« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Horserace for Thursday, June 9, 2011

With this weekend’s Horserace, I’m adding in Giuliani, who Bill Kristol says is days or a couple of weeks from getting into the race. I’m not putting in Rick Perry or Sarah Palin this week, though the implications of them possibly getting in are mentioned.

As always, I put the candidates in alphabetical order. This is, again, my objective take on the candidates based on the news of the week and how I see things shaping up based on conversations with various operatives, activists on the ground, donors, etc.

Which major candidate’s campaign is disintegrating? Which candidate could be setting himself up not to win, but to hurt Romney? Go below the fold to find out.

Michele Bachmann

Congresswoman Bachmann had one of the biggest weeks in a good way. A lot of people are heaping burning coals on Ed Rollins for his comments about Sarah Palin. Most people are characterizing Rollins’s statement as meaning Sarah Palin is stupid. Rollins did not say that. He said she had not been serious and done the work she needed to do.

Whether you like it or not, this attitude is pervasive among just about every single campaign. Rollins just dared say it. What’s more, the new Washington Post/ABC poll that has Romney beating Obama also shows almost two-thirds of Americans view Palin as unqualified and almost half of Republicans have qualms with voting for Palin.

Rollins’ pre-emptive statements on Palin set up the Bachmann campaign to run as, for lack of a better way of putting it, “the Sarah Palin who can win.” The media, already predisposed against Palin — along with 1/2 the GOP and 2/3 of the public — is going to revolve around a Palin v. Bachmann feud whether or not there is one. So why not be pre-emptive in setting it up and casting Bachmann as the viable choice?

You can disagree with Rollins’s statement. But I think it ultimately helps Bachmann get more favorable press compared to Palin and, should Palin not get in, will not be long remembered except by a minority of primary voters. What’s more, I am hearing from a growing chorus of conservatives unwilling to “settle” that Bachmann is the “only person I can support.” I’m surprised who all keeps telling me this. It’s going to help her build credibility.

If I had to declare a big winner this week other than Mitt Romney, it was Michele Bachmann

Herman Cain

I don’t really see any movement for Cain this week, but I have to note that there is a growing buzz related to his viability as a candidate. His performance at Ralph Reed’s event left a lot of people stunned and more people willing to accept him as this year’s Mike Huckabee.

The problem now for Cain, as he continues going up in polls, with some having him in fourth place ahead of arguably better known and more seasoned politicians, is that he is running an insurgent campaign with an insurgent campaign staff. If Cain’s campaign shifts into overdrive into the level of “respected by the DC-GOP elite”, he is going to have to shift quickly from an insurgent, grassroots, low budget campaign into one that donors feel comfortable giving money to.

Newt Gingrich

I believe we have seen the end of the Greater Newt Gingrich Presidential campaign and have moved to see the Lesser Newt Gingrich Presidential Campaign. Over the past few weeks, Newt went into near hiding, keeping a very low profile. He’s now gone on a “long planned” Mediterranean cruise — something arguably no candidate save Fred Thompson could ever get away with. More troubling is growing buzz among high level donors and politicos in Washington that his campaign is disintegrating while Gingrich is out of the country.

I think the odds of Newt being able to conduct a viable, sustained campaign are rapidly diminishing unless he does something bold quickly or has a knock out performance in the New Hampshire debate on Monday.

Rudy Giuliani

Bill Kristol says Giuliani is getting in. I see no rationale for a Giuliani campaign this time. National security is not the big issue and killing Osama helps inoculate Obama.

Donors are antagonistic toward Rudy, given what happened in 2008.

Should he get in, he will cause all sorts of problems for Romney. Polling reflects this right now. In fact, I think if he does get in, the press could easily characterize it as a bid to shut down Romney, not to actually win. I think that would be a legitimate characterization.

Jon Huntsman

Huntsman had dinner in Wasington last night with the TARP caucus — Lamar Alexander, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Richard Burr, and Tom Coburn. Not exactly dazzling. The glowing press he has gotten from liberals in the media continues to play to type for a John Weaver run campaign. But we should remember that John McCain had to ditch Weaver to get momentum going.

PPP polling noted that the one person — not one percent, but one person — who they found in Iowa who backed Huntsman was an 2008 Obama voter who is undecided on how well Obama is now doing and who hates the rest of the GOP field, e.g. a disgruntled Democrat.

