-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
Feature
Front-Runner Failure
The early anointment of Mitt Romney or any other presidential candidate will repeat a common GOP mistake.
(Page 2 of 2)
Having a pro-bailout Republican as titular head of the party already proved disastrous in 2008, when McCain passed up his last chance to make the presidential contest competitive by signing on to TARP. It will serve the GOP no better next year, when Republicans will be dependent on the grassroots enthusiasm of Tea Party activists who deem the $700 billion bailout an unconstitutional betrayal of principle.
Romney has tried to square this circle by saying he supported the Bush version of TARP, in which the federal government was supposed to buy up troubled assets, rather than the Obama version. “Secretary Paulson’s TARP prevented a systemic collapse of the national financial system,” he writes in his pre-campaign book No Apologies. “Secretary Geithner’s TARP became an opaque, heavy-handed, expensive slush fund. It should be shut down.”
This is a politically untenable position. First, it was always likely that TARP would become an expensive slush fund. The measure lacked both accountability and any clarity as to how it was going to achieve its stated purpose from the very beginning. But more importantly, Romney ignores the real arguments against the bailout — based on opportunity cost and moral hazard — and accepts the establishment insistence that TARP averted a systemic financial collapse. Reduced to haggling over details, this essentially concedes a crucial debate to Obama.
And not for the last time. There will be no bigger issue in the 2012 presidential election than the national health care law signed by Obama. If Republicans wind up with unified control of the government, repealing that law will be their top priority. The window for doing so may be small — by 2014, new subsidies and benefits will kick in, building a constituency for the law based on self-interest rather than just ideology — and failure could well doom the entire conservative project of preventing the United States from becoming a full-blown European-style welfare state.
THERE’S JUST ONE PROBLEM: the Massachusetts health care bill Romney signed into law — and for which he continues to take credit — is virtually indistinguishable from ObamaCare. Both plans mandate that individuals purchase health insurance. Both provide government subsidies for people to buy government-approved insurance policies from government-run exchanges. Both expand existing government health care programs.
Jonathan Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology health care economist who advised both Romney and Obama, told the Wall Street Journal, “If any one person in the world deserves credit for where we are now, it’s Mitt Romney….He designed the structure of the federal bill.” The Obama team is well aware of the similarities. Before the bill passed, White House political adviser David Axelrod argued: “We’re just trying to give the rest of America the same opportunities that the people of Massachusetts have.”
Obama has made this argument himself. “You know, you’ve got a former governor of Massachusetts who’s running around saying ‘What’s this health reform bill?’” the president joked at a Boston fundraiser before the bill became law. “And I keep on scratching my head and I say, boy, this Massachusetts thing, who designed that?” Obama so looks forward to campaigning against Romney on this issue that he told CBS News that ObamaCare is “the sort of plan proposed by current Republican nominee Mitt Romney.”
Romney isn’t the Republican nominee yet. But there is little question that if he were, it would set back the movement to repeal ObamaCare. By simultaneously criticizing the new federal law and taking credit for the similar Massachusetts law, Romney is walking a difficult tightrope — one some of his own public comments suggest may be impossible. Consider this bit from New Hampshire, as quoted by the New York Times: “[Obama is] saying that I was the guy that came up with the idea for what he did,” Romney said. “If ever again somewhere down the road I would be debating him, I would be happy to take credit for his accomplishment.”
Romney is on record supporting repeal, though his political action committee — committed to supporting “candidates who will repeal the worst aspects of ObamaCare” — was a little more ambiguous. His efforts to reconcile these two positions are reminiscent of his TARP tergiversations. First he blames the Democrats in the state legislature for “the worst aspects” of RomneyCare. But Romney still signed the bill, with Ted Kennedy and the Beacon Hill Democratic leadership at his side. In this, Romney sounds like the Democrats who voted for the Iraq war resolution and then professed shock that it resulted in a war. Two of these Democrats, John Kerry and John Edwards, proved pretty inept at running against the Iraq war during the 2004 presidential campaign.
There’s also an appeal to federalism: RomneyCare was a state experiment while ObamaCare is a one-size-fits-all federal policy. This argument worked for Scott Brown in last year’s special election for U.S. Senate. But it will be harder to advance in a presidential contest, especially since the individual mandate — a core component of both plans — has become central to the constitutional challenges against ObamaCare. You could argue that RomneyCare’s individual mandate is toothless compared to ObamaCare’s, but then you would have to acknowledge the extent to which Massachusetts increased enrollment in Medicaid, a federal program.
To most voters’ ears, the blogger Daniel Larison is probably right that these arguments will sound like the following: “we will never yield in our opposition to the outrageously irresponsible and unaffordable federal bill, and we will defend the outrageously irresponsible and unaffordable Massachusetts bill to the death!” The bigger problem is that Romney was hardly alone in embracing ideas he would now like to repeal. David Frum correctly observed that ObamaCare “builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to ClintonCare in 1993-1994.” That’s a lot harder to justify on the basis of federalism, unless conservatives and Republicans make a clean break from their past record of advocating ObamaCare Lite.
On Hugh Hewitt’s radio program, Karl Rove recently advised Romney to recognize that the fact that “what they did in Massachusetts looks so much like what Obama tried to do to the country” is a political problem. But the solution isn’t obvious. Disavowing the Massachusetts law would deprive Romney of a major policy accomplishment. It would also add to the growing list of flip-flops that prevented him from consolidating the anti-McCain vote in 2008. The clips of him confidently supporting RomneyCare — even proclaiming “I like mandates, the mandates worked” — will be replayed as endlessly as his emphatic promises to Bay State voters that he was pro-choice on abortion.
PERHAPS ROMNEY WILL be able to change the subject to jobs and the economy. The official unemployment rate will probably be at least 8 percent by the time Obama faces the voters, and might well be higher (it’s currently hovering around 10 percent). Unlike Obama, Romney has a real record of creating private-sector jobs and understanding business. But as Ted Kennedy demonstrated in his 1994 reelection campaign, Romney’s private-sector background is a double-edged sword.
Romney’s venture capital firm, Bain, saved companies and jobs, but its leveraged buyouts frequently led to layoffs. Facing a strong challenge from Romney, Kennedy flooded Massachusetts’ airwaves with these workers’ tales. “I’d like him to show me where these 10,000 jobs that he created are,” said one former American Pad & Paper employee. Another looked into the camera and warned voters: “I’d like to say to the people of Massachusetts: ‘If you think it can’t happen to you, think again. We thought it wouldn’t happen here, either.’”
These attacks were unfair. Romney had already taken leave from Bain Capital by the time the American Pad & Paper layoffs took place. But given the nature of Romney’s business, there will be more stories where these came from. The point is that Romney won’t have a clear path to running as an economy-saver and job-creator. Big business is as unpopular with voters as big government.
There is, of course, a case to be made for Romney as well. He is smart and accomplished, with a more varied practical background than Obama. From Bain to the Winter Olympics, he has turned around troubled financial entities before. To those who argue his business record isn’t applicable to politics, Romney could point to his success at balancing Massachusetts’ budget and getting unpopular cuts to local aid passed.
The strongest argument may be that the other Republican front-runners — Huckabee, Palin, Gingrich — have obvious flaws as well. Yet that may be an argument for something more radical, at least by Republican standards: abandon the hierarchal nomination habits and look far beyond the top tier. A major party presidential nomination during troubled times isn’t a retirement gift.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (217) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/07/front-runner-failure
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 3.7.11 @ 6:18AM
"South Carolina U.S. Senator Jim DeMint is reportedly considering a run for president in 2012.
The South Carolina Republican, who ruled out the possibility of a run, is said to be reconsidering his decision in light of Rep. Mike Pence’s official withdrawal from the race.
Additionally, news that Mr. DeMint will travel to Iowa on March 26 to address a conservative forum organized by Rep. Steve King is adding fuel to the fire over the possibility of a DeMint presidential run."
"It takes a lot of money to run for President and Sen. Jim DeMint has proven that he’s up to the challenge!
From today’s OpenSecrets.org: “Two Republicans vied for title of top cash generator, each pulling in more than $9 million in 2009 and 2010 to their respective leadership PACs: Senate Tea Party Caucus co-founder Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Mitt Romney, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts and 2008 presidential hopeful.
“At the end of 2010, DeMint held a slight financial advantage over Romney — and both towered over the rest.”
We Tea Party Patriots are urging Our Tea Party Kingmaker & Senate Point Man Jim DeMint to Run & Beat Obama in The 2012 Presidential Election.
Carpe Diem.
John Daniel| 3.7.11 @ 7:10AM
DeMint an excellent choice. But never underestiamte the ability of Republicans to snap defeat from the jaws of victory.
mames| 3.7.11 @ 1:28PM
bottom line: NO MORE RINOs and Romney is a BIG RINO not to mention a flip flopping sleaze bag
richard ryan| 3.7.11 @ 8:48AM
I keep hearing about promising conservatives (Christie, Ryan, etc) deciding not to run, perhaps with their eyes on future election cycles. Maybe DeMint is thinking like me on this issue- we are OUT OF TIME. It's now or never folks.
SpiralArchitect | 3.7.11 @ 1:34PM
Presumably a typo, you put Christy after conservative, unless I missed the not.
richard ryan| 3.7.11 @ 2:41PM
Maybe he doesn't agree with everything on your agenda, Spiral, but he's a good leader and a conservative where it counts-fiscal discipline. Look at the numbers for entitlements going forward and I hope you will agree we must prioritize right now.
loulou| 3.7.11 @ 4:05PM
Christie is pro Ground Zero Mosque, just appointed a jihadi to the NJ bench and is pro Cap and Trade. Those a major disagreements.
DVG93| 3.7.11 @ 11:17PM
No to jihad, no to a mosque, and heck no to islam at all.
Kishego| 3.7.11 @ 3:51PM
I for one, would love to see Hermain Caine as our nominee. He is a savvy business man, has loads of common sense, and takes the race card right out of the picture.
Volare| 3.27.11 @ 1:19PM
As I see it, Cain and Alan West are competing the lucrative position of GOP`s House Negro. This spot requires viciously slamming Obama, and attempting to generate support for the GOP nominee in black and minority media.
Alan Brooks| 3.7.11 @ 10:23PM
Mormons, though, are nobody's fools; and such is the best one can do. A Mormon might be the best the GOP can offer-- now that the Gipper is in that great Lincoln Bedroom In the sky.
Angela Toft | 3.8.11 @ 11:50AM
Join the movement to draft Jim DeMint for President at http://conservatives4demint.com/
wodiej| 3.7.11 @ 6:26AM
Great point. I have been hoping American conservatives are finally tired of electing senior, white men who are all cut from the same cloth. If they were different than what we've been having, then our country would not be in the shape it's in.
Gov. Sarah Palin is the only one in the bunch who is not establishment, has a coherent, sound, intelligent policy on energy, the budget, jobs, debt, etc. and isn't afraid to criticize Obama.
Anthony| 3.7.11 @ 9:17AM
If we are going to lose again, at least let's not do it the old tried and true way with another Bob Dole or John lame McCain.
