Pawlenty, Daniels or Cain. Those are our last hope, the other candidates seem to be fatally flawed but those three still have the ability to both govern as a good conservative, and be able to bring enough people together to get elected.

I’ll say up front that I have lived in Minnesota for the last ten years, so I admit upfront to being a Pawlenty fan and biased. I’m curious why you would list him as not strong fiscally – of the things you could say about Pawlenty (cap & tax, ethanol are very fair critiques) that’s one of the last things I’d say based on his record in MN. Can I ask what is wrong, fiscally, with Pawlenty and his record?

—Lee

I think Erick has done a good job of describing the current perception of these candidates. It will be interesting to see who does the best job of changing that perception, over the coming months.

What I’m most interested in; which of the candidates, based on their record, not rhetoric, will do the best job of moving the country towards constitutionally limited government? Who ever that is, should be considered the true Conservative in the race.

I have really decide on this excellent combination. Anybody afraid that Pawlenty won’t take it to Obama, well, you have Herman Cain on the ticket. Anybody who is worried about Cain’s not having held office, well as the Veep candidate I don’t think that’s a problem.

Cain shores up Pawlenty’s fiscal shortcomings. Pawlenty, having won statewide twice in a very blue state shores up Cain’s lack of electoral experience, and sets Cain up for the future.

Pawlenty pulls social conservatives, Cain pulls fiscal conservatives (not that the two are mutually exclusive).

Has anyone else considered this combination?

I really think that more of the “elitists” will gravitate towards Mitch Daniels rather than Newt. Despite Newt’s elite “policy credentials”, that crowd doesn’t view him and one of them.

Newt’s constituency is people who think Palin is dumb? I don’t think so, if that were true, he’d win in a walk. Newt’s constituency is non-existent, even smaller than the SarahShrine™ fools we tolerate here on occasion. They are six standard deviations to the left of RonPaul supporters and are primarily made up of people who believe (NOTE: not “think”) we should work with the Democrats for the good of the country.

We’ll see what happens over the next few months, but right now it appears that the early “mo-move” is to Pawlenty.

I’d like to get Erick’s answer on this, too. I understand from reports that Pawlenty imposed budget gets when he could not get them from the Legislature in MN. Pretty bold and conservative creds, it seems.

Also, beware Erick, You didn’t mention Paul so you’ll be getting blasted soon.

I hate to say it, but the Mitch Daniels’ wife situation is a major problem for me. Her actions were so reprehensible, to her husband, to her 4 young children, and to the other family which was likely ruined. Not sure I can get past that.

Of the choices listed, I think my vote here goes to Pawlenty. Granted, he’s a snorefest, but seems to be very smart and a sincere good person with the right principles. I sort of like the slow and steady type. Still very much open to convincing by Herman Cain, though, since he clearly is a great communicator with fire in the belly. Is it too late to hope for new entries into the race?

Who can inspire optimism about the future of our economy?
I see too much debate about Hoovers vs Hoover-lites.
It is going to take a Reagan-like message to defeat BO and the dems.
The best ‘fix’ for our annual deficits and the national debt is to GROW THE ECONOMY. Make the pie bigger so that each piece is larger and the cuts do not have to be as drastic. This provides the most gain with the least pain for all.

Who can inspire optimism about the future of our economy?
I see too much debate about Hoovers vs Hoover-lites.
It is going to take a Reagan-like message to defeat BO and the dems.
The best ‘fix’ for our annual deficits and the national debt is to GROW THE ECONOMY. Make the pie bigger so that each piece is larger and the cuts do not have to be as drastic. This provides the most gain with the least pain for all.

That is to say, the people we are fairly certain couldn’t even beat 0 on their best day. My personal estimation is that that list includes everyone except any combination of Cain-Daniels-Pawlenty you care to choose. Of course, an as yet unknown could crop up. That might not be a bad thing, either.

Daniels was looking good until he threw Scott Walker under the bus at the peak of the Union riots in Wisconsin. To Hell with his record… no one should have done that, and I won’t give him a second chance to screw the country again.

