Althouse: Mitt Romney: "If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states."

March 23, 2011

Mitt Romney: "If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states."

"The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them. As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are 'laboratories of democracy.'"

144 comments:

kent said...: Mitt Romeny: "If I were president

"If we were all cowboys and ballerinas..."

"If ants had thumbs..."

"If TeleTubbies were real..."; 3/23/11, 10:14 AM
Kensington said...: Oh, Mitt. If you're President, presumably your Congress is Republican, so why not just repeal the damn thing outright?

So useless.; 3/23/11, 10:14 AM
Lincolntf said...: Typo. Romney.; 3/23/11, 10:15 AM
rhhardin said...: Socialism works so well in some states.; 3/23/11, 10:17 AM
Henry said...: By this, Romney lets Romney off the hook: Mass-Care isn't a viral disaster. It's a laboratory experiment. It was never supposed to propagate into Congress.

Uh-huh. Thanks Mitt.; 3/23/11, 10:17 AM
Ipso Fatso said...: CYA. And doing it pretty nicely. This would be step one, step two: repeal.; 3/23/11, 10:17 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Like Sarah Palin wouldn't.

He really ought to give it up.

The pandering.

The Macho Response.; 3/23/11, 10:18 AM
Scott M said...: Well, he's got to do something to shake the Romneycare stigma. Given the qualifications of our last elected president for the office, looking like a Hollywood version of an American president (and actually having executive office experience) is pretty damned cool.; 3/23/11, 10:19 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: If I ruled the world....; 3/23/11, 10:19 AM
The Dude said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/23/11, 10:19 AM
rhhardin said...: The subjunctive mood, according to Thurber, is for moral posturing and sparring for time.; 3/23/11, 10:19 AM
Scott M said...: It really doesn't matter, does it? In the end, the only person who could possibly do the job well is never going to run.; 3/23/11, 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: "Who am I kidding, I'd never vote for that bag o' mediocre."

You mean the Harvard J.D./M.B.A who started Bain Capitol?

Is that the mediocre you're talking about?; 3/23/11, 10:21 AM
kent said...: In the end, the only person who could possibly do the job well is never going to run.

Beg me. ;); 3/23/11, 10:22 AM
The Dude said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/23/11, 10:22 AM
James said...: I think what Rommey is staying is that repeal cannot happen immediately, even with a GOP-controlled Congress (that's not a sure bet). So he would issue an executive order while Congress got to work on repealing the law.; 3/23/11, 10:23 AM
traditionalguy said...: Is that his "flip/flop" or his "flop/flip" ? Mittens has so many great ideas, at any given time...tic, tic, tic...and behold he firmly believes whatever will sell next as time goes by. That worked in his daddy's day, but today's internet will destroy him for pretending so much.; 3/23/11, 10:24 AM
Carol_Herman said...: Oy. I guess Karl Rove found it was unsafe to send out Jeb Bush?

Oh, the poor republican party.

This Mitt Romney schtick, sadly is being pushed from the top down.

And, if Mitt does get selected by the republican convention? It will be a dead on arrival convention. Sarah will be off running as an Independent. (Yes, Ralph Nader will still be on the ballot, for he is our Harold Stassen. Stasson?)

And, all the newcomers will be told by the osified "higher-up's" to go and wait their turn.

Maybe, the republicans need to wear helmets when they go out to play politics?; 3/23/11, 10:24 AM
Dustin said...: We don't need the federal government to give the states permission to do this.

Why does Texas have to have a government healthcare plan? I'm happy with my healthcare in Texas. Romney shouldn't try to affect it.

Repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something a lot more sensible and limited is a better fantasy for Romney to wax upon.

But there's the further problem that no one sane trusts Romney. He will say the exact opposite if it's to his political advantage, and he was a failed governor with poor popularity who walked out of his job half way through (without giving up the trappings of office).

We need a president with more experience, too. If you couldn't get reelected as Governor, and if you have no record of success as Governor, I am not interested in you as President; 3/23/11, 10:25 AM
The Dude said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/23/11, 10:25 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Quayle,

You mean the Harvard J.D./M.B.A who started Bain Capitol?

Yeah, that's the guy. A big bag of nothin'.; 3/23/11, 10:26 AM
Kirby Olson said...: That's a neat move, though, undermining Obamacare through waivers to all 50 states.

It's sort of hilarious how the two sides are finding new ways of blocking one another's initiatives.

They just don't show up so there's no quorum. They get judicial injunctions. They provide waivers that loophole everyone out of an injunction.

One form of authority cancels out another.

We will probably move to tribal fiefdoms like the Afghans have, only ours will be structured according to race, gender, class, and religion, or lack thereof.

Or maybe the red state blue state thing will make up a new division the way the Catholics and Lutherans divided up Europe for a while there.; 3/23/11, 10:26 AM
Anonymous said...: I think what Romney is saying is that if the president has the authority to arbitrarily exempt however he wants (companies, entire states, whoever) as current events seem to indicate the Obama administration believes, then the easy way to kill ObamaCare is simply to exempt everyone. Make everyone the exception. Problem solved. It's mockery along with whatever else it is. It's one more example of how the "constitutional scholar" that is Barack Obama is clueless about what he's doing. He can't seriously think he can apply the law arbitrarily, can he?; 3/23/11, 10:29 AM
David said...: He won't get the chance, because Obama's going to have to do it himself.; 3/23/11, 10:31 AM
Carol_Herman said...: "Mittens." What a hoot!

As to Mittens dad, who had big presidential ambitions back in 1968 ... When asked about why he supported Vietnam, before his flip/flop, he said he had been BRAINWASHED.

Even at the time being a Romney didn't sail ya to the top of the ticket. Alas, the mediocre Bush's did.

And, while I'm loving Donald Rumsfeld's memoirs, he talks about getting to Congress,bedeviled by the ossified and entrenched republican losers. Who held the top slots. So he found Gerald Ford, to take them on. And, Gerald Ford was a reluctant Diva. The president who gave Nixon his pardon. The man who said he wouldn't run for president. But did. And, gave us Carter.

Politics. Republicans need to wear helmets when they go out in public to tell us whom they've selected to run at the top.; 3/23/11, 10:32 AM
Scott M said...: I think what Romney is saying is that if the president has the authority to arbitrarily exempt however he wants (companies, entire states, whoever) as current events seem to indicate the Obama administration believes, then the easy way to kill ObamaCare is simply to exempt everyone.

That was my impression after reading it. There should never have been any exemptions to begin with. Especially none to megacorps like McDonalds.

PROGRESSIVE IDEAS! SO GOOD, THEY HAVE TO BE MANDATORY!; 3/23/11, 10:32 AM
Simon said...: The Grand Inquisitor said...
"We need a president with more experience, too. If you couldn't get reelected as Governor, and if you have no record of success as Governor, I am not interested in you as President."

So three week Senator Rand Paul doesn't appeal as a candidate, huh? The chump thinks he's a contender.; 3/23/11, 10:33 AM
The Dude said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/23/11, 10:35 AM
Fen said...: Ah hell, thats all the squishy GOPs in Congress need - another excuse to simply not repeal the damn thing.