The left and their corrupt allies in the LSM have made it clear for years that Sarah Palin is the one they fear the most. Ds know who and what they must deal with and ultimately take out of the equation if they are to maintain their political hegemony. They know who is the real danger to them.
They've successfully managed to convience a fair number of Rs that Palin is not a viable candidate. To this day, Tina Fey has managed to keep the lie alive. Job well done. Mission accomplished. Now bring on the losers who will serve as the McCain standard bearer to launch Obozo into his second term.
Just once again, I'd like for us to put up a Reagan like candidate, a person with real guts and determination. A candidate who strikes right at the heart of the lies of leftism and takes no prisoners. A fearless, determined, and committed person who knows that their values and stances are true, and will make mincemeat out of Obozo with the gloves off, rather than the timid poll tested lines from the pol hacks out of the D.C. consultuary.
If losing with Romney and Gingrich is acceptable with many Rs, can't we a least think about stirring things up with someone like Palin who will at least make us proud of who and what we are?
Only a thought, now back to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
MITCH ANGOOP| 3.7.11 @ 10:00AM
Anthony,
Great post! I'm wrestling with the same issue. All we hear is how 'unelectable' Sarah Palin is, but, if that is true, why do the dems leap into instant quivering frenzy when her name is mentioned? What do THEY know that the GOP refuses to consider? She scares the living shipoo out of the libs/dems and other assorted morons and traitors. What do they know that the old guard of the republicans refuse to investigate? I sure as hell do not want to march to defeat in 2012 knowing that the P.O.S. in the White House got four more years to complete his destruction of our Country.
canuckistani| 3.7.11 @ 10:12AM
I for once would like to see the GOP take back the narrative of an accountable party that advocates and incents the risks and rewards for individuals attempting to bring growth to the country. Instead we are once again hijacked by narrow agendas that focus on polarizing the electorate even further.
Defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood as congressional priorities are a distraction, saves almost nothing within the budget and let's the left to continue painting the party as a bunch of hillbilly zealots looking to settle old grievances with the proverbial crackwhores queers and perverts - when many of the GOP's firebreathers are perverts themselves.
The Palin suggestion is dangerous, since as a party of merit and service, endorsing a quitting governor of a small state with NO record and zero inner-censorship, smacks of desperation and not a plan. In other words, DOA on e-day.
We whine and flail criticizing the MSM, but we also give them the ammunition to shoot down our idols and rhetoric - Huckabee's ham-handed diatribes about BHO's Kenyan upbringing and Natalie Portman's sex life come to mind as fresh examples.
If we stay focused on the real agenda - smaller government and growth, and are willing to tackle sacred cows head on, the electorate may take the plunge against BHO.
As of now, the old hacks are controlling the narrative again. Too bad.
CalMark| 3.7.11 @ 3:08PM
"...endorsing a quitting governor of a small state with NO record and zero inner-censorship, smacks of desperation and not a plan. In other words, DOA on e-day."
'Scuse me. Get your facts straight.
Palin didn't "quit." She was forced out by corrupt practices. Leftist sleazebags kept filing frivolous (Palin batted 1.000 on 20+ of these things) "ethics complaints" which took over as the primary business of Alaska's executive branch. Resigning was an act of statesmanship.
"NO record" (note the shouted "NO"). As opposed to whom? Mitt Romneycare? Pastor Huckabigot (perceived to be running as a no-hoper just to obliterate the Mormon)? Obama? I guess the biggest-ever natural gas pipeline, and staring down oil companies to get more dividends for Alaskans counts as nothing in your book. Sure wish I had someone doing that kind of nothing for me.
"Zero inner censorship." Well, I guess we all have to say what the Democrats tell us it's OK to say. Play nicely, speak politcally-correctly, and get our brains kicked in. As usual. What, exactly, has she said that's so offensive? Most of what she says makes real conservatives stand up and cheer.
DOA? So you're saying you'd sit home and not vote for Palin, like the "Republicans" who voted for Obama instead of McCain ("I refuse to 'vote against someone'--so negative. Yucky.")
In other words, you're one of those phony Republicans who would prefer four more years of Obama to electing Palin. You go, RINO!
canuckistani| 3.7.11 @ 4:14PM
"In other words, you're one of those phony Republicans who would prefer four more years of Obama to electing Palin."
I do believe that is the mantra of Demint as well....perhaps not Palin, but definitely waiting for the right candidate is his policy. Don't you agree?
Her quitting is a fact. She was not impeached, nor was a threat of impeachment apparent. She also has not adequately addressed these issues - not as a pundit, but as a candidate being fully vetted through the nomination process, that I as a reg'd GOPer have a right to know about. This isn't soap opera pap but clarity on what her real governing record is.
If she is going to blow up within minutes of her acceptance speech, it might as well be known now when there's still time to find a winner.
You are correct, however, the rest of the slate from '08 are clearly damaged goods. BHO did surprise many people, including the establishment dems who backed Hilary, then he surprised the maverick and his pandering veep selection in the general.
Rove has stated to not underestimate him again.
He has thrown Pelosi and Reid under the bus just as Clinton did to the dems in '96, and is rope-a-doping Boehner and Co. into making rash statements about social security and medicare. These are ignored by the electorate until labor day next year, but he is filling his quiver with flaming arrows as we fiddle with a faux culture war and moot arguments about his nativity.
He will dictate the narrative if we do not get back to being real republicans.
voted against carter| 3.7.11 @ 4:37PM
Sorry kids, you ARE WRONG about Sarah Palin.
Think President Ronald Reagan is a skirt and WAY hotter looking.
She CAN'T lose.
SARAH PALIN / (Fill in the Blank) 2012!!!!!!!!
SARAH PALIN / Romney 2012?
or
SARAH PALIN / Gingrich 2012?
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 or 48 state, LANDSLIDE. Barry will MAYBE get
IL & 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 Liars that they are.
Emily| 3.7.11 @ 11:45AM
I love this idea! Let's choose a fighter and at least we'll have a campaign we can be proud of!
JmsA| 3.7.11 @ 3:39PM
That's right, Emily. We need a fighter to square off against the thug in chief.
loulou| 3.7.11 @ 4:06PM
DeMint is a fighter. So are Col. West, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain.
Direct| 3.7.11 @ 12:54PM
Sarah Palin will lose. She is shrill when she speaks. She uses run-on sentences without making a single point. She is popular for a variety of reasons, but I for one, am tired of the Presidency being another beauty contest. She has her roll, but this is not it.
SpiralArchitect | 3.7.11 @ 1:37PM
Yes, Mcain was so cute...
Think Again| 3.7.11 @ 2:54PM
And he lost.
Dai Alanye | 3.7.11 @ 3:35PM
Palin isn't my first choice but the comments about her by such as Canuckistani and Direct are shrill, inaccurate and distorted. I'd prefer Santorum, DeMint or someone as seasoned and truly conservative as them, but we could do much much worse than Palin.
canuckistani| 3.7.11 @ 4:30PM
Distorted, probably, but wholly inaccurate? Not a chance.
It's the old political saw: if you're explaining you're losing.
She has approval ratings in the low thirties, she is over-exposed and independents have probably steeled their views of her. She will also energize the dem base and likely keep rinos at home out of sheer embarassment.
Boehner and co are realizing quickly that the fickle electorate can turn on you in a nanosecond when attempting to slaughter sacred cows not your own: cutting programs for kids and mothers ahead of farm subsidies and oil company tax breaks is not winning the hearts and minds of the skeptical voter as expected.
Huckabee slamming Portman while staying mum on the hypocrisy of Newtie and other "pious" men is also a DOA strategy with the independents.
You need votes to win in this country, and counting on a lousy economy and BHO imploding cedes the narrative to him, and we lose.
scotchieguy| 3.8.11 @ 3:14AM
She's also 100% unelectable.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.7.11 @ 6:36AM
Your comments about Obama and Romney ignore some critical differences.
First, TARP is only going to cost the taxpayers 25 billion, basically a short spending spree by the federal government. That issue will look small in the scheme of things.
As far as healthcare, Romney can legitimately claim that the system in Massachusetts has been changed and he learned something from the experience.
I disagree with your summation that the public hates big business. Many citizens work for big business and not the government. In fact, that's a very liberal perception which isn't true.
The public may hate banks, but they don't hate big business.
The Republican Party has changed. The Tea Party has seen to that. If Romney can make his case to the Tea Party then perhaps he has a chance at the nomination.
If he gets it, there are glaring differences between he and Obama that would make it more of a horse race.
There are two many other candidates who in reality are not that much different from Obama. They are global warming embracers and amnesty advocates. Newt Gingrich rides high in that category.
In that sense, Romney may have a distinct advantage.
Tom Osterman| 3.7.11 @ 7:32AM
Two points:
1 - Saying that TARP cost "only" $25 billion misses the point: it enabled, politically, the spending spree that followed. Once a bailout was accepted in principle the Democrats could justify any and all other spending;
- Second, any substantial differences between Romneycare and Obamacare will, repeat will, be successfully, repeat successfully, be spun into "being for health care before he was against it."
Sorry, but from here it looks like Romney's too vulnerable.
Brumby| 3.7.11 @ 8:03AM
Greetings Americans!
Ya did it again. I'm a mite slow with your abbreviations. I know who the gops are now, but what is TARP? Crikey! I just get one thing down and ya hit me with another.
I also have a question that some of you might know. Have any of you ever heard of a book called "Circumnaving Oz"? When the mussus and I took our sail a few years back there was a chap gonna write a book and he said we might be in it. I lost his name and I can't find it. He gave me the title but that's all I know. And please! What's TARP?
Mitch Angoop| 3.7.11 @ 8:07AM
Brumby,
Are you sure that's the right title? I can't find anything with "circunaving oz"? Oh, TARP is the economic recovery act that Obama jammed through to fix our economy. But it was really a way to push more taxpayer money to public unions and Democratic causes in the states. I don't remember the exact words the letters stand for. Anybody else know?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.7.11 @ 8:14AM
Targeted Asset Relief Program. Although I disagreed with the program it was originated by Paulson not Obama.
I also disagree with the statement that it made more bigger spending possible. TARP didn't do that.
That's the mindset of big government.
Any candidate who comes out against that and means it will have a distinct advantage.
Obama is very vulnerable on his stimulus bill because there is overwhelming evidence it was nothing but a slick money laundering scheme.
Tom Osterman| 3.7.11 @ 10:07AM
But the Republicans who signed on to the bailout lost credibility and undermined the GOP as the party of limited government and fiscal responsibility.
Nunya| 3.7.11 @ 1:43PM
Bill, it was the "Troubled" asset relief program, aimed at housing.
In reality, it was a means to fleece We the People and support the banks by taking OUR money instead of them losing their own. It's THEFT, no matter how you slice it.
If it wasn't government, it would be CRIMINAL.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.7.11 @ 4:44PM
It was government and it should still be considered criminal. It was.
Mitch Angoop| 3.7.11 @ 10:31AM
Brumby,
I think i found what you want. The book title is: "Circumnavigating Oz" (Which is short for "God'sOwn", which you certainly know.) and it is explained at: www.theozcruise.com I went on to the site and it tells all about the trip. It was apparently taken in 2008. Now you know. I think it costs 10 bucks.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.7.11 @ 8:30AM
Hi Brumby,
welcome back. Believe it or not, the book just came out. the spelling has to be just right to find it though.
circumnavigating Oz.
