Althouse: "Republicans typically nominate someone familiar who's run for president before..."

June 2, 2009

"Republicans typically nominate someone familiar who's run for president before..."

"...such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain. But since the party appears to be in trouble right, Republicans might want to do what Democrats typically do, and look for a fresh face..."

The unfresh faces — tied at 21/22% each in a new poll — are Huckabee, Romney, and Palin. 2012 prospects look dreary — except to the even more dreary extent that Obama is a miserable failure.

126 comments:

Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/2/09, 6:08 PM
Fred4Pres said...: Huckabee and Palin will not win the presidency.

Romney has a shot. I do not think Romney lost last time becuase he was Mormon, I think he lost because he came off as unauthentic and not true to himself. What Romney is a nerdy smart policy wonk. Mitt needs to unleash his inner wonkness.

But I am all for fresh faces.; 6/2/09, 6:15 PM
traditionalguy said...: It's Romney's turn. If he could get Palin as his VP, I believe that Obama would lose it, much to his suprise.; 6/2/09, 6:16 PM
The Dude said...: Obama an epic failure. What are the odds?; 6/2/09, 6:18 PM
Fred4Pres said...: Then again my guy may still be tan, rested and ready!; 6/2/09, 6:21 PM
Eric said...: Palin would be a fine candidate, and would probably beat Obama handily, assuming inflation does what I think it's about to do.; 6/2/09, 6:25 PM
Daryl said...: Mitt Romney's a good man and Sarah Palin is a capable woman.

They both make Barack Obama look like a goofy, beanie-wearing pimply teenage geek (with big ears).; 6/2/09, 6:36 PM
Daryl said...: Also, Barack Obama is Frank Marshall Davis' catamite.; 6/2/09, 6:37 PM
John Althouse Cohen said...: 2012 prospects look dreary

What's wrong with Mitt?; 6/2/09, 6:40 PM
Kirby Olson said...: Giuliani or Huckabee. Minimally we need someone with a good quick sense of humor who can turn all the sourpuss Democratic reporters upside down before they know what's hit them.; 6/2/09, 6:43 PM
Joseph said...: I can imagine Romney as a successful general election candidate but the evangelicals will never let him get the GOP nomination.

Palin had her chance and proved herself incapable of coherently answering impromptu questions. I suppose she could try to reinvent herself (she gives a great speech) but she seemed to lack something very fundamental that Americans want in a candidate.

Huckabee is bland and has a more traditional GOP pedigree. He could win the nomination and the election but only if Obama disappoints or some unexpected external event changes the dynamic.

If I were a GOP activist I'd be looking for fresh faces.; 6/2/09, 6:45 PM
rhhardin said...: Only Giuliani sounds decent from the media's offered bunch.

Cheney would be better.

They've both had moments of clear speech in spite of the fog of narratives they get reported to unfit audience through.; 6/2/09, 6:47 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I suppose she could try to reinvent herself (she gives a great speech) but she seemed to lack something very fundamental that Americans want in a candidate.
.

Which explains why no one attended any rallys she was at.

/facepalm; 6/2/09, 6:48 PM
OhioAnne said...: I was hoping for Huntsman.

As to your assessment, I agree. The last three elections (at the minimum) have been dreary for the same reasons.; 6/2/09, 6:54 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Did Mark Sanford retain his freshness by keeping a relatively low profile?; 6/2/09, 6:54 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Unless the GOP nominates a small government, federalist, fiscal conservative, low taxing, business friendly, military supporting, non evangelical type, who will vow to stop the corruption of this current administration..... they are doomed.

We don't want more of the same and sorry: Guiliani is more of the same. Romney, while a capable executive, would be perceived as old school as well. Huckabee....forget it. Palin, probably not either.

They need to quit playing identity politics, pandering to special interest groups and just cut to the chase. Govern in the best interests of the ENTIRE United States. Stop the cronyism and earmarks. Don't cater to the unions, the pro abortion or anti abortion faction, pro gay or anti gay, working women, blacks, hispanics etc etc etc. Try for once to see us all as AMERICANS instead of splinter groups.; 6/2/09, 6:57 PM
Joseph said...: Hoosier--As an Obama supporter, I'm all for Palin as the GOP candidate. I admit she is a great populist speaker but she really does not come across as sufficiently serious or smart to be president. And that would be exposed much more if she is her own candidate than was in 2008. I don't see her pulling it off when she goes head to head in debates with other Republicans.; 6/2/09, 6:58 PM
holdfast said...: The GOP needs a candidate with a strong free-market pedigree to reverse the socialism of the Obama years. Huck is a social con but not a fiscal con - he would be a disaster as president, as much as he is a nice guy. I still think Palin would make a good VP, but I fear her brand is irreparably damaged (though 4 years of VP Biden may change this perception). Mitt has the business background, but is viewed as something of a squish due to MassCare - maybe he can claim Stockholm Syndrome? In any case he would need a serious base-bringer as VP (basically Palin or Huck, maybe Jindal). Both Pawletry and Perry are decent governors, but don't have much national profile.

If Mitt can get himself on TV lots and become the reasoned opposition to the insanity of the Obama years, then he has a shot, but he has to really take on Obama while avoiding the sort of nastiness which the Dems' scuzzy tactics practically beg for.; 6/2/09, 7:00 PM
Chase said...: The New York Times has a picture of Obama performing his next job after the White House`
Driving Who?; 6/2/09, 7:20 PM
J said...: "Palin had her chance and proved herself incapable of coherently answering impromptu questions"

I don't recall seeing Palin have any trouble with impromptu questions. I recall seeing her look pretty stupid in heavily edited interviews with extremely hostile reporters. She did pretty well in debates with Mr "I think my IQ is probably higher than yours", and generally has done OK in the past.

Still, the fact that she failed to anticipate the rabid hostility of the press gives me pause. Her first rule should have been "live interviews only".

Romney would be acceptable.; 6/2/09, 7:21 PM
Roost on the Moon said...: Tim Pawlenty announced today that he isn't running for re-election. I'd be very surprised if he wasn't a contender.; 6/2/09, 7:24 PM
Beth said...: Try for once to see us all as AMERICANS instead of splinter groups.DBQ: you're describing a third-party candidate. No such candidate will get the GOP nod, nor the Democratic one.; 6/2/09, 7:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Although I don't always agree with you Ann, I do find you to be pretty fair in your commentary. But miserable failure? I think that's a tad hyperbolic. Not surprising that it's completely overlooked in the comments, at least so far. Has anyone ever considered a president polling in the mid-60s a miserable failure? Do people actually consider this president (six months in, no less) a miserable failure or is this just revenge after eight years of Bush-bashing?; 6/2/09, 7:28 PM
Paddy O said...: Of these only Palin has a real shot.

One or two really great, solid interviews where she shows a mastery of material and answers for her own positions instead of trying to guess at McCain's would change opinion about her quickly.

I mean she has the ultimate feminist task ahead of her. She has been dismissed as a ditzy, stupid, ignorant, fit only for breeding, broad. This has been approved and encouraged by those who claim to speak on behalf of women. So, she has to go it on her own.