I expect Huntsman to get momentum with the squishes, which will help him get up and going. I am also hearing he’s attracting positive attention from the Bushies. That right there should disqualify him. But despite my bias against him, I think Huntsman could have a good showing in New Hampshire if he can keep making in road there.

Gary Johnson

I do not see this man getting any traction.

Ron Paul

I have to say that while I have dismissed Ron Paul and I do not see him winning, I do see him running a much more professional outreach and messaging operation. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by communications from his campaign. He is not, at least for now, focused on issues so far outside the mainstream that he fails to connect. He’s actually doing a better job staying on issues that resonate with voters right now. I still don’t see him winning.

Tim Pawlenty

Pawlenty has been the boldest of the top tier candidates in the past two weeks. Should Rick Perry or Sarah Palin get in, it could really hurt him. Likewise, if Bachmann picks up steam in Iowa, Pawlenty’s chances go down. But I am hearing more and more people say they are “settling” for Pawlenty. That’s probably not the word choice the Pawlenty campaign would love to hear, but I hear it a lot.

His economic and jobs messages have been bold and Reaganesque with a strong streak of optimism and refusal to accept what so many alleged intelligent people presume to be our impending or already arrived second class revised destiny in the world. The danger right now for Pawlenty is that he be so bold that all the other candidates saw off the limb he climbed out on. As one person told me though, right now the only guy pandering to conservatives is Pawlenty. A lot of conservatives who feel dismissed by Romney and others appreciate the attention. I won’t say Pawlenty is up or down this week, but he’s staying steady, which is what he needs to do. Joe Wilson in South Carolina (of “you lie” fame) is endorsing him. I think we’ll see a continued drumbeat of endorsements that might surprise us.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney had the biggest week and if the primaries were held tomorrow, he would be the nominee. I think his global warming position is going to hurt him. I think Romneycare will hurt him. And I think ethanol will hurt him. But I don’t see any of them hurting him enough right now to deprive him of the nomination and those positions won’t hurt him in the general.

Polling shows Romney beating Obama, but I believe that is mostly a product of his high name recognition coupled with relatively low unfavorable ratings. The other candidates are, after Labor Day, going to have to force Romney off his game. Right now, they can only do it indirectly and hope for more unforced errors. Romney is too experienced to give many.

But, should Giuliani get in, he becomes a real game changer for Mitt Romney and could potentially cost Mitt Romney the nomination.

Rick Santorum

I’m changing my position on Santorum. I think he can make it to Iowa . . . for now. I do not think his launch was strong. Nor do I think it generated a lot of buzz among the grassroots. Both of those are troubling signs. But, the more people are exposed to Santorum, the more they like him. His performances this week have been strong and refreshing.

That said, I see no path to victory for Santorum, but he could be a real spoiler for someone like Michele Bachmann as Santorum continues to gain steam among evangelicals. Santorum has a repository of good will among major conservative leaders I failed to estimate. I think drawing on that could position him as someone to not win the race, but to certainly influence the field.

COMMENTS

  • gawken

    Either Bachmann or Palin in 2012…guarantees NO WEINERS in the White House

  • BigRedConservative

    No way is this man getting to Iowa. His candidacy is a single-issue “look-at-me” campaign that I doubt even he is serious about. Including Santorum but ignoring Palin is illogical in the extreme. I’d rather have Bachmann or even Giuliani than him, and that’s saying something

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Perry – Santorum
    Perry – Rubio

    We win.

    Game over.

  • chihank

    I am not that impressed with the field. Thus I am settling on T-Paw. Though I have average feelings about him. Iowa is a must win for T-Paw. One staffer for T-Paw said to Time Magazine that Bachmann could be a “pain” because Bachmann could be the MN candidate, while T-Paw will be seen as “That Other MN candidate”. T-Paw’s path to victory is portray himself as the conservative viable choice for Romney, while Santorum, Cain, and Bachmann split up the Very Conservative vote.

    A T-Paw/ Rick Perry ticket might be interesting.

  • powertothepeople

    about the current idiot child sitting in the presidential office. I am not a supporter of Santorum, but I do think he is serious about winning and if people over look him, he may surprise everyone and that would not be good for us in the general.

