-
The Man With the Plan: April 2010
August 11, 2012 | 0 comments
-
A Wonk in Sheep’s Clothing
March 25, 2011 | 293 comments
-
Scapegoating Mitch Daniels
March 17, 2011 | 150 comments
-
Money Train
March 1, 2011 | 109 comments
-
Obama Builds Bridge to Clinton
January 26, 2011 | 76 comments
Campaign Crawlers
The Race for Comparative Advantage
CPAC shows why there is no clear frontrunner for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.
If the Conservative Political Action Conference were to give an award for the most candid assessment of the Republican presidential field by a likely candidate, then former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty would be the runaway winner.
During a meeting with bloggers last Friday, Hotair’s Ed Morrisey asked Pawlenty to respond to the criticism that he lacks the charisma to win a national campaign.
“Compared to who?” Pawlenty asked rhetorically. While conceding the charisma of “global celebrity” Sarah Palin, he continued, “But, really, compared to most of the other people who are serious about running? Are you serious? I won’t name names, but think about it.”
Pawlenty’s response could easily be generalized. Viewed individually, each of the possible Republican candidates has what might be considered a fatal flaw. Yet when compared to each other, it suddenly isn’t so fatal.
During the last presidential election cycle, most candidates had already announced they were running by the time CPAC 2007 rolled around, and the conference had an intense campaign flair. While things weren’t as heated this year given the slower start to the race, it was still interesting to keep tabs on how those who are often touted as potential candidates decided to position themselves.
Several of the possible candidates gave pretty standard conservative speeches, filled with attacks on President Obama, one liners and lots of red meat.
“This year, the President talked a lot about supporting ‘clean energy,’” Thune said, recalling Obama’s State of the Union address. “And he started by recycling his speech from last year.”
Mitt “I will never apologize for America” Romney’s speech was less notable for what he said than what he left out. Though he launched a long attack on Obama’s economic and domestic policies, he neglected to talk about the president’s signature legislative achievement — national health care. Given his record of spearheading a similar plan as governor of Massachusetts, it isn’t surprising that Romney decided to avoid the issue for now. But ObamaCare is kind of a big deal for GOP primary voters, and in the general election, hammering the overwhelmingly unpopular law will be a key to Republican chances to retaking the White House. Imagine if, in 2004, the Democrats chose to nominate a candidate who voted for the Iraq War to run against President Bush. Oh, wait. That actually happened.
While Pawlenty declined to criticize RomneyCare directly when I asked him about it at the bloggers’ meeting, he seemed to be taking an indirect swipe during his speech to the conference several hours later.
“The individual mandate in ObamaCare is a page right out of the Jimmy Carter playbook,” Pawlenty said, singling out the provision of the national health care law that is most often associated with Romney’s plan.
The best argument for why Romney could win the nomination is his strong fundraising and organization apparatus coupled with the Republican tendency to reward candidates who are seen as having paid their dues and are presumed to be next in line (see: Dole, Bob and McCain, John). But should Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour enter the race, that argument would go out the window.
As a white guy from the deep South and a former powerful lobbyist, Barbour has obvious obstacles to winning the nomination. Yet, as demonstrated by his time at the helm of the Republican National Committee in 1994 and the Republican Governor’s Association in 2010, he knows how to raise money and build tight political organizations. His decades of service to the party have made him one of the most well-connected (if not the most well-connected) Republican in the nation, and he has plenty of favors to cash in. He also has a successful governing career of his own. If he were to enter the race, it would undercut a lot of the rationale for Beltway pundits to anoint Romney the early frontrunner. And this weekend, Barbour gave every indication he was running.
The clearest signal he sent came when he went out of his way to tout his pro-life record as governor of Mississippi. Earlier in the week, former Sen. Rick Santorum, hoping to launch a bid of his own, had criticized Barbour for making statements that echoed Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’ call for a “truce” on social issues while confronting the emergency of the fiscal crisis.
At Friday night’s banquet, Daniels delivered the most serious and thoughtful speech of the possible presidential candidates. He steered clear of easy applause lines and focused on the existential threat to the republic posed by our mounting debt. Yet at the same time, he didn’t take the opportunity to backtrack on his “truce” comments — if anything, he reiterated them.
“Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers,” Daniels said. “King Pyrrhus is remembered, but his nation disappeared. Winston Churchill set aside his lifetime loathing of Communism in order to fight World War II. Challenged as a hypocrite, he said that when the safety of Britain was at stake, his ‘conscience became a good girl.’ We are at such a moment. I for one have no interest in standing in the wreckage of our Republic saying ‘I told you so’ or ‘You should’ve done it my way.’”
About the Author
Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein
Letter to the Editor View all comments (87) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Philip Klein
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/14/the-race-for-comparative-advan
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Once Upon a Time in the West
- The Lehrman Standard
- Yes, It Can!—Maybe
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.14.11 @ 6:26AM
Ironically, during the time frame between 1900 and 2000 four out of five of the biggest expanders of the government and the welfare state were Republicans. George W. Bush carried over that legacy into the new century.
All I'm hearing from the top candidates is that illegal immigration must be vouchsafed through a government process because "nothing can be done about getting them out" and that social issues should not be ignored which indicates that very few politicians have the skills or mind set to take the leviathan down.
What we have is a new group of cuddle fish, who want to keep the big spending in place, while doing little about the financial crisis that faces this country.
Spending cuts alone won't do it. There must be a serious rethinking of government and what it should and shouldn't do. Then we must stick to it.
There was very little conservatism at CPAC. What we got was warmed over bromides coupled with leftover hubris.
In fact, a conservative won't run this election cycle because all the candidates are contaminated. They secretly believe in the ethos of big government in many ways, and only disparage their former positions, they don't disown them.
Welcome to 10 more years of big spending followed by a propped up oligarchy. Both parties have nothing new to offer and the conference at CPAC proved it.
Stephanie| 2.14.11 @ 8:12AM
Sarah Palin is not "contaminated". I will agree with you that these guys are, especially Romney. And who in the heck thinks that putting Haley Barbour in is a good idea?!!! The dems will put out pics of him in a klan robe!
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.14.11 @ 8:29AM
She wasn't at the CPAC conference was she? Or am I mistaken? I don't beleive she has attended for the past 4 years or so. Also, it's not clear she will run. Why should she? Things are good for her now.
Also, all politicians by their very nature are drawn to the power of government. Few are drawn to the power of the individual.
Doctor Right| 2.14.11 @ 10:16AM
Bill...If CPAC was all that you say it was - a paean to big-government, Republican-style - then WHY WOULD Sarah Palin want to show-up and associate herself with that?
Sounds like a smart move to me.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.14.11 @ 10:33AM
I didn't say it was a paean to big government. I simply stated that all the candidates, at least the ones that I observed were all big government types. As to your point of why Sarah Palin did not attend you have a good point.
But I don't believe it's intentional on CPAC's part. It was simply a failure on their part. Maybe there aren't any real conservatives who can show up. Maybe conservatives don't have a chance. I'm not sure what the exact reason for lack of good candidates but CPAC would do better to get better speakers who aren't politicians and let the politicians take note and heed the words of wisdom. The politicians who showed up certainly didn't have any.
On another note I always enjoy your observations.
PCC| 2.14.11 @ 10:24PM
I guess you guys haven't been watching. Sarah Palin is definitely running.
S*xy Sylvia| 2.14.11 @ 8:40AM
Love and kisses to Ben Stein!
Benny Boy, I'm sending you the lacy underpanties I wore last night to the "club."
Happy sniffin'! And keep the nitroglycerin tablets nearby.
Ben Stein| 2.14.11 @ 9:04AM
Pull off your panties,
Take off your bra,
Open up your garage,
Let me park my car.
miss priss| 2.14.11 @ 12:10PM
Ben, you're nothing but a naughty boy, and you need a spanking.
Oops. Shouldn't have said that. I'm getting you eXcited again.
Ken| 2.14.11 @ 12:11PM
Ignore the trolls! Don't read their posts. They are trying to derail our thread. Ignore them!
Pepe Le Pew| 2.14.11 @ 3:38PM
Pepe blows all of you a kees!
And from my little heart I wish you all a Happy, Happy Valentine's Day.
Stephanie| 2.14.11 @ 2:37PM
...
Rupert| 2.14.11 @ 4:16PM
...
