Governor Charlie Crist of Florida has indicated that he is in favor of President Obama’s stimulus plan, while leaving himself some wiggle room by saying it has to “be done right.” While this may not be an explicit endorsement of the plan, it surely isn’t an expression of opposition. This is probably the first issue that will divide the potential 2012 candidates, although most will be against it, and it’s possible that the remaining will find some way to say they didn’t really support it.
Republicans need to be careful not to become the party of “no.” Every criticism of the plan must be followed by an endorsement of an alternative plan. The truth is that the American people, while a majority do not favor the stimulus bill, have faith in President Obama and in my opinion, are simply looking for credible leadership and decisive action, even if they are not entirely satisfied with such action.
They want to know something is being done, and something big enough to prove that our elected officials understand the pain being felt and the gravity of the situation. They want to identify with their leaders, and that’s part of the reason President Obama was and is successful. They also want to know the government is constantly thinking and constantly working. Time will tell if the Republicans are viewed as the “party of no,” simply being the alternative in the liberal vs. conservative divide, or if the American people will be able to look at them as offering decisive, fast-moving, problem-solving leadership.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:06 am
I think nearly all of the Governors support the stimulus plan because they desperately need their share of the money to balance their budgets.
Even Palin supports it, to a degree.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:06 am
I live in Florida, voted and supported Governor Christ, NO LONGER! This man is as liberal,and RINO
as they come. He agrees with Global Warming, and actually has passed emmision standards for cars in the
state, and NOW THIS. So him, and the governor of Cali are going to set federal emmision standards for the
republic? I don’t think so. It’s him, and the Austrian guy who are destroying the conservative wing
of the republican party. Although, I’m not sure that wing still exists.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:06 am
Governor Christ, Kyle?
January 31st, 2009 at 9:08 am
The man supports reparations for slavery, for God’s sake.
I mean, there’s just an underlying philosophical problem there that cannot be reconciled.
He really stretches the limits of the Big Tent sometimes.
There are legitimate RINOs out there (such as Arlen Specter, whose approval rating in Pennsylvania is higher amongst Democrats than amongst Republicans). Even I can admit that.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:09 am
My Bad
January 31st, 2009 at 9:11 am
Ryan – I think you meant to say Gov Crist was “leaving himself” some wiggle room not “living” himself. I’m surprised Alex didn’t jump on you for that.
And yes – Gov Crist is, certainly, on the fringes of the GOP but if that’s how we keep a governor’s mansion, then so be it. Now is not the time to jettison anyone from the party.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:12 am
That’s the problem though. It’s the RINO’s that are the problem with the conservative wing of the
republican party. Until the repub’s show a conservative backbone, there is not a chance in you know
what that they’ll get control of any branches of the gov’t.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:13 am
Well, I suggest running people like Specter in places like Vermont.
Specter is a take-what-you-can-get kind of Republican. If he votes with us 30-40% of the time, whatever — we’ll take it. We can’t do any better.
That’s the sort of play we have to make in Vermont.
But Florida is friendly enough to conservatism that we don’t need to run people like that.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:14 am
Er, meant to add that Pennsylvania is, too.
We need to run Specter types in the statewide races in the Northeast only.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:14 am
Great Call Alex. Absolutely.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:14 am
I’ll support CHRIST, but not Crist : )
January 31st, 2009 at 9:16 am
Sadly, there are people delusional enough as to think that we don’t need to do that.
I asked Sen. Coburn about that a few months ago during an event down here at my university.
I told him that he could never win in Maine, so what’s his deal with turning his guns on people like Snowe (whom he called “a liberal,” which is a pile of s~~~)?
And he said that he disagrees; that he thinks that we can win with Coburn types in the Northeast as long as they’re effective.
D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L.
He also said that he wouldn’t want Lieberman in the party even if he wanted to caucus with the GOP.
He’s a Secret Club GOP’er.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:21 am
That’s the problem that were having down in the south. We have all these northeastern people
moving down here that are bringing their liberal views with them which is skews the voting. So in
a conservative state like Florida, we go from red to blue.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:47 am
As much as I dislike Huckabee, he is higher than Crist on my list. Hey, I’m a poet and don’t know it; Mitt’s much better and he’s going to show it!
January 31st, 2009 at 10:52 am
Crist’s approval ratings in Florida according to Kos is 65/23.
Jindal with a straight face said that he would have voted against the stimulus package before the House but at the same time, is accepting billions of dollars for his state from the package. This is pure showboating on Jindal’s part.
Even Sanford has been browbeat into accepting money. Palin was getting pounded for turning down money but she’s in DC I suppose to do something and I suppose will take whatever is offered.
January 31st, 2009 at 10:58 am
Tommy Boy,
Palin is taking the money, she said so. She wants it, but wants to make sure they don’t start projects that cannot be finished when the federal money runs out, and she wants it for infrastructure only – which leaves a lot of wiggle room.
BTW – Palin was a huge porker as mayor and governor. Maybe it’s a given in a state like Alaska. But nevertheless, she loved the gravy train, until recently. She’s got Rush to impress so I’m sure she’ll clean up her act. That’s a good thing.
Remember the Bridge to Nowhere? Palin was all for it until it became obviously untenable. But don’t forget that when the $400 mil came for the bridge, she kept the money.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:00 am
Tommy, she’s in Washington to build support for 2012. She needs to start relationships. The trip hasd nothing whatsoever to do with Alaska.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:05 am
Ryan, I think you may not be giving the American people enough credit. For the most part, they know the stimulus is a goodie list that wil do practicallhy nothing for the ecomony.
I agree with you that they repubs need to offer alternatives rather than just saying no. They are doing that, but it’s hard to get the press.
Anyway, I’m shouting hallelujah that the repubs said NO this week. I hope it holds in the Senate. Let’s not see another gang of 14-type strategy. We know who’ll be leading the charge if that happens.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:09 am
Jindal with a straight face said that he would have voted against the stimulus package before the House but at the same time, is accepting billions of dollars for his state from the package. This is pure showboating on Jindal’s part.
No it isn’t.
That’s like saying that a person who has an unwanted pregnancy who keeps the baby and takes care of it is being a hypocrite.
Once you’re stuck with it, you need to try and make the best of it.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:10 am
BTW – Palin was a huge porker as mayor and governor. Maybe it’s a given in a state like Alaska. But nevertheless, she loved the gravy train, until recently. She’s got Rush to impress so I’m sure she’ll clean up her act. That’s a good thing.