  • powertothepeople

    concerning the current crop of candidates. I am a little more excited about TPaw, but not by much which is why I hope Perry gets in.

    That being said, disagree with your assessment of Iowa. The last 30 plus years of eventual republican nominee winner has been decided by South Carolina. And for even longer, the winner of the state has been the one endorsed by the republican governor. Since I see no reason why this time will be any different, whoever wants to win the eventual nomination better do two things, convince SC residents that they are the one to lead the country and convince Haley to endorse them. That is the key to winning the Republican nomination for president.

  • chihank

    When Santorum was in the Senate, he did have thoughts about running for President. Then he lost to Bob Casey Jr, Pro-life Dem, by 20+ points in 2006.
    That 2006 lose is why people are not taking seriously. If Santorum survived 2006, then he would have been a 1st Tier candidate.

  • powertothepeople

    So not sure how a local race in a leftist leaning area in PA would affect how a voter in any other state votes.

    I do not think he can win, but he will not lose because of his last race for Senate.

  • YnotNOW

    He used to have significant support amoung social conservatives, but too many of them are also fiscal conservative in general (even if not their primary focus), and anti-global-warming-scaremongering specifically.

    He blew it, and will sink into obscurity.

  • YnotNOW

    He used to have significant support amoung social conservatives, but too many of them are also fiscal conservative in general (even if not their primary focus), and anti-global-warming-scaremongering specifically.

    He blew it, and will sink into obscurity.

  • gawken

    I have long thought that he wants a rematch with Casey. There is yet to be a viable GOP candidate in PA. “Running” for the WH is a great way to raise his profile, without any great expense. I think he could beat Casey in 2012. Hopefully by now, many who voted for him realize that he is NOT his dad..

  • YnotNOW

    they are politicians, after all. Looking for inspiring speeches and rousing oratory often leads you away from those who actually have applied their principles to real life records. It is much easier to talk if you don’t have to defend the compromises that are inevitable in politics and governance. Plus inspiring speakers are often considered “wingers” that are inspiring to the base and not to the general public – think Dennis Kucinich.

    I’d rather have someone who can defend solid conservative principles, and back that up with some record of actually translating them into real life.

    An not expect a savior to come out of politics.

  • YnotNOW

    they are politicians, after all. Looking for inspiring speeches and rousing oratory often leads you away from those who actually have applied their principles to real life records. It is much easier to talk if you don’t have to defend the compromises that are inevitable in politics and governance. Plus inspiring speakers are often considered “wingers” that are inspiring to the base and not to the general public – think Dennis Kucinich.

    I’d rather have someone who can defend solid conservative principles, and back that up with some record of actually translating them into real life.

    An not expect a savior to come out of politics.

  • snowshooze

    I read Cain thought the States could limit the second amendment?
    Or, that he said that gun rights were a matter best left to the states, a bit more accurate.. if so I am in disagreement as I do not accept that any government should be able to hold themselves above either the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.
    I am not a one issuue voter, but if in fact his view is one which would accept the retraction of our rights at any level, on any point, this is a threat across the board and cannot be accepted.
    I want to know if he was taken out of context, or get some clarification on this as he has been quite high on my list so far.

  • glaucon

    The real test will be how she performs in the debates. Bachmann has the potential to do very well, and it could be surprising. Not to put down Palin, but the media has tried to paint Bachmann with that same brush. By doing that, they have set the bar low for Bachmann, which leaves a lot of room to pleasantly surprise people. We shall see.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    We’re not talking a local election in a left/Democrat-leaning district: Santorum was running in a statewide elections.

    In particular, Santorum was the two-term incumbent U.S. Senator going into the 2006 race and got clobbered 59% to 41% by Casey (whose only claim to fame was his father’s name and his faux pro-life position – as demonstrated by his support of ObamaCare).

    In a purple state like PA, and given the strong advantage of incumbency – and in the absence of scandal – that kind of fall indicates the development of major league toxicity with the electorate. You just can’t casually write that off.

    While Santorum may be able to recoup some from Republicans with short memories, I don’t see how he could attract the swing voters in a general election to possible pose a credible challenge to Obama. Especially since he’s been invisible since 2006 and thus has no record regarding the economy issues but can only heckle from the sidelines. Not to mention all the videos/recordings from that race and earlier from his Senate tenure just begging for the Democrats to use in campaign commercials.