Can she do this? Can she pull off a strong, masterful, intelligent interview and series of debates while fending off (unlike Obama) intense negative press?

I honestly don't know. But if she can. If she can show herself to be able to rise above and be better than any of those who presently judge her, then yeah she could definitely win the presidency.

If she takes on the Western conservative mentality that I think she possesses, taking on the strengths of Cheney and Thompson while adding personality to the mix, she could do it.

She can't win if she is the same, naive candidate, pushed around by perennially losing campaign advisers.

As for who else could win? Whoever takes up the challenge tentatively expressed in the tea party demonstrations. Right now, that's pretty much limited to Dick Cheney as far as I can tell.

There's a huge open door for a non-Senator with ambition to walk through if they are willing to face the fire from the Republican establishment. It probably, almost certainly, has to be another governor.

I think Palin is stepping into that role, and as she has the very practical experience about exactly how she will be attacked, and thus how she has to adapt, it's her election to take.

If she can in fact step up and pull it off.

That's a big question. I'm really curious if she can.; 6/2/09, 7:34 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Hoosier--As an Obama supporter, I'm all for Palin as the GOP candidate. I admit she is a great populist speaker but she really does not come across as sufficiently serious or smart to be president. .

Fair enough. I don't think she is all that brilliant either but then again, neither is Obama IMO. You may think he is but someone who is supposed to be so darn smart would not have campaigned on ending the war in Iraq and closing Gitmo only to find out, well gee willickers, it's not that easy.

So as far as foreign policy is concerned, he's pretty much following the Bush playbook. That either makes him a) a complete moron because he had no clue the seriousness of the real world or b) a brilliant campaigner who told the rubes what they wanted to hear but alas, reality trumps promises.
So you make the call but either Obama is the moron or his supporters are for believing him.

But hey, if doubling the national debt and basically bankrupting the country is ok with you guys I'm game too.; 6/2/09, 7:35 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I recall seeing her look pretty stupid in heavily edited interviews with extremely hostile reporters. She did pretty well in debates with Mr "I think my IQ is probably higher than yours", and generally has done OK in the past..

I think it was Katie Couric herself who sagely nodded when Joe Biden recalled how FDR went on TV to reassure the nation during the Great Depression.

Not sure if any reporters asked Palin if she found any part of the campaign enchanting.; 6/2/09, 7:38 PM
knox said...: Do people actually consider this president (six months in, no less) a miserable failure or is this just revenge after eight years of Bush-bashing?

How's "potentially catastrophic" ? Do I have even that much optimism left...; 6/2/09, 7:40 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: Did I miss something? Is Obama a miserable failure?

He may not be what his supporters dreamed, but it is too soon to suggest a failed Presidency.; 6/2/09, 7:48 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I don't think that the Democrats necessarily run inexperienced candidates, those are just the ones who win, notably their last three Presidents. They all pretty much came on the scene and won, before we, the people knew much about them.

Not all the rest of their candidates have been that experienced at the national level (I am thinking Dukakis), but almost all of their losing candidates have been.

So, on the Democratic side, maybe the answer there is that they have to run unknowns to win, since whenever they run candidates well known nationally, they lose (excepting Bill Clinton running for his second term).

Think about this - how many of the swing voters would vote for President Obama today, knowing where he was going with the economy, spending, the deficit, etc.? How many more Republicans would go to the polls just to cut the amount of deficit spending back to the Bush levels (if not lower)?; 6/2/09, 7:55 PM
rcocean said...: Already the Republicans are lining up for Mitt, y'know the guy that wasn't good enough to beat John McCain - another old white guy in a business suit, another supporter of the Wall Street and TARP. A guy so boring and establishment, he make Bob Dole seem like a rebel.

A flip-flopper, whose flipped and flopped on so many issues no one knows where he stands. BTW, he's flipped back to supporting Amnesty but he's still against abortion - as of Today.

But "its his turn" - so what if he's a sure loser? And even if elected he'd be Gerald Ford II. So go to Repubs, time to lose another one.; 6/2/09, 7:57 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Do people actually consider this president (six months in, no less) a miserable failure or is this just revenge after eight years of Bush-bashing?.

The biggest beef I had with Bush and what ultimately made me dislike him was his rubber stamping of massive federal spending. To me that is his biggest failure. He doubled the national debt in 8 years.

Obama is on track to double it again in his first four years based upon his wish lists.

So yes in my book he's a failure. When you're running a $1.7 trillion dollar deficit, you have to cut something but all that maroon is doing is spending more. Worse than those stupid twats on my Sweet Sixteen shows; 6/2/09, 8:01 PM
OhioAnne said...: When I read Ann's original comment, I took it to mean that the 2012 election will look especially dreary if - in 2012 - Obama is perceived to be a miserable failure.

Even bad presidents rarely get a serious challenge from their own party at the end of one term.

If Obama is perceived to be a miserable failure, but is still the Dem candidate AND the choices are Palin, Romney or Huckabee, then the election will be incredibly dreary.; 6/2/09, 8:01 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: If Obama is perceived to be a miserable failure, but is still the Dem candidate AND the choices are Palin, Romney or Huckabee, then the election will be incredibly dreary.

I disagree when it comes to Gov. Palin. I would expect fireworks. I would expect that probably the only Republicans who could excite the MSM to hyperventilation more than she would be Newt Gingrich, or maybe Dick Cheney. And, maybe if we are including non-politicians, Rush Limbaugh.

So, I don't see such a match up as dreary. Acrimonious, yes, but dreary no.; 6/2/09, 8:11 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: "Try for once to see us all as AMERICANS instead of splinter groups."

DBQ: you're describing a third-party candidate. No such candidate will get the GOP nod, nor the Democratic one.

Beth, I'm afraid that you are right, especially since the entire process is orchestrated by a biased media that hand picks the candidates. That, plus a good part of the American public is superficial and not really interested in being fully or thoughtfully informed. We know more about the American Idol contestants that we do about the candidates.

BTW: hope you are well...speedy recovery.; 6/2/09, 8:13 PM
knox said...: What Hoosier Daddy just said. With the looming debt, I sometimes find myself daydreaming weird things, like "what would it be to live someplace like Singapore"? Just meaningless escape fantasies. But I'm worried for my kids pretty much all the time now.; 6/2/09, 8:15 PM
Revenant said...: Palin had her chance and proved herself incapable of coherently answering impromptu questions.

I'm sorry, were you talking about Sarah Palin or President Obama? :); 6/2/09, 8:18 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I don't see Huckabee having a chance to win the election, period. His problems are that he is not fiscally conservative enough, while being too socially conservative. There was a time when that might have worked, but I see fiscal conservatism being more effective in 2012 than social conservatism, in winning the general election.

The reason for that is that while President Obama is likely deep down fairly liberal socially, he hasn't been pushing those buttons - for example, with Dick Cheney being to the left of him on SSM. But the place where Obama has been the unabashed liberal is in his spending and fiscal policies. Quadrupling the Bush deficit. Flushing trillions of dollars down the drain with little accountability, and lots going to political supporters. All in the name of discredited Keynesian economic stimulus.