JimP| 2.14.11 @ 10:13AM
Darn, Bill. Don't leave us hanging. I know Nixon was one of them. Another must have been Ike. Oh and GHW Bush, right? That leaves Ronnie? Or TR? Please name them, Bill.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.14.11 @ 10:28AM
It's simple enough:
Herbert Hoover
Dwight Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
George H.W. Bush
Source: Mises Institute
http://mises.org/daily/895/rep.....government
JimP| 2.14.11 @ 10:53AM
"It's simple enough:"
That's an odd phrase to use under the circumtances. Is there some double entendre or something implied with it?
Thanks for the info and link, btw.
Alan Brooks| 2.14.11 @ 11:16AM
"I for one have no interest in standing in the wreckage of our Republic saying ‘I told you so’ or ‘You should’ve done it my way.’ ”
Who asked you to, Klein?
Nunya| 2.14.11 @ 11:50AM
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we have 10 more years as a Republic. I just hope I'm wrong.
Alan Brooks| 2.14.11 @ 12:02PM
You are always wrong- thank God.
Steve A| 2.14.11 @ 12:30PM
Alan, It makes no difference if one is wrong, its the intent that counts. Just like with welfare, public education, war on poverty, amtrack, US postal service, fannie & freddie, unemployment benefits, taxes, healthcare reform, "the fundamental transformation of the USA," campaigning in all 57 states, typical white people, cambridge police, spreading the wealth....want some more??
Alan Brooks| 2.14.11 @ 3:45PM
Everyone knows you want to replace leftwing statism with rightist statism.
Dai Alanye | 2.14.11 @ 12:54PM
"...four out of five of the biggest expanders of the government and the welfare state were Republicans."
I had no idea that FDR and LBJ were Republicans.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.14.11 @ 1:50PM
Go read the article. LBJ came in behind the Republicans. Also, FDR was tops. So far in this century we have one big Republican spender and one big Democratic spender.
Alan Brooks| 2.14.11 @ 3:50PM
And if you can put the saving into the military, you can kill all those in furrin' nashions who disagree with your idiosycratic worldview.
if you could overturn Roe v Wade, you can set up an anti-abortion bureaucracy to imprison women.
Why, the sky's the limit!
Doctor Right| 2.14.11 @ 4:03PM
Don't forget about our stated desire to enforce a "Christian-Only" rule with our version of the Taliban, after which we will deport all of the "Sons of Ham"!
...Alan...You really are a pathetic child....
Alan Brooks| 2.14.11 @ 6:47PM
You don't need to, Christians already dominate America.
But that's not what the point is...
Again:
everyone knows you want to replace leftwing statism with rightist statism.
Alan Brooks| 2.14.11 @ 6:50PM
... Doctor wrong,
it says 'In God We Trust' on currency, not 'In Allah We Trust'.
IMO the Judeo-Christian God is safe for many decades.
Vern Crisler | 2.14.11 @ 8:59PM
The real problem with most of these candidates, including Pawlenty, is that no one outside of a few conservative journalists know who they are. Personally, I believe Republican women have a better shot at the presidency this time around. Everyone knows who Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palen are.
JimP| 2.14.11 @ 7:48AM
"As a white guy from the deep South and a former powerful lobbyist, Barbour has obvious obstacles to winning the nomination. "
OK, what exactly does this mean? No, not the part about being a lobbyist. Imagine this, 'As a white guy from the upper midwest, T-Paw has obvious obstacles to winning the nomination.' Or this, 'As a white guy, who is a Mormon, Mitt has obvious obstacles to winning the nomination.' Or this, "As a black guy, from GA, Herman Cain has obvioius obstacles to winning the nomination.'
Please elucidate on what the obstacles are for a white Southern guy getting the nomination. Are you implying that non-Southerners are bigotted toward white Southern guys?
Doctor Right| 2.14.11 @ 10:23AM
JimP:
I feel your pain, but you're kidding, right?
Only Democrats can nominate white, Southern candidates with impunity...Such as Jimmy Carter, who as head of the Plains School Board in 1956 tried to stop the construction of an all-black elementary school because it was too close to the white kid's school...Or Bill Clinton, whose "mentor" was segregationist Senator J. William Fulbright...or Al Gore, whose Daddy voted against the Civil Rights Act...and on and on and on...
I like Haley Barbour...a lot. He'd probably make a great President. But let's not kid ourselves and deny that the left would have a field day trying to portray this gregarious Mississippian as a racist stooge of the Klan.