    Cain on the other hand, was running in a 3-way Senate open-seat primary and was able to come in second with 26% as a political newcomer, which is hardly a death kneel for a political future. Not a plus either, of course, so his appeal is going to have to come from elsewhere than a political career.

  • darjon38

    Sarah Palin is a great lady, well qualified, 100 times the experience of the annointed one now in office, BUT, doggone it, she is so damaged by the media and her occasional gaff- that the lame-stream media jump on like a mad dog onto a bone-, that I fear no matter how well she polls, there is no chance the media would ever allow her to be voted in. They dug up every move she ever made as a VP candidate, but they knew nothing about the unknown person with Kenya roots.

    Mitt has too much baggage from his identical healthcare plan in Mass, perhaps his Mormon faith (not by me ) and some of his other Obama like tendencies.

    Newt blew his chance with his comments, no way will I vote for him.

  • Whacker77

    I want to remain optimistic about 2012, but none of the candidates listed by Erick seem like general election winners to me. Obama can be beaten in rout, but that requires the correct candidate, not just any candidate.

    Don’t mistake me. I’m not arguing for a squish who appeals to moderates. I’m arguing for a high profile, competent conservative with a conservative record. Right now, there’s no one who fits the bill.

    Like a good soldier, I’ll vote for the nominee even if it’s Romney or Rudy or Sarah. I’ll probably have to hold my nose for many of them though. I’m just not energized by any of them right now. That can change though.

    At the risk of being branded an open borders guy, I still hope Jeb gets in the race. I hate his immigration policy, but I think his electoral map chances would lead to a rout of Obama and huge gains in the Senate. I’m pretty sure Erick would be happy with him as well.

  • paramedichess

    If Bachmann actually gains any traction, it will take the media and/or other candidates about five minutes to paint her as an out of touch extremist (and there is plenty of video to back it up). More importantly, the electorate simply does NOT elect congressman to the White House.

  • flannery

    I just want a living, breathing, MSM disliked, non-Barry Republican to run. She/he will beat Barry regardless of what the MSM/inside the Beltway elite says or predicts or warns.

  • jetman

    Maybe Hot for T-Paw, IF he keeps up with the bold, strong moves. I want to see him take down the RINOs who seem to be taking charge of the nominally Republican-controlled House. A strong statement rejecting a less than acceptable deal on the Debt Limit issue might do it.

  • victrola

    When you throw him into the mix, he still polls near the top. I voted for Giuliani in 2008, I didn’t like his stances on few issues, but I liked his strong fiscal record in NYC and I thought he was the one Republican that had a chance at winning. I despised McCain and Romney was too much of a phony. The issues where Giuliani is conservative on, he’s an absolute gladiator that doesn’t back down. The fact that Giuliani substantially cut both taxes and spending in one of the most liberal cities on Earth is impressive. The press went after him with a vengeance but he always came out on top. I am puzzled why he’s running this cycle, but in all honesty, I would prefer Giuliani to probably every other announced candidate right now.

    I still think to this day Giuliani would have made it a MUCH closer race than McCain would have. Giuliani wouldn’t have brought a knife to a gun fight, he had been forged in hell with the poisonous politics of NYC and wouldn’t have been so scared to go negative against Obama.

    I could see a lot of GOP primary voters who can’t settle on someone backing him, he’s still well liked and respected, even among conservatives that you wouldn’t expect. I also think he would do well in a general election setting, expanding the electoral map into traditionally more blue and purple states.

  • glaucon

    She may “surprise”. Becoming President would be much longer odds. VP contender, on the other hand, may become a possibility.

  • gracie

    Romney: liked him much in ’08. NOT now! Talk about pandering? to the ethanol crowd, to the global warming crowd. not saying Romneycare was a horrible mistake. He has disappointingly become the phoney they always said he was.

    Cain: you can forgive him for his appearance with Chris Wallace; not me. NO foreign policy; and even I knew right to return. It was the biggest issue of the week! Sorry, love the guy…support him in beating Saxby Chambliss!

    T-Paw; the huge surprise for a lot of us. Real courage on Ethanol and SSA, specific foreign policy ideas on each and every country overseas; he is conservative and gutsy.