The author sometimes drops in here. hopefully he will see your question.
Occam's Tool| 3.15.11 @ 5:35PM
Circumnavigating Australia's Coastline: A Yachtman's Manual---go to Alibris.com to find. Good Luck, and G-d Bless you, pal.
canuckistani| 3.7.11 @ 4:39PM
"Your comments about Obama and Romney ignore some critical differences."
It doesn't matter anymore! The scared right has run away from this decision like it was cholera.
We don't even remember what it was like in Sept 08. Armagheddon, permanent midnight, end of days......this wasn't the MSM going bananas, it was my own advisor loading his pants out of sheer fear and anxiety.
Bush et al had no choice, and it's only the mental giants on here that can conclude another choice was plausible.
Just like Romneycare, the decision at the time was the right one, now with experience, it is time to tweak it again. Public policy must be alive and not set in stone like some flat-earthers would have it. Profess, then listen, learn, decide, act....assess and react when required. That's leadership.
Clint| 3.7.11 @ 6:41AM
From:Jim DeMint
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008
"As you are aware, on September 3, 2008, President Bush signed into law the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. The main purpose of this legislation is to
authorize the Secretary of the Treasury up to $700 billion to purchase distressed
assets from institutional investors and banks. The Administration has claimed that
this action will provide liquidity to the U.S. financial sector and help restore
confidence and stability to the markets.
I voted against this bailout for several reasons. First, it socializes private
losses, making all American citizens responsible for the actions of a relative few
in the private sector. Further, the law puts a dangerous amount of control over
the American financial system into the hands of a single central planner, the
Secretary of the Treasury. Finally, it fails to address the decades of misguided
government policies that caused the economic turmoil we currently face."
We Tea Party Patriots are urging Our Tea Party Kingmaker & Senate Point Man Jim DeMint to Run & Beat Obama in The 2012 Presidential Election.
Carpe Diem.
Donna| 3.7.11 @ 7:45AM
Clint, thanks for the post I would like to add:
“Bad government policy” influenced the economic meltdown, it was not the cause. There are senior level executives operating in their capacities that should have been arrested and jailed. This would include a number of legislators both democrats and Republican who should have been indicted as well. The Tarp was a cover-up to these debaucheries and as such, it needs to be recognized by the next candidate (Republican) that government and the too big to fail mentality is a business/economic concept that shouldn’t exist in problem solving with the tax payer’s money.
DeMint over Romney any day.
OllieK| 3.7.11 @ 1:34PM
I couldn't agree more that Jim DeMint should be the candidate in 2012. I believe he is clearly the highest quality candidate on the current radar scope to become President. The principal thing I am concerned about is recognition; he is not as flashy or as visible as many others who are more about self promotion. He has the intelligence, gravitas and experience to do the job and he is a solid conservative.
Mike D.| 3.7.11 @ 7:52AM
No intention of voting for Romney. No thanks.
Vern Crisler | 3.7.11 @ 8:15AM
I agree. If he's the nominee, the Republican party is doomed.
Old Soldier| 3.7.11 @ 1:28PM
Yes it is. If Romney is the Republican nominee, he will be the last. The GOP will join the Whigs in the historical trashcan.
SpiralArchitect | 3.7.11 @ 2:24PM
The vote would split ( not equally, but enough to kill both ) with a lot of people voting Ron Paul - even with his less favorable side.
Aileen| 3.7.11 @ 2:25PM
There's another reason why it would be a disaster: the criticisms of Romney all ignore the other things he did as Governor, besides saddling us with his health-care scheme. Those other actions include his supporting homosexual activists and his refusal to pardon the Ameraults (the family that was destroyed by false accusations of child abuse in its child-care facility years ago, the injustice of which was exposed by Dorothy Rabinowitz). Romney's record on issues other than the health-care monstrosity, all of which show him to be unprincipled and no conservative, will surely be publicized if he's the nominee. It deserves public discussion now, before it's too late.
MikeD| 3.7.11 @ 8:43PM
Aileen,
I had forgotten the sordid Amirault family lynching. It surely WAS a lynching because that family was truly destroyed under the stupidest premise in American history since the Salem Witch Trials that happened in the same state.
I will NEVER vote for Romney, but there was another GOP governor in Mass who had a chance to pardon them and passed. She didn't even have a political excuse to hide behind since she was pregnant at the time and was a lame duck anyway. I don't think the word "HATE" adequately conveys the feeling anybody who followed that sickening must have when faced with the facts. It will forever color my thoughts about Massachusetts and the totally amoral demoncraps who engineered the whole thing. It should make ANYBODY LIVING IN THAT STATE ASHAMED!
Dorothy Rabinowicz did a great series in the Wall Street Journal about it, but it didn't help much. It just proved how despicable and hateful democrats are. But, they seem to be hell bent on exceeding even that low point every day in Wisconsin every day.
Vikki| 3.7.11 @ 10:50AM
I agree, I would not and WILL NOT vote for Romney. However, if you go back and look at what Sarah Palin did in Alaska, I think you would be very wise to consier her for President and H. Cain for VP.
No Takers| 3.7.11 @ 1:14PM
Sarah Palin barely served in Alaska before resigning. Her speaking voice and her choice of works erode her electability every time she speaks. She is a good cheerleader but let's not elect her quarterback.
CalMark| 3.7.11 @ 3:12PM
So, instead of putting up the one fighter, who makes the base stand up and cheer, you'd rather have four more years of Obama.
You go, RINO!
GavInTucson| 3.7.11 @ 4:04PM
Indeed, and having a "reality" show does nothing more than add erosion to the credibility department.
Bob Grant| 3.7.11 @ 8:41PM
Yep. I agree her actions the past two years have taken her out of the race. She has, however, positioned herself nicely on every issue; better than all other candidates. Of course when you're in the peanut gallery you can take any position you wish without suffering any ramifications.
Bob Grant| 3.7.11 @ 8:41PM
Yep. I agree her actions the past two years have taken her out of the race. She has, however, positioned herself nicely on every issue; better than all other candidates. Of course when you're in the peanut gallery you can take any position you wish without suffering any ramifications.
Shamus| 3.7.11 @ 8:02AM
The health care system that Romney signed into law in Massachusetts is a disaster. When you screw up this badly you don't deserve a promotion.
Tom in NY| 3.7.11 @ 8:16AM
I wholeheartedly agree. To exercise such blatantly poor vision and judgment with respect to Romney Care is a fatal political flaw in my opinion.
Boston12GS| 3.7.11 @ 8:33AM
It certainly is, as I can say as a MA resident.
Anyone interested in seeing what their healthcare would cost if they lived in MA can simply go to the state-sponsored "Health Connector": https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/ Pay close attention to the deductibles and co-pays, and also the VERY limited doctor/hospital networks in the "low-cost" plans (this is a deliberate mechanism to limit your practical and timely access to doctors and health care).
For my and my wife, two healthy adults in our 30s/40s, we pay $16,000 a year for "heath insurance" before any coverage kicks in.
Thanks, Mitt! (Hey, Mitt, are you living under the RomneyCare you signed into law? Left MA, didn't you? Figures.)
martin j smith| 3.7.11 @ 8:11AM
None of the 08 Losers should be considered nominees this coming cycle of 2012--we need new faces. And unlike 08 we need someone who actually wants to be President and thus WIN THE ELECTION. This means that have to be willing to take off the gloves and in a civil and disciplined way critique every aspect of Obama's
policies. This includes well disciplined and articulate responses to Obama during debates.
And it should be someone who does not have a heap full bag of NEGATIVE BAGAGUE
Larry Engel| 3.7.11 @ 8:47AM
I agree. Please Republicans, do not recycle the same bunch of losers. We need a dark horse with guts and class.
section9| 3.7.11 @ 8:15AM
Wow. This column is just brutal. Brutumus.
Romney might as well just go play with the lions in the Coliseum once Palin starts in on him.
Krenke Wiebchen| 3.7.11 @ 8:49AM
Romney plays with mama grizzly.
Catman| 3.7.11 @ 8:16AM
Sarah Palin will be the Next POTUS.
She is the Best Choice
RUN SARAH RUN, PLEASE!!!
GIVE THEM HELL
canuckistani| 3.7.11 @ 10:17AM
....and hell is where we will be.....
irish19| 3.7.11 @ 1:02PM
Disagree-civilly.
CalMark| 3.7.11 @ 3:13PM
If we are, it's only because it might be difficult to dig out of the Hell into which Obama has so expertly driven us.
SpiralArchitect | 3.7.11 @ 2:28PM
Same as Rom - Palin will split the vote.
Rom and / or Palin = Marxist with no reason to hold back as he will be unelectable in the following years.
B.O. might just turn himself Overlord; acting in our best interests all the while.
logmank| 3.7.11 @ 8:18AM
TARP=Troubled Asset Relief Program.
If the Repubes don't nominate a new face (DeMint, Cain, Rubio, West) the republic is lost. Running one of the same old, tired idiots (Romney, Newt, Huckabee) is a guaranteed loss and a second term for Obowmao, which will finish us.
Have you considered| 3.7.11 @ 8:19AM
As a strict constructionist of the US Constitution, I can't lay my finger upon the Enumerated Power that allowed TARP.
I would never vote for Romney, nor anyone who voted in favor of TARP.
I think Jim DeMint would be a great candidate.
Nunya| 3.7.11 @ 1:50PM
There is no such enumerated power, but then there are no such powers enumerated for things like the EPA, OSHA, BATFE, etc., the alphabet soup agencies. The federal government has grown completely out of control since the Civil War, and the New Deal. Continued growth of government will inevitably lead to the destruction of the republic. It's already happening, and history shows us over and over how it will happen. Just a matter of time...
canuckistani| 3.7.11 @ 4:51PM
.....or executing two wars without one congressional declaration of war.....or knowingly cutting taxes without balancing the budget - and exhausting the surplus in the process.
RealChristian| 3.10.11 @ 5:03PM
Bingo! And there's the tell! A David Brooks groupie at best, lib troll at worst. Nothing more to see here, folks. . .
BTW, Cutting taxes is NO. 1 PRIORITY. Budget will soon be balanced forthwith, by continuing to cut spending (or "investing," as you all like to say).
David Cutchen| 3.7.11 @ 8:28AM
Good article, but I submit that Reagan did not win because he had waited his turn. I was there and the establishment hated him, they just couldn't beat principle with nothing but the same old thing - nothing.
Romney has no principle other than trying to make money and look good.
The TARP vote was an excellent barometer of who knows what is right and is willing to stand for principles we must live by in order to survive.
Dan Hirsch| 3.7.11 @ 9:42AM
David;
Right you are. RWR was not gifted with the top of the ticket in '80. He fought for it, cleanly - fair and square.
The reason Reagan was so popular was, whether you agreed with him or not, you knew what he thought and that's what he did. So you could TRUST him.
Compare that with Pres. Obama. He never does what he says: he often takes both sides of an issue - then he votes, "Present!" He is right less often than the proverbial broken clock...
Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Gingrich, and the other centrist GOP'ers do not act on principle, they have positions, carefully plotted based on what others are saying and polling.
After four years of Obama's destruction, we are going to need a real leader with strong principles founded in the Constitution to repair the damage.
The only two I see are Sarah Palin and Scott Walker. We all know Sarah's principles and how she lives them.
In Wisconsin, Scott Walker has taken on Trumka, Jesse Jackson, the SEIU, and the AFL-CIO. Anyone noticed that in a month they haven't even mussed his hair? Anyone notice that his State budget unveiled last week makes the Budget Repair bill (The bill that drove the 14 fleebagger Senators to Illinois a month ago.) look like pattycakes...
Chris Christie is a guy faced with irreconcilable budget woes - he has had no choice.
Walker or Palin have and live the principles necessary to save the Republic!
Nolite me conculcare!
GavInTucson| 3.7.11 @ 4:12PM
I disagree on Palin. Quitting isn't principled. If she couldn't handle the attacks as the Alaskan governor, she is in no ready to handle the responsibility of the presidency.
Occam's Tool| 3.15.11 @ 5:37PM
Remember John Bolton and Allen West. Good men, both of them. Braved crapstorms.
Catman| 3.7.11 @ 8:31AM
I would like all of you to listen to Rush Take on Sarah Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXBvuwzHThQ
Run Sarah Run!!!
blackknights1802| 3.7.11 @ 8:48AM
Rush made an excellent point.
William R| 3.7.11 @ 9:10AM
Limbaugh is delusional. The man still defends George W Bush. Palin is an empty skirt.
Dan Hirsch| 3.7.11 @ 9:43AM
William;
Okay - we see that you can call people names. Got any real opinions or are you just happy to spit at people?
William R| 3.7.11 @ 10:11AM
When someone can't answer a simple question about what magazines they read and have a deer caught in a headlight look then it's time to find another profession. Chris Christie is right, Palin can't go off script or she's lost.
The GOP can do better.
Steve A| 3.7.11 @ 10:25AM
Yeah, let's get a guy in there who wants to campaign ia all 57 states! We will be all set......
William R| 3.7.11 @ 11:02AM
I'm not defending Barry Hussein. I"m just pointing out the obvious. Palin is an empty skirt.
Steve A| 3.7.11 @ 11:32AM
William, Come on man. An empty skirt is Paris Hilton. Palin was elected Governor of Alaska & managed things quite well. Has she made a few gaffes, yes. Would she absolutely shred Obama in a televised debate? No question. If she is so lame, why do you suppose the lefties are so bent on destroying her? Why bother if she is such a dolt? They fear her the most. That is the answer my friend. It's obvious.
Willis| 3.7.11 @ 12:42PM
I think the Democrats and their friends in the media fear Ms. Palin about as much as the 2004 Republicans feared Howard Dean. They are simply treating Palin as a foil. What they really loathe (and perhaps fear) is that large body of voters who stand firmly for the economic, political and social principles associated with the Tea Party. If Palin had the brains of Einstein, the charm of Regan and the political skills of FDR she would still be denigrated by the left, because they do not want Tea Party views spreading to (particularly) independent voters.
Steve A| 3.7.11 @ 1:35PM
So let me understand. The left fears the tea party, but they do not fear Palin who is representing tea party principles & giving voice to the cause in an effective & threatning manner? Now I get it.
Anthony| 3.7.11 @ 2:21PM
Thanks Steve, Willis has me totally confused as well. I think he has contradicted his intitial premise in his 2nd paragraph, but then again, I'm not sure.
Steve A| 3.7.11 @ 2:49PM
Anthony, Glad it was not just me! Yeah, he lost me on that one.
simon templar| 3.7.11 @ 7:34PM
There is some truth in your observation. Of course its all speculation..no one knows for sure. My observations tell me that they do indeed use her as a target to discredit the Tea Party and conservatives in general. This is actually a political technique and has been written about in a lot of left wing literature starting with Alinsky. They do loathe and fear the crowd that is standing behind her. This is why they are always asking for a leader..practically demanding to know who is in charge so they can tear that person down and subsequently the movement as well.
irish19| 3.7.11 @ 1:04PM
I'm not sure about Paris Hilton. I've heard you can find pictures of what's in her skirt on the Intertubes.
canuckistani| 3.7.11 @ 5:02PM
The venom against Palin is well thought out: you cannot deny she cut and ran from a dark red state, with only 700,000 people, a rocks and trees economy and the largest consumer of federal teat money per capita. It is probably the least complex jurisdiction to manage in the union, and she found a way to flee.
Her temperment DOES influence people's views of her, just as it affects people's views of any other political figure.
Trying to resuscitate a very public figure polling in the 30's is too much work and should be discarded as plausible immediately.
simon templar| 3.7.11 @ 7:27PM
Keep repeating lies..lies actually you need not use to make your argument. You could have respectfully just said her polling numbers are too low and her public image too damaged by the media and left it at that. But no.. on with the same old liberal talking points and disdain and venom that is actually a pile of horse shit. Me thinks you detest her values and beliefs not her. Given this your comment is suspect and your opinions..frankly are ridiculous and tiring to read.
gazinya| 3.7.11 @ 7:08PM
If Palin was an empty skirt she would be treated with at least as much respect that the Libs give McCain.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.7.11 @ 10:35AM
William R,
You are truly a piece of work.
Whatsamatta' boy, did a "Sarah" turn you down for the Senior Prom?
Why don't you tell us your favorite nominee and why?...and why?
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.7.11 @ 10:35AM
William R,
You are truly a piece of work.
Whatsamatta' boy, did a "Sarah" turn you down for the Senior Prom?
Why don't you tell us your favorite nominee and why?...and why?
Catman| 3.7.11 @ 10:45AM
William Listen to Mark Levin on Sarah and Christie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
William R| 3.7.11 @ 12:10PM
I can't stand Mark Levin. He pretends to be for limited government yet supports endless war in the Middle East. Sorry, but he's just another talk radio blowhard.
catman| 3.7.11 @ 12:27PM
William R I think that you support RINO's
There is no hope for you... Chris Christie is a RINO
Mitt Romney is One Also and a FLIP-FLOPPER - FLOPPER-FLIPPER
Good Luck
William R| 3.7.11 @ 2:57PM
I don't support Romney. My first choice would be Rand Paul but he's not running. I'm sick and tired of NeoCon GOPers. War on terror. War with no exit strategy. Nation building. There's nothing conservative about it.
CalMark| 3.7.11 @ 3:16PM
Ah-ha! The truth comes out! Another Ron Paul-er.
You'd prefer his unproven son to Sarah Palin, former governor who has stood up to withering fire from the national media for almost three years now.
Indeed, one of the hardest things to overcome is a cultist's thinking.
William R| 3.7.11 @ 10:32PM
There's nobody more unproven than Bimbo Palin .
Aileen| 3.7.11 @ 3:15PM
I think it's time we retired the term RINO. To call someone a Republican In Name Only is to imply that a genuine Republican is conservative. That hasn't been true since the Republican platform-writing committees abandoned conservative planks, years ago. It's why the Tea Party movement was born.
blackknights1802| 3.7.11 @ 3:01PM
First of all Mr. William, you missed the point. Rush was speaking about the unity in the Republican Party. The reference was about Mrs. Palin issuing a statement about the attack on her, from the MSM and the progressive left, blaming her for the murders in Tucson. His other remark about Mr. Palin, “wiping the floor with Obama” is a side issue.
However, speaking about that issue, if the left believes that she is nothing but an empty skirt, why don’t they encourage the Republicans to place her in nomination?
Catman| 3.7.11 @ 11:13AM
I also would like all of you to listen to the following about Sarah Palin..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
Think Again| 3.7.11 @ 1:19PM
Sarah Palin does not have any original thoughts. She is not a leader, she is a spokesperson. Her voice makes many ears bleed and her inability to speak briefly and clearly give her a strange similarity to the current photo-op president. Please vote for substance this time around -- we can't survive another teleprompter president.
Steve A| 3.7.11 @ 1:47PM
Who is your selection? Let me guess, anyone but Palin. Hit me with some original thoughts of your own.....we are waiting....
Anthony| 3.7.11 @ 2:54PM
I wasn't going to say it, but ya know, I just love some of the posts here that talk about Palin as a "quitter", being a mindless cheerleader, and having a voice that grates on them.
If you truly claim to be a real R or conservative and you've bought into the leftist spin that Palin gave up the governorship for no valid reason, then you are either a liar or a fool, or both.
If you are so easily swayed by the spin of the left, that she quit for reasons other than putting an end to the thousands of orchestrated ethics complaints filed by leftist hacks to paralyze her government, then shame on you. You are as gullible as a leftist troll.
If you think she is a mindless cheerleader who can't speak w/o a teleprompter, or does not have an origional thought in her head, then you have not heard this woman speak during the past 2 years, where she has given numerous policy statements and critiques, all lucid and spot on. So much so, that she has singlehandedly sent the Obozo administration and the LSM spinning on their heads each and every time she's taken them on. Funny how this woman w/o an original thought has Obozo and the media scrambling to keep up with her.
I don't see Romney or Newt having accomplished any of this.
However, just so you all don't think I'm just a mindless Palin supporter, I agree that her voice can be grating. However, I like what she says so much, she can grate on me all day long.
At least I have the satisfaction in knowing that her grating voice is sending the LSM and idiots like Matthews into the insane asylum.
P.S. I think Michelle Bachman has the same abilities as Palin, with a soto voce voice.
Think Again| 3.7.11 @ 2:58PM
And why did she star in a reality show? To emphasize her depth and willingness to rise above the Kardashians?
Steve A| 3.7.11 @ 3:44PM
Nah, She probably did it for the $$ & exposure to a wider audience. Clearly the actions of an empty skirt......not
simon templar| 3.7.11 @ 7:41PM
Why? Why do you thnk? She was the governor of Alaska doing a show promoting Alaska and using her fame to promote the interest of her home state. Perhaps, it was for the public to see her in her own environment and hear her message without the slanderous roar of the liberal media. Ya think? Ken, is right. You can not fix stubborn stupid..nothing in the tool box for that.
simon templar| 3.7.11 @ 7:36PM
Excellent points, Anthony!
voted against carter| 3.7.11 @ 4:46PM
Sorry kids, you ARE WRONG about Sarah Palin.
Think President Ronald Reagan is a skirt and WAY hotter looking.
She CAN'T lose.
SARAH PALIN / (Fill in the Blank) 2012!!!!!!!!
SARAH PALIN / Romney 2012?
or
SARAH PALIN / Gingrich 2012?
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 or 48 state, LANDSLIDE. Barry will MAYBE get
IL & 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 Liars that they are.
canuckistani| 3.7.11 @ 5:17PM
Palin is a sideshow circus freak that we love to watch, but like sideshows, we need more and more freakishness to get us interested.
She is a known quantity, polling in the 30's - with a visceral hatred some criminals would be envious of.
She reads the laundry list TP rhetoric like they are punchlines to a joke, but has NEVER once demonstrated those punchlines in practice.
I have no issue with her personally. She is attractive, once had a newness to her and had an emerging record of governance. She chose the wrong path from there and lost me for good.