Of course, things can change over night. This far into the Bush (43) Presidency, we were expecting it to mostly revolve around economics. And then, on 9/11, less than eight months in office, everything changed. If President Obama has a major terror attack against us on his watch, and if he doesn't react strongly to smite our enemies, I expect that a national defense Republican will be even more viable than a fiscally conservative one against him in 2012.; 6/2/09, 8:19 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: I could get behind Romney if he would give up being a culture warrior (stop it- that wasn't how you ran to get elected in Mass and it isn't your strong point) and focus on his executive and business experience.

But he ran as a culture warrior, and left himself looking as phony as Edwards since it was totally not how he had ran for office to begin with.; 6/2/09, 8:20 PM
Fen said...: He may not be what his supporters dreamed, but it is too soon to suggest a failed Presidency.

Failure on the economy. Failure on foreign policy. Its not a question of how much damage Obama has done, but whether the damage can be fixed.

Iran will get their nukes. China will get the Pacific Rim. And the West will depend on UN Resolutions for its survival.; 6/2/09, 8:22 PM
David said...: The "old faces" from the democrats in the past 50 years or so:

Stevenson (twice), JFK, LBJ, Humphrey, Mondale, Gore, Kerry. Two won elections, JFK & LBJ, JFK barely and LBJ was so damaged he did not run again.

The new face democrats: McGovern, Dukakis, Carter, Clinton, Obama. Carter, Clinton and Obama were all genuine dark horse out of the mold candidates, and all won the Presidency. You could argue that McGovern and Dukakis were "old faces," at least for the liberal base that nominated them. (JFK was not a "new face" candidate--he had long been groomed and touted.)

Now the Republican old faces: Ike, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43, McCain. All but Dole and McCain became President, and you could argue that a main reason Dole & McCain lost was that they were old, period. So the "old faces" actually did pretty well.

Republican "new face" candidates: Goldwater. He is the only one. He's the most influential Presidential loser of the 20th century. Some won't see Goldwater as a new face candidate, but he was a huge break from the Republican past, and not just ideologically. He was a man of the west, of the newly emerging and growing America. He got tagged as a warmonger, but his main trait--egalitarianism--now permeates both parties. He lead directly to the Nixon, Reagan and Bush presidencies--all westerners, all rebels in a strange way.

The Republicans have now lost their edge in the west and southwest through failure to follow through on the electoral potential of the hispanics. They let the nativists in the party command the headlines (Bush understood this error and hated it), and now the Republicans have lost their advantage in the west, and probably their ability to win Presidential elections for some time.

There's probably another Goldwater out there, but it's not anyone now on the screen. It will take a strong and original person (more likely a woman but not Ms. Palin, whom I like) to pull the Republicans out of this mess.; 6/2/09, 8:24 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: With the looming debt, I sometimes find myself daydreaming weird things, like "what would it be to live someplace like Singapore"?.

Try the Weimar Republic circa 1922. Singapore would be nirvana. Think I'm kidding? Bush was bad enough but this dipshit is saddling us with more debt than we have the capacity to repay and that's not counting Social Security & Medicare which will go insolvent simply because the current obligations exceed the GDP of the planet. Yes, that's right, I'm not making that up.

But if you're clean and articulate that means so much more than actually being competent.; 6/2/09, 8:26 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I love Sarah Palin. But the problem I see with her candidacy in 2012 is that while she can fire up a blue collar base like no other Republican probably can, she also fires up the opposition like few Republicans can. There is something visceral about the feelings of so many liberals to her. That is why, I think, the MSM was so much more biased against her, and supportive of her opponents, than they were against her running mate. As many Americans are now discovering, VP Biden is a clown. In that VP debate, where he supposedly showed her up for being so ignorant, many of those "facts" that made him look so wise and knowledgeable turned out to be totally bogus. And, yet, the MSM never really called him on it, while continuing to claim her ignorant, in places where she turned out to be correct.

Again, though, things can change, and one thing that is sure to, is America's exposure to Gov. Palin through the next three years. Both Nixon and Reagan were considered almost extremists when they first ran for the Presidency. But by the time they won, they were much better known, and much less scary to the American public (though it is questionable whether that was good for us in the case of Nixon).; 6/2/09, 8:29 PM
save_the_rustbelt said...: The GOP has a reputation as a party representing only the interests of rich white men.

So who worse to run than Mitt Romney?

Palin is entertaining, but c'mon, we need a serious candidate.

Obama will really really have to crash and burn to give the GOP any chance.; 6/2/09, 8:39 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The Republicans have now lost their edge in the west and southwest through failure to follow through on the electoral potential of the hispanics. They let the nativists in the party command the headlines (Bush understood this error and hated it), and now the Republicans have lost their advantage in the west, and probably their ability to win Presidential elections for some time.

I disagree. The polls up through maybe a year ago were showing (legal) Hispanics unenthusiastic about open borders. They may not have been as strongly opposed to such as the rest of America, but they weren't that supportive either.

I don't think that any non-Hispanic Republican candidate was going to win much of the Hispanic vote in 2008, with the first candidate of "color" running for President. In other words, if Hillary had won the nomination, I think that she would have pulled notably less of the Hispanic vote than did Obama.

What I think will be interesting in regards to your theory, is to see how the elections go in 2010 in AZ, NM, CO, and NV. I expect at least AZ and CO to swing back towards the right. Maybe even NV. Harry Reid would be in a lot of trouble, if he weren't raking in the campaign contributions right now like he is. But will his son win the governorship next election? Six months ago, with a damaged governor, Rory Reid seemed to be the presumptive next governor. Now? His name is rarely mentioned.; 6/2/09, 8:42 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Palin is entertaining, but c'mon, we need a serious candidate.

In other words, we need another candidate who sounds thoughtful and knowledgeable, when he really doesn't have a clue. Oh, wait, we already have one of those in the White House, and another across the street as his VP.

I was always amazed that the common wisdom last October during that financial crisis was that McCain looked like he was flailing around while Obama looked thoughtful and knowledgeable. Of course, we find out, he didn't have a clue about what was going on, or how to solve it. But he did manage to look good there.; 6/2/09, 8:46 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I was always amazed that the common wisdom last October during that financial crisis was that McCain looked like he was flailing around while Obama looked thoughtful and knowledgeable. Of course, we find out, he didn't have a clue about what was going on, or how to solve it. But he did manage to look good there..

The liberal philosophy of solving problems reminds me of Billy Crystal's Fernando Lamas routine. I look mahvalous. I don't feel mahvalous but it's better to look good than feel good..

Just like the do gooders who think they're helping the homeless by handing them a sack of sandwhiches and snacks. Makes them feel good but doesn't do a damn thing to improve the life of the poor sap. It's all about appearances because the real hard decisions may make you unpopular and that just won't do.; 6/2/09, 8:51 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: The Republicans should go at it like a reality show, rotating the Chairmanship and spokesperson jobs among several different people, letting the public and the leadership get a handle on who and what works.

It would let people build a name for themselves, and help whittle it down to the top five or ten candidates. The voters can decide the rest.; 6/2/09, 8:58 PM
Eli Blake said...: except to the even more dreary extent that Obama is a miserable failure

Obama has been a smashing success.