And it NOT just about Southerners, either. I also think Romney would make a great President, but in my opinion, he's also unelectable. His background screams "rich, spoiled blue-blood". And although I think that's a very unfair portrayal of Romney, who seems like a very decent human being, it WILL stick.
It's too early, anyway.
JimP| 2.14.11 @ 11:02AM
Hey, Doc,
Thanks for the input. My question was serious but presented in good humor. All white Repubs are racists according to the left, agreed, but I felt a mischievous urge to pose the question anyway. I believe in laying the cards on the table. Also, as we've seen in recent years, there are those on our side of the spectrum who do hold bigotries toward some of their fellow conservatives- I'm not referring to anti-Southern bigotry.
I'm with you, it's much too soon to predict.
Alan Brooks| 2.14.11 @ 8:02PM
Haley Barbour, Ron Paul have no chance- you are grasping at straws.
Plus you evade the issue of your wanting to replace leftwing statism with rightist statism. It is a FACT, you do.
But go ahead, waste your time with Barbours, Pauls, Gingriches.. all of 'em. It is your time to waste.
Bob Grant| 2.14.11 @ 10:08PM
Ron Paul a statist?...
Come on Brooks, quit babbling.
Are you related to David Brooks?
MikeD| 2.14.11 @ 8:07AM
Mr. Hussaine O'Stalin,
Unfortunately, you're right on target. For the GOP to do what needs to be done; win ALL THREE TARGETS; The White House, The Senate, and build on their majority in the House, they cannot remember ANY OF THEIR PAST BEHAVIOR.
Another McCain or Dole will hammer in the very last nail in the coffin of the formerly great U.S.A. We must hammer hard and often on obama and the dem's total destruction of everything that has made our Country truly exceptional. We must also anticipate all the nasty tricks the dems and their media wing will try, and pre-empt them. Whether anybody on the Right realizes it or not; this is a political battle to the death.
We have to remember the basic differences in the dem philosophy. They are convinced that government paychecks are their right. They truly think that anybody who disagrees with them is evil and must be crushed. Sadly, they really DO believe in the politics of personal destruction. And, even though we are all Americans, they absolutely DO hate their opponents and will do ANYTHING to win. That is the battlefield upon which we are fighting.
Look back at the terrible things they said about, and did to destroy, George Bush. Remember all the hateful things they said and did, along with their jackals in hollywood. We are in for the fight of our lives because the left knows that they have finally been exposed. Having barry, reid, and pelosi in power gave them the chance to show their true colors. We cannot forget one single thing that terrible trio did to our nation in two short years. Just think what we'll look like if they get another six.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.14.11 @ 12:40PM
Mike D
Well spoken. PS: I have a plan...KEEP the hog-leg cocked! Single action is effortless.
logmank| 2.14.11 @ 8:09AM
Exactly the reason Obowmao is going to be re-elected in 2012. The Republican Party is going to have to nominate one of these warmed over fools to run against him and conservatives are going to be reduced, once again, to going to the polls to vote against Duh One. Not an exciting prospect, nor one that bodes well for defeating Obowmao.
Louis Jenkins| 2.14.11 @ 8:29AM
If anyone watched Fox and Friend yesterday they would have figured out that Barbour is not the man. He gives a decent talk, and has the best interests in this nation, but he lacked convicibility. Disappointed to see that Palin did so poorly with CPAC, but that is expected when there is such a big mix. Romney? Forget him. He's bound by Mass. tax-care. Don't know what will happen in the next couple of months, but it is going to be interesting.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 8:46AM
Many of We Tea Party Patriots want to draft Our Tea Party Kingmaker & Senate Point Man Jim DeMint of South Carolina.
DeMint is an experienced Businessman, Congressman & Senator.
Obama Is Beatable.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.14.11 @ 12:44PM
Clint,
I would not be surprised if Sarah is quietly praying that Jim DeMint throws his hat in the ring....
"Father, if it be thy will...let this cup pass from me, nevertheless...thy will be done."
Michael L. Hauschild| 2.14.11 @ 9:00AM
CPAC and the RNC should follow the “big tent” paradigm. They should consolidate; showcase the fractional element of fringe politics with boilerplate rhetoric from tried and true examples of failed campaigns, failed personas, and failed elections. They should exemplify their loss of reality and abandonment of representative franchise by touting stuffed ballot straw polls, polls that do not represent realistic candidates, but prove without a doubt their organizational derangement. They then should exhibit the behavior that endears them to all. Abandon the electorate and continue to foster beltway influence, power, and squander the wealth of our nation to maintain their elitist structure and bombast.
