-
Take a Victory Lap, Ed Feulner
November 12, 2012 | 4 comments
-
Mitt, Newt, and the Greater Good
November 23, 2011 | 154 comments
-
The Market Sends a Signal: Short Warren Buffett
September 28, 2011 | 50 comments
-
Neoconservatism Interrupted
August 18, 2011 | 200 comments
-
In Praise of M. Stanton Evans
July 15, 2011 | 32 comments
Another Perspective
A Syllogism for 2012
There is only one right candidate. Here’s the proof.
Turn off the cable yappers for a moment, will you? Consider the political road ahead and where you hope it will lead. Then run these traps:
1. With the re-enlistments of triangulators William Daley, Gene Sperling, and Jack Lew, Barack Obama has tacked to the middle and, in so doing, established himself as the favorite for re-election. Absent Administration scandal or further economic decline, Obama is likely to enter the 2012 race as the prohibitive favorite.
2. The GOP has (by my count) 17 prospective candidates, all of them appealing to one or more slivers of the base, none of them likely to be embraced as a unifying candidate across party factions. The best known and best funded of the candidates are, in intra-party terms, sectarian rather than coalitional figures. The few candidates with crossover appeal to both social and economic conservatives trail badly. The present danger is that conservative support will be spread across multiple candidates and, as a consequence, conservative influence will be dissipated.
3. Given the current circumstance, and the historical stakes, conservatives should be thinking boldly not only about the 2012 election but about the 2016 election, as well. We cannot approach 2012 as a Bob Dole-style “whatever” election. We need to rally around a credible Presidential candidate even as we maximize both down-ballot opportunities next year and regime-change opportunities four years later.
4. Most of the current energy in the conservative movement is generated on the Tea Party Right. That energy can disappear as quickly as it arrived. Unlike political lifers, the Tea Partiers have put on hold the real communities, and real lives, to which they will be delighted to return after the siren of patriotic concern dies away.
5. The GOP must avoid the mistake it made a century ago. In 1912, the GOP nominated the dour and middle-roading William Howard Taft, ignoring the reality that all of the energy in the party was generated by the progressives — who promptly stomped off to join a third-party campaign with Teddy Roosevelt. The result was the election of Woodrow Wilson, the hardest-Left candidate elected to the Presidency before Obama himself. In the current cycle, the GOP must redirect Tea Party energy toward common goals. At all costs, it must prevent that energy from being turned against meritorious GOP candidates.
6. The Tea Party has numerous political heroes. Not all of them were created equal. As is the case in all political movements, some of them are summer soldiers, inconstant in the cause. Others are unprepared intellectually for the coming ordeal by Establishment fire. Still others are living unvetted lives that, in high-stakes confrontation, might not survive scrutiny. Conservatives of all stripes —Republican, Tea Party, independent, even Democrat — should insist on a standard-bearer who can give full voice to our case while bringing honor to our cause.
7. With all of these factors summed, we need a candidate whose fidelity to principle has already been tested and affirmed. We need a candidate who has already developed an integrated political philosophy and is thus composed in dealing with the rapid-fire issues of a national campaign. (We are working with a short runway here. The first GOP debate, on Fox, is less than four months away. CNN hosts the second debate in June.) We need a candidate who has already attracted major media attention and demonstrated that he or she can withstand it.
8. Finally, our candidate must have sufficient stature in both communities — the GOP and the Tea Party — to command bilateral respect, a measure of deference and, in the face of what will doubtless be dispiriting polls, a willing suspension of disbelief.
9. Q.E.D.: conservatives should support for the GOP nomination in 2012 — Jim DeMint of South Carolina.
Are you marching with me, brother?
About the Author
Neal B. Freeman is chairman of the Blackwell Corporation.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (235) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Neal B. Freeman
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/21/a-syllogism-for-2012
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Booger | 1.21.11 @ 6:26AM
Your argument is not a syllogism. It contains seven points, some of which themselves have multiple premises. That being said, I would be overjoyed to see Senator DeMint sworn in as POTUS in '13.
Cordially,
Booger
http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/
Wordmonger| 1.21.11 @ 7:12AM
Depends on what your definition of syllogism is. Mr.Freeman has enumerated his points,but he does feature major premise and minor premise in his deductive reasoning of his crafty argument.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.11 @ 4:34PM
You can't make up your minds on Palin?
Ron| 1.22.11 @ 10:34PM
It would be a mistake to run Palin as the GOP candidate in 2012. She would split the GOP. I feel that the best chance we have to win is to run someone like Herman Cain against Obama. This would defeat any racist commentary and would divide the black vote. And...........Mr. Cain would be a great president!
Wayne | 1.23.11 @ 10:45PM
I like Cain, but I guarantee you he would get the Palin treatment. If it works against her, then they will double down on him.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.11 @ 6:36PM
You are all finished.
The only thing for you is to clone Reagan.
Clint| 1.21.11 @ 7:31PM
Brooks thinks he's Tokyo Rose.
Tokyo Brooks," You are finished Yankee Dogs.
The only thing left is for you to surrender."
Alan Brooks| 1.21.11 @ 9:13PM
Or (again) clone Reagan. Seriously, he was the best 'thing' that not only happened to you, but the best thing that will ever happen to you.
Clint| 1.21.11 @ 10:04PM
Tokyo Brooks," G.I. Why Do You Fight An Unwinnable War? You're Great General Is Dead. Surrender! "
Alan Brooks| 1.21.11 @ 10:20PM
Don't write Obama off so fast, there is in fact a relief at Bush leaving office.
My point is: there WAS a grudging respect for the GOP when Reagan was president; after all, he won in a landslide (49 states) in '84.
But after the Bushes, Dole, McCain, the respect is gone-- only the grudge remains.
Clint| 1.21.11 @ 10:31PM
Tokyo Brooks, " G.I. What Is Your Girlfriend Doing While You Fight This Needless War ?
Stop This Needless War Mongering & Go Home To Your Girlfriend "
Alan Brooks| 1.23.11 @ 9:10PM
But you don't need enemies- you are heading for another Bush-type, or a Nixon, a Gerry Ford.
You are a masochist, Clint.
Clint| 1.23.11 @ 11:41PM
Tokyo Brooks," G.I. Resistance Is Useless. You Must Submit To The Superior Forces Of Emperor Obama."
Vern Crisler | 1.23.11 @ 11:55AM
Jim who?
Clint| 1.23.11 @ 6:55PM
DeMint.
John Daniel| 1.21.11 @ 6:51AM
Let's roll! DeMint for President!
USSAlabama| 1.21.11 @ 3:36PM
I like DeMint, but I know that members of Congress do not make good presidents.
We need to figure out how to draft Christy!
loulou| 1.21.11 @ 5:21PM
Better do more research on Christie.
He is a Muslim Symp and approves of the Ground Zero Mosque. He appointed a jihadi lawyer to the NJ bench. He is for cap and trade.
I'm not saying he doesn't have some good points but he's not conservative.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.11 @ 6:31PM
De mint is flavor of the month.
Shamus| 1.21.11 @ 7:03AM
Much as I like DeMint, I don't think he's electable.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.11 @ 6:33PM
You are correct; Demint?
that is grasping at straws.
Appleby| 1.21.11 @ 7:08AM
The candidate should immediately produce his birth certificate, school records and introduce us to his minister/priest/rabbi. We should visit his home town and talk to people who knew his parents.
The most important thing about our candidate will be his roots.
Moe-al-Blotz| 1.21.11 @ 7:22AM
How about his imam ? Can we not have a Muslim presidential candidate? The most important aspect of our next president will be his character.
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 1:43PM
No, the Republicans cannot have a mohammedan candidate in 2012: the American people deserve to be offered an alternative.+++
Pelligrino| 1.21.11 @ 10:52AM
Yes, we should be wary of a candidate that seems to have nothing but dead relatives around.
And no published articles? No published letters to the editor? No articles in the school newspapers? (at college/university)
And it would be nice if the parents -- if still alive -- never divorced. Don't psychologists have a field day with President Obama's life situation growing up?
There is no excuse for him, but he obviously had no real values or understanding of commitment while growing up.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.11 @ 7:30PM
National Review is fantasizing.
Their last issue was trying to promote John 'mustache' Bolton, this is from today's NRO:
"Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani tells National Review Online that he is seriously considering a 2012 presidential run. “I’m like a running back that has the ball and I’m looking for openings,” he says. “A crowded [field] may be good, from my point of view.”
But has America’s Mayor, now 66, learned any lessons from his stalled 2008 campaign? “I sure have,” he chuckles. “You have to win New Hampshire.” That, of course, is a different tune than four years ago, when he placed all of his bets on Florida."
Fantasy. Guiliani can't beat Obama.
RCV| 1.22.11 @ 3:31PM
Nor could secure the nomination from the GOP, which seems he'll-bent on nominating Palin or someone else who has no appeal beyond the narrow far-right.
Tom James| 1.21.11 @ 7:22AM
Not so fast. In politics, a week is an eternity.
Hutch Jr. | 1.21.11 @ 7:30AM
Here Here, I was so ready to see you naming Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty or some other "front runner". No, the country aches for someone who is bold and ready to lead! It's time to stand up to emerging powers like China and challenge the American people to take up the tasks of correcting our course. We have 100 years of collective sleep to fix.
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 1:46PM
Amen. What I will not accept is any candidate who already ran AND LOST against either McCain, Obama, or Biden.
DeMint would do just fine by me.
+++
Richard Baker| 1.21.11 @ 7:42AM
Mr. Freeman:
My Philosophy Professor would have given you an F on your "syllogism." However, let the Games begin regarding the GOP possibilities. That's what the process is for. Regardless of the Kenyan's actions, the country is through with him. On to the next holder of George Washington's office. Yes, I KNOW it's the Constitution's and the People's office. However, why not shoot for the moon, eh?
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 1:47PM
The only mistake was calling it a syllogism. If every premise had been headed by the word "whereas" and the conclusion by the words "therefore be it resolved", we could call it a resolution, and I'd vote for it. How about you?
+++
Sean| 1.21.11 @ 7:42AM
DeMint would be a good choice.
WayneFarmer| 1.21.11 @ 1:46PM
Is he running??
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.21.11 @ 7:44AM
Mr. Freeman,
I don't like your basic premise. I suppose from my perspective, that is because I'm an old fart and want to witness the country healing.
Second, I am writing a novel about the near future
(You can buy part One at www.texassaidno.com )
Sir, we are living in a very dangerous world, both domestically, and in the international arena. I just don't think Mr. Obama can lead us away from the shoals.
I just don't!
My three favorites, in no particular order:
Jim DeMint
Congressman Pence
Sarah Palin
In fact I would love to see any two of them on the ticket...heh Pence Palin might be interesting.
The "Pee Pee" ticket.