"But we're waiting on Romeny to get elected"

*bashes head against wall. bash bash bash*; 3/23/11, 10:42 AM
Conservative Playa said...: I'd be interested in hearing what alternative Mittens would offer up in lieu of Obamacare...Romney care? lol

The waivers are predicated on states devising alternatives that cover at least the same number of people at the same or lower costs as obamacare. So there is already a mechanism to receive a waiver, no executive order is neeeded. I rather think the waiver is a good idea, as it forces alternatives that are not simply the previous status quo. This puts Republican governors and state legislators in a rather uneasy position, as any serious alternative will be open to the same illogical complaints and hysterical shrieks of socialism as was seen during passage of Obamacare. It also rather skillfully reveals the hollowness of Republican/teabagger complaints, as they are extremely reluctant to offer an alternative for fear of endorsing health reform of any kind. The laboratories of democracy are closed for partisan gain.; 3/23/11, 10:42 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Love Mitt or hate Mitt, in 2012, when we are still treading water in the putrid economic doldrums, the voters will be eager to vote for someone with Mitt's expertise.; 3/23/11, 10:42 AM
Fen said...: By this, Romney lets Romney off the hook

Ah I see what you mean. This is a positioning statement by Romeny to get some distance between that mangy mutt thats been following him around all year.

Hey Mitt, where WERE you during the Obamacare "debate"? Why didn't you step up and say "Here's what I did in my home state and this is why it won't work"..; 3/23/11, 10:44 AM
tree hugging sister said...: Wave "good-bye", Mitt.; 3/23/11, 10:45 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: If states are labratories of democracy does that make the rest of us lab rats?; 3/23/11, 10:46 AM
Fen said...: I'd be interested in hearing what alternative Mittens would offer up in lieu of Obamacare

Well, FLS is in favor of murdering anyone who can't fend for themselves. I guess thats the Dem alternative.; 3/23/11, 10:48 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Hot Air commenters, ask an interesting question, so the STATES get waivers, how about the CITIZENS? I am I STILL on the hook for the mandate and the IRS and the Tax Penalties? If so, why do states get a pass, but not me. Romney’s trying to square a circle, oppose Obama, not refudiate RomneyCare and not seem too “extreme” all at once. And as usual, he fails in his triangulation(s).; 3/23/11, 10:50 AM
Fen said...: does that make the rest of us lab rats?

Hillbilly rats. Varmits? That would look good on a flag. The Elephant, the Jackass, and the Rat.; 3/23/11, 10:50 AM
Tank said...: Hoosier Daddy said...

If states are labratories of democracy does that make the rest of us lab rats?

Yes.

That's exactly how the "planners" see you.; 3/23/11, 10:50 AM
TMink said...: Works for me. He will get my vote if he keeps talking like a federalist.

Trey; 3/23/11, 10:52 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

I don’t know FLS, how about vouchers for health care insurance, letting YOU the individual seek out the health care YOU desire…and, though it is a violation of Federalism, how about requiring states to allow insurance to be sold across state lines? Or alternatively, finding a way to make it in state’s interests to allow such sales? All that would be preferable to an over-arching bureaucracy that hurts small companies and individuals, but EXEMPTS THE POWERFUL AND CONNECTED.; 3/23/11, 10:53 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Works for me. He will get my vote if he keeps talking like a federalist.

Really, why do states get a waiver, but not you? Why do states get a waiver? IF ObamaCare is so great why are we exempting anyone form it? Either this is a NATIONAL Program, of some value or it isn’t…Romney is just trying to be “moderate”….; 3/23/11, 10:55 AM
TMink said...: I held my nose and voted for McCain. Now, as much antipathy as I have toward that big givernment (typo or Freudian slip?) RINO I would send him money. President Obama has been much worse than I feared though in different ways. I feared he would hurt us through legislation, and he has, but I had no idea how completely clueless his administration would be and what that would cost us and the world.

Trey

Trey; 3/23/11, 10:56 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: As to Mittens dad, who had big presidential ambitions back in 1968 ... When asked about why he supported Vietnam, before his flip/flop, he said he had been BRAINWASHED.

Mitt ought to try that, shake up his image, add some "color".

AJ Lynch,

Love Mitt or hate Mitt, in 2012, when we are still treading water in the putrid economic doldrums, the voters will be eager to vote for someone with Mitt's expertise.

Stop it, you're making me spill my coffee. You guys really don't get it, do you?

WE WANT A CONSERVATIVE.

The rest of you better rearrange your thinking or something tells me YOU are going lose big. If you think I dislike Democrats and NewAgers, watch how I light into RINOS if you idiots blow this one. Now repeat after me:

P-A-L-I-N.

You might be able to check the box but get the spelling down just in case.

The Macho Response.; 3/23/11, 10:57 AM
Scott M said...: but EXEMPTS THE POWERFUL AND CONNECTED.

What about the Democrats, the party of the super delegate, do you not understand?; 3/23/11, 10:58 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

What about the Democrats, the party of the super delegate, do you not understand?

This is a criticism of Obamacare and the democrats, right?; 3/23/11, 11:03 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Crack:
So who would you suggest after 12 straight years of fairly incompetent presidents?; 3/23/11, 11:05 AM
Unknown said...: tree hugging sister is right. Romney, if he had any (damned small) chance, just followed Daniels.

I'd expect better sense from Ron Paul. Or Kucinich.

Well maybe Crack is right. By the time we get there, Miss Sarah may be the only one left standing.

Kensington said...

Oh, Mitt. If you're President, presumably your Congress is Republican, so why not just repeal the damn thing outright?

So useless.

You got it.

Nice pup.

PS I think Carol is PB&J in drag.; 3/23/11, 11:05 AM
Scott M said...: Super delegates are basically a modern version of feudal aristocracy, so yeah.; 3/23/11, 11:05 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Crack:
Palin just ain't smart enough even though I like her. Plus she talks in run-on sentences- which drives me nuts.; 3/23/11, 11:07 AM
Conservative Playa said...: "Well, FLS is in favor of murdering anyone who can't fend for themselves. I guess thats the Dem alternative."

I believe Obamacare is the Dems alternative, perhaps you could cite the specific section of the law that proscribes murder for those who can't fend for themselves...or have you not read it?; 3/23/11, 11:10 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Palin just ain't smart enough even though I like her. Plus she talks in run-on sentences- which drives me nuts.

And the evidence for this is to be found in what?; 3/23/11, 11:10 AM
kent said...: Carol, it's a little early to be as sloshed as you apparently are.

"CATNIP!!! *hic*"; 3/23/11, 11:10 AM
Simon said...: The Crack Emcee said...
"WE WANT A CONSERVATIVE. The rest of you better rearrange your thinking or something tells me YOU are going lose big. If you think I dislike Democrats and NewAgers, watch how I light into RINOS if you idiots blow this one. Now repeat after me: P-A-L-I-N."

Well, sure, if you want to seal a second term for Obama. But I don't see how that advances conservative goals. Listen, I like Palin, even though she seems to detract from her appeal almost every time she opens her mouth these days; I even promoted her as the veep nominee weeks before McCain picked her. Nevertheless, we have to remember what we're doing here. We're trying to win an election! The current voter registration breakdown tells us that we can't win without carrying independents, and every poll I've seen, including GOP polls, say that independents hate Palin as a candidate. So that's it. She's out. Sorry. It's nothing personal; it's not a reflection of my own opinion of her; it's that elections are about math, and if she can't win, I'm not interested in her as a candidate. The stakes are too high to throw the election away for Sarah's sake.

There are several good candidates—none without flaws to be sure—in Pawlenty, Daniels, and Gingrich. Every one of them has something that gives me heartburn, but they're serious candidates, they would wipe the floor with Obama, and that's really all there is to it. Again, it's an election. For Republicans, you're either in it to win it, or you're (in effect) for Obama's second term.; 3/23/11, 11:12 AM
Scott M said...: , perhaps you could cite the specific section of the law that proscribes murder for those who can't fend for themselves

It effectively crowds out my HSA, and everything else I've done to unass myself from employer health insurance at a decent savings. Is that enough murder for you?; 3/23/11, 11:12 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

And since we’ve mentioned “Palin” what has become of OpusOne Media, Palin’s biggest fan?; 3/23/11, 11:12 AM
G Joubert said...: ...after 12 straight years of fairly incompetent presidents...