Nope. You’re wrong on this, Martha. Palin cut earmarks.
In Alaska, it is a given. Alaska was still #1 in earmarks, but there was only so much Palin could do to cut things down.
I do give her credit on her budgeting policy. She’s been good on that.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:13 am
Alex, I read somewhere that when Palin became mayor, she hired someone specifically to get as much pork from Washington as possible. I can’t remember the amount, but it was outrageous for the small number of people living in Wasilla.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:14 am
She did keep the money for the Bridge to Nowhere.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:16 am
I am aware of this, but during her tenure as governor, she has cut earmarks, overall. Let’s give credit where credit is due.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:18 am
Charlie Crist is gay, anyway. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but i doubt a gay republican is going to get the nomination
January 31st, 2009 at 11:19 am
Crist is married.
Yes, yes, that doesn’t necessarily mean anything, but he is married
January 31st, 2009 at 11:20 am
Alex – I think we need to run Steele-types in NH and probably Maine. NH is the most libertarian of the New England states so a “government hands-off” type of conservatism is what will sell up there. Maine is pretty liberal (all things considered) and Vermont is ,solidly, the most liberal kooky state in the union so Specter-type Republicans are what that those 2 states probably need.
We seem to be having some success with Carcieri in RI, so he just needs to pick his successor to insure continued success in that state. I don’t know anything about CT, except that is where Lieberman is from, so I won’t comment.
Mass is a political black hole. This is the state that voted against a tax decrease for themselves handily. They are a very affluent state, so my thought is that there is a lot of “white liberal guilt” in the Bay State that influences their voting patterns. I don’t know what to do for the GOP in Mass.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:23 am
This ticks me off, GOP governors are pressing congress to pass the stimulus bill:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_go_pr_wh/stimulus_gop_governors
Of course they would want federal dollars to help their respective states. But this is exactly the problem with our society today, thinking we can gift ourselves gifts out of the federal treasury without consequence.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:29 am
GOP Governors pushing for stimulus bill:
* Florida Governor, Charlie Crist
* Vermont Governor, Jim Douglas
* Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin
GOP Governors against the stimulus bill:
* Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal
* South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanford
* Mississippi Governor, Haley Barbour
* Minnesota Governor, Tim Pawlenty
I’m sure there are more on both sides. Of course as a governor, you would accept ‘free money’, but there’s a difference between accepting it once it’s already approved and pushing for it or fighting against it now while it’s still conceptual.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:34 am
No there’s not emtee; it’s all bunch of show and tell from the GOP governors. They’re playing for the cameras.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:34 am
Good for Sanford.
“It’s incumbent on me as one of the nation’s governors to speak out against what I believe is ultimately incredibly harmful to the economy, to taxpayers and to the worth of the U.S. dollar,” Sanford said in an interview. “This plan is a huge mistake and is going to prolong and deepen this recession.”
Sanford outlined his concerns in December when the then-president-elect met with governors in Philadelphia to discuss the stimulus proposal. Sanford said he had heard nothing from the White House since then.
Associates say Sanford, who recently was elected chairman of the Republican Governors Association, has been disappointed in how few of his GOP colleagues have joined him in speaking out against the size and scope of Obama’s plan.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is widely viewed as a potential presidential contender in 2012, said governors have little choice but to accept the relief being offered. “States have to balance their budgets,” he said. “So if we’re going to go down this path, we are entitled to ask for our share of the money.”
But Pawlenty expressed reservations about the cost of the plan and its impact on the federal deficit, which has already grown to over $1 trillion.
“I’m quite concerned about the federal government spending money it doesn’t have,” Pawlenty said. “We’re on an unsustainable path of deficit spending and borrowing.”
January 31st, 2009 at 11:35 am
As far as I am concerned Jim Douglas can do whatever he wants. Keeping a Repub in the VT Statehouse is a miracle. Let’s just take him for what he is and be thankful we have a Repub Governor in such a barren wasteland (politically speaking – the state is quite beautiful, actually).
January 31st, 2009 at 11:36 am
Tommy – of course there’s a difference. The American people need to see Republicans standing on sound economic principle.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:37 am
Why are you ‘Marthas dead right’? What is that supposed to mean? Are you the old ‘Martha’?
January 31st, 2009 at 11:37 am
The unwanted pregnancy analogy is terrible Alex; when you find out you are pregnant, it comes as a complete surprise. Jindal is saying this stuff while knowing full well that his state is in line to receive billions of dollars. That him, Sanford, and Pawlenty can say that with a straight face is completely laughable.
Sanford is the biggest culprit in my opinion; he pulls this stuff each time, saying he won’t take federal money until the last second when he takes federal money. See his recent dispute regarding applying for a federal loan. He got his drudge headline and then went ahead and applied for the federal loan at the last minute, which most people didn’t notice. Pure politics on the side of Jindal, Pawlenty, and Sanford. No one’s hands are clean.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:39 am
Yes. Someone said that the other day and I thought it was funny so I changed my name. Nothing serious.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:41 am
I’ll preface too that I’m disappointed in Palin; she was getting hit by her legislators and Begich for not requesting more money and it sounds like she’s folding.
The rest of the guys, I stand by my criticism. Funniest dog and pony show that I’ve seen in quite some time. If you are opposed to the stimulus because it’ll do more harm to the economy, why are you taking part in doing that harm? Nobody is forcing them to take the money and yet they are badmouthing that money going to states while taking that same money they are badmouthing.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:41 am
That’s not the whole story about Sanford, Tommy, if I remember right. I’ll look it up.
You’re just making excuses for Palin, here.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:43 am
“Expressed reservations”? hahah, pretty funny Tim, you don’t seem to be expressing much reservation about using that money to balance your budget.
That’s the key question, how many of these governors need this money to balanced their budgets or are relying on the money to balance it?
In Palin’s defense, she doesn’t need federal money to balance her budget for the upcoming year
January 31st, 2009 at 11:45 am
Martha, everyone is doing the same thing as Crist; everyone is taking every dollar that is going their way but some want to go mug for the cameras and try to fool people that they aren’t taking money. Haley is pretty funny; he hasn’t decided whether he’ll take money? Pretty funny considering his legislators are all saying they’re waiting for the federal money to come because they want to sell his jet.
