Republican presidential candidates, 2012
Peggy Noonan points out that in the next few months, Republican candidates will need to be deciding whether they’ll make a run for the presidency in 2012.
Whom would I like to see take a stab at it? Chris Christie, for sure—love that straight-talking, straight-shooting, corpulent New Jerseyite.
Paul Ryan.
And that’s it for me. I don’t think either will be planning a run, though. Unfortunately, because I think either—especially Christie—would be a shoo-in.
Who else? Pawlenty, perhaps. I’m not sure Jindal could overcome the nerd factor. Huckabee, ugh; likewise Romney and Gingrich. Sorry, but they are has-beens.
And, as I think I’ve said before, I think Palin would lose. I believe that if she is nominated for the presidency, the outcome of the race would be much the equivalent of the Nevada Senate results of 2010. I don’t think the country can afford that.
I am being unusually blunt here, and I expect a lot of disagreement with me. If Palin is nominated, I hope I’m wrong about the results of the election. But I think her negatives are not only too high, but they are too set in stone to overcome.
Don’t give up on Judd Gregg. His expertise and commitment to fiscal conservatism is just what we need.
Mr. Frank: You are right to note the absence of Gregg in my list. You may remember I was trying to promote his candidacy a while back. I just don’t think he’ll run.
I am hoping that someone who has Ms. Palin’s ear will tell her over and over: “you are much more valuable as a kingmaker and gadfly; don’t run.” I would not vote for her for President. Vice President? Sure.
But as I have said elsewhere, putting Palin in office in 2012 just to “show up” the other side makes as much sense as… as the current situation does.
What’s the matter, neo, can’t think of a 2-year junior legislative nobody ready to come in out of the cold?
According to the pattern, as I remember it, the last Repub runner-up is supposed to get the call. Isn’t that Hick or Mitt? (I do hope not.)
I’m waiting to vote for Christie.
Sometimes it seems the bar gets raised when it comes to Palin. An unconscious process among those who say they would not vote for her. I could not back this up with specifics though. It just sometimes -seems- to be the case.
Hopefully someone will arise out of the clutter, but I agree with Neo re: Gingrich, Palin and Romney.
There is a Iowan Congressman, Stephen King (of all names….) that I have seen several times on the tube. He appears to have some common sense, but I’m not from Iowa, and know little else about him.
I would also suggest you consider Mitch Daniels. He’s an adult who has done a phenomenal job of governing Indiana. He understands (and can communicate) the principles of the American founding, he’s proven himself fully capable of fiscal responsibility and has a fine dry sense of humor (one story told is that when he heard he’d won his first election as governor, he turned to his wife and said, “Honey, in your wildest dreams, did you ever imagine we’d win?” His wife replied, “I hate to tell you this, Mitch, but you’re not even _in_ my wildest dreams”).
There’s an excellent article about him here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ride-along-mitch
I fully agree, neo.
I like that bluntness! And I agree too, especially about Huckabee. who is such a tiresome hokey huckster. I love Christie, but he’s been sounding awfully sincere about not running. Does anyone think there’s a chance?
I fully agree with you about the comparison between a Palin vs. Obama race and the Angle vs. Reid race here in Nevada. To my way of thinking, Palin has much more going for her as a potential candidate than Sharron Angle ever did, but unlike Angle at the start of her race, Palin is a known entity at this point, and she’s starting way back in terms of the perception independents and other swing voters have of her. The level of animus directed at Palin in this country is so intense that many people who say they hate her don’t even know why. It will take years for her to overcome that, if she ever can.
I find myself lacking in enthusiasm for any known R candidates. I believe Christie when he says he’s not running. I shudder at the thought of the proposed R candidate debate at the Reagan Library this spring. All it will do is provide the O campaign with quotes they take out of context and bore the rest of us with a seemingly eternal campaign. I really, really don’t know who I’ll vote for.
Chris Christie – he’d be m #1 also, too bad it’s not gonna happen.
The salient problem with Palin is not electability (although that is a problem too), but rather that she’s been so thoroughly Alinskied at this point that she couldn’t be an effective President even if she were elected. The Left would demonize her from Day One. Think GWB on steroids.
Whoever it is will have to play big mean parent taking all the kiddie goodies away. And the equally childish press will have a field day with demonising it all.
There is definitely something about Christie that seems to disarm liberals though. A wonderful sense of humor probably a lot to do with it. We can hope what he has is contagious.
I would like Chris Christie to stay as Governor for his entire term before he tries to run for President. If he can turn the state around (and it has a long way to go) then he might be an appropriate candidate for President.
If Obama runs again I will vote for ANY Republican against him. In fact, I am so disaffected from the Democrat party (and I’m a registered Dem) that I can’t think of any candidate they would put up that I would vote for.
And I would cheerfully vote for Palin because I don’t believe the negative stories about her, but I would have to cover my ears against the vitriol directed towards her for two l-o-n-g years before the election.
I will just comment on Jindal: He will not run, realizes he’s not yet seasoned (he’s only 39), will be re-elected as Gov.
SteveH raises an excellent point.
Our situation is sufficiently dire that it may be a bold but sound strategy to campaign on a promise that a vote for the candidate is a vote for pain, but pain that needs to be endured to get the country back on track. (The metaphor of setting a broken leg would fit perfectly.)
Would the electorate buy it? Dunno. It would be imperative for the candidate not to be seen as (or smeared as – yes, I’m looking at you, MSM) favoring the wealthy over ordinary Americans.
In fact, teeing off on the ueber-wealthy might not only help to vaccinate the candidate against the charge, but also to attack a major source of Dem campaign contributions.
I agree, Christie would be a viable person to turn into a marketable brand. That is what happened with Obama in 2008 he was a product that was pushed on the public and they bought, hook, line and sinker.
I really like Palin but as you have said before she is tainted, the attacks on her were not right but they were effective and now she is toxic to a lot of Americans. When I ask folks who don’t like here what they have against her they tend to bring out a lot of old stuff that has little basis but they ‘know’ it is true.
This is one of those they know it in their hearts and no matter how much effort is made to re-brand Palin she is still Palin and while the base likes her the big middle that needs to be brought into the fold will still think she smells just a bit tainted.
If we learned one lesson in 2008 it has to be that a candidate has to have broad appeal and very little baggage. I heard a friend tell me this week that she just loved Obama and voted for him and she had no idea about his history. She is one of those every four year voters who show up and make a big difference in the Presidential election.
So there you go, my favorite in a fair world is Palin but we don’t live in that world. We live in the land of sound bites and booby traps and Palin has already fallen into some traps and she is a bit chewed up and that I am sorry to say won’t be polished off.
Perception Trumps Reality.
Even when one has a Reality show.
Going out on a limb here, I am predicting the VP candidate. Since no Republican has ever won without winning Ohio, John Kasich (now Governor of Ohio) will be the obvious choice. His background as a budget-balancing congressman will only make him more attractive nationally.
I second BAP wrt Mitch Daniels.
IMO Palin will be viable, both on the merits and wrt electability, only if conditions in 2012 are significantly worse than they are today.
I like the little I’ve seen of Rubio, but it’s unlikely he’ll be ready in 2012 (or that the country will be ready for him).
I like Christie also. Hope Palin isn’t nominated for reasons stated above (but would vote for her if she IS nominated).
How about John Thune? Too evangelical? He’s sound fiscally. ACU has given him a 100% grade. Beat Daschle in senate race when Daschle was senate majority leader. LOOKS presidential. Has always sounded articulate and solid when I have seen him on TV interviews.
I really like Palin, but I hope and trust she won’t run for President in 2012 or perhaps ever. It would be a waste of her talents.
texec,
No offense, but Texan Presidents haven’t fared well. Notwithstanding that, how ’bout Rick Perry?
Full disclosure: I’m skeptical wrt Perry but would welcome your opinion.
I like Paul Ryan, but I prefer a conservative with administrative experience. (Paradoxically, Obama might have caused even more damage if he were a strong administrator.)
I’d love to hear a debate between Marco Rubio and Obama, but I have the same reservations about his lack of administrative experience.
I like Mitch Daniels and he may be more likely to accept the nomination than Christie. Either would be great as far as I am concerned.
I think Petraeus has great administrative and political credentials but, barring something totally unexpected, would not be available until 2016.
Rob Portman has had a lot of administrative experience and ran very strongly in Ohio in winning the Senate seat. He is personally appealing as a campaigner.
I agree with those who do not want to recycle those from the 2008 campaign.
And so I come down for Daniels, Christie, and Portman–with Portman the most likely to be willing to run.
Best wishes,
Jim
Rick Perry is a Texas Aggie with real good hair and he was re-elected cause’ he wasn’t a Democrat and that is just about that.
I don’t think the US is ready for more Texas exports, 2 Bush’s both of whom I like, LBJ who I was not too fond of and Dwight Eisenhower who was born in Texas. Yep Ike was a real nice president.
We also gave the rest of you the Texas Tower Sniper, Roe v. Wade, JFK’s demise and Ross Perot. I think that is enough Texas for now.