More like 23 years. Hasn't been any competency there since Reagan left.; 3/23/11, 11:13 AM
The Dude said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/23/11, 11:14 AM
The Dude said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/23/11, 11:15 AM
Fen said...: perhaps you could cite the specific section of the law that proscribes murder for those who can't fend for themselves...or have you not read it?

I was talking about FLS - Former Law Student. He maintains that babies should be aborted if no one will care for them.

I simply assumed this Democrat line applied to all aspects of Health Care.

I believe Obamacare is the Dems alternative

Nope. Its already broken.; 3/23/11, 11:18 AM
Fen said...: PS I think Carol is PB&J in drag.

No, she's legit. I know her handle from 6-7 years past, we both hung out at Captains Quarters (my first blog) before he joined Malkin et al.

She tends meander through her paragraphs, but she often has good points.; 3/23/11, 11:20 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

She's out. Sorry. It's nothing personal; it's not a reflection of my own opinion of her; it's that elections are about math, and if she can't win, I'm not interested in her as a candidate. The stakes are too high to throw the election away for Sarah's sake.

Say who was ahead in 1979, by 25 points ?

There are several good candidates—none without flaws to be sure—in Pawlenty, Daniels, and Gingrich.

Pawlenty is the only one of these that is acceptable. Really Mitch Daniels? “Mr. Truce”? Mr. hasn’t seen a Democrat in his legislature for a month? Mr. I’ve Offered to Scale back My Proposals but They Still Won’t Return? Mr. Competent, even though his state has been hamstrung, and he’s not “extreme?”

Gingrich…Mr. “I’m working on Wife Number 3!” Mr. “Line in the Sand, Lose to Bill Clinton?” You mean “Mr. Sit on a Couch With Nancy Pelosi and Worry About Global Warming?” That Gingrich? The guy who has great ideas, but constantly changes them?

Look we nominated a “moderate who could win” in 2008, how did that work out?; 3/23/11, 11:21 AM
Fen said...: Sorry, that wasn't meant as a criticism Carol. Just proving that I recognize your writing style.; 3/23/11, 11:21 AM
Cedarford said...: Henry said...
By this, Romney lets Romney off the hook: Mass-Care isn't a viral disaster. It's a laboratory experiment. It was never supposed to propagate into Congress.

Uh-huh. Thanks Mitt
=======================
It's pretty true.
The opionion of those angry senior tea party people saying it works great, America's healthcare system is the best in the world and keep those free drugs and free power-operated wheelchairs - so don't mess with a damn thing and it isn't on them to pay for seniorcare deluxe?
The System Is Broke!!!
And I would rather have the States free to experiment so Colorado isn't forcefit into having a plan identical to Hawaii's.
Or be stuck with one size fits all, "Obamacare".
Romney is right that the system needs urgent change, but better let the States experiment with ways to get access and hold healthcare costs down.; 3/23/11, 11:26 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: AJ Lynch,

Crack:
So who would you suggest after 12 straight years of fairly incompetent presidents?

12 years? I don't know you're talking about. Unlike you whiners, who gave the Ds an opening by imagining Georgie fucked up, I was perfectly happy until the communists got the upper hand. So that's 4 years. Whatever.

I said who the conservative is, and how don't care how she talks - I care how she thinks. She won't drop the bread on the buttered side - that's what matters.

Not brilliance, economic know-how (how hard is it to cut? Shit, I can do that, starting with equal opportunity anything) just common sense, and a love of flag-waving bald eagle America, backed by nukes. That's what I want, and you wimpy, lame, confused, self-defeating assholes are going to make the black guy happy by giving it to me as payback for slavery or something. You feel me?

Sixty, give me some backup.

The Macho Response.; 3/23/11, 11:29 AM
Conservative Playa said...: @Scott

So you're complaining that the law which was specifically "designed to allow for the purchase of a qualified high deductible plan that would complement the HSA" is equivalent to murder?

Good luck with that argument.

Perhaps you could edify us as to how the ACA plan is so much different than your current HSA funded one.

Here are the 2011 rules for HSAs under the ACA (note the max contributions are higher in 2011 than last year):

2011 HSA Contribution Rules

Employers and employees can make contributions to an HSA (both can now contribute in the same tax year), and all contributions are tax-deductible.
Maximum Contribution Limits for 2011

* Individual Coverage $3,050
* Family Coverage $6,150

High Deductible Health Plan Limits For 2011
Minimum AnnualDeductable Out-of-Pocket Maximum

* Individual Coverage $1,200 $5,950
* Family Coverage $2,400 $11,900; 3/23/11, 11:29 AM
Scott M said...: Nice cut and past. Do you suppose that your info paints the entire picture for costs incurred for someone using an HSA?; 3/23/11, 11:32 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

but better let the States experiment with ways to get access and hold healthcare costs down.

Just to be a Pesky libertarian…why do the STATES have to experiment? Why the GOVERNMENT at all? Why not the “People”, the CONSUMERS of health care? Do we have to experiment and use the STATES to provide multiple lunch options for the people? Gee, it seems consumers can find lunch on their own, with a plethora of options, all without any STATE operation at all….why not health care? Voucherize Medicare/Medicaid and get the state out of the job of providing “health care.”

Being a “l”ibertarian, rather than a Libertarian, I see no problem with state licensure of health care facilities and inspections, a la health departments and restaurants, or with the state establishing a “poverty line” for providing subsidies to the poor for health care. I just don’t see that it the “state’s” job, either in DC or Boise to “provide” health care.; 3/23/11, 11:33 AM
Henry said...: @Cedarford -- I actually agree with Romney's sentiments.

But Romney's critique of process is no cover for his promotion of bad policy. Bad policy that became precedent for worse.

Federalism is great, but one doesn't want to be in one of those states where the experiment goes bad.; 3/23/11, 11:33 AM
Scott M said...: "paste".; 3/23/11, 11:34 AM
Chennaul said...: Unfortunately she went on a rampage at one place and dominated that blog so much I think it was the first time the blogger actually went in a begged a commenter to have some mercy.

The posts got increasingly erratic.

The blog really went south. This blog might have enough posters to overcome that.

But the more attention-the more the blog becomes all about.....

It feeds on itself and escalates...IOW you haven't seen anything yet.

Negative or positive it grows and grows....

We'll see what happens. (And ya I just contributed to it.); 3/23/11, 11:38 AM
The Dude said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/23/11, 11:42 AM
vbspurs said...: Romney was the best candidate in the 2008 field, the only one who was consisently logical in his debate responses, and the only one who could've beat Barack Obama -- heck, that's true, even if McCain had chosen Romney as his Veep. At least, it would've been close.

So why do I get a pain in my intestines thinking that I'll have to hold my nose again at the ballot box, and vote for a RINO who gave us RomneyCare?

Cheers,
Victoria; 3/23/11, 11:42 AM
Simon said...: Joe said...
"Say who was ahead in 1979, by 25 points?"

Not even just in 1979—as late as January 1980, Carter was ahead by an enormous margin. But so what? The world has changed since then. America is different, our communications and media are different, Palin isn't Reagan, and Obama isn't Carter. Unlike Reagan, Palin has been thoroughly dissected in the public sphere and most voters know a lot about her. A majority of independents have decided she's a non-starter, and those minds are not likely to change. You aren't going to change people's minds about Sarah with a fluffy campaign commercial. If she is the nominee, you unite the Democrats against us (including the media, which will spare nothing to take her down), and alienate the majority of independents without whom we cannot win. That is a strategy for a resounding defeat.