I’m concerned about the national debt and yet, I will accept this money myself so I can contribute more to the national debt. That’s what Sanford, Jindal, and Pawlenty are all doing. Talk is so cheap that you might as well not say anything.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:49 am
Should we add Eric Cantor to the left-hand side yet; these are all strikes against the governor since all of them are accepting money, even those that are talking up a good game and playing for the cameras.
Whatever Huckabee and Romney say is inconsequential since neither of them has any actual responsibility right now to any state.
Cantor has been one the most outspoken opponents of the bill; we may be entering a new age in politics where Senators and Congresspersons are now the front-runners given how DC focused the press corps is. I could go for Cantor over my lady if his leadership in the House remains strong.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:50 am
I don’t have any problem to suppor liberals republicans in blue states or moderate republicans in swing states as long any of them begin to looking for the presidency. No more Rinos for president, McCain is enough.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:57 am
Falz – great point about RINOs running for President.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:04 pm
On a lighter note, this is an aside to Martha’s dead right:
For what it is worth, I am reminded of that old poem every time I see your new moniker.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“I don’t have any problem to suppor liberals republicans in blue states or moderate republicans in swing states as long any of them begin to looking for the presidency. No more Rinos for president, McCain is enough.”
I’ll support moderate Republicans in blue states out of unfortunate necessity. I wrote a thing about this in the other thread, I’ll repost it here:
“Parties are loosing their ideological identities (say that three times fast) – we now have pro-choice Republicans as bad as any Democrat, and pro-life Democrats who are to the right of many Republicans? You don’t see a problem there? The more the two parties mix, the more Democrats gain in the south by running blue dogs, and the more Republicans gain in the Northeast by running leftists, the more political parties become less about a political debate and more about two self-serving entities just trying to hold power in as many places as possible.
If you ask me, the best thing for the country would be a realignment that puts the conservatives in the GOP where they belong, and the liberals in the DNC where they belong. Neither party would really experience a loss of seats, but we WOULD have more solid, unified parties, fewer internal divisions, and it would be a lot easier to have true ideological debate.”
If you ask me, parties are losing their character and straying from their principles because of this ideological mixing that is going on.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Oh really, Matthew?
Where do I belong?
January 31st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
McCain’s not a RINO!
He’s as stalwart as they come on national security, and a conservative pragmatist domestically, willing to break with the party now and then to push compromises.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Yeah, how is McCain a RINO?
January 31st, 2009 at 12:17 pm
McCain is no RINO; he’s pretty solid, just bad on global warming but he did flip on his cap-and-trade proposal (no longer mandatory). He’s bad on interrogation techniques, campaign finance, but he’s good on Medicare Part D, earmarks, spending, and of course, was one of the architects of the surge and that alone, earns him a spot in the Hall of Fame for me.
Hell, the guy had the balls to vote against SCHIP.
I’m one of the few people who still loves McCain/Palin. The two could have really been a transcendent team in the White House; pushing for a balanced budget was the smart tack to take and I’m disappointed they didn’t press that point more on the campaign trail.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I vote we ban the term ‘RINO’. Its only definition appears to be, “He’s a Republican that I disagree with.” Totally meaningless.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:25 pm
“If you ask me, parties are losing their character and straying from their principles because of this ideological mixing that is going on.”
I think the relevant principles, far from getting blurred, are getting redefined. Fiscal conservatism now more than even marks a sharp divide. Like I said in another thread on this one the moderates and conservatives have come together strongly, with even a bit of conservative Dem support. The culture wars are old news, less relevant to today’s political issues, and thus there’s less orthodoxy.
If you want to divide the country culturally, we will lose every time, by not keeping Republicans who would prefer to work with us on other common issues, and failing to gain Democrats who are culturally conservative, like minorities, because there are more issues than cultural conservatism to vote on.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Alaska city leaders discuss energy, economic relief
The governor said she’s going to Washington, D.C., this weekend to see what can be done to accommodate Alaska’s unique circumstances.
Palin lying low during Washington trip
Palin is traveling to Washington to lobby senators to approve certain infrastructure projects for Alaska in the economic stimulus package.
Democrats question delay in retrieving e-mails
Palin pushes Enstar gas line proposal
January 31st, 2009 at 12:51 pm
There are still questions, but I have a problem when we’ve got strong pro-lifers or anti-tax advocated in the DNC, and hardened abortion supporters and fiscal liberals in the GOP.
Do you people really not see a problem with that? How are we supposed to remain a Conservative party when, until a year or so ago, we had people like Bloomberg as some of the most well known Republicans?
Its the same thing with McCain – our party is becoming less conservative. For the second time in three open GOP contests, we picked an old, boring moderate, and lost.
Until the party gets back to true conservative principles – pro-life, pro-family, pro-business, pro-military, and all the other things we’ve strayed on, we aren’t going to recover.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Aron, okay. Palin did say she’s going for Alaska. But we know she’s primarily there for the Alfalfa Club Dinner – she even said she’s going because Obama will be there. In all the articles I read about her trip, one thing is clear: She is going to Washington to begin building support for 2012. To believe otherwise is naive at best. Of course Alaska is the official reason.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Aron, here is the quote from your link:
“She also announced earlier this week she’s making the 4,500-mile trek from Alaska to Washington primarily to attend the Alfalfa Club Dinner — an annual closed-door roast of the nation’s political elite.”
She’s going to hob-knob with movers in the party.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Martha, I stated on another thread. Don’t begrudge the lady doing her job just because it has the additional benefit of helping her in 2012. Building relationships with the powerful in such settings as the Alfalfa Club Dinner IS part of the job. Like it or not, that is just a fact of life.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Palin is also going to be in a pre-Superbowl ad apparently honoring Alaskan troops.
Remember McCain’s wins in New Hampshire and Florida depended a lot not only on indies and crossover support but from military veterans. I think she’s probably the leader among military veterans since there is a lot of crossover between so-called social conservative types and military veterans.
Back to my earlier question, why is Eric Cantor not on the left hand side yet? Those are my two faves, Palin and Cantor.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Daniels is a close third; I think he’s the best governor in the country with the strongest record. Palin and Jindal will have two years to see if they can catchup with him in terms of accomplishments because right now, even as a Palin supporter, both of them are a little over-hyped given their limited time in office. Both have relatively low oil prices to deal with, though the price could climb given who is the President, so we’ll get a first hand comparison as to how two youngsters can deal with tough economic conditions.