Mr. Frank and Neo
Forget Judd Gregg. While an excellent congressman and a fine governor, who I voted and worked for, once he reached the Senate he lost his way. I’m hard pressed to call him conservative. Flirting with a position in Obama’s administration at a time when the right would have lost another Senate seat and squishy on the DREAM ac, he has lost his conservatism.
The Senate is a strange place, that compromises some of the most conservative among us. Judd has lost it. Consign him to the ranks, who lost their souls in DC.
Sad, very sad, but true
Re Jindal (and I don’t know if he will run)
Jindal’s toughness and decisiveness make up for his nerdiness. Jindal is very tough, very willing to make tough decisions w/o hesitation, very willing to directly speak tough things which need to be said, very in touch with who he is as a human being and as a candidate, very in touch with what his principles are and are not. Jindal’s nerdiness will not hinder him. He just needs some national exposure. Dems will use Jindal’s forthrightness and his religious belief to demonize him as an extremist nut. That’s the only attack which might slow Jindal down. He has little other vulnerability. He is a massive talent. He’s a much better extemporaneous speaker than people realize, b/c he understands issues and says substantive things.
Re Rick Perry
I live in Texas. Perry is one of the most natural politicians I have ever seen. Perry has the natural love of politics that a Bill Clinton has. Perry was born to be amongst the people and on the stump. Perry is a true small government conservative who is not hidebound and doctrinaire in poltical governing. Like Reagan, Perry believes in getting the best deal you can and moving forward to the next thing. Sway the voters and try to get a better deal in future years. Perry is a political star: he has the aura and the naturalness and the love of politics and of people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think there is a lot cynicism amongst conservatives, and including in this blogpost and comment section. Political Jesus is not going to rise up magically amongst us. Reagan actually was political Jesus, and he was defeated by a weak Ford in 1976, and never led Jimmy Carter until after the debate which happened a few days before Election Day. As all Repubs are, Reagan was derided as a simpleton, a fool, an extremist idealogue, a warmonger who would get us all killed. If Reagan were running today, and receiving the exact criticism he received in 1980, the commenters on this board would sadly shake their heads and declare that Reagan had no chance. A shame, the commenters would say, but he just is not viable and cannot win. Buck UP, people! Grow some of what Barack and David Brooks and David Frum have not. Even political Jesus will be scourged by his opponents. He cannot avoid it – only a Dem Barack can avoid it. But, political Jesus will come through the scourging and go on to victory, b/c he is political Jesus.
“”Our situation is sufficiently dire that it may be a bold but sound strategy to campaign on a promise that a vote for the candidate is a vote for pain””
OB
I like it. The beauty lies in how it is exactly the truth. But it is a pain that actually leads to something besides more pain and malaise. Plus it’s what Chris Christie would do!
I actually would not like to see Palin run in 2012 either, for much the same reason others have said. If it were a choice between her and Obama, I would vote for her no question, but I agree that even if she did manage to win the presidency, the hatred against her would be like GWB on steroids.
@Old Texan
You are wrong about Perry. Way wrong.
You are wrong about “enough Texas”. Whether the nation likes it or not, and in big part b/c of the economic leadership genius of Rick Perry: Texas is ascendant, and the nation will hear more and more about Texas as time goes on. In the last two years, half of all new job creation in America has occurred in Texas alone. That trend will continue, though who knows if it will continue quite so strongly and dramatically. Texas represents government the way Tea Partiers want government to be.
One more thing re Repub candidates: we, i.e. conservatives, are picking them apart w/o any sense of perspective. Think of the top 10 Repub candidates: every one of them is a very attractive candidate when compared against Hillary or Barack. Mitch Daniels? Heck ya he is a massively attractive candidate when compared to Hillary and Barack. Would LOVE to see Daniels debate either. Ryan? Heck yeah! Rubio!!!! John Kasich? Heck ya! Massively attractive candidate when compared to Hillary and Barack. The list of attractive Repubs can go on for awhile. Repubs have a rich trove of candidates, and we act as if we got nuthin.
Actually, it is a dubious saying that “perception trumps reality.”
Reality always bats last. And we’ve got plenty of reality coming towards us at high speed from Washington and the rest of the world.
This continuing doubt of Palin’s power always stems from the illusion that the election is tomorrow.
It won’t be until November 2012. There’s a lot of reality between now and then.
I would like to see improvements in the way the primaries are set up – they should all be elections, not a caucus. All primaries should be closed primaries – you need to be a registered member of the party at least thirty days before the election.
I think there were enough cross-overs from the Dems and Independents to impact who was nominated last time.
Greg, but they can’t make Hillary a candidate, they have to follow with sitting President, right?
Aside: as much as I’d love your call of Buck Up And Grow An Article That Barack lacks, my anatomy would not let me…can I go and cook in my kitchen instead?[Barefoot, of course]
@vanderleun I agree
@liz I agree. McCain seized control of the nomination process, and control of big money donors, way too early. There’s no way New Hampshire and S. Carolina ought have that kind of sway over the eventual Repub nominee. McCain was boosted by primary voters who then voted for Barack when November came. It was a terrible process – a process which skipped around and past the will of Repub voters. Changes need to be made.
Tatyana,
I think Hillary will be the Dem nominee in 2012. I think it will be Hillary vs. Palin for the Presidency. Both candidates can then cook barefoot in the kitchen, and only wish they could do it as appealingly as you.
1. Interesting to see the fervor for Perry from his own state.
Not to divert the thread, but:
2. I associate Eisenhower with Kansas and hadn’t realized that his family moved there when he was two. Thanks for the info, OldTexan.
3. Ike is a very underrated President, not far from greatness IMHO. He inherited a nation in turmoil, and the country he turned over to his successors was in great shape: a good thing, given how they mishandled it.
I’ve actually met Gov. Perry, briefly (behind the scenes at a big Texas Tea Party event) – and ditto the testimony about the man’s charm. He’s an old-fashioned politician, but not an oily glad-hander sense, but someone who is genuinely happy to be out among people of all sorts. Whether the rest of the US can handle another Texas president is up for grabs, though.
Greg,
For some reason I thought a party whose President decides to run for the 2nd term is obligated to have no other candidates…sorry, I have probably the oddest ideas about the legal side of politics; never took US Government in school or college.
I don’t think Hillary can cook. A friend sent me a gift of German chocolate by Goldhelm; one of the ingredients listed on the wrapper is Liebe. Hillary does not have it in her nature.
On the other hand, I think Sarah enjoys cooking. Not a gourmet kind, but with all her family in a big kitchen helping the process: noisy, running, dropping things, talking, laughing.
Gingrich’s personal history is a swamp and would be used against him. Thune has never had a real job or run anything.
1. Neo, your analogy of an Obama-Palin race with Reid-Angle is worthwhile.
2. Palin is overexposed. I’ve committed to writing a detailed comment about her mayoralty, but frankly I’m sick of her.
3. Let’s ask President Giuliani what can happen to the GOP frontrunner.
I think that is enough Texas for now.
Texas is our last, best hope, the most American part of America.
*gs:
exactly, re: Giuliani.
And Thompson, too.
I still feel the pain.
Although I’ve said many times that Palin is far and away my favorite potential candidate, lately I’ve been becoming increasingly concerned that she will lose if she runs.
I’ve linked this before, but the blogger Whiskey says that conservative women can’t win a national election, because the majority of women won’t vote for them. And this phenomenon is also related to the demonization of Palin.
He says that there is an 11 point difference in her approval ratings between Republican men and Republican women. How to explain that?
I also agree with the rest of Neo’s post about the different candidates. No way do I want to see anyone who ran in 2008 try again.
Oops, forgot to include the link:
The Election Results: Go Hunk, Avoid Women
It’s pretty relevant to this discussion.
Thompson was my guy, Tatyana. Once in the presidency, I think he would have done a creditable job. I gave him a little money even though something seemed deficient about his electability.
Republican men/women difference.
The men are stupified by her looks.
The women are pissed at her looks.
Maybe both.
The Lamestream Media has had a long time to get going on Palin. However, whoever gets the nod will be subject to the same stuff. You’ll recall the NYT faked up a story about McCain and an affair with a lobbyist. And the boys of the media have had plenty of time to craft files on all the possible repubs. Whoever it is will find the journos will be caught up to Palin-style BS pretty quick.
However, the MSM is less effective than it used to be. So, no matter how they try, it might not actually work.
There is no legal reason why a Dem can’t run against Obama, just political reasons. Remember that Reagan ran against Ford in 76. I have heard of at least one poll that claims 50% of Dems want a primary. As for Republicans, there are several viable candidates as this blog and comments have shown. The problem I see is name recognition for many beyond their current political base which is why past presidential candidates are mentioned so much (and perhaps preferred by the RNC. Much cheaper to run someone whose name is known in more than one state.) However, with facebook, youtube, and blogs such as this one, I think that deficit can be overcome. I think such avenues can also be used to undermine the slanted primary system that makes certain states have an outsized influence on the political process. I’m planning to find out as much about the potential candidates as I can and start talking about them on my facebook and hopefully make a difference that way. I also plan to remind people that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
This is my 11th year as a high school government teacher, and while I can’t be partisan, I do teach the founding principles of limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility to around 300 students every year, so hopefully that makes a small difference. Thinking so keeps me going to work every day.
uh….Texas sucks.