HAHA| 1.21.11 @ 8:04AM
"The Pee Pee ticket"
Your writing has improved.
Donna| 1.21.11 @ 7:48AM
I like DeMint, but would prefer Herman Cain. I do not want a politician president. I want a former corporate executive who knows is way around real economics.
WayneFarmer| 1.21.11 @ 1:47PM
Herman Cain is my choice.
Ron| 1.22.11 @ 10:39PM
Herman Cain would have a good chance of winning against Obama. He is intelligent, well spoken, a business leader of great respect and would possibly divide the black vote.
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 1:49PM
DeMint for president. Herman Cain for Secretary of Commerce.
+++
loulou| 1.21.11 @ 2:13PM
John Bolton for SecDef.
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 2:47PM
I invite your attention to my list posted below. It includes Bolton at State and Allen West as SecDef.
+++
MittenChick| 1.21.11 @ 4:45PM
Herman Cain is a shill for the Federal Reserve.
Clint| 1.21.11 @ 7:52AM
Many of We Tea Party Patriots want to Draft Our Tea Party Kingmaker & Our Senate Point Man South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint for President in 2012.
"Senator Tea Party, as Jim DeMint is sometimes known, is a moniker the first-term senator began wearing before the Tea Party became a household name. It's also a description that has pushed the South Carolina Republican out of the shadows and into the forefront of electoral politics.
"I'm proud to be called Senator Tea Party. I feel like I'm giving a voice to people who are very frustrated that Washington's not listening,” DeMint told Fox News."
"Senator DeMint, unlike Ms. Palin, is himself part of the establishment, the highest-ranking politician associated with the tea party, having served in Washington for 10 years. His split with most of his congressional colleagues has been making waves within the party."
"GOP Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Mike Lee (Utah) will join the Kentucky Republican as the first members of the caucus.
DeMint helped several tea party-backed candidates — including Paul and Lee — win primaries last year and he is viewed as a hero within the grass-roots movement.
The group's first meeting will be on Jan. 27. The Senate group mirrors the House Tea Party Caucus, which Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) announced she was forming last year."
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Rise Up !
Carpe Diem.
JP| 1.21.11 @ 7:56AM
Since the current crop of frontrunner is so weak, and since the MSM will skewer anyone the GOP nominates, I suggest we go full bore an elect the most right-wing, firebreathing conservative out there. I suggest Pat Buchanan. He's a pale-con that not even most Republicans like; he is opinionated, brutally honest, he isn't afraid of an alley fight, and pisses off someone or some group everytime he speaks. The Neo-Cons don't like him for his opinions concerning Isreal; the Compassionate Conservatives don't like him because he lacks thier Whig sensibilites. But he strikes fear in Progressives and Beltway rent-seekers. He has my vote; too bad he won't run.
Is B1 Bob Dornan still alive? He's my 2nd choice.
JimH| 1.21.11 @ 8:01AM
Ben makes an interesting point about how Tea Partyers have put on hold other social activities in their lives to respond to the need to take back the Republican party and the government. This has always been a major weakness of the right. Conservatives and Libertarians tend to have businesses, jobs and lives outside the political world. Their interest in government tends to exist only long enough to deal with an immediate issue. For much of the left politics is their life. So 100% of their energies are devoted to it. In the long term the best thing that friends of liberty can do is to minimize the ability of the State to affect our lives.
Proud Mormon| 1.21.11 @ 8:14AM
Mitt Romney is my choice. He is way ahead in the New Hampshire polls and what he needs is Iowa. A win in Iowa and NH and Mitt has a cakewalk to the nomination.
Ryan| 1.21.11 @ 8:56AM
We're talking about substance here, not polls. Sorry.
Joe R| 1.21.11 @ 10:09AM
Mitt is still waiting for focus group results to give him his stance on the Vietnam War. Please. I'd vote for every other mentioned Republican candidate over Romney. Except Huckabee.
Grant| 1.21.11 @ 10:45AM
May I ask, how much does being a "Proud Mormon" have to do with your choice, versus Romney actually being a viable candidate?
Salt Lake Kem| 1.21.11 @ 10:47AM
I agree with PM, Mitt has the chief issue in his hip pocket...economics but he does have vulnerabilities like Romneycare and social issues. It remains to be seen, if the economy continues to decline and the stock market nose dives, Romney will be the frontrunner. Victories in Iowa, New Hampshire and later California will clinch the nomination no matter what the Tea Party says or does.
loulou| 1.21.11 @ 1:09PM
How can Romney have economics in his hip pocket when he produced Romneycare?
I hope Romney has the good grace to bow out NOW. He couldn't even win a primary last time after spending millions. Olympics?? I don't care about the Olympics.
jstwndring| 1.21.11 @ 11:38PM
It is precisely his efforts behind Romneycare that gives him ZERO credibility within the Republican constituancy to lead us away from Obamacare and big government in general. He cannot be trusted.
Mormon Girl| 1.21.11 @ 10:53AM
My friends and I are taking a break from our studies at BYU to work for Mitt's nomination. He has New Hampshire in the bag so our focus will be Iowa. Throughout the summer and fall the young Mormon faithful will campaign for Mitt and do our very best to see Mitt win Iowa the key state in this campaign. Mitt wins Iowa and our dreams will come true a LDS in the White House, Amen.
Cris Worth| 1.21.11 @ 10:56AM
The Mormon Girl is right, Iowa is the key. Romney wins Iowa and the ball game is over. To prevent this I recommend anti-Romney forces in the GOP and the Tea Party rally around one candidate in Iowa to beat Romney otherwise it's Romney vs Obama and the Tea Party is finished.
RCV| 1.21.11 @ 1:28PM
Why anyone thinks Romney will run any better this time around than he did in 2008 is a mystery to me. He's simply a terrible campaigner and despite his overwhelming resources last time around, he was a flop. Why will 2012 be any different?
jstwndring| 1.21.11 @ 11:45PM
Exactly. We already know who he is. His real problem is those of us who know as much as we'd like to about him. He has all the political attractiveness of Newt. Romney likes socialized medicine, and Newt has gone green. WTF? Why don't we just nominate George Soros, and make our political suicide complete?
Jocon307| 1.22.11 @ 2:34PM
I don't get the Romney thing either. The evangelicals won't like him any better this time, the real right-wingers won't like him any better this time (in fact they'll probably like him LESS). I can only see this as that old next-in-line thing the republicans do. That thing that brought us Dole and McCain. That thing we'd better steer well clear of this time. We'd be better off taking the LAST place pubbie and running him/her.
I won't name any names, just use your own imaginations!
jstwndring| 1.21.11 @ 11:41PM
You're going up against the Tea Party, so, forget it. I mean, you can try, but you'll never have our support. I hope he falls flat during the primaries. Actually, I hope his effort dies well before that. He's a political leper as far as the Republican constituancy is concerned.
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 1:55PM
Yeah, I see the logic of this. Romney lost to McCain in 2008, so naturally it's his turn to lose to Obama in 2012.
If you're going to nominate Romney or any of the other 2008 losers in 2012, you might as well now already be picking your candidate for 2016 to run for the open Oval Office once Obama is term-limited out. Of course, when the time comes, you'll be doing that without us, as Texas and I will have seceded in December 2012.
+++
Dawg| 1.22.11 @ 9:18PM
If i had to go to the polls in 2012 and my only choice was to vote Obama or Romney, then i ask
now what kind of choice is that for a conservative...You can die a slow death a hundred
times or we can pick a candidate that will uphold
the values that we conservatives fight for everyday.....
We don't have but one choice and that is Governor Sarah Palin....A President of the people
and for the people or nothing after this will save America from the death grip of socialism......
Charles Martel| 1.22.11 @ 10:16PM
It is no one's "turn", and no one who lost in 2008 to McCain, Obama, or Biden should be considered. I love Mrs. Palin like a sister, but her negatives are through the roof: nominating her guarantees Obama's re-election, and we very simply cannot afford that.
+++
Ron 8200| 1.25.11 @ 1:36PM
I would like to know more about Demint. I do not believe Romney can beat Obama. Haley Barbour is the anti-Obama he has an organization and we know he can give a speech. Right now he looks like the candidate that can beat Obama.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 1.21.11 @ 8:20AM
Senator DeMint is too boring, too serious, too grown up, no fun at all at a party, so obviously, he's perfect for the job. When's he going to throw his hat into the ring? Do it soon Sir, and you'll stop a whole bunch of wannabes from doing it first, and distracting everybody, and wasting everybody's time for a few months. The Tea Party's behind you Sir, we want a grownup as our Candidate.
Nancy in NC| 1.22.11 @ 10:50AM
You forgot...and too decent. DeMint and Pence in any order.
xRedcoat| 1.21.11 @ 8:42AM
January 11, 2011 Mitch Daniels State of State address included several springboard issues ripe for his potential national platform:
• Overhauling the criminal Justice system
• Addressing the quality of Teachers in our schools.
"Today, the outstanding teacher, the Mr. Watson whose kids are pushed and led to do their best, is treated no better than the worst teacher in the school. That is wrong; for the sake of fairness and the sake of our children, it simply has to end. We have waited long enough." . . . "When we are courting a new business, right behind taxes, the cost of energy, reasonable regulation, and transportation facilities comes schools. “What kind of school will my children, and our workers’ children attend?” is a question we’re always asked. Sometimes, in some places, it costs us jobs today. There is no time to wait."
• Fiscal changes
"Some of the changes are so obvious that our failure to make them is a daily embarrassment. The conflict of interest when double-dipping government workers simultaneously sit on city or county councils, interrogating their own supervisors and deciding their own salaries, must end. The same goes for the nepotism that leads to one in four township employees sharing a last name with the politician who hired them."
Later he exclaimed: "Remember what the Hoosier philosopher said: “It's tainted money! ‘Taint yours, and ‘taint mine.” Beyond some point, it is far better to leave dollars in the pockets of those who earned them than to let them burn a hole, as they always do, in the pockets of government."
http://www.in.gov/gov/11stateofstate.htm
USSAlabama| 1.21.11 @ 3:32PM
I used to like Daniels. Thought he would be the one.
That was until I discovered that he increased ethanol plants in his state from 0 to 13.
How would you get that off of him; his adultery with the ethanol industry?
Mimi| 1.21.11 @ 8:56AM
At this critical and DANGEROUS time...Who can WE trust?
WHO was the ONE who was one of one of the YOUNG Guns under Ronald R eagan ?
WHO...Just WHO....Turned the stove on and got this POT to BOIL ??
WHO helped Virginia in the case before Henry Hudson?
WHO when I mentioned his name in a former POST ...did someone respond with..." The T.V debates would make television HISTORY "?