Tracking back to her resignation, every move she has made is with a sneering cynicism any opponent would be able to morph into an unappealing narrative. Ergo, another general loss.
Mental giants on here keep demanding of detractors "Who would you pick?"
My choices included Pence, Ryan and Daniels. We do not fully understand the scorched earth in the party that was left by Bush et al, and it may take years for the next viable slate to emerge.
Until then, congress and statehouses are our bastions.
simon templar| 3.7.11 @ 7:48PM
Side show freak? Can you make just one intelligent comment or observation that has some substance devoid of lies and name calling? You are a troll posing as a conservative. Try getting lost. I could argue your points better than you could! You do have some personal problem with her..what is it? Favor abortion? Hate christainity or social conservatives? Are you homosexual? Fine. You think she would not be the best pick at this time..great..now..shut up with the vitrol and lying. Yeah, you guessed it. You are getting on my nerves. I think your the side show freak in this thread.
Wes in MT| 3.8.11 @ 3:17PM
So for being an "empty skirt", how is it that Sarah had an 80+% approval rating, among republicans and democrats in Alaska????? Me thinks you protest to much. There is plenty out there as to why she resigned after serving 32 months of a 48 month term. She put her state first, unlike the vast majority of other politicians.
Palin/West 2012
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.7.11 @ 8:34AM
Folks,
Romney is a fine man. I don't think he has a prayer of winning in November though...
and I'm not sure we would gain much if he did win.
BUT again... I would vote for Daffy Duck over Obama or Clinton.
Steve A| 3.7.11 @ 9:03AM
Ken, Absolutely correct. The primary mission is to stop the bleeding at all costs & get Obama out of there.
blackknights1802| 3.7.11 @ 8:42AM
The real problem with any Republican candidate is the MSM and how it frames the individual.
Nixon, the Crook.
Goldwater, Warmonger.
Ford, Clumsy and dangerous to people on a golf course. .
Reagan, Not very bright.
G.H.W. Bush, Born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
G.W. Bush, AWOL, Drug Addict, Gunslinger.
Now think back to J.F.K. and go forward to the present day. Has the media ever labeled any Democratic candidate in negative terms?
irish19| 3.7.11 @ 1:27PM
If you're not taking flak, you're not over the target.
Bob K.| 3.7.11 @ 8:42AM
De-Anoint him! One can't keep him from running but the Republican leadership can keep funds away from him. If they support him they can forget about me contributing one thin dime to their campaign committees set up for him!
Vikki| 3.7.11 @ 10:56AM
AMEN!! The RNC needs to get it's head out of the sand!
gazinya| 3.7.11 @ 8:55AM
We must not let the media, either the left or the correct, decide whom we vote for. Looking at those 'front runners' on tv is like watching the '08 thing again. Notice how Sarah Palin is left to Fox but Romney, Ging, Huck, are on all the morning shows. They capture all the headlines and talking points while the Palins are mocked. I want young, new and honest people to run. These guys need to bow out and campaign for the one's who are clean conservatives. No sex scandals, money scandals, voting scandals. The Repups must capture the young voters of all ethnicities by offering them a clear and moral chose. If 'We The People' and I'm the first to say I haven't done much more than complain, don't get these old guard out now then like the lemmings that went with the old guard for Daddy Bush, Dole, Sonny Bush, McCain will be able to nominate a Romney, Graham ticket.
There is so many 'little things' that have an almost spooky look to them. We take the House but just miss on the Senate. WI takes the state House and Senate and they just miss on quorum. The Obama was soundly defeated across the country but remains just a hair from being thrown out. Again we must 'wait and see'.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 9:06AM
I agree with everything in this piece, but to continue to ignore that McCain was chosen by liberal states before "the base" even got a chance to say anything. Seriously, if the republican party doesn't have one primary below the Mason-Dixon Line before our candidate is chosen, then we are doing a great disservice to our party and our country.
So, let's either have a National same-day primary, or set a minimum # of states that have to have primary votes before a candidate can be decided upon. maybe 10-15, but no matter what, let's get a little more opinion on the issue than just what Iowa, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts thinks. Hardly the bastions of Conservative Principles.
irish19| 3.7.11 @ 1:09PM
Hear! Hear! We absolutely cannot afford another RINO ticket that will be clobbered in the general election. I'm not saying Palin is a RINO, but McCain absolutely refused to hit zero at all during the debates. zero is a loser who, as Thomas Sowell so aptly put it, "has never run anything but his mouth." He will be an easy target for a debater who is will to take off the gloves and take a swing.
Nunya| 3.7.11 @ 1:58PM
Phil, I couldn't agree more. I wouldn't opt for the single-day primary, but would say that maybe there should be 3-4 dates set with anywhere between 10-15 states each. It would give us a much clearer determination of who the people want.
Principles win, RINO's are losers.
Louis Jenkins| 3.7.11 @ 9:13AM
Newt is going to run! Romney is already in the race. The Republican party better get its act together and start vetting some decent candidates. Of course we've got an ace in the hole- gas prices. Now that will stir some folks up. If Romney is nominated I'll be back to holding my nose and pulling the lever.
irish19| 3.7.11 @ 1:11PM
Not me. I'm tired of having a choice between dhims and dhim-lites. I will support conservative candidates by donating whatever I can afford directly to those candidates without funneling it through the RNC.
Melvin| 3.7.11 @ 9:24AM
As Ken noted, Romney might very well be a nice guy, but we don't need nice guys right now. We don't need an Armani, perfectly coiffed, telegenic candidate.
We need a pug ugly fat or scrawny J.C. Penny wearing pitt bull of an SOB who isn't politically correct, has the political instincts of a poker player, and a Cobra.
This candidate has to grab the defibrillator paddles and place them accross this Country's economic chest and zap the dog squeeze, and wake us the hell up.
This candidate has to tell China, it's been nice, but we don't need anymore of they're Yuan, we're slapping a trariff on their cheap crap, and immediately enforcing copyright and intellectual rights. Thats correct, no more stealing our technology.
Immigrants will be informed, if you legally immigrate to this Country you will have to prove to the INS that you can read, speak, and write English. This candidate will also instruct the INS, that within a period of six months come up with a viable plan, that will expedite VISA's for graduates that graduate with degrees in technology,and engineering.
In the energy sector, coal fired plants will be allowed to be built utilizing the most efficient and clean methods available. Environmentalists would not hold up permits in the courts for decades, but rather they would have one shot and one shot only and only one environmental group will be chosen to represent all the environmental groups.
I could go on and on with common sense ideas that would put every single person who wants to work. We could manufacture our own goods again, but not in a wasteful sort of way, but smarter, more efficient and more environmentally responsible without the environmentalists sticking their noses in all the time.
Once again the United States could be the engine of the free world.
Steve A| 3.7.11 @ 9:46AM
Melvin for Pres. I say. I love the 2nd paragraph. Cracked me up. I think Christie may fit your description.
Dan Hirsch| 3.7.11 @ 10:02AM
Melvin;
Mind game- name ten potential GOP candidates, then try to imagine them saying what you just wrote. There are a couple who have already done so.
And it isn't Newt, Romney, Huckabee, Graham, or any of the usual suspects - it's the lightning rods, Palin, Walker. The people willing to stand up and take some heat...and 'civil' hatred...
The GOP is going to have to get comfortable with this fact:
If the Main Stream Media does not HATE your POTUS candidate then the progressives will win in 2012. GOP, get used to being hated by reporters, otherwise get used to a shrinking dollar, shrinking economy, and increasingly defensive presence in the world.
President Reagan was vilified in the MSM continuously, and the country did quite nicely. Others posters here mentioned GOP candidates showing up on CNBC, MSNBC, et. al. Those candidates are being made by the MSM - the MSM can readily break them by scorning them or their positions, then our Constitution is toast!
Wake up people - we are trying to take our country back! Do you think they'll give up their power and progress gladly, happily, at all? Look to Wisconsin -they are the canary in the coal mine. Who is losing there? Are we? I think not. Haven't we already won in Ohio? (A fact that NOBODY is reporting on!!)
C'mon it's now or never. Do you really want Oprah to like us? Yecchh!
voted against carter| 3.7.11 @ 4:44PM
Sorry kids, you ARE WRONG about Sarah Palin.
Think President Ronald Reagan is a skirt and WAY hotter looking.
She CAN'T lose.
SARAH PALIN / (Fill in the Blank) 2012!!!!!!!!
SARAH PALIN / Romney 2012?
or
SARAH PALIN / Gingrich 2012?
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 or 48 state, LANDSLIDE. Barry will MAYBE get
IL & 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 Liars that they are.
R Martin| 3.7.11 @ 10:02AM
It sounds as though you and Larry Engel above are describing John Bolton.
Maxwell| 3.7.11 @ 10:10AM
There is only one MAN that fits that description and it ain't C. Christie, I'd have to say 'go WEST young man'!
irish19| 3.7.11 @ 1:14PM
I agree West would not be a bad candidate. At least, with his military background, he knows who the ultimate enemy is. Not sure he's quite ready for the bigs yet. Another season at AAA might be needed.
(Can you tell I'm ready for baseball? Even being a Cub fan.)
Vikki| 3.7.11 @ 11:03AM
About time, too! We have oil in and around this great country, but as long as you have "Yes Men" in D.C. we will never be able to be independent from the "Muslim" controlled oil. Come on, people, we have plenty of oil in and around us as well as the ANWAR in Alaska. We need to srart using our own.
martin j smith| 3.7.11 @ 10:07AM
One other qualification: They must connect solidly with a vast majority of American voters and actually tell the truth.
Cris Worth| 3.7.11 @ 10:09AM
A couple of items: Romney has moved from Mass to NH, I wonder why? Romney's campaign has foregone Iowa with its value voters, I wonder why? To beat Romney defeat him in all the southern GOP primaries starting with SC. If he is demolished in SC and keeps losing the south he won't be the nominee.
Chuck| 3.7.11 @ 10:12AM
Romney can't be the nominee without Tea Party support. Including the leftover issues that plagued him last time and now Romneycare how is it possible. Romney supporters please chime in correct me where I am wrong.
gazinya| 3.7.11 @ 10:28AM
I'm heartened by these opinions. There is one thread that runs through most and that is 'we don't do clever'. All the afformentioned front runners are trying to be clever. They, when asked a straight question, use clever words to obfiscate the question. We don't do clever anymore. We do honest, principled, Constitutional debate. The Repub machistists like to think they are more 'clever' than the Lucifarians in authority and much more 'clever' than the seething unwashed masses clinging to their Bibles and principles. We know that it is not trying to out manuveor these 'hats' but to defeat them. This is where we must stand and I like that so many people feel even more passionate than I about this nation. That we are prepared to go bust and if we bust we die with honor and not because we tried to be more clever than the godless Lucifarian.
irish19| 3.7.11 @ 1:16PM
"We don't do clever." I like that. It would look great on a Tea Party bumper sticker.
Hillel| 3.7.11 @ 10:40AM
Republicans do not pick the candidates. The mainstream media and crossover voters in the early"primary states" pick them. We need to ignore the "annointing" process. Senator McClain was our candidate before any of us had a chance to vote NO!
