The suprise is not that Obama’s popularity is so low…
…it’s that it’s still so high.
But the latest poll shows further erosion among a group he must win in order to have a second term: independents. His support among them is only 35%.
The only problem for Republicans is a fairly large one, I’m afraid: they need to find a strong candidate. A strong candidate will defeat Obama and a weak one will fail—that much seems fairly obvious and fairly certain, at least barring unforeseen reversals.
All the strong horses have decided not to enter the race, however. So far. And that may be the tragedy of the election of 2012. Who has the respect of the American people? Obama? Not really. The sorry field of Republican contenders, including the almost-comic Trump? Hardly. Congress? Don’t make me laugh.
I’m not one to think we should idealize and glorify our leaders. Au contraire. But a little bit of respect would be nice. Trouble is they’ve got to earn it, and very few have.
I agree on Trump…he’s an egotistical idiot. And has said that if he doesn’t get the Republican nomination, he’d run as a third party candidate.
I’m always amazed at the respect he gets from some people. Business success? He somehow gets other people’s money…loses it…and declares bankruptcy every few years for whatever company he put the money into.
I agree about the rest of the field too…don’t see a clear winner yet and that REALLY troubles me.
It is still way too early to know how the election of 2012 will play out. There are too many unknown unknowns. At this stage you cannot even say who will be a strong candidate and who will be a weak one.
That’s the million dollar question: Who will rise to the challenge?
I don’t mind that one strong candidate hasn’t yet emerged. For one thing, the potentials can attack Obama from their own strong points. For instance, like Romney or not, he can still point out Obama’s economic idiocy, and some will listen. I think the critical point will come as a few frontrunners are identified. Then we will see who can assemble a strong team and whether the also rans can put aside their egos to join that team.
Having an identifiable frontrunner right now only gives Obama someone to focus on and an opportunity to narrow the issues to that opponent’s weak points. I think it’s too early to settle on anyone because if that one should fail, the successor would look like second string material.
“” A strong candidate will defeat Obama and a weak one will fail””
Neo
There seems to be a bit of a paradox in republican circles with that statement. With conventional wisdom to date suggesting a strong principled conservative can’t possibly win and an unprincipled RINO coming off as unavoidably weak.
We need someone strong on finance and strong on international relations, of obvious character, and willing to take the fight to the adversary. None of the old gang really fit that description. I would pay money to Paul Ryan debate Obama. I might pay even more to see Herman Cain take Obama on, but I need to know more.
Nohype and expat are right. At this point, there’s no real need for a Republican front runner. The Obama administration is in the process of making itself look like the collection of amatuers and fools that it is. By having a leading candidate right now it would only give them something to focus on.
The process of nominating a candidate at the two year mark is a relatively recent phenomenon. The MSM is tying itself in knots right now, as they would love to build someone up that they can attack later. By Labor Day the true candidates will have emerged, and the strong ones will separate themselves.
Who wants to be called a racist for eighteen months?
Spengler has a different opinion: the problem is not the absense of suitable leader, but a poor quality of followers. See
atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MD05Dj02.html
The almost comic Trump?
Why “almost comic?”
You don’t mean “almost.”
That smear is based on a patrician requirement for a politician which Trump does not have. We tea party people feel like “The Donald” is one of us. So when you call him “almost comic” you are calling us “almost comic.”
Why is it those who call it like it is, like the Koran burning Terry Jones and why-doesn’t-he-just- produce-his-birth-certificate Donald Trump, get excoriated and dumped on by us instead of us looking at their message?
We want Donald.
Intellectuals can harummph and caterwaul and, unfortunately, help elect Obama again. Most candidates (Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee) have no excitement, no motion, no nothing!
Rush, like usual, is ahead on this one.
Neo, I spect you rekleck a great speech by an obscure Midwestern congressman made during a time of political upheaval which captured the national imagination.. Something about a house divided against itself.
Ryan’s response Oh! Bimbo! had that kind of ring to it.
It wouldn’t be the first time.
Dang!
Make that:
… response TO Oh! Bimbo! …
Of course in 12 more months who’s to say that even a weak candidate won’t be able to beat Obama. Remember the far weaker Reagan defeated a far better President than Obama in 1980 (yes I know Carter was a creep and a fool, but he never mistook the presidency as a canonization). Given there was a more mature electorate in 1980, but I would not write off Pawlenty, Romney, Santorum, Daniels or the local drunken bum who sleeps under a bridge in a match up against Obama, especially if the economy acts like we expect to.