John Bolton, Sarah Palin, Jim Demint, Mike Pence, Michele Bachman, Herman Cain, Paul Ryan, and Donald Trump...I can see sitting around a CABINET TABLE...but only they need a forceful , patriotic , grounded, fearless LEADER...And that is ..THE GREAT ONE..Marl Levin. Is that the answer for all we are looking for?
WHO ...was called upon for help in Virginia in thr case before HENRY HUDSON on the
WayneFarmer| 1.21.11 @ 1:50PM
Anti-Semitism is on the rise in the USA. A Jewish candidate will be reviled, sorry to say.
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 2:04PM
Yeah, just like Lieberman was back in 2000.
Nonsense. That Lieberman is an observant Jew is the only thing the Democrat ticket had going for it back then.
No, no, no, but you're close: DeMint for president; Mark Levin for attorney-general, for precisely the reasons you cite. Then watch the feathers fly! Add this one to my Herman Cain at Commerce post above, and throw in John Bolton for Secretary of State and Allen West running the DoD. You want Mrs. Palin in the Cabinet? Ponder the implications of this: Palin at Interior.
+++
Nite| 1.21.11 @ 4:15PM
Hummm, these are some very good choices! The Dems would be fuming and fussing. Would love that scenario.
Mimi| 1.21.11 @ 8:14PM
Charles...I think Mark would do right by the country serving as President....So able to articulate the Conservative message. Sarah as Interior...Oh yes ! drill baby drill. We are blessed with great talent...But we have to win! I believe Levin would take the debates and that he looks the strongest in LEADERSHIP skills ...not just a "Player".... has the aura of respect and trust.
Bob Grant| 1.21.11 @ 9:03AM
You guys are missing the point completely!
Your comments are right out of the 80's, or earlier.
Yes, Jim DeMint would have a chance against a damaged Jimmy Carter or even LBJ.
Look, however, at who will be voting in '012 and thereafter: an ever-increasing electorate who were not born during the Carter, Reagan, or Bush 1 presidencies. Many are woefully unable to put these administrations in their proper context: the disastrous effect of the Carter administration, or the opposite effect Reagan's had on the nation.
The "new" electorate will be looking for something much different than what we're assuming based on the comments posted.
Clint| 1.21.11 @ 9:13AM
"Voters over the age of 50 are leaning increasingly Republican, according to recent polling - and that includes members of the giant baby boom generation between 50 and 64.
Second, the defections may reflect a deeper, longer-term trend: The baby boom generation appears to be growing more conservative as it ages."
Bob Grant| 1.21.11 @ 10:57AM
That's great but this demographic will not put a conservative over the top.
The fact is conservatives will need to perform much better with the under 35 voter. If we cannot make significant gains with this group, it's over.
One of the most disturbing things to watch the past two years, in addition to everything else, is the loyal support the One enjoys from the under 35 crowd, as demonstrated by their behavior at the Tuscon Speech.
Conservatives must do a better job of picking the brains and reaching out to these folks.
Clint| 1.21.11 @ 2:48PM
Demographics Likely Voters By Age 2010:
18 to 29: 8 Percent
30 to49: 31 Percent
50 to 64: 34 Percent
65 and Older: 27 Percent
Bob Grant| 1.21.11 @ 3:20PM
Forgive me for questioning the veracity of those numbers...
18 to 29 >>> 8 percent?
30 to 49 >>> 31 percent
Come on!
Clint| 1.21.11 @ 5:33PM
Talk to Gallup.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/143.....onservativ
Clint| 1.21.11 @ 5:46PM
If You Get A Not Found, Google:Likely Voters Demographically Typical, but Skew Conservative.
October 8, 2010
Likely Voters Demographically Typical, but Skew Conservative
Majority of likely voters are conservative and identify as or lean Republican
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's recent modeling of the vote for Congress finds 54% of likely voters identifying themselves as politically conservative, while moderates are in conspicuously short supply compared with recent midterms. Also, Republicans make up a larger share of the electorate in Gallup's initial 2010 likely voter pool -- greater than their 1994 share -- than do Democrats, and the gap is even more pronounced once the leanings of independents are taken into account.
Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Sept. 23-Oct. 3, 2010, with a random sample of 3,037 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.
jstwndring| 1.22.11 @ 12:00AM
I didn't know the specific numbers, but, yeah, it's fairly well known that those under the age of 30 just don't vote that often. I suppose it's because when you reach 30, you've been in a job/career long enough to possibly start aquiring some stuff--which you'd prefer to keep. Suddenly, what those clowns at the local city office, and those idiots on Capital Hill are doing starts looking more intersting. Go figure.
Pelligrino| 1.22.11 @ 9:02AM
jstwndrng is correct. The demographic that least participates on election day is always (by a significant margin) the youngest voters. They want to claim they have "skin in the game" but they don't. Not yet.
The "Rock the Vote" nonsense is always just that: Nonsense.
No intelligent campaign should spend real time in this area -- other than the fact that young people are easy fodder for free volunteers, workers, etc.
Any candidate that panders to this demographic shows no acumen.
The are; however, the most likely demographic to vote illegally (e.g. voting twice; voting absentee ballot while away at college and locally at their college)
Bob Grant| 1.22.11 @ 10:00AM
Reagan enjoyed huge support with this group.
In previous elections, true, republicans could win without this bloc BUT with the electoral realities of today, they need to perform better with this group. Not only would they gain the raw votes, increased support would have a resonating effect throughout pop culture in general i.e., voting conservative would appear more viable, hip, etc.
After all, where will you find future conservative leaders?
Ron 8200| 1.25.11 @ 1:41PM
One of my daughters (24) was a Obama robot last time around, the spell is broken. Need to get every young person who ever wants to have a future to realize we need jobs, less debt and less government. Teach them well 25 to 35 should learn what is happening to their future.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.21.11 @ 9:04AM
Please read the column AND comments over at American Thinker today.
http://www.americanthinker.com.....teran.html
WL| 1.21.11 @ 9:08AM
I'm with you on DEMINT....!!!!! He and Palin would be my ticket!!!!
MikeD| 1.21.11 @ 9:23AM
Mitch Daniels has not been mentioned, nor has Bobby Jindal. Over the past 40 years the most likely path to the White House has been through Governor's Mansions; with the glaring exception of the current fraudulent occupant. I have a few other thoughts to hopefully prompt some reactions.
First, regardless of the candidate, we have to make his/her background clearly transparant and push every possible state legislature to pass a "Vetting" law to force barry the muslim to reveal his document trail before he can even get on any ballots. That has to be the centerpiece of the campaign; forcing the dems to finally tell us who this fraud is. That has to start NOW!
Next: There is one major problem that both parties have, but that will affect the Republicans more since they have to go through the nomination and primary process; which I call the "Dole Dilemma". After the violence at the 1968 democrat convention, both parties played the "Get-away-from-the-backroom-deals" game. While the intent was to 'democratize' the selection process, it really exposed that process to the vagaries of single issue and regional politics. He was a great man, a real war hero, and a distinguished Senator; but Bob Dole was NEVER going to stand up favorably against the younger and more charismatic Bill Clinton.
The 1992 and 1996 elections were unwinnable thanks to another self important traitor Ross Perot who loved screwing up his Country just to get his 15 minutes of fame twice. Clinton never approached 50% of the vote; which gave the election to the democrats. Clinton will go down in history as a 'not too bad' president mainly because the Rebublican congress saved his butt by dragging him kicking and screaming toward the middle. Giving barry the muslim that option will be disastrous because he is such a consummate liar he'll say anything to get four more years and then revert to type after inauguration. That's why a solid Republican majority in both houses is vitally important.
Selecting the right candidate is of paramount importance; and it can't be an old RINO who's "Turn has come". That's why Mitt Romney and New Gingrich should be nowhere near the ticket. Romney will forever have the Mass. healthcare debacle around his neck. How could he ever campaign against barry's health care mess when he has his own? Newt is a great man with lots of experience and gonservative credentials; but, in my mind, he has failed one major test: He went along with the "Glo-bull Warming" crap for some inexplicable reason. That scares me because no intelligent perswon, especially one with his credentials, could never believe in that scam; therefore, he "Went along to get along." Unacceptable.
Herman Cain is a great candidate who is smart and experienced; and would certainly block the dem's usual criminal use of the 'race card'. I have no dreams that he'd effectively split the Black vote; but it sure would expose them and their voting trends; proving that, if both candidates are Black, and they stich with barry; they get clearly unmasked as the "We want something for nothing" crowd who want to "Stick it to Whitey." In the interests of full disclosure, Mr. Cain is my personal favorite; having met him and listened to him frequently when we lived in Atlanta. He is solid with strong Conservative credentials.
After all that, I'll admit that Jim DeMint is an excellent candidate, along with Herman Cain. I'm sure there are a few more good Conservative Republicans out there. I think the world of Sarah Palin, but I have mixed feelings. The dems must be terrified of her; and must think she could be elected because they have brutally targeted her since the day she was announced as the ultimate RINO's running mate. Why are the dems so terrified? They must think she's electable or they'd ignore her. Bobby Jindal is a strong rising star, as is Marco Rubio, but they're still at least eight years away from the White House; especially Marco Rubio.
The dems continually illustrate that strength of character, experience, and intelligence are important because they have ignored them and given us some of the poorest excuses for presidents in our history. Of the four worst presidents of all time, three were dems: obama, carter, and wilson. The other disastrous president was buchanan; and I'm having a brain fart because I can't remember his party at the moment. It's terrible to get old!
So, howzabout these tickets? DANIELS/JINDAL; or CAIN/DANIELS, or DEMINT/CAIN, or DEMINT/DANIELS? I'm sure there are others out there, and we are still an "eternity" from the election of 2012.
Maybe some judge will grow a pair of gonadal spheroids and finally expose barry for what he is. Maybe a strong earth quake will hit Washington and help us get rid of all sorts of corrupt dems and rinos in "one swell foop"! (Yes, purpleguy, I DO know how to spell. It was humor.) We all just have to pray that the Republicans do not blow it.
Four more years of barry and his thugs will absolutely kill our Country. We certainly have to make being a real American part of the campaign; ensuring that we must nominate somebody who shares our values and traditions, not an imposter like barry who has no idea what it means to be an American and despises our values and traditions because regardless of anything his birth certificate may say; he never was an American and grew up in a foreign country; in a muslim family, under the teachings of a mother who hated America and everything we stand for. It's bad enough that barry was nominated by the democratic party (Which has nominated rapists, draft dodgers, and demonstrated traitors who consorted with our enemy in uniform during a time of war!) but even worse that a sufficient number of the ignorant, or just plain gullible, voters installed him on the "People's House".
Bob Grant| 1.21.11 @ 10:00AM
Regarding paragraph in which you support pushing the "birther" issue, I say NO WAY. This issue will never be a plus for the opposition. If a few people keep digging and find irrefutable evidence, terrific. Otherwise, drop it now.
