Chris Cillizza has a nice write up on whom he believes are the most influential people in the Republican Party at the moment. Please understand, they are NOT necessarily the ones that will vie for the 2012 Presidential Nomination. These are the men and women that Chris feels has the most influence with the Party as of yesterday. In descending order he lists:
A couple of notes of interest to Race4 readers. Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal have dropped off the list since last time around, no explanation given. Chris places Sarah Palin at #2 primarily as the result of the impressive $733K her PAC raised from February to June of this year. Only Mitt Romney did better, doubling her take. Nobody else came close. (HuckPAC has yet to file.) When that kind of money talks, people are more than willing to listen.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I’m no Huck fan, but he should be on the list. That’s just silly.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Martha,
Remember, he is talking about influence, not potential as Presidential candidate.
I don’t know, is John Boehner (House Minority Leader), ranked #10, more influential than Mike Huckabee? Remember, this is the guy that kept together the unanimous opposition to the Stimulus Bill, and keep the dissenters for the cap-and-trade bill under a double handful. I would have placed Huck in the top ten, but until we get the HuckPAC figures, I have to respect Chris’s opinion on that point, though I disagree.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Idiotic. Chris Christie is the #3 most influencial Republican in America? How so? He is a state politician, so he wouldn’t have any national power. He has zippo national prominence, as 98% of Republican probably couldn’t ID him. I don’t know that he would crack the top 3 in New Jersey. And yet a prominent national Republican who reaches millions of viewers weekly is not even in the top 10.
Whatever.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:07 am
marK,
“I would have placed Huck in the top ten, but until we get the HuckPAC figures, I have to respect Chris’s opinion on that point, though I disagree.”
Okay, then based on that logic, why not what for Chris Christie’s PAC numbers to come in? He’s number 3.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:14 am
MarK and MWS. I don’t even know who Christie is. Huck is in the top tier for 2012. He has influence. Oh how I wish he didn’t, but he does.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Here’s the rationale for McDonnell at #4:
“The party’s nominee in the Virginia governor’s race this fall has an even money (or slightly better) chance of taking the seat back for Republicans — a win that, if it comes to pass, will be painted as a national referendum on Obama’s presidency. ”
Okay, that would make the ELECTION important, but it doesn’t make MCDONNELL the fourth most influencial member of the Party. What, is he setting party priorities now? Calling the shots in Congress? Talking to millions of voters? No. No. And no. He is the Republican in a race that will look important for about 6 months.
One can debate the relative influence of insiders (like Boehner) who direct Congressional action vs. outsiders like Huck or Romney, who use the Bully Pulpit, but putting a guy up there just because he’s running for gov in a medium size state in an off year election is dumb.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Martha,
“MarK and MWS. I don’t even know who Christie is.”
You and 98% of the rest of the party. I wouldn’t know if it weren’t for this site putting his polls up. He is the Republican nominee for governor of New Jersey. I guess that makes him the 3rd most influencial member of the party……..
July 18th, 2009 at 10:22 am
#3 and #4 are both silly. And I agree Huckabee is certainly more influential, no that I’m happy about it, but it’s a fact.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:22 am
MWS
Excellent point. No, I cannot see Chris Christie being #3 in the whole nation. The guy is on the inside track to becoming NJ Governor, but he isn’t there yet. So how does that give him top tier national influence right this minute? I can’t see it.
So drop Christie from the list and make room for Huck.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Besides those two, one can make at least a decent case for the rest of them. Huck and Steele should probably replace the two governor’s candidates because of prominence (Huck) and position (Steele).
July 18th, 2009 at 10:29 am
#6.MWS
A devastating point for both #3 and #4 on the list. Cillissa’s leaving Huck off the list is looking dumber and dumber.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:31 am
marK,
“The guy is on the inside track to becoming NJ Governor, but he isn’t there yet.”
And even if he were, that still wouldn’t warrent the top 10, much less #3. In my mind, to make this list you need to be either setting a national agenda, or influencing elections, opinions, or policy nationally. “Nationally” would be the operative word.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:35 am
If Christie and McDonnell made the list, then why didn’t Meg Whitman, who may become the Governor of the biggest state of the union?
