April 22, 2011

Krauthammer says Palin and Huckabee will probably not run for President in 2012.

And it's too early for Paul Ryan. And Trump is "a clown." Bachmann's a long shot. The serious candidates are: Romney, Gingrich, Barbour, Pawlenty, and Daniels. According to Krauthammer.

211 comments:

1 – 200 of 211   Newer›   Newest»
sunsong said...

I like Jon Huntsman of Utah - but would support Daniels.

Rob said...

We need someone willing to be a one term President. It is going to be a twenty year effort to dig ourselves out of our fiscal disaster. After the first effort to repair the budget, there will be a backlash from the free lunch crowd. It will be very hard to get re-elected if the next President does what needs to be done.

PETER V. BELLA said...

He also says Trump is running. What does he know?

The Drill SGT said...

The election, like all elections with an incumbent, is about Obama. Does he deserve another term? If the answer is NO, then the second issue is whether the challenger is acceptable. e.g. does he scare people? If Obama doesn't deserve a second term and the GOP runs somebody acceptable, they win.

rhhardin said...

John and Ken (KFI) rate Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich and Bachmann in the mentally ill candidate category.

Pawlenty is too dull to win, and Romney isn't catching on.

No talented candidates have shown up so far.

Maguro said...

Come on, Gingrich isn't a serious candidate, that's absurd. "Personal baggage" is putting it mildly and his style is just too abrasive. He's sure to be a gaffe machine on the campaign trail. Gingrich is barely more serious than The Donald.

Haley Barbour just seems a little too southern. Can't see it happening.

I do agree that Daniels, Pawlenty and Romney are the most serious candidates.

Jon said...

I agree with Dr. K that the nominee will most likely be either Romney or Pawlenty. However, I think he's underestimating Bachmann's chances (particularly if neither Palin or Huckster runs), and overestimating Barbour and Daniels' chances- I would put Bachmann ahead of both of them.

Here's the current ranking on Intrade:

Romney $24.0
Pawlenty
Daniels
Huckabee
Bachmann
Trump
Palin
Huntsman
Barbour
Gingrich $2.9

george said...

Romney gets the nomination and I stay home.

Cindy Martin said...

Where is Guiliani?

He would be good.

shiloh said...

Harkening back to all the conservative, and yes liberal pundits who were 100% sure HRC would get the 2008 Dem nomination, a year out from the Iowa Caucus.

But let the record show Mr. K and I agree on mama grizzly, as she has been a grifter/charlatan fraud from day one ie a very quick study!

There's no there there.

Phil 3:14 said...

I would like 10 million dollars. I'll settle for $10,000.

And if the alternative is that I owe $10,000 I'll settle for a dollar.

Jim Gust said...

I'm with George. Krauthammer's list of "serious" candidates has no one who is electable.

I don't like Trump, but at least he can generate a pulse in the electorate.

Sixty Grit said...

Gingrich? You have got to be kidding! He really needs to go away, permanently. Leave us alone. Retire, be gone.

Hunter said...

From his list-of-five, only Daniels and Pawlenty would have a chance in the general election.
Romney - carries the burdens of Massachussetts health care, Mormonism, and dog-on-the-roof wierdness.
Gingrich - Gets his face on the tube a lot just by being available but that doesn't mean he has a real following.
Barbour - too easily caricatured as a Southern boy.

I hope he's right about the other two. But I have real fears that Huckabee could win if he ran, and would be only a slight improvement over The One.

If this is poker, I want to draw five new cards.

AprilApple said...

If Trump runs as an independent, then it is obvious that Trump's intensions are to get Obama re-elected.

E.M. Davis said...

Chris Christie. By necessity. Please.

Sixty Grit said...

I am with you Hunter - toss the whole lot back into the pot, get a new draw.

Mark said...

John and Ken (KFI) rate Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich and Bachmann in the mentally ill candidate category.

Didn't stop Obama.

Ut said...

Romney: The White Obama
Gingrich: Grinch is more like it
Barbour: One word ... Scotch.
Daniels: The guy is 4 foot 9. You're joking right?

That leaves Pawlenty ... your next President.

vech said...

And where is Herman Cain in all this?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

OMG, please, not Romney or Gingrich.

Don't get me wrong, I like Romney in some ways. He is just too plastic, manufactured, fake. Plus he has his own version of Obamacare hung around his neck like an albatross.

He cannot possibly win.

Gingrich is the smartest guy in the room, but he is a total ass. He has his affairs to hang around his neck like a couple of albatrosses. He cannot win either.

God. The Republican line up is like what is left over on the sidelines after the cool guys get picked for the Sadie Hawkins Dance.

shiloh said...

March 11 – The 2006 Southern Republican Leadership Conference Hotline Straw Poll is won by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist with 36.9 percent of the vote.

Bill Frist 526 36.9%

Mitt Romney 205 14.4

George Allen 147 10.3

Pres. Bush (write in) 147 10.3

John McCain 66 4.6

Mike Huckabee 54 3.8

As it would have been interesting/entertaining if Bush43 could have run for a 3rd term ...

hmm, whatever happened to Bill I can diagnose Terri Schiavo's brain condition from my senate seat Frist.

Fond memories ...

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Thank Yhwh for polls, because in early 1979 Reagan trailed Carter by 25 points….and in 2007 it was a “race” between Giuliani and Clinton.

Ya Betcha it’s Sarah in the Primaries AND the General…and Krauthammer (Mondale’s speech writer) and the Obama Posse are going to be very, very Peeved.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Drill SGT. Reasonable, but not always so. A Ross Perot can queer the 'do.

Judd Gregg, if only he would run as a favorite son in NH, could at least become a broker. Not going to happen, though. I personally prefer boring, workmanlike elected officials, but everyone thinks that only people who can light up a room should be considered. And perhaps they know more than I about these things.

ic said...

Romney, Gingrich, Barbour, Pawlenty, and Daniels

Romney can't run fast enough away from RomneyCare; Barbour has an inexplicable-away baggage; Daniels will not let his wife dragged thru mud; Gingrich, a has been, even I'll vote for the TOTUS-reader; Pawlenty, the one let standing...

Michael K said...

I tend to agree with Krauthammer except for Palin. She may very well sit this out and I believe her when she says it all depends on who runs. Daniels is probably the best qualified if only he could grow a couple of inches.

Ryan doesn't want to run now but I could see him with Bolton as VP to add some foreign policy weight. He would do very well in debates with Obama.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
The serious candidates are: Romney, Gingrich, Barbour, Pawlenty, and Daniels. According to Krauthammer.

K-Hammer is an idjit if he believes this tripe….
• Romney: RomneyCare, teh Ghey’s best friend-according to HIM when he ran against Ted Kennedy. Say what you will; to the Left of the Median GOP voter
• Gingrich: Mr. I’ve Got Three Wives, and was Tapp’n No. 3 whilst Impeaching Clinton???!! Mr. Sit on the Couch With Pelosi and Maunder on About Global Warmening?
• Barbour: I can hardly wait until they begin to ask him about the Christian Conservative League or whatever Neo-Confederate Group he was hang’n with…..
• Daniels: Mr. Social Truce, Send the SoCons to the Back of the Bus? For a Truce, Agin’ a Truce Daniels, Booosh’s Dir OMB? In your dreams, Sauerkraut.
• Pawlenty is the ONLY one of them that could CONCEIVABLY make it, but I’ll bet $20 he’s Fred Thompson, Never Catches Fire….

Gabriel Hanna said...

Right now, there is no one who knows more about actually being President, and is avaliable to run, than Barack Obama.

With such a weak field of Republicans its hard not to believe that he's going to get a second term.

I'd vote for any on Krauthammer's list before I'd vote for Obama, but will independents? (I'd like to say I'm technically independent, being a libertarian, but it's pretty hard for most libertarians to vote for Democrats.)

mccullough said...

Maybe George H.W. Bush could run. He, like Obama, is eligible for another term.

Bob Dole?

McCain?

peter hoh said...

Gingrich's PAC raised $53,000 in the first quarter. I think it's safe to count him out of the race.

I'd love to see Daniels or Huntsman get the nomination, but I'm wouldn't count on it.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I'd love to see Daniels or Huntsman get the nomination, but I'm wouldn't count on it.
Really stooges of another Administration, eh? If memory serves you’re to the Left, aren’t you? I mean I’m SURE you’d love those two to run against Obama. I’d prefer Obama not run and Kucinich win the Democratic Nomination, too.

shiloh said...

Conservatives, I feel your pain! :-P

As Joe opines, don't despair lol as Reagan was (25) pts. behind Carter and the race was basically even the week before the 1980 election, when the polls finally broke for Reagan after the second debate, which came very late in that year's cycle, one wk before the election.

But alas, there are no Reagan's on the horizon for Reps as he truly was out of central casting ...

Indeed, only wannabe conservative foot soldiers to choose from.

edutcher said...

Hmmm, awful lot of RINOs there, especially Daniels, who showed no stomach for the fight over public sector unions.

One thing to keep in mind is that Dr K has always been a closet groupie for Little Zero and I think it's beginning to show once again.

The Lefties are praying Romney will run, as he, as was Junior, will be most concerned about how gracefully he can lose. With the albatross of RomneyCare around his neck, he'll seem like more of the same.

Forget Barbour and Gingrich due to baggage. Bachmann needs more time in grade. Pawlenty has no fire.

What will decide this, like '80, are deteriorating conditions. Insta thinks Little Zero's recent testiness is a sign that he knows he's in way over his head and he has no real way to get a hold of things and I think that's the case.

Unemployment will start to rise again with prices and Zero's foreign policy reset shows every sign of coming home to roost.

The nominee will come from an unexpected corner. Remember, nobody has declared yet.

PS The one the Lefties are scared of is Miss Sarah.

PPS Agree with vech.

Bob_R said...