I hope Cain realizes the demonization that awaits if he chooses to run. He will be elevated to instant "Uncle Tom" status as the mainstream media will rush to write his narrative.
He should learn from the Palin fiasco that if you don't control how your narrative is presented to the public, you're toast, because once it's out there, it's there regardless of how accurate it is.
misssbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 4:12PM
Bob,
I'm going off the thread topic, but your comment about the birthers and the story about that loon Abercrombie in Hawaii got me thinking.
What if it was discovered that Obama wasn't born in the US, now that he's already president? What would be the fall out?
I started running the scenario through my head and thought that no good could come from that discovery at this point or beyond.
I know it might sound far-fetched but my mind lept to the word 'precedent'.
It's a scary thought, no?
Bob Grant| 1.21.11 @ 4:32PM
I never though about that but, yea, this would be kinda scary. The anointed one sets a double precedent for being (a) the first black president and (b) the first non-citizen president.
My instincts tell me if it was revealed the anointed one wasn't a citizen after all, most citizens would receive the news with a Yawn. After two years as president, he's a known quantity to them. Sad but true.
If a cover up could be proven, however, that's an entirely different story!
missbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 4:47PM
Yes, a cover-up would be a different story, but I still think that the matter is better left alone regardless.
I shudder to think what a posse of trial lawyers could do with such a revelation. Talk about transforming America!
carnot| 1.21.11 @ 6:38PM
yea! great idea...pick and chose which Constitutional strictures to enforce!
missbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 7:55PM
Huh?
Judging by your response, carnot, you missed the point completely.
Try again.
MikeD| 1.21.11 @ 7:55PM
It would never be received with a 'yawn' because of the precedent issue you mentioned. If barry were proven to be inelegible for the presidency, it would automatically invalidate everything he signed that made it through congress; and also cancel out every executive order he issued. It would be the worst constitutional crisis since the civil war. There are too many lawyers, and too many constitutional issues in play to just let it slide. It could very easily begin a race and class war that would go way beyond the use of rhetoric and uncivil language. It could very well be bloody and cause permanent damage. It is a scenario beyond the pale.
My purpose in bringing it up was not to proceed against barry the muslim, but to force every state to take the elegibility requirements seriously and force the dems to reveal barry's background before he could be placed on the ballot in each state for 2012. If the Republican nominee has to be 'vetted', so does the dem.
The democrats, in their usual hypocritical way, tried to make an issue of John McCain's birth in a military base in Panama (I think) before they realized they had the "mother of all frauds" carrying their own banner into the political wars. The dems are the party that gave us the permanent campaign and the politics of personal destruction. Let them fall on their own sword if their own policies cause their destruction as a political party. I just don't want them to take the whole Country down with them.
Bob Grant| 1.21.11 @ 8:59PM
My point mostly was the "great unwashed"'s reaction to such a revelation. People don't get worked up over anything these days. As long as their apple cart isn't disturbed too much, they'll put up with basically anything thrown their way.
They live in their little cocoon world of the internet, video games, targeted television programs, and their small cliques and as long as those remain available and unaltered, it's all good.
They are used to Obama as president and all's well because the tsunami wave (the effects of his policies) hasn't hit the shore yet. When it does and their apple cart is disturbed, they will be the first and loudest to protest.
In the meantime, it's a non issue for them because they are numbed by their comfortableness.
MikeD| 1.22.11 @ 2:34PM
Unfortunately, you're dead on. The average American has degenerated into a barely sentient being (Alan and purpleguy...look it up; you might learn something.) that wants nothing but its' biological needs met...by the efforts of somebody else. I wonder if hearing noise in the streets and bullets blasting through his living room might raise him from his torpor? (I'm referring to the barely sentient American safely ensconsed in his living room safe with his beer and his video game.) Yes, the 'Sarcasm Bird" is flying.
Grant| 1.21.11 @ 10:49AM
Jindal is not a viable candidate. Here in Louisiana, we call him Campaign Bobby. He says what he thinks you want to hear, and then does nothing. He takes credit for things from the past administration and deflects criticism of his own. Just because Sean Hannity likes him doesn't make him a good candidate.
Bayou Babe| 1.21.11 @ 2:11PM
Ditto. Even Bobby's Louisiana poll numbers are dropping.
daboss| 1.21.11 @ 9:23AM
After all that the candidate is DeMint? Seems Palin meets nearly all of the requirements you have put forth.
Unfortunately, while I like DeMint, BHO cannot be defeated with a typical republican candidate.
You cannot have BHO run a historic re-election campaign without having a historic election campaign of your own.
Palin … Bachmann…Rubio ….
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 2:07PM
Great idea, if you want Obama to have a second term. Palin -- God bless her -- would lose. That's a simple fact.
Just say 'no' to the losers of '08. This time, it's *nobody's* turn.
+++
Bob Grant| 1.21.11 @ 3:47PM
The only dark horses I see at this time are Haley Barbour and Rick Perry. Both of which have their own unique issues to overcome.
missbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 4:21PM
Charles,
I'm with you. The name of the candidate that can beat Obama has not been mentioned in conversation yet.
One need only read through this thread to see just how 'all over the place' conservatives are regarding 2012.
No, when and if the right candidate emerges his/her name will be on everybody's lips.
The bottom line is, if a candidate does not emerge that can wrangle all factions on the right, attract a majority of independents and pull some dems, then Obama wins a second term.
Not one single name on this thread, including my own wish list, has the ability to do the above, if they could they'd be doing it right now.
carnot| 1.21.11 @ 6:40PM
9.0 or greater = no BHO
boycott GE!
boycott CA products!
boycott Union products!
Bob K.| 1.21.11 @ 9:26AM
I can just see the first headlines from the liberal press and bloggers after the Republicans nominate DeMint.
"Demented nominate DeMint!"
Clint| 1.21.11 @ 9:31AM
That Same Liberal Mainstream Media Propaganda Failed in November.
The Tea Party Rebellion has changed Electoral Politics.
MikeD| 1.21.11 @ 8:20PM
I sure hope you're right. But, the reality of the situation is that the dems have an incumbent president. No matter how dangerous and evil he is, he's still the incumbent. The dems also have the lamestream media lying and cheating and managing the news to his benefit.
I realize the internet and Fox News have changed the game. Also, one thing not being discussed is how PMSNBC will come out of NBC's acquisition by Comcast; which is not known as a liberal organization. Coming from 20 years in the cable business, I know many of the senior guys and the Roberts family; and there's no way they can be called remotely liberal. The wildcard is whether they will make any changes to NBC, especially in the "news" department. I also know that the Roberts family does not like losing $$$$, which is something NBC has become very good at.
Another issue is that the republicans actually follow the rules, mainly because the morons in the old media will scream bloody murder if they find the slightest hint of improprieties, and, if they don't find any, they have proven they are not beyond making things up. (Like dan blather and the national guard with "W")
The Republicans have to come out swinging, starting with a push for every state to institute real 'vetting' laws with teeth, forcing barry and his thugs to actually get on the state ballots. They also have to hammer at the frauds and lies like glo-bull warming data fraud; forcing cap & trade through regulation when congress wouldn't pass it; and dragging EVERY czar barry appointed in front of the House to answer the hard questions. Start with berwick and ask about EVERY word in the healthcare abomination; then go to the epa and their CO2 stupidity when they declared the basis of all life on Earth to be a pollutant. How stupid!
This is an opportunity for the GOP to finally grow a set of spheroids and understand that the lamestream media is going to go after them at every turn. Give 'em something to sputter and foam at the mouth about!
Bob Miller| 1.21.11 @ 9:31AM
Every right-thinking person wants to unite the Republicans around one superior candidate, but (the QED notwithstanding) that does not automatically narrow the field only to DeMint.
Instead of the usual useless circus or horserace scenario, let's get the serious candidates to issue real position papers ASAP. Whoever can't or won't put these together is too lazy to vote for.
Bob Miller| 1.21.11 @ 9:34AM
By the way, the position paper exercise should not include Gingrich, who lacks principles and would be writing just for effect.
MikeD| 1.21.11 @ 8:22PM
I simply do not think Newt is electable; and his caving on glo-bull warming really turned me off. He is way too smart to believe all that garbage, so he must have 'gone along to get along'. We do not need that.
George S| 1.21.11 @ 9:43AM
If the Republican party allows independents and Democrats to vote in the New Hampshire primary, we may very well have the New York Times pick our candidate for us. Giuliani thought he could bypass Iowa and NH and concentrate on the southern states and that did not work. The money either stops or pours in after NH. All the analysis and score carding goes out the window after the first two primaries -- it always turns to those who have the campaigning strategy and ground game honed in. That's why I think Romney will be the odds on favorite if NH remains an open primary.
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 2:21PM
How about -- just a thought here -- maybe the GOP having its first couple of primaries/caucuses in states that *didn't* vote for Obama in 2008?
South Carolina sounds pretty good to me.
Bear in mind that in a state with open primaries, no Senator up for election in '12, and their governor elected in "midterm" years, the Democrats will feel free to cross the aisle, even changing their registration if that is required, to pick another McCain for us in the GOP primary. How about we *not* let them do that this time?
No 2008 losers this time. If you lost to McCain, Obama, or Biden, you are tainted goods and should, for the good of the country, stand down. Please recall the only Gerald Ford quotation worth remembering: "America needs a new President. I have determined that I can best help that cause by not being a candidate for President, which might further divide my party.” (March 16, 1980)
+++
MikeD| 1.21.11 @ 8:32PM
Even LBJ had the common sense to do the same before the 1968 election; although he knew he didn't even have the votes to be guaranteed the nomination. The republicans are in a dilemma because the democrats were forced to make changes to THEIR nomination process after the bloodbath at their convention in Chicago. Back room deals were not always a bad thing because it gave the party leaders an opportunity to come up with the most electable candidate.
Philosophically I don't like it; but it cost the GOP at least three Senate seats in November and could very well give barry his second term to continue the destruction of the U.S. A.
JASmius | 1.21.11 @ 10:03AM
There are two related but distinctly separate concepts: who the GOP SHOULD nominate to challange Red Barry next year, and who the GOP WILL nominate to challenge Red Barry next year. Beats me who we *should* nominate because every conceivable conservative candidate with gubernatorial experience (Palin, Pawlenty, Daniels, Jindal) has what sure look like critical flaws (quitter, yawn, gaffe-prone-yawn, yawn). Non-governors don't get elected president unless running against other non-governors. So forget about [ahem] Senator DeMint.
If Chris Christie had been elected governor of New Jersey in 2005 instead of 2009, the "should" question wouldn't be a debate. But "should" in the Republican party is irrelevant. Whom we WILL choose as 2012 standardbearer will and always shall be who's "turn" it is, and that means only one of two possibilities, with the other riding shotgun: Yep, that's right, get ready for ROMNEY-HUCKABEE or HUCKABEE-ROMNEY, coming to a crushing November defeat near you.
missbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 1:19PM
Ugh!