I detect a very distinct Eastern Seaboard bias in Chris’s list.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:38 am
marK,
I was thinking pretty much the same thing. The only advantage for the VA and NJ races is that they are this year, and used as a barometer of the national mood. But that is what makes the ELECTION important, not the candidates INFLUENCIAL.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:41 am
#14.MWS:“But that is what makes the ELECTION important, not the candidates INFLUENCIAL.”
BINGO!!
July 18th, 2009 at 10:50 am
I think that Chris is confusing Importance with Influence. If he had titled his list, “The Ten most Important Republicans”, he could make valid arguments for each person and each placement. But to claim Christie and McDonnell have top ten influence over the whole Republican Party is absurd.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:10 am
How is John McCain not on this list? Who articulates Republican ideas on foreign policy better than John McCain? He and Mike Huckabee, most certainly belong on that list and not Chris Cristie or Bob McDonnell. If those two win their races in the fall, than maybe they should be in 9th and 10th, but now they are only candidates for Governor.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:34 am
“MarK and MWS. I don’t even know who Christie is.” Didn’t Mr. Romney endorse him, Martha; he is in your camp.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Seriously, a few of those names do not even belong in the top 25 and a few more may belong in the top 20, but top 10 is pushing it.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Romney is not on the number 1 for the ‘most influential Republicans’. Romney doesn’t belong in the top 10. I would put Sarah Palin at Number 1; not Romney! This is came from the Washington Post, a liberal newspaper. Romney won’t get the nominee in 2012. Sarah Palin is polling at 76% favorable high rating in the South. It is not good for Romney. That show Romney isn’t conservative.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I think that “anonymous” is flip dixons pseudonym
July 18th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Mike Huckabee not on the list?
Chris Christie at #3?
Apparently they don’t drug test at WaPo…
Put down the crack pipe Cillizza.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
#21 haha I couldn’t agree more.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Oh… Almost forgot.
Pawlenty more influential than Newt Gingrich? Writing this alone should probably prompt some kind of intervention.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Do you mean liberal Flip Dixon?
July 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Michael,
Pawlenty maybe cracks the top 10. If not, probably close. But I agree he shouldn’t be ahead of Gingrich… yet.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I think Newt should be higher. I don’t think McDonnell or Christie should be on the list until they win and have more credibility. Lindsey Graham definately needs to be on this list and so should McCain. I do think Huckabee should be on there. Mike Pence is pushing for it, but I don’t think he speaks with enough credibility or intelligence to have enough influence. I think Paul Ryan, Pete Hoekstra and Eric Cantor should share a spot on the list too as rising voices of fiscal accountability within the House. Mitch McConnell is fading in the Senate. Pawlenty is important but his influence is really just starting to take hold. He’ll be on the list soon, just not yet.
My list would go:
10: John Cornyn
9: Mike Huckabee
8: Lindsey Graham
7: John Boehner
6: Hoekstra, Ryan, Cantor
5: Haley Barbour
4: John McCain
3: Newt Gingrich
2: Sarah Palin
1: Mitt Romney
July 18th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
No Rush? No Colin Powell?
July 18th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Gamecock:
You have a point with regards to Mr. Limbaugh, but since he has never been a politician, he may not count. However, most of us do not take General Powell seriously anymore (at least as a Republican.)
July 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Il guy,
yes it is of the liberal flip dixon that I pen.
as to the list:
Romney is #1
Huck should be #2
Palin #3
Barbour #4
Gingrich #5
Cantor #6 ( he is having a real impact)
Pawlenty #7
Steele #8
Cornyn #9
Boehner #10
July 18th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
This list is so absurd that it probably isn’t worth 30+ comments — but here goes another one anyway.
If “infuential” can be measured by “If ____ speaks up, do people pay attention?” then the top three have to be Romney, Palin and Huckabee — in whatever order you want to place them. No one else comes close. To leave Huckabee out of the top ten … geez.
McCain is probably fourth — he is still seen as a primary spokesperson for the party, and probably the leading spokesperson on foreign policy and defense. To leave him off the list is almost as egregious as omitting Huckabee.
The main value of the list is to eliminate Cilizza as someone worth paying attention to.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I’ll be the contrarian and say that this list is pretty accurate.