We should not jump out of the frying pan and into the fire here; we should be extraordinarily wary of electing someone based on high flown rhetoric not backed up by a long record of concrete accomplishments, and the proven ability to actually and effectively put those plans into action. We should do our own homework, and study and very carefully scrutinize each and every candidates.
Most members of Congress–the old guard–are, in my estimation, out of the running, due to their mostly lackadaisical, spineless, and “go along to get along.” “hands across the isle,” “bi-partisanship at almost any cost” performances over the past several years; and several Congressman who are considering running, like Rand Paul and his father, are just plain nuts. Even the recently elected Tea Party backed members of Congress seem weak, far too willing to settle and “compromise,” and far less courageous and radical than they have absolutely needed to be.
Those Republicans who have looked like possible early candidates have–in a preemptive strike by the Left and their wholly owned MSM–already been relentlessly savaged. In particular, Sarah Palin and her family–including her husband, her daughters, and her Down’s Syndrome infant Trig–have been the object of very early, relentless, and merciless criticism, scorn, and derision, and seemingly daily articles from one MSM source or another talking about how her star is fading and her support is eroding. The MSM has tried to make “Romneycare”–and, in some cases, his Mormon religion–into Albatrosses around Romney’s neck. It is likely, as well, that the very few possible candidates in Congress–young, newly prominent Congressman Ryan, and newly elected Congressman Col. West come to mind–will be savaged next.
The fact of the matter is that, as of yet, I have not seen a strong, experienced candidate step foreword who has a long track record, a solid record of putting his ideas into action, someone who is a charismatic leader, a good “communicator” who can and has made tough decisions, and who can sell them to the electorate. Someone who has really laid out his vision for America of the type that Reagan had; the vision and a will to move this country toward it, to bring it into being that made him so popular, if only in retrospect for some of the many who criticized him when he was alive and was President. Someone who has the integrity and guts to take the radical steps that will be needed to save the Republic.
Palin has the spine but, does she have the required depth of experience, the knowledge in both the domestic and foreign policy/military spheres, and can she overcome the negative image that the MSM has spent so much time and effort in creating, can she persuade people, and does she have concrete proposals–that she can sell–to steer the country on an entirely and radically different course, both domestically and internationally?
The same question can also be asked about the others I have mentioned, and after our disastrous and dangerous experience with Obama–presuming we survive it–slogans and high-sounding phrases rather than concrete, fleshed out proposals just won’t do. I am not about to trade one slick-talking far Left “demagogue,” one “man on a white horse” for another, nor for some Conservative ideologue who sounds great, but who can’t deliver on his promises.
“Sacrifice” and “austerity” and an end to “class warfare” will be a tough sell, especially to the increasing proportion of our citizenry who have grown soft, are used to their comforts, to not paying taxes (or, many of them, even working), used to Uncle Sam providing for them, and who have been told by the Left and their lackeys in Academia and the MSM–and apparently increasingly buying it–that not the government, but some othe r“enemy” entirely, some “they”–the rich, businessmen, entrepreneurs, oil producers, whites, Jews, take your pick–have been “oppressing” them, stealing the money out of their pockets and the food out of their mouths. Thus, turning the U.S. Ship of State will require a strong, tenacious, steady, and very deft touch, and selling such a radical change of course–and then seeing to it that it is implemented by an Executive branch, MSM, Academia and Establishment that will be chocked full of Leftists who will be actively trying to water down, sabotage and block such a course change, will take an extraordinary person.
And, so far, I haven’t seen that experienced and extraordinary person.
Political polls remind me a comment Barry Farber, the polyglot and talk-radio guy, made on his program. Of all the industries and professions in the US, only Polling seems to have no bureau of standards, no professional organization to police itself. No way of telling if polls are really truthful.
So when I see a poll about X or Y or Z, I just take the results with a grain of salt.
I can’t decide if Trump is an egotistical buffoon, or a stalking horse recruited by Obama to neutralize the Republican opposition. (If any moody, friendless, alienated young men with firearms are reading this, Trump would make an excellent martyr.)
Mitch Daniels of Indiana has a good background, experience running business and a state, and could be our man.
The entire Leftist Establishment in this country, led by the MSM but including Academia, practically the entire Religious Establishment, Hollywood and the “entertainment industry,” etc., etc. did exactly the same destructive –and highly effective–number on Bush as they are now doing on Palin.