My only major knock on Daniels is his apparent support for ethanol subsidies. That’s why I was a big McCain guy, his willingness to go against ethanol subsidies in Iowa.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I agree with Mark in 55.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Okay, okay folks.
If her trip is viewed as a singular thing, you are all right.
But, when you put it into context with the last 3 months, where she’s been aggressively putting herself into the spotlight nationally, she seems to be as concerned with repairing her image and setting up her 2012 run, as she is being governor. And some people in Alaska, including some republicans are saying just that.
Why the SarahPAC this week? There isn’t even any info on the site. The site administrator said they’ll get around to that later. Sure. It feeds the perception that she’s a lightweight. She is plowing through the door. Let’s just call it what it is.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Oh, one more thing.
When Palin was asked about whether or not the PAC was about running in 2012, she said, “Oh no, not at all, not at all, oh no.” Come on.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
doesnt belong here but you gotta hate this kind of thought process in the middle east
“Iran says Obamas offer to talk shows US Failure”
here is the link to the whole read
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.073ba2ee2f1f00668848a4655420fedc.411&show_article=1
January 31st, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Palin is not for the stimulus plan as currently drafted. She’s for a plan, but not the one up. C’mon people, stop spreading lies.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Martha,
You are the governor of a State that is considered a bit of a back-woods place. Governors from your state are traditional left out of the loop. You are never on the A-list to invite. You don’t usually make the B-list. You sometimes don’t even make it to the C-list.
Through a happy set of circumstances, you are now in big demand among the movers and the shakers. You are now at the very top of the A-list, ‘A+’ you might say.
Do you:
(A) Ignore them.
(B) Embrace them.
If you were my governor, I would hope you picked ‘B’. To do ‘A’ would just return things to the status quo. And that would help your state how?
Yes, her activities certainly won’t hurt Palin for 2012, but they certainly aren’t hurting Alaska either. In fact, it is doing her state a great deal of good by opening doors that were solidly nailed shut before.
You begrudge her of taking advantage of that?
January 31st, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Matthew:
“Do you people really not see a problem with that? How are we supposed to remain a Conservative party when, until a year or so ago, we had people like Bloomberg as some of the most well known Republicans?”
No, I honestly don’t, because it’s always been that way. Politics is as dynamic as the electorate – the world in which we live isn’t static, nor is our country. Like I said, the divide of principles isn’t blurring, indeed there will always be a divide, rather it is shifting to reflect new realities. Conservatism as we know it today only came into being following the Carter fiasco some thirty years ago. There were plenty of party conservatives then that were skeptical of the changes, but as with then, ignoring the realities of today by trying to rigidly apply the doctrines of yesterday is a recipe doomed to failure and the surest way to make your principles [u]lose[/u].
I cannot emphasize how much as a party we need a bright, new way forward, not a stale, return to the past. If today’s battles can be won by resurrecting old policy and emphases – ie fiscal conservatism – then excellent, but they are only tools for the present and future, not a collection of conservative nostalgia to be kept around for its own sake. Let’s remake conservatism, her policies and emphasis, to the challenges of today (this does not mean scrapping anyone! Instead rethink how we fight and what we’re fighting for), and you’ll have a conservatism that wins. We won’t bleed suburbanites, make gains from our abysmal levels among minorities by giving them a stake in our party’s future and direction because they indeed are our nation’s future rather than just vote pandering like the Democrats, and hold all our traditional voters because we aren’t going to abandon them. On the contrary, our victory will be the new triumph of their values.
Let me emphasize again, no one is telling anyone to get lost. Rather, we invite them to the table and say, what can you do to help forward our party and our nation?
Can you really blame people for deviating somewhat from past orthodoxy when the times have changed?
January 31st, 2009 at 2:34 pm
MarK – No.
Really, my main point in all of this is that Palin is running for 2012, and some people question if she’s putting Alaska first. I think it’s a fair question in light of all the publicity stunts.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Once again, Matthew’s complete ignorance of history is revealed. Ronald Reagan chose PA Sen. Richard Schweiker to be his running mate in his failed 1976 Republican Primary Campaign. In today’s terms, that would be like a Republican nominee choosing Olympia Snowe as Veep.
In 1980, Regan choose George H.W. Bush who represented, once again, the liberal wing of the GOP. Bush was Pro-Choice up until the moment he was placed on a national ticket.
Reagan knew that he needed to reach out and expand the coalition in order to enact Conservative reform; and as we all know, he had a little bit of success in that area.
So we can chose the model of Ronald Reagan as our guide back to the majority, or we can choose the way of a 17 year-old high-schooler who, apparently, is ignorant of everything that happened in Conservative History before 2004.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
No Kavon, I know full well, that, both times, Reagan choose a moderate as his VP. But I also know the reason. One was to try and salvage a bid to beat ford. The other was to heal primary divisions – and only AFTER Reagan’s first choice turned him down or something like that…
And I realize we can’t ignore the left wing of the party, I was looking for a debate on the merits of HAVING a left wing of the party.
In my view, it would be better if those on the left side of the political divide was in the DNC, while those on the right were in the RNC.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Actually, if my memory is right, Reagan picked Bush as his third choice.
But I’d have to look that up.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:29 pm
John McCain run his campaign not against the democrats but the republican party. The GOP has not candidate, there were two (Obama and McCain) against the GOP, if that not make him a RINO don’t know what could. By the way, he was agaist the Bush Tax Cuts, the infamous Gang of 14, the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold and so on.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:30 pm
But voters are human beings that cannot be placed neatly into little boxes. That’s why political ideology is conceptualized as a spectrum. There isn’t even a consensus as to what issue positions make or exclude someone as a “Liberal” or a “Conservative”.
So for people like you that are not able to grasp the world as it actually is, the result is usually to label every person who doesn’t agree with you 100% as belonging in the opposition’s camp.
This is the path to permanent minority status. Building coalitions, focusing on issues in which we agree, and party expansion is the way back. This is what Reagan did-and it worked.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:43 pm
And I realize we can’t ignore the left wing of the party, I was looking for a debate on the merits of HAVING a left wing of the party.
Yay! Then we won’t even be a regional minority party.
We’ll just…be a non-party, like the Libertarians or something.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:44 pm
#65
She is certainly making all the moves as if she was running. However her actions have the duality of furthering the cause of Alaska and/or conservative Republicans, as well.