Keep in mind that this ranking is only for this time. Huckabee will be an influential voice in future rankings but as of right now, I can definitely see why he would rank Christie/McDonnell at #3 and #4. Everyone is talking about those two races after all.
After the 2009 elections, whether they win or not, expect Christie and McDonnell to fall off the list.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
As for McCain, I think it was right for Cilizza to leave him off the list.
At this moment, McCain’s voice isn’t one that is setting the pace for much of anything.
Basically, McCain’s voice is most heard on issues having to do with national security (which is not a big issue right now), Sarah Palin, or wasteful spending (the stimulus debate is over).
The key policy debates right now concern Sotomayor, cap and trade and healthcare, two issues that are not in McCain’s wheelhouse if you are a conservative/Republican.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
“Everyone is talking about those two races after all.”
How does that make them influential?
July 18th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Bob,
At this time, yes. They won’t be “influential” in terms of a top-ten ranking after the election but as of this moment, yes, Christie and McDonnell are influential just for the purposes of being the Republican nominees and leading in two states won by Barack Obama.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
What do they have influence on? They are “important” perhaps, but not at all influential. After the election, they may have a bit of influence (if they win), but not today.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Anon. But what about the west? We don’t care for her out here, and were Mitt folks.
When Palin grows brain cells, we’ll talk. Right now, she’s just riding on her pop star persona. You think she’s a wonk on cap and trade now? Funny. During the election she was FOR cap and trade! You might want to pull up that pesky Katie Couric interview and see how she has flipped and flopped on it! It must be hard when there’s actual footage of Palin telling Katie that she was for cap and trade, and now is against. Flipper, flopper! (then wrote a boiler plate op ed piece that any high school government student could write).
July 18th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
I think Cilizza had a need to do a column and doing a top ten list is always a column that writes itself. So he did a top ten list — but didn’t clearly define what it was he was listing.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
“But what about the west? We don’t care for her out here, and were Mitt folks.”
How many westerners are you speaking for?
July 18th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Bob,
By influential, I think he means important. Right now, Christie and McDonnell are more “important” than Huckabee, McCain, and others who could have made the list.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Knickers may want to read this post:
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/07/notes-on-palin-and-gop.html
When you look at the ideological composition of Republican voters by region though it’s less startling: 74% of Republicans voters in the NE describe themselves as conservatives, not all that different from the 75% in the midwest, 79% in the south, and 73% in the west. It’s safe to say the days of Rockefeller Republicans are long gone- of course this same survey showed that only 19% of moderates nationally identify with the GOP so that’s no great shock.
Palin is viewed favorably by 89% of western Republicans, 86% in the northeast, 76% in the south, and 71% in the midwest. I wouldn’t extrapolate these numbers too far, but it might be an indication she could do better in New Hampshire than Iowa. That might be particularly true if Tim Pawlenty gets a next door bonus like Dick Gephardt did in 1988 and Barack Obama did last year.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Knickers,
Romney was for cap and trade as governor.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Tommy: Perhaps — and that’s part of what I was saying in #38 — it’s a crap list in part because we don’t know what he meant. If he meant “important” he should have said so. He said “influential”, and then listed people who have no influence.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Tommy,
“By influential, I think he means important.”
Well, they aren’t the same thing. But the article describes these 10 as the “voice of the Republican Party.”
Is anyone outside of NJ really waiting with bated breath for the next utterence of Chris Christie?
July 18th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I think we’re getting overly technical here. Technically, you could argue that Romney, Palin, Pawlenty, and Newt should not even be on the list because the four of them have no actual impact on policy or Republican decisionmaking because they either are not elected officials or are elected officials who only impact a certain state, rather than the nation.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Tommy #45: But that means that “influence” only extends to, e.g., influence over legislation. The Big 3 are tremendously influential on opinion. McDonnell and Christie are influential, again, over nothing at present.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
They are influential as to the perception or lack thereof of a Republican “comeback” and our viability or lack thereof in blue states.
I think we’re focusing too much on Christie and McDonnell. Cilizza would have placed anyone there who was the Republican nominee for New Jersey and Virginia. The two actual guys are less relevant to the actual races with which they are running.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I think you’re really reaching in your effort to be a contrarian (which I can appreciate — enjoying the role myself at times).