If the stock market drops by 20-30% then there will be lot of candidates who suddenly become conceivable. If the economy gets a lot better it's four more years of Obama. If it just pokes along Krauthammer's take is probably a good bet.

mccullough said...

Krauthammer's not going out on a limb here. It's possible a Christie or Ryan could get pulled in to the race as well, and I would throw Gingrich out as not a serious candidate.

Perhaps Bachmann or Palin could pull off the Republican nomination.

Palin is ignorant and arrogant, but not stupid. She knows she can't beat Obama in a general election. Of course, Obama is ignorant and arrogant as well, so it would be fun to watch the debates.

MadisonMan said...

Where is Guiliani?

Off somewhere making a speech about what he did on 9/11?

At this point in '07, who had heard of BHO?

peter hoh said...

MadisonMan, I'm pretty sure I knew that Obama was planning to run in April, 2007.

mccullough said...

edutcher,

No one's afraid of Palin. She was a half-term governor of a welfare state that thrives on payments from the oil industry and the federal government. She has no specific proposals and speaks only in platitudes. Fortune cookies are more specific.

She would maybe carry 6 states in the general election. Sharon Angle had a much better chance of beating Harry Reid than Palin does of beating Obama. She is the Howard Dean of the Republican party.

Joe said...

as 'vech' said....where is Herman Cain in all of these cpnversations? Have any of you given a listen to him or even considered him? The first time I heard him speak, I thought "I'd vote for that man in a New York minute." - the crypto jew's life partner

David said...

And Jeb Bush.

Hagar said...

If Trump is nominated, I hope Hillary is the Democratic nominee.

David said...

A weak group of Republicans overall, except maybe Daniels.

There are other countries to be heard from: Christie and Coburn being the most able. Jeb Bush could still change his mind. Ron Paul or the spawn of Ron? (Gaaaaaaaah!)

Don't rule out third and fourth party candidates this year, though that seem more likely in 2016, if Obama is elected to a second term and fulfills his failure potential.

mccullough said...

The Republicans should nominate Tom Brady. He'll be 35 by election day in 2012. He's tall, rich, good looking, accomplished, tough, and a patriot. He also speaks well in public and is used to the spotlight.

Bruce Hayden said...

No one's afraid of Palin. She was a half-term governor of a welfare state that thrives on payments from the oil industry and the federal government. She has no specific proposals and speaks only in platitudes. Fortune cookies are more specific.

She would maybe carry 6 states in the general election. Sharon Angle had a much better chance of beating Harry Reid than Palin does of beating Obama. She is the Howard Dean of the Republican party
.

The amazing thing is that the more those, esp. on the left, say this sort of thing, the more you know that she is the candidate they fear the most.

If she weren't feared, then the left would not spend nearly so much effort trying to destroy her, as they have pretty much every day since she was nominated as McCain's running mate.

For someone as supposedly stupid, ignorant, and ill prepared as she supposedly is, it is amazing how much she has set the debate on subject after subject in this country over the last year and a bit.

Why would they fear her? All you have to do is look at Larry Sabato's electoral map. On that map, she has probably the best chance at carrying the midwest "toss up" and "leans D" states, running from IA and MO through PA. This is where Obama ran poorly against Hillary!, and where Palin's appearances were like rock concerts. Obama needs these states to win, and she is probably the candidate who most puts them into play.

The Sharon Angle comparison is also highly questionable. Time after time, when the MSM, the Dems, etc. have thought that they had a gotcha with Palin, it turns out that she was right, and they were wrong. Not so with Angle, who actually inserted her foot in her mouth on a regular basis.

But keep dreaming.

rcocean said...

Deep down the Republicans want another Bush, but that's not possible - yet. They'll settle for Romney, the closest thing to their ideal candidate - Jerry Ford.

edutcher said...

What Bruce said (so very well, sir).

peter hoh said...

Of all the nominees during the past 50 years, who waited the longest before entering the race?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
She has no specific proposals and speaks only in platitudes. Fortune cookies are more specific.
Try reading the Facebook page rather Obama’s Talking Points.

But alas, there are no Reagan's on the horizon for Reps as he truly was out of central casting ...

It is too laugh, the Faux Regan Respect…the Left NEVER respected Reagan until he died…Reagan wasn’t REAGAN in 1979…he was an ex-actor, who had already lost to Jerry Ford in 1976…and then he was Ronnie RayGun, and Mr Bedtime for Bonzo…from 1979-1988. And THEN soon after his diagnosis of Alzheimer’s the Left went joyous, saying, “Uh-UH we ALWAYS thought so”

So tell yourself there’s no “Reagan” in sight, because there was no “Reagan” in sight in 1979, either.

deborah said...

If Christie tried, he'd probably get the nomination...and no reason he shouldn't try, really.

Other than that, it'll probably Romney, and he could win a la Big Dog v. Bush I, i.e., anything can happen.

peter hoh said...

Bruce Hayden, Krauthammer led the elite Republican effort to remove Palin from the list of serious candidates. Did he do that because he really fears Palin would beat Obama?

Do you think that commenters like Revenant are secret lefties who really fear Palin?

mccullough said...

Bruce,

Palin's unfavorable numbers are off the chart. There is not a state in the midwest she would carry. And I'm judging her ignorance based on her Fox News appearances.

Putting all that aside, what the hell would she do as President? Great, she's against death panels. So Medicare, which is driving the US broke, will remain untouched, even for wealthy seniors?

She's all about getting people back to work by unleashing entrepreneurship? Great, what exactly does that mean; no payroll taxes, even lower income taxes? How is she going to address the deficit? By growing GDP and getting Americans back to work.

By record and brains, Mitch Daniels is by far the best candidate. He's actually fiscally conservative. He's had ideas and implemented them. He's had some failures but mostly successes.

What has Palin done, other than annoy the left?

We already have a President who got there by drawing large and fawning crowds. He is an absolute light-weight, just like Palin. You are a fawning fan, that's all.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Bruce Hayden, Krauthammer led the elite Republican effort to remove Palin from the list of serious candidates. Did he do that because he really fears Palin would beat Obama?
First, Krauthammer is a FORMER Democrat, on Mondale’s staff and then his Campaign in 1984, so as far as the GOP is concerned he’s a late arrival.

Beyond that, he’s determined to “save” the Republic/GOP/Ruling Elite from “That Womon” who never graduated from the Ivy League! Much akin to Frum, or Brooks, or Noonan, or Parker, “that Chillbilly” is an affront to all the “Right” People.

mccullough said...

Joe,

Her facebook page is a joke. Reagan was governor of the biggest state in this country for 8 years.

Reagan also jacked up the Social Security tax and ran deficits that were slightly higher as a percentage of GDP than FDR did during his first 8 years. The economy did well, and we spent the Soviet Union under. So all in all, it was a good 8 years.

But we haven't had a conservative
President since Calvin Coolidge. So is Sarah for means testing Medicare and Social Security? What are her plans to help bring unemployment down? It's not on her facebook page, but I thought maybe she put out some proposals in the letters to her special fans like you.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
If Christie tried, he'd probably get the nomination...and no reason he shouldn't try, really.
Great ideer, a PRO-CHOICE Republican….His is beating up on the NJEA, on Youtube….Honestly, he suffers from the “defect” East Coast Republicans suffer from…they are to the Left of the GOP median Voter.

JohnJ said...

george said...
“Romney gets the nomination and I stay home.”

Well, then, we'd get exactly what we deserve—four more years of our loopy experiment in feel-good democracy.

Romney probably is the only candidate who can assemble a first-rate executive management team ready to govern on day one. I admit that his 08 campaign was uninspiring, but perhaps the country has become weary of the inspirational schtick. He will have to do better at explaining “RomneyCare,” but I seriously wonder whether Republicans ultimately would deny him the nomination because of a health reform experiment that has had as many successes...

http://bluecrossfoundation.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Policy%20Publications/060810MHRS2009FINAL.pdf

...as failures.

Regardless of one's opinion of RomneyCare, its major author arguably would be the best qualified candidate to lead the reform of the nation's healthcare system (...as opposed to, say, punting that responsibility to a congressional clownhouse.)

I also should add that after four years of our citizen-of-the-world president, I don't think Mormonism has quite the same alien ring as it did in 08.

We caucus here in Iowa in less than ten months!

Lucius said...

Barbour and Gingrich are surely, like Huckabee, impossible. However mired parts of the Republican establishment (I'm thinking the Senate caucus) may be in Good Old Boy-ery, surely the GOP recognizes what losing propositions these are.

Gingrich is toxic at a personal level; also, for my money, he's not quite the genius he thinks he is, though feel free to differ.

Maybe Barbour is a fine human being, but I look at him and see the Sheriff from "Live and Let Die."

Pawlenty feels to me like the Tim Kaine of the GOP: a rabbity, boring, insecure guy who has a vastly inflated sense of his significance. I might be wrong-- about Pawlenty, I mean-- but despite his attempts at giving energy-surge speeches I think he may prove deadly dull. Hope I'm wrong.

wv: finverd On to Helsinki!

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
But we haven't had a conservative
President since Calvin Coolidge.

Sir you’re an IDIOT….if that’s your position you are some curmudgeon who has long since passed his/her electoral viability test.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Romney probably is the only candidate who can assemble a first-rate executive management team ready to govern on day one. I admit that his 08 campaign was uninspiring, but perhaps the country has become weary of the inspirational schtick. He will have to do better at explaining “RomneyCare,” but I seriously wonder whether Republicans ultimately would deny him the nomination because of a health reform experiment that has had as many successes...
Thank you for making the appearance Mitt…A first-rate management team; to do WHAT? Now you’re running the Dukkakis Campaign, “He’s Competent.” Really what will Mitt DO, with his “first rate management team?” is my question?

And the successes of RomneyCare, the highest Insurance Premiums in the US? Has there been any reduction in the number of uninsured? The fact that many companies, insurance, are fleeing the state? You mean THOSE successes?

peter hoh said...