Take her new PAC for example. Like it or not, a large number of the most active (and the most likely to open their pocketbooks) members of the GOP are big fans of hers. It is smart of her to tap into that resource. Hey, I might even donate. Up and coming conservative Republicans like her should be encouraged, not squashed just because she might prove to be a possible rival for my favorite candidate in 2012.
You think she should just leave that money on the table? To not try to access those funds and the influence that comes with it would border on stupidity. Sarah Palin is many things, but stupid is not one of them. (Though I have heard her referred to as a bimbo upon occasion. I wonder where?
)
Certainly if she runs in 2012, such a PAC would be of huge benefit. But it will also be a huge benefit now as it increases her ability to help like-minded Republicans whatever her future plans may be.
I can’t help but say, “You go, girl!”
January 31st, 2009 at 3:56 pm
The Democrats own ginormous Congressional majorities precisely because they invited Conservative Democrats back into their party. They would still be in the minority had they not done this. They rebuilt their party from THE BOTTOM UP, not the top down. This rebuilding preceded and enabled Obama’s victory. Every one on Earth grasps this but Act Blog.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I realize that me being a Romney fan might color my observation, but in my opinion one of the reasons McCain lost in 2008 is he didn’t reach out to Romney.
He had two opportunities to do so. The first was asking Romney to be his VP. You can argue the pros and cons until the cows come home, but the fact that Romney had been his biggest, most dangerous rival during the campaign would have helped heal many remaining wounds. It would show once and for all that McCain would put aside personal feelings for the good of the party and country.
He chose Palin and for the first two weeks, it looked like a brilliant choice. Then the economy took a nosedive. Whatever your feelings about Mitt Romney are, you cannot deny that the man is brilliant in knowing how the economy works, and how to fix it. But instead of reaching out to Mitt and including him in his future administration in an economic role, McCain chose to stumble and bumble around for weeks trying to come up with a coherent plan on how to deal with the economic meltdown. He would rather lose an election than give stature to a former rival. And that is precisely what he did.
The point in all this is that we cannot afford to antagonize any wing of the party. We are a coalition. If we chase off the so-cons, fi-cons, and/or def-cons, we might as well get used to the fact that we are going to be in the minority for decades to come.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Now I think you keep calling me Act Blog just to be a jerk….
But really, wouldn’t it be much better if Democrats controlled the liberal areas, and Republicans controlled the conservative areas? Again, I didn’t advocate just kicking out all the moderates. I was looking for opinions on the effects of, essentially, trading the liberal Republicans for the Conservative Democrats.
===
“the result is usually to label every person who doesn’t agree with you 100% as belonging in the opposition’s camp.”
DO you REALLY believe that a pro-life, low-taxes Democrat belongs in the DNC rather than the RNC? Do you really beleive that an anti-war, pro-choice, socialist Republican belongs in the RNC rather than the DNC?
===
You people are completely missing my point. My argument was that things would be a lot better if those left of center were Democrats, while those right of center were Republicans. This is how it is for a lot of people right now, but there are still quite a few exceptions – and, in my mind, that is part of the reason parties seem to be becoming more about power and less about issues and ideology.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“The Democrats own ginormous Congressional majorities precisely because they invited Conservative Democrats back into their party.”
And this, in turn, is going to make it very hard for them to get complete support on issues. Was it you who wrote the article that the big tent strategy is great for getting a majority – but it sucks for actually governing?
—
“They rebuilt their party from THE BOTTOM UP, not the top down. This rebuilding preceded and enabled Obama’s victory.”
You really think it was the fact that the DEMs controlled the Congress that allowed Obama to win? OR was it the failures of the GOP, that contributed to both victories? Obama would have won in 2006 by, probably, a bigger margin than in 2008 – even without the DNC in charge of Congress.
Really, we KNOW that the Presidential race can have a filter-down effect to races at every other level of government – right down to the city council races and judicial positions. When was the last time a race for mayor impacted the Presidential race?
January 31st, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Everyone mocked the DNC for organizing and dropping millions in Deep Red States like Nebraska.
In 2008, Barack Obama became the first Democratic nominee to win a Nebraska electoral vote since LBJ in 1964. Democrats once again trounced Republicans in the House and Senate.
Democrats now have vibrant and well funded grassroots operations in every state. They are a national party again. We are headed in the opposite direction. We will not be able to accomplish anything until we can win in the Northeast again.
Rebuilding begins at the precinct level. Not at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:12 pm
“We will not be able to accomplish anything until we can win in the Northeast again.”
And how do you propose we do that without sacrificing our values?
====
Organization may begin at the precint level – but image starts at the top names, the big guys…thast why a mayor can shift blame to a Governor, and why a Governor can shift blame to the President.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
wouldn’t it be much better if Democrats controlled the liberal areas, and Republicans controlled the conservative areas?
Again, MatthewK, don’t you realize that your definition of “conservative” is different from many, if not most other people on this blog?
January 31st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
But not particularly different from the definition used by most in the country. Yes, this blog contains a disproportionately high number of social liberals and libertarians who think its the conservative position to stand idly by while millions of abortions take place and while activists attempt to redefine what constitutes a family.
But, most people – in politics, in the media, etc, will use socially traditional, economically capitalist, and in favor of a strong military as a good deff. of “conservative”.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:49 pm
The difference between Act Blog and me is that I will “do business” with people that believe in 80% of what I believe in and ask that we work together to enact that 80%. This is what Ronald Reagan, the most successful and accomplished Conservative of all time, practiced and advocated. It was Ronald Reagan that admonished, “My ’80% friend’is not my ’20% enemy’.”
Act Blog wants them out of the party. The surest prescription for permanent minority status there is.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:52 pm
If you want to define a party by ideology, you’ve got your work cut out for you. See, for example, the Libertarian party. Mostly ideologically pure. The Republican party is neither ideologically pure nor conservative. It’s a coalition. Which would you rather have? Oh, and strong military/aggressive foreign policy should never be defined as “conservative” by any stretch of definition.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Ho hum. MK wins another troll-of-the-day sticker for hijacking the thread and boring everyone to tears with his tedious, monotonous belaboring of the same theme: “If everyone thought just like me, we’d all get along in perfect harmony.”