Vice-versa, and versa-vice, either way you cut it Huck/Mitt, Mitt/Huck tweeks my gag refex.
Christie said emphatically that he would not run for the presidency, but he never said he wouldn't accept an offer for running mate.
Guilliani/Christie 2012
Think about it.
loulou| 1.21.11 @ 2:10PM
Christie also shows a disturbing affinity for Muslims. He is in favor of the Ground Zero Mosque and he just appointed a jihadi lawyer to the NJ bench.
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 2:23PM
New Jersey needs the strong fiscal hand of Gov Christie more than we need two social-liberal yankees on the GOP ticket.
That said, I'll add to my growing list (see above) of Cabinet officials in the DeMint administration by strongly recommending Giuliani for Homeland Security.
+++
WayneFarmer| 1.21.11 @ 1:54PM
Love Christie, but he is socially liberal.
Tom P| 1.21.11 @ 10:07AM
Neal, you make a good case for a Draft DeMint movement. Too many of my fellow conservatives are telling me "none of the above" when I ask them who they support among the current contenders.
Grandpa| 1.21.11 @ 10:27AM
I'm for Sarah Palin.
Michael L. Hauschild| 1.21.11 @ 10:54AM
And me.
Vern Crisler | 1.23.11 @ 12:04PM
Dittos. We need some strong conservative women leaders for a change. The men are too craven and easily cowed by Washington culture.
W| 1.21.11 @ 10:28AM
I will support the first "man" who supports Palin in the current campaign by the dems/lefties to defame and destroy her. So far, unless i missed it, none have come to her support. maybe they would rather see Palin destroyed so they have a better chance at the nomination.
Bob Grant| 1.21.11 @ 10:38AM
Destroyed? Much of the destruction was of her own doing. There's nothing politically smart about attaching an even larger target on one's back than the one place by the opposition.
Temperament, Judgement, Leadership abilities.
coal carrier| 1.21.11 @ 4:35PM
Palin was damned if she didn’t reply and damned when she did reply. And not one of the so-called front runners or backbenchers came to her defense. That shows me just what type of men we have running.
Bob Grant| 1.21.11 @ 5:19PM
I respect alot of things about her but do not think she can garner nearly enough voting blocs to win the general, and have serious doubts about her ability to win the primary as well.
missbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 1:12PM
I like Mr. DeMint, however I do not like him as the 2012 candidate.
The issue of executive experience is paramount, as it has been one of the biggest (with good reason) negatives attributed to Obama.
So, my first question is; does DeMint have any executive experience?
missbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 1:15PM
I'm sure that my choice for 2012 will not go over here, but quell your gut reaction and think about my guy.
Remember, we're talking electability first and foremost, and the proper campaign to get the job done.
Rudy Guillani
David T| 1.21.11 @ 4:14PM
missbosslady--I agree completely--Rudy's the man. But let's spell his name correctly: Giuliani
missbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 4:35PM
David,
Sorry I knew it was wrong when I posted, but the spelling escaped me (all those vowels!) and I didn't have time to check myself. Figured everyone would get the gist.
Anyway, I wanted Rudy in 2008 and was so disappointed with his horrendous campaign. Painful.
I think, with a proper campaign, Rudy would be a strong candidate. His record and results in NY make an excellent resume. As for his social positions, I think that conservatives will find that they can work with him.
David T| 1.21.11 @ 4:55PM
I misspelled his name below, so I have egg on my face. Let's just call him Rudy. Yes, he was a disaster in '08 because he sat out the early primaries in fear of the social conservatives. I'm a social conservative but I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. I agree he'd develop broad appeal.
missbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 5:16PM
Dear Eggface,
I myself am socially conservative, however I must say that I am always surprised that folks find this a prominent issue with respect to presidential candidates.
I feel that social issues should be wrested from the hands of Washington politicians. These are matters for folks to work out at the local and state levels.
I worry that too many of my fellow conservatives are ready to torpedo a viable, presidential candidate based on social stripe, and while I feel that socially we have taken a turn for the worse, I don't think this is an area where Washington should be playing a major role.
We have a social architect in the White House now and I find this to be the most frightening aspect of Obama.
I don't want the President socially engineering one way or the other.
loulou| 1.21.11 @ 1:16PM
How can we stop the Democrats from manipulating our primary, like they did in 2008? They'll obviously want a non-electible like Gingerich or Romney.
Cain, Bolton, Pence, Bachmann--all good. Mitch Daniels as well.
We have Rubio and Col. West in the pipeline.
edo| 1.21.11 @ 1:22PM
We need Governor of South Carolina (a Sikh woman), Nikki Haley!!!
"Nikki! Nikki! Nikki!" the crowd goes crazy. She has a fantastic story, would appeal to all age groups and ethnicities. She is our woman!
Seek| 1.21.11 @ 3:37PM
Nikki Haley is an inexperienced multicultural female Republican. In other words, a twofer conservative affirmation action hire for president -- no thanks.
edo| 1.21.11 @ 3:45PM
My your logic any non-white is a beneficiary of affirmative action.
edi| 1.21.11 @ 4:07PM
By your logic... any non-white is a beneficiary of affirmative action. Seek, what bothers you most: that she is a women? a minority? or a non-Christian? The mostly conservative voters of South Carolina gave her a warm welcome, what is your problem?
missbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 4:38PM
edi,
The problem is that Haley is a political child at this time. She needs to get some experience under her belt, produce some results, pay her dues so to speak.
fido| 1.21.11 @ 4:41PM
O.K., granted, but by the time 2012 rolls around Nikki Haley will have WAY more experience than Obama did when he was elected.
missbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 4:50PM
fido,
Unfortunately, that's not saying much.
Steve in Pittsburgh| 1.21.11 @ 1:30PM
Ok. I'll vote for whoever is nominated.
But will the moderates and independents?
Fionnagh| 1.23.11 @ 12:40PM
This moderate/independent answers with a resounding Yes!!
Purpleguy| 1.21.11 @ 1:52PM
Gag me .. Luckily, De Mint won't get as far as he can fly. Except for the right wing extremists, he hasn't got a snowball's chance in you know where.
John Navratil| 1.21.11 @ 2:23PM
Well we're seeing the pep rally, but perhaps it would be nice to see who wants this badly enough to fight to win it. As much as some would like the standard bearer to emerge early, it not only won't happen, it cannot happen - and this is a GOOD thing. The Republicans are unsettled with many factions - not least of which the "Old Guard" - needing to settle into a governing mode. Tea Party enthusiasm and actions will depend, to a great degree, on what happens in the opening weeks and months of this Congress. This will affect the electability of everyone mentioned to one degree or another.
As it stands, I could vote for several of those named here and would stomp on my own fingers before voting for some.
We will do much better in 2012 with a candidate about whom the electorate is enthusiastic than with an early front-runner. Patience, grasshopper.
John Navratil| 1.21.11 @ 2:24PM
PurpleGuy,
This wasn't meant to be a reply to you, I fat-fingered something.
Clint| 1.21.11 @ 2:16PM
Americans will vote their wallets again in 2012.
They are less than thrilled with The Pickpocket-in-Chief.
Joe D.| 1.21.11 @ 2:30PM
Neal B. Freeman, Mike Pense, Chris Christe and Bob McDonald would be great as well.
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 2:44PM
OK, I've peppered the comments above with my responses, so now I'll summarize my Cabinet picks and a running mate for President DeMint, including some I haven't suggested before.
Vice-President: Mitch Daniels
State: John Bolton
Treasury: Mitt Romney
Defense: Allen West
Justice: Mark Levin
Interior: Sarah Palin
Agriculture: (someone for drilling & against ethanol subsidies)
Commerce: Herman Cain
Labor: (someone for Right to Work & against "Card Check")
Health & Human Services: Rick Santorum or Tom Coburn
Housing & Urban Development: (we need this, why?)
Transportation: (haven't given this one much thought)
Energy: John Hofmeister
Education: (department abolished)
Veterans Affairs: (haven't given this one much thought either)
Homeland Security: Rudy Giuliani
OMB director: Paul Ryan
UN ambassador: John Bolton's clone
Michael L. Hauschild| 1.21.11 @ 4:17PM
So, you are transfering the entire power of the exective branch to the Department of the Interior?
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 6:50PM
Hadn't thought to, but I sure would like the Feds out of the way of our energy independence.
Ours is an American Interior Department; were it a European one, that would mean she'd be in charge of the secret police.
God bless America!
+++
Red Phillips | 1.21.11 @ 5:39PM
The fact that someone who thinks John Bolton should be the Secretary of State and Bolton's clone should be at the UN is comfortable with DeMint as Pres is a good reason why authentic conservatives who support a non-interventionist foreign policy should be uncomfortable with DeMint.
There is much to like about DeMint, and while he doesn't lead with his chin on interventionism like the hawkish alarmists Santorum, Bolton and Gingrich, he has done nothing (that I know of) to distance himself from the disasterous and bankrupting hawkish policies of Bush.
So far the only potential candidate that non-interventionists (a.k.a. authentic conservatives) can support is Ron Paul. If Ron Paul decides not to run again then we will have to find an alternative who is not yet being discussed. Rep. John Duncan, perhaps?
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 6:46PM
Ron Paul? 77-year-old Ron Paul? Frequent reject Ron Paul? Never-going-to-be-president Ron Paul? THAT Ron Paul? I just want to be clear that we're not talking about *another* Ron Paul.
John Duncan. Interesting suggesstion, except for that whole never-heard-of-him-much-less-heard-of-him-as-a-potential-presidential-nominee thing. But if he can overcome that, he'll probably be as big as... Ron Paul. You know, 77-year-old Ron Paul, frequent reject Ron Paul, never-going-to-be... well, you know the rest.
The United States of America is what it is, and if you think we're just going to pack up our power and influence, bring it all home, and lock the door behind us, then you have a vision of the world that will end with someone else's winning the ensuing world war.
Yes, we need to cut back on all the extraneous spending, but that's so that we'll be able to afford to win that war without bankrupting ourselves. The people are more than adept at making butter if left to their own devices; the government, meanwhile, has an explicit responsibility to address the "guns" part. Separate the two, and watch us thrive.
Cheers.
+++
Red Phillips | 1.21.11 @ 7:12PM
Mr. Martel, I mean the only true Constitutionalist currently holding office at the national level. (Can you name me another?) That Ron Paul. Conservatives are supposed to want to follow the Constitution as originally intended, remember?
The Feds have a responsibility to protect the US from invasion and protect our proximate vital national interests, not exercise "power and influence" for their own sake.