"Pawlenty is the only one of these that is acceptable. Really Mitch Daniels? “Mr. Truce”? Mr. hasn’t seen a Democrat in his legislature for a month?"

I live in Indiana, so don't tell me about our missing legislators, and don't try to put that on the Governor or the majority. The Democrats here have been trying that for some time now; it doesn't work for them, it won't work for you. As for the truce, I actually agree with you, but since I have no idea what the substance of such a truce can be (and see no indication Daniels does either), I think that's just rhetoric.

As to Newt: Yeah, that guy. Like I said, there are things about all of them that give me heartburn, but personal failings aside, he's a brilliant policy guy and he would take Obama apart in a debate (watch him doing so with Dean and Sharpton on CSPAN.)

"Look we nominated a 'moderate who could win' in 2008, how did that work out?"

Who's talking about nominating a moderate? None of those guys are moderates. None of them are Michelle Bachmann loonies, to be sure, but that doesn't make them moderates.; 3/23/11, 11:42 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

and the only one who could've beat Barack Obama -- heck, that's true, even if McCain had chosen Romney as his Veep. At least, it would've been close.

To recap: Romney couldn’t beat McCain, but he COULD HAVE BEATEN Obama? You believe this?; 3/23/11, 11:46 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: It really doesn't matter, does it? In the end, the only person who could possibly do the job well is never going to run.

Not so fast. I am in the process of forming my own exploratory committee. My campaign them will be Despair and Transmutation. In anticipation of my inevitable success 'Hail to the Chief' has been replaced by 'The Imperial March'.

Don't laugh. You can do worse.; 3/23/11, 11:50 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Joe:

I formed my opinion on Palin's smarts by listening to her speak and answer questions. Yet I agree she has great instincts.

And she does talk in run-on sentences which to me is an indicator of lack of smarts.; 3/23/11, 11:52 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Romney was the best candidate in the 2008 field, the only one who was consistently logical in his debate responses, and the only one who could've beat Barack Obama -- heck, that's true, even if McCain had chosen Romney as his Veep. At least, it would've been close.

This is so right.

He is tall and thin, like Obama, but has better paper credentials (two harvard graduate degrees, not one), has made a fortune building businesses (you forgot Staples), and likely knew far more about what was going on in the economy in late 2008 than any other candidate. Unfortunately for the country, McCain was already the Republican nominee, and while likely understanding more than Obama did (which is likely not too hard), seemed to rush in to solving the financial problems much too quickly.

BUT, 2008 was Romney's election, not 2012. I backed him then, and won't this time. He was the strongest person running in 2008, of either party, and I think would have done the best job as President. But his time has past.

I am moving, however grudgingly, towards Gingrich. I like Palin, but she isn't ready yet. And none of the multitude of governors somewhat running have managed to stick out of the crowd. None of them can really excite.

One thing is likely, and that is that Gingrich is far better than Obama in debates, and will likely be able to out think and out talk him throughout a campaign.

Gingrich's has a couple of major problems though. One is that he still has high negatives, and needs to get them down to win the middle. And, his marital history adds to this.

But, his edge may be what is needed this time around. He is one candidate (along with Palin) who can, and does, take the fight to the enemy. And can do so without accepting their premises. In an era of the (new) tea party, that may be what is needed.

And, indeed, I think that any Republican who gets the nomination and then can win, is going to have to be in-your-face, like he and Palin are, but not the typical Republican candidate like McCain, the Bushes, Dole, etc., as well as a lot of those governors (why do you think anyone is looking at Chris Christie right now?)

Luckily, that means for me that both Romney, and, in particular, Huckleberry, are out.

wv: sessest - only notable because I actually have had it before in the last couple of weeks.; 3/23/11, 12:05 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/23/11, 12:07 PM
Chennaul said...: Demographically speaking-

you need a candidate that can get sixty percent of the white vote.

That's what some say...and I know:

Raaaaacccccciiiist!

Anyone see a candidate that can do that?

You need the Reagan Democrat, the white Catholic swing vote, and then some.; 3/23/11, 12:09 PM
Dustin said...: I'm pretty amazed that some think Mccain would have won in 2008 if Romney had been his VP pick.

Romney brought some dubious financial cred, but he brought very little else, and Mccain needed a larger coalition. He made the right move picking a conservative like Palin, only should have picked a conservative with much more experience.

That's no knock on Palin... she'd be so much better off if Mccain hadn't forced her to the national stage so quickly, though.

Fact is, 2008 was the democrat's race to lose and they didn't.; 3/23/11, 12:10 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: AJ,

She does talk in run-on sentences which to me is an indicator of lack of smarts.

See? Now the question isn't "Is Palin smart?" but are you? What part of conventional "smarts don't matter" don't you understand? She's a conservative. The real thing. She'll cut what has to be cut. She'll fight when it's time to fight. That doesn't take "smarts", it takes common sense. Fuck anybody smart. I don't want to see smart. Give me a critical thinker with a low I.Q. and some guts.

Fuck Romney practically daring us to admire him - ain't gonna happen.

I'm voting for the conservative. I'm voting for Palin.; 3/23/11, 12:10 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I formed my opinion on Palin's smarts by listening to her speak and answer questions. Yet I agree she has great instincts.

Let me suggest that you are mistaking experience for intelligence. Or, more accurately, lack of the former for lack of the later.

On an IQ test, I would expect that she would test notably higher than Bush (43), Gore, Kerry, or very likely Biden (either that, or he is already experiencing dementia, but this has been going on for quite some time now). And, she obviously has more common sense than the current resident of the WH.

But, what she lacks is their decades long experience at this game. And, at least she seems to know, despite not having a Harvard Law degree, that there aren't 57 states, unless you are including some of the Mexican ones.

But time and time again, she has shown herself smarter than her opponents. Reagan Doctrine - Which one are you talking about? And what year was the original tea party any way? Again and again, she has made many fewer verbal mistakes than, say, President Obama, unless, of course, he has his teleprompter handy so he can read the lines that his handlers have written for him.; 3/23/11, 12:12 PM
vbspurs said...: Bruce Hayden wrote:

One thing is likely, and that is that Gingrich is far better than Obama in debates, and will likely be able to out think and out talk him throughout a campaign.

Oh, how I wish we could see a preview, don't you? It's like a Palin-Obama debate -- the energy produced in such a debate would block out the sun.

Contrary to what people may think, Bruce, I wouldn't be averse to supporting Newt. The thing is, I am pragmatist, above all. And I tell you here and now that women will not vote for Newt Gingrich. Not just liberal women -- many conservatives will not either.

Ronald Reagan had the benefit of overcoming the stigma of being a divorced man. He had a stable, loving second marriage, and he hadn't treated the first and second wife like dirt.

That's just not Newt Gingrich, who is on his third. Plus, unlike Giuliani, he also has political baggage without any recourse to the hero label.

I just don't see how Newt can overcome these negatives versus an electorate who voted for Barack Obama.

Cheers,
Victoria; 3/23/11, 12:18 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I'm pretty amazed that some think Mccain would have won in 2008 if Romney had been his VP pick.

I would agree there. I think Romney would have run better than McCain. But, maybe not, because the thing that McCain did do that shook things up was to select Palin as his running mate, and Romney wouldn't have done so - too cautious for that.

So, I would suggest that maybe McCain's biggest weakness was his rashness, but that may have also been one of his greater strengths.

And, btw, I do believe that McCain would have handled all the unrest in the Middle East over the last bit far better than Obama has. This has been a time for decisive action, and, Obama, not surprisingly given his "temperament", has failed miserably, at least in Egypt and now Libya.