January 31st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
So how does the GOP paint itself as the party of a strong economy, a strong military, and strong families if we run candidates like Giuliani (abortion), Paul (military), and the how many ever Republicans who aren’t for lower taxes?
January 31st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
“The difference between Act Blog and me is that I will “do business” with people that believe in 80% of what I believe in and ask that we work together to enact that 80%.”
And what about when you want the 20% accomplished?
January 31st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
strong economy, a strong military, and strong families
The policies behind those three terms are not agreed upon by would-be members of the GOP. To you, “strong family” implies a hard-line anti-abortion, absintence sex ed, experimental population growth big government approach. To me, it means something different.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
So, on a Republican site, which, not four months ago was railing against Obama and for Palin, I am now a “troll” for advocating Conservatism.
Look, I don’t mind working with moderates, and, on the local level, they’re probably a necessary evil. My concern is when we start having the likes of Rudy Giuliani and John McCain as the face of the national GOP.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:01 pm
YOU ARE NOT ADVOCATING CONSERVATIVISM. you are advocating big gov’t Republican policies. HUGE difference.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:02 pm
“To me, it means something different.”
Right. I believe in life and traditional families. I believe in some sense of still maintaining traditional values.
Exactly which part of that DOES NOT lead to strong families and a stronger country?
And in what twisted world does abortion, a redefinition of the family, and amoralism lead to a stronger family or a stronger America?
January 31st, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I believe in life and traditional families. I believe in some sense of still maintaining traditional values.
As do I. You are very mistaken in believing that, just because I (and others) don’t believe in using the government as a club to enforce my ideals on others, we don’t share the same core believes in strong families.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:08 pm
It is because you are not advocating Conservatism. You are advocating George W. Bush-style Republicanism.
Dude, you do not even posses a literate comprehension of the difference between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism. Which is like mixing up a Corvette and a Camaro.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:10 pm
So what is your proposal for social polciy Kavon?
To simply let the country continue on a self-destructive path of devaluing traditional values, the traditional family structure, and more abortion?
January 31st, 2009 at 6:12 pm
And Kavon, now you seem to be the one forgetting – strong families were also a part of Reagan’s beliefs.
supporting life and traditional values has nothing to do with “George W. Bush-style Republicanism” except that Bush also beleived in those things.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:23 pm
MatthewK, why do I get the sense that, if the government were to collapse, you’d instantly run around screaming “OMG!! OMG!! What do I teach my children now? I’m totally lost!!! My family is doomed!!!”
January 31st, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Kavon, I’m surprised at you. Why do you continually call Matthew Act Blog? You do it to agitate him, and the rest of us can’t help but notice it, and think less of you than you otherwise deserve.
I don’t think there is anything whatsoever wrong with the Republican platform. We did not have anyone to articulate well why those principles are best for our country. So, I welcome all that would like to be a part of the party knowing that those are our principles. We should not require that all agree with each and everyone of those positions to be a part of us. We should welcome them if that is where they choose to be. I believe to move further left causes us to loose some on the right, and at least to cause many to just throw up their hands and stay home.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:30 pm
We aren’t talking about the government collapsing – if that happened, it might make things a little easier.
We are talking about the government sending a message that runs in complete opposition to everything that many people DO try to teach their children.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I recently found one of my forty year old Peanuts book. In it was a comic strip that I immediately thought of this and other sites when I read it.
Charlie Brown and Schroeder are nose to nose. Charlie Brown is wearing a coonskin cap
Remind you any of some of the conversations we’ve had around here?
January 31st, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Fox news just reported that Sarah Palin was in town to LOBBY for the passage of the stimulus package.
They said nothing about some yet to be determined revised edition of it. Are they right?
January 31st, 2009 at 7:18 pm
As you get older, you will learn that you almost never get everything you want. This is true of politics and everything else in life.
When you get married, you’ll understand what I mean. Dear Lord, will you ever understand what I mean…
January 31st, 2009 at 7:33 pm
+10 Kavon.
January 31st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
#98
Somehow I don’t think that is entirely correct. If it IS true as written, there are gong to be an awful lot of highly disappointed people over at HotAir.
January 31st, 2009 at 7:40 pm
As to Ryan’s front-page post, I suspect that most governors will be lobbying to get some pet project included in the stimulus, which really has become an overloaded “Ominbus” type bill. The states with the biggest budget shortfalls will lobby hardest, in particular California, New York, and Florida, which have enormous budgets and suffered from the crash in asset values the most.
As for the others, they have the legitimate argument that the Feds have increasingly mandated state spending on specific programs, for which the Feds give block grants. Most have been lavish rather than responsible, which is what you’d expect to happen when jurisdiction and, hence, blame are unclear.
That said, I recall reading in the Economist 15 years ago about how the states were on an expansive tear, in part because of the Feds mandating these projects be delegated to the states, with the Feds providing the accompanying block grants. The reporting at the time, and well into the 2000s, was about how property markets around state capitals were rising fast, thanks to all the high-paid lobbyists moving into town for a share of all the extra money.
Personally, I wish more of the govs would talk the talk of Mark Sanford — and preferably also walk the walk, while they’re at it, by cutting back on state personnel, budgets, and programs.
January 31st, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I’ll back my DVR up and get what they said verbatim.
January 31st, 2009 at 7:46 pm
IL Guy, see for yourself.
I’d link to a couple of the articles I read, but that might test the patience of the spam filter.
It appears to me that she’s asking for road- and energy-related funds.
January 31st, 2009 at 7:47 pm
IL Guy, I heard the same short Fox piece. Your description matched what I thought I’d heard.
January 31st, 2009 at 7:49 pm
This is the exact quote as Fox reported it: “Among those pressing for passage of the bill, former vice presidential nominee and Alaska Governor Sarh Palin . SHe’s in Washington to lobby influential Republican Senators to vote ‘yes’. “
January 31st, 2009 at 8:09 pm
hahah, foxnews is turning on Palin; or she could be trying to have it both ways since she hasn’t publically declared her opposition or support of the package, which I think is the smart position considering that Jindal and Sanford are in the laughable position of expressing opposition but at the same time expressing nothing but willingness to take every dollar.
From what I’ve read about Palin and the stimulus, it sounds like she’ll reject some money sent to her state for new programs but will take the transportation dollars. Perhaps, this is a case of some mixed signals in the reporting from Fox but perhaps Palin is intentionally sending mixed signals.