Pawlenty has never struck me as insecure.

I suspect that most of the people dismissing Pawlenty have never actually heard him speak.

His stump speeches might not translate well when they are reduced to 5 seconds on the nightly news, but my neighbor has listened to quite a few Pawlenty stump speeches, and he thinks Pawlenty delivers them well.

I think it probably comes down to Pawlenty and Romney.

mccullough said...

Joe,

I think Krauthammer, like Rev, me, and others, are out to save the republic from a second Obama term. I don't like Brooks, Frum, Noonan, etc. either and I don't care about Ivy League degrees.

Tim Pawlenty grew up blue collar and went to the University of Minnesota. He's a knowlegable politician who has studied the issues and is certainly qualified by experience and knowledge to be President. Going to an Ivy League school doesn't make you qualified to be President. And not going to an Ivy League school doesn't make you qualified to be President. Being from the establishment doesn't make you qualified to be President. And not being from the establishment doesn't make you qualified to be President.

I don't give two shits about where Palin went to college, what her religion is, how many kids she has, or her stance on any social issue. This country is in deep fiscal trouble and we don't need another lightweight President like Obama and W.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

McCullough, though it’s an anathema to YOU, she endorsed the Ryan Roadmap, within days of its release…but of course:
1) Ryan isn’t REAL deficit/debt reduction; and
2) It’s nothing but platitudes.

Gabriel Hanna said...

I like Palin--I went to a university seven miles down the road from her--but I don't think she's Presidential material.

If she'd had more executive experience then maybe. (I do understand why she resigned as Alaska's governor, bogus ethics lawsuits that nearly bankrupted her, and I don't hold it against her that she resigned. Not her fault, but her lack of experience is her problem.)

mccullough said...

Joe,

You are a card-carrying member of the Cult of Palin, but I'm an idiot.

My point is that no candidate is ever going to be so pure to run on the Coolidge platform. No candidate is going to pledge to repeal Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Hell, no one is even going to repeal Medicare Part D. No one is going to pledge to repeal the Department of Education.

What is a RINO, then? What is a true conservative?

What the fuck does Sarah Palin propose to do?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I don't give two shits about where Palin went to college, what her religion is, how many kids she has, or her stance on any social issue. This country is in deep fiscal trouble and we don't need another lightweight President like Obama and W.
You keep talking about how “light weight” she is, so surely you have some CONCRETE examples, right..I mean like “57 states” or “Speaking Austrian” or not understanding the difference between “liability insurance and collision” that sort of thing….

“W” was a light-weight? I think he was more a Christian Democrat than a Conservative Republican, but he wasn’t a “lightweight” either.

ricpic said...

rhhardin said...

Jon and Ken (KFI) rate Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich and Bachmann in the mentally ill candidate category.

Yeah, but is that how YOU rate them, rh? For once in your godforsaken life be a man.


Palin will destroy the rest of the field the minute she announces. And that is my opinion. No cover required.

mccullough said...

Joe,

Maybe Palin should endorse Ryan for President. Plus, he didn't go to an Ivy League school either.


Why didn't Palin come up with the Ryan plan or any proposals herself? (Because she's lazy?)

What's Palin think of Medicare Part D?

Palin plans to balance the budget in 50 years then as POTUS?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
If she'd had more executive experience then maybe. (I do understand why she resigned as Alaska's governor, bogus ethics lawsuits that nearly bankrupted her, and I don't hold it against her that she resigned. Not her fault, but her lack of experience is her problem.)
Well name one other GOP “contender” who has taken it to Obama consistently for the last 2.5 years? Name one other “contender” who’s had the “proctologic examination” that the Palin’s have and are still standing? There may be “better” candidates” but tell me who gets Ken Layne and Wonkette angriest? It isn’t Pawlenty…there may be “better” candidates, but they aren’t to hand yet….

shiloh said...

and then he was Ronnie RayGun

No, he was called Ronnie RayGuns during Woodstock, 1969.

Part of Reagan's attraction: He used to be a Dem and president of that liberal bastion of damnation ~ S.A.G. ~ gasp! ie he can't be all bad, eh. :D

Although I didn't vote for him, he was always likable as my first encounter w/him was when he hosted Death Valley Days 1965 sponsored by "20 Mule Team Borax".

Reagan infamously said govt. is not the solution, it's the problem, soooo the day he became president he should have resigned! :-P

Suffice it to say the 2012 Rep primaries will be quite entertaining regardless er by default.

hombre said...

Republicans don't have a real candidate and they don't need one. They need to hold the House, recapture the Senate and expose Obama for the crooked loser he is.

They need to nominate an attack dog for POTUS who will pick up where Trump leaves off and go after Obama fearlessly.

If they nominate Trump, they lose it all.

hombre said...

Vech wrote: "And where is Herman Cain in all this?"

Herman Cain needs to be on the ticket to say what nobody else can say!

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
You are a card-carrying member of the Cult of Palin, but I'm an idiot.

My point is that no candidate is ever going to be so pure to run on the Coolidge platform. No candidate is going to pledge to repeal Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Hell, no one is even going to repeal Medicare Part D. No one is going to pledge to repeal the Department of Education.

What is a RINO, then? What is a true conservative?

Well I’d say anyone who thinks that Calvin Coolidge is the Man for TODAY is a crank…thank you for making an appearance Pat Buchanan. So I’d say I’M the “Conservative” and you sirrah are a CRANK….

Because I don’t think anyone IS going to Repeal Medicare D, or Sosh’Security or Medicare or Medicaid….and if thinking that doing the IMPOSSIBLE is the mark of “Conservatism” I’m afraid that there’s only YOU and a few other cranks who ARE conservatives….

But as Conservatism, like Sanity is a majority-based idea, I’m thinking folks like me, Palin and others are the Conservatives, and you, like Pat Buchanan, are has-beens…Kuhn would call it “Paradigm Shift”.

Revenant said...

Pawlenty has no fire.

Maybe not, but will that necessarily be a bad thing? Dull people are hard to demonize.

Saint Croix said...

Who does the Tea Party like?

That's obvious.

Sarah Palin.

The attacks on Palin are utterly similar to the attacks on the Tea Party itself. The Tea Party movement was attacked by the left in a completely vile way. "It's racist," for instance. The Tea Party has been called all sorts of obscene names. For instance, teabagger, which is like calling your opponent a cocksucker.

The mainstream media has been largely complicit in this.

The people who make up the Tea Party do not care. They are ordinary Americans, and they are sick of it.

Why did the Republicans win the House? Tea Party.

The Republican party can listen to Washington insiders like Krauthammer, and pick a "safe" candidate, and hope for the best. Yea, Gerald Ford!

Or they can pick a candidate the Tea Party likes, and have a real fight. And win.

Your choice, Republicans.

Revenant said...

You keep talking about how “light weight” she is, so surely you have some CONCRETE examples, right.

You don't earn the title of "lightweight" by doing something unimpressive. You earn it by failing to do anything impressive.

Maybe Palin would make a great President, but there's no rational reason to believe that yet. Her two years as governor were pretty middle of the road, and she's done nothing since then but talk.

If I want a Republican who *talks* a good game about small government there are a couple of hundred of 'em in Congress alone.

mccullough said...

Joe,

I called Obama a lightweight.

As for W. and lightweight:

1. He said his tax cuts would not increase the deficits.

2. He didn't have any basic understanding of how the derivatives markets work. (He couldn't even explain in the most general of terms why TARP was necessary).

3. He added a prescription drug bill for middle and upper class seniors that has tacked on another $100 billion a year. (He had no plan to pay for it).

4. He nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

5. Gonzalez/Rumsfeld/Brownie.

6. NCLB.

7. Mission Accomplished.

8. 2001 "stimulus bill."

9. 2008 "stimulus bill."

10. Proposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

11. Katrina

12. Scooter Libby commutation.

mccullough said...

Saint Croix,

70% of the Tea Party thinks Medicare should be left alone.

In 20 years, Medicare will take up all the federal revenues.

I respect fiscal conservatism and think most in the Tea Party are well intentioned. Don't think their racist or redneck or have a bad bone in their body.

But if 70% think Medicare shouldn't be touched, then those folks are pretty ill-informed.

Revenant said...

Or they can pick a candidate the Tea Party likes, and have a real fight. And win

The Tea Party was a powerful movement long before the likes of Palin showed up to claim credit for its successes.

She is neither important to the movement nor the end-all and be-all of tea party candidates.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Maybe not, but will that necessarily be a bad thing? Dull people are hard to demonize.
No they’re not. If that’s your plan, “Ah they can’t DEMONIZE this one!” Trust me, within days of the sealing of the nomination, there will be stories about “affairs with lobbyists” or “marital difficulties” or something, and then that person will be the TOOL OF RADICAL EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS! No matter who they are….If Pawlenty/Romney/Roemer are elected Womyn will be forced to seek back-alley abortions, gays will be stoned, the poor will starve, Grandma will lose her Sosh’Security and be forced to eat dog food! It doesn’t matter WHO is nominated, that’s going to be the charge…so don’t think by avoiding Palin or Gingrich or some other “controversial” nominee, you’ll avoid demonization…’cuz that’s the Democratic Playbook, and will be that for a long, long time….

JohnJ said...

Joe said...
"Has there been any reduction in the number of uninsured?"

Yup.

http://bluecrossfoundation.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Policy%20Publications/060810MHRS2009FINAL.pdf

Joe said...
"A first-rate management team; to do WHAT?"

Govern.

mccullough said...

Joe,

Medicare Part D is 8 years old. Medicare was around for almost 40 years before the Part D.

No one is talking about repealing Medicare or Social Security. Means testing is not repealing.

You can't begin to close the growing deficits without modifiying Medicare and Social Security. You can't close the deficits without raising taxes.

This is reality. Sarah Palin has no ideas and doesn't know what she's talking about. She is wilfully ignorant, like you.

chickelit said...