As a result, many people–who bought into the caricature of a dumb, Constitution-shredding, cowboy Bush, who was the creature of the oil industry, and the Devil incarnate–and so relieved that the candidate they were told, ad nauseum, was a “superior spiritual being,” the “lightworker,” the “post-racial” healer and prophet of unity had arrived, that the seas would start to recede, the Earth to heal, and as an enthusiastic supporter told reporters after an Obama rally, that after Obama was elected gas for her car would be free and she would never have to pay rent again-and very, very afraid to be called racists if they disagreed, took the MSM’s word for it that Obama was eminently and uniquely qualified, had sterling credentials, and manifold accomplishments, and looked no further but just pulled the leaver for him.
We do not want to make the same mistake of just voting for someone who is simply the “not-Obama,” because we need someone who can not just sit in the seat he now “occupies” in the Oval Office, but someone who can reverse and root out all of the destructive things he has done, as well as point us in a positive, healthy and true new direction.
All good points Wolla Dalbo, but it is more foolish to wait for someone perfect or someone who isn’t coming.
The better model to use for deciding who can win an election, isn’t the linear “he’ll appeal to the moderates” model. That model was McCain.
The better model is the one which recognizes the irrational element–the one which Obama tapped into with his hope and change message. That is the model that is closer to reality.
What The Donald brings is a lot more than most people recognize. You think, because of his involvement with casinos and hollywood and wrestling and his war with Rosie (God bless him for that) that he is a buffoon. He is not. His platform is the tea party platform and he has shown one thing that only Palin (and Cain) have shown: He’s got fight. He’s not a politician. He’s not been tainted with multiculturalism. And yet, on that last score, I would expect that The Donald will get more gay and black and Hispanic votes because you just can’t see the guy as biased.
As far as his ego: Sometimes you fight fire with fire. I wouldn’t want Trump as my pastor. As my President, based on his singularity as the only person besides Palin to take Obama head on, yeah! Who else has trod through The View and The Today Show and left the state run media trolls open mouthed? Hunhh? Who?
It is important to remember that Obama will get the black and Hispanic vote no matter what he does. That works out to a floor of about 25%. He only needs to get a third of the non minority vote to win.
Curtis,
How do you think he would do with Sarkozy, Cameron, Chavez, etc, etc? I would like some indication that our next president has some idea about foreign policy, and I don’t mean just grandstanding about trade agreements. I’m just not sure dealing with Barbara, Whoopie, and Joy is adequate preparation for the diplomatic element of the job. I would love to tell Obama what I think of him and I admit that I like seeing people stand up to him. But–that is no proof of being president material. I want smart, not loud.
Don’t look now but someone just stood in front of thousands in a driving rain in Madison, with union goons heckling in the background, and took Mr. Obama to the woodshed.
And ended with the proclamation “Game On”.
Good question, expat. What puzzles me most is the immediate high hat fancy pants attitude of a lot of people. The guy is a 2.7 billionaire! No fool or person without the ability to judge others gets there.
I think Trump knows who our friends are. . . who the enemies are. Christie doesn’t seem to know that. He’s a sharp guy but dumber than The Donald on that one. And that is the most important foreign policy issue. (Trump wants us out of Iraq and Afgan–and maybe it is time. I don’t know. Maybe, once he is in office, Trump would change his mind just like Obama had to do on Gitmo.)
Also, Trump is an executive. He knows how to delegate and who to turn to for information. Trump’s been around the world. He’s not been directly involved in federal foreign policy decisions, but who has? Trump probably has as much foreign policy chops as anyone. (Sure, I’d love Bolton better than Trump, but Bolton is not getting elected.) I like the fact that Trump loves America and sees the world as a place of competition, not a place for one world government. Trump is out to win and winning means becoming strong. I like that idea.
And let’s turn the question around. If you were a voter in England, what would be your response to “How do you think Sarkozy would do with Trump?”
Is Trump loud? Is he grandstanding?
We’ll find out. One of the things I do appreciate is his early coming out. Let the vetting begin. If he does reveal himself as only interested in the Presidency as a tool and a prop for his ego, damn him. But if four months from now, he’s still standing and sounding good, I say there will be a lot of people who will have to say it was their initial judgment, not Trump, which was shallow.
(I will say I don’t like his position on universal health care.)
