest Florida to whom she was speaking, white, conservative, Christian or a ‘real’ American, I’m not sure. Palin, by stating that Obama is “palling around with terrorists” and that he’s “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America”, was clearly calling into question his patriotism.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Romney Gives Mass. Health Reform An ‘A’
Former GOP Governor Helped Make 2006 Reform Reality
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/20006248/detail.html
July 10th, 2009 at 2:38 am
Aron,
I concede the “patriotism” point but what about the “religion” point? Do you have a citation to when she said “[h]e’s not one of us.”
July 10th, 2009 at 2:38 am
Video: Romney Offers Health Care Report Card
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/20008145/index.html
July 10th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Why Sarah Palin isn’t Dead Politically
By Chris Wilson
http://www.w-r-s.com/blog/2009/07/09/why-sarah-palin-isnt-dead-politically/
July 10th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Black Congressmen Declare Racism In Palin’s Rhetoric
http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/black-congressmen-declare-racism-palin-s-rhetoric
July 10th, 2009 at 2:47 am
PPP poll about tomorrow between Pawlenty and Obama. I’m guessing a 14 point deficit for the Minnesota governor and an 18 point deficit for the Alaskan governor in the state against the Messiah.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:06 am
Aron,
You found that quote too? I’ve done plenty of “research” on Pawlenty, and I found that article awhile; I thought it was definitely interesting/revealing. I have no reason to doubt that he’s pro-life (even that quote doesn’t really cast doubt on that), but I think it tends to suggest that social issues aren’t his highest priority. But, I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean by “flip-flopping”. 17 years ago Pawlenty said that the abortion issue wasn’t that important to him; he’s spent the last 17 years mostly not talking about it. Has he, like Romney, tried to lead the culture war at any point? Is there any indication he’s likely to head in that direction? When he does you may have a point, but for now you seem to be projecting; if it weren’t for his background as an evangelical, Pawlenty would seem no more socially conservative than John McCain or, like, Judd Gregg.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:20 am
David Keene said it all….Get to the CPAC video of Mitt’s intro by Mr. Keene and read what he said yesterday about Sarah Palin. There is not going to be a perfect candidate, there is no perfect person on this earth..Mitt Romney has dealt with China and other foreign countries in his private sector dealings, a private successful businessman in the W.H. would be critical after the Dems attempt at destroying America as we have known and as comMITTed to the law of the land which Gov. Romney lives by….Hands down, Gov. Romney will sweep this country. He gets it…Just open your minds, folks. We lost him in 2008 and sadly so. This country would be much better off today..Mitt will have a team that will knock your socks off…I know it..He is first class. I just wish we could have seen him carrying the 8 month old newest grandchild down the hallways of his portrait unveiling..He is the Real Deal. I have met this person, he GETS IT and we Need Help from a competent, clean living, been there done that, confident, humble, God Loving American, who will put our children, grandchildren and Constitution back on the FRONT BURNER….. Romney 2012….
July 10th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Well, I guess, I am late to the station on this one, but I cannot help, but notice that to a degree, the Pawlenty post has turned into a M & M contest. So one of the attractions of Mr. Pawlenty is that he moves us beyond the M & M rivalry. The fact that Mr. Pawlenty is a Mid-westerner is also appealing to many of us Midwest Palinites. And of course he share many (not all) of Mrs. Palin’s policies positions and priorities. However, even if I were officially released from the Palin camp (I will Alwayss be a Palinite even if we might be officially campless) I hesitate to join the Pawlenty camp as an honorary member for a few reasons. As a matter of policy, even though Mr. Pawlenty is against the Democrat extreme version of Cap and Trade, Mr. Pawlenty is not as strongly Conservative as Mr. Romney on the environment. The fact the Mr. Pawlenty is a bit too Green concerns me. There is no doubt that Mr. Pawlenty will quietly try to come away somewhat from his Green policies to firm up the Palinite vote. While I welcome ther 3 remaining candidates coming closer to Palinism. We Palinite will have to carefully see how much of it is sincere and how much of it is vote pandering. I never did fully loved the flip flop arguement in the first place, but perhaps unfortunately existed. Several months back, a non-Romneyite was almost suggesting that President Romney might not be a whole lot better than President Obama. Despite my issues with Mr. Romney, it should be clear that I would at least support Mr. Romney in a general election so to parafrase, the gentlemen said ‘between you and me, despite a few issue, I actuall think Mitt is not a bad candidate at all, I just do not trust him because of all his flip flips.’ While I for one tend to take Mr. Romney at his word (I actually wish he would flip on a few issues) I can respect the person who has an honest doubt who says to tyhemselves, may there is a 2% chance that Mr. Romney cannot be trusted. As Mr. Pawlenty clarifies (not flops) on some of his positions, in fairness to Mr. Romney, we non-Romneyites must also see if there is a small chance that Mr. Pawlenty cannot be trusted.