    Perry: I can sure see the advantages of Perry, being a Texan…drilling and the EPA. And he can probably win. But would he be the best President?? So far Pawlenty looks like the best President. He is EARNING the nomination. Put Perry at Homeland Security and Palin at Interior.

  • akafroman

    Many believe Santorum would easily lose to Casey again, but I think he may be the only one who could win. Casey is a strong Democrat because he has convinced the Penn. electorate that he is “pro-life”. Santorum is the only person with strong enough social-issue credentials who could point out that this is a lie. Casey voted against defunding Planned Parenthood, and he voted for the pro-choice trojan horse Obamacare.

    Many of the names being floated for Penn. Senate such as Jim Gerlach and Charlie Dent are not sufficiently pro-life to draw a contrast. Without a strong contrast, I think Casey is too difficult to unseat in a state like Pennsylvania.

  • sundaycombo

    The Rollins remark that Bachmann was “just as cute but twice as smart” was (as DeNiro observed in “The Untouchables”) funny because it’s true.

    However, the observation that “should Giuliani get in, he becomes a real game changer for Mitt Romney and could potentially cost Mitt Romney the nomination” is just not supportable by any facts. Rudy had huge name recognition and spent 50 million bucks in 2008 and got one (thats right-one) delegate. There is no reason for him to enetr the race unless he wants to raise his profile and jack up his speakers fees.

  • sundaycombo

    As much as everyone touts Cain as the “one to surprise us” it is Bachmann that has the greater upside. If I was a Romney insider she would be the one I would keep my eye on.

  • akafroman

    Two winning combinations:

    Perry-Rubio (I agree)
    Proven Record
    Political Powerhouse

    Cain-Petraeus
    CEO-in-Chief
    Commander-in-Chief

    I really don’t see either of these losing.

  • Remington_Steele
  • Remington_Steele
  • gt80

    ..your assessment of the week.

    First, there’s no way Bachmann wins anything without a Palin endorsement (assuming Palin doesn’t run). If Palin does, run, she’s not going to peel off many Palin supporters. Lets face it, Palin has a star quality that Bachmann doesn’t have. Head over to free republic to see how Rollins’ comments with the base are playing. Not good. I think you underestimate the devotion Palin followers have to her. Bachmann hurt herself this week.

    Next to Bachmann, Romney had the 2nd worse week. He just doubled down on global warming. So now he’s got to deal with healthcare and global warming. Which nomination is he running for anyways?

    Shocked with your assessment. I thought Bachmann and Romney both had terrible weeks.

  • Jewels

    The more I like them. They aren’t celebrities- and that’s a good thing. I don’t want a celebrity, I want competence.

    In particular, I really like Cain and Perry. I think Bachmann is good, though being a woman, she’s going to have to deal with a lot of sexist vitriol from the left. It’s ugly, but it’s facts.

    I like T-Paw too. I think that if even one of these four holds on strong through the primaries, I will be ecstatic. To be fair, I think we have a good chance of seeing all four go far.

    How can that NOT be exciting!?

    I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’m really beginning to enjoy watching this play out…

  • chihank

    There is an AP report that senior adies to Newt are quitting en mass. If the AP report is true, then Newt might quit the priamry and beg to Fox news for his old job back. With Newt out of the race, Romney will get a bounce.

  • septembergurl

    popularity (or lack of) in their home states. Only one is in positive territory:

    http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/06/gop-candidates-unpopular-at-home.html

    It’s..Buddy Roemer!
    No. Gary Johnson, still wildly popular in NM.

    No surprise that Romney & Pawlenty poll poorly in their blue home states. But I am surprised at the negatives for Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Gingrich. Also surprised that Bachmann does that badly.

    As for Santorum, whether running for Senate or (as I believe) positioning himself as the Tea Party VP for Romney/Huntsman/Pawlenty, they still hate him at home.

    For some reason they have polled Palin and Perry, who are undeclared, but not Huntsman (all but) and Ron Paul (perennial). I suspect both would do well in their home states. I would also like to see how Giuliani does in NY.

    PPP, grain of salt. Also sorry if already mentioned, I just saw today.