Sorry but "Miss Me Yet" is not tranferable between brothers.

Well not without compromise.

AJ Lynch said...

Paul Ryan & Marco Rubio could beat Obama and they would put a final bullet in the zombie head of baby boomers as prez contenders.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
1. He said his tax cuts would not increase the deficits.
No but they helped end the Recession, didn’t they?

2. He didn't have any basic understanding of how the derivatives markets work. (He couldn't even explain in the most general of terms why TARP was necessary).

Well by that “definition” ANYONE is a lightweight…

3. He added a prescription drug bill for middle and upper class seniors that has tacked on another $100 billion a year. (He had no plan to pay for it).

Because he was Big Government Conservative, not a lightweight

4. He nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
OK

5. Gonzalez/Rumsfeld/Brownie.

Unpopular is NOT “bad” nice try, though…

6. NCLB.
Again Big Government, not lightweight

7. Mission Accomplished.
*SIGH* the CARRIER posted that, THEIR MISSION HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED….do you want to trot out the “plastic turkey myth” next?

8. 2001 "stimulus bill."
9. 2008 "stimulus bill."

Both passed with bi-partisan support….

10. Proposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Because Gay Marriage is “popular” by what measure is this evidence of anything but Conservative Public Policy? I doubt Calvin Coolidge would support Gay Marriage, so be careful what you say.

11. Katrina
He’s a lightweight because there was a hurricane? Sure he was a lightweight because Blanco and Nagin failed to act, and then he’s a lightweight because of the rapes and child murders in the Supoer-Dome…OH WAIT…

12. Scooter Libby commutation.
Because Libby was guilty…of WHAT exactly? Get back to me on that would you?

shiloh said...

John Fund is also a fan of Calvin Coolidge. He said Coolidge's philosophy was to concentrate on the #1 major problem, as the minor problems should correct themselves.

After all, the chief business of the American people is business.

Harry Truman was America's last great president. When foreign leaders would meet him in the oval office he would have a pic of the Atomic Bomb mushroom facing them.

>

13) The Iraq War will pay for itself w/Iraqi oil $$$.

14) Osama bin Laden still at large!

Full List

And yes, Obama has unfortunately continued many of these failed, misbegotten policies ...

shiloh said...

Joe still apologizing/rationalizing for Bush ~ too funny!

Lucius said...

But what if Jeb is the Second Bush 41 administration that we've been skipping all these years?

Believe me, I *want* the second Bush 41 term. Whoever can give me that will make me happy.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Before RomneyCare was enacted, estimates of the number of uninsured in Massachusetts ranged from 372,000 to 618,000. Under the new program, about 219,000 previously uninsured residents have signed up for insurance. Of these, 133,000 are receiving subsidized coverage, proving once again that people are all too happy to accept something "for free," and let others pay the bill. That is in addition to 56,000 people who have been signed up for Medicaid. The bigger the subsidy, the faster people are signing up. Of the 133,000 people who have signed up for insurance since the plan was implemented, slightly more than half have received totally free coverage.

So the number of “uninsured” fell and the number of free-loaders rose…great plan…
“govern” is nothing more tha RomneySpeak for “Hope and Change”…Govern, how…will they round up all the Jews or all the Catholics…the retarded?

“Good Governance” is fools errand without a DIRECTION…..

Lucius said...

re Joe: I don't understand your dismissal of the term 'lightweight' by asserting that Bush 43 was a Big Government Conservative.

I don't think anyone denies that Dubya was a BGC. Being "lightweight" is another matter altogether: it implies that he didn't think seriously about national problems or implement serious solutions.

I happen to think Medicare D was a frivolous attempt to buy up senior votes, per Karl Rove's dreams of a 'permanent supermajority'. That sounds like pretty lightweight leadership to me.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Before RomneyCare was enacted, estimates of the number of uninsured in Massachusetts ranged from 372,000 to 618,000. Under the new program, about 219,000 previously uninsured residents have signed up for insurance. Of these, 133,000 are receiving subsidized coverage, proving once again that people are all too happy to accept something "for free," and let others pay the bill. That is in addition to 56,000 people who have been signed up for Medicaid. The bigger the subsidy, the faster people are signing up. Of the 133,000 people who have signed up for insurance since the plan was implemented, slightly more than half have received totally free coverage.

So the number of “uninsured” fell and the number of free-loaders rose…great plan…
“govern” is nothing more tha RomneySpeak for “Hope and Change”…Govern, how…will they round up all the Jews or all the Catholics…the retarded?

“Good Governance” is fools errand without a DIRECTION…..

Saint Croix said...

Why do people respond to Donald Trump? Because he says what he thinks. Most politicians have a thought, they repress it, and then they say what their audience wants to hear.

People are sick of that.

Authenticiy is the key metric. This is why it's retarded to say that Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich are serious candidates. No. They're not. They're as phony as a 3-dollar bill.

Look at how the media treats Trump. No judgments. They put a microphone in front of him and let him make an ass out of himself. They love it.

Look at how the media treats Palin. They hate her. They cut her words up and try to make her look as bad as possible. They slime her, and her family. They do everything they can to make you doubt her.

Trump and Palin are both authentic. Who's the birther moron? Trump. Who's the one fighting the public unions? Palin.

She's the serious candidate and you know she will make a difference in Washington.

xWerkz Studio said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I happen to think Medicare D was a frivolous attempt to buy up senior votes, per Karl Rove's dreams of a 'permanent supermajority'. That sounds like pretty lightweight leadership to me.

Argument by Definition….Policy With Which I disagree or Which is Poor is evidence of being a “Lightweight”

edutcher said...

mccullough said...

Joe,

I called Obama a lightweight.

As for W. and lightweight:

1. He said his tax cuts would not increase the deficits.


They didn't, his spending did.

2. He didn't have any basic understanding of how the derivatives markets work. (He couldn't even explain in the most general of terms why TARP was necessary).

He isn't supposed to, but his Secretary of the Treasury was; Paulson (and his handmaiden, Geithner) just turned out to be a self-aggrandizing sack of slime.

4. He nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

Also Roberts, Alito, and Scalia.

And Little Zero gave us the Wise Latina and the Softball Ace from Haavahd.

5. Gonzalez/Rumsfeld/Brownie.

Nothing wrong with Rumsfeld, and I'll take Gonzalez over Holder any day. And, yes, who was handling BP?

6. NCLB.

???

7. Mission Accomplished.

Not his doing, but, since you raise the issue, he had done the job - Saddam's rule had been destroyed.

8. 2001 "stimulus bill."

9. 2008 "stimulus bill."


Bovine fecal effluvia

10. Proposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

So? And Willie gave us DOMA.

11. Katrina

Nagin and Blanco.

12. Scooter Libby commutation.

Libby was railroaded.

You forgot successfully prosecuted the War on Terror and kept this country safe for 8 years.

When it was needed, Dubya stepped up to the plate. He did a better job than any Democrat would have done.

PS PB&J/shiloh/some phony folksy talks about the great Truman.

He was the one who made sure the UN (and the Russians) knew MacArthur's plans for Korea before the troops in the field did.

And had to be dragged kicking and screaming into dropping the bomb by George Marshall.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Joe still apologizing/rationalizing for Bush ~ too funny!


Shiloh still re-writing history…too sad.

Ut said...

"I'd love to see Daniels or Huntsman get the nomination, but I'm wouldn't count on it."

Daniels is a Democrat. He raised taxes for Christsakes to balance his state's budget. I mean, why not just vote for Obama?

Have you seen him standing next to Obama? Barack Obama is 6-2. He will utterly tower over the 5-2 Daniels. My little sister is taller than Mitch Daniels.

Guy is a fucking dwarf. Dennis Kucinich is taller than Mitch Daniels. Nobody votes for dwarves except Sleeping Beauty.

Why would any Republicans take this guy seriously as a presidential contender?

Skyler said...

Are we forever condemned to the same candidates?

mccullough said...

Joe,

You don't consider passing easy-to-please deficit-expanding bills to be a sign of a lightweight?

You don't consider proposing to amend the Constitution to keep a few hard-core social conservatives excited about your re-election to be the sign of a lightweight? (W. was not seriously opposed to gay marriage,so there's no sincerity, unlike some people).

You think Gonzalez was qualified to be Attorney General?

And if lying to federal investigators is no big deal, why didn't W. commute the sentence of every one sitting in prison for the same crime? You think it's consistent with a belief in the rule of law?

Skyler said...

What I mean is that the republican machine spits out the same cookie cutter versions of Bob Dole every time.

JohnJ said...

My goodness, what a lot of self-defeating blather about the supposed inadequacies of the prospective Republican presidential candidates. I'd pick Romney, Daniels and Pawlenty (in that order) over Obama in a heartbeat.

Go ahead and sit it out if your special guy doesn't get the nomination. Hope you enjoy the Grant Park victory speech redux.

shiloh said...

Why do people respond to Donald Trump?

By default as he's a notorious circus charlatan er over-the-top narcissistic showman, whereas the rest of the Rep wannabes are monkeys in the cage.

apologies to monkeys ...

Gabriel Hanna said...

@mcullogh:

1. He said his tax cuts would not increase the deficits.

They didn't. And they weren't HIS tax cuts; Congress voted them in and has kept them every time they came up.

Federal revenue increased every year from 2001 to 2007. Federal SPENDING increased more

The rest of your list, except Medicare D, of reasons why Bush sucks kind of make you sound like a concern troll.

And Katrina? What, was Bush supposed to invade Louisiana with Federal troops and suspend the civil government? What kind of conservative thinks its okay to break the Constitution like that?

Patrick said...

It is true that Pawlenty is rather dull. But, consider that the reason that many people were so enthralled with Obama was the way he made them swoon. That hasn't worked out so well, at least according to some. Maybe dull, but affable and principled is what we need.

mccullough said...