I doubt that The Donald will go far in politics. I like his bull in the china shop approach, of saying out loud what millions have not said for fear of being labeled racist: why would ∅bama spend $2 million to prevent disclosure of the long form birth certificate?
He reminds me in some ways of Jesse Ventura, with the difference that Trump has accomplished more in life. Both speak their minds. Ventura did not make a good chief executive. Trump has been a CEO for decades.
The Black and Hispanic vote for Obama has dropped. But before we vote on Obama again, there will be a billion (billion!) dollars spent by Obama alone. But I don’t see how Obama can win. On what? Hope and change? Has he made life any better for anyone?
Also, I hope most people noted that England and Sarkozy don’t exactly go together (my comment directly above).
But maybe they do. Maybe there’s basically no difference between England and France anymore. It’s all Eurabia.
Gringo, I am counting on Trump being the exception. I think of Perot and Ventura and tremble. If Trump really did run as a third party candidate, that would pretty much prove it is his ego first and his country second.
Is Michelle Bachman an inferior candidate? I’d vote for her before anyone but Palin and Bolton.
What I like about the Donald so far is that HE IS NOT AFRAID OF ANYONE. I don’t know that much about him as yet, but I am definitely going to learn more. I am so sick of all this namby-pamby PC garbage that someone strong and fearless would be a welcome change. We need someone like that. Any other names come to mind?
Why is Bolton out of the question?
Obama’s support is not that high. Bradley effect is really strong.
Curtis, I will grant you that Trump is more qualified than Jesse Ventura or Ross Perot. I was going to vote for Perot until I heard him state that Bush’s agents had disrupted his daughter’s wedding. That sounded like the claim of a lunatic. Years later I made the acquaintance of someone who had done some consulting for Perot’s company at the time of his presidential run. Perot’s employees told him that Perot was off the deep end.
turfmann @ 6:21
I just checked out Palin’s speech:
http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/04/16/sarah-palin-steps-into-wisconsin-points-to-left-field-and-hits-a-grand-slam/
She’s fabulous.
I believe Bolton will not run. He certainly would be seen as far right as Palin, but that doesn’t mean he’s not electable. I don’t think he is running.
I bet you guys didn’t know that the single biggest demographic group for Obama was white unmarried women.
Having observed and listened to Bolton for several years now I do believe that–at least in the Foreign Policy area–he would be far and away the best qualified candidate, and while he has a “take no prisoners” attitude when compared to other possible candidates, I don’t see him as either a hotheaded or a rash person,
The problem I see is that he does not have the necessary warmth, he is not the “great communicator” type that Reagan was, with the ability to appeal to the necessary number of voters. He has a professorial air that I think many voters might not find attractive.
So, very well qualified and with his head screwed on correctly? Yes.
Electable? Likely not.
Here is my problem with Trump:
“The Institute for Justice successfully defended Vera against the condemnation of her home by a State agency that sought to take her property and transfer it–at a bargain-basement price–to another private individual: Donald Trump. Trump convinced the State agency to use its “eminent domain” power to take Vera’s home so he could construct a limousine parking lot for his customers–hardly a public purpose.”
Mark Levin, author of “Liberty and Tyrany” has been attacking Trump on Face book.
http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1002&Itemid=165
Mark Levin on Donald Trump :
“A Democrat who voted for Obama in 2008, but now he’s disappointed in the president. Yes, unlike the rest of us, he just didn’t realize Obama would turn out so badly. Right. Of course. Sure thing.
I guess he didn’t hear Obama taking about spreading the wealth, or nationalizing health care, or cap and trade, or Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, and on and on. He was duped. ”
.
I spent four hours in spitting rain and 50 degrees with a cold wind blowing off the sound. It was a TEA Party and we weren’t drinkin’ tea. What we had was an old fashioned patriotic revival with a pledge of allegiance, the National Anthem, a prayer, and some thoughtful speeches about the state of things and where we may be headed.
The keynote speaker was Clint Didier. For those who don’t know him he is an eastern Washington farmer, former all pro football player with the Washington Redskins, and a constitution loving patriot. He ran for the Senate last fall, but the nomination was secured by the GOP establishment candidate, Dino Rossi.