Which is to say that Romney would probably have been the better candidate in 2008, but McCain possibly the better President in 2011.

wv: excest - is this the opposite of "incest"? Or would that be "outcest"?; 3/23/11, 12:21 PM
vbspurs said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/23/11, 12:34 PM
Henry said...: I'm still voting for "generic".; 3/23/11, 12:35 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

I formed my opinion on Palin's smarts by listening to her speak and answer questions. Yet I agree she has great instincts.

And she does talk in run-on sentences which to me is an indicator of lack of smarts.

So you LISTENED, but didn’t HEAR, right? I mean her work on oil, death panels, Libya, her Vision for America Speech, you didn’t HEAR them, you just listened, they didn’t “sound” smart…OK, so much for the Informed Voter.; 3/23/11, 12:37 PM
vbspurs said...: Bruce Hayden wrote:

Let me suggest that you are mistaking experience for intelligence. Or, more accurately, lack of the former for lack of the later.

People have a problem. They think that intellectual intelligence is the only form of intelligence out there. It is not. There are many, amongst them:

- Wisdom
- Common Sense
- Skill

And yes, intellectual intelligence.

Liberals seem to emphasise only the intellect, and not give AS MUCH importance to wisdom or common sense. For them, book smarts is king.

I consider myself an intellectual, I have a personal library which would stagger most folks, and I have put my mind through the rigours of a competitive university, but I would never discount any of the others because intelligence, I have found, often has very little to do with how falutin' the sound of your book titles has been.

So Obama knows about Reinhold Niebuhr, and David Brooks, Chris Buckley and Peggy Noonan all swoon, delighted to finally meet a politician who not only has perfect creases in his pantlegs, but in his brains.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Cheers,
Victoria; 3/23/11, 12:39 PM
Dustin said...: "And, btw, I do believe that McCain would have handled all the unrest in the Middle East over the last bit far better than Obama has. "

I agree completely.

I also note that picking Palin was the only think Mccain did that materially improved his chances of winning election. He even pulled ahead briefly. However, I really wish he had not picked Palin, who I do think is a savvy politician, but has been pushed into an unfortunate political situation. She would have been doing good in Alaska today.

Romney and Mccain lack the experience needed to be President, IMO. However, Mccain called Lebanon and Iraq correctly and would have gotten Libya right, too.

There's a chance that Obama has forced the USA to face our entitlement crisis head on. We have a chance to actually reform our government that we didn't have if Mccain was president. This is an ad hoc argument, but if we manage to nominate an experienced, conservative governor, with a focus on the debt crisis, the USA might actually learn a valuable lesson from the Obama era.; 3/23/11, 12:39 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

And you “Newts”…He’s going to fire up the base, how? By proclaiming his love for Callista, his THIRD WIFE, the one he picked up whilst still married to wife No. 2? Or will it be his support for Dede Scavvafazza (sp)? Or will it be sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi, touting the need to combat Global Warmening? The man’s time has come and passed…He is as one of my heroes said of Mao Tse-Deng…a great revolutionary, a HORRIBLE administrator. Newt could create a Republican majority, but he couldn’t govern….You all may have forgotten I haven’t, the Fiasco of 1995.; 3/23/11, 12:40 PM
vbspurs said...: wv: excest - is this the opposite of "incest"? Or would that be "outcest"?

Excest is excessive incest, as opposed to the restrained incest practised by isolated mountain tribes in Romania.; 3/23/11, 12:41 PM
vbspurs said...: Dede Scavvafazza

Scuzzyfazza works too.; 3/23/11, 12:41 PM
Scott M said...: I'm still voting for "generic".

If you vote None Of The Above, Brewster gets rich.; 3/23/11, 12:43 PM
Original Mike said...: Until Romney admits that the health care plan he put into place in Mass. is the same damn thing as ObamaCare, he has no credibility on this topic in my eyes. Nor will he get my vote.

OTOH, if he came out and said, "you know, we tried it and it didn't work", his stock with me would rise ten fold.; 3/23/11, 12:51 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Until Romney admits that the health care plan he put into place in Mass. is the same damn thing as ObamaCare, he has no credibility on this topic in my eyes. Nor will he get my vote.

OTOH, if he came out and said, "you know, we tried it and it didn't work", his stock with me would rise ten fold.

It’s funny, Romney is “flexible” on so many things, gay rights, abortion, and the like…but on the ONE THING that is ABSOLUTELY central to a run in 2012, he simply will NOT budge. Who knew that this was the ONE thing Romney was proudest of?

He ought to have vetoed RomneyCare, so it became MassachusettsCare… INSTEAD, in order to show, he could “get things done” and apparently because he agreed with it (Why ELSE wouldn’t he refudiate it today) he now has this albatross around his neck. It’s true the MA General Assembly made a bad bill, and that Deval Patrick has mismanaged a bad bill, worsening a dire situation, but at least Romney could own up to having made a mistake in not vetoing the bill.; 3/23/11, 12:57 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Original Mike,

Until Romney admits that the health care plan he put into place in Mass. is the same damn thing as ObamaCare, he has no credibility on this topic in my eyes. Nor will he get my vote.

OTOH, if he came out and said, "you know, we tried it and it didn't work", his stock with me would rise ten fold.

That ship sailed when they were passing ObamaCare - and he missed the boat. Forget Romney, he's done. He's a loser.

And Newt "I was cheating because I was working so hard for the country" Gingrich? Are you people nuts?

It's PALIN.; 3/23/11, 1:01 PM
Unknown said...: vbspurs said...

Romney was the best candidate in the 2008 field, the only one who was consisently logical in his debate responses, and the only one who could've beat Barack Obama -- heck, that's true, even if McCain had chosen Romney as his Veep. At least, it would've been close.

So why do I get a pain in my intestines thinking that I'll have to hold my nose again at the ballot box, and vote for a RINO who gave us RomneyCare?

You may wish to have your PCP check it out, mum, as I believe, with the remark in the post, Mitt follows Mitch out of serious contention (I don't think he was there, anyway). I'll continue to say I don't think we've even taken notice of who the eventual nominee will be.; 3/23/11, 1:02 PM
Original Mike said...: Romney either, i) won't admit a mistake, which is disqualifying IMO, or ii) really believes RomneyCare is a good thing, which is disqualifying, IMO. Either way, it's a show stopper for me.; 3/23/11, 1:08 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

I sure hate to agree with Crack, but I’m a Palinista too. Pawlenty is good, too…just Boe-RING… Cain is good, as well…BUT he couldn’t win an election in Georgia, his home state, so what makes anyone think he can win a NATIONAL one?

Everybody else…Bleh. Mittens-Flip-Flopper and LOST TO HUCKABEE,
Huckabee-Couldn’t beat McCain!
Giuliani-if he couldn’t win in 2008, what makes anyone think he’ll do better, now?
Mitch Daniels-place holder for Jeb Bush and even more boring and useless than Pawlenty.; 3/23/11, 1:08 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Newtonians, GREETINGS…Mr. Gingrich supported a No-Fly Zone on the 7th of March…NOW, he opposes ANY intervention. “We’ve ALWAYS been at war with East Asia.” The man cannot adopt and hold a position…or apparently a wife.; 3/23/11, 1:28 PM
traditionalguy said...: I was so hoping for Cedarford's sake that Palin would announce her Presidential Campaign while she and Todd were dining with the Netanyahus last week in Jerusalem. Once she thinks that she is doing the right thing, that woman cannot be stopped by fear of any political consequences. That is a talent seldom found among politicians and never found in the politically timid College Faculty Departments.; 3/23/11, 1:31 PM
Cedarford said...: Joe said...
(The Crypto Jew)

and the only one who could've beat Barack Obama -- heck, that's true, even if McCain had chosen Romney as his Veep. At least, it would've been close.