I lived there 14 years, go figure…..
Daniels, Ryan, Palin, Christie, Romney, Huckabee, Rubio, Pawlenty, Perry, Gingrich, Kasich, Thune, and??
In no particular order except as they came to mind.
The only ones that excite me are Christie, Perry, Daniels, Rubio, and Palin, This time in the order of potential electability as I see it. It may be that none of the above except Palin can raise the money to run.
Romney already has the money and is going to run. Not my favorite candidate, but if he wins the nomination I will support and vote for him. Huckabee will almost certainly run and will be an unwanted diversion from other candidates who are better.
I hope Perry throws his hat in the ring. I don’t know him well, but am impressed with what little I have seen of him. Being from Texas I think he can raise enough money to explore the waters.
Anyway, it should be an interesting primary. At this time you have to believe Romney has the upper hand. (Money, organization, name recognition, and desire.) He must overcome his big negatives – the Massachusetts Healthcare Plan and project a more conservative profile to get the base on board.
Let the games begin!
I watched Charlie Rose interview the two co-chairs of the deficit commission, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowels, this week. Erskine Bowels went out of his way to praise Paul Ryan. And there was nothing insincere or phony about it. It was pretty awesome to hear a Clinton Democrat lavish accolades on a true conservative with a lifetime ACU score of 92.
But, sadly, he has said repeatedly he won’t run in 2012. So has Christie. I believe them both.
I really like Mike Pence, but I think he wants to be governor of Indiana rather than president.
If Ryan, Christie and Pence don’t run, then my next choice would be Mitch Daniels. He’s probably the best governor in the country. He’s got a great story to tell and a strong record of accomplishments as governor. And he has the added bonus of being low key, which after Mr. Cult of Personality and Narcisist in Chief, will be a big advantage.
I love Palin’s ideology. But the press hates her. She did herself a huge disservice by repeatedly referring to the media as “the lamestream media” (considering how they treated her, she deserved to call them that, but it doesn’t make her look presidential and I’m sure many of them hold a grudge). Not only will the press do her no favors, I think they would try to rip her apart during a campaign to attempt to prevent her from winning.
I like Palin. I often defend her, if reflexively. But she is the equivalent to Obama, just ideologically on “our” side. She would be as divisive, she has accomplished as little, she is often as petulant, and she is a “star.” She is more self-made vs. Obama’s “self-created”; she did not have the same influential benefactors. No more stars. As somewhat wrote above, we need someone who will bring us the “pain.” She would make for a fine RNC chair or just her own fundraising entity. But she cannot be President.
We don’t want anybody that will give dems and independants someone to get fired up enough to vote against. Because they almost assuredly aren’t going to have another messiah frenzy to get them to the polls in numbers similar to 08.
I’m so not looking forward to another two-year Presidential campaign…
I don’t remember campaigns lasting that long when I was younger. Maybe I just wasn’t paying close attention, but I think a better explanation is the outsized impact the federal government has on our lives today. Time to dial it back.
I thought Romney was weak in the debates. Like he was begging for help if he was challenged. I couldn’t figure out what he expected. Daniels is too short. Christie might be too tough, but I just see videos where that’s what’s needed. I’m curious about Perry, so thanks for the Texas feedback. A lot of people are watching Haley Barbour. Does that make any sense?
Palin would make the people that support her fight hard, and maybe that’s good. Let’s take the fight to the left.
lmao, holmes stays, the rest of us goes homes…
Cathy,
Haley Barbour would be an excellent president, but his accent, home state, and weight make it unlikely he could get elected. In Mississippi he did an outstanding job after Katrina and he runs a very tight fiscal ship. He is very sharp and capable, but the voters want cool and charismatic.
Who has more power and political markers in the Republican party than Palin?
Nobody.
Who among the governors and senators and congressmen is the single candidate who is not currently in office and hence outside government with a high profile and the money to travel the world in the next few years to gain the much touted “experience?”
Mr Frank–“his accent, home state, and weight make it unlikely he could get elected.”
Can Americans really be that shallow? Oh, wait, IMHO BHO proves they can be.
Cathy,
I’m betting this is one time in American history where “cool” is not necessary in a presidential candidate–it may even count against. Even charisma seems negotiable to me–maybe, just maybe, we had enough people get burned by it last time.
Just for a moment though, savor the idea of having a president who is an adult–who isn’t afraid to tell it like it is, who acts like an adult him/herself and talks to other Americans like the adults we are. Someone who understands what makes this country great and knows how to express that in inspiring terms. Someone who actually knows what it means to be a leader.
I’d be ecstatic to vote for Christie–I think he’s got enough style and sass to make people laugh when they’d rather not. I’d love to vote for Ryan, Rubio or Daniels–or maybe Allen West someday. Happy America warriors all! GCotharn has it right–an embarrassment of riches.
Palin drives the right people crazy, understands and loves her country and has the moxie, but she’ll never get past her deer-in-the-headlights moment with Couric. Too many people saw that as panic–definitely not permissible in a leader. I too will vote for her if she’s the candidate, but I would really rather not–GWB on steroids is my feeling too.
@ Mr/s Youngblood: Thank you and God bless you in your teaching efforts!
johnnyquark Says:
“Sometimes it seems the bar gets raised when it comes to Palin.”
Does it? She doesn’t actually have much experience and because we like her personally, people don’t dig too deep into her views… i.e., conservatives assume she is a good conservative but we have not checked. After Bush you’d think we’d be more careful… another hyphenated conservative and we will be demographically done (too many more young voters will go left, which for most means for life, and we won’t be able to win anymore)… So, IMO, she tends to get the bar lowered.
One last thing, for gawds sake we need to find some good candidates NOW. We didn’t win any ground in California in the midterms and it was because, in part, we didn’t have strong candidates. I’d hate to have BO round two just because the republicans can not find a good candidate….
Oops, my last post should have been addressed to Mr. Frank.
At the risk of sounding like a groupie (my 17yo tells me I’m way past that stage already) go read the _Weekly Standard_ article about Daniels–then you can savor another possibility: a president with real-world experience who understands the free markets and basic economics.
Johnnyquark,
Sometimes it seems the bar gets raised when it comes to Palin. An unconscious process among those who say they would not vote for her…
I agree.
How many books, speeches, interviews, direct confrontations of Obama?pelosi.Reid, and States have the other ‘favorites’ written, done, run?
Romney has no chance.
Huckaby less than no chance.
Christie won’t run and would probably lose.
Ryan ditto.
Pawl-who-ty? Pawl-why-ty?
Jindal could win; maybe.
Giuliani I would love.
Palin not only can win, but if she runs she will win. To comp7are her to Sharon Angle is ludicrous and another of those subconscious insults.
Sharon Angle would not even talk to the Press for goodness sakes; whereas Palin either owns them or runs circles around them.
P.S.
I also find it amusing the commenter who said they hope someone takes Palin aside and tells her not to run because she is so valuable elsewhere, etc.
Like they were talking to a child.
I have news for you:
1. That commenter is pretty much a child in respect of a lack of understanding of people.
2. There is no ‘friend’ or pol who could take Palin aside and do that. She is the one who takes people aside if there is taking aside to be done.
Our commenter there has a really overblown sense of his/her own political eye. You’ve got cataracts dude!
I know he won’t run in 2012, but in my dreams I try to imagine how Gov. Christie would verbally manhandle the 0 in one on one debates. If only. Sigh.
BTW..I’d like to see if 0 would have the nerve to give Christie one of his trademark middle finger nose scratches.
Neo,
you comparison of Palin to Angle is way off. Why? because Palin has charisma and spunk, Angle was deficient in both.
As obvious from 2008 but also every 4 years before that, the person with the best CV don’t always win the primaries or the election.
Christie has ability and charisma, at least to us addicted to politics. But most people do not spend as much time following the news cycle. Besides, I rather see him spend time and effort to reform New Jersey as the conservative alternative to liberal New York.
Ryan is a policy wonk without substantial executive experience. He would make a great cabinet member though.
Plenty of good conservative governors among Pawlenty, Jindal, Perry. I hope they all participate in the primaries.
Romney won me in 08 but lost me with RomneyCare/ObamaCare.
That leads me back to Palin. My money remains with her. There really isn’t much negativities the Lame Stream Medias can throw against her. She would just laugh it off any way. She has been able to go around the same LMS so many of us are still reacting to and bound by like a bad ex. Her appeal among independents has risen.
but i, and i know all of us, will do what we can to support the anti-Obama nominee, whoever that may be.
I couldn’t agree more with your analysis, Neo.
gs:
I like Perry especially his thoughts about states rights, but I agree that the country isn’t ready for another Texan.
Just like they aren’t ready for another Bush. I think JEB Bush would make a good president, but he couldn’t win.
BTW, anyone who thinks Texas sucks hasn’t lived in the Texas Hill Country.
Huan, etc: What makes you think I’m comparing Palin herself to Angle? I am comparing the result of a matchup between Palin and Obama with the result of the matchup between Angle and Reid.
Nor am I comparing Obama and Reid—very different people, strengths, weaknesses, etc. Again, I am comparing the result, which would be an Obama victory, IMHO.