  • sundaycombo

    “Newt Gingrich’s top campaign aides resigned en masse today, POLITICO has learned. Campaign manager Rob Johnson, strategists Sam Dawson and Dave Carney, spokesman Rick Tyler, and consultants Katon Dawson in South Carolina and Craig Schoenfeld in Iowa have all quit to protest what two officials called their “different vision” for the campaign.”

    ————————-

    I guess those Tiffany cufflinks he handed out didn’t have the desired effect!

  • chihank

    The Newt aides that are quitting on Newt have worked on Rick Perry’s campaign. Perhaps these aides are coming home to help Rick Perry for 2012.

  • unclefred

    I d*nm well know who I would not want.
    Newt, Mitt, Huntsman, Johnson, Paul are all non-starters at this point.

    I have a hard time seeing Bachmann as a viable nominee. I like a lot of what she says, even most of what she says, but the resume is too light.

    I have some issues with Rudy and T-Paw but I like the moves that T-Paw has made and I’ve always been impressed with Rudy’s leadership.

    I happened to read some of Palin’s history recently. I never bought the MSM’s parody and character assassination of her, but I was unaware of some of her accomplishments. I still think that her negatives are too high and that her resume is too light, but I no longer view her as inherently unelectable.

    I liked Santorum in the Senate. I’m waiting to see what he brings to the table.

    I love Cain. I love the fact that as a black conservative republican he is the antithesis of the image that the media would saddle us with. He would drive them nuts, and there would be NO race card. I love the fact that he is a successful business CEO. As I said before, the last person to win the presidency as his first public office was Eisenhower, and I wonder if there is any real chance that Cain could be the next. The federal bureaucracy is an immobile dead weight compared to the even largest private company, so I wonder if his experience as CEO really prepares him for the battle he’ll have with the government structure. Still he really is inspirational, and having a true outsider might really be a good thing. I guess I need convincing he is up to the job. It’s that whole resume thing again.

    So for now I’m holding my water.

  • BigRedConservative

    We have a mix of phony conservatives (Romney, Gingrich, Pataki), unelectable extremists (Palin, Bachmann, Luap Nor) and dull-as-ditchwaters middlemen (T-Paw, Giuliani). The only people firing my interest right now are Cain and John Bolton. Terrible, truly.

  • BigRedConservative

    Huntsman a hard time. He is eminently electable, preferable infinitely to Romney, and might turn out to be ten times the conservative we’d thought. Plus he’s the only man with foreign-policy experience. I’m not writing him off.

  • gt80

    The guy who supported the stimulus?

  • Mike

    Petraeus wants, and will get, the Chief Spook job that Panetta is vacating. He isn’t running for President because he doesn’t want to be President – he could run with Dennis Kucinich as his running mate, and still win.

    I don’t get the electability vibe from Cain. I love the guy, like I love Rubio…but I don’t see him winning. Just my two cents, in exchange for yours :D

  • akafroman

    :)

  • aesthete

    there will be increased scrutiny on his record and public statements as a “compassionate conservative”, as well as his frankly offensive and idiotic statements concerning sodomy. Traditional and Tea Party conservatives will be appalled at the enormous amounts of government that he was involved in pushing as Senator, and the enormous number of pro-government truisms and fads that he bought into (such as global warming). This will be especially true in light of the current emphasis on the economy and government scope. Moderate Republicans, libertarians and some other less traditional voters in the Republican base will be disgusted by Santorum’s extreme statements vis a vis social conservatism, and his rather bizarre family. Ron Paul has a better chance at winning the Presidency than Santorum, and that’s saying something.

  • gpclaw

    Comment regarding “personal autonomy”?

  • gpclaw

    I have ever read. In an interview, Santorum stated that:

    “The Goldwater Republican Party was a losing party. The Reagan conservative party is a winning party. We should have learned that lesson 40 years ago and if we haven’t, we hopefully don’t have to re-learn it this time,”

    I guess Santorum forgot about the fact that Goldwater was a political mentor to Reagan, and how Reagan flew around the country, stumping for Goldwater. He also must have forgotten that the modern Conservative movement, that got Reagan elected, was born out of the Goldwater movement.

    Stupid facts, always getting in the way.

  • gpclaw

    Goldwater didn’t break ranks with the Social Conservative movement until the end of his political career, after Reagan had already been elected.