To recap: Romney couldn’t beat McCain, but he COULD HAVE BEATEN Obama? You believe this

=========================
Yes, because it is the great flaw in Party Primaries. Sometimes they pick an unelectable candidate over a far stronger one. McCain was a disaster. In 2004, Dems bypassed several people who likely would have beaten the obviously bumbling Bush - but picked the one person so disliked and Massachusetts liberal elite that Bush had a chance.

Then braindead Republican "base" also gave us Sharron Angle, the one person more disliked in Nevada than Harry Reid...and perky and highly unelectable Christine O'Donnell..in 2010.

They also scorned 3 "strong take charge women" , all with more brains than Palin - rejecting Meg Whitman, Fiorina, and Linda MacMahon.

Romney would have ran better than McCain. Heck, even cursed with his last name Jeb, could have run better.; 3/23/11, 1:38 PM
cubanbob said...: The only question is if there is a plausibly republican candidate out there who could possibly be worse than Obama? While individual republicans, conservative and lbertarians have their personal favorites there is no candidate on the right so bad that they would abstain from voting or vote instead for Obama; 3/23/11, 1:43 PM
Dustin said...: "The only question is if there is a plausibly republican candidate out there who could possibly be worse than Obama? "

I'm pretty sure the primary process is asking a different question.

But a lot of Republicans would be unable to vote for Huckabee over Obama.; 3/23/11, 1:50 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

conservative and lbertarians have their personal favorites there is no candidate on the right so bad that they would abstain from voting or vote instead for Obama

Huckabee or Newt…Sorry. Schmuckabee is NOT a Conservative OR a L/libertarian. The ONLY “conservative” position he had in 2008 was the Flat Tax. He’s a “compassionate conservative”, i.e. a Big Government Conservative…he won’t repeal ObamaCare, he’ll “fix it” because we DESERVE Health Care. He doesn’t mind meddling in your diet, he thinks Government can make you a “better person.” He supported in-state tuition for Illegals in Arkansas. He’d be only marginally less bad than Obama, but tar Conservatism and /l/Libertarianism with his failures, just like Booosh is an “example” of what “Conservatives” do to America. So no, I really don’t think I’d vote for Huckabee…

Gingrich, no way…he can’t administer, he NEVER has…and he’s so D@mned smart, so much smarter than that Palin Wench, that he’d adopt 3 different positions on an issue in as many years, and manage to alienate everyone….on the plus side, we’d no doubt get to have a Presidential White House Wedding sometime during his first term, as Callista goes under the bus and Newt hooks up with the White House Pastry Chef or some such.; 3/23/11, 1:53 PM
Dustin said...: In fact, at some point, the GOP voters need to ask "what's the point?"

Our nation is heading for disaster, financially. The GOP is generally offering very weak, almost fake, reforms on this count. When they actually have power, they even increase domestic spending.

Our primary process is hopelessly broken, denying a lot of people, such as TEXANS for example, any say in our nominee. The result is awful candidates.

If the GOP nominates Romney or Huckabee, I think we should seriously consider whether there is any reason for the GOP to exist. I usually balk at purists, but it's urgent that we drastically reform entitlements.

I can live with any number of moderate Republicans, so long as they are focused seriously on reforming entitlement spending.

Being better than Obama is not going to cut it, because Obama is not actually the real threat to our country's future so much as our debt (which I realize he and his allies have greatly added to); 3/23/11, 1:55 PM
Scott M said...: Being better than Obama is not going to cut it, because Obama is not actually the real threat to our country's future so much as our debt (which I realize he and his allies have greatly added to)

Rhetorical pretzel with sea salt and cheddar.; 3/23/11, 2:04 PM
Thorley Winston said...: BUT, 2008 was Romney's election, not 2012. I backed him then, and won't this time. He was the strongest person running in 2008, of either party, and I think would have done the best job as President. But his time has past.

I agree, picking either Romney or Palin in 2012 is a little bit too much like “it’s my turn now” and that’s never worked out well in the past for Republicans.

Gingrich unfortunately seems to have high negatives and while he’s great at articulating policy positions, he’s also comes across as being a panderer. Also I think he’s got the worst of both worlds in terms of his political experience – his last job was as Speaker of the House which tags him with the “insider” label and it was over ten years ago which makes him somewhat stale politically. Also being forced out by the people closest to him doesn’t exactly speak well of his leadership skills and executive experience.

My preference is for a governor with a track record of handling difficult problems successfully. Obama’s no longer going to have his lack of executive experience hanging over his head since he’s been President for nearly four years. What we’re going to have to do is find someone who can persuasively make the case that Obama’s done a pretty terrible job as President (pretty self-evident IMO but you still have to make the case) and the candidate running against him has a track record showing that s/he would likely do a better job than the incumbent. I’m not worried if they’re tagged as “boring” because by the time 2012 rolls around, I think voters will prefer boring but competent to “hope and change.”; 3/23/11, 2:33 PM
Thorley Winston said...: If the GOP nominates Romney or Huckabee, I think we should seriously consider whether there is any reason for the GOP to exist. I usually balk at purists, but it's urgent that we drastically reform entitlements.

I can live with any number of moderate Republicans, so long as they are focused seriously on reforming entitlement spending.

Let me just say “amen” and “AMEN!”

Entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) used to be the long-term problem but one or all of them is likely to implode during the presidential term. If a candidate isn’t willing to campaign on entitlement spending and by “campaign” I don’t mean “briefly mention it” but actually make it front and center to their campaign, it’s a pretty good sign that they’ll accomplish as little with it as Bush 43 did.; 3/23/11, 2:37 PM
vbspurs said...: Gingrich unfortunately seems to have high negatives and while he’s great at articulating policy positions, he’s also comes across as being a panderer.

Bullseye.

Newt on Scozzafava:

"She's [Dede Scozzafava] dramatically better than the Democrat. She's not the person I would have nominated. She's not the person who fits my values 100%, but she is a heck of a lot better than the liberal Democrat. If you want to have a conservative majority in Washington, part of that majority's going to make you uncomfortable."

No, Newt. Scozzafavva isn't better than a Democrat, because SHE IS a Democrat.

That decision to back her REALLY disappointed me.; 3/23/11, 2:41 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

I’m not worried if they’re tagged as “boring” because by the time 2012 rolls around, I think voters will prefer boring but competent to “hope and change.”

I hear that all the time…people will be tired of hope and change…what gets people to vote is being FIRED UP…no one votes for or buys the “adequate” product…..

And I’m a bit puzzled about how Palin is to be viewed as a 2008 has-been…she was the VEEP candidate…this shot out she’ll be THE candidate. True if she doesn’t win in 2012, I wouldn’t support her in 2016-you only get one bite at the apple.

Lastly here’s the thing about “boring” GOP candidates…there’s no “upside”. Obama/Kerry/Gore whomever will be facing Satan Incarnate…a person who will be beholden to the Religious Right, and all that entails…back-room abortions, gays forced to go back into the closet, womyn seeing all their gains of the last 50 years eroded, dirty air, dirty water, unsafe food, working families seeing even LESS economic justice, health care and college for the Ivy League elite but not for Middle America, the rich getting richer. The nation will be at the mercy of Jesus Freaks and the Koch Brothers!

On the GOP side, a boring candidate will de-energize the Base….some more than others. Bob Dole, Mitch Daniels, spring to mind…well truth-to-tell John McCain. Pawlenty, not so much, but he’s still a piece of white bread.