As the stimulus funds are working their way into the economy, the recession is showing signs of ending (coincidence? I don't think so, given that as recently as March economists were saying it would hold on through the end of 2010) and the right track/wrong track question has rebounded in just about four months from the low teens saying the country was on the right track to near parity on the question. The stock market is bullish and Chrysler (who just a few weeks ago conservatives were saying, 'let it fail') is set to emerge from bankrupcty a stronger and leaner company in partnership with Fiat (and with at least most of its plants and dealerships up and running.) Likely GM will follow in its footsteps. We've already seen legislation passed including the Ledbetter Fair Pay act, credit card reform and a new and even more robust version of sCHIPS than the one that was vetoed twice by President Bush.

Sure there have been a few disappointments (there always are) but on balance I'd call Obama a smashing success.; 6/2/09, 9:02 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: If it's Huckabee, I won't vote.
If it's Palin, I'll vote for her, but I'll do it unhappily.
If it's Romney or Giuliani, I'll vote contentedly.
If it's Gingrich or Cheney (He'd never run.), I'll make hundreds of campaign phone calls, raise money, and vote with a smile on my face.; 6/2/09, 9:07 PM
Big Mike said...: Jeb Bush. Hmmmm.

Unless everything I know about economics is dead wrong I expect things to go very badly in the next 3 years and 5 months. And if they go even worse than that the American people might wind up longing for the good old days when a Bush was in the White House. Who knows?

Remember, you read it here first! :-P; 6/2/09, 9:07 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: "Iran will get their nukes. China will get the Pacific Rim. And the West will depend on UN Resolutions for its survival."

This is different than the late 80s/early 90s/late 90s/early 00s how?; 6/2/09, 9:12 PM
bagoh20 said...: Republicans typically win the presidency, so why should they do what the dems do?
-
"Obama is a miserable failure"
-
I was expecting a failure, but he is really something, huh? Give him time, what's worse than miserable failure?...
-
That's right, and it's not at all above his pay grade.; 6/2/09, 9:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Thinking now about who's going to run for President in 2012 makes me wish for my sinus infection to come back, so I can have something more pleasant on my mind.; 6/2/09, 9:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Which economists were saying the recession would last through 2010? Certainly not the ones responsible for the White House's rosy-scenario deficit forecasts!; 6/2/09, 9:17 PM
rcocean said...: "Republicans have now lost their edge in the west and southwest through failure to follow through on the electoral potential of the hispanics. They let the nativists in the party command the headlines (Bush understood this error and hated it), and now the Republicans have lost their advantage in the west, and probably their ability to win Presidential elections for some time."

Its sad how the Republicans keep nominating open borders advocates, who pander to Hispanics at a drop of the hat. Bush I, Bush II, Dole, McCain, and yet those damn "nativists" - keep stealing headlines and losing the GOP elections.

They even convinced Hispanics Mr. Amnesty himself was their enemy. Who are those guys?

I should know 'em, since they've been "stealing headlines" from the POTUS and the Republican - but I don't. Maybe its Rush or Savage because, y'know they have a massive among Hispanics.; 6/2/09, 9:19 PM
Anonymous said...: How about a kidney stone?; 6/2/09, 9:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Waiting around for the public to get tired of the other guys worked pretty well for the Democrats. I see no reason why it shouldn't work just as well for the Republicans.; 6/2/09, 9:20 PM
Donna B. said...: I'm pretty much with Freeman Hunt except I might find myself campaigning against Huckabee... not sure.; 6/2/09, 9:26 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: The stock market is bullish and Chrysler (who just a few weeks ago conservatives were saying, 'let it fail') is set to emerge from bankrupcty a stronger and leaner company in partnership with Fiat (and with at least most of its plants and dealerships up and running.).

Um Eli, letting Chrysler go into bankruptcy is what conservatives were saying. Let them go into Chapter 11 rather than pour more taxpayer money into it?

Evidently failure means something different to liberals.; 6/2/09, 9:30 PM
bagoh20 said...: As for Hispanics helping Obama: they my have, but not because they wanted a "person of color". 70% of my friends are Hispanic and they are far less amiable toward blacks than the Whites I know (and that's being diplomatic). Living in Los Angeles, I have interaction with a wide variety of ethnicities daily. My experience is that Whites as a group are by far the least racist of all of them. Most minorities don't even feel it's even wrong for them to be openly racist. Obama won because of white guilt in all it's manifestations. That ticket is now punched. It will not help next time.; 6/2/09, 9:30 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Sure there have been a few disappointments (there always are) but on balance I'd call Obama a smashing success..

Even the part about doubling the national debt?; 6/2/09, 9:31 PM
KCFleming said...: Want fresh?

If Freeman Hunt, DBQ, or kentuckyliz run in 2012, I'll sell my firstborn to raise campaign money.; 6/2/09, 9:34 PM
Eric said...: Eli, you should be in a padded room. The stimulus is working it's way through the economy? Based on what? Unemployment is where Obama's people thought it would be without the stimulus. Turns out greasing your supporters with tax money isn't as good for the economy as advertised.

It's clearly working its way through the bond market, though. How much will a loaf of bread cost in twelve months?; 6/2/09, 9:41 PM
Jen said...: Republicans have got to steer clear of Palin and her ilk if there is any credibility to be had.

I can't believe that her name still comes up in polite political conversation.

She has nothing to offer moderate or "financial" Regan type conservatives. She CAN capture the religious right and other zealots. But this is where the party keeps failing. So, keep at it.

Palin for president!; 6/2/09, 10:00 PM
Jen said...: Hoosier:

And what did GW do for the national debt?; 6/2/09, 10:03 PM
TitusDidAGoodThing said...: Please pick Romney. I voted for him in Massachusetts when he was a completely different candidate. Pro Choice, loved the gays, attended Gay Pride-danger territory for republicans. He said he was going to be better for the gays than Ted Kennedy-yikes, how low can you go?

His speech about East Coast Elites at the RNC was one for the books.

Also, in the primaries the other republicans will eat him up. Look what Mccain and Hucklebee did to him. They don't like him.

He couldn't even win New Hampshire.

Southern republicans are not going to vote for a rich morman from Massachusetts who has flipped and flopped on every issue no matter how much he tries to pretend he is one of them. And if he can't get the south Utah and Idaho will not be enough.

Also, the youtube videos of his in past debates are gold.

OMG the abortion doctor killer's wife is on Anderson Cooper. Wow, she is a mess. You can't see where her chin ends and her neck begins and her breasts begin.; 6/2/09, 10:11 PM
Jim said...: Eric -

It's even worse than that. Unemployment is significantly higher than what Obama promised it would even without the stimulus. His craptacular $800 billion political payback bill has interest rates on the rise with economists talking for the first time in almost 30 years about hyperinflation and for the first time ever about the US losing its AAA credit rating.

Obama has given Iran until the end of the year to start talking about nukes, and Obama just said they have a right to have nuclear energy (WTF?). The North Koreans are launching missiles on a daily basis now. He's refusing to sell helicopters to the Israelis and trying to put impossible conditions on them while completely giving Palestinians a pass on their terrorism. He's offended the Queen not just once, but twice. The British press is already calling him "President Pantywaist" and Nicolas Sarkozy basically called him a moron.