January 31st, 2009 at 8:13 pm
The case for drilling in ANWR
by Sarah Palin
Faced With Fiscal Adversity, Governors Try to Embrace It
The Politico: Live From Inside the Alfalfa Dinner
Daschle takes ‘a bad first-day hit’
January 31st, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Is CSIS a right-wing neocon organization? That’s what the liberals are claiming but I see that Nunn, Hollings, and Mika’s dad are on the board of directors. That’s where the good governor was for lunch.
January 31st, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Mark, the problem that I have with your walking the walk stuff is that Sanford isn’t walking the walk. He talks until the final minute, gets his name on drudge, and then finally takes every dollar. That’s the most dishonest thing to do in my opinion. Crist, at least, is being open and upfront about his support for the package. Pawlenty and Jindal are not as big culprits as Sanford but they are still engaging in quite a game and show; it costs them nothing to rail against the package because they are taking the money. As for Palin, we’ll see what she says…..
January 31st, 2009 at 8:25 pm
The part of it that will hurt her is if its true that she really is lobbying Senators to vote for the bill as it stands. Its one thing to take the money if it passes (Jindal), but quite another to lobby for it to pass.
Maybe she will clarify her stand. Maybe Fox mispoke. I don’t know. But if its accurate, she may have lost her chances for the nomination before she even got out of the batter’s box.
January 31st, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Yeah, that would hurt her, without a doubt; but, it’s a source, so we don’t know. Go read the alaska newspapers, they were worried she wasn’t requesting enough or turning money down according to the liberal Alaska blogs.
Are we going to distinguish between expressing support for the package and actively lobbying Senators to vote yes on the package? Because Crist did both; she hasn’t formally announced she would vote yes on the package but what if she did that? What if she formally announces that she woudl vote yes on the package but then turns down $200 million of the $1 billion that was offered to her. So many different scenarios that can be played out but I agree, she should not be lobbying for yest votes; that sounds like Obama’s job.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:59 pm
#63, I think you’re exactly right about Palin.
I’m not a big fan of Palin, but I think she has every right to travel to Washington and meet with members of congress, especially given the realities of the stimulus.
She’s a rock star in the Republican party, and I don’t blame her for occasionally taking advantage of that status. For the most part, she’s kept her profile pretty low.
Romney travels all over the place, because he essentially doesn’t have a job. He chose not to run for re-election in 2006, mainly because he knew he would have likely lost. Not a whole lot of courage there.
January 31st, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Flip.#113,
Still into self-loathing, I see.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:16 am
I didn’t realize until now that Sarah Palin’s first veto was as follows:
“Sarah Palin vetoed her first bill that happened to block gays and lesbians from receive health care and other benefits as domestic partners.”
Do her supporters on here realize this???? I was very surprised. I had no idea that Sarah supported domestic partnerships. Wow! I truly thought she was a social conservative until now.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:46 am
I haven’t seen any of her supporters commenting about her ‘lobbying the Republican Senators to support the stimulus bill’ either. If not on this thread, then on others, they will have to answer as to why these two things are ok for Sarah Palin, when just a couple days ago it would have been terrible. It seems as though as soon as Sarah does something they are against, they immediately decide its not so bad after all. How can it be if Sarah is for it? Right?
February 1st, 2009 at 12:00 pm
“mainly because he knew he would have likely lost.”
I dispute this. Yes, Romney’s numbers were not the greatest in Mass, but when has Romney ever run from adversity? His whole career has been about taking on challenges many thought were impossible.
I think that, most likely, Romney declined to run for re-election because he could not have run two campaigns at the same time. Palin and Pawlenty will face similar challenges in two years.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Illinois, there’s no proof that she did lobby Senators to support the stimulus bill besides FoxNews’ one report. She hasn’t said any such thing, McConnell hasn’t said anything, so until then, it’s just a Fox News anchor’s analysis as to what she did. My final prediction regarding Palin and the Obama spending plan is that she’ll end up being the only governor to reject some federal money; every other governor will take every dollar sent his or her way, so she’ll be able to hold that over their heads regardless of how AP and Fox News construed her actions to be “supportive” of Obama’s spending plan.
As for the first veto, she did it because it was against the Alaska constitution. To me, that’s the type of stuff that moderates/indies love; there’s a reason why many of her supporters are not hardcore social cons because she’s willing to go against traditional supporters of the Republican Party when she feels it isn’t in the best interests of her state’s citizens: social cons, oil companies, etc. Vetoing the bill is probably something she should have told more Americans about: she’s so solid with the social cons that she doesn’t have anything to prove to them. She’s “moving to the middle” at this moment which is the smartest political move for her right now. Notice abortion and gay marriage are noticeable absences from her new PAC.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I think mitt romney, who owns a house in NH, should strongly go after the possible open senate seat in NHamp if judd gregg does take the commerce job…he should try to work with gregg and even obama to get himself appointed by the dem NH gov or if the gov appoints a dem, than romney should run for this office in 2010.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18257.html
February 1st, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Tommy, apparently the part about it being against the Constitution was not all that certain.. Apparently the majority of Congress did not think so, and most of them have law backgrounds, unlike Palin. We’ll wait and see what develops on the Fox news report about her lobbying Republican Senators to vote for the stupid stimulus package. I would think she would have refuted it by now. I’m sure she has heard about it being reported.
February 1st, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Well, Ilinois, I’m going to by what she said regarding the bill and even if it wasn’t certain, the bottom line is that she went against her personal beliefs and vetoed something that she thought was unconstitutional (she probably got an opinion from the AG). That to me is something that has incredible appeal to indies and moderates (look at her 61% favorability among indies in the recent Rasmussen poll; I can link it if you don’t believe it). She looks good either way unless you really believe social cons would believe she really isn’t a social con.
By 2012, Alex Knepper and David Frum will be casting their primary votes for Sarah Palin while she’ll be keeping a strong share of the social con vote, heh heh. I wonder if Knepper and Frum know about this veto, they’d be digging such an action. It’s why a lot of her non-social con supporters (myself, though I’m pro-life) like her, she’s been bold as hell as a governor.
February 1st, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Refute one mention by Fox? Why waste the time? Fox didn’t run multiple segments documenting her “lobbying” but mentioned it once. There’s no need to stir up something with the AP because after all, she like every other governor despite their mugging for the camera (Sanford, Jindal, and Barbour being the biggest culprits) are taking every cent coming their way. Hell, she may not take all the money and may be the only governor to do so; she’ll come out looking the strongest with the most nuanced and reasonable position without taking the John Kerry position of opposing the stimulus but taking all the stimulus money coming your way.