For one reason: whoever would win in 2012 must appeal to Independents. Obama appealed to them in 2008, and then he lost them. But Palin lost them as well. I believe if the Republicans nominate her they are handing the election to Obama. It has nothing whatsoever to do with her qualifications, personality, policy, or how I see them. It has to do with how the American public sees them. Palin is no longer an unknown quantity. Whether or not most Americans really do know her, they think they already know her, and have formed their opinions. And her negatives are very high.
BAP, I believe, was hitting on what I see too, that being that our political world has changed since 2008. The ruling class, obviously dems, but even ruling class republicans, have spent the last 2 years giving us, We the People, the finger. They refused to listen to us, and they have paid the price. Actually, it has only been a down payment, though few of them recognize that fact yet.
The biggest change in the world has been millions of We The People coming to the realization of just how badly we have been screwed by the ruling class, media, et al. Truth and sunlight is truly an incredible disinfectant.
Yes, Palin has negatives, but she has huge positives too. Would the MSM continue treat her like GWB on steriods, yes, of course, just as they will whomever becomes the candidate.
What I personally am looking for, demanding, is a non-ruling class/wannabe candidate. I don’t care who, if they are ruling class (Romney, Gingrich, for 2 examples) they will not get my vote. Period.
I believe this coming election will be very different. We the People are awakening at an astounding rate, and, as demonstrated 11/2, we have found our voices. We have just begun teaching those running for office that we are the boss, they are the employee.
A common theme seems to be Palin has the right medicine for what ails the country. But because of her reputation thanks to MSM, however unfounded, the fear is too many people wont vote to accept her medicine. With the bigger fear being a democrat inflicting disease for 4 more years as a highly likely result.
For the sake of the Right I truly hope Palin doesn’t run. I know *far* too many libs — reasonable folks, not the blood-in-the-eyes types — who simply shut down when her name is mentioned. I like her, personally, but as others have mentioned she’s Bush Jr. times 10: she’s everything the left hates and — given their proclivities — they don’t even like contemplating her *existence*, much less voting for her. It would be a very steep uphill climb.
And don’t get me wrong: it’s not like we should be kow-towing to this crowd. It’s that the hatred is *very, very deep*, like a disease or something. Almost any other Repub would be better.
I think there are a plethora of viable GOP candidates. It will be a fight in the primaries and that is healthy–so long as they fight on the issues, and don’t try to rip each other apart.
I like Barbour a lot. I agree that when those in many parts of the country hear his accent, and note Mississippi by his name, it will cause a reaction. We would call that narrow minded prejudice if it involved a candidate from any other region.
I don’t understand the too much Texas mantra. That seems particularly shallow. Perry seems like a damn good choice if he makes the effort.
I like Thune. But I really do not believe that the Senate is a good background for a Chief Executive. Not unless there is a solid executive background in addition.
I like Pawlenty ok. I think Romney would be an excellent to outstanding President. I simply don’t understand almost visceral dislike of him.
I really don’t think Palin will run. It seems that a good many Republicans, especially the inside elites cannot stand the thought of her. (including mostly recently Barbara Bush, who did not even get a degree from Idaho, but can still look down her patrician nose (Larry King Alive tomorrow night)) They seemingly would join forces with the Dimocrats–just as many did against O’Donnell, Angle and Fiorina–to deny her. I note approvingly the poster who acknowledged that for the past year or so, Palin has been out front of EVERYONE, including Noonan, Rove, K. Parker–and most of the acknowledged front runners–in attacking Obama on the issues. It gains her nothing in the eyes of the intelligentsia. Fie on them. I mentioned on another site, that SP and Todd do not make many miscalculations. Oh, they did, in a sense, by joining McCain. On the other hand it did get her on the national scene and now they have had a good look at it. I will be surprised if they subject the family to another round just yet. Told my wife I would like to see her as Interior Secretary, or Energy Secretary in a GOP administration. (I mentioned EPA also, just because that would get so many knickers in a wad.) Then see what opens up down the road when she is 55 or 60, well seasoned in DC, and with most of the family grown.
I’ll support ABO – Anybody but Obama
Palin can beat Obama if the economy remains in the tank. If there is a recovery (which I don’t believe, if the Dems continue their insane, job-killing, over-regulatory, union-friendly and anti-capitalist/business ways, can happen), it would be extremely difficult for Palin to win anything. Neo and others are right about the negatives…I happen to like Palin, and I think she would make a fine President, and I think she’s using the time to learn and to get more seasoned. But, it’s true, even friends I consider somewhat conservative or certainly, avidly anti-Obama, still just shake their hands and bring up every lie from the past about Palin.
I love what Palin sends out via her Facebook page. Maybe it’s a speechwriter who is giving her great material, but I really enjoy and tend to agree with most things she writes there. I love the unabashed enthusiasm she has for the good things in her life, and for this country and its blessings.
She does have what Christie seems to have… a real sense of humor and joie de vie, and after the sour Obama…well, I think people would gravitate to that, but yes, that will not be enough unless she solidifies her ability to articulate policy on the fly, in interviews or debates, and not just on the Facebook page.
Oldflyer:
I’ve also thought she would be a good fit at Interior or Energy, although the Department of Energy is one department I would like to see abolished.
I hadn’t considered EPA before. Good idea! Now there’s a rat’s nest in need of a good fumigation; probably second only to the State Department.
Regarding Palin and Angle, I wasn’t comparing them either because Palin is much more gifted politically, but I was comparing how people react to them. I share an office with three Obama voters. Two call themselves independents, but one of those has conservative instincts, and the other one is more left-leaning. The two independents chose “none of these candidates” because they disliked both Reid and Angle. The third is a registered Republican. In 2008, the Republican voted for Obama partly because she hated Palin. This year she reluctantly voted for Angle because she knew that it was the only way to get rid of Reid.
The left-leaning independent and the Republican still hate Palin. While this is completely anecdotal, when a registered Republican who voted for Sharron Angle still isn’t willing to consider Palin or to take her seriously, one of the things that tells me is that she has a long way to go to win over the kind of coalition that would help her win in 2012. I think Oldflyer’s suggestion that Palin would make an excellent cabinet secretary is a great one, as it would give her meaningful leadership experience on the national stage without her having to run for office, and that might begin to help change more people’s attitudes about her.
“Jindal could win; maybe.
Giuliani I would love.”
I love Palin, but unfortunately it’s probably true; on the other hand Jindal and Giuliani together, if it could somehow be engineered, would be a uniquely appropriate team for these times, and they’re both well qualified to be president.
Neo is correct on all counts except one. I think Christie will in fact throw in… and he’ll be running against Hillary.
Perfected Democrat: Giuliani was my preferred candidate in 2008. But he didn’t have the fire in his belly, and that’s why he lost the nomination. I doubt he feels much differently now that he’s even older.
Rudy was my guy, too. Speaking of Sarah, did you see the clips of Rudy’s appearance a week or so ago on the gaggle-fest at The View?? He knew exactly how to torture the crew(minus, of course, Elizabeth)when he said that, “Palin is more experienced than Obama was..” Behar, Whoopie & Bah-Bah went into I’M MELTING! mode instantly.
__________________________________________
David H. Petraeus is my Fantasy Pick. With Dick Cheney’s younger double-clone as VP to guide him through the political swamp…Hey, I can dream…
_________________________________________
Mike Mc…Like your stuff, Kid.
Palin has also been Alinskied on the foreign stage. Foreign leaders would be walking on eggshells to cooperate with her on any issue. It was the same with Bush. I remember the reaction of a friend when the 2000 election results came in. It was apocalypse time. And Bush didn’t have the Tina Fey soundbites to contend with–mostly he had the Texas death penalty thing. (Every execution in America makes the news in Germany.) Almost all foreign cooperation with Bush on security and intelligence took place under the radar. Schroeder used anti-Bush as an election gambit; why else would he announce his no to Iraq at a campaign rally. A less known figure would have an easier time abroad.
As to Paul Ryan, let him stay where he is for now. Remember that congress controls the purse. Let’s not give up a strong congress.
Christie has only started to make inroads into the NJ swamp. Let him continue there for a while to give us an example of fiscal conservatism working.
I will be looking for a person who can put together a strong team and let the individual members shine in their areas of expertise. We tend to rule out people for their failure to adhere to our abstract principles rather than applauding them for abilities and actions that move us in the direction we need to go. I want someone who can apply principles to reality, prioritize issues, and present a coherent plan to the public. I want someone who has a broad background to inform his instinctual responses when s**t happens.
I want the single-issue backbiters to gain some perspective. Even if we hate Romneycare, we shouldn’t deny ourselves Romney’s insights into the details of finance regulation. Let the man speak before we judge what he has to say. Does anyone really think O’Donnell would be able to spot a fatal flaw in a piece of finance legislation?
Any conservative that wins the Republican nomination in 2012 will be Palinized. An entire army of the media will descend to dig through their trash and interview middle school sweethearts looking for something negative to report. And what can’t be discovered will be invented. (Right Andrew Sullivan?)
I happen to love Christie’s approach but think the man probably means it when he says that he isn’t interested.
@Neo
You of course may be right that Palin will not win against Obama. For me the inflection point will be choosing between the person i believe will best represent me or the person that will be best able to win.