Didier lost but he is still in the fight for smaller, more fiscally responsible government. He has been speaking at gatherings around the state about all the issues that are on the table and coming at us. He mentioned that he has been contatced by Herman Cain and has looked deeply at his background. He likes what he sees. I have always been impressed by Herman Cain, but know that the MSM and dems will try to do to him what they did to Clarence Thomas. A black Republican can always be called an Uncle Tom, a traitor to his race, and worse without any outcry of racism or incivillity. Didier says he believes Cain is tough and principled. You can find out more about him at his website; http://hermancain.com/
and at wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain
I say lets have a rousing primary and let the best man rise to the top.
OT. Didier spent some time talking about Agenda 21. I had never heard the term. When he explained what it is I realized that the environmental movement is far more well organized and dangerous than I knew. For anyone who wants to know about this world scale plan to control all aspects of:
Agriculture
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management
Education
Energy and Housing
Population
Public Health
Resources and recycling
Transportation
Sustainable Economic Development
Cap and trade, Obamacare, AGW, and high speed rail initiatives are part of this scheme. Whenever you hear the word “sustainable” applied to anything, you know that these people have read and are on board with Agenda 21.
Read more about it here:
http://green-agenda.com/index.html
Lots of interesting comments…
IMO Trump is a non-starter. He’s contributed heavily to democrats for many years. He’s seen an opportunity to grab the spotlight and he loves to spout off. So he is getting lots of attention from the MSM. Yes, he is counting coup on the birther issue; but sorry, I don’t take him seriously. Once the going gets rough the Donald will find something else to do. Trump is reality TV.
Palin gave a great speech at a rally in Madison today. Check it out: http://www.breitbart.tv/palin-wows-wisconsin-tea-partiers-with-blistering-speech-to-obama-you-ignored-us-in-2010-you-cannot-ignore-us-in-2012/
As I have said many times before, she is the Truman of our era: straight forward, say what you mean and mean what you say. In other ways she’s much like Reagan. She has plenty of common sense and the right instincts. She is considered unqualified by the MSM, but so was Reagan. AND who is more unqualified than Obama? The only person I can think of is the old drunk who spends his days collecting cans to redeem in order to buy a bottle of Mad Dog. Palin’s only weakness as a candidate is her tone of voice, but even that can be endearing. What’s not to like about a mom of 5 who can shoot & skin a moose?
BTW, I (seriously) would pay $10,000 to witness Palin debate Obama one on one with no tele-prompters allowed.
There are others: Cain, West, and J.C. Watts come instantly to mind. So does Mitch Daniels, who I admire for his accomplishments. My only doubt about Daniels is that he is lacks a certain forcefulness that Cain, West, Palin, Bachman, and Watts possess.
IMO Romney, Pawlenty, the Newt, and Santorum are yesterday’s paper. Same goes for Huckabee who is a RINO in evangelical clothing.
I have my preferences narrowed down. But in the end I’m voting for anyone other than the messiah. And that includes the old drunk who collects cans.
This is the main reason I have lost all respect for Christie. The whole world said he was a strong leader and could do the job. He said so himself! He boasted he could beat Obama.
All the while saying he could not possible run because New jersey needs him so desperately and he loves the job.
What a wimp. The nation is at stake. The country calls out to him. He says in effect, “NJ is more important than America, maybe next time.”
Get lost then. To date the only leader is Palin. If we are going down, I say go down fighting with her. She will at least drive the issues to the right.
If Sarah isn’t running, she gave an Academy Award-caliber performance of a Presidential candidate in Madison yesterday. “Game on” indeed!
She is the one. Nobody else is even close. Nobody. Hell, I saw that in September 2008.
Trump is going to run as an independent and end up getting that c***sucker Obama re-elected.
Parker:
I’ve never been anywhere near Alaska, but I find Palin’s accent endearing. I honestly don’t understand why anyone has a problem with it.
I like Allen West too, but he’s only a first-term congressman. He needs more experience before running for President.
Which is why I keep saying Palin/West 2012.
I just watched Palin’s speech in Wisconsin. She IS fabulous and getting better. Her speech reminded me of the one Reagan gave that turned me into a conservative.
Heretofore, I’ve been concerned about her electability. My attitude now is I really do think she can win and even if she doesn’t I’ll still want a chance to vote for her as opposed to the other Republican wimps who seem to be forerunners. I HUNGER for a chance to see her debate Obama.
How about Palin/Cain in 2012?