If Palin had been President, we would have been drilling for two years now, the borders would be more secure, and no one would be trying to force me to buy health care from the cheapest provider. GM would have gone bankrupt, and the GM unions would be out of power for driving the company in to an uncompetitive status. Housing would have corrected by now, and we would have some idea of where we stand.

Instead, the Fed is printing money for God knows who while trying to defer economic ugliness until after Obama’s re-election. A healthcare bomb is set to explode in 2014 while Trumpka drinks tea at the White House every couple days.

Daniels? No thanks.

I don’t think you are being fair here. I don’t think Palin is dumb. Quite the opposite. I think she is brilliant. But I will support Daniels because of his record of achievement and his calm demeanor. We don’t need another inexperienced show boat in the White House. I like Bachmann, too, but no one ever gets very far running from the House.

Gingrich has never been as bright as people think he is. He is wrong on as many issues as he is right, but once he gets a slogan in his head he stops listening.

Interesting comment that Daniels will be like Bush because Conservatism will be what they say it is.

I’ll have to think about it.

To me that doesn’t match what Mitch has done though and it certainly won’t be big government Bush-conservatism (and thankfully not Huck either).

inside his bold head, boldly damages efforts against the Health Care Destruction plan, boldly insults Paul Ryan. Forgets to take meds, would get about 50 votes if he runs for president, would get ambassador spot from grateful Obama.

I like a numbers guy, the ‘truce’ statement seems to be haunting him at the moment but he can talk his way out of that. I think being the anti-Obama is good this time around. Mitch has a good record and is a numbers guy and what ppl are SEVERELY underestimating is that Obama has crap he has to defend this time around. Obama had no record whatsoever of anything last time around, this time he has to defend oil spills and healthcare and a million other things.

I think Obama’s camp will try to limit debates to as few as possible, I can’t see how any debate will favor Obama this time around bc he sucks at specifics. I think they will try to ‘control’ the message and also spend a lot of time launching personal attacks and mis-information against the Republican candidate trying to make them into a racist unserious flip-flopper, etc. etc.

All of the members of this group are intelligent and capable — I don’t see much difference between Romney, Newt, Pawlenty, Cain, Daniels, Palin and Bachmann in terms of their intelligence and intellect. They all have different perspectives and talents, but none of them are “not smart.”

I know what Erick is trying to point out here…but I think we run some danger in trying to distance ourselves from “smart people.” “Elite” maybe something we should steer clear of….but what really matters is that the nominee be able to convey understanding of the reality facing our country in its totality (not just fiscal, not just defense, not just ‘values’, not just “jobs”), and an understanding that the Constitution is paramount and that traditional values of freedom, self reliance and hard work are what will restore our country.

I, for one, think there is still plenty of time to let the process roll on before ‘rallying’ to any one or two nominees…in fact, I think the process collapsed too quickly last time around. It seems we’re trying to run the election this November instead of next.

Newt thinks he can pick up those white voters who voted for Obama.
In his twisted logic he feels “entitled” to all of the Republican vote so he is only playing to the ones that went Obamaloco in 2008.

Sorry Newt – not going to work.

Gingrich Blasts House GOP’s Medicare Plan

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576325350084379360.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As of the end of April 2011, a total of 1372 one-year waivers have been granted. This update includes 221 new approvals

http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/alw_employer_05132011.pdf
http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/alw_hra_05132011.pdf
http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/alw_multiemployer_05132011.pdf
http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/alw_non_taft_hartley_union_05132011.pdf
http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/alw_issuer_05132011.pdf
http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/alw_state_05132011.pdf
http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/alw_association_05132011.pdf

Romney can draw independent votes 1000x better than Gingrich it would seem to me. Most people know they can’t stand Newt even if they’ve forgotten why.

…but what is the MOST obvious difference between Herman Cain and the rest of the GOP pack? Melanin, a lot more of it, I believe, than BHO. Joking aside and all, I really feel that Herman Cain can connect with our base and all those undecided folks who took a chance on Obama in ’08 because of the thrill of having America’s first African American president. Now these same folks have a great opportunity in 2012 to redeem themselves AND save face by voting for “the other black guy.” Cain doesn’t need to pander to any ethnic group, especially blacks, to be seen as a supportable candidate. He’s a straight shooter with a common sense message that will appeal to enough voters to put BHO out of office.