Thus far i am sticking with the best candidate representing me and what i would like to see happen once in office.
Those who minimize Palin’s experience seem not to have leaned much about her. Those who denigrate her intelligence seen not to have read much of what she has written. 18 months ago, she was a “quitter”, a failed governor with no political future, and unpaid legal bills of $500K
Nate Silver just wrote “The 800-Pound Mama Grizzly Problem”. Key point:
“Ms. Palin’s search traffic, since the start of 2010, is roughly 16 times that of Mitt Romney, 14 times that of Newt Gingrich, 38 times that of Mike Huckabee, and 87 times that of Mr. Pawlenty. (It is about six times greater than these other four candidates combined.)
“Ms. Palin, in fact, draws almost as much search traffic worldwide as the man she would face if she wins the Republican nomination: Barack Obama. And her name is searched for about 30 percent more often than the President’s among Google users in the United States.”
In the 2010 election campaign she endorsed early and often. She supported Nikki Haley when she was down in the polls and hit with a foul campaign by her GOP opponents. Her endorsements won in over 60 of the 90 races where she endorsed a candidate.
As the remarkably fair NYT Magazine piece notes, she has accomplished her dominance with a skeleton staff. She didn’t do it by spending her own money since she started off in debt; instead she leveraged her celebrity status to earn millions and raise millions more through SarahPAC.
Every week she zings the Obama administration with a well researched and written op-ed or FB post.
See this site.
We know she has courage under fire since the left has been in full Alinsky attack mode since McCain picked her. They have trashed her and her family in the vilest possible ways, yet she’s standing taller than ever. Her polls will rise as Obama’s sink over the next year. Count on it; she has him in her sights.
@neo
Angle lost to Reid only in part because of her negatives. She wasn’t as good of a politician or a campaigner as Reid.
But if your comparison wasn’t about either the qualification of the candidate or their campaign, only the result, then the comparison is hardly predictive at all.
Palin has alot of work to do still but she has started already. None other than Romney has done any.
She is winning the republican base as well as indies. I don’t see her winning over dems or those leaning dems.
2012 will be her best chance because of the big O. She knows this.
It does fascinate me that we are tempted to let the LMS decides who we should nominate (McCain) or not(palin?)
I would suggest one consider who is electable in places like Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Michigan, Texas, and the rest of fly over country. There are a lot of citizens out here who are pretty fed up with either coast and it should not surprise anyone why leaders such as Daniels, Palin and Pense resonate.
As of today I’d vote for Christie, Rubio, Ryan, DeMint, or Palin.
Christie’s approach and style are sorely needed in Washington, but he does not want to put on hip boots and wade into the corrupt mess in Washington, and I don’t blame him. It may be, though, that his sense of duty will ultimately force him to get into the race. It is much better to have a candidate who is not avidly grasping for power for its own sake, but is reluctantly doing his duty. I do not get the sense that Christie is lusting after power.
Ryan has some great ideas but needs more experience, same thing with Rubio.
I like DeMint, but want to see how much progress he makes in Congress.
I really like Sarah Palin and think that she has gotten a very, very raw deal from the MSM. Obviously the Left and Democrats see her as the greatest threat to their continued power and have tremendous fear of her, thus the nonstop slimeing, slandering, and mockery of her and her family. It seems to me she has experience far in excess of Obama, and she is tough, and has the right approach.
Somehow we have to find a way to bypass the efforts of the MSM or this “Ministry of Truth” will continue to dictate who can and cannot be a candidate or be elected, regardless of their actual qualifications or the lack thereof. It is essential that we somehow become an electorate that takes the time to investigate deeper than the sound bites and headlines, and the pronouncements of anchormen and reporters.
Fred Thompson looked good at one time, but he lost all credibility with me, and I crossed him off the list when he started to do those commercials for “reverse mortgages”; I don’t get the impression that Thompson is broke, so they must have offered him a hellava deal.
Newt is brilliant, but too much an insider, and as with Thompson, I think his time has passed.
That’s how it looks to me today, but a lot can happen in two years.
This is form”Professor Jacobson” via “Instapundit”:
Remember, when you hear about how important it is that the next Republican nominee for President have “gravitas,” the following have been designed by people with gravitas:
* The TSA’s scanning and groping system.
* Obamacare.
* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the mortgage bubble.
* Our tax code.
* Our federal and state budget deficits.
* Our immigration system.
* (feel free to add more in the comments)
We need gravitas, because gravitas has worked so well so far.
Palin’s single greatest asset is that she is “normal”. She is a real person. She has common sense and does not think she can do things she can’t; but knows the general right thing to do.
All the stuff on that list was crafted by stupid non-common sense people who think they are smart and hard working concerned and important types. In other words, decidedly non-normal people. Rather freaks and emotionally twisted types if you met such a person in ordinary life.
Palin would be a fantastic President because she has real smarts and ability and not the appearance of them. I could care less, less than less, what some msm type media wonk anywhere thinks of her. She would not do the things on that list. Right now we need someone wo knows what not to to as much as someone who knows what to do,
Remember the GOP had good candidates in many places and they lost. Here in CT we had very good candidates in all five congressional districts (even in the true blue first district) and all lost. Even Linda McMahon got closer to Blumenthal than anyone could have done (she took a lot of his sheen off that had been carefully cultivated for 20 years). The governors race was lost to voter fraud pure and simple. Bottom line is the dems will fight tooth and nail to preserve their power.
Candidates win when the ground is prepared and carefully tended. People will vote for a candidate they trust to do the things they have already decided they want done.
Mike Mc:
I take a back seat to no one in my support for Sarah Palin, but have you read the post I linked last night at 5:50 pm?
I find it very worrisome, because I think he’s on to something.
@Mike Mc
These female Palin endorsees won, sometimes in tough races
NM – Susanna Martinez
OK – Mary Fallin
SC – Nikki Haley
NH – Kelly Ayotte
AL-02 – Martha Roby
FL-24 – Sandy Adams
MN-06 – Michelle Bachmann
MO-04 – Vicky Hartzler
NC-02 – Renee Ellmers
NY-25 – Anna Marie Buerkle
TN-06 – Diane Black
WA-05 – Cathy McMorris Rogers
The races that women lost were in deep blue territory, sometimes against other women (Boxer vs Fiorina). Angle lost to Reid because 10% of white voters split the ticket – GOP Gov vs Dem Senator & porkmeister.
The Tea Party movement is dominated by women; an army of Marys, not Davids.
I’m not worried because I think he only looked at one side of the ledger.
rickl,
I read that link and agree that there is something to what he says for some women. For example, I was thinking of some I know who are lower-level white collar workers married to blue collar husbands. Not particularly informed themselves, they often take on the opinions of their betters (Behar?) to show they are not blue collar. It really is a status thing for them. Not that this is the only group seeking status through PC.
@rickl,
Well there are some interesting points there. And I think the guy actually touched on a much broader issue than elections – the denigration of men for the past 40 years.
That’s a real thing in elections.
But Palin may be just the person to combat the the forces of Beharism that have been running America’s subconscious emotional meter for years and years now.
If she gets in, it is guaranteed she will go after them. The lesson of Katie Couric I think was not lost on her. She was fed to the lions by her own running-mate who then stood by and watched her get eaten and would not defend her.
Her husband, however, is a real man. Her father was a real man. She knows what one is. She will appeal to real men and real women. And the tide of fashion and fad, which is the real force of Beharism, may be turned.
We’ll see.
But note: According to the author ZERO Republican Men can actually win.
If that true (it can’t be, but to the extent it is a factor) then we know what needs to be done. We have to change that ridiculous bit of social bigotry.
It does help explain, however, why Palin is more of a man than the Republican men. The solution is probably simple: For them to start speaking up and fighting like men. When the girl is the only one who fights like a man, what we have is a Joan of Arc situation. The conclusion of that was victory, and also that men started being men again.
Ricki, are you certain that “Whiskey” is not Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker or Karl Rove in disguise?
As noted by others. plenty of women, some quite good looking, won in this cycle. Those who lost were most frequently in heavily Dimocratic territory. Some who lost were undermined by self-proclaimed establishment Republicans, such as those I named above. Hard to beat the Dims and the GOP insiders at the same time; especially in a heavily Dim constituency.
I find it hard to believe that women who take their political cues from Behar actually make the effort to vote. Maybe watching her and her like fulfills some vicarious attraction to nastiness; those women may even answer polls in a certain way as a means to express that tendency without much thought or effort. But, actually make the effort to vote–nah.
I know one woman who is vehemently anti-Palin. She is my daughter. She does not watch Behar, or anyone else on TV; no time. I assume that she detests Palin, just as she detested G. W. Bush, because she is a flaming Liberal. I love her anyway. I know many of the GOP insiders detest Palin, Bachmann, and others because they are a threat to the established political order. You may notice that those same folks detest Ron Paul. On the other hand this is a large part of the reason that millions love those true Mavericks. They will no longer be satisfied with a choice of Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee.
Pat Dooley Says:
November 21st, 2010 at 10:42 am
I made that point in Whiskey’s comment section, and also pointed out the large number of conservative female candidates. I didn’t get a response.