Ya that's it. do that. Sure worked before.
Derek Leaberry| 2.14.11 @ 10:02AM
The urchins who attend the Conservative Political Action Conference do not resemble the conservative base or even the Republican base. Let's make that clear. They are young college boys, most of whom aren't married, have children or have a mortgage. Libertarianism comes easy to these boys, many of whom are still dependent on parental largesse. Thus we have the libertarian-friendly candidates Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Gary Johnson doing best with the attendees. However, the subset of Republicans at CPAC are about as relevant to the Republican Party as Maya Angelou is to American poetry. Many will be cured of their zealous libertarianism when they have a wife and children to support and a mortgage payment to make. Some will never grow up.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 10:32AM
Ronald Reagan:
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
Occam's Tool| 2.14.11 @ 12:17PM
I don't recall Reagan wanting to legalize pot, and he was a fairly good interventionalist aginst Islamic terrorists, except in Beirut. He was for a strong, pro-active defense.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 1:09PM
Ronald Reagan:
“During my 1980 campaign, I called federal waste and fraud a national scandal. We knew we could never rebuild America’s strength without first controlling the exploding cost of defense programs, and we’re doing it. When we took office in 1981, costs had been escalating at an annual rate of 14 percent. Then we began our reforms. And in the last two years, cost increases have fallen to less than 1 percent. We’ve made huge savings. Each F-18 fighter costs nearly $4 million less today than in 1981. One of our air-to-air missiles costs barely half as much.
Getting control of the defense bureaucracy is no small task. Each year the Defense Department signs hundreds of thousands of contracts. So yes, a horror story will sometimes turn up despite our best efforts. That’s why we appointed the first Inspector General in the history of the Defense Department. And virtually every case of fraud or abuse has been uncovered by our Defense Department, our Inspector General. Secretary Weinberger should be praised, not pilloried, for cleaning the skeletons out of the closet. As for those few who have cheated taxpayers or have swindled our Armed Forces with faulty equipment, they are thieves stealing from the arsenal of democracy, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 1:13PM
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan
Doctor Right| 2.14.11 @ 10:11AM
It's February, 2011.
I DON'T WANT a front-runner now; it's far to early to decide.
And if the GOP-establishment types inside the beltway (this means you, McCain, Lugar, Cornyn, Gingrich, Graham, and your cadres of RINO advisors like Mike Murphy and Steve Schmidt), then they are in for a rude awakening.
There are speeches to be made, positions to be staked-out, and gaffes aplenty waiting to be uttered. Those of us of the Tea-Party persuasion are NOT about to line-up like good little sheep behind the GOP establishment's choice, especially now.
Note to the Beltway crowd:
You are NOT in charge of this election. You have screwed us over far too many times. Many of us would be quite satisfied to throw our energy and $$ into the House and Senate as opposed to the White House if you get up to your old tricks. In summation - Don't EFF with us!
Nunya| 2.14.11 @ 12:01PM
Doc, I agree. If we did have a decent front-runner now, they'd be torn to shreds by the media LONG before the primaries were to come up.
As to those who are of the "Beltway crowd" as you call them, I have seen nothing from them but more of the same "reach across the aisle" BS that we've seen for the past 20+ years. This is not a fight that one can win by being friendly with the enemy, because they will stab you in the back as soon as they possibly can--even W should have figured that out with his attempt to negotiate with Ted Kennedy. This fight is only going to be won when the conservatives state their principles and fight for them--every day if necessary, in the media. Repeat over and over what we stand for, what we'll fight for, and DO NOT allow the mainstream media set the agenda. W never learned that if one doesn't aggressively and continuously restate their principles and their agenda, that others will eventually overrun the message, and make it look weak. WE can't allow that to happen again.
jon | 2.14.11 @ 10:56AM
Speaking to CPAC conservatives is easy if you understand the philosophy at all.
It's who has the guts and ability to simplify it, speak it and teach it, relentlessly, in the face of media questioners who don't get it and don't want to... that's who will win the nomination easily.
For my money, I'm liking Paul Ryan early on. Let's hope he's considering it.