Peppermint Tea| 3.7.11 @ 10:42AM
I'm working on a Critique of Mitt Romney by a Mormon Libertarian that addresses some of the questions here. But for now, here is a thought experiment--what if Romney gets nominated and elected. Can he do with the things Melvin suggests above? Tell off China. Start more drilling and nukes. Propose a balance budget. Destroy obamacare, financial regulation, EPA global warming rules? Reverse Obama's whole term?
Can he deal with the media hate? Can he be Reagan and make cuts, fire union workers, and still speak to the common man?
IMHO, Sarah Palin has a better chance of succeeding as president.
Melvin| 3.7.11 @ 11:34AM
Also this is something that worked in the past and might work now if we force the powers that be. "What I have in mind is a new Gramm-Rudman-Hollings formula that establishes iron-clad enforceable deficit targets. One of the great myths in Washington is that Gramm-Rudman was repealed because it wasn't working. Gramm-Rudman was repealed by the pro-spending constituencies in Congress precisely because it was working too well." This was from the CATO Institute.
Catman| 3.7.11 @ 11:35AM
Peppermint Tea I agree about Palin. This good please listen. There are other clips that I've posted under Catman Earlier Today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
Dan| 3.7.11 @ 10:55AM
"The Obama Misery Index and the Rise of Obamavilles" is the best blog post I've read in a long time. This is why President Obama will be a one-term president! http://mittromneycentral.com/2.....amavilles/
I can't recommend this piece highly enough. This will be all the ammo we'll need when talking to other voters during the 2012 general election.
George S| 3.7.11 @ 10:56AM
Let's all be honest... during the 2008 campaign weren't you all rooting for Romney to overtake McCain in the primaries? Weren't you disappointed when McCain got the delegate count needed? Weren't you pissed at the underhanded comments by McCain? Weren't you furious at Huckabee colluding with McCain to split the Romney vote?
Are you really saying that all those things are worst than the actions of the Obama Regime? You know damn well you'd vote Romney over Obama. Didn't Obama teach us a lesson about teaching Republicans a lesson?
irish19| 3.7.11 @ 1:19PM
No. I was rooting for Fred! to stay in the race and win it. I voted for him in the Ill. primary even though he'd already officially withdrawn, and sent money to his campaign-the first time I've every donated. Romney was the lesser of two RINOs.
GavInTucson| 3.7.11 @ 4:40PM
I was hugely in the Thompson camp as well. Talk about a straight-talking, cut right through the bullshit kind of guy. I was really disappointed he didn't make it on the ticket.
I haven't seen a politician like him in years.
Melvin| 3.7.11 @ 10:57AM
The oddity about this whole thing is? The Conservatives know exactly what it would take to get this Country economically smoking again.
And doggone it, I'm an impatient SOB, and I would love nothing more than to kick the current Republican leadership right square in the nether region, and whisper into they're ears, "You think I'm bad, turn around and look at the other few million or so of us who are waiting in line to take their turn at kicking ya is the backside."
It is not that the current leadership is clueless, they're is just something or someone holding them back.
How many of you remember this little effective gem? "What I have in mind is a new Gramm-Rudman-Hollings formula that establishes iron-clad enforceable deficit targets. One of the great myths in Washington is that Gramm-Rudman was repealed because it wasn't working. Gramm-Rudman was repealed by the pro-spending constituencies in Congress precisely because it was working too well."
The groundwork is already been laid people, it wouldn't take long for this bill to be crafted, because it has been done before. The Speaker could resurrect this repealed law, put more teeth into it, and Harry Reid wouldn't dare stop it.
Tom in Michigan| 3.7.11 @ 11:00AM
There are two things the Republicans can do to guarantee Obama's re-election and the inevitable, inexorable decline of the United States to an historical footnote perhaps remembered by future historians as the one brief, shining moment when the historical trend of despotism as the lot of humankind was thrust aside by great and brave men whose scions were fat, lazy, entitled and stupid and who wasted the greatest opportunity of the past four millenia - give the nomination to the next boring, white guy whose "turn it is" or, even worse nominate another Bush whose family's earlier Presidencies gave us the two of the three worst Presidents in history, the goatish Bill Clinton who made coarseness a national phenomenon and Barack Hussein Obama whose ill-informed good intentions finally destroyed what was once "a great notion" (the two very worst were LBJ who poisoned American self-reliance with the typically Orwellian-named "Great Society" and who gave the left a perennial weapon to weaken us militarily, the Vietnam War into which he dragged us but wherein he lacked the moral and physical courage to execute it properly followed by Carter whose failures are too numerous to list in the space provided).
I loathe the left and make no bones about it but; the Republicans also bear the blame for much of what is wrong with this country because they lack the stones to take on and destroy the left (they are enemies; not to be confused with what was once the great Party of Jefferson and Jackson - it is no more) and free the nation from their insidious influence and, they are well, stupid. There's really no other way to explain it. How else can you explain the nomination and 2008 campaign of John McCain who was "the Democrats' Republican" and who walked chin-first into the 2008 financial crisis which was engineered by the Sorosistas precisely for the purpose or revealing what a complete dunderhead he was (Don't believe me! Just consider the utter stupidity of admitting and, I paraphrase, quotation marks notwithstanding "I don't know much about economics" as he stood mutely on stage as the economy collapsed around him) and guaranteeing "The One's" election despite his dubious background and "achievements" not to mention his total lack of any qualifications for the job whatsoever.
So, I fully expect the Republicans to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" in 2012. The left, for all their evil has their act together. They don't care how they get and keep power. It matters not how many people suffer and die for the left. "By any means necessary" is their true creed and indeed, their battle cry. The Republicans still think they're in a fair fight and, frankly I doubt they'll ever conclude otherwise in which case they are doomed to permanent minority and, we will become a crypto-one party state in thrall of the left.
Romney in 2012? They'll need to do a hell of a lot better than that to win. I'll admit though; I don't know who they can nominate at this stage of the game to pull it off. For my part; I'm considering moving to New Zealand. Barring that, I'll probably buy 10 acres in Toad Suck, Arkansas or some such place and just "go Galt" till the end rather than endure four more years of Obamanation.
Steve A| 3.7.11 @ 11:11AM
Tom, I'm sure there are some valid points in there but I got a headache during the first sentence that lasted for about 300 words which caused my mind to shutdown resulting in a failure to grasp the intended point you were trying to make while you kept going on & on & on & on& on & on about something to do with the decline of the United States etc etc etc. Mix in a .......
Tom in Michigan| 3.7.11 @ 12:02PM
Did you attend a public school in Wisconsin? This is the problem with a nation that thinks in sound-bites; anything more complicated than "No blood for oil" or "Free health care" is too much to digest. Sorry I didn't connect, though.
Willis| 3.7.11 @ 12:27PM
An excellent reply to a rather stupid and pointless comment.
Steve A| 3.7.11 @ 1:31PM
Sure Willis. Maybe its just me but when you launch your comments off with a first sentence containing 198 words ( I counted), the novelty wears off rather quickly for me. My comment was pointless & stupid, you are correct. The point was to torture Tom with reading something on par with his stream of consciousness diatribe.
Steve A| 3.7.11 @ 11:06AM
FOX news will be picking the GOP nominee for 2012. As these potentials declare, FOX will be in interview overdrive throughout the process. Just about every conceivable question will be asked & answered by these candidates in full view of the voting public. How these candidates perform during this process will create polling that will supplant the primary process & make the nominee a foregone conclusion prior to the first vote being cast.
Tom in Michigan| 3.7.11 @ 12:08PM
All kidding aside; my point was we've had successive disatrous administrations - looking back, my only fond memory of any of them was Reagan turning the lights back on after Carter - and, we really need to get in right in 2012 or, it's "game over, man."
LMajito| 3.7.11 @ 11:25AM
Well Mitt won't get my vote at all...yo Mitt you were told no already...like to hear the work eh?
one dude that has actually proposed some of the items mentioned by Melvin was the donald. he already stated that the first order of business will be to sit the chinese at his table with a dozen of his negotiators and craft a fair trade agreement between the us and china...he stated that is time the us quit using diplomats craft trade agreements...
his second order of business will be to break up the oil cartel and put oil prices at the correct fair price $30/brl
then he'll sit with us business folks and industrialists and craft a plan to put america to make thing again. the us does not have an industrial base anymore.
it's funny how one buys one of the hottests gadgets today, Apple's iPad and in the back and in the back it states: 'designed in the us, built in china'...that statement should be a national shame...
lastly, everytime i hear 'we created x number of jobs with this agreement' they fail to mention where were the jobs created?
for example, the US taxpayer bailed out Chrysler from the heap...they come now with all these new cars that are supposed to be part of the new company...were are they built? most are manufactured in mexico...no how the hell is that? us taxpayers keep this company from going belly up and it in turn with its italian bosses decide to create jobs in mexico...ain't life grand?
Michael L. Hauschild| 3.7.11 @ 11:44AM
A very well written piece, as is all of Antle’s work. However, the implication is that this nomination strategy should remain “traditional” is redundant, so is its traditional failure. The electorate no longer cares what the pundits, the newsprint, or the MSM says. I can only speak for myself, having spent thousands of hours marching in parades, standing on corners with signs, or (so help me God) fundraiser dining at blue haired matrons homes staffed by black only servants.
No more: I never used to “speak up,” I never disagreed and I marched lockstep to the polls with my pre-printed ballot template, all the “X’s” predetermined by a sacred anagram containing an uppercase R. Rest assured I won’t check any marked ‘D,’ but if you dumb bastards throw me another McCain, Huckabee, Romney, or Bush I will for the first time not vote for a Republican, my ‘X” will be written in and it will be for a Tea Party candidate only.
As horrific as it sounds, I suspect that we have finally reached the point of no return; a “Party” cannot save the situation. The irony is that Obama has inadvertently accomplished more in advancing the conservative principle and that the “traditional” candidates are just as reprehensible and complicit in our Nations predicament. It is not without precedent that the best path may be to simply start over. Now I humbly suggest that you “start over” with new candidates. That should, for me anyway, forgo at this time any Jeffersonian insights as to the “best” methodology of preserving our Republic.
dnha14| 3.7.11 @ 12:04PM
This is a good thing. If there was a front runner, then the liberal media would know who to attack and smear. The longer they are kept guessing, the less damage they can do with the lies they spread.
Dave Williams| 3.7.11 @ 12:06PM
If Romney gets the nomination, he will get the votes of the anybody-but-Obama crowd (myself included), but hardly anybody else. So, if you have a better candidate in mind, and there are several, I urge you all to GET OUT and WORK for that person! I would love nothing better than to see Obozo get the boot next November, but I fear things will turn out otherwise....
No god in the White House| 3.7.11 @ 12:25PM
I don't like RomneyCare, but I also don't like the fact that Mormons believe they will become gods with their own planets to rule when they are "exalted" after death. I wouldn't want anyone who wants to become king (or dictator) to occupy the White House -- even less would I want someone who thinks he will become a god someday.
That belief is unquestionably part of Mormon theology. If Romney doesn't believe it, he should say so. If he does believe it, he should say so.