Mike Mc. Says:
November 21st, 2010 at 11:02 am
No, he’s not saying that. He says that a Republican candidate has to be a young, hunky, swarthy man in order to capture the female vote. To me that says Rubio–and no one else. Jindal looks more nerdy than hunky. And the other potential Republican candidates, like Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich, etc. don’t stand a chance.
Oldflyer Says:
November 21st, 2010 at 11:33 am
Positive! 🙂
As I understand it, he is mainly talking about women in blue cities. He is saying that a conservative woman can win in a primarily rural state or Congressional district, but not in any statewide or national race where the blue areas are a major factor.
Consider that in Delaware, where the urban areas of Wilmington and Newark are important, Christine O’Donnell lost by about 18 points total but by 25 points among women voters.
The majority of women aren’t conservative in general, but they really don’t like attractive conservative women candidates. I don’t know, maybe they instinctively regard them as rivals for male attention.
I’ve noticed that the vast majority of successful women in politics are plain-looking at best, and downright ugly at worst.
There’s a immediate book to be written by a woman psychologist who will interview a bunch of women about their impressions of Hillary, of Sarah, and of the women voters who support or oppose Hillary and Sarah.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of the Repub women victors whom Pat Dooley listed, here’s a name to file away for future reference: Susana Martinez, Repub Governor-Elect of New Mexico, the first Hispanic woman to ever be elected a Governor in the U.S. She is 51 years old, i.e. young enough to grow in office and to develop political momentum.
I meant, above, there’s an immediate opportunity for a woman psychologist/social commentator to write such a book. No such book is planned, to my knowledge. It should be. I would read it.
I meant, above, there’s an immediate opportunity for a woman psychologist/social commentator to write such a book. No such book is planned, to my knowledge. It should be. I would read it.
Some observations about the observations made here; Many are assuming Palin’s poor chances at electability are a result of MSM bashing. This seems to be overlooking two very outstanding facts, she has minimal experience which even her strongest supporters have to concede and that the MSM has roughly the same creditably as Pravda, so their animosity would be plus. BTW if she did get in it would be with a Republican majority in the House and Senate so governance would be a matter of polite suggestion.
As for the other names mentioned most seem to lack experience, name-recognition or reputation. Gingrich
as everyone seems to have forgotten was once the most unpopular politician in the US, in part because of some statements that were unacceptable in any company, right or left. He spurred more revolts among Republicans than Pelosi among Democrats.
Guiliani is proven and known. I am assuming the independents who think have learned to be wary of young inexperienced saviors promising hope and change. I suspect he would be ideal, the eastern right would vote for one of their own while the fly over country conservatives would have no where else to go.
Of course if electability in the US is still a function of appearance as in 2008 then he hasn’t a chance. Hopefully 10% unemployment has matured the electorate a tad.
Did it occur to anyone that in two years Obama could lose to a dead cat?
The advantages of running and electing a dead cat would be:
Instant name recognition and connection to the voters,
Minimal worry that it would screw up,
Costs for maintenance and travel, White House staff and Air force One, would be marginal,
Infinitely wiser than Barak Obama,
Would be better able to handle critics,
Expectations would be less forcing people, states, etc. to solve their own problems instead of whining to the government and thereby running up the deficient.
I think a distinction needs to be made on the topic of gravitas. I very much would like to vote for a candidate who has gravitas (preferably combined with immense humor and a fair amount of courage)–but gravitas has little to do with a college degree for me and is less than worthless if the candidate assumes his degree (or anything else) entitles him to control my life, American principles bedamned.
Book-learning is only a part of gravitas. IMO, it comes more from experience in the real world, respect for our fellow man, a deep understanding of human nature, and a respectably lengthy productive life (with the regular failures that accompany such efforts and the humility engendered thereby).
Whatever the voters wanted in 2008 — cool? charismatic? — they will heartily want the exact opposite in 2012.
I think they’ll want a straight-shooting down-to-earth plain-talking work horse who can make the tough decisions (pretty much, I think, the polar opposite of Obama).
Sounds a lot like Chris Christie to me.
@Bob from Virginia – I don’t concede your minimal experience. Palin has been in public service for nearly two decades. She was mayor of a growing Alaskan city for two terms and did a good conservative job there. That’s grass roots governance where the Mayor hears about it directly if things go wrong. That experience sure beats community organizing which is a polite term for race-based rabble rousing. After failing in a run for Lt. Governor, she was appointed Chair of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; an important regulatory role in an energy producing state. After uncovering wide-spread GOP corruption, she resigned and single-handedly destroyed the “Corrupt Bastards Club”. That would be like Obama taking down the Chicago machine. She then served as governor. During her term:”Sarah Palin actualized AGIA, the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, the largest private sector infrastructure project in North American history. Palin’s administration opened up drilling for oil and gas at Point Thomson for the first time in several decades. As Governor, Palin reduced earmark requests for Alaska by 80%, established Alaska’s Petroleum Integrity Office to oversee safe energy development, placed the state checkbook online, and reduced spending for Fiscal Year 2010 by over one billion dollars from Governor Murkowski’s Fiscal Year 2007 budget. Palin signed ACES, Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share bill, into law, incentivizing development and ensuring that Alaskans would receive a “clear and equitable” share of oil profits.”
She has been sustained attack from the left since 2008. The Left effectively destroyed Newt Gingrich’s and Tom Delay’s political careers by their Alinsky based attacks; Palin has come under much heavier fire and stands taller than ever.
Pat Dooley,
Those are good substantive arguments.
Liberalism is scared to death of Sarah Palin. They were sure they had killed her the way they routinely assassinate other’s characters.
To them she must be like Buffy the Vampire Slayer – she comes back again and again after they think they’ve got her for good.
If they are that afraid of her, it is no doubt for good cause. A victory for her would be their worst nightmare come to life. It would mean they were over.
P.S.
If a Palin victory would mean the death of modern liberalism and the stranglehold on the culture it has, I’d support her for that reason alone. Go for everything and get the job done once and for all. These monsters have been plaguing humanity for far too long. Plague and Pestilence at least run their course eventually. Liberalism needs to be shown the permanent door.
Go for it all. Risk it all. It’s better to live in a world where you tried everything and lost, than to live in the half victories of milquetoast candidates who almost win but not quite, or else never manage to kill the beast when they do win.
If I am going to be a Serf, I want to at least have lost my freedom in a fair fight.
Pat Re: Palin
That is a good record and it should be publicized. But that resume sounds someone who would make a better Secretary of the Interior rather than President.
I can’t comment on Delay, but I assure you Gingrich and his big uncouth mouth finished his own career. I will never forget that he blamed a horrific crime that took place someplace in the Midwest on a permissive society as represented by the Democratic Party. It was talk like that got him polled as the most disliked politician in the US, and not the MSM propaganda. He is a far better commentator than he ever was party leader IMHO.
Mike Mc wrote “It’s better to live in a world where you tried everything and lost, than to live in the half victories of milquetoast candidates who almost win but not quite, or else never manage to kill the beast when they do win.”
In other words, why have 50% of something when you can have a 100% of nothing.
You would make a good Palestinian.
I’ve been a Palin fan for some time now, and I hope you are mistaken in your assessment, although it is a very legitimate concern. I think it is safe to say Palin would be an absolute slam dunk, except the Left did such a job on her (helped to a degree by the establishment Right), she has a massive perception deficit.
She also seems intent on doing it “her way”, ie not using the tried and tested path to the presidency. This will turn out to be genius or disaster, but assuming she does run (I think its reasonably certain), my thinking is it will be her best bet.
In my view Palin is running a Walmart strategy. Targeting all the hitherto ignored areas, to build a following in rural areas and towns. The cities will be last, but they remain bastions of the left. Palin doesn’t need to win them all, just enough to get enough votes to win.
I think any of the other Republicans are about as risky as Palin. I’m presuming Palin will have little trouble winning the Primary, and that come the election, she’ll have Marco Rubio as her VP nominee. The Republicans can’t do much about the African-American vote, but they can capture a chuck of the Hispanic vote.
Palin can do a lot to rehabilitate herself with swing voters, just by being normal. In 2011 the left’s assault on her will intensify, but their problem is they have already been over-the-top on this. Simply by weathering it gracefully, and often swatting it down with ease, Palin will pick up support.
Palin’s greatest asset however will be Obama himself. I really think almost everyone has “misunderestimated’ just how deficient he is as President. As poor as the assessments have been, I think they are generous, and I think 2011 will be a terrible year for him. By the end of the year, the press will have increasingly turned on Obama, and in the process, be a lot easier on Palin. Not necessarily easy, but easier, and Palin will use that to her advantage.
The start of 2012 should see Obama in total disarray, dragging the bottom of the polls. Palin will be looking strong and fresh, and increasingly coated in Teflon as the left fling totally ineffective (other than in a negative sense) insults at her.
The biggest risk to Palin is that she faces Clinton rather than Obama. I think however that any path that makes Clinton the Democratic nominee will be a painful one, and that Clinton is sufficiently damaged goods to probably fail in her bid.
@bob from va
the problem with the palestinian isn’t that they want to win it all. the problem with the palestinian is that they have lost ground war but has or is winning the publicity war.
i agree with mike mc
Huan.
In these days, that means they win.