Jon
www.gutfeelingbook.com
Occam's Tool| 2.14.11 @ 12:18PM
The Dems can beat the crap out of Paul all day long, especially on drugs.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 1:19PM
The Huffington Post recently sunk to a new low by publishing an attack on “Ron Paul and the Tea Parties: States' Rights and the 17th Amendment” by one Leonard Zeskind, a “former” Stalinist rabble-rouser. According to Laird Wilcox, author of The Watchdogs, a book about contemporary political movements, Zeskind began his communistic career of agitprop in the '70s as a “front man” for the “Sojourner Truth Organization” whose stated objective was “to motivate the working classes to make a revolution.” The Organization quoted its role model, Josef Stalin, who insisted on the need for “iron discipline” in agitating for a communist revolution in America.
According to Wilcox, Zeskind has written favorably about “the value of a grass roots school of communism” that would teach people how to “destroy the marketplace.” He wrote this in a journal called “Urgent Tasks,” a phrase popularized by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. The Kansas City City Magazine once called Zeskind “elusive, paranoid, near hysterical.” His forte, according to the Wilcox Collection, appears to be “ritual defamation” of his perceived political opponents, i.e., “to call people names in the hope of defaming, discrediting, stigmatizing or neutralizing them.”
Doctor Right| 2.14.11 @ 3:27PM
The Huffington Post???
Who cares..?
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 4:58PM
Politico Exit Poll at The Massive Tea Party Tax Day Protest on The Washington Mall: 43% said Sarah Palin was their favorite, 42% said Dr.Ron Paul was their favorite.
That's Who Cares.
jolizoom| 2.14.11 @ 7:41PM
Our potential candidates need to remember this when they do interviews and such. They are not there to convince the media of ANYTHING. The media is simply a tool for them to use to get their message out to the public. If they allow the media to direct the conversation, we lose again. They need to talk right past the talking heads and prove them to be irrelevant whenever they try to drag our candidates down a bunny trail. Any candidate that goes willingly down a bunny trail, deserves to lose. They have to be smarter than that.
Yosemeti Sam| 2.14.11 @ 12:14PM
Um, amongst all those HARES running the race - I'm watching for some TURTLE to appear and outpace 'em all!
Um, BTW, Ms. Palin - NOT a reportedly lady-like ad-hominem about a 'knuckle-dragging' Santorum.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.14.11 @ 12:47PM
I earnestly pray every day that Sarah will run.
I would love to see her and DeMint on the same ticket.
Len| 2.14.11 @ 12:58PM
Hey, here's an idea;
Let's have a debate among possible Republican candidates for president, with the basis being understanding of the USC and economics, and make available all the possible candidates voting records, whether as a governor or congressman.
For instance Jim DeMint voted to extend unemployment benefits. We could ask him to tell us where in the USC the congress has such a power.
Maybe we could have questions like where in the USC are the powers for protecting other nations, or pre-emptive wars?
Or, where is a monopoly for printing money by a private central bank allowed. Heck, even why we should not amend the USC to take out coinage and regulation of money, and return money to the free market as it originally was.
I would love to line up Sarah Palin, Pawlenty, Romney, Huckabee, Daniels, or whomever against Ron Paul, and see how they fare.
C'mon conservatives, admit you're hypocrites, you don't really believe in constitutionality or really understand economics (only better than progressives).
Doctor Right| 2.14.11 @ 3:29PM
Ron Paul is unelectable.
His domestic policies are great; his foreign policy is a sick joke.
He will NOT be the next President of the United States. Or the one after that.
Get over it.
idalily| 2.14.11 @ 6:55PM
If you want Obama to continue to give us Supreme Court Justices like Sotomeyer and Kagan in his second term, by all means vote for Ron Paul.
voted against carter| 2.14.11 @ 2:06PM
Something to consider;
note; this principal ALSO applies to the OLD republican establishment (Bush's, etc)
You can tell when the LEFT REALLY IS scared of a Republican by the amount of vitriol their TROLLS spew.
The MORE they SPEW, the MORE terrified they are the of the Republican being able to beat their Dumb-O-cRAT candidate.
Sarah Palin is the PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THIS, as is Michele Bachmann.
Sarah Palin SCARES the we-we out of the Leftwing-Nut, Libratard, Progressive, Dumb-O-cRAT Party,...
Because,..
Wait for it,...
They KNOW Sarah Palin IS electable,…
AND IF she runs against barry in 2012,…
She WILL CRUSH him with indisputable numbers.