In any case, the point is not worth the time we’re spending on it — the list is total crap in my opinion, and you believe otherwise.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
I agree with the first 7 names on the list, but after that should come Huckabee. The case for Christie and McDonnell is so compelling that it’s embarrassing to have to explain it. If we win the races in New Jersey and Virginia this year it will undermine the Democrats’ viability going into the 2010 elections. It will help our party in recruiting quality candidates to a degree that might surprise you.
It’s critical to ask who it’s important to have influence over in an off-election year. Christie and McDonnell have influence over the voters in New Jersey and Virginia, which this year is about a thousand times more important than having influence over the rest of us. Cilizza, as MSM types go, is one of the best. Christie belongs ahead of McDonnell because he’s more likely to win in a less-likely-to-win state.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Tommy,
“The two actual guys are less relevant to the actual races with which they are running.”
That’s kind of been out point since comment #3. It is the ELECTIONS that are important. They guys running in them are not influential.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Dave,
“Christie and McDonnell have influence over the voters in New Jersey and Virginia, which this year is about a thousand times more important than having influence over the rest of us.”
Recognizing the intentional hyperbole, voters in the other 48 states are also dealing with Cap and Trade, the nationalization of banks and the auto industry, a $2 trillion debt, a racist nominee for SCOTUS, government take over of health care, and what to do about nukes in Korea and Iran.
The races in NJ and VA are important for sure, as far as politics go. But there is a whole lotta’ other stuff also being decided this year that will have far more impact.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
My rankings, cause I think the Fix gets it wrong much of the time. Tends to look at whos popular with the GOP establishment and not the grassroots…
1. Romney (I agree with him)
2. Huckabee (his TV show blasts Obama all the time and many ppl watch his show on FNC on the weekends… needs to go on the Sunday talk shows like Mitt more)
3. Palin
4. Newt
5. T-Paw
6. Barbour
7. McCain (yes, I said McCain… he still has much influence and he has appeared on a lot of shows like Mitt has… I sense a lot of buyers remorse among some voters)
8. Cornyn (Sen. from TX for the reasons The Fix said)
9. McDonell
10. Christie
July 18th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Bob, MWS,
I think we’ve beaten this point to death enough but just to keep it going because it seems dead today….
On what basis would Huck be ahead of Rush given that twenty times as many people listen to him as they watch Huckabee?
The reason why I don’t think it’s crazy to leave Huckabee off the list is because as of right now (it will likely change as time goes on), Huckabee is not creating or setting any narrative in the news.
Palin, Romney, Newt, Pawlenty, and even Barbour have all been able to do so. In what way is Huckabee carrying the news besides his television show (and if that’s the justification, then how is Rush not on this list?).
July 18th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
MWS,
Are you SURE that Romney was pro-Cap-and-Trade as Governor? I seem to remember him being the main one that put the kabosh on a regional Cap-and-Trade agreement several of the other New England states were pushing.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Okay, Huck was a political figure.
Huck is now a entertainer.
Huck may be a political figure in the future, but for now, he is simple a entertainer (And I hope he stays there).
July 18th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Here’s a link to what I was referring to in #54.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Romney has also said that cap and trade made no sense if it was only the US doing it. Most people on here take things out of context. Romney knew if he linked Cap and Trade to other nations it would effectually kill it. Purist don’t see how this was wisdom in that his detractors could not say he was for Carbon pollution while at the same time killing cap and trade. It’s called using your intelligence.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
“Are you SURE that Romney was pro-Cap-and-Trade as Governor?” That is what Matt said the other day.
July 18th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
marK,
“Are you SURE that Romney was pro-Cap-and-Trade as Governor?”