Thinking that one is destined to become a god is serious stuff. I know that questions were raised about JFK's Catholicism, but Catholics don't believe they are destined for divinity.
KyMouse| 3.7.11 @ 12:41PM
Anyone can read Mormon beliefs for themselves at www.lds.org, and search for "Gospel Principles," to read the full text of that Sunday School book.
Chapter 47 is about "Exaltation," which is mentioned in the post above this one.
Mormons are required to believe that what their President (the current Prophet) says, goes. "We should sustain the Lord's Prophet. We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult...The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray..."
msouth| 3.10.11 @ 4:59PM
Explain Harry Reid?
Peppermint Tea| 3.8.11 @ 12:22PM
If I can defend Mormons here, without defending Romney, the type of God that the Mormons aspire to is one that allows freedom of choice among his children, even breaking commandments so that they can learn, overcome, and progress. God will get his Judgment Day in the end, but he will save nearly all of them in some kingdom.
Romney, on the other hand, had no qualms about including an "individual mandate," or bailing out failed companies with TARP. That is what I, and most on this list, have against him. And in those two acts he betrayed his religious principles of free will for his political desires to get along.
This is an indication of how he would serve as president--he wants to negotiate to a consensus rather than promote freedom--the only real way to happiness and truth.
Yosemeti Sam| 3.7.11 @ 12:31PM
Having served as governor of a most LIBERAL state Massachusetts - Romney has been osmotically ideologically ACCULTURATED.
Meaning he is now one ADULTERATED Republican.
Kennedy smilingly reaches from the grave to tap Romney on the shoulder.
Yeah, I'll vote for Romney - when pigs fly.
Vic| 3.7.11 @ 12:47PM
I don't see how anyone could make such a decision without first witnessing the willing candidates squirm on the hot seat of debate. Let us see if Mr. Romney can out shine the rest of the candidates by defending, or explaining his past actions. Perhaps he can. Perhaps he can't.
Republicans need to pick the one who is quick on their feet, and done their homework. We all know he/she is going to be up against at least two teleprompters and lots of yarn spinning!
somnolence| 3.7.11 @ 1:18PM
Those detractors of Palin, either RINO or liberal, who bring up beauty pageants, etc. as her qualifications are really nothing more than tired old sexist chauvinist relics who really have no defense. They can't debate her on policy effectively, so they denigrate her with sexism. Sounds like a lack of fortitude to me.
irish19| 3.7.11 @ 1:25PM
Nicely said. And very true.
JimmyT| 3.7.11 @ 1:28PM
This was a nice article. It would have been relevant had it been written in 2007. It's a new day and a new time. Today's voters are much better informed and will vote for THEIR candidate. NOT the establishment's candidate. The TEA party has a very strong influence on political outcomes in today's environment. They made some candidate mistakes in 2010, but they won't repeat them in 2012. The repub nominee in 2012 will be a conservative. Will have a national network to match all rivals and will boot bambi to the curb. We will hopefully get the 63 senate seat we need to get the 60 votes we need to get this country back to the basics. Things have changed! People are politically involved like no other time in this country's history. The communications and information systems are better than they have ever been. This time around things will be different. I'm more personally involved. I refuse to leave my kids and grand kids the remnants of a country that once was. We have 15 months to decide who the nominee will be. No needs to start arguing now. Just feeds the msm and libs.
somnolence| 3.7.11 @ 1:34PM
The GOP is also not going to win the election by playing nice, like a Dole, McCain approach. We must adopt some of the Obama-Alinsky-Ayers camp methods, aggressive point, counterpoint perseverance, endurance, and determination-namely, going for the jugular. "How dare you and your administration putting the American people in this predicament by tripling the deficit, or "How dare you show ineffective leadership while the Mideast burns and the price of gas jumps at the pump, "How dare you defy court orders to drill, "How dare you toy with the 10th Amendement," and so on and so on. We are toast if we debate the current occupant of the White House civilly. We stand more than a decent chance if we yes, become an object to be feared in a debate.
Anommynous| 3.7.11 @ 1:36PM
The reason that McCain was nominated is because Huckabee and Romney split the anti-McCain vote. I do think that in a head-to-head contest between Romney and McCain, Romney would have won. However, Huckabee remained in the race even after it was clear that he would not win the nomination, I believe because he didn't want Romney to win the nomination. (And many of Huck's voters do not like Mormons.) So yeah, thank Huck.
I do think Romney was the best of the three candidates, but that's not saying much. I sure don't trust Romney because he has a propensity for changing his positions. (Of course, so does McCain.) The only really good thing I can say about Romney as a candidate is that he'd be better than Obama, but I don't know how much better.
The field was terrible in '08. Fred Thompson was the best of the bunch, but people gave up on him too early.
Dixie Pixie| 3.7.11 @ 1:50PM
Has anyone considered that Mitt Romney biggest political problem is that he does not disagree with any of Obama programs.
He has not given any indication he would repeal any Obama policy.
This would indicate that Romney would continue Obama's policies as Republican policies.
That would be a major consideration for the TEA Party vote.
martin j smith| 3.7.11 @ 1:53PM
No McC was nominated because a group of republicn Leaders were cowards and wanted a cnadidate they could believe in--not not win the election. Yes I said that: THEY DID NOT WANT TO WIN THE ELECTION.!!!!!!!!!
This is what must change. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TEA PARTY,CONSERVATIVES AND OTHERS WHO DO NOT WANT MARXISM SOCIALIST NAZI LIKE RULING MUST PRESSURE THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP BIG TIME TO
TO GIVE A CANDIDATE THAT HAS A VERY GOOD CHANCE TO WIN. NO MORE BUSHES,MCC, AND ETC.
martin j smith| 3.7.11 @ 1:53PM
No McC was nominated because a group of republicn Leaders were cowards and wanted a cnadidate they could believe in--not not win the election. Yes I said that: THEY DID NOT WANT TO WIN THE ELECTION.!!!!!!!!!
This is what must change. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TEA PARTY,CONSERVATIVES AND OTHERS WHO DO NOT WANT MARXISM SOCIALIST NAZI LIKE RULING MUST PRESSURE THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP BIG TIME TO
TO GIVE A CANDIDATE THAT HAS A VERY GOOD CHANCE TO WIN. NO MORE BUSHES,MCC, AND ETC.
Kelly Staples| 3.7.11 @ 2:05PM
Who's the Pinko Press afraid of ? It sure ain't plastic Mitt or the Huckster! Palin/Bolton 2012. Tea Party - let's get our A-game on.
Butch | 3.7.11 @ 2:18PM
I believe there is one candidate who can drill Obama. DeMint is free to criticize Obama severely on Obamacare (Romney will get killed here), and he is free to criticize TARP and the stimulus as wasteful. He can also point to his staunch opposition to excessive spending during these times. He appeals both to the Tea Party and traditional conservatives, and I believe his fiscal positions will carry the day with independents and moderates. Establishment Republicans may not care for him, but how many are they, and for whom will they vote? Obama? I doubt it. If he can just be convinced that the time is now, I think he beats Obama handily.
Boston12GS| 3.7.11 @ 2:32PM
Irish19 writes:
"If you're not taking flak, you're not over the target."
People hurling flak are protecting themselves (the "target") from attack.
It's the conservatives throwing flak at Mitt. So that would mean that conservatives are Mitt's target?
Makes sense to me.
The best news is that Mitt's vulnerability is so blindingly obvious that hopefully it will induce some young turks to step up and take a shot at the ring. Presidential elections have a long and rich history of the "fore-runner" being passed up by a more aggressive candidate. Heck, I think it might have happened just a couple of years ago, on the left of the aisle.
Ohiolad| 3.7.11 @ 2:53PM
The political landscape has changed considerably since the 2008 election, and the old whoever-is-next-in-line way of selecting the GOP candidate no longer applies. I firmly believe that the Tea Party will determine who the next candidate will be and will not settle for anyone who is not a bono fide conservative. Among those who have declared, the Tea Party should get behind only one. That will be the person who will get the nomination. If it looks like the Tea Party vote is going to be split before going into the primaries then it may be that for the good of the country Palin, Bachmann, DeMint, or whoever else will have to decide amongst themselves who that one will be with the rest dropping out. I may be wrong, but cannot see the Tea Party enthusiastically supporting Romney (too establishment), Huckabee (liked in the south, but nowhere else), or Gingrich (too much of a history).
Al Adab| 3.7.11 @ 2:57PM
Once again, it is not the who, but the what that should define us. If we uphold our principles, the condidate who embodies those will emerge. We may as yet not even know the name. Allowing the old GOP hierarchy to annoint a favorite is the road (one we have followed all too many times) to defeat and failure. Clearly outline the principles to which we adhere and follow where they lead.
loulou| 3.7.11 @ 4:07PM
Put a fork in Romney.
voted against carter| 3.7.11 @ 4:38PM
Sorry kids, you ARE WRONG about Sarah Palin.
Think President Ronald Reagan is a skirt and WAY hotter looking.
She CAN'T lose.
SARAH PALIN / (Fill in the Blank) 2012!!!!!!!!
SARAH PALIN / Romney 2012?
or
SARAH PALIN / Gingrich 2012?
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 or 48 state, LANDSLIDE. Barry will MAYBE get
IL & 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 Liars that they are.
canuckistani| 3.7.11 @ 5:25PM
Please make it Palin/Gingrich.....and we'll be rid of them forever! A brilliant double defeat of the biggest clowns on the right.
somnolence| 3.7.11 @ 5:36PM
Palin is too smart to pick Gingrich; apparently you're not.
somnolence| 3.7.11 @ 5:42PM
Chamberlain was civil to Hitler, Roosevelt was civil to Stalin. Civility has been tried by Dole, McCain and George H.W. Bush. Contrary to popular belief, Reagan did not display this civility weakness especially in those debates against Carter. He was aggressive as hell, saying "there you go again," etc. Those are among the tactics I'm talking about, albeit with an even sharper tone this time.
Nite| 3.7.11 @ 7:37PM
I would rather see a strong businessman rather than a politician for GOP candidate. One like Cain or Trump who can talk off the cuff, instead of needing a teleprompter like Obama. I am not interested in any of the politicians who are forming committees this time. George Bush was butchered by the Democrats and liberal media. He was NOT a bad President. However, when you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it. That is what happened.
Reinhard| 3.7.11 @ 7:39PM
Why do we seem to offer the same "presidential" retreads...Romney...really? I'm not going to vote for him, never would , never will. How many times do these people need to get the message that they will not win? Every one of these fools (Romney, Huckawhocares, Gingrich???) has known baggage that keeps them from being real candidates. Let's find someone worth supporting.
PalinPatriot| 3.8.11 @ 12:38AM
Mitt Romney, the Liberal Republican Party's Obama Facsimile.. America needs a Republican Obama, like we need a hole in the head..
-
Romney was elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, but did not seek reelection in 2006. He signed into law, his Massachusetts health care reform legislation, aka, Romneycare, which provided near-universal health insurance access, via subsidies and state-level mandates. You wonder why he didn't run for a second term.. because he would not have won..!!