  • standingonthewall

    All of the R candidates and potential candidates are better choices than BHO. At this point I could support with more or less enthusiasm: Bachman, Cain, Palin, Pawlenty, Perry, Santorum. I could support with less enthusiasm: Gingrich, Giuliani, Romney or perhaps even Huntsman or Johnson. Paul won’t get the nomination so I don’t have to have nightmares over choosing between Obama and Paul. In the end I’d probably vote for Paul if that were the choice.

  • gpclaw

    I thought his “Global warming is junk science” comment would help him? Are you suggesting that Conservatives disagree with his comment?

  • aesthete

    Just another nail in the coffin for me.

    I was basing my statements on 1) his record of voting and sponsored bills in office, and his influence with the Bushies regarding NCLB, Medicare Pt D and the rest, 2) the big government prescriptions that he recommended in his 2005 book “It Takes a Family” and 2) this Townhall op-ed where he asserts a large government role in an “anti-poverty agenda” at home and abroad.

    The fact that the washed-up hack has as much of a chance of becoming President as I do is encouraging, in light of his love for big government.

  • gpclaw

    Everyone has at least one, glaring red mark on their resume. I know that the idea of “the perfect candidate” is a fallacy, but some red flags are bigger than others.

    Romney wasn’t officially, officially dead to me, until he made his AGW statement. That, combined with RomneyCare, and I have a hard time making a significant distinction between Romney and Obama.

    For now, I am begrudgingly leaning towards T-Paw. I will have to look at Perry’s record more seriously, The one thing he and T-Paw both share, is global warming legislation passed on their watch. From what I can tell, the two of them are very similar on the issues.

    This is the first time I have found myself wishing the election were further away. I like the 2016 prospects, much more than the 2012 roster. Unfortunately, if everyone gets their wish, the 2016 prospects become the 2020 prospects.

    PTTP, I know your going to hate me for saying this. I would be satisfied with a large enough majority in the Senate to override a presidential veto, if that meant some of the post-Obama governors having a shot in 2016.

  • littlehouse18
  • littlehouse18
  • littlehouse18

    under tough interview questions. I fear the rest of the candidates will. Still, he seems to have lost some of his energy at his age.

  • gpclaw

    Since Obama has continued all of the Bush era policies that he campaigned against, one could make the case that Obama is the third Bush.

  • powertothepeople
  • cwilson

    We’ll see if this embed works…if not, try this:
    http://www.verumserum.com/?p=24834

  • pantera

    so the media doesn’t like the GOP’s conservative woman that is Palin so she cant win….but they’ll be ”nicer” to Bachmann so she can win-NOT(but she’s no Palin,be honest)…Paul is living in 1900….Mitt can win unless the media points out he’s left of mccain 10 yrs ago,now he is Mccain…Pawlenty will get a pass on global warming tax hikes until the general…Cain SAYs he conservative but we don’t really know…Newt’s just trying to raise profile as a former Presidential candidate…the media will accept Huntsmen but, like Mitt will and Mccain experienced, the medias agenda isn’t to elect republicans.It’s to get the easiest R to beat…Rudy’s a moderate like Criss Cristy(Moderate=social lib,economic conservative)….So that leaves Perry, since Newts staff bailed looks more possible. But he’s prob unelectable too,media & elites will slap him around…All the polls are pre general election debate polls.I know Palin can kick Obutt in that debate,she’s smarter,better speaker,bolder w/o any flip flop history and Bachmann can do the same just less boldly and w/o the business experience…

    Jeez,let’s not even have a primary and just let obama choose our nominee…

  • victrola

    Giuliani just implemented a poor strategy by going after larger states later in the game. The campaign thought it was going to be a muddled field until the big states began voting. Had he made his “firewall” in New Hampshire, I think he would have won.

    Primaries are hard to predict, I never thought McCain had a chance to be our nominee, and his campaign had largely been written off (he had to mortgage his house to pay campaign expenses)

    My armchair advice to candidates is you play to win early in the primary, either Iowa or New Hampshire. The momentum after those contests is usually too great to overcome.