He shut down air traffic over the Northeast and spent close to a million taxpayer dollars to go on a date with his wife that could have waited until the nation's business next took him to the city. Oh yeah, and he did that while GM was declaring bankruptcy so that he could finish handing over both GM and Chrysler to the UAW in violation of US bankruptcy law.

I could go on and on, and this is what Eli calls a "smashing success"? I'd hate to see what a miserable failure looks like, but every time I think Obama has made the most stupid and destructive choice possible for this country, he manages to top it with another.

Oh...and Eli...his personal approval numbers are just barely over 60 and that's at least 5 points higher than he polls on specific issues which means that his personal approval numbers are inflated by at least that much. That's down from where he started and his disapproval numbers are climbing rapidly. And he's still in the "honeymoon phase" where voters are giving the benefit of the doubt. When September rolls around and the unemployment numbers are worse, interest rates are higher and so are gasoline prices you can bet that his numbers are going to be much further south than they are now no matter how much cover the press tries to give him....; 6/2/09, 10:19 PM
jimspice said...: Come on guys! I didn't see one fresh name in the bunch. Why not whip up one of your grass roots efforts and convince Limbaugh to run? You could even even demonstrate you commitment to the environment by tacking Liz Cheney on to the ticket and re-using the 2000-04 yard signs and bumper stickers (you'd just have to erase the bottoms of all the "B"s).; 6/2/09, 10:22 PM
KCFleming said...: jimspice,
I was frightened by your abs in the pics Althouse blogged about yesterday.; 6/2/09, 10:27 PM
Jim said...: Jen -

Evidently you haven't seen this graph which clearly shows what Obama has done to the deficit and what happened during the Bush years.

Every Republican I know and a lot of Democrats were unhappy about spending under Bush. The graph on Obama's spending pretty much writes the campaign ads for potential opponents all by itself...(especially when the latest polls show that the number one issue for voters right now is the federal deficit and out of control government spending - even bigger than health care or anything else.); 6/2/09, 10:30 PM
TitusDidAGoodThing said...: I think the republicans are in a difficult situation.

Doesn't a large evangelical base vote in the caucus and primaries?

If they don't cater to them in the primaries they won't win but then if they do cater to them the independents may run.

What happened to Bobby Jindal? Everyone seemed to be crazy about him a few months ago.; 6/2/09, 10:31 PM
Cedarford said...: It all depends on how good or how bad the country is in 2 1/2 years. That will determine the best candidate. I think Romney might be the best in the middle ground between the country doing great, or in a state of emergency or near-emergency.

I worry that the Religious Right and "movement Conservatives" will block a moderate like Romney, or force them into overpandering phonyness - hopefully Romney learned his lesson about pretending he was in fact a Fundie who should have been born in the rural South...

If they nominate another "inspiring Goldwater" type, figuring that the tobacco-spitters want someone to the Right of Reagan with a "hand off the Wall Street tycoons" attitude....they lose badly.

Huckabee, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Palin (from her incoherence, lack of command of facts, and soap opera family) appear to be spent forces.

Gingrich is an idea-a-minute wonk who is about as electable nationally as the idea-a-minute Algore.

Besides Romney, you have Pawlenty, Sanford, Charlie Christ, and last but not least Jeb (his Last name Shall Not Be Pronounced!) as a competent senior Republican who could be VP or Party Head...but not Prez after Dubya's miserable run.

I'd also look for Republicans to look for another Colin Powell type out of the military. If America is in the economic shits still, and Obama has added a national security mess - a Romney/Petraeus ticket wouldn't be too bad - nor a Pawlenty-Ricardo Sanchez ticket(Bush and the liberals screwed him and threw him under the bus for Abu Ghraib).

I don't think identity politics are as powerful as the MSM thinks it is. The Republicans do not need to run a blind black lesbian in a wheelchair who Rose from the Projects, aided by her Mexican bodybuilder lover...to pile up AA bonus points against Obama's AA bonus points.; 6/2/09, 10:40 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: Titus,

Same thing was true for the Democrats. If they ran a center-left candidate, they'd get Nader or similar.

This time, they ran a left-left candidate. The difference was, he was charismatic and he pressed a lot of the right buttons-- post-racial and all that. If he meant those things is open to debate, but it is a boring debate because by the time the next campaign will come around there will be actions to weigh, instead of just words.; 6/2/09, 10:40 PM
garage mahal said...: The problem with the GOP isn't candidates, it's solutions. By nature conservative ideology isn't what it's for, its what it's railing against. No boogeyman and feet are firmly planted in mid-air. And the boogeymen don't scare anyone anymore.; 6/2/09, 10:42 PM
Kensington said...: Freeman Hunt said...

"If it's Palin, I'll vote for her, but I'll do it unhappily.".

Is that because you don't like her or because you don't think she can win?; 6/2/09, 10:50 PM
Jim said...: No matter how much that core 25% of Liberals wants to claim it isn't so, social conservatism is a winning electoral strategy.

Let's run down the list:

1) Guns - all the Democratic gains have been by running pro-gun candidates. Gun control is a losing issue for Dems and they know it.

2) Abortion - The latest Gallup poll shows that the pro-life position is now the majority. Even Obama had to run away from his pro-abortion record to win election.

3) Gay marriage - California. Prop 8. The most "liberal" state in the Union. Need I say more?

4) Securing the borders - the last poll I saw on the subject said 74% of Americans think the government isn't doing enough to secure the borders, so this one isn't even close.

5) Faith/Religion - The story is only now breaking into the media about how Obama intentionally lied about his Muslim roots and embraced Christianity as an electoral ploy. If being a Christian is such a loser politically, why did he need to do that?

The bottom line is that social conservatives didn't trust McCain (and never have) to be an advocate for them on any issue, so they didn't turn out for him in the general election.

Obama ran as a fiscal conservative claiming he would make a cut for every dollar he spent. We all know how that one is turning out.

If the Republicans find a candidate that the electorate finds credible on both social and fiscal conservatism, then Obama is in for a whalloping in 2012. He lied his way into the job based mainly on a lack of a paper trail and a sycophantic media that let him get away with it by refusing to ask him the hard questions. He's not going to get the same free pass in 2012....; 6/2/09, 10:53 PM
Matthew J. Harris said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/2/09, 10:58 PM
Matthew J. Harris said...: Romney turns me off, for reasons I am not sure I can articulate. I'd much prefer Huckabee. Anyone who runs on a platform of "eliminate the income tax" has my vote.

I do agree that the 'Pubs need some new blood. G.W. Bush became steeped in imperialism and abandoned any Republican claim to conservatism. I spent the last seven years of his Presidency telling my father that Bush was spending all the political capital the Republicans ever accumulated.

The Republicans need someone who is young, media-savvy, and committed to libertarian Republicanism rather than neo-conservatism.; 6/2/09, 10:59 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Holy cow, Freeman, you'd really take that pretentious gasbag Gingrich over Palin? Really????