With the slow but continuous death of the “Hope & Change” absurdity and Obama’s grandiose dreams of a “fundamental transformation”, a newly matured, once again realistic public will likely be drawn to a candidate who is the most “un-Obama” or at least un-Obama (2008). Indeed, I think Obama himself is positioning himself to be as un-Obama (2008) as possible: centrist (at least in appearance), pragmatic, grounded in his record (such as it is) as a bridge building moderate who was able to cobble together a bipartisan coalition on the budget, work with NATO on Libya, etc. I know that this is absurd in reality, but, as I have said before, image matters far more than reality in politics. And, this is the image that the Democratic party and its fellow travelers (including much of the MSM) will present.
The GOP must respond in kind if it is to have a decent chance at defeating Obama. This requires a candidate with a strong, conservative record. One who doesn’t compromise principles, but has shown himself or herself to be able to build bridges. Okay, this sounds rather cliched. The bottom line: experience and a proven record will (and should) matter much more than charisma.
This eliminates Palin immediately. Now, before the Palinphiles jump all over me, I will gladly concede that she has more experience than Obama did in 2008. But, that’s irrelevant. Remember, we need a candidate who is un-Obama (2008) in experience and persona. Sarah Palin is, to be honest, more celebrity than substance. She is a great speaker, a great fundraiser, and a tremendous asset in inspiring and leading the grassroots, the Tea Party…. But, she is not experienced enough to ever be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Furthermore, she is far, far too much of a divisive figure. This is mostly not her fault, but it is a fact. And I do not believe that it can ever be surmounted. I know that Reagan was seen as divisive before 1980 too; but, not to the same extreme. A Palin nomination will virtually guarantee Obama’s re-election, period.
I believe that Palin understands this. And while she undoubtedly enjoys her celebrity status, I do not think that she is an egomaniac (unlike a certain real estate mogul turned reality t.v. star turned unserious prospective presidential candidate). In the end, I think that Palin will gracefully decline to run, stating (quite correctly), that she can have the most influence right where she is currently.
I bet you guys didn’t know that the single biggest demographic group for Obama was white unmarried women.
You lose.
@BurkeanBadger
“The bottom line: experience and a proven record will (and should) matter much more than charisma…This eliminates Palin immediately.”
What “proven record” are you tallking about? Who has a “proven record” of dealing with the exact issues facing America right now?
Sorry, that’s a ridiculous platitude.
In our present situation we have need of two or three things, in a very precise hierarchy of orders.
First, we need someone with the right principles. That is, someone who knows the basics of America, the Free Market, Freedom, the Constitution, the American People, our History and traditions and Way of Life and so on and so on. That person will know that the U.S. Constitution is bedrock, for example. And that the government serves the people and not vice-versa.
Second, we need someone who will act on principle first and politics second. We are in need of a great President and the sine qua non of that is a great person.
Third, we need a strong person who will stand her ground on the principles and on her faith in those principles as they have always worked in the American people. In short, even a person who can stand there and do nothing against the rages of the machine if it calls for that….or to call against raging machine to do something when it wants to not.
Fourth, we need someone who knows she doesn’t know everything. Socrates called that the height of Wisdom. We now laugh at it. That only proves our smart people are un-wise.
Finally, we need a strong leader. There is none like Palin. None. Not even a close second. I am frankly embarrassed by the men. They are wimps and losers. I wish everyone of them would gracefully concede now because based on leadership they’ve shown none and deserve nothing.
I could add in business experience and appreciation of what it takes to work.
Palin has everything we need now in over-abundance.
I am going to predict that not only will she run; she will win.
Why? Because she is the answer to the problem of the unthinkable demise of America under Obama. Since that cannot happen, it will not happen – and the person to beat him and restore America is Palin.
BurkeanBadger:
Everything you just said about Palin was said about Reagan and Truman…two of my favorite modern-day presidents.
Common sense and ability (and courage) to make the right decisions go a long way in my book.
Texexec:
I completely agree with you. Common sense, courage and the ability to make right decisions are highly necessary for any president and any serious candidate for president.
Necessary, but not sufficient. Experience, preferably managerial experience (in government or business or the military) is crucial as well. And this is where Palin is lacking. Yes, she was a governor and a small-town mayor. But, this limited experience pales in comparison to Reagan’s two terms as governor of the nation’s largest state and Truman’s 10 years in the U.S. Senate.
Another crucial quality: the ability to neutralize one’s opponents without alienating those indecisive souls known as “independents”. And here, Palin is especially deficient. As I said before, it is not entirely her fault. But, it is reality. I understand how much she excites tea partiers; I respect her chutzpah when, quite frankly, many other GOP prospects are too demure, too unwilling or unable to go for the jugular. And I appreciate that she has matured in that she now seems to understands that being on the defensive against the MSM is counterproductive; the key is to make light of them and subtly imply that, no she doesn’t take them that seriously or care all that much what they say about her.