I never thought Tim Polenty would look good. But from the announced candidates, he almost does.

Newt is now out of the question, as Romney always has been. Mitch Daniels is an Arab, so he’s out of the question.

Trump shot himself in the foot.
\
I would be delighted to vote for Bachmann or Palin, but they’ll never be nominated.

I guess Ann Coulter was right, afrter all. Unless Christy – or DeMint – jumps in, there’s no one to vote for.

Now that’s bold. Probably working on #4 as we post, now that’s super bold.

The CATO Institute gave him an “A” rating, and ranked him as one of the best Governors in the US when it comes to issue of taxes:
http://mnfmi.org/2010/09/30/cato-institute-gives-gov-pawlenty-a-on-taxes/

He also had several showdowns with the Democrat legislature in Minnesota over spending, actually leading to a government shut down.

Pawlenty also has a strong record on social issues, but I don’t agree with the characterization at all that he’s the Mike Huckabee of this race that’s strong on social issues but weak on fiscal issues.

I agree with much of what you say. Personally, I love Newt but can’t see supporting him because he won’t win and his mouth runs away with him. When you described Daniels as the most like GWB, my stomach lurched. That’s the most disqualifying thing you could say about a candidate to me and unfortunately, I see a lot of truth to it.

Given that you listed a longshot like Cain, I am unsure why you chose to exclude Santorum, Johnson and (mostly) Ron Paul from your analysis.

As every day passes, I become more and more convinced that Pawlenty is the right choice. I may even read Courage To Stand, though as a rule, I avoid such books because they don’t tend to be all that interesting.

…after his Meet The DePressed appearance, why are we even talking about Newt?

For months, the breathless questions “is he in? is he out?”, and all the rest of the speculation as to whether he could win or not. And then, within days, he totally slaps the base in the face. Incredible.

He’s another in a long line of Republican establishment types who have no idea what happened just last November.

Blued and Tatooed

“(Daniels) is probably the closest we have this cycle to George W. Bush.”

And the reason I disagree is that, to me, GWB’s major failing was that he lost sight of the virtue of limited government. His spending record speaks for itself.

And, before somebody pipes up that “Daniels was his first budget director!”, let me remind everybody that Daniels unsuccessfully lobbied for spending cuts to match the Bush tax cuts dollar for dollar.

GWB, in retrospect, was friendlier to social conservatism than fiscal conservatism.

Daniels seems to be positioning himself as the converse of that. It’s not that “conservatism is what…he says it is” — but that he’ll remove social policy debates from the table so as to create the political space for movement on fiscal policy.

That doesn’t mean that social conservatism will take on new meaning. It just means that it will be on a temporary policy hiatus.

Fiscal conservatism, on the other hand, will be what fiscal conservatives have always said it was — though the argument has usually fallen on deaf ears by presidents of both parties.

…but I am far too enraged right now to have read all 55 previous comments.

Newt Gingrich is a toad who needs to retreat back to the morally equivalent hole from whence he came.

As far as I’m concerned, he’s an effete, unprincipled little has-been who deserves little more than the same respect I bestow upon Moulitsas, who at least is consistent in his idiocy.

….screwed the pooch yesterday.

Remember that this is the same guy who blinked, who caved, at the moment of truth against Bill Clinton.

And now we’re coming up to another critical moment, 15 + years after he and Dole screwed up the last one,

And we conservatives, the people who donated and who volunteered and who voted to get the GOP back in charge of the House and to give them a greater voice in the Senate, are the ones left trying to strengthen our leaders. We conservatives are the ones left trying to stiffen the spine of the Boehner crowd so that when they’re next moment of truth comes, we don’t get a repeat of the debacle we just witnessed with the Fiscal 2011 continuing resolution.

Enter Newt, who comes in and just gives the left the perfect ammo with which to throw back at our guys. To undercut Paul Ryan.

Honestly, a person would have to be out of their mind to support this moron after a screw-up this monumental.

People have described various candidates as the Republican “Establishment” candidate. Let’s define that and then look at the candidates again.