At least we can agree on Huck. :-(; 6/2/09, 11:24 PM
JAL said...: The Republicans do not need to run a blind black lesbian in a wheelchair who Rose from the Projects, aided by her Mexican bodybuilder lover...

Even if they did, the blind person wouldn't be blind enough, the black person wouldn't be black enough, the lesbian wouldn't be lame enough ....

Because she was a Republican.

Ask Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Mary Cheney ...; 6/2/09, 11:38 PM
JAL said...: By the way -- anyone else hear that the Obamas were an hour late to the Broadway show -- which was held? Not a surprise at all if it is true. Though the coverage is as usual underwhelming.

Back to the thread ...; 6/2/09, 11:41 PM
Sofa King said...: No.

It's over. Done.

This is the end.

From the ashes, something new may rise.; 6/2/09, 11:42 PM
Jeremy said...: I don't think many here have to even worry about who a GOP nominee might be in 2012 because this isn't going to happen anyway:

"...except to the even more dreary extent that Obama is a miserable failure."

He's going to be a rousing success and even the local pack will be hard pressed to find something to bitch and whine about.

*But I'm sure they will anyway.; 6/2/09, 11:44 PM
Jeremy said...: JAL - Nice try...but just another wingnut cheap shot...

The Obamas were not an hour late...

"Due to security screenings, the curtain rose an hour late."; 6/2/09, 11:48 PM
Jeremy said...: JAL - "Even if they did, the blind person wouldn't be blind enough, the black person wouldn't be black enough, the lesbian wouldn't be lame enough ....Because she was a Republican."

Oh, you poor little baby.

Boo-hoo...; 6/2/09, 11:50 PM
Jeremy said...: Too bad so many here aren't watching the Brian Wiliams visit to the White House.

It's been a great show.; 6/2/09, 11:51 PM
Jeremy said...: Jim - If what you is sooooooo important, how did Obama get elected and why is the GOP in free fall?

Your logic is skewed to specific aspects of America's needs and opinions that are really not that important.

Right now they're more interested in jobs, health care and having confidence in our President's administration doing their job.

If you think Americans are more interested in guns, gays, abortion, immigration and religion you're a...well, a Republican.

That's why you're up to your knees in shit.; 6/2/09, 11:57 PM
J. Cricket said...: Thank you, Althouse. And don't you dare change this revealing and pathetic post.

"Miserable failure"?!

Next time I encounter someone who still thinks you have worthwhile things to say about politics I will send them to this ridiculous post.

Thanks!!!!; 6/3/09, 12:09 AM
Revenant said...: 3) Gay marriage - California. Prop 8. The most "liberal" state in the Union. Need I say more?

California is the largest of the liberal states, but it is not even remotely the most liberal state in the Union. For example, in the last election there were nine states that went more strongly for Obama than California did, including New York, Illinois and Massachusetts.

Plus, of course, California has a large population of both Catholics and Mormons. Granted, a lot of the Catholics are here illegally, but thanks to the state Democrats they get to vote anyway. :); 6/3/09, 12:10 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Hoosier:

And what did GW do for the national debt?.

GW isn't in office anymore Obama is and will be for only 3.5 years God willing. Continuing the mistakes of his predecessor is a piss poor excuse don't you think? Basically you're resorting to the 3rd grade rebuttal of 'well he did it first!' If that's your debating plan then you run with it.; 6/3/09, 12:14 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: And the boogeymen don't scare anyone anymore..

Until the next skyscraper comes tumbling down at which time you and yours will be pissing your pants wondering how it could have happened.; 6/3/09, 12:17 AM
Palladian said...: "Until the next skyscraper comes tumbling down at which time you and yours will be pissing your pants wondering how it could have happened."

The answer to the pants-pisser's question lies in your previous comment: It is Bush's fault!!!!1 He failed to protect us!!1

I'm wondering how long the Obama administration will keep sailing on this rhetorical trick. Surely it will begin to chafe the credulity of even Obama's stupidest starry-eyed fans.

A side question: when will it start to seem creepy to the average person to see people wearing Obama-head shirts, hats and buttons? I still see at least 2 or 3 people a day wearing Obama-head branded gear in New York. They're invariably either black people or douchebag hipsters. Now, it's seemed creepy to me ever since I saw the first one pop up during the campaign, but that's because the idea of wearing an article of clothing bearing an image of any politician's face seems creepy to me. But surely there will come a day when normal people will start to feel uncomfortable about it. Of course it seems possible that the day when people will feel too embarrassed to wear Obama-gear might come sooner...; 6/3/09, 12:30 AM
Palladian said...: Obama bumper stickers are invariably stuck to one of three different cars: Toyota Prius (natch); Volvos, especially Volvo wagons, either new or 80s vintage; and Saabs.; 6/3/09, 12:33 AM
Palladian said...: Of course new cars from Government Motors will come with Obama stickers pre-attached, right next to the UAW stickers.; 6/3/09, 12:35 AM
Eric said...: Holy cow, Freeman, you'd really take that pretentious gasbag Gingrich over Palin? Really????

Gingrich is a brilliant guy who understands the intersection of principle and practical politics. But he'll never be president. His personal life is just too poisonous.; 6/3/09, 12:55 AM
Eric said...: Juris Dentist: Next time I encounter someone who still thinks you have worthwhile things to say about politics I will send them to this ridiculous post.

Next time I encounter someone who still thinks you have reading comprehension skills I will send them to this ridiculous comment.; 6/3/09, 12:56 AM
cubanbob said...: Cheney. Lord Vader himself. If only he guarantees to have every tree and lamppost in America decorated with a hanging progressive.

Then just to explode the heads of any deeply buried libs, Jeb Bush as VP.

Seriously any Republican is infinitely better than any of the Democrats, especially Obama. In less than 4 months he has screwed this country worse than any president ever in economic terms, just 4 months. God help us for the next 4 years. And his foreign policy is already a disaster. Another Carter but squared. No one will ever trust US guarantees after Obama. Ever. He stabs our allies in the back and prostrates himself on our enemies feet. North Korea has bitch slapped him, Iran has corn-holed him and now he will look like the slave boy at the slave auction in Egypt.

He will fuck up Iraq as surely as the Democrat Congress did in South Vietnam and just like that debacle of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory (and the resulting damage that occurred) he will do the same in Afghanistan and Iran will win out in the end along with the AQ and the Taleban and the rest of the Muslim terrorists and crazies.

By the time 2012 rolls by we will have real inflation and the market will be in the dumps, high unemployment,
a stagnant economy and high interest rates along with a series of military humiliations all thanks to the Democrat Communist party. Once again with the misery index. Our allies will neither trust us or heed us or respect us and worse of all neither fear crossing us and our enemies will laugh at us. If Carter is still alive at least he will be vindicated as no longer being the worst president in modern times. Obama may well be the last Democrat president for a generation. And that also goes for Congress as well. Notice how every state with a solid majority Democrat state legislature is completely screwed up? And the worst of those are those with Democrat majority legislatures and governors. Whatever they touch turns to shit. Just like they are doing to country on the national level.