Electing Palin, in one way at least, is against tea party principles if you expect a leader to do it for us. Those who think Palin is absolutely necessary miss that important point.
Already we have demonstrated that if the politician does not concern himself with tea party principles, he probably won’t be elected.
Now, let’s go to school to meet our teachers; continue to contribute to political causes; investigate and elect the right judges; eat right and exercise because soon we could win by just plain not being obese (hence dead); have a laugh more often than a scold at the other side; educate our children at home or at charter schools; and everything will be okay. Our attitude/our children/our future!
Neo,
I’ve read your post and I don’t disagree with you. I look forward to reading the comments soon.
I like Bobby Jindal but I agree you have to be electable in many areas.
Does Paul Ryan seem to escape that for you?
Also, I can’t wait for Mr. Rubio to have the experience.
Bob in Virginia,
And you’d make a fine Rino and servant.
1. The comparison to Palestinians is ridiculous. One wants destruction of Israel. I want my freedom.
2. There are some things that 50% of is not only not good enough, but just as bad as nothing. There are some things that are worth getting 100% of and not settling for less. By your calculus, if your wife is 50% faithful you should be happy you got any faithfulness. If a thief steals only half your money, it’s okay.
Someone said politics is the art of compromise. that is true except for the times when it is not. This is one of those times.
Anyway, you can count on me to be one of the people that fights for the loser if the loser is the right one to fight for. To back the winner on principle we used to call by names I’d rather not mention on this gentlemanly and gentlewomanly blog.
@gs
The Eisenhowers moved *back* to Kansas after three years in Texas, during which the future president was born. I think that makes Ike a natural born Kansan.
Baklava: I think Ryan is more electable than Jindal. Not sure why I think that; I just do. Maybe that rebuttal speech Jindal gave after Obama’s back in Feb. 2009 is what I’m thinking of; he was just dreadful.
Bob from Virginia: I saw a clip of Jay Leno recently. He was saying that people were speculating on whether Sarah Palin could beat Obama in 2012. He said that the way it’s going, Bristol Palin could beat Obama.
Paul Ryan debating Obama would be sweet! Please God yes!
Palin debating Obama would be sweet and fascinating. It’s up to her, I wouldn’t underestimate that gal, and I’d definitely vote for her over Obama no problem.
The extraordinary irony is that Palin has a potential to be a spoiler of the first rank not for the Democrats, but for the Republicans. An objective view will admit that her most substantial victories have come not as a politician (although her achievements there should not be discounted) but as a unfettered and free-wheeling voice of truth speaking to power. That is her forte and will largely be reduced because as an elected official she represents everyone. Her incredible influence is due to her position outside the dome. I love her because she sticks the man in the eye; an elected official becomes the man and loses that position. I’m beginning to think I don’t want to lose Sarah as she is.
What does Rush Limbaugh say?
Neo, you cannot compare Ryan to Jindal. Jindal has a proven record as an outstanding executive. Ryan has a proven record as a legislator–a back bencher at that.
If the people who support the GOP are thinking, and if the primary system does not get corrupted, the GOP nominee will not be a legislator. Not a Congressman and not a Senator.
If Legislators want to be President, then they need to get out and run for Governor. They need to show what they can do in a job where they are actually held accountable for results. We do not need any more Presidents who have been able to hide in the crowd when tough decisions are necessary. We are suffering through that right now. Mitch Daniels is a good example of the path to qualifying.. I don’t know if he was thinking of a Presidential run, but he set himself up for it by serving as a Governor. Jindal has done the same thing. He did his Congressional bit, he did his bureaucratic service, now he is on the front line of governing.
That is my first requirement; i.e., a man or woman who has made executive decisions and faced the consequences of those decisions.
Oldflyer: I’m not talking about qualifications. I’m talking about whether they appeal to the public. Qualifications don’t necessarily have much to do with it, as we’ve learned.
Mike Mc a quick note, argument by analogy is no argument. Even though almost everyone does it; it is a logical fallacy.
As for the rest of your argument, it is vital for the US, the world and mankind to get Obama out and replaced with a non-fascist (which I will forever remind people that Obama has proven himself to be with Honduras, Cairo and Obamacare). As long as the replacement means that basic requirement than everything else is gravy. That is why I wrote that a dead cat is a reasonable replacement for Obama. I was not joking about that.
As for the Palestinians, I was referring to their inability to compromise and get something rather than insist upon the destruction of Israel and forever get nothing. (To digress a bit, apparently there is fear in Israel that dear leader may go ahead and recognize a Palestinian state.)
BTW I am no one’s servant, nor am I insane enough to insist on only my way 100% of the time. While we are at it, I saw no law that says all Republicans must meet a particular definition of conservativism or that they cannot take a liberal stand on anything. Our enemy is not traditional liberalism, it is the anti-democratic behavior and acts of the Democratic Party that people are afraid to term fascistic. I assure you if such a particular definition is ever created it will be the death knell of the Republican party.
Huan, re: the Palestinians winning the publicity war: the Norwegian foreign minister, a nut lefty, tried to organize a boycott of Israeli goods, as a result Israeli exports to Norway have gone UP 15%. I recommend Start-Up Nation by Dan Senor if you are worried about Israel losing anything. I’m a worrier too, but the Israelis don’t give a sh*t what anyone thinks of them. And with their muscle, they don’t need to.
We’re all acting like amateur political scientists here. Neo asks, “whether they (potential candidates) appeal to the public.”
I dunno today who will, and who will not appeal. The public is a many-headed hydra, and I see no point in choosing today which heads will bite what. There’s many a slip ‘twixt cup and lip.
I also dislike the concept/name/practice of political “science”. Where’s the science? What’s scientific about it? Much GIGO. Seems kinda like climate “science” to me. All these dudes of academe, e.g. Sabato, pontificating with equivocation.
I’m a Libertarian, and I’m all for cutting down the size of the federal gov’t, and pulling power out of Washington and back down to the state and local levels. Whoever we have for a Presidential candidate, after the 2012 elections, the Republicans ought to control both houses of Congress. We could stop the leftward lurch. If we also win the White House, we can also move the country to the right.
But let’s be realistic. The Independents are with us right now because they, too, want to move the country away from socialism. But if we try to do too much, too fast, we could frighten away those Independents. In 2014, they could give the Congress back to the liberals, and once again, we get stalemate. It’s hard to drive the car very far down the street when all we do is keep running up on the sidewalk on either side.
So, I posit that we ought to think beyond 2012. We need a work horse, not a show horse . . . Pawlenty.
Agree about Palin for lots of reasons. I think she’s great doing what she’s been doing, but could not win. Nor would I want her to be President, all things being equal. There’s too much phenomenon stuff swirling around her much as it was with Obama. Sorry, but cult of personality is not my thing no matter who is running.
I like Mike Pence for President. Solid, serious grasp of the complex issues we are facing both nationally and internationally.
Neo,
Nasty one between Human Events and NRO authors concerning Sarah Palin.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40120
As for me, I can’t read another Mona Charen article again.
First Peggy Noonan, then Kathleen Parker, then Mona Charen.
How many more people will make themselves irrelevant? hmm?
Mona, It’s not that you didn’t have good positions in the past. It’s that the utter lack of class that you just showed us leaves a vomit taste in my mouth.
I’m pretty sure Bristol could make better executive decisions than Obama, Pelosi and half the Democrats.
People – you don’t raise taxes during a recession and expect it to help the economy.
Pingback:Maggie's Farm
Jeezus.
The point is, the primary is Palin’s to lose. Period. She runs, she wins. Period.
Everything else is pure gas.
The woman has proved, already, that she is tough as fricking nails. That she won’t let a loss stop her. That she can marshall resources, and she can plan (if you haven’t figured out the unorthodox – the clever – way she’s approaching this, you’re simply not paying attention).
I don’t think the worse-then-BDS warnings (however well meant) are exactly a surprise to her. She’s thought this out, and that isn’t even an issue.
And she has more cojones than anyone else out there.
LOOK AT HER HISTORY, IN ALASKA. She took on a decades old political machine, and whipped their asses. She took on Big Oil, and did a pretty good job there. She engineered an agreement with Canada. Palin: the little girl that could.
(And fuggidabout the damn tragedy in her being forced to quit the governorship …obvious to anyone with half-a-brain, due to the one place where her weakness – finances: the woman came from common fold, not wealth – was fatal …yes, she was FORCED from office, and that by artifice and intent …she was blindsided by the attempt, which would have bankrupted her family, and all that she and Todd have worked for, and ended her political aspirations forever. And she is now FIXING that weakness, isn’t she?)
The only real discussion is whether she can win the general.
Against Obama? – Oh yeah.
Against Hilary? – I …dunno.
…the Dem’s would be crazy not to run Hil’ IMO.
…and we’d be crazy to try anyone BUT Palin against Hil’.
But that’s another discussion for another day.
As far as the primary goes: it’s Sarah’s to lose.
…and *every* potential candidate knows it.
Neo, that is my point. I think we have learned.
Megan McCain doesn’t realize that the ONLY time she is heard or opinion is valued is when she’s kicking Sarah’s a–.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/22/meghan-mccain-wants-to-be-political-strategist-kick-obamas-ass/
She wants to kick Obama’s a–??? Well then you can start by removing your anti-Sarah fetish and talk about how the proposals that she had on the table would’ve been GOOD for the economy.