Yeah. Read from the Boston Globe:
In 2005, Romney Endorsed Regional Cap And Trade System, Saying “This Is A Great Thing For The Commonwealth … We Can Effectively Create Incentives To Help Stimulate A Sector Of The Economy And At The Same Time Not Kill Jobs. … I’m Convinced It Is Good Business.” “Governor Mitt Romney signaled his support yesterday for a regional agreement among Northeastern states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite opposition from power companies and other business interests that have been lobbying the administration against the plan. In opening remarks to a clean-energy conference in Boston, Romney said the first-of-its-kind agreement, under which Massachusetts and eight other states could be required to cut power plant emissions by 2020, will not hurt the economy, as some have charged. He argued that it would spur businesses to develop clean — and renewable-energy technology to market worldwide. ‘This is a great thing for the Commonwealth,’ Romney said, his strongest endorsement of the pact to date. ‘We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs.’ … Romney said yesterday that he had some concerns about the agreement, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, but he endorsed this and other clean-energy initiatives by saying they would stimulate the development of technology that Massachusetts companies could sell to other states and countries, as the emphasis on climate change grows. ‘I’m convinced it is good business,’ Romney said.” (Scott Helman, “Romney Favors Pact By States On Emissions,” The Boston Globe, 11/8/05)
July 18th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
marK,
Your link refers to it as well:
“Romney spoke enthusiastically about the [cap and trade] proposal early last month, calling it ”good business” and a way to encourage an investment in clean technology, although he raised some concerns at the time. Then two weeks ago, Massachusetts officials asked the other states to delay yesterday’s planned announcement until Dec. 15 to sort out disagreements.”
July 18th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Thanks for the references. I only remembered the part where he put a stop to it.
July 18th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
MWS,
You’re right that there are a lot of important things happening this year, but they’re not things that the American electorate has any control over, and, indeed, has much of any influence over. Elections are the one, and pretty much only, thing that voters have any real influence over. This is a Republic, not a Democracy.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
My list:
1. Romney
2. Cheney
3. Jindal
4. Thune
5. Sessions
6. Liz Cheney
7. Kay Baily Hutchenson
8. Jeb Bush
9. Steele
10. Huckabee
July 18th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
I’m sorry tommy. I actually LIVE in the west? We vote with our big brains out here.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
I actually LIVE in the west as well Knickers.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Palin flipp flopped on cap and trade. Problems with THAT? I do. She can’t seem to keep her story straight!
July 18th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
No problem at all Knickers. It was her responsibility to support John McCain’s position as his vice presidential pick to the best of her ability. The press would have had a field day if she departed from him on major issues such as cap and trade and TARP.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Knickers,
You should listen to this podcast regarding the Lilly Ledbetter Act and perhaps you’ll find out why it will have such a detrimental impact on the workplace, the economy, and yes, true equality for women.
IWF Podcast: The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
http://www.iwf.org/iwfmedia/show/21098.html
July 18th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
67 – or ANWR?
July 18th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Get,
I think we can distinguish ANWR from cap-and-trade and TARP because it was pretty clear what her position was on that subject prior to her being selected as VP. It was known what her position was on cap and trade prior to her VP selection and TARP was something yet to come into existence at that time.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Is Mitt Romney for Cap and trade system? If he is for it, he won’t get the nominee for President in 2012. What is wrong with guy? He is not a true conservative. He is a liberal Democratic; not Republican. He is hurting the Republican Party. Sarah Palin has a favorable high rating about 74%; Romney has about 55% favorable low rating. It is not good for Romney. Romney should retire from politic.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
The Romney folks just keep on embarrassing themselves with their attacks on other candidates. They’ll attack Pawlenty for being insufficiently conservative because he favored Cap and Trade, only to find out that Romney favored cap and trade and something worse in some ways (a straight carbon tax) and backed away from just an HOUR before announcing he wouldn’t run for a second term. In December 2005, a scant year before he announced for President, he was STILL on record supporting it. But, Pawlenty who doesn’t even have a PAC, hasn’t campaigned for anyone out of state, and is surely more than a year from announcing a run, is some kind of villain because, 18 months ago he was in favor of cap and trade. I like Mitt Romney- I think he’s a good guy, smart, and savvy, but his staunchest supporters do him no favors. Let me put this out there plainly; there is no position on which Romney supporters can castigate his likely Republican rivals, and not end up with egg on their faces. I should know, I did the research when I was a Romney guy. Not all of that is his fault; he was running in frigging Massachusetts and you can’t get anywhere there without being a little squishy on just about everything, but there it is. Romney’s earnest supporters would do themselves a favor if they went back to the “Romney’s the only qualified candidate in these disastrous times, what with his startling record as a turnaround artist” line. That one is closer to the mark, and considerably more compelling then “X is a fool because he loves the environment…wait Romney said he loved the environment? gosh, well, I guess a little love is ok, but not if it comes under a vernal equinox, on a Thursday in March. Then of course, the guy’s a rotten know nothing to his very core”.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
I think everyone should calm down about Romney winning in 2012. It’s much ado about nothing. According to the Mayan calendar, the next president will only serve for less than 50 days before the end of the world! (just a little lightness on a Saturday evening.)