All that being said, the simple fact is that a she will never be acceptable to vast number of independent voters. A Palin nomination would mobilize and unite the left behind Obama to an extreme that no other GOP nominee would, while alienating a vast majority of “centrists”. It is a recipe for certain defeat.
Don’t misunderstand me: I am NOT saying that the GOP nominee should abandon all principle in a shameless effort to pander to the whims of fickle independent voters. Not at all. But, ideally, he or she should be able to motivate and excite the conservative base, while appealing to independents and keeping the left relatively indifferent (“meh, I’ll vote for Obama, but I can live with ‘GOP Nominee’ as president”).
I don’t know if such a candidate exists. But, I know that it is not Palin.
I think there is some truth to the idea ththat at Palin would have a tough time beating Obama, and her strength comes from being on the outside looking in. What Occam mentions about single white women is also true.
Yet, if its a choice between Palin or any of these characters: Pawlenty, the Newt, Santorum or Huckabee; I go with Palin. ( BTW rickl, IMO the Donald will not run as an independent.)
A real wild card in 2012 will be someone running against Obama in the early primaries. My home, Iowa is a swing state. Democrats in Iowa are roughly a 50-50 mix of prairie populists and ‘Reagan democrats’. I believe a considerable percentage of the populists would go for a challenge by someone like Russ Feingold. Likewise, a considerable percentage of the ‘Reagan democrats’ would rush to HRC. Obama could receive a serious bruising in the Iowa caucuses.
1. texexec Says: I just watched Palin’s speech in Wisconsin. She IS fabulous and getting better.
I thought her speech in India was a clear step forward–though just a single step–toward restoring her in my eyes. The Madison speech was a reversion to the Palin whom I no longer support.
As pure oratory, it was her best performance since her convention speech–but water has flowed under the bridge since then. She absolutely lost me when she attacked the GOP Congressional leadership. I don’t know whether the supposed budget cuts are legit and I’m all for holding the GOP’s feet to the fire, but half-term, newly enriched Palin is not someone with standing to attack Republicans for not standing and fighting.
2. If she doesn’t get her way in the GOP, will she do a third-party run? When/if she takes questions, someone should ask her.
3. She invoked Scott Walker, but afaik–correct me if I’m wrong–there was no interplay between her and any member of the Walker team. Afaik she did not meet with Walker privately.
4. At worst, she’d still be better than Obama, I tell myself. Then again, we’re learning how much worse Obama can be than Bush. And a catastrophic failure of the GOP’s presidential campaign could cost the party one or both houses of Congress.
5. This agnostic would have been impressed had a dove appeared above Palin; I was not impressed by her wearing a crucifix. (Unless I’ve overlooked how male fashion has evolved, it’s a signal that male candidates cannot match. Interesting.)
6. “Maybe I should ask some of the Badger women’s hockey team – those champions – maybe I should ask them if we should be suggesting to GOP leaders, they need to learn how to fight like a girl!” Last month, Pajamas Media columnist Carey Roberts asked, Or is she an old-school, quota-embracing, male-bashing feminist who also happens to be pro-life? Is she a shake-and-bake liberal whose political resumé includes support for the ill-fated bridge to nowhere and a record-breaking $6.6 billion state operating budget in 2007? Indeed.
7. A personal impression: Palin’s power lust is even more blatant than the Clintons’. Only the Kennedys come to mind as topping it.
*************************
No, give me a competent sitting GOP governor. (That’s not to exclude someone like Paul Ryan emerging from a divided convention.)
Completely agree. Who would still like this clown, Obama? But they love him still. My friends all voted for him and will again. They are unable to vote Repub, as their religion is the Dem party. No matter what Obama does they are incapable of voting Repub ever. It’s really bizarre. It is incomprehensible to me that he could very well win the 2012 election. The mind boggles.
One of the thing interesting strategic successes of the Left has been making what is electable in America distill down to basically the things that are corrupt and Democrat in origin.
Gone are the virtues which made leaders electable before, now all you need is to be an Obama to be electable.
There’s a clear difference. What used to get people elected, now no longer do. Because the Left has changed the rules of the game. Instead of winning the game by doing better, the Left changed the rules. See how that works.