If the Republicans really want to win, they can't be kinder, gentler lite beer Democrats. Thats a ticket to nowhere. No Democrat will vote for that and no Republican will either. They need to be full out small government types with the explicit roll back the big government state mission, way, way back and serious tax cuts along with massive spending cuts and program elimination except for the military and essential functions such as law and order, the courts and prisons. Every thing else from public employee salaries and benefits and entitlements need a serious reduction and where redundant elimination to the point the government runs a real(even with tax cuts) surplus. In addition a whole host of government mis-regulation starting with no drilling for oil, Kyoto carbon stupidity and so on will have to be implemented in the negative, that is removed in their entirety and the civil servants unions abolished and a national right to work law implemented. The Republicans who get the message will be the winners.; 6/3/09, 1:02 AM
Jim said...: Jeremy -

Evidently you only read the parts of the post with the little words. The parts with the big words must have confused you.

Obama won because:

1) McCain turned off the conservative base because they didn't trust him, so they stayed home.

2) Obama campaigned as a fiscal conservative claiming he would offset all spending increases in one area by cuts in others. He lied, but people voted for him based on his promise of fiscal conservatism. When McCain tried to warn people that Obama was a tax-and-spend liberal, he called McCain a liar. But what was Obama's first piece of legislation? Oh yeah...increasing spending by $800 billion without a single spending cut.

3) Obama ran away from his liberal record on guns and abortion because they're political losers. If pro-choice and anti-gun is a winning strategy, why didn't he embrace them? You and I both know why: because social conservatism is a winner and Obama knew he would have to lie about his record to win.

4) Democrats only started seeing gains when they started fielding candidates who were socially conservative: pro-life, pro-gun, strong borders, etc. Ask Rahm Emanuel if you don't believe me. I know that interferes with your worldview that somehow the country bought into your ultra-left ideals by electing Democrats, but you're the one living in a dream world if you think that's even remotely true.

5) If you think that Americans are more interested in healthcare than runaway government spending and ridiculous deficits, then once your thought process is being influenced by your detachment from reality. The latest poll numbers show that deficits and spending are the #1 issue for voters. That wasn't true in November, but Obama's spending spree on the taxpayer dime has changed voter priorities. Your failure to recognize the change in voter dynamics on the ground will be your undoing. Mid-term elections are going to be a rude surprise, so make sure you find a comfortable chair on Election Night.

6) As far as the GOP being in disarray, I remember a time not so long ago when the exact same things were being said about the Democratic Party. Politics in America is a pendulum. America is getting a really good look at what happens when the pendulum swings too far to the Left and the poll numbers are all saying that the more they see the less they like it.

Obama is so historically ignorant that he can't even learn from Clinton's mistake in 92. He thought that his election meant the country wanted liberal policies, so he pushed hard and fast for them and it cost the Democratic Party control of Congress for the first time in 40 years 2 years later. Evidently you share the same historical ignorance. You should rejoin the conversation when you've done some reading. See you then.; 6/3/09, 1:05 AM
Jim said...: Palladian -

Obama's going to keep sailing on that myth until the campaign ads start running next year which show the unemployment rate, interest rate, gas prices and federal deficit on January 19, 2009 and contrast them with where they are today (and how much worse they're going to be by then).

(Especially when those numbers are displayed next to video of Obama promising that the seas will recede and the skies will part the day he takes office, and the video of Obama claiming that he will cut a dollar in spending for every dollar he adds somewhere else, etc.)

No one's going to buy that it's Bush's fault when the numbers tell a completely different story. OK...let me correct that...people like FLS, Alpha and Jeremy here will still believe it, but no one's ever accused them of letting facts stand in the way of their political posturing before anyway.; 6/3/09, 1:15 AM
TitusDidAGoodThing said...: California is liberal on the coasts because that is where it is most fabulous. Other than the coasts California is like the rest of the country. As a result they voted down Gay Marriage.

The social liberal and secular states are on the East Coast.

Go East young man!!!; 6/3/09, 1:40 AM
Revenant said...: And what did GW do for the national debt?

Increased it by less in his entire first term than Obama did in his first hundred days?; 6/3/09, 1:42 AM
TitusDidAGoodThing said...: Also, the East Coast is much more congested and "comsoplitan"-i.e. gay.

No one gives a shit about the gays here.

Plus, the catholic church did all the alter boys so the only people who are going to church are going to be dead soon. Oh and the latinos. We have many many latinos. And latinos no likey republicans.; 6/3/09, 1:45 AM
ricpic said...: Sarah will flush nightmare turd Obama away.; 6/3/09, 2:25 AM
ricpic said...: Homos and fascists forever!
Perfect together.; 6/3/09, 2:27 AM
Jon said...: rcocean said: "BTW, he's flipped back to supporting Amnesty but he's still against abortion - as of Today."

Mitt may be flipping back to anti-amnesty again:

CONTRARY TO Joan Vennochi's assertion in her April 9 Op-ed column "GOP cools on a hot-button issue," my view on immigration reform is exactly as I described in my 2008 campaign.

First, illegal immigration should be eliminated by securing the border, creating an immigration identification card, and establishing an employment verification system and penalties for noncompliance. Those who have come here illegally should be able to apply for residency, but their application should be given no advantage relative to those who have remained in their home countries.

Second, the legal immigration process should be simplified, and our immigration policies should favor applicants with skills and education. I oppose the McCain-Kennedy bill because it allows virtually all illegal immigrants to permanently remain in the United States.; 6/3/09, 5:44 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: For those who asked about my Palin comment:

She's too populist for my taste.

For example, in a debate with Biden she said some nonsense about needing to support teachers more (read: more money).

She may as well have said, "I want to take your money and set it on fire."

You want the best schools in the world? Implement universal vouchers. Anything else is motivated by desire for statist control and/or teachers' union payoffs.; 6/3/09, 7:41 AM
Jim said...: Freeman -

It depends on what she meant when she said we should support teachers more. For example, a few years back Tim Pawlenty had a genius idea that he proposed to the teachers union in Minnesota: the state would pay teachers $100K/yr, BUT they would also be able to fire them at will.

Needless to say, the union rejected it: forever putting the lie to the claim that teachers are underpaid. They gave up the pay in exchange for permanent job security for their most incompetent members. That's not being underpaid, that's just poor decision-making.

If that's what Palin had in mind when she talked about supporting teachers then I'm all for it. I'm sick and tired of hearing how underpaid teachers are when they do everything in their power to make sure that even the most incompetent among them is guaranteed a job.

Teachers are worth their weight in gold when we demand and receive excellence, but that's not what the union believes and the entire dynamic in the debate over public schools, teachers and the quality of our children's education would change dramatically if the union were forced to address this issue at the national level rather than in a single state whose liberal rag never gave it the coverage that it deserved. Make the teachers defend their untenable position and let parents across the country find out how they REALLY feel about how much they're paid when they given a choice to make more in exchange for being subject to the same performance standards their students are going to have face when they eventually enter the workforce.; 6/3/09, 7:59 AM
Jim said...: freeman -

I should have mentioned in my post that I also support the idea of universal vouchers. Parents shouldn't have to pay support failing public schools AND pay the full cost of the private tuition required to make sure their children get a quality education.