February 1st, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Tommy Boy – I don’t think Knepper will go that route. We may not always agree, but he will not go with anyone who has proven himself/herself not ready for the job. Of course, Palin may progress a lot in a couple years, but my bet is that her best days are many years down the road.
February 1st, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“than romney should run for this office in 2010.”
No. By 2010, Romney should be focusing on the 2012 race. He’s an executive, a leader, a decision maker, someone who formulates the plan and then puts it into action. He isn’t a legislator who sits behind a desk and votes on nonbinding resolutions to applaud whatever group comes knocking on the Senate’s door looking for publicity.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Romney should move to Utah and run for the Senate to succeed Hatch. He has ZERO chance of ever being elected President.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
#125, i totally agree. Romney’s a good man with a nice family, but he is simply not Presidential material. The Republican establishment seems to like him, but not the grassroots.
I hope he does the right thing and foresakes a Presidential run.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:27 pm
“but he is simply not Presidential material”
Presidential looks. Presidential voice. Presidential resume.
Exactly what part of Romney is not “Presidential”?
===
“but not the grassroots.”
Evidence? Romney’s grassroots organization is among the best, and he performed better than other candidates in caucus states, where the more conservative grassroots has a bigger say than anywhere else.
If you’re going to trash Romney and suggest he take a sub-level job as opposed to the Presidency, at least provide some evidence.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:57 pm
#127, if Romney has a great grassroots organization, he would have won the nomination. He had everything going for him, especially the $50 million of his own money that he poured in. He just couldn’t close the deal with the electorate in either Iowa or NH or Florida or California or any southern state. He failed in a pretty middling field of candidates.
Just for the record, I don’t dislike Romney. He wouldn’t embarass the GOP if he won the nomination, which is what Palin or Huckabee might do. Despite his many flip-flops, I would vote for him over Obama. But I just prefer a conservative with grass roots appeal, and he just doesn’t have it.
February 1st, 2009 at 5:12 pm
#124…i think it would be an huge error on romney’s part not to seek a senate seat if the opp is there for him to take one…now in nhamp or 2010 in nhamp/utah if their is an opening…not like he would have to KO his prez hopes, he could serve a term in the US senate and than run for the white house in 2016 at the age of 69, nice contrast to the outgoing younger obama team(voters like change after awhile) + 2016 probably is gonna be a much much better year to run for being a repub rather than the 2012 cycle…i see romney’s model to get elected president more in manner of how george hw bush won in 1988, sorta of the establishment type, which might work in 2016 cycle for repubs after two obama terms rather than the 1992 bill clinton rock the boat model, ie if things are bad in the economy do voters want a bain capital(wall streeter)/harvard MBA, pro hank paulsen bail out type…hmmm the type they are blaming for the current mess? romney does have a catch 22 problem there, for him to get the gop nomination might mean its gonna be an easy W for obama in the general where if obama is really doing poorly economic wise, it might be very hard for romney to get the GOP nomination….Yet, if he is elected to the senate from utah, i think he could still turn around and run in 2012 if obama is really fading come fall 2011…little harder maybe in new hamp but probably still possible or if he doesn’t run in 2012, he fits in nice as a veep for palin or maybe a sec of tres if repub wins in 2012 and senate life doesn’t fit him.
What a senate seat really gives romeny is a national platform, a victory in the political world, extends his prez ambition to the 2016 cycle, extends his ability to highlight his con creds in a place where it matters and a chance to build a legacy…considering his family doesn’t want him to run for president again, they might not like the idea of seeing him lose two primaries or being realistic about obama’s huge advantages going into 2012, ie if things are bad folks might still blame bush, if things are good obama wins easy, this could be the spot he lands in the political world…of course all the consultants and political hacks around romney probably would desperately try to veto anything that might make romney skip a 2012 race, they want his $’s…my take is if romney has any political sense he will go after a senate seat if given the chance…i cand already see the PC with obama saying things are so bad in the country right now he welcomes all voices to DC and hopes to work with the new appointed new hamp senator, mitt romeny.
February 1st, 2009 at 5:14 pm
125, 126..DO you have the foggiest idea how much like idiots those remark make you look?
February 1st, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I don’t think either of you are actually that stupid, but if we judged you purely by the remarks, that’s the way it looks.
February 1st, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Blue, the problem with what you say is that this country can not stand 8 years of Obama, and I believe Mitt Romney is the only one that can beat him in 2012. Otherwise, what you say would make sense.
February 1st, 2009 at 6:04 pm
So much for this being a FOxnews things only. Its all over the internet now that Palin is actively lobbying for passage of the stimulus package. Just google it and you’ll see for yourself. I’m sure her supporters will have the appropriate excuses for it though.
February 1st, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Illinois, let’s watch her supporters squirm, now. Should be good – especially Rush. Does he have the intellectual honesty to criticize his gal? Ha.
February 1st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Gee, I wonder what Mitt Romney’s position on the stimulus would be if he was actually still Governor of Massachusetts? If he actually had to serve the interests of his constituents?
Oh, but he isn’t governor. He didn’t run for re-election because he knew he would have lost badly. He’s currently not doing anything right now, except writing a book and running for President. At least Palin has a job.
February 1st, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I particularly look forward to learning more about how he spent his youth marching up and down the country with MLK, Jr.
February 1st, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Flip, you are so transparent.
We don’t know what Romney would be saying if he were gov, but he did manage to turn around the mess that was in Mass without raising taxes, so I believe we can make an educated guess that he would be in favor of policies that would actually stimulate the economy and not just dole out more government pork/subsidies/flat out nonsense that passes for government programs these days — which will do nothing to help our economy, and hurt taxpayers even more.
February 1st, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Martha, I respect Romney’s views on the economy, and I would vote for him over Palin in the primary. But I see no need to trash Palin. I don’t think she’s qualified now, but I have no personal hostility towards her at all. I hope she does her homework and runs as a strong, experienced, knowledgeable candidate in 2016. I’m rooting for her, and really hope she doesn’t run in 2012.
February 1st, 2009 at 7:41 pm
MarkG – cheap shot that is based on a false accusation. But I’m not surprised, coming from you.