I will gladly debate you, starting from first principles, on which is the AUTHENTIC conservative position, interventionism or non-interventionism. History, facts, philosophy and a correct understanding of terminology are all on my side.
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 8:10PM
I can tell that we'd be singing from the same hymnal on most issues, but if we wait for the moment when we're protecting the US from invasion, then we'll very quickly discover that we had waited too long.
+++
Charles Martel| 1.23.11 @ 2:13PM
Interesting development: I just read something about Ron Paul's being interested in running in 2012 to succeed Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Senate.
+++
jstwndring| 1.22.11 @ 1:22AM
You don't need Bolton's clone to a organization we no longer belong too. Dare I dream the impossible?
Charles Martel| 1.22.11 @ 4:31PM
True, but as long as we retain a veto where it counts, in the Security Council, we must always remain in the UN if for no other reason than to prevent them from doing anything egregiously stupid. Remember the lesson of the 1950 Soviet boycott. Rest assured that they do, and they never did it again.
For your amusement, another example of this principle in action, from the British comedy series "Yes, Minister".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIXH3-A8zMI
+++
Gary| 1.21.11 @ 3:10PM
The Republican Party should be ashamed of itself. It's a greater threat to us than the Democrats are because its so-called leaders have betrayed more times than we can count. It's a do-nothing, go-along-to-get-along pack of self-important pussies.
Ronald Reagan's greatest trait was his character. He spoke the simple and obvious truth. As a result, he was able to rouse the troops – big time. Palin is the only one who can do the same, but on an even greater scale. No one else even comes close. As for the other details of running an administration, Palin can get advisors to help her, if she chooses to listen to them. Reagan made his greatest decisions following his own advice. Palin is fully capable of doing the same. As far as being vetted… well, Palin been vetted by the best – the opposition. Don’t give me gravitas, experience or any of that crap. Give me character. It’s really that simple.
Anonymous| 1.21.11 @ 3:11PM
I want a Ryan-Rubio ticket. Ryan is charismatic and articulate, and I think he can take on Obama.
missbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 3:58PM
I'm from South Florida and I would warn you against getting to hepped up about Rubio.
Don't get me wrong, I voted for him, but for Senator. Knowing Rubio as I do, I would not cast my vote for him in a presidential election.
There are revelations to be made about some of Marco's positions that conservatives will not like, especially on immigration.
jolizoom| 1.21.11 @ 11:39PM
I haven't been able to find any info about Rubio's parents' citizenship status. If they were not citizens of the U.S. when he was born, then nominating him gives the libs a foothold in the anchor baby issue.
Anyone who can answer that question?
missbosslady| 1.22.11 @ 2:54PM
I don't know too much about this kind of thing, but remember, fleeing Cubans were granted political asylum, so I don't know how that would effect the answer to your question.
Nevertheless, it is Rubio's position (his true position) on illegal immigration that conservatives will not like, and that can be documented.
I have lived in South Florida long enough to know one thing for certain, when it comes to Cuban-Americans, they are Cuban first and foremost. This is problematic for me and will put Rubio at odds with many Republicans.
Watch Rubio, he's well used tactic is to publicly steer clear of immigration issues. However, there was a time, in his politcal career, that he did not yet have his eye on the national ball and his position was clear.
Gary| 1.21.11 @ 3:25PM
That fact the Democrats and establishment Republicans hate Palin says more about them than her. They fear her more than any other political figure in recent history. Millions and millions of us love her, which says a lot about us. So, why don't we choose someone who we know can take on Obama.
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 8:15PM
You appear to be confusing confidence that she would lose with "hate". No, I am quite fond of Mrs. Palin, private citizen: her endorsements are (mostly) golden, and she is a wonderful cat's paw, sending our opponents into paroxysms of hyperbole with her every utterance. But for that same reason and others, her negatives are astronomical, and on top of that, many of us have the impression that she is simply not qualified to be president of the republic.
Please, if you want Obama out of office in 2013, you must also come to this conclusion.
+++
mames| 1.21.11 @ 3:26PM
As has been said "don't over think it, 'ya haven't got the equipment."
All we need is a solid constitutionalist, able to handle objections, express himself clearly and with humor and we will win.
Bob Grant| 1.21.11 @ 3:49PM
I don't think Dennis Miller is running.
missbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 4:51PM
Oh, but we can dream Bob, we can dream.
BTW, Dennis was a Rudy man in 2008.
Bob Grant| 1.21.11 @ 5:37PM
I don't want to go on a rant here, Cha Cha, but Rudy had about as much chance of winning the '08 primary as ...(drawing a blank here. Where's Dennis when I need him)
missbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 8:04PM
Easy Mummenshanz,
I don't disagree about Rudy's chances given the train wreck of a non-campaign he ran, that really goes without saying.
However, I think that the wind was at his back in '08 and he squandered the opportunity.
Osamas Pajamas| 1.21.11 @ 3:52PM
Love Demint, don't know if he'd go for ti or get elected, seems like Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio would make a deadly combination against the fascists.
Osamas Pajamas| 1.21.11 @ 3:55PM
Luv Sarah, too, and if empty-suit OhBummer got into the White House, why not her --- with a lot more polic smarts and guts than he has?
David T| 1.21.11 @ 4:24PM
Face it, folks--DeMint would get creamed. The only viable candidate against Obama is Rudy Giuliana.
Bob Grant| 1.21.11 @ 4:37PM
Um. Can we get a consistent spelling of Rudy G.?
missbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 4:40PM
tee-hee
David T| 1.21.11 @ 4:47PM
It's Julioni
missbosslady| 1.21.11 @ 4:52PM
Not Julie-annie?
coal carrier| 1.21.11 @ 4:47PM
Look who we have inside of the beltway, politicians that went to Ivy League schools and studied political science. Upon graduation they couldn’t get a job doing political science so they went to law school. They couldn’t join a law firm because their grades were not good enough. The next step was to become a special prosecutor but that didn’t work out either. So they ran for public office and clamed they were for the “little guy” and the grass roots organization behind them proved it. Any wonder why our country is upside down?
No need to brag about a “grass roots movement” anymore. Sarah Palin is the grass roots.
MittenChick| 1.21.11 @ 4:58PM
I can't believe I haven't seen his name come up even once...if you want a candidate that can draw the Independent vote, the center-left, the right and some Conservatives, the perfect guy is Gary Johnson. He is highly electable, a fiscal hawk, cut 1/3 of his state government without losing a job, increased the state's economy, vetoed more bills than almost all the other governor's put together--and has the kahunas to do it (which we desperately need after Obama's rein of terror). Staunchly opposed to big government and for state's rights, would have Roe V Wade repealed, would bring our troops home in the most appropriate way possible, has a great work program for immigrants which saved his state tons of money without encouraging illegal immigration and privatized more than any other governor. There is no one else that can dig us out of the hole Obama has put us in, and that can get those crucial swing votes like Johnson can.
Dulou| 1.21.11 @ 5:06PM
The person you want is Mitch Daniels
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 11:35PM
DeMint/Daniels, Daniels/DeMint -- I think I'd be happy with either configuration, as I indicated above.
+++
Bob Grant| 1.21.11 @ 5:14PM
How 'bout Johnson/Daniels...
Sounds like some giant food conglomerate.
Jacob Morgan| 1.21.11 @ 5:50PM
Be careful about leaving out the "losers" from '08. If they had been nominated maybe they would have won. Under this criteria Reagan was a loser in '76.
Why do the primaries start in mostly non-Republican areas? That is just stupid--why not, say, Nebraska, Texas, and Tennessee all on the same day for starters. New Hampshire? WTF?
Above all it needs to be someone who can communicate and can go over the democrat-controlled media. Like or not, this is a war on two fronts, the commie in chief and his propaganda ministry. Palin ought to have something to do one way or another, since the propaganda ministry act like fools around her.
And stop this stupidity about how BO is a shoo-in in 2012. That is nuts. I remember how Bush I was going to be a sure thing in 1992 the way people talked in 1991--it was just a question of 48 or 49 states that he would win. Things can change in a hurry, and I think the "BO has moved to the center and everyone just loves him now" is just media BS.
Charles Martel| 1.21.11 @ 11:41PM
Good point, but Reagan lit a fire under a whole movement. The only candidate from 2008 who can arguably claim that now is Mrs Palin, and her negatives are as high as Obama's.
She's still young. She still needs seasoning. Now is not the time. The stakes are too high.
The same movement that embraces Mrs Palin is also quite fond of its leading senator. I think he has a better claim to being ready than she, and he's going to have plenty of opportunities in the 112th to cement that impression. Let's see what he does with them.
+++
post*tenebras*lux| 1.21.11 @ 6:08PM
The only person I've seen that addresses the issues specifically is Palin. She speaks clear and directly. All other potential candidates do the two step and straddle the fence according to the crowd they are playing to. Sarah is unafraid to talk about America's exceptionalism. Blood libel.............blood libel.................blood libel..............there I've repeated it, now do you believe?
Travis| 1.21.11 @ 6:08PM
Jim DeMint would be an excellent choice for President, in my opinion, but I'm not sure he's electable. Here's why. He's not really as well known around the country as some might think. He also hasn't really made either his presence or plans widely available to the public thus far nor has he presented comprehensive policies and/or initiatives in concrete form so people have a better understanding of how he intends to bring America back from the brink of bankruptcy and on the road to prosperity and also where he stands on a variety of other issues including both foreign and domestic. Great guy though. Hasn't he already said though that he won't run in 2012? Or am I thinking about someone else. Oh yeah... Chris Christie has already said he won't run, but I thought Jim DeMint has essentially said the same thing. Maybe I'm mistaken though.
Believe it or not I think a more electable contender would be Mitt Romney. Romney has an enormous presence and a calm demeanor and also a personality suited for public service. The only thing that keeps him from being the front-runner currently, in my opinion, is his so-far refusal to distance himself from his own disastrous Romneycare debacle in Massachusetts. He also has had a tendency to flip-flop on issues in the past but I think as of today he has demonstrated solid conservative principles and has stuck to them for the most part. If he had just come out and humbled himself and told the American people he was wrong about Romneycare the American people most likely would have accepted his apology and acknowledgment of failure and it would have given him an enormous advantage in the run up to the 2012 primary race in my opinion. He still has a chance to completely distance himself from the Romneycare debacle but time is running short. I did hear that his presidential committee is starting to negotiate ways to distance themselves from the Romneycare controversy but we'll have to wait and see how far they'll be willing to go. Personally I think he has to out and out renounce it completely and apologize to the American people for his devastating "miscalculation" on government run health care in Massachusetts. If he did that and stayed true to his otherwise now conservative principles he very well could garner the nomination in my humble opinion. If he did end up garnering the nomination his pick of Marco Rubio as his VP would be an excellent choice, in my opinion, and would probably be enough to propel Romney past Obama and into the White House. The choice of Marco Rubio as VP could possibly garner millions of Latino voters who would otherwise be sitting on the fence and simply have voted for Obama as a reflex action. But as the VP nominee Rubio could potentially persuade and convince millions of Latinos to vote Republican in 2012 if you ask me. Independents would likely give Mitt Romney the majority of their votes if indeed Romney came clean about his obviously failed government run health care he instituted in Massachusetts. I think that "one" issue alone is enough to either make or break him depending on which way he handles it. That is to say, whether he actually renounces it and apologizes to the American people for his error in judgment or if indeed he sticks to his guns and continues to defend it like he's currently doing.