I define “Republican Establishment” to mean those Republican persons and interests who benefit from the status quo in Washington. Just as the Democrats have their special interest pigs (e.g. unions, certain businesses) and there are Republican pigs as well. The Republican pigs have their obscure tax code or spending provisions that benefit them, etc. The Republican Establishment will oppose any serious effort to reform the tax code, Congress’ spending practices, etc. In that sense they are allies of the Democrats.

If this definition is right, then IMHO, Romney, Huntsman, and Gingrich are the “establishment” candidates. All of them have deep connections to K street and the Republican special interests who benefit from the status quo. The point is that if we want to reform Washington, none of those three is the right man.

Pawlenty and Daniels are outsiders, untainted by the slime that is Washington. They might be able to be candidates of reform if they have majorities in Congree to back them. I don’t have enough info to distinguish which would be better.

Palin is also an outsider, and thus stands in a similar position as Pawlenty and Daniels. IMHO, she weakened her appeal when she resigned as governor of Alaska. Also, she attracts opposition which makes me wonder if she is electable.

Bachmann holds Federal office and is thus closer to the sleaze, but I think she has kept clear of it. Like Palin, I wonder whether she is electable.

The ability to communicate, and the ability to inspire/lead.

This is what made Reagan such a success that drove the liberals nuts. I’ve been watching the candidates that have at least formed a presidential exploratory committee or better. I have dug into their records of what they have actually done. I actually don’t have that many complaints about any of them as for the most part they are relatively conservative or profess to be. Romney and Huntsman stand the furthest away from me as far as conservative libertarian views. Most are able to explain their views.

However, the flip side is the ability to inspire and lead. Reagan did this by speaking inclusively of everyone and expecting more of us. Watching each candidate, I looked for this inspirational view, and one candidate really caught my eye. Herman Cain in many of the speeches he’s given, always seem to have an inspirational side to them. Even more so he does his speeches with no notes and no teleprompters, no notes in his hands. He’s been speaking in front of people for half his life. Ann Coulter even tweeted: “Watching Herman Cain on CSPAN. He is clearly the only choice for president if Christie doesn’t run.”

My point here is that we need to be better than just holding a beauty contest for the GOP presidential contest. Really do your homework and lets find the right inspirational leader.

A very interesting take on Herman Cain:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/05/herman-cain-sounds-race-debate-win-and-need-simplify-government

I seem to remember in 2008 Romney was drawing the “conservative” vote and Tim Pawlenty was talked about as a Republican moderate who was a potential candidate for 2012. Now Romney is labeled as a moderate and Pawlenty a conservative.
.
It’s hard not – at least at moments- to think these labels are really very subjective and almost meaningless — when influential conservatives like a particular candidate and/or want him or her to win that candidate gets labeled “conservative” if they don’t like someone, they aren’t. Objective criteria doesn’t seem to come into it – as “conservative” or “non-conservative” actions are weighted seemingly based on how much the speaker (writer) likes a given candidate.

Erick,
Your analysis on this doesn’t resonate with me. I was disappointed in your post on Newt yesterday because in my opinion you misinterpreted Newt’s comments and seemed to eager to mark him as unacceptable. I’ve had some degree of admiration for Newt since reading about him/being impressed with him as a teenager when he was Speaker of the House. It just seems like short shrift to give someone who has played an important role in Republican politics for decades.

I’m considering supporting Newt – but don’t think I’m an elitist – I like Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney is the one candidate I can’t stand. The other candidate I’ve been curious about is Mitch Daniels – who you see as fighting for a totally different constituency. Wanted to like Pawlenty but thought he came off as really smug in the first debate. If I were going to pick the “safe”, “elitist” candidate, I’d pick him right now.

When I click on a diary to read a coment and that diary has a lot of comments (say 100+), everything on the right-hand side of the page disappears, i.e., comments, recommended diaries, redhot, member diaries, etc. It’s just gray space except for 2-3 ads – just started Saturday night on the Huckabee is Out diary and this one. It happened on my laptop using Mozilla and here at work using IE.

Any suggestions? I tried logging out and back in, refreshing, etc. I apologize if I should address this elsewhere.