Net Result: the usual voting blocs for the Democrat and fewer votes for Mr./Ms. Safe and Competent from the Base…Obama wins second term.; 3/23/11, 2:47 PM
Sixty Bricks said...: If.; 3/23/11, 2:48 PM
Dustin said...: "On the GOP side, a boring candidate will de-energize the Base….some more than others. Bob Dole, Mitch Daniels, spring to mind…well truth-to-tell John McCain. Pawlenty, not so much, but he’s still a piece of white bread."

bob dole and John Mccain have almost nothing in common with Mitch Daniels.

I realize a lot of Palin's fans are very threatened by Daniels, but you shouldn't be. Let them both argue it out in the debate. Palin will be tough to beat, but Daniels is a very successful governor. He's got a lot of experience, including in the White House. He has been intelligently noting that the debt is a priority.

He also is tone deaf sometimes, conveying the fact that the debt is more important than DADT or whatever, and in a way that ticks off a lot of people. I hope he improves his message, but the idea behind it is excellent.

He is a balding shorter guy, but rhetorically he is not boring at all. His problem is kinda the opposite of that.

Palin does not have enough experience, even though she's certainly one of the good guys and is much better than most of the contenders. I think most reasonable conservatives can see the great good in both Palin and Daniels, neither of which is perfect.; 3/23/11, 3:17 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

I realize a lot of Palin's fans are very threatened by Daniels, but you shouldn't be.

a) I’m not…the more the merrier…let him make his case.
b) What I say is that the “Truce” is a bad idea. And why would I vote for a truce on Abortion/Baby Murder and dealing with the Debt (Daniels) when I can have BOTH in Palin…No Baby Murder AND Debt Issues???
c) Lastly Daniels supported a VAT…Supported tax increases as the first solution to Indiana’s problems
d) Daniels hasn’t spoken on ½ of the issues Palin has, oil, Middle East, and the like. In short, she has a position beyond Social Truces and Doing Something About the Debt, which BTW, any POTUS will be forced to deal with. Obama may have wanted to “fundamentally transform America” and pass ObamaCare but he has also been forced to deal with Egypt and Libya. My point is Plain, unlike Daniels shows she’s thought about being POTUS more fully.
I’d wax eloquent on why the “truce” is a bad idea, but I’ll just leave it here.; 3/23/11, 3:26 PM
Dustin said...: Joe, what in the world does "the crypto jew" mean?

You have a point that Daniels, being in office, with tremendous responsibilities and critical tasks to do all the time, is not as free as Palin to opine on everything. There is something liberating about not holding office, but Daniels has to work with a legislature to get REAL REFORM in his state.

He's done a lot, and is years ahead on issues including some public union issues.

I appreciate Palin for being a great critic of Obama's policies, but that's not Daniels's top priority, since he is a governor who has to negotiate and work in the nitty gritty.

Daniels will succeed or fail as a candidate in the GOP debates, vs people like Palin. I do not know yet if he is viable, but I do know a lot of people bash him gratuitously because he is the perfect argument against Palin. Daniels was reelected. He reformed in a lasting way. He has tremendous experience. He has the bona fides on fiscal policies.

A whole lot of people want someone with Palin's convictions, but with more experience. Being President is extremely difficult, requiring a lot of skills that are not innate, but rather learned over many years.

If either of them are our nominee, we're doing much better than we've done in so many years. I just see a lot of unfair shots taken at both Palin and Daniels (probably from opposing camps to some extent) and think we should brush that crap off.; 3/23/11, 3:32 PM
Cedarford said...: From Steve Kornacki, Salon:

Haley Barbour, for instance, with his inflammatory racial history, might conceivably give swing voters pause in a race against America's first black president. And Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin customarily score horribly on basic poll questions about competence and likability; even with a unified party trying to shield them, they'd struggle in the fall. But the fact that Republicans are aware of these electoral liabilities makes it unlikely that the party will end up nominating Barbour, Palin or Gingrich. More likely is that the GOP will turn to, say, Mitt Romney. His biggest flaw within the GOP -- past support for an individual healthcare mandate in Massachusetts -- probably won't count for much after the GOP convention. Sure, Democrats would use it to paint him as a flip-flopper. But as Clinton proved in '92, the country will happily elect a flip-flopper -- if he's challenging an unpopular president weighted down by a bad economy.

The imagined strength of the infantile "He's a flip flopper a flip flopper! A no-good lousy flip-flopper. Nah nah tah nah na! " charge is that the person changing their position either lacks strength of conviction or lacked the superior judgement of someone "right from the start" or had a minimal record of only 2 years in office or no experience whatsoever.

It is an even better infantile taunt when everyone is smugly status quo and convinced that purity entails fidelity to ancient party beliefs, no matter what has changed in the last several decades that should affect that ideology.
Dems in 1970 - "The New Deal is perfect and I have believed unchangingly since I was 6 years old in liberalism".
Republicans similar....

Chances are 2011 will show candidates forced to address entitlements and other sacred cows that most went on record repeatedly as pledging "never to touch". Obligated to flip-flop, as a matter of common sense in direly changed circumstances.; 3/23/11, 3:34 PM
Scott M said...: Joe, what in the world does "the crypto jew" mean?

All the zombie apocalypse / EMP end-of-the-world types use that phrase.; 3/23/11, 3:35 PM
Scott M said...: @C4

Sorry, Barbour might be the bees knees, but I seriously doubt an older white guy with a strong Southern drawl is going to go over well against you know who.; 3/23/11, 3:37 PM
Joe said...: Joe, what in the world does "the crypto jew" mean?

It's to distinguish him from the less handsome, but smarter Joe who also posts here (though we are both still smarter than all of you.) At one point we had four Joe's posting. Perhaps more--any dumb posts from "Joe" aren't us, but imposters.; 3/23/11, 3:38 PM
Franklin said...: I'm voting against Obama. Will vote for whoever has the most likely chance of beating him.; 3/23/11, 3:41 PM
Dustin said...: "It's to distinguish him from the less handsome, but smarter Joe who also posts here (though we are both still smarter than all of you.) At one point we had four Joe's posting. Perhaps more--any dumb posts from "Joe" aren't us, but imposters."

OK. Fair enough. I have no quarrel with cryptology or the Jewish people.

What's funny is that before I forgot my login my handle here was "slow joe".; 3/23/11, 3:50 PM
blake said...: What needs to be done won't take a high IQ. It took a high IQ (lots of them) to get us into this mess, while coming up with rationalizations as to how we weren't really in a mess at all.

It's going to take strength, courage, resoluteness, clarity, faith and humility.

Cunning, cleverness, cuteness and niceness need not apply.; 3/23/11, 4:05 PM
Greg's Blog said...: I guess he really wants to President.; 3/23/11, 4:20 PM
victoria said...: What a bag of hot air!

Vicki; 3/23/11, 4:58 PM
Carol_Herman said...: "Eggheads Unite! You have nothing to lose but your yolks." So said Aldai Stevenson. And, he lost to Eisenhower, twice.

Americans didn't want to elect an intellectual. Or what would be called someone with a very big brain. (A high IQ)

That's not why "Mittens" fails.

Heck, Karl Rove has just learned it wouldn't be wise to run Jeb Bush up to the nomination.; 3/23/11, 5:42 PM
Simon said...: Franklin said...
"I'm voting against Obama. Will vote for whoever has the most likely chance of beating him."