July 18th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
still hurting,
Does that Mayan calendar give any tips for Intrade?
July 19th, 2009 at 1:17 am
Matthew we (and Mitt) don’t need for you to be on-board. It will be funny watching you crawl back to us in 2012 though. Be nice or we won’t let you back in.
July 19th, 2009 at 7:52 am
#72.Matthew,
One of the big reasons why I seldom attack policies of the various candidates is because policies can change; skills, talents, and character do not.
For one example we are all familiar with, consider that before he was elected, George W. Bush scoffed at “Nation Building”. He insisted that the United States was not in that business. Then 9/11 happened. The result? The policy changed, but George W. Bush’s character did not. I heard more than one commentator remark how thankful they were that Bush was President and not Al Gore. That speaks to the character of the two men, not their policies.
Another example: I really don’t have much of a problem with Sarah Palin first being FOR the bridge to nowhere and then being AGAINST it. Others have tried to make it a big deal. I have not. That was a policy change. Things change. Life moves on.
What does concern me, however, is her seeming lack of interest in putting in the hard work necessary to be an effective executive. I’ve watched her since the convention, hoping to see signs that I was wrong. Instead, I see botched interviews, blown debates, rambling speeches, and an appalling lack of depth when it comes to national and international issues. More worrisome to me is that I have seen nothing that suggests she is trying to remedy the situation beyond a few half-hearted attempts. THAT is character, not policy. And that is why I have difficulty supporting her as a Presidential candidate.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:04 am
#75.Heath,
Au contraire mon ami, We need everyone we can get on-board. And I certainly never, ever want to see anyone “crawling back”. Instead, I want to see them walking up to us with their heads held high, looking us in the eye and saying “I’ve changed my mind. Mitt IS the best of the pack. What can I do to help?” At which point we will take him by the one hand, clasp him on the back with the other, and say, “Welcome back. We’ve missed you. Now let’s get to work.”
We want friends and allies, not defeated adversaries.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:20 am
marK,
I’m not even sure why it NEEDS to be about defeated adversaries. I don’t consider Romney or even Huckabee adversaries, and I don’t bother to attack them or their policies, but rarely. I don’t have to point out Romney’s flip-flops, and I NEVER do unless some Romney supporters insists on attacking someone else for a position Romney once held. Nor do I attack Huckabee’s record these days. As far as I can tell from the example of last cycle (when I was guilty as well) these tactics were singularly unsuccessful; they didn’t convert a blessed soul and they bitterly divided us. Negative attacks are ONLY beneficial because we have an electorate that only wakes up every once in awhile, and something as controversial as an attack has a better chance of breaking through the fog.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:21 am
marK,
I’m not even sure why it NEEDS to be about defeated adversaries. I don’t consider Romney or even Huckabee adversaries, and I don’t bother to attack them or their policies, but rarely. I don’t have to point out Romney’s flip-flops, and I NEVER do unless some Romney supporters insists on attacking someone else for a position Romney once held. Nor do I attack Huckabee’s record these days. As far as I can tell from the example of last cycle (when I was guilty as well) these tactics were singularly unsuccessful; they didn’t convert a blessed soul and they bitterly divided us. Negative attacks are ONLY beneficial because we have an electorate that only wakes up every once in awhile, and something as controversial as an attack has a better chance of breaking through the fog. On a board like this- where EVERYONE is engaged- negative attacks like these are just a total waste of time and I wish to God we could forget about them, and get back to figuring out, more broadly, how we can defeat our Overlord in 2012, and revitalize the conservative movement for decades.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Which was rather my point to Heath. People who “crawl back” are “Defeated Adversaries”. They might make some people feel smug, but it is of no practical use in the struggle to get Mitt elected. Quite the opposite in fact, smugness will get in the way. We need friends and allies far more than we need that.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:52 am
And yes, the negative attacks really don’t accomplish anything except keep us apart. By now, nearly everyone on the board is well aware of almost all of the skeletons in the various candidates’ closets. Rehashing them all the time really doesn’t serve much purpose.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:16 am
I don’t think anyone has earned the right to be smug but me.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:23 am