The other probllem with Mr. Pawlenty is that despite the fact that he is very likable, he lacks charisma. While it is true that Mr. Romney will likely never have the same charisma as Mrs. Palin or even Mr. Huckabee, Mr. Romney has gotten his charisma act together somewhat over the past several months, while Mr. Pawlenty has yet to prove himself. Mr. Pawlenty may yet be able to find some charisma, but as of now he is behind Mr. Romney in that department. This is nothing personal against Mr. Pawlenty, but if he does not find charisma, it will be difficult for him to be a strong candidate. I will certainly will not rule out voting for a candidate that is not quite as strong as another, but it will have to figure into my calculations as to I support. I suspect that many Palinites will at least give Mr. Pawlenty a fair shake and he should thus get his fair share of Palinites to support him. However, if he really want to do well among Palinites (and I suppose Gingrichites) he will have to show that he is a strong candidate and can compete with M & M. In more of a two way race, Mr. Huckabee has the slight edge over Mr. Romney in most midwestern states, but Mr. Romney would get delegates as there will be inter state regional divides. On the other hand, if Mr. Pawlenty gets his act together, he is probably the only one who can truly unite the midwest. I am impressed that Mr. Pawlenty has been able to get big names like MWS and Mr. Miller, but with respect to them, he will need a bigger team to fully impress us.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:17 am
After four years of damage that is being done to our constitution and our economy by this administration, let’s hope there is a good candidate out there that can win back the POTUS and win enough seats in congress to provide opposition to this liberal insanity. If this cap and tax ever gets through the senate, and if Obama gets his health care plan through, I think it’s a good bet the economy will be in the tank in four years. If the economy is still in the tank in 2012 – then I think Romney has the best shot of taking back the white house.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Ohio Joe,
Don’t be so sure about Romney being less green than Pawlenty. To be sure, he’s less green NOW, but at this point in the 2008 cycle…not so much. Back in late 2007, when I was undecided, I did tons of opp research on the various candidates, to sort out my thoughts, and I discovered that up through December of 2005 Romney backed a mandatory regional cap on emissions; even after that, his opposition to the plan was more like “it’s too broad” rather than “it’s a bad idea”. And…
“The National Governors’ Association should put global warming atop its agenda. More than 40 states have some kind of climate plan; they should share their ideas.
The discussion leader should be Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, which adopted a wide-ranging plan last spring. Beyond setting ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, Massachusetts is doing everything from ridding its fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs to rethinking where to build schools to planting carbon-dioxide-absorbing trees.”
“MASSACHUSETTS by itself is never going to counteract the country’s production of the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming. Still, it is encouraging that Governor Romney has come up with a climate protection plan that, if pursued aggressively, would make the state a national leader in reducing emissions of the principal greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.”
“This month, Massachusetts has adopted aggressive measures to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, making Mitt Romney the third Republican governor of an important state (after George Pataki of New York and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California) to depart from the White House line.”
“Massachusetts’ plan calls for the state to cut total state emissions of CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2010 and to 10% below 1990 levels by 2020. The Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty that seeks to curb global warming and that is opposed by the Bush administration, would require the U.S. to cut emissions 7% below 1990 levels by 2012.”
Oh, and Romney abandoned his support for a regional cap on emissions exactly 1 hour before he announced he wouldn’t run for re-election.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Thanks for putting things in perspective Matthew E. Miller.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
This is the flip-flop to which I was referring:
“I think we could move beyond the fundamental [abortion] question and start talking about other aspects of family planning.” – Tim Pawlenty, November 8, 1992
“We have a dream today that someday soon this will not be an anniversary of sadness, but an anniversary of justice restored.” – Tim Pawlenty, January 22, 2006
It seems pretty clear that, seventeen years ago, Pawlenty perceived Roe, following its reaffirmation in Casey, as settled law, and didn’t dispute the constitutionality of abortion rights. And yet, today, he bemoans the injustice of the landmark 1973 decision.
How, if at all, are you interpreting his comments differently?
July 10th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Aron,
I interpret the first quote as the conservative equivalent of the rhetorical rightward turn Democrats took around Clinton, and which Obama focused so heavily on. I.e, they said “let’s start talking about and focusing on reducing abortion, wherever you come down on the question”. And then they, of course, vote entirely liberal when actual votes come up. Republicans haven’t typically taken that “soft-sell” tack on abortion, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an equivalent conservative soft-sell. Pawlenty was content to try that approach in the early 90’s, rhetorically, despite voting as a pro-life conservative. He spear-headed late 90’s right to know and 24 hour waiting period bills and, as best as I can tell, voted for every abortion restriction proposed during his time in the legislature, though obviously it’s hard for me to come up with a full record using pro-quest.
Now he’s taking a more or less conventional rhetorical approach to the abortion issue, though spending less time discussing it than many Republicans do. Again, there’s no crime in this sort of rhetorical shift (given that I can’t see that it’s come with any shift on policy0. Rudy made about 3 dozen similar rhetorical shifts which were barely worth mentioning.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Matthew,
Perhaps it’s, as you said, a rhetorical flourish that’s more nuanced than the message delivered by most socially conservative Republicans, but I put Pawlenty’s November ‘92 comment in the context of a personally pro-life politician who acknowledged and understood, however, the long-term implications of the recent ruling in Casey, which the Supreme Court decided just four months prior to him saying “we could move beyond the fundamental question” on abortion rights. And thus, he proceeded to “start talking about other aspects of family planning” that didn’t place an “undue burden” on pregnant women like a 24-hour waiting period and opposing late-term abortions.