Which is not and will not be Sarah Palin. Polls routinely and consistently find that a majority of independents can't stand her, and that simply isn't going to change, no matter how ardent her supporters' devotion. This is not like 1980, when polls showed Carter ahead; the world has changed, the information landscape has changed, and the nature of public opinion vis-à-vis Palin and Obama is radically different.; 3/23/11, 6:35 PM
Kirby Olson said...: What the country needs is someone with some business sense who can say no to illegals, no to further nuclear power plants on fault lines, no to Obamacare, no to liaisons with underlings in underthings.; 3/23/11, 7:27 PM
Milwaukie guy said...: This has been one of the best discussions I've read here in a while. Very thoughtful and few libtard trolling.

I like Palin a lot too but I'm afraid too many moderate and liberal women just viscerally hate her.

wv: croti: what I get after a few days camping in the Cascades.; 3/23/11, 7:41 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Simon,

Which is not and will not be Sarah Palin. Polls routinely and consistently find that a majority of independents can't stand her, and that simply isn't going to change, no matter how ardent her supporters' devotion.

Yes it will. They'll have no choice. They have no choice. It's Palin or Obama - as stark a choice as you can get. We know what one will get us, and nobody wants more of,...this.

Palin's the only way out.

As someone said earlier, with Palin we get it all.; 3/23/11, 7:52 PM
Simon said...: The Crack Emcee, that's a staggeringly blinkered view which confuses your own opinions for those of America at large. There are a lot of Americans who still like Obama; there are even more once you add in the Democrats who will vote for Obama no matter how angry they are with him, and there is a majority once you add in the independents who might not like Obama but who can't stand Palin.

With Palin, we get Obama's second term.; 3/23/11, 7:58 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Cubanbob said:
"The only question is if there is a plausibly republican candidate out there who could possibly be worse than Obama"

Thread winner!; 3/23/11, 8:38 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Joe:

I've heard & listened to Palin. She does not know how to shut the f up. She just keeps talking ad talking. She can't answer simple questions succinctly unless it is one she expected and has a snappy soundbite ready. And yet I still like her but not for president.; 3/23/11, 8:41 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Joe, by what means does President Palin end abortion?; 3/23/11, 10:09 PM
Peter Hoh said...: A whole lot of people want someone with Palin's convictions, but with more experience.

T-Paw is wildly waving his hand. "Pick me! Pick me!"; 3/23/11, 10:12 PM
Peter Hoh said...: I can see Romney beating Obama. I just can't see him getting the nomination.

And if Palin decides to run, I think the nomination is hers. Unlike the rest of the field, she has enthusiastic supporters.

The only question is, will she run?; 3/23/11, 10:21 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree with AJ. I like Palin fine. Senator Palin. Governor Palin. Fundraiser Palin. Talk Show Host Palin. But not for president.

And, Peter, there are plenty of people who are Republicans who don't like Palin. The trick is getting them to coalesce around one candidate.

I say she doesn't run, by the way.; 3/23/11, 11:09 PM
former law student said...: Nice backpedal, Mitt.; 3/24/11, 12:32 AM
former law student said...: What the country needs is someone with some business sense who can say no to illegals

*head explodes*

kirby: business loves illegals because they work cheap and they don't complain about their working conditions because if they did they'd be on the next bus back to Guadalajara.

The search for cheap labor informs all of American history.; 3/24/11, 12:35 AM
Peter Hoh said...: If Palin decides not to run, here's hoping that Michelle Bachmann runs as the authentic Tea Party candidate.

It would be great theater.; 3/24/11, 12:37 AM
former law student said...: I was talking about FLS - Former Law Student. He maintains that babies should be aborted if no one will care for them.

I can't parse that so it resembles anything I've typed. But nice example ("babies") of begging the question.; 3/24/11, 12:42 AM
AST said...: Read the whole statement. He says the E.O. would just be the head start on repealing the whole thing.

wv: undorse - when you change your mind about a candidate; 3/24/11, 2:23 AM
Fen said...: I was talking about FLS - Former Law Student. He maintains that babies should be aborted if no one will care for them.

FLS: I can't parse that so it resembles anything I've typed.

On the abortion thread, your justification for murdering them was that no one would support them.

Thats your Health Care plan too, yes? Grandma is all alone and a drain on the system, so kill her off.; 3/24/11, 9:42 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Simon,

The Crack Emcee, that's a staggeringly blinkered view which confuses your own opinions for those of America at large.

No, I'm an old hand, who's rarely lost an election - Obama being a major exception - so I realize today's polls have nothing to do with tomorrow's realities. I'm merely watching the landscape, without rose colored glasses, and see nothing to stand in her way if she wants it.**

There are a lot of Americans who still like Obama; there are even more once you add in the Democrats who will vote for Obama no matter how angry they are with him, and there is a majority once you add in the independents who might not like Obama but who can't stand Palin.

Just as disliking Palin won't keep her from losing the White House, liking Obama won't help him to keep it. He's incompetent, and anyone can see it. When it's time to vote, Americans are going to check their bank accounts before anybody's approval ratings, and ask themselves if they want more of the same. It's just not fashionable to say anything good about Palin, but her record, and devotion to the welfare of the country, stands for itself. When the choice has to be made, Obama - after 4 years in office - will have nothing to stand on but pissing us off. Political practicality will trump whatever personal popularity clings to being the first black president. Not to mention, those that like Obama "like" him, but we "love" Sarah - with a passion.

With Palin, we get Obama's second term.

Nope. Can't happen. Look, imagine election day, and you have two choices:

A guy you kind of like, but he's brought you and your family nothing but grief, vs. a woman you can't stand, but she's got a record of turning things around and promises to do so for you.

Who are you going to choose - in private - when you have to make that choice?

** Michelle Bachmann is complicating, but I can see her and Sarah hooking up, so I'm not too concerned. That's win-win for conservatives.; 3/24/11, 7:21 PM
Simon said...: The Crack Emcee said...
"I'm merely watching the landscape, without rose colored glasses, and see nothing to stand in her way if she wants it."

Right, my problem is that I'm just too darn optimistic about Palin's chances, that I put the best possible spin on things.

"He's incompetent, and anyone can see it."

Not everyone does see that. I happen to agree with you that he is, but you can't just take your opinions—or even factually accurate observations—and impute them into the electorate as a whole. Doing that is probably why you didn't see Obama winning. I mean, who took the man seriously? I thought he was a joke candidate until he won Iowa, and as the months wore on, I've got to tell you that I thought the whole thing was an elaborate prank: How else to reconcile the fawning press with the mundane reality? He isn't articulate, and anyone can hear that, I thought! But they didn't. The voters liked him better than they liked McCain/Palin, even though anyone could see that he was a stupid choice. Sometimes good people make stupid choices, you know? And they did. And they will again if we don't give them a better option.

"[With Palin, we get Obama's second term?] Nope. Can't happen."

Oh, it absolutely can happen. It can. And if we nominate Palin, it will. I would tell you to wait and see, but the stakes are too high—too much rides on this election to let people off the hook that easily. Nominate Palin, and Obama wins. And that's not because I don't like her (I do) or because I don't think she'd be a good President (she would) or because I don't want her to be President (I'd love it). It's because you can't make these assesments about how America will vote based on the assumption that you and your thinking are representative of America at large, that all Americans share your opinions, presuppositions, and common sense. If that intuition held true, Barack Obama would be the answer to the trivia question "which Democratic candidate was crushed 587 to nothing by President McCain in the 2008 election."

"Who are you going to choose - in private - when you have to make that choice?

I know which I would choose, and which you would choose; I also know which the Democrats will choose. What your comment misses is that we aren't the ones who will decide the question. The election will turn on people like Althouse—swing voters. Put down the blinkers and talk to independents about Palin, or look at her poll numbers with independents. Those folks can't stand her, and on election day, they aren't going to change their minds. Even if they share your premise (which is dubious), they will bet that things will get better under Obama.; 3/25/11, 8:30 AM