Please.. does Romney really think that American people are that stupid, to believe he did not sign into Law, his own Liberal Socialized Obamacare Medicine, aka Romneycare, in Mass..
Romney's Policies and Principles, are in direct contradiction, to Constitutional Conservative Republican Principles, Values, and causes, which is why Romney is NOT a Constitutional Conservative, let alone a Conservative, period.!! He is nothing more than a Liberal Republican Party Establishment Elitist RINO, like the Bush's.. and is why he will never get the vote of any Constitutional Conservative Tea Party Patriotic People, and thus will never get the Republican Nomination for President.!!!
Mike Rogers| 3.8.11 @ 5:13AM
"the other Republican front-runners -- Huckabee, Palin, Gingrich"..... Says who?
Huckabee, like Dole, never met a tax or fee he didn't like, and he'll preach to us about obesity.
Palin does not seem to be running, just helping, this round.
Gingrich knows his history, and talks the talk, but he's not a true small government man.
What about the other runners?
Pawlenty is a really good choice, with a good ground game, and a decent chance.
Santorum isn't fired up, but he's a decent man with a ground game established.
Herman Cain has been all over the key states and the Tea party circuit for about 18 months, and is IS on fire - don't count him out!
Bachmann hasa started ramping up her appearances, and it's still undetermined whether she's seriouos about a run.
Ron Paul will only get the student vote.
Donald Trump is a wildcard, kind of like Perot without the squeaky voice, but he's a trade bully - exactly the wrong thing during a downturn (see Smoot-Hawley).
My personal favorite (to hear him is to be converted) is Herman Cain.
My second favorite is T-Paw - much better in person than you remember him from 2008.
The ones I wish were running are Pence and DeMint. Kick-Ass running mates would be people like Rubio, Allen West, or even Dr Walter Williams.
Mike Rogers| 3.8.11 @ 5:13AM
"the other Republican front-runners -- Huckabee, Palin, Gingrich"..... Says who?
Huckabee, like Dole, never met a tax or fee he didn't like, and he'll preach to us about obesity.
Palin does not seem to be running, just helping, this round.
Gingrich knows his history, and talks the talk, but he's not a true small government man.
What about the other runners?
Pawlenty is a really good choice, with a good ground game, and a decent chance.
Santorum isn't fired up, but he's a decent man with a ground game established.
Herman Cain has been all over the key states and the Tea party circuit for about 18 months, and is IS on fire - don't count him out!
Bachmann hasa started ramping up her appearances, and it's still undetermined whether she's seriouos about a run.
Ron Paul will only get the student vote.
Donald Trump is a wildcard, kind of like Perot without the squeaky voice, but he's a trade bully - exactly the wrong thing during a downturn (see Smoot-Hawley).
My personal favorite (to hear him is to be converted) is Herman Cain.
My second favorite is T-Paw - much better in person than you remember him from 2008.
The ones I wish were running are Pence and DeMint. Kick-Ass running mates would be people like Rubio, Allen West, or even Dr Walter Williams.
Hillel| 3.8.11 @ 8:05AM
In summation: Palen-Walter Williams is the hot ticket! Long sentences--some people like Faulkner; others prefer Hemingway. Romney; I remember his Father: "Hair of steel,Jaw of Iron, Brain of Mush."
Pelligrino| 3.8.11 @ 8:21AM
I would very much like for Senator Jim DeMint to run and for him to do a bit of the unconventional: State upfront that Sarah Palin is his Vice Presidental running mate. They should be a "ticket" right from day one.
Interview Herman Cain and tell him the Dept. of Commerce job is his for the taking. With Bolton at Dept. of State.
I like both DeMint & Palin. They'll do just fine. They are both principled people. And, if President DeMint is indeed very smart, he'll post VP Palin on top of 3 vital commitees to turn around America's fortunes in natural energy resources. (This is sorely needed.)
Don't worry about the lame street media. Why do you listen to them? Real Americans are fed up with the politicos and the media.
DeMint & Palin. We need some real Christian ethics right at the center of what we do. We've had enough of the fake faith people like the former governor of South Carolina.
somnolence| 3.8.11 @ 9:19AM
I like Jim Demint and would certainly support him wholeheartedly, but he wouldn't pick Palin as Veep because she justifiably would turn it down. Sarah has run for that one already, and it is a slap in the face, a direct insult to her. Now, for a reality check, if you want to talk of a promise as Secretary Of State that one will work. She's on her way to India in a couple of weeks, gaining more insight for that spot and is already recognized world-wide. No, I believe Bolton would be better for Vice-President, Sarah for Secretary Of State.
somnolence| 3.8.11 @ 12:44PM
To anyone on this blog who believes that we are going to win by civility and timidity you are only fooling yourselves, and this is being addressed by Byron York and Rush Limbaugh today. If only George H.W. Bush had turned to Clinton in1992 and said "I repeat, I don't have too much damned respect for draft dodgers," I'm quite sure he would have achieved a knockout punch. And if Perot had decided to join a tag team Bush could have said, "yeah, Ross, and you're beholden to Medicare for your wealth and you know it!" I happen to believe Bush would have scored strategic points for having backbone. Never forget what Lawrence Walsh did to him the day before the elections, either. The point is, we have tolerated too much which is beyond intolerable already. I repeat, civility is not going to win against this crowd we're facing.
somnolence| 3.8.11 @ 1:00PM
Romney is not my choice, but to use his religion against him is quite a stretch, particularly when you have an Islamic sympathizer in the White House.
MikeN| 3.8.11 @ 1:14PM
Fundraising levels matter. Barack Obama will spend a billion dollars, and I am not exaggerating. In the last election, he ran ads in nearly every commercial break about McCain taxing health care and anything else. This money barrage is what delivered Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, etc.
In the next election, the most important factor is whether the Republican can keep up with this ad barrage. Given Republican majorities in Congress, it is more important to elect a RINO with money than a conservative with limited fundraising ability.
somnolence| 3.8.11 @ 1:20PM
Mike, I agree, but this time around I'll bet you those 3 states mentioned go Republican no matter how much Obama spends. He has become a cipher, disingenuous (except with hard-core unionists) and unpopular in these 3 states.
David| 3.8.11 @ 2:08PM
Mike, if we finally do nominate a TRULY CONSERVATIVE candidate, the money will follow - money will be the least of our worries. The dems' outright lies and the ruling class medias' repetition of those lies will be our biggest enemy. A truly conservative candidate will not have a problem raising the money to combat those lies.
No to Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, and Palin as prez or VP picks. No to Jeb Bush at any time. And a big flippin NO to Donald Trump. I can't understand why Rush, Hannity, Savage and others are giving him all of the air time. You jerks better be fair and give the same to every CONSERVATIVE candidate who wants to be heard. I am afraid Trump is going to really f_ck up the repubs with an independent run ala Ross Perot. He should be made to promise NOW that he will run as a repub and if he loses, he will not be a sore loser as so many RINO's have done and run as an independent or end up supporting the dem.
Santorum, DeMint, Daniels, Jindal, Barbour, all deserve consideration for prez or VP, and although I don't know how wise it would be, Marco Rubio deserves consideration for the VP spot. If Obama can be elected prez by the voters after 2 years in the senate, surely Rubio shouldn't hurt the ticket in the VP spot after 2 years in the senate.
Somnolence has it right. For too long repubs and conservatives have acted like flippin' diplomats while the dems/libs have been fighting a WAR. Repubs will never move the regs, policies, and legislation to the right until they realize we are in a war and start firing some shots. Put every minority conservative there is in ads all across the country. Minorities who will trash the policies and actions of people who look like them.
somnolence| 3.8.11 @ 2:45PM
As anyone stopped to think that Trump is very similar to McCain in that he is a mainstream media darling candidate?
Catman| 3.8.11 @ 5:39PM
Somnolence Look at Trunp Campain Donations
http://www.opensecrets.org/new.....crats.html
Catman| 3.8.11 @ 5:32PM
This is good Rush on Palin
It's a Little long or go to the 7.oo mark or Listen to the whole thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU84-W9tsTk
somnolence| 3.8.11 @ 5:50PM
Catman, I nearly vomited. Thanks for the information.
somnolence| 3.8.11 @ 5:50PM
Catman, I nearly vomited. Thanks for the information.
somnolence| 3.8.11 @ 6:36PM
I relayed all this valuable information about "traitor" Trump over on Facebook. Somebody just told me that I "didn't understand business, or greasing the palms of politicians," after they had the audacity to say they weren' t looking for a "politician." Then this same person said "if Cain is Abel to get to the primary he has my support." Huh, not mine. Herman Cain is my type of capitalist without the personal and turncoat baggage.
somnolence| 3.8.11 @ 6:36PM
I relayed all this valuable information about "traitor" Trump over on Facebook. Somebody just told me that I "didn't understand business, or greasing the palms of politicians," after they had the audacity to say they weren' t looking for a "politician." Then this same person said "if Cain is Abel to get to the primary he has my support." Huh, not mine. Herman Cain is my type of capitalist without the personal and turncoat baggage.
Catman | 3.8.11 @ 7:08PM
somnolence I would never vote for Trump He is Dirty..My Vote Goes to Sarah Palin .. Attach Look at her Record it's Great!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
Volare| 3.25.11 @ 9:29PM
As I see it, Cain and Alan West are jockeying for position to become the GOP`s House Negro in the 2012 campaign. This is a lucrative and prestigious position in the party, and will entail trashing Obama in the most bellicose manner and trying to get minorities to vote for what will surely be a very far-right GOP candidate .
David| 3.8.11 @ 7:13PM
Catman and somnolence, keep it going. Palin is great as a fundraiser, and should be appointed to some dept in a repub admin, but she should not run for elected office - at least for the next 8 years or so.
Catman | 3.8.11 @ 7:37PM
David Your Wrong. Listen to this on CNN they are talking about Pawlenty saying that he is right about a no fly zone on lyiba ... Palin said that about 3 days after the fighting broke out, They laugh at her and said she was wrong on CNN,,, No she is right,,, When are Peoplr going to wake up a Ami
somnolence| 3.8.11 @ 8:30PM
I don't vote for any more appeasing keester kissers like Donald Trump. At least Catman has supplied the evidence, evidence I intend to bring up at every opportunity.
somnolence| 3.8.11 @ 8:36PM
Palin is a leader who doesn't kneel for tokenism and buffoonery as does Donald Trump. He has become just a cipher already in my book, a real clownish caricature of himself.
somnolence| 3.8.11 @ 8:44PM
I'm not so sure that the Republic as we know it will exist in 8 years or so. For anyone to brush off a Republican candidate supporting Charlie Rangel or Frank Lautenberg as harmless action is unconscionable.
A conservative voter| 3.18.11 @ 10:45PM
Interesting article. Romney is a front-runner failure. Beside Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Barbour, and Gingrich will not get the nominee in 2012.
The Duke| 3.25.11 @ 9:23PM
Run, Michelle, Run. Help move T-Paw to the right, and help re-elect the President.
The Duke| 3.26.11 @ 9:27AM
Vote for Newt, the one with the most patriotic pecker around. I hear he`s got the stars & stripes tattooed on it! USA! USA!
Creative Recreation | 8.11.11 @ 2:19AM
is good