Ut,

Are you with me on getting Tom Brady to run? He's 6'4" and would be the best looking POTUS since Franklin Pierce.

Daniels put in a one-year 1% income tax increase for income over $100,000 to close Indiana's deficits. Then he restructured property taxes.

Given the deficits and debt the U.S. has, even Tom Brady will have to raise our taxes. After all, we have to pay for Warren Buffet's health care and Social Security (and even Sarah Palin's health care when she turns 65, despite her book royalties).

Revenant said...

No they’re not. If that’s your plan, “Ah they can’t DEMONIZE this one!

I said they were hard to demonize, not that they were impossible.

so don’t think by avoiding Palin or Gingrich or some other “controversial” nominee

I'm not worried about "controversial".

I'm worried about "the voters start out the campaign already firmly convinced the Republican candidate is an idiot and a asshole". There has never been a President who won office after starting out with Gingrich and Palin's level of public revulsion. Zero in the last two hundred plus years. Think on it, ok?

shiloh said...

Let the record show Ut does not like Mitch Daniels! :-P

Short people got no reason
Short people got no reason
Short people got no reason

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Joe,

You don't consider passing easy-to-please deficit-expanding bills to be a sign of a lightweight?

No.

You don't consider proposing to amend the Constitution to keep a few hard-core social conservatives excited about your re-election to be the sign of a lightweight? (W. was not seriously opposed to gay marriage, so there's no sincerity, unlike some people).
You mean:
1) Making your constituents happy is lightweight; and
2) That Gay Marriage is popular, if so tell me why it is, it fails ALMOST EVERY TIME it’s up for a vote? Must be quite a few hard-core SoCons out there…Tell me what was Calvin Coolidge’s position on Gay Marriage, BTW?

You think Gonzalez was qualified to be Attorney General?
You assert to the contrary, so tell me why he wasn’t?


And if lying to federal investigators is no big deal, why didn't W. commute the sentence of every one sitting in prison for the same crime? You think it's consistent with a belief in the rule of law?


Or do you mean telling the same story differently in two interviews? I guess he should have been better coached…tell me who “outed” Plame and when did Fitzpatrick know it?

Gabriel Hanna said...

@joe:

Don't waste your time with the mcoullogh concern troll. A guy who starts with "no one since Coolidge is a real conservative" and ends with left-wing talking points about Katrina and Scooter Libby is probably not a conservative.

Patrick said...

The problem with Romney and Trump (aside from the fact that Trump is an idiot) is that they are business guys, who expect that when they get into government, the bureaucracy will respond as would employees in the private sector. That will not happen. Plus, Trump is an idiot. If there was going to be a litmus test for "are you a Republican" it should be: Do you favor the outcome in Kelo or not. Trump favors it. He should not call himself a Republican. Any conservative/right leaning libertarian would need to remove him from consideration on that alone.

edutcher said...

mccullough said...

Joe,

You don't consider passing easy-to-please deficit-expanding bills to be a sign of a lightweight?


Franklin Roosevelt did it.

You don't consider proposing to amend the Constitution to keep a few hard-core social conservatives excited about your re-election to be the sign of a lightweight? (W. was not seriously opposed to gay marriage,so there's no sincerity, unlike some people).

If that was his conviction, it doesn't make him a lightweight.

You need to get away from the screeds of Molly Ivins.

PS It was Laura who was OK with homosexual marriage.

mccullough said...

Gabriel,

You're right about Katrina. W.'s response was absolutley pitch perfect. The Posse-Comitatus Act had only been in existence since 1878, and W. could not possibly have invoked any of its exceptions. And until the governor of Louisiana and mayor of New Orleans request your help, the federal government is powerless to do anything.

As for W.'s respect for the Constitution, Jose Padilla was a U.S. citizen arrested in the U.S. Congress had not suspended the writ of habeas corpus. His being held without charges was unconstitutional.

W. was pretty incompetent and a lightweight. He was a nice guy and well intentioned, but pretty clueless and definitely unqualified.

Saint Croix said...

Here is Krauthammer, who claims to be unbiased, on Sarah Palin:

Must know (I think) she has little chance at the nomination and none in the general election. Why risk it, and the inevitable diminishment defeat would bring?

Yeah, cause nobody in the Tea Party likes Sarah Palin. Her chances are so tiny that we can't even give her odds. Oh yeah, that Sarah Palin, it's so hopeless.

Is it misogyny? Do you think she's stupid? Do you think we are?

And this "axiom" that Krauthammer has that it's better if the Republican nominee is anonymous and nobody knows who they are. What?

If you want a rule for Republican nominees, here you go: nominate a fighter who's optimistic, happy, and has a sense of humor.

Who does that sound like? Ding, ding, ding.

mccullough said...

edutcher,

It wasn't W.'s conviction that the Constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage. He doesn't support gay marriage but also believed it should be up to the states and not enshrined in the Constitution. He did it just to fire up the social conservatives.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
You're right about Katrina. W.'s response was absolutley pitch perfect. The Posse-Comitatus Act had only been in existence since 1878, and W. could not possibly have invoked any of its exceptions. And until the governor of Louisiana and mayor of New Orleans request your help, the federal government is powerless to do anything.

They requested the aid well AFTER it ought to have been! FEMA had warned both Blaco and Nagin, and NEITHER acted…to implement their own emergency plans. But of course it’s Bush’s fault…

As for W.'s respect for the Constitution, Jose Padilla was a U.S. citizen arrested in the U.S. Congress had not suspended the writ of habeas corpus. His being held without charges was unconstitutional.
And FDR did the equivalent..was he a “lightweight”

W. was pretty incompetent and a lightweight. He was a nice guy and well intentioned, but pretty clueless and definitely unqualified.

Enacting policy with which you don’t agree doesn’t make you a lightweight, but supporting Calvin Coolidge makes you a CRANK.

Revenant said...

You don't consider passing easy-to-please deficit-expanding bills to be a sign of a lightweight?

Franklin Roosevelt did it.

Franklin Roosevelt set out with the openly stated goal of massively expanding government. Calling him a lightweight for accomplishing his major political goal would be silly.

But when a self-proclaimed conservative fights for and signs off on the biggest expansion of socialist entitlement programs in a generation? Hm.

Personally I think it is just that Bush didn't care about small government one way or the other. He had other priorities.

Revenant said...

Yeah, cause nobody in the Tea Party likes Sarah Palin. Her chances are so tiny that we can't even give her odds. Oh yeah, that Sarah Palin, it's so hopeless.

Liked by Tea Party + Disliked by everyone else = you lose.

Any questions?

mccullough said...

For all the Palin fans, what makes anyone think Palin's deficits won't be as big as Obama's. She's not for tax increases, doesn't want to touch SS or Medicare for the next 10 years, won't touch defense spending.

What is she going to cut, then? And if tax increases are off the table, what's going to shrink the deficits? Is it just the Ryan plan?

Simpson-Bowles does a lot more to close the deficits than Ryan (or Obama's) plans. It also doesn't have quite the rosy assumption as those two plans.

What's Palin's take on Simpson-Bowles. I can't find it anywhere.

Revenant said...

What is she going to cut, then?

The ribbon for the new Wal-Mart opening in Little Rock, Arkansas.

That's what she'll be reduced to if she runs for office and subjects us to another four years of Obama.

mccullough said...

Joe,

I don't expect (and wouldn't vote) for Calvin Coolidge for POTUS in 2012.

Are you going to vote for FDR? You seem to like him even more than W.

Again, my point about Coolidge is that he was the last conservative President. Small government, balanced budgets, non-intervention, etc.

What the Tea Partiers and Paul Ryan (who is a knowledgeable serious guy) are talking about is rolling back things to 2008. They should do what it takes to roll them back to 1998. They won't. They like their low taxes and high spending and free prescription drugs.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
For all the Palin fans, what makes anyone think Palin's deficits won't be as big as Obama's. She's not for tax increases, doesn't want to touch SS or Medicare for the next 10 years, won't touch defense spending..

And how do we know she won’t capitulate to radical Islam or perform PRon? Now you’re not even TRYING to argue. She DOES touch Medicare and Sosh’Security, just not the way YOU want her to…and considering that YOU would have any politician commit suicide, politically, to please you, NOONE is going to “do the right thing”-according to you. And that might suggest that your idea is not as great as you think…or are you the sort of “super-genius” that concludes that 99% of everyone is wrong, not you?

shiloh said...

Why do people respond to Donald Trump?

Why do people respond to mama grizzly?

She's a somewhat good looking MILF babe! ~ Plus she has a nice wink. It's that basic as many repressed conservative men can't help themselves.

Rich Lowry, National Review editor:

I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.

As William F. Buckley, Jr. was turnin' over in his grave!

You bet'cha!

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
What's Palin's take on Simpson-Bowles. I can't find it anywhere.

As you know she endorsed Ryans’ Roadmap I guess she opposed it….

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Again, my point about Coolidge is that he was the last conservative President. Small government, balanced budgets, non-intervention, etc.

That’s what makes you a CRANK…you define conditions 90 years ago as the last era of being “Conservative”. Non-intervention, so what would have “Silent Cal” done with Messr. Tohjo, Mussolini, and Hitler? Just ignored them? It may be Conservative, but it is also STOOPIT and Immoral.

Lucius said...

re: Joe, is the word 'lightweight' simply inadmissible in common discourse, or what?

If you want to defend Bush 43 from the charge of being a 'lightweight', fine. I assume you're pleased with at least a great many of his calls.

You seem to think the word 'lightweight' is just a frivolous pejorative, with no meaning at all for those who are throwing it.

I think Bush 43 was inexperienced, rash, and implemented a lot of domestic policies that were expansionist and ill-advised.

You would counter these claims: fine. I daresay we can repeat each side's arguments within our own heads well enough.

What I'm saying is, vis-a-vis 'lightweight', you sound like Gary Busey in "Lethal Weapon" when he responds with incredulous disgust to our heroes' hopes of prevailing. The line is something like: "Are you *kidding* me?--Just look at all the firepower!!"