(44 to 48 state landslide. Barry will MAYBE get ILL & MI plus possibly MA, Hawaii, NY, & CA)
So they MUST do EVERYTHING possible to DESTROY her
AND her supporters BEFORE
this becomes too apparent.
Unfortunately for them, it seems the cats out of the bag,... and it IS too late.
Their attempt to link her to the Tucson AZ shooting exposed them to everyone
for the malcontents that they are.
Bob Grant| 2.14.11 @ 3:28PM
Come on. This is wishful thinking.
The mainstream media, a.k.a. mouthpiece of the democratic party, at this point attacks her not because they fear she would challenge Obama but because it SELLS. PERIOD!
I thought we were beginning to abandon the notion that Sarah Palin should run.
She shouldn't because she has absolutely no chance of winning.
Suggestion: Let's all agree on a republican governor in the lower 48 and get 100% behind him.
Doctor Right| 2.14.11 @ 3:33PM
I think Sarah Palin is great. I think she'd make a great President.
I also think she may be unelectable. Unfortunately, she's been tagged by the Left with a lot of baggage (all of it unfair, much of it outright lies) that will tarnish her with the sought-after "middle".
And let's be clear: By "middle", I mean the folks who pay very little attention to politics until voting time because they're too busy reading PEOPLE, watching IDOL, and buying Power-Ball tickets. Infer what you wish...
Bob Grant| 2.14.11 @ 3:57PM
Yes, you mean the "floaters" who represent approx 15 percent of the voting population.
These people "float" around the political spectrum and have absolutely no clue about politics, what the candidates platform is, or understanding of government YET they believe it's their civic duty to vote at chance...you know those "undecided's" who don't make up their minds until they arrive at the polls.
They've been ruining elections the past 30 years. The democrats are smart and know how to put them in their column. They also know this is the only group that counts. They attract this voting block by lying - err - misrepresenting the facts.
Umm. No, Sarah hasn't a chance with this group but her problems are more vast than this group of "mouth breathers".
Doctor Right| 2.14.11 @ 4:04PM
I admit nothing...
martin j smith| 2.14.11 @ 2:23PM
The problem is to find a Winner and who is most opposed to the LEFT Obama agenda. This would be a follow up of the 2010 election. A winner would be a person who is not a Bush a McCain or ANYONE OF THEIR ILK AND NOT A RON PAUL TYPE EITHER.
I am hoping we find one.
David T| 2.14.11 @ 4:19PM
Face it, folks. Rudy Giuilani is the only candidate with the national stature to beat Barry. If Rudy wants the prize, all he has to do is pledge to stop federal funding of abortion.
Bob Grant| 2.14.11 @ 4:57PM
Naw. Been there, done that...
I'm telling you republican's only hope in '12 is for everyone to rally around a republican governor.
A senator, congressman, mayor, nor a celebrity will match obama.
You'll need a CURRENT republican who will have had a 4 year battle fiscal battle with the federal government (i.e. obama presidency).
This will be the ONLY formula that will work.
Pick a governor, any governor. I don't care at this point!!
martin j smith| 2.14.11 @ 4:36PM
Rudy has too much baggage and he was one of the 2008 losers. No repeat of 08 please. We need new faces
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.14.11 @ 5:26PM
CPAC will never surpass Rush Limbaugh as a speaker...heh, because Sarah won't go there.
You know, I sit back and try to look at the situation from Sarah's point of view, and Jim DeMint's point of view.
Together, Jim and Sarah WILL decide who the Republican nominee will be via the Tea parties.
If I were to run, I would be having quiet lunches with both of them.
As many of you know, I have already predicted the "tipping point" written about over at American Thinker today... I call it "the event" that will change everything.
My novel, and the forthcoming sequel, tend to be about a year to eighteen months ahead of the articles you and I read from day to day.
I thank goodness for each of you that went out and voted in a new House last November. You have helped create the environment for a solid President to help us survive and even prosper.
I must warn you now however.
It is going to get very...very...dark, before the dawn.
Get prepared, and be alert.
Bob Grant| 2.14.11 @ 5:44PM
Unless a "tipping point" so apocalyptic that anyone would be preferable to our commander-in-chief, Sarah Palin does not have a chinaman's chance of becoming our president nor having any impact on who becomes president.
The sooner we realize this political fact, the sooner we can agree on a cohesive strategy to win in '12.