  • unclefred

    Sorry he is a bigger RINO that Mitt, which is pretty hard to achieve. Neither is someone we want for 2012

  • unclefred

    Most of the republicans in the race can beat Obama and are infinitely preferable to him. If you look at the numbers, by next summer his policies will have crushed any recovery. Obama can’t hide behind the cool aid. We need to picka solid conservative, get him/her nominated, and work like H*LL to get him/her elected.

    The media’s likes and dislikes are unimportant. Pick, FIght, Win. That is our mantra.

  • onemovoter

    I watched the video of Cain on CNN with Wolfe Blitzer. They were doing rapid fire stance questions and Wolfe kept trying to make Cain clarify on a few which the Left doesn’t like. On the second amendment, Cain said he’s for it completely, which then Wolfe added, what about states and local government, should they be allowed to control guns or regulate, and Cain said yes it should be a state issue.

    So Cain got it right on the Federal level, but hasn’t kept up on the lawsuits which has forced the 2nd amendment onto the states. The argument made for the lawsuits basically said the 14th amendment , equal treatment under the law, should be extended to the states. This means the states will need to amend their constitutions to include a mirror of the 2nd amendment.

    Cain will have to inform himself on this issue, as it was with the Israeli issue. I really do like Cain, but he’ll have to keep working hard to up his political knowledge. His economic knowledge is 1st class and I see that every time someone asks him a question on that subject area. There was a write up of this very issue on Hotair on their greenroom postings. It went into more detail.

    Overall on the race, I have my favorites but the horse race will show who has the talent and ability to go the distance. It will actually strengthen whoever the GOP ends up with in the end.

  • Doc Holliday

    The Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This means that the states can not infringe upon our rights. Ok, reality is there are thousands of infringements, but Republicans are supposed to be fighting to reduce them, not add to them.

    This was no gotcha question, Cain repeated he supports state limits on gun rights. This is pretty much Obama’s stated position, it certainly was Rudy’s position that hurt him.

  • sccrenny

    who at last report is praying and consulting with his family. Conservatives for Jim DeMint 2012 has over 4700 members and state coordinators in over 35 states.

    A DeMint/Cain ticket would send Barry packing IMHO!

  • acat

    Cat could start thinking it’s a conspiracy…

    Huntsman and Santorum have the same problem – they’re not three-legged conservatives.

    Mew

  • cpaguy

    Cain answered the question well.

    Only a fanatic (probably upset Ron Paul fan)…would take Cain’s response as anything other than a comment on the State’s ability to regulate firearms (whether or not you agree with the ability of the State to do so is not the question, because they do).

    State’s can regulate firearms. Deal with it. That is what Cain was referring to. He was obviously not talking about the right of gun ownership in the 2nd amendment (which was adopted by the State’s).

    Obvioulsy Herman Cain is not for taking away gun rights. We know this not only because of his previous history with the issue, but also because in sentence before he strongly defended the 2nd amendment.

    He was not trying to give some deep response about how he feels about the nature of the rights of (or from) the Federal a nd State governments.

    It is these type of convoluted responses to answers that candidates give, that aren’t based on what the candidate said, but on what somebody else attributes to that candidate (because they don’t like them or they have a “story” to turn into the editor), that lead to us getting liberals and squishes like McCain and Romney.

  • cpaguy

    Certainly, her run is really about her gaining more political clout, gaining better assignments, and maybe a better office…but it really doesn’t seem to be about becoming President.

    Cain is either going to be President…or maybe even VP if he falls a bit short for the top gig. I don’t see him being too interested in getting involved in retail state politics (despite some efforts to get him to do so…I really think there are too many GOP incumbents in GA for him to get a good gig anyway).

  • lineholder

    I took it that he was talking more in the context of states having the right and responsibility to establish laws regarding licensure, open carry versus concealed carry, etc.

  • cpaguy

    Several of these need to be made for Romney.

    I think Romney has a glass jaw and is going to go down quick once challenged in the debates.

    He has the money to stay in the race until the end….but I think once the gloves come off the various campaigns….he is toast (his only hope is that everybody plays nice with him).

    Romney out would lead to us seeing a good fight between Pawlenty, Cain, and maybe a late comer.

  • lineholder

    I would put into Hot Air’s articles where Cain is concerned.

  • Doc Holliday

    the fact is Cain gave a week answer, the same answer any generic Dem would give.

    We still have a long way to go battling for 2A rights in Illinois, MD, New York, CA, and