In essence, you're seem to say: "W. did awesomely huge things, therefore he can't possibly be 'lightweight'. Hell, better 'wrong' than 'lightweight'!"

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
As William F. Buckley, Jr. was turnin' over in his grave!

That would be the Wm F Buckley who said he’d rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston ‘phone book, than the Harvard Faculty? You might want to THINK before you post.

Rialby said...

Normally, the GOP tends to give it to the logical guy next-in-line. They skipped over McCain in 2000 but gave it to him 2008. Romney is that guy but he ain't getting it this time.

It's going to be Pawlenty or Daniels.

Carol_Herman said...

You just need one candidate who can get the votes. And, get the votes in enough numbers that the democraps can't steal the election from the PEOPLE!

Since none of us knows what happens in the future, including Krauthammer. It's an open field.

Donald Trump called Krauthammer on the phone. (He wrote about this in an article I saw, today.) He said when his secretary told him Trump was on the phone, he was going to put on a helmet and a flack jacket.

Strange thing is the pyschiatrist was wrong. Trump was very business-like. Pointing out his ACE, that's he knows business about as well as he knows the spotlight.

You're not dealing with Ross Perot this time around.

But the insiders within the republican party? They've been waiting their turn, ya know?

And, how much is George Soros willing to spend?

This ain't no "kloppenhoppen," or Code Pink situation. With Trump IN the game ... Soros has to increase what he spends. And, he's given no guarantees.

JohnJ said...

Joe said...
“FEMA had warned both Blaco and Nagin, and NEITHER acted…to implement their own emergency plans. But of course it’s Bush’s fault…”

I thought Bush was a well-meaning, but awful president. However, I've always believed he got a bum rap on Katrina.

I remember watching Mayor Ray Nagin's last minute public announcement on TV with my wife when he told the citizens of New Orleans to evacuate the city. My wife, who knows next to nothing about New Orleans, turned to me and asked “Do they have a way to get out?”

Well, of course they didn't, and the rest is the stuff of human tragedy.

...and that incompetent fool was re-elected by the survivors.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Well Lucius, a lightweight might declare a No Fly Zone, LONG AFTER IT WOULD WORK or suggest we invade Pahk-ee-stohn…

I’m simply pointing out the evidence adduced does not support the claim….If you can show how Katrina is evidence of being a lightweight or “Mission Accomplished” is, feel free to expound further.

shiloh said...

Joe, nice deflection!

btw, is mama grizzly moving to Boston? Yes, Buckley could be sarcastic/hyperbolic at times which was part of his charm.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
btw, is mama grizzly moving to Boston? Yes, Buckley could be sarcastic/hyperbolic at times which was part of his charm.
No deflection Shiloh…the truth. You’ve missed the whole point of Buckley…he was NOT an “elitist/intellectual”…It’s a pity you are so ignorant.

shiloh said...

Let the record show Joe says Buckley would have fawned over mama grizzly just like Lowry.

Ignorant indeed!

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Let the record show Joe says Buckley would have fawned over mama grizzly just like Lowry.

Ignorant indeed!
.

I have no idea of Buckley’s opinion of Palin…he certainly liked LIMBAUGH, Shiloh…and as Limbaugh has NO college degree I’d say Buckley would judge Palin by her MERITS, not her pedigree. As evidenced by his statement concerning the Faulty of Harvard…

Saint Croix said...

I think Palin and Huckabee will both run. Huckabee is a far more dangerous Republican potential nominee than Palin. He's an economic nitwit.

What's awesome about Sarah Palin is that she is so independent.

For instance, she will not run the typical campaign. She will not hire all the political consultants and the handlers and the whole machine. She will skip all that. Her campaign will be small. She will handle herself and craft her message herself. She will be authentic and open and say what she thinks.

Everybody will tell her how insane this is and she will do it anyway.

I love her. She's awesome.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@mcullogh:

What the Tea Partiers and Paul Ryan (who is a knowledgeable serious guy) are talking about is rolling back things to 2008. They should do what it takes to roll them back to 1998.

What, they can't stop at 2008 on their way to 1998?

You ARE a concern troll, so trying to convince conservatives that no conservative is conservative enough, by making the perfect the enemy of the good.

shiloh said...

Palin by her MERITS

Totally agree as let the record show Joe and I have reached common ground, although surely we would disgree re: palin's merits er lack thereof.

Lucius said...

@Joe: As a McCain-Palin voter, you'll get no argument from me on the current lightweight in the Oval Office.

But I think 'declaring' "Mission Accomplished" was, yes, lightweight. Would Bush 41 do that? Dance on the crumbling Berlin Wall? Would Nixon? Would Reagan?

When Paul Johnson (basically) declares Coolidge the best President ever, I think that's a crank opinion. Not 'crank' like John Bircher crank, but 'crank' like declaring the Sistine Chapel an aesthetic failure, or hailing Kipling with Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Dickens as the four greatest authors in the English language (which Paul Johnson also does).

I'm not *with* the paleocons; among other things, dreaming of a pre-New Deal America is no longer 'conservative' in my view because those people have gone over to radicalism in their desire for change--backwards.

All the same, I'll be damned if going back to a 2008 status quo represents genuine 'conservatism.' We need to get the federal government back at least to, say, 1992.

Saint Croix said...

I can't wait for the Pawlenty thread and the three posts. Or the Mitch Daniels thread. Six posts! Mitch is on fire!

I would put a Pawlenty-Daniels bumper sticker on my car but I worry about the political ramifications.

edutcher said...

mccullough said...

edutcher,

It wasn't W.'s conviction that the Constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage. He doesn't support gay marriage but also believed it should be up to the states and not enshrined in the Constitution. He did it just to fire up the social conservatives.


In your opinion.

PS Joe, Mr FUD is so afraid of Miss Sarah, he can't engage in honest debate.

But, then, he never can.

shiloh said...

For palin to run, there has to be an upside ie will it make her more $$$ than if she doesn't run.

As Kathleen Parker said a couple years ago, palin runs, she makes a lot of $$$, she doesn't run, she makes a lot of $$$.

The main reason I have been sayin' she won't run since day one is she doesn't want to be totally humiliated like she was in 2008.

As always, I could be wrong ie palin's a masochist! :-P

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
But I think 'declaring' "Mission Accomplished" was, yes, lightweight. Would Bush 41 do that? Dance on the crumbling Berlin Wall? Would Nixon? Would Reagan?

Dood the AIRCRAFT CARRIER PUT UP THAT SIGN! The Captain was telling THEM, THEIR mission was accomplished! Bush didn’t put it up or have it put up….



All the same, I'll be damned if going back to a 2008 status quo represents genuine 'conservatism.' We need to get the federal government back at least to, say, 1992.
.

1992, no 1931 or even better Pre-Teddy Roosevelt….

Sure we’ll just HALVE the Federal Budget, in ONE YEAR….I’ll be happy to get back to 2006, in a year or two.

Lucius said...

@Joe: Yes, thanks for the history lesson. We've heard it, we've heard it. *Of course* the happy crew would just put up a backdrop spontaneously, of their own free thought and will, for the President during a speech as stage-managed asa Riefenstahl production.

This is just errant apologetics. And if your brand of 'conservatism' doesn't push for hard fiscal restraints, then it's just cosmetic.

One might as well put the 'if Bush had done it' argument in the rearview mirror and ask, 'If Obama had done it . . .'

Much of what's wrong with Obama is: he has done it.

Indeed, I'd rather have a 'lightweight' than one of these!

But seriously Joe: fine, we don't want to live in the darker recesses of the 20th Century. But what is it your 'conservatism' wants to fight for, regarding federal authority & spending?

That Obama compounds disaster upon disaster doesn't mean going back to mere *disaster* is a full righting of the ship of state, all we could ever dream of!

peter hoh said...

Map explains how Trump can win.

zbogwan99 said...

Everything is pretty static in the Republican Presidential Race, but same will change soon and we'll see who's really running. Then we the people will determine who we want and Dr. K. and the rest of the MSM talking heads can go suck an egg for their silly opinions?

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Joe:

Maybe Lucius and mcoullogh are the same concern troll. At any rate, they're both concern trolls who don't want any actual conservative to win, using the same "perfect is the enemy of the good" argument.

That Obama compounds disaster upon disaster doesn't mean going back to mere *disaster* is a full righting of the ship of state, all we could ever dream of!

Nice strawman there. Maybe we can try getting the ship pointed back in the right direction, before trying to teleport it to its final destination?

gbarto said...

Who knows where we'll be in 6 or 7 months? How about this?

Scott Walker for President! I took Wisconsin back from the unions, and now I'm going to take back Washington from the permanent ruling class!

Actually, there are a number of Republican governors who could position themselves this way if they're willing to step up to the plate in their own states: Kasich, Daniels, Walker, Christie, the new gov in Michigan. And if things follow their present course, electability might be the highest for the one about whom nothing is known except that the unions can't say enough terrible things and he/she seems proud of it.

vbspurs said...

It's too early for Paul Ryan, and Marco Rubio.

Thank God.

vbspurs said...

I don't like Trump, but at least he can generate a pulse in the electorate.

So can Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey, and that's fitting, because Trump is a circus.

Freeman Hunt said...

Obama is black, thin, and agnostic. Huckabee is white, husky, and Southern Baptist. Their differences thus exhausted, I can't say I yet know which one I'd vote for in a Presidential election.

Freeman Hunt said...

Anyone remember that movie I Heart Huckabees? What vacuity-fest that was.

Revenant said...

using the same "perfect is the enemy of the good" argument.

Look, the simple truth is that spending is taxation. When the government spends a dollar it is committing to *taking* a dollar from someone, either now or later on.

A person who fights long and hard against "tax increases" but pussies out on spending cuts is just fighting a delaying action. He is doing nothing to achieve actual victory in the war against high taxes.

vbspurs said...