You guys all measure money as a sign of influence. Huck has been campaigning across the country for state and local candidates. He has a conservative radio program and show. This is crazy. If they only knew how many volunteers Huck has accross the nation through Team Huck, they wouldn’t be quick to dismiss him.Bob Vander Plaats, a candidate for governor in Iowa, is leading the field with 46%. The closest competitor gets 14%. Did I mention that Vander Plaats was Huck’s Iowa Campaign manager. You will all be suprised when Huck’s candidates that he endorses and stumps for get nominated in 2010, and you will be also suprised when the next Iowa governor endorses Huckabee in Iowa. That will give him a huge advantage, plus the Lt. Gov. of South Carolina endorsed Huckabee in 2008. If he becomes governor, there goes SC to Huck. Money doesn’t measure influence, action does.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Anne,
There is no doubt that if he runs in ’12, Huck will have a MUCH stronger organization than last time, with a lot more star power. But I don’t think there has been much talk or emphasis on money on this thread. Most of the guys and gals people are suggesting SHOULD be on that list AREN’T there because they are raising a ton of money. In fact, there is a pretty broad consensus here- among supporters and detractors- that Huck belongs on that list.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:44 am
83 – I don’t think anyone will be surprised if Plaats endorses Huckabee.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Another article from the liberal media establishing praising Mittens. Yawn.
They always prefer the country club RINOs.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
86 – At least Mitt was never in that country club with Katon Dawson.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Matthew.
The more I read from you the more I realize how brilliant you are.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
87 — that’s true.
When Michael steele won, I was thrilled — not because I love Steele, but because i felt Dawson would have been a PR disaster.
Of course, Steele’s “fried chicken” comments don’t help his cause much.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
89 – well, at least we can agree on that.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Matthew and Mark are both very good. And many of us would do well to copy some of their advice. I usually engage against other candidates in defense of my own, but some of our group draws first blood. I’ll try to do better, but when my candidate or my religion get attacked, I get defensive. I’m just glad we have cooler heads like Mark and many others who do a better job than me at acting appropriately.
I think Heath was pulling Matthew’s leg a little, but you took him seriously. Sometimes he agitates a little just like MWS agitates a lot.
July 19th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
MWS/74
I’d go short on everything after the 20th. LOL
July 19th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Just the other day there was a post on here that pointed out how Romney was gaining steam despte the fact he has been largely hidden from the public in recent months. I remember thinking, “sure, the less people see of Romney the more they like him.”
But another thought is that with the Obama Administration and Democrat-lead Congress pushing through Government HealthCare it make sense for Willard to be at the top of this list as he not only supported but signed into law a government-lead/run health care plan during his (1 term) governorship.
What the Obama/Pelosi healthcare bill does, as a matter of politics, is put Willard into a corner. GOP primary voters are likely to be angered at a government-run healthcare program as the 2012 nomination contest swings into high gear. What does Romney do? Does he flip flop on the issue like he did on abortion and gay rights? Does he support it and go down with the ship? Those hundreds of millions he earned as a venture capitalist are going to need to be spend more wisely on commercials and consultants than they were in 2008 if he wants to fool GOP voters into supporting him in 2012.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Colorado.#93:
July 19th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
****correction****
Colorado.#93:
Unfortunately, the corollary to that would be “The more people see of Palin and Huckabee, they less they like them.” You did realize that, didn’t you?
July 20th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Then tommy, you KNOW that I’m telling ya the truth! Palin won’t get elected dog catcher here in the west. We’d be too worried she’d quit after the first poodle was nabbed.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Anne, then you’ll join us in writing fox and Huckabee’s show, to ask him to have Romney on?
July 20th, 2009 at 12:14 am
71 anon. Palin was FOR cap and trade before she decided that it was politically expeident for her to be against hit. It’s on tape, unedited. She told Katie Couric that she and McCain felt it was the right direction.
Flip flop. Flip flop. flipply flopply flop.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:15 am
66. You mean that pesky part of equal pay for equal work?