Oh – that’s right!!! Megan doesn’t know anything about economics….
Jindal’s SOU reply was his worst moment ever. Everyone gets to have nerves and have a worst moment. That was not representative of his normal public style.
re neo and oldflyer on style v substance:
Admitting that the entire issue is very much one of art, and is geared to unique individuals and unique historic moments … nevertheless, imo, substance is bigger consideration early in a candidacy, i.e. is a bigger consideration amongst the gatekeepers. As a candidacy progresses, style becomes more important. Early on, party leaders and big money contributors ought prevent under qualified candidates from succeeding (as, arguably[?], such persons are now attempting to do w/ a Palin whom they perceive as under qualified?) and ought promote qualified candidates. As another line of defense against under qualified candidates: a party’s most tuned in voters, i.e. primary voters, ought prevent under qualified candidates from succeeding and support qualified candidates. Thus at these stages of the process, a Jindal ought receive promotion and support from a party’s most influential leaders and voters. Once the general election occurs, the general public voters ought be able to assume the major parties are running qualified candidates.
The Dems, w/Barack, failed their responsibility in these areas. Then, once Barack was the Dem nominee, the general public voters had a difficult time believing that the Democratic Party would run someone who was unqualified to be POTUS. This general public attitude helped Barack, while a candidate in the general election, avoid having any of his questionable history become a big issue in the general election. The public just would not believe the Dems would run a candidate who was so unqualified or so far to the left as Barack would have been if the stories about him were true. IMO.
The real Jindal, yesterday w/David Gregory, talking about the threat of terrorism and about TSA searches. Jindal is nerdy, but tough. His is the nerdiness of competence and of excellence. Its the nerdiness you want in a competent executive who is on top of issues. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40299703#40299703
davis br,
You have spoken the truth most completely and most plainly.
Palin has already done the ground work the others can only dream of doing at this point. If she runs, she will probably win. If she wins, she can certainly beat Obama or Clinton.
I think Dems are so sure she would embarrass Obama that they will do everything possible to prevent that from ever coming close to happening.
As the logic of Obamanism plays out in this next year and things don’t get better but get marginally worse with no relief in sight, he won’t even be up to paper tiger standards, and she will look like a solid rock of solid ideas that can stem the miserable tide of the evil liberal trinity and turn things back in the right direction.
She was on TV last night clubbing a Halibut in the head and crowing about the beautiful meat that hard-working Alaskan fishermen and women were producing for the US and for their own living.
I will take a Halibut clubbing President over a community organizing fraud any day of any week there ever was. Not even a question.
Repubs always go for the second best guy from the last race. My guess is it will be Romney.
I will take a Halibut clubbing President over a community organizing fraud any day of any week there ever was. Not even a question.
That woman makes me proud to be a member of a country that has produced such people, and can still produce such people.
…the battle between the common man and the elite, between free men and serfs, is as old as history. And may last as long as history.
Sarah Palin is, and will be, merely the latest chapter in that history. I wish her well.
Brave heart, indeed.
Regarding Jindal and the State of the Union response, I never have understood what everyone thought was so terrible about it. Aside from that, though, I think people are foolish to try to write off any candidate because of one bad speech on the national stage. The most memorable example in recent history was a southern governor who gave an overly-long, overly-boring speech at the convention that nominated Michael Dukakis in 1988. Everyone thought it was going to be his moment to shine, and after that speech, everyone said he blew it. Four years later, Bill Clinton was the Democrats’ presidential nominee.
I lightly breezed through the comments (just not any time for much more than that this morning) and noticed how many Chris Christie boosters there are floating around.
While I’m not a single issue voter – I do have certain issues that I want to know where the candidate stands.
Not just what they say, but what they do – both now and in the past.
It gives me a sense of that candidate’s sensibilities, and how they see the role of the government versus the role of the individual playing out in the wider society.
It’s a hint into their political philosophy.
It’s an imperfect system, of course – but it beats the hell out of just blindly pulling a lever for someone because of their party affiliation.
Those issues include things like abortion, taxes, immigration policy, whether they make statements indicating a belief that rights are granted by the government or are innate – and specifically how they view the right to bear arms.
——
On abortion, it appears he was quite the pro-choice candidate during the 90’s.
Yes, I know people change, their opinions evolve, etc., but to go from pro-choice to pro-life within a decade is quite a turnaround.
That kind of turn-around is usually noted in some fashion, if not by observers then at least by the individual in question – of which I’ve seen no evidence of any kind of observation or proclamation in my brief research.
Kind of leaves me wondering if he is sincere or if he’s simply going with the flow.
——
On taxes, Christie looks like a real winner. He’s saying and – so far – doing things in a way that leaves me to believe he is sincere on that subject.
So, economically, I think we are in the same boat.
——
So now I check on how he views immigration policy.
Uh-oh.
Doesn’t look like he really put much effort into enforcing New Jersey’s laws on illegal aliens.
It also appears he doesn’t consider an illegal alien to really be committing a crime.
Not only that, he’s also been suggesting we need a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens.
Last time I checked, there already was just such a path – only the illegal aliens decide to hop the border and ignore it.
Oh, did I mention his criticism of Arizona and it’s recent illegal alien laws?
Not looking too good.
——
Finally, we have the Second Amendment.
His comments are a little confusing…..
It appears he supports gun bans and ever tighter laws that restrict the law abiding citizen, yet at the same time claims he supports the Second Amendment.
Kind of contradictory there….
——
So, after looking at how he stands on a few issues, I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s probably a fiscal conservative but a social liberal.
Agreement on tax policy will only keep us in the same boat for so long.
As such, any support I would muster for a Christie for President campaign would be tepid at best….possibly non-existent if I think I’m just exchanging one problem for another in the White House.
Scottie,
I don’t know of a perfect candidate (even Ronald Reagan wasn’t perfect).
I think it’s about perspective and priorities.
Chris Christie is a can do guy for the issues of the day.
I’d take him in my state (CA) any day over Meg or Jerry. Unfortunately we have Jerry.
Baklava,
Unfortunately, you were stuck with a RINO previously with Arnold.
There were better candidates IMO for governor of California, but the republican powers behind the scenes decided to go for the name recognition rather than ideology, so ya got what ya got.
He helped make a mess of things, and set the stage for a democrat governor pickup in California.
I am not sure we can handle the same kind of damage on a national scale by sending a RINO up to the White House.
Regarding Reagan, yes he wasn’t perfect – but he still had better political instincts on his worse day than most professional policritters these days have on their very best days.
The candidate who espouses a view that leaves the individual with the maximum freedom possible within our capitalist and constitutional system will typically get my vote.
No doubt Palin is a dynamic individual – and has handled herself well – securing her family’s future – so good for her!! She is focused on Palin but we should be focused on what is good for this country.
“We the People” have to secure our nation – and make a good decision in 2012 – we can not afford – can not allow – another disaster.
Experience – significant qualifications – staying focused on a person’s executive background – being President of the US – is the most important management position in the world.
There is nothing wrong with a politician that has learned all about the international and national economic system, and knows all about the country’s political ins and outs – nothing wrong because at this point the sleeping giant is awake and watching – so we have the vast background of a Romney or Gingrich and certainly Pawlenty is very appealing and there are a few other governmors – including Chistie – the focus has to be on our country’s problems – we do not need the candidate’s personality to become the issue or the problem. Qualified candidates will direct the nation’s focus to what is good for America!!!
Scottie – I think your take on Christie is right on the mark. He has made an obvious move toward the right since he took office, but at heart I think he is moderate to liberal on many social issues. But he is not running in 2012 anyway.
As for Palin, the comparison to Obama was a good one. And honestly, Palin is Obama’s best hope of being reelected. If Palin wins the primary, she will lose the election in Mondale/Dukakis/Dole proportions. Of course, I think there is little chance she would win the primary. My bigger fear is that she loses the primary and decides to run as a third party candidate, thus ensuring an Obama victory.
Daniels is my top choice at the moment based both on his own merits and on his chances of beating Obama.
Joe A.,
I like Daniels too. In fact, last week I was going to post on here about why, among all the potential candidates, he was the best choice.
However, I am slowly learning more about another Indianan. I would recommend that everyone watch the following speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnoef7xW5sg&feature=related
This speech reminded me of the one that Ronald Reagan gave at Hillsdale in 1977. Not that I literally remember it (I was an embryo at the time :))
Pence has been very coy about his future aspirations. But, he’s given three major speeches recently; that indicates that he’s at least thinking about it. And, to be honest, I am very impressed. Could he be the darkhouse breakout candidate the GOP needs? Well, only time will tell. But, I’m rooting for him at this point anyway.
I know that conventional wisdom says that a sitting House member cannot be elected President. Only James Garfield has ever done it (and he technically was a Senator-elect). But, the last four years have laid waste to a lot of conventional wisdom. If the Republican House offers a solid front against Obama and presents a genuine, detailed policy alternatives, would it not make sense for a Republican Congressman to be the nominee? Particularly one as policy oriented and intellectual as Pence.