Freeman, I remember the Huckstables. Close enough?

Freeman Hunt said...

Paul Ryan or Chris Christie.

One can dream that Ryan will remain so annoyed by the President's recent petty and boorish behavior that he'll feel compelled to run against him.

As for Christie, I guess the dream is that he'll get bigger ideas than hanging out in that ridiculous state and announce a Presidential run. (I just finished watching The Cartel, so I can't help but find New Jersey ridiculous at the moment.)

Saint Croix said...

My father's a Republican. Doesn't read internet blogs. I think he still subscribes to Time magazine. Doesn't like Obama at all.

I asked him tonight, who do you think should be the Republican nominee?

"Oh that guy, I can't remember his name, from Minnesota I think?"

Pawlenty.

"Yeah. I can never remember his name. And there's another one, from Indiana. Whathisname."

Mitch Daniels.

"I don't like the guy from Massachusetts. Romneycare."

What do you think of Palin?

"Too right-wing. But I like all of them better than Obama."

This conversation reminds me of Krauthammer's argument that the Republican nominee should be low profile. One of those guys whose name you can't remember. Not a leader or anything like that. An enigma, a blank slate. That's Krauthammer's ideal Republican candidate, the blank slate.

This is actually complete horseshit.

It's liberals who have to hide their politics. It's liberals who have to throw up the blank slate. That's Obama in a nutshell.

"Hope. Change."

Republicans win when they throw up the right-winger. Who's optimistic and happy and has a sense of humor and doesn't give a damn what the media thinks.

Reagan. Bush. Palin.

Of those three, Palin is probably the most libertarian. But all three are extremely similar in style. They're all cowboys.

Palin's a cowgirl which makes her a far more dangerous Republican to the other side. Duh.

Freeman Hunt said...

Freeman, I remember the Huckstables. Close enough?

No. I loved the Huckstables. I hated I Heart Huckabees.

If any of those I Heart Huckabees characters tried to babble their flimflam at Dr. Huckstable, he would slay them down with his WHAT-THE-HELL-ARE-YOU-TALKING-ABOUT?! face.

Saint Croix said...

Imagine a world where the media liked Sarah Palin. Where a world where the media was so excited that Sarah Palin (a woman!) was going to be President.

What would her poll numbers look like?

vbspurs said...

Saint Croix wrote:

It's liberals who have to hide their politics. It's liberals who have to throw up the blank slate. That's Obama in a nutshell.

"Hope. Change."

Republicans win when they throw up the right-winger. Who's optimistic and happy and has a sense of humor and doesn't give a damn what the media thinks.

Reagan. Bush. Palin.


Marry me.

Cheers,
Victoria

vbspurs said...

I'm still not sure about Sarah Palin being the candidate. I agree with others above who has said she lacks experience; IMHO, also, she is very similar to Obama, personality-wise.

I also believe she's toxic enough that others may not vote for her not because they don't agree with her conservativism, but because they're already projecting to all the mass protests that will accompany her every move, both here and abroad.

But, hell, as I said in the other thread -- let the gal run. Let's see what she's made of, solo, at long last.

garage mahal said...

Paul Ryan or Chris Christie.

Two charlatans who have no intention, and no plans on paper with any hopes of "balancing budgets" . But their plans bring some pain to some people! That excites the base.

wv slyme

Saint Croix said...

Some Republican please explain to me why we should allow the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, Time, and the rest of the mainstream media to pick our candidate for us?

If Sarah Palin gets to the White House, I have no doubt she will be reelected.

That's what happens when Americans figure out that the Republican is not actually a monster.

Palin was a great governor. Everybody loved her. She went after the oil companies, she went after the sleaze in her own party. Her approval ratings were through the roof.

Palin is so dangerous to liberals--and they hate her so much--because she is so obviously not a monster. That's why the slime attacks are far more vicious, personal, and ugly than anything Reagan or Bush had to face.

She's not even in office and they attack her. All the time.

They're terrified.

mccullough said...

Palin is absolutley unelectable. Yet I'm the one who wants the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I'd happily take Pawlenty, though I don't think he'd do enough to close the deficit. I'd prefer Daniels and would vote for Romney or Huntsman. I'd really like to see Medicare Part D and Obamacare repealed and the government to back to the tax and spend rates of the late 1990s.

Somehow this makes me a paleocon? I think W., Obama, and Palin are lightweights and that makes me an idiot. I respect the Tea Party but think their enthusiastic support for never touching Medicare shows the don't understand the fiscal crisis the country is facing. So then I'm an elitist.

Freeman Hunt said...

Two charlatans who have no intention, and no plans on paper with any hopes of "balancing budgets" . But their plans bring some pain to some people! That excites the base.

Irrational emotion divorced from reality. Here's a Kleenex for that spittle. Did I hit a nerve?

Lucius said...

@Freeman/vb: I remember a "US News" where Huckabee was afforded the chance to opine about "I [heart] Huckabees." Of course he hated it. Not a dishonorable opinion, mind you, but I think he was sucking up to the plebs.

@Gabriel: What the hell *is* a 'concern troll' anyway? Isn't "troll" dishonorable enough an epithet? Are such people really looking for *concern*?

As a worshipper of Bush 41 who likely enough would have sided with Ford in '76, I don't count myself in the 'perfect is enemy of the good' camp. I'd be happy to vote for a "RINO" in 2012. If Palin's the nominee I'll happily vote for her too. I like most everything she's done: but are we still going to believe that forecasts much about a White House?

If anything, it's those who ardently want Palin and only Palin who are leaning towards the "perfect is . . ." crowd, if anyone is. Because I think she could be a great sort of Jacksonian President, I'm not deadset against her nomination. But I think we've rolled the dice with two-- really, *three*--unseasoned Presidents now, and I would like someone with a resume now, please.

Bad is the enemy of the good also, and I don't see much good in not manning up to roll back excessive federal prerogatives and spending. Some governor telling me they did it in some lower-echelon state doesn't make my heart rest comfy on that score.

AJ Lynch said...

Rand Paul sounds good every time I hear him. He gets it that the problem is the size and scope of the fed govt.

reformed trucker said...

Gingrich? Wait,let me gore my eyes out.

Gingrich sucks; I was stupid enough to buy his crap in the early 90's. Bite me, you wife leaving, policy abandoning jagbag...

garage mahal said...

Irrational emotion divorced from reality. Here's a Kleenex for that spittle. Did I hit a nerve?.

Judging from their actual records and plans, they are fiscal frauds, like every Republican. Irrational is believing something that never happened, or will happen.

Saint Croix said...

Marry me.

Cheers,
Victoria


Aw! That's sweet.

vbspurs said...

But I think we've rolled the dice with two-- really, *three*--unseasoned Presidents now, and I would like someone with a resume now, please.

Four, if you count Clinton and being governor of Arkansas, with zero foreign affairs experience except toking reefer at Oxford.

Listen, Romney's CV can't be beaten, even by Giuliani, who 3 years after he sloughed off his chances for the Presidency, is still my guy. If we're going on experience alone, it'll be Romney.

Pawlenty. I find him rather dour, honestly.

And it's amazing how one little SOTU Republican response buried Bobby Jindal's chances to be a serious contender in 2012.

He's just not in the top 10, at all.

vbspurs said...

What is the commentariat opinion on Texas governor, Rick Perry? I find him rather oily as a politician, TBH.

Saint Croix said...

"She is very similar to Obama, personality-wise."

Obama's ego is bigger than my house. His ego is insane.

Palin is normal. That's what is so awesome about her, how normal she is. She reminds me of people I know, people I've dated. She's human, completely human.

Can you imagine a show called Barack Obama's Chicago? Or Barack Obama's Hawaii?

He's cold, very cold.

The Republican who has a similar personality to Obama is Newt Gingrich. Smart, brainy, a lot of ideology and cold, cold, cold.

Sarah Palin is totally human. Both Obama and Newt have a bit of cyborg in them.

Obama is Spock. Palin may or may not be Kirk--we will see--but she will never, ever, be Spock.

shiloh said...

If Sarah Palin gets to the White House, I have no doubt she will be reelected.