Mike Huckabee is making a lot of money on Fox News and therefore he may indeed forgo public service to continue raking in millions of bucks on the public speaking circuit as well as on Fox News and/or by writing more books. Besides, the controversy surrounding Mike Huckabee would likely do him in and keep him from the presidency. Letting convicted murders loose who went on to kill more people and/or his obvious deception about being for Cap & TAX before he was against it. Plus Huckabee had a propensity to raise taxes excessively when he was Governor of Arkansas. Nice guy though and you have to admire his willingness to reach out to others and across the aisle to people who may not agree with him personally or his politics.
Sarah Palin is another one that is making beaucoup amounts of money on the public speaking circuit and on Fox News and by writing books. For that reason she may decide money is more important at this point than being president. Plus she would need to reevaluate her strategy of currently polarizing political debate and seek instead to mellow that polarizing perception by trying to seek common ground with the majority of the American populace who tend to be 'center' right in their political thinking. Stick to her conservative principles both socially and fiscally but do it in a manner to try and unite the country instead of polarizing it like she appears to be doing now.
Mike Pence is another good choice as well, in my opinion. And don't count out Tim Pawlenty either. Both are very smart guys plus they are devoted conservatives who would also have America's best interest at heart too in my opinion. An the yearly income as President would surely come in handy also for both candidates. Unlike Sarah Palin and/or Mike Huckabee who have become certified multi-millionaires within the last few years alone, and consequently, wouldn't need that presidential income near as much, if at all. On the other hand both Mike Pence and Tim Pawlenty could actually use the money and no doubt they would earn every penny of it if elected President. Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin would likely also make pretty good presidential material but they obviously don't need the money that comes with the presidency and if they did decide to run they would automatically 'lose' potentially millions of dollars while they served the country as president... if elected. I'm not too sure they would be willing to give up the good life and the massive amounts of money they are currently raking in though. ;) We'll see...
post*tenebras*lux| 1.21.11 @ 6:22PM
Dear God, please no Romeny, he is a RINO big time and would be terrible for this country. Palin is polarizing because she doesn't cow tow to the elites. Either you are or aren't a conservative, playing nice, doesn't make you more electable to those that see through the BS.
Bob Grant| 1.21.11 @ 6:48PM
DeMint is not as well known around the country as you might think?
Ask your typical mouth-breather off the street who/what is Jim DeMint, and they're inclined to tell you it's some sort of after dinner confection. ("Care for a Jim DeMint?")
No. He's an absolute unknown to the great unwashed. Many of who (unfortunately) carry Voter cards.
Sarah, on the other hand, suffers from the opposite affliction: She's too well known, and most of what is known of her is false.
There are many politicians on the right who possess great attributes but NONE of them have the right combination.
MarkR| 1.23.11 @ 6:52PM
IF is a big word- Romney has been totally unwilling to renounce RomneyCare and I see him as a waffler in other areas. --As far Huckabee being nice-whoopee! Thats the crap we need to distance ourselves from. All this crap about sitting next to the dems for the State of The Union is democratic tactics they always use when they get their as- kicked. Its like "the will of the people is we now get along- and love on one another" when in reality the will of the people (who elected the republicans) is to change these abysmal policies of the socialists- but if we fall for the Rodney King approach and love on them dems theyll bite us in the as- and laugh all the way to their seats. --Why oh why do conservatives have to emotionally give in to these cretans?
TomB| 1.21.11 @ 6:55PM
DeMint would be great, but can he win? Not saying he can't, but we need to consider recent experiences with dark horses in big races.
Palin should act like she's running, just to draw fire. With her as a "bad cop" candidate, just about any real candidate should be able to look "good." But that only works if Obama looks like a bad guy. If Obama just looks inept, then someone with good hair and executive mannerisms like Romney may have the advantage.
Going with the recovering business executive paradigm brings Cain onto the field, but the problem with business executives who lack elected office experience is that they may overestimate their authority and underestimate their ability to sell their policies to the executive committee (Congress). Again, advantage Romney.
So really? What I'd like is not what I'm likely to get. Such is life in a democracy. Hopefully we'll get a shot at improvement, but don't count on getting instant nirvana.
Lanesville Tom| 1.21.11 @ 10:29PM
Mitch Daniels stepped in it a little with his notion of a truce on social issues. He could regain some lost grounds by assuring conservatives that he would appoint judges and justices who are strict constructionists.
Mitch would make a great president.
TruSkeptik| 1.22.11 @ 8:48AM
Wonderful, a syllogism with a lacuna in it. Oh, that it could be so. As South Carolinian I would be delighted to support DeMint, and I do. However, the confederate flag issue would prove too much of an impediment, I'm afraid. This in the face of the "new version" of Twain's classic. It is going to take an actual, bare knuckle, real revolution to dislodge the socialist interlopers at this point, politics just ain't gonna git 'er done.
stmichrick| 1.22.11 @ 11:03AM
Just superficial observation here; no doubt about DeMints purity but I fear he has already been 'Quayled' like Sarah Palin.
Definition of Quayled: having the mass media generated public image of being stupid, simplistic, rigid, overly judgmental and sub-human. This condition is hardened into the concrete poured by big-media types when validated by RINOs and man on the street interviews. Almost impossible to crac unless you have the personality and wit of a Ronald Reagan.
Bob Grant| 1.22.11 @ 4:24PM
Very true.
The planfor Sarah is simple but the clock is ticking:
(a) She needs to put the kibosh her money-making endeavors if she is a serious candiate. Enough already. No more reality shows (errr, travelogues), books, posing as a "Fox News Contributor", etc.
(b) She needs to reign in her kids who I'm afraid are ticking time bombs which will surely sabbotage her political endeavors. What do I mean? This means no more Dancing With the Stars appearances (an embarrassment), bragging about political indifference...and ignorance, drama with the "baby daddy", outrageous facebook postings, etc.
(c) Immediately reveal ANY remaining skeletons in closet, no matter how innocuous they appear. Like it or not, Sarah MUST appear as pure as the driven snow.
***and most importantly***
(d) ENGAGE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. This could be targeted. She needs to select at minimum 5 MSM interviewers who she thinks will give her a fair shake (relatively speaking, of course). They are out there. She, and her staff, should study these people like they will her. She and her staff need to understand the psyche of each interviewer to lesson the chance of becoming rattled during the interview.
Because of the cold hard realities, she must be perfect going forward. Fair or not, she has absolutely no room for error.
If she thinks she can handle it, I will her well. Godspeed. If not, she needs to make her intentions known ASAP.
gazinya| 1.22.11 @ 2:43PM
I am glad to see so many who, for better or worse, agree that the three top male frontrunners as defined by the NYT are sops. Huckleberry, Romney and Pawlenty. These three are shades of Dole and McCain with a dash of Bush 1&2. I like Sarah but damn, I worry about how much abuse she can endure from everyone of all strips just because she is honest. It is time to look to the tried and true not the McTwits and Bonenhs or Grahmns Crackers. (I'd settle for some one whose name I could remember how to spell)
Proud Mormon| 1.22.11 @ 6:05PM
Mitt just destroyed the opposition in the NH straw poll. Start packing Tea Partiers Mitt's going to win the nomination and occupy the WH come 1/20/13.
MarkR| 1.23.11 @ 12:31PM
Hold on there Mormon - the fact is its early and this type of stuff has been seen before in New Hampshire with dismal overall results. --Mitt may rise fast and fall faster- and health care isnt going to be an easy issue for him to overcome. It will get ugly for him. That being said we could do worse. And also Tea Partiers aint going anywhere. Weird that you would attack the Tea Party when we wouldnt hold the house without them. Mitt got something against us?
Mimi| 1.23.11 @ 7:41PM
What..? The vote was 286 people !! Where do they get off even publishing such a PUNY SMALL ...POLL ? It is so EARLY ...We've got all those maybe's. Lets see who announces!!! I swear someone like Mark Levin either him or his clone will rise like cream does TO THE TOP !!! Think about it...out of no-where comes a genuine lover of country and it's people and LION OF LIBERTY!!! Tell me where I'm wrong.
Clint| 1.22.11 @ 7:53PM
Dingy Harry is The Proud Mormon.
MikeD| 1.22.11 @ 9:11PM
I wonder if any of you posting here know the significance of Charles Martel, the Frankish leader who formed an army and defeated the invading muslims at the Battle of Tours in 732. That stopped the muslims dead and actually prevented all of Europe from being overrun by the muslims. Just think of what our history could have been with the muslims in control for the past 1,300 years.
Charles Martel| 1.22.11 @ 10:27PM
Why, yes, I do, good sir. You think I pulled that nom de guerre out of a hat?
A failure of the Franks to repel the mohammedan invader would have been catastrophic not just for Christendom, but for all mankind. We would not now be having this conversation -- certainly not on any "Internet", and likely not in any Indo-European language, least of all anything we'd recognize as English.
As in 732, so today. But that's a subject for another thread.
+++
Ron| 1.22.11 @ 10:48PM
I have read through the comments and have one observation to make. The Republican Party is fractured. There is little chance of getting a viable candidate with the credentials needed to beat Obama in 2012 because there is no unity. The progressives are unified behind their agenda and Obama is just the flag bearer. We need to get united behind our platform then search for a flag bearer of our own. As long as we squabble among ourselves, the other side will prevail! So endeth the sermon!
Dave| 1.23.11 @ 12:54AM
I'd rather have Palin. I know there's staunchy male pigs who can't have a woman for Prez, but she's what the country needs, not what might win vs Osama.
Charles Martel| 1.23.11 @ 2:15PM
Did you just hear yourself? If she can't beat Obama, she's not going to be president. A losing Palin candidacy is not "what the country needs"; a Republican 45th president is.
+++
sonn119| 1.23.11 @ 1:31AM
I liked your overall message and warning to the GOP, in this article, but I do not like your snide slander of Gov. Palin, quote; "Others are unprepared intellectually for the coming ordeal by Establishment fire"..