Fred| 2.15.11 @ 1:30PM
Bob, I agree that Palin has a snowflake's chance in hell of becoming president; however, you're quite wrong about her having an impact. She has a large f0llowing out there that she can throw behind her favorite candidate. So while she'll never live in the White House, she is an inescapable way station on the road to it.
Bob Grant| 2.15.11 @ 4:26PM
Her support is shallow and wide; watch it evaporate over the long hall.
Bob Grant| 2.15.11 @ 4:26PM
((haul))
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.14.11 @ 7:16PM
Hey, Bob.
It just happened, knothead! Get your head out.
The Jihadists just recruited 80 million 'helpers'.
Please try to get ahead of today's headlines.
if I were to run, Sarah and Jim would be my confidants....and John Bolton would be my first choice as Secretary of State.
I'm sorry Sarah's counterpart turned you down for the senior prom. Please get over it for the sake of our country.
Thank you.
Bob Grant| 2.14.11 @ 7:25PM
It's pretty lame you have to reduce yourself to tossing petty insults when discussing Sarah.
Is it you that compels this or the subject matter?
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.14.11 @ 7:41PM
Gotcha' hooked, Bob!
Her counterpart DID turn you down for the senior prom...didn't she?
Your little nerdy comment provoked my laughter.
Bob Grant| 2.14.11 @ 7:49PM
I'm happy to indulge you.
heh.
jolizoom| 2.14.11 @ 7:25PM
Ok, here's a stupid question for ya'll--does a person have to actually SEEK a presidential nomination, or can he be nominated against his will? Mike Pence, anyone?
David| 2.14.11 @ 8:00PM
No to Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, and Palin. They are all great assets to the repub party - not necessarily to conservatives. They can all do a tremendous amount of good toward getting a repub prez elected. And let's hope that they have the good sense not to endorse their personal favorites in the primaries, and get behind the most conservative candidate once they have secured the nomination.
The only one of the above who I would make an exception for is Palin. She could be on the ticket, preferably as VP again, but she must bone-up on all of the issues because she will get much tougher questions than even Bam Bam will get. Does she want to invest that time, I doubt it. Only dems can get away with soundbites and snippy quips - the media will not allow a repub to do it.
Say no to anyone who claims that social issues should be put on the back burner. We are in a fight, a war, a war for every aspect of our country, not just its economic health.
Let's do look to Barbour, DeMint, Santorum, Jindal, and there may be others.
Personally, I would not mind it if Fred Thompson ran again. I know he did not exhibit fire the last time. I attribute that to the fact that his supporters did NOT exhibit any fire. I think he expected an outpouring of support in terms of enthusiasm and monetary contributions and he did not get it because HE did not show any fire in the belly. I am ashamed to say that as a supporter I did not send him a dime. What if his many supporters, many of whom read this site, would have sent him a lousy ten bucks. With money coming in like that, he could very well have ignited himself. Then, there was the fact that his good friend McCain, was also running.
Bob Grant| 2.14.11 @ 8:33PM
Your best fall back position is to select a republican governor; a current one at that.
We need to match executive vs executive
Like it or not Obama will have had 4 years under his belt as an executive however disastrous he's been.
The public will not be in the mood to go through another 4 year training period with a senator, congressman, mayor, 1/2 term former governor, or a quasi successful celebrity businessman.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 9:05PM
Americans will Vote Their Wallets in 2012.
It's about Jobs & The Economy.
Governors don't create jobs anymore than presidents do.The theory of government-instigated job creation overlooks the loss of resources available to the productive sector of the economy.
Americans are looking for someone who isn't an Economic Buffoon like Obama.
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 6:14AM
If the Conservative Political Action Conference were to give an award for the most candid assessment of the Republican presidential field by a likely candidate, then former Minnesota Gov.
Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 3:45AM
is good
OfficeCarpetCleaning | 12.4.11 @ 11:10PM
Hi! I found your post nice and interesting. Although, it takes time for me to read this article but its worth the read.
CarpetCleanerSydney | 12.4.11 @ 11:11PM
Great post!
CarpetCleaningSydney | 12.4.11 @ 11:15PM
Nice post.Thank you for taking the time to publish this information.
CateringMelbourne | 12.8.11 @ 2:18AM
Nice post you got here. It is very informative. Thanks.
العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 5:11PM
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."