That's what happens when Americans figure out that the Republican is not actually a monster.
~~~~~


Interesting theory ...

Bush41 was rather pleasant, albeit aloof. And when the voters really got to know him as you say, an "incumbent" president running for a second term got (37.5%). Hell, Carter got (41%) in 1980.

So many theories, so little time.

btw again, presidential politics has very little to do w/ideology as one party f*cks up and is replaced by the other party. $$$, name recognition, incumbency being huge advantages and superficiality/likability, positive attitude etc. being very helpful also.

>

Reps will pick the candidate they deem most electable ie Reps fall in line, Dems fall in love as a general rule. After McCain won NH the Rep hierarchy coalesced behind him and he won FL and did very well on Super Tuesday and was on his way.

Although there's no logical explanation for Angle, Buck, O'Donnell etc. other than very low turnout Rep primaries.

Lucius said...

@vbspurs: I'm asking the same question: where's Rudy? I can't believe he doesn't *want* it! Terrible strategic mistakes on the trail in '07/08 but, you live you learn.

I'm not deadset against Romney. Everyone's dumping on him now but back in '08 there was a vocal portion of the GOP hailing him as the next Reagan. I think he has a smart, serious mind: but is he a serious character, someone who will swim against the current?

Oh yes, I meant Clinton too: those 12 years as gov. really helped on the world stage, no?!

I don't take the Texas governorship seriously (it's weak), nor Perry. If Texans like him, fine. But from a distance it feels like s soapbox governorship.

shiloh said...

Rudy is much like palin as he prefers makin' a lot of $$$ in the private sector. Which is why I was 100% positive he would never run for governor of NY.

Re: Rudy/palin the expression All Hat, No Cattle is cogent.

Saint Croix said...

I would like somebody with a resume now, please.

Oh yeah, cause President of the United States is just like that last job I had.

Revenant said...

That's Krauthammer's ideal Republican candidate, the blank slate.

I love that you cite two-term governors as "blank slates", while a woman with two years in state office and two years on reality TV is somehow the dependable conservative with the solid record.

Comedy gold, Croix. :)

Saint Croix said...

Bush41 was rather pleasant, albeit aloof. And when the voters really got to know him as you say, an "incumbent" president running for a second term got (37.5%).

People get voted out of office for being too damn liberal. Bush41 was voted into office because people were hoping that it would be Reagan's third term.

Instead he raised taxes and toasted the damn Commies after they killed people in the street.

So he was booted.

Whenever Clinton was worried about being kicked out of office, he ran to the right.

You always run to the right. America is a center-right country. Our government is center-left. Obama's not even in the damn center anymore. He's left-left.

He's not winning squat. He's not winning dog catcher. The media can't cover up his shit. It's impossible. He's out. It's over.

The only way he stays in office is if the Republicans are retarded enough to nominate some RINO who's going to raise taxes and say nice things about Islam. Then Republicans look at each other and stay the fuck home.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

"too early for Ryan" That right there is what has been wrong with the GOP for my whole life. I'd suggest that it's too late for the others. The GOP certainly is the dumb party. Someone needs to remind them who won the last time. Was it too early for him? The guy never finished a term, or even had a damned job for Christ's sake. The Presidency is a job - not a wine, cheese or an antique.

David said...

"Obama is Spock."

See--A Vulcan.

mccullough said...

Saint Croix,

Is a RINO a Republican whose highest priority is not outlawing abortion?

Every voter knows who Palin is and most disapprove of her by a wide margin. Obama has done an awful job and his disapproval numbers are nowhere near as bad as Palin's. Maybe it's time you started pushing Sean Parnell for the Republican nomination for 2012.

shiloh said...

He's not winning squat. He's not winning dog catcher. The media can't cover up his shit. It's impossible. He's out. It's over.

You just saved me a lot of time the next (2) years ~ thanx! :)

chickelit said...

vbspurs said...
What is the commentariat opinion on Texas governor, Rick Perry? I find him rather oily as a politician, TBH.

Calling Perry "oily" (he being from Texas) is kinda "onomatopoeic" n'est-ce pas?
It's like saying Jeb from Florida, running for POTUS is kinda "fishy", or that Paul Ryan sure is "cheesy", or that Jerry Brown sure is a "nut".

"Onomatopolitic" you heard it here first.

Saint Croix said...

I love that you cite two-term governors as "blank slates", while a woman with two years in state office and two years on reality TV is somehow the dependable conservative with the solid record.

They are blank slates on national issues. I have no idea how Pawlenty would respond to a terrorist attack or what Mitch would do if there was an oil embargo. I have seen little leadership from either of those guys in the fight against the public unions. As far as I'm concerned, one is the Indiana guy and the other is the Minnesota guy. And I might have those states wrong.

Sarah Palin is utterly decisive and independent. She backed a lot of Tea Party candidates who had no chance. She frames the debate on issue after issue, and she totally upsets the status quo.

If you're unhappy with the government, she is obviously the biggest change agent out there.

If experience is important, vote for Obama. He's got all kinds of hands on experiene. They don't teach that kind of experience in Indiana. You want to fetishize experience, reelect the President.

Saint Croix said...

The most impressive thing about Palin is that she went after corruption in the Republican party. She went after the oil companies. That's why the Tea Party loves her.

Every voter knows who Palin is and most disapprove of her by a wide margin.

They disapprove of her because the media has assassinated her character, over and over and over. It's proof of nothing except how biased the media is, and how much they fear her.

mccullough said...

Saint Croix,

Mitch Daniels rolled back collective bargaining for public employees his first year in office. Indiana now has the same number of state workers as it did in 1978. He took a huge deficit and Indiana now has a surplus to use through the downturn.

What did Palin do regarding public employees for her 2.5 years as governor? Did she help reduce the number? Has she turned a deficit into a surplus?

Other than quitting as governor a little more than halfway through her term as governor, can you give me other examples of her decisiveness?

mccullough said...

Saint Croix,

The media hated Reagan and W. as well, but the voters like Reagan a lot and W enough to elect them twice.

So what is the master plan to turn her high disapproval numbers around? It's not as if people don't know who she is.

The Crack Emcee said...

It's going to be a fight all the way - not only because of the Democrats but, clearly, because many Republicans are still insisting on being idiots - but the contest is obvious:

It's Palin vs. Obama.

I say she wins, and part of it will be because her announcement will start a prairie fire, insuring not all the Republicans will STAY idiots.

The only question will be "Do you want to win?"

Alex said...

Crack - you're deranged if you think that Palin can beat Obama. No chance in hell. He trounces her 400-138 or by more.

mccullough said...

Crack,

whether the Republicans will stay idiots is an interesting question. If Palin is the nominee, about half of them will stay home. The other half will be intensely behind her. Unfortunately, the intensity of the voter still only counts as one vote. The Independents will overwhelmingly vote against Palin. The Democrats will turn out in droves. Obama's approval rating will still be 42 percent, which is 4 percentage points higher than Palin's popular vote total of 38 percent.

cokaygne said...

Any one of the candidates who was elected governor of a non-southern state and served a full term.

In the Carter years a less partisan media invented the "misery index"=unemployment+CPI. That is what elected Reagan who I thought was a joke. The statistic was an accurate measure of how much people were suffering at the time. Well here we go again.

xWerkz Studio said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ut said...

"Daniels put in a one-year 1% income tax increase for income over $100,000 to close Indiana's deficits."

Precisely. This is exactly what Barack Obama wants to do ... he wants to put in a temporary tax increase only on the rich to close the deficit.

Instead of cutting ridiculous spending.

Obama will call it the "Daniels Deficit Reduction Plan" and Mitch Daniels will hardly be in a position to argue against it, since that's precisely what he did as governor.

See how easy that chump Daniels would be to play?

Althouse needs a new tag: "Mitch Daniels is like Barack Obama."

Ut said...

"Let the record show Ut does not like Mitch Daniels! :-P"

No modern-day (defined as invention of television) presidential candidate has ever ... ever ... beaten the taller candidate if their height difference was greater than 11 centimeters.

Barack Obama is 30.48 centimeters taller than the dwarf known as Mitch "Tax 'Em Till They Bleed" Daniels.

I dislike Daniels as a candidate for two reasons:

1) He can't win
2) He's a tax-and-spend Democrat

Why would the Republican Party nominate a person who thought it was a great idea to increase taxes on the rich to close the deficit?

Roger J. said...

Nothing like political speculation--I love it. Its 10 months before the iowa caucuses--too much can happen; eg, a challenge to Mr Obama from the democrats; more world crises, the list goes on.

Lets have this discussion in 9 months when things are in clearer focus.

As for the possible republican front runners? Look to the MSM attacks to determine whom they think might be the front runners against jug ears. That will be a major clue.

Jody said...

Wow, no mention of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson...

Ut said...

"Look to the MSM attacks to determine whom they think might be the front runners against jug ears."

There is ONLY one person the media will not allow to run against Barack Obama and that is Sarah Palin.

A member of the mainstream media will murder her - actually assassinate her - if Republicans nominate her.

That's the number one reason why she probably shouldn't run.

They'll kill her. Shoot her right in the face and congratulate themselves for evening the "Gabby" score.

Roger J. said...

UT--I do hope you are speaking rhetorically here

mccullough said...

Ut,

what spending can be cut to close the deficit to even $400 billion a year?

Do you remember W.'s deficits?

There's a reason we are facing a fiscal crisis. Steep cuts in spending and tax hikes are the only way to close the deficit.

Daniels is smart. He'll propose decreases in the nominal tax rates combined with an elimination of deductions, exemptions and credits. (Ryan's plan does this to an extent). This will increase revenue and fools like you will think it's a tax cut. Reagan and Bill Bradley teamed up to do it back in 1986. People claim Reagan cut taxes. He really didn't. He lowered the tax rates and got rid of most deductions. He and Tip O'Neill also teamed up to hike the FICA rates.

Sarah Palin is never going to be President. You need to start accepting this.

shiloh said...

A member of the mainstream media will murder her - actually assassinate her - if Republicans nominate her.

Inane hyperbole aside, mama grizzly is too busy self-imploding, for anyone else to care about klondike sarah.

And of course, the media actually wants her to run for the entertainment/monetary value ie she sells copy, much like the Kardashians lol and paris/britney/lindsay did previously.

palin is still the flavor of the month to the media and her teabagger lemmings.

AST said...

Pawlenty, Romney, Barbour or Daniels. All capable, experienced and infinitely better than Obama, but only Daniels doesn't look like he's running, Barbour will be hurt because he's from Mississippi and will be unfairly branded as racist. His history as part of the GOP establishment, a lobbyist and Washington insider will hurt him with the tea partyists.

Romney is LDS and will be opposed by Evangelicals and called a flip-flopper on abortion, distractions from the real issue, the fiscal crisis. His main problem will be Romneycare, because that's all anybody will listen to. There's no chance that he would support nationalized medicine, but any charge that requires more than a single sentence answer will be difficult to counter. He is also stiff and comes across as a glad-hander. Of course, none of those is insurmountable if he's running against Obama, but will he get the chance?

That leaves Pawlenty and Daniels. Either one could beat Obama, because of the Jimmy Carter syndrome: people are already unhappy with him and only need to be reassured that his opponent isn't some scary radical as the left and the media will surely paint him. There are a lot of unknown about them, but they both have histories as governors cutting spending and balancing budgets.

A Trump nomination would be disastrous.

Revenant said...

The GOP certainly is the dumb party. Someone needs to remind them who won the last time. Was it too early for him?

Good point. I'm sure your preferred political newbie would end up being every bit as good a President as Obama is.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 211   Newer› Newest»