As we, All of Gov. Palin's Tea Party Fans, and Constitutional Conservative Soldiers, will not give in, and will not be daunted, by all the negative direct and indirect assaults upon her, and her Intelligence, her record of accomplishments in Alaska as Gov., which one of the best in America, and her Political Savvy and Insight, and her True Ordinary American Independent Andrew Jacksonian / Ronald Reagan, persona and character, be shredded and trampled upon, by you, or any other typical Liberal Elitist Bush Blue Blood Republican Party Establishment Pitchman.. like Romney, the standard polished slicked back, republican party stamp of approval party establishment moron, with his own version of Obamacare, called Romneycare..
I'm sorry, but no way, no how, never.. NO ROMNEY, PERIOD.!!!
Bob| 1.23.11 @ 8:39AM
Palin's performance in the NH straw puts her presidential hopes on the critical list. I recommend she start another reality show titled Double Trouble, the massage misadventures of Todd and Tripp.
MarkR| 1.23.11 @ 12:11PM
Interesting article and Jim DeMint would be fine by me. However I think (I could be dead wrong) that the idea Obama will be so strong is a real stretch- #1) he isnt Bill Clinton- and he isnt going to do anything like Clinton did like signing a welfare reform bill etc. He isnt going to take conservative issues and make them his own. Also he is stuck with a healthcare bill that he pushed through without the will of the people. Clinton failed in that respect and didnt have that albatross around his neck. Another thing- Obama will continue to push his agenda by executive fiat and further alienate the public. #2) The tea party aint going anywhere. This idea that this movement is fly by night is a false one. People I know are not going to stop. Obama got the existential fear of Americans up and running. No longer is it the 1990's when Clinton was helped immensely by a post cold war spring in which he could close military bases, and treat Al Queda as though they were the mob. Also Clinton was lucky as he benefitted by the dot-com bubble- a once in a lifetime buzz. All this came apart in early 2000 and continued to unravel leading to 9/11 and then the world changed. Obama does not live in that pre-9/11 world. #3) the fact the field is wide open could easily be a benefit. The public and conservatives in particular are tired of the in line waiting to be coronated candidates which pop up every 8 years- Doe/McCain types who talk but dont walk the talk. --So even though its tempting to look back and see parallels to past times I believe the unbelievable abuse of power of Obama and the fact he's not as good an actor as BJ Clinton and isnt living off the peace dividend Clinton did as well as the fact Obama is a confirmed socialist-marxist in mentality and action will lead to an "inch thick mile wide type of support that can and potentially will evaporate in the next general election. Just my 2 cents.
Fionnagh| 1.23.11 @ 12:32PM
Just finished reading the many comments. The diverse opinions are why Obama will win a second term. Too many conservatives will either not vote at all, or vote their favorite, instead of backing the GOP contender. 2012 will be a sorry repeat of 2008. Thanks a bunch, guys.
MarkR| 1.23.11 @ 1:57PM
I disagree. There will be a fight and once that fight is over- there will be a unanimous frontal assualt on Obama and support for our nominee. Of this I have no doubt. To say that because we are all fighting for our favorites now we will be divided then is not logical. I know people were burned by McCain in '08 and Dole in '96. It aint 96 and it aint 08- Obama has struck a nerve in the conservative and independent voters and I dont believe any supposed move to the center is going to work. Its so patently calculated and unlike Clinton he isnt a smooth political operative. Tuscon speech or not he's a polarizing figure who's true colors are going to be seen- they are now. Temp0rary bumps in popularity are just that. He is failing in his attempts to be Clintonesque and will be increasingly seen as the extremist he is. So I say let the in fighting about our nominee continue- its healthy to fight it out.--This nonsense about getting along is a leftist motif to have us select the moderate candidate. The libs play dirty- and we gotta play our own game and ignore them. Finally I remember 1980 and the same crap was being said- Reagan cant win/ a true conservative cant win/ and there is just too much in fighting with the republicans- hell- Bush and Reagan were at each others throats- and then they got together and beat hell out of Carter- so all this narotic worry about present chaos is nothing to fret about. Stick to first principles- thats all we have to do.
Bob| 1.23.11 @ 3:13PM
Your wrong buddy, Romney is clearly the frontrunner. The Republicans like to nominate losers from the past and it's Romney's turn. Romney's nomination will split the GOP in two just like Goldwater/Rockefeller resulting in Reagan's version of a political dust bin.
MarkR| 1.23.11 @ 6:38PM
Dont think its gonna happen buddy- its gonna be someone else-healthcare is gonna haunt him- I almost guarantee it.
Wayne | 1.23.11 @ 11:30PM
Agree, a Romney nomination in my opinion will end up with a 3rd party split.
Hank Rearden| 1.23.11 @ 12:33PM
Allen West!!
Doesn't fit all your criteria, but he knows the conservative syllabus and he can make the case. And he is charismatic. And smart. And he isn't afraid of anything.
Allen West!!
Fionnagh| 1.23.11 @ 12:57PM
Allen West would be my first choice, hands down. I'd take a leave of absence from my job to campaign for him, anywhere in the U.S., and at my expense. Frankly, though, given how critical the 2012 election will be for the future of our country, I plan to campaign anyway for whatever candidate has the best chance of winning against Obama. Our votes alone won't be enough. We will have to actively campaign as if our very lives depended upon it. Which they might - if one is 55 or older.
Charles Martel| 1.23.11 @ 2:19PM
I wouldn't place my bets on a first term Congressman for the presidency, no matter how good he is. I notice, though, that Democrat Senator Bill Nelson's term expires in the next cycle. How is the GOP field for that office shaping up?
+++
martin j smith| 1.23.11 @ 12:41PM
No one from the 2008 crowd. & no one even like that group such as Newt the Byute. We need some one who is conservative,very articulate and has the will to challenge Obama's policies. One more qualification: they can handle the MSM effectively
MarkR| 1.23.11 @ 6:42PM
No way to handle the LSM except to tell the truth and talk over em. The fact is the LSM is hopelessly out of step with reality and will destroy their own credibility just by being able to speak over them. Reagan went to the people and laughed at the LSM. Remember his hand up to his ear with Donaldson and the big smile-thats the way to handle em- just dont give em anything.
martin j smith| 1.23.11 @ 1:53PM
You know it is the voters that should decide who is the candidate --Not RINOS or the NYTz or the Democrat(ic ? ) Party.
BTW Palin should put her name for consideration just because RINOS and the LEFT ( the same ) hate her. Let the voters decide !!!!!!!!
martin j smith| 1.23.11 @ 1:53PM
You know it is the voters that should decide who is the candidate --Not RINOS or the NYTz or the Democrat(ic ? ) Party.
BTW Palin should put her name for consideration just because RINOS and the LEFT ( the same ) hate her. Let the voters decide !!!!!!!!
coleman M| 1.23.11 @ 5:53PM
DeMint is not going to run, he is a fine Senator, but he said on Hannity's show that it is too late for him to consider a run, What is needed is not the GOP heiraparents but candidates from outside the beltway! and IMO there are only two, Cain Or Trump ,West is also good but i think he feels that his talents are better served in congress
Clint| 1.23.11 @ 6:45PM
You're Kiddin' .
Donald Trump donated $50,000 to Emanuel and says he may run for prez as a Republican.
john bullet| 1.23.11 @ 10:52PM
We desperately need someone with charisma and authority. Only in the last few weeks have I heard of Herman Cain's interest in the Presidency; but I am fascinated with his persona on radio; and, to me, he just exudes a no-nonsense authority. I can just imagine him coming up with the perfect put-down for Obama during a debate such as Reagan's "There you go again" to Carter. (Something on the order of, "I have more experience in the real world in my little finger than you ever had as a community organizer or law school professor, Mr. President.") Can I make a bit of a joke, seeing how I like Mr. Cain? This is it: "Talk about a REALLY dark horse!" Of course, we'd have to get his doctors to swear on a Bible that he really, really, really is cancer-free!! But from what I've learned of Mr. Cain, I think he'd be a spectacular nominee, and an even better President!
john bullet| 1.23.11 @ 10:52PM
We desperately need someone with charisma and authority. Only in the last few weeks have I heard of Herman Cain's interest in the Presidency; but I am fascinated with his persona on radio; and, to me, he just exudes a no-nonsense authority. I can just imagine him coming up with the perfect put-down for Obama during a debate such as Reagan's "There you go again" to Carter. (Something on the order of, "I have more experience in the real world in my little finger than you ever had as a community organizer or law school professor, Mr. President.") Can I make a bit of a joke, seeing how I like Mr. Cain? This is it: "Talk about a REALLY dark horse!" Of course, we'd have to get his doctors to swear on a Bible that he really, really, really is cancer-free!! But from what I've learned of Mr. Cain, I think he'd be a spectacular nominee, and an even better President!
john bullet| 1.23.11 @ 10:52PM
We desperately need someone with charisma and authority. Only in the last few weeks have I heard of Herman Cain's interest in the Presidency; but I am fascinated with his persona on radio; and, to me, he just exudes a no-nonsense authority. I can just imagine him coming up with the perfect put-down for Obama during a debate such as Reagan's "There you go again" to Carter. (Something on the order of, "I have more experience in the real world in my little finger than you ever had as a community organizer or law school professor, Mr. President.") Can I make a bit of a joke, seeing how I like Mr. Cain? This is it: "Talk about a REALLY dark horse!" Of course, we'd have to get his doctors to swear on a Bible that he really, really, really is cancer-free!! But from what I've learned of Mr. Cain, I think he'd be a spectacular nominee, and an even better President!
Wayne | 1.23.11 @ 11:03PM
I think the GOP can not let Obama take the center period. They need to force him to the right. Start by NOT increasing the debt limit. We have two completely different views of the future and their is no room for compromise and playing footsie.
I am much less concerned about the candidate, because whoever it is must have all of us behind him. Their is no losing 2012.
Kaye| 1.24.11 @ 2:07PM
I'm on board with DeMint.
Other than Pence, maybe Herman Cain, there is no other potential candidate I could back passionately.
Quietly, behind the scenes, he has been taking a stand, guiding us back on course, and not taking any credit for it. He knows that it is going to take more than one person to get us there and has been cultivating new leaders who are qualified. Look at those he brought to the 2010 races! He's a leader.
Bill McGrath| 1.26.11 @ 4:54PM
As always, Mr Freeman summed up the Republican candidate situation eloquently.
the way to get elected is to be able to talk plainly to the American people. Not in the simplistic terms of past republican administrations and certainly not in the condescending terms of the current Progressive administration.
Jim DeMint has that ability.
Last night Paul Ryan was able to communicate honestly with the American People.
DeMint/Ryan in 2012???
sex toys | 7.4.11 @ 1:11AM
Hey I pair your style I instrument concur for your take gratify remain transmitting!
Thanks
Adidas | 8.11.11 @ 4:57AM
is good
العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 2:18PM
Sir, we are living in a very dangerous world, both domestically, and in the international arena. I just don't think Mr. Obama can lead us away from the shoals.