If the public schools are so fantastic, then they should have no problem competing for students. If they're not, then we're all better off without them.; 6/3/09, 8:02 AM
Fen said...: Juris Dentist: Next time I encounter someone who still thinks you have worthwhile things to say about politics I will send them to this ridiculous post.

Heh. I think its telling that you make an appeal to conformity. You must be one of those who only became a Lefty to be accepted by all the "cool" kids.; 6/3/09, 8:17 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "Try for once to see us all as AMERICANS instead of splinter groups."

Long gone are the days when unity required conformity.

In the minds of some people, the motto of the United States would be:

"E similitudine unum"; 6/3/09, 9:02 AM
garage mahal said...: Until the next skyscraper comes tumbling down at which time you and yours will be pissing your pants wondering how it could have happened..

I know better, but it almost sounds like you're wishing that would happen.; 6/3/09, 9:16 AM
Kirk Parker said...: "Gingrich is a brilliant guy..."

No way. I'll grant you that he's genuinely interested in ideas, rather than a poseur, but brilliant? Not in the least. Rather, he's actually in way over his head when he tries to actually deal with this stuff (look at his early, and lengthy, fascination with Future Schlock.)

Freeman,

Sorry, that's deeper into "holy cow" territory. Sure, here statement on teachers might have been ill-founded, but compared to Newt she's the very model of Calvin Coolidge-ean probity.; 6/3/09, 9:46 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: Kirk, I thought that the Contract with America was pretty great. Are you referring to their personal lives? Or is there something, this is quite possible, that I've missed about Newt going after the populist gimme gimme vote?; 6/3/09, 11:00 AM
Anthony said...: when will it start to seem creepy to the average person to see people wearing Obama-head shirts, hats and buttons? I still see at least 2 or 3 people a day wearing Obama-head branded gear in New York. They're invariably either black people or douchebag hipsters. Now, it's seemed creepy to me ever since I saw the first one pop up during the campaign, but that's because the idea of wearing an article of clothing bearing an image of any politician's face seems creepy to me.

Word. Tons of these people around Seattle. People even have pictures of The One (PBUH) in their front windows. A local coffee/newsstand place has a huge picture of Him behind their counter. Thoroughly third-world dictator creepy.; 6/3/09, 11:00 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Freeman,

Indeed the Contract with America was great; I never intended to say that Gingrich had no redeeming social values, but just that his reputation as a brilliant intellectual is based on nothing but empty assertion.

As a political insurrection, he did quite well, and then disappointingly seemed to fall into the "what would that dog do if it did catch a car?" mode once he was in the majority.; 6/3/09, 12:55 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Oops, that should obviously say "political insurrectionist"; 6/3/09, 1:00 PM
hombre said...: Republicans can't politick and Democrats can't govern.

If the economy recovers and Israel survives in spite of Oblahblah's nitwittery, no Repub. can beat him. (Remember, the CBO predicted the beginning of economic recovery in late 2009 or 2010 regardless of Obama.)

ACORN, victim groups, young morons, marxist eggheads and irretrievable libtards give him the edge. Other than the young morons, these folks will happily follow the Great One as he flushes the country down the toilet.

If the economy and Israel are kaput because of his policies AND the Repubs raise some money, get their act together and find their own bullshitter, they might beat him.

Even some of the young morons will come around.

Romney looks the best candidate so far, but he did lose to McCain -- incredibly.; 6/3/09, 3:03 PM
Synova said...: Palin has never run for President. She ought to count as a "fresh" face except that it seems a whole lot of people look for any way they can to discount her.

Romney might do better next time around if the economy is still the biggest issue.

Giuliani might do well in that situation, too.

Huckabee might be a personable, nice, guy, but he's not conservative. He'll have the strong support of his strong supporters from this time around, but I doubt he could get the nomination.

Romney's real problem wasn't his Mormonism (no matter how lovely it is to mistake the motivation of conservatives) but the same problem that all of the *other* Republican "fresh-faces" have, which is that he's a blandly handsome white guy. Huckabee has a memorable face. Romney, not so much. The other "fresh" Republicans, even if I recognized their names, I wouldn't be able to pick them out of a line-up and that's deadly for a politician.

Palin or Jindal could pull the demographic that Huckabee would be counting on, while actually being conservatives in ways other than "social".; 6/3/09, 3:49 PM
veni vidi vici said...: "Thank you, Althouse. And don't you dare change this revealing and pathetic post.

"Miserable failure"?!

Next time I encounter someone who still thinks you have worthwhile things to say about politics I will send them to this ridiculous post."

Juris Dentist, I certainly hope your handle isn't supposed to indicate you went to law school; after all, your comment betrays a rather stump-toothed level of reading comprehension.; 6/3/09, 4:15 PM
hdhouse said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/3/09, 4:36 PM
hdhouse said...: Hey, Huckabee's band on FauxNoise is great don't cha know?

And Mitt?...oh please.

And Sarah? why don't you guys run anthrax annie coulter...she appears dead compared to Sarah but with infinitely more gravitas.

just a suggestion.

ya'betcha.; 6/3/09, 4:37 PM
veni vidi vici said...: "Romney looks the best candidate so far, but he did lose to McCain -- incredibly."

The only incredible thing is that RNC head Steele doesn't appear to have made restricting the primaries to registered republicans only the biggest priority of his tenure at the head of the party.

As much as Republicans griped about McCain being "chosen for them" by scale-thumbers from outside the registered ranks invading the primaries, I'd expect him to be going hellfire to fix this problem so the party doesn't again get a media-picked candidate in the future. Michael Steele: weak horse.; 6/3/09, 4:59 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I know better, but it almost sounds like you're wishing that would happen..

Go fuck yourself.; 6/3/09, 5:02 PM
Synova said...: Palin is somewhat populist. And she does have stronger union creds than any Dem candidate for the last who knows how long. Both her parents are public school teachers and Todd belongs or belonged to the steel workers union. That's reasonably hard core, as those things go.

I think I can live with that. I don't expect to find a candidate who I'm with on every issue. It's better to be aware of those things than to be blissfully unaware.

She actually strikes me as a Democrat before they went off the rails. And she's one of the very few politicians around who seem to honestly view the whole "politics" thing as "service" and who takes fiscal responsibility and budget management seriously.

Plus I just really *really* liked her response to a reporter who asked her after one of Todd's Irondog wins, if she'd "let" him do something or other... race next year or spend the prize money or some such. Whatever the specifics, I recall clearly that she respected him and expressed support for his ambitions instead of going along with the expected "funny" of the wife calling the shots. That, to me, was an indicator of a lot of things, and all of them good.; 6/3/09, 5:24 PM
Synova said...: As always, it's a hoot to see people who would never vote for a Republican dismissing potential Republican candidates or acting all authoritative over who "evangelical Christians" will or will not vote for.; 6/3/09, 5:26 PM
J said...: Huckabee is awful.

Romney/Palin would be of interest (some mix of religions, genders, private enterprise and government).

Then again, as long as they run someone slightly better than a retarded monkey it will be an improvement.; 6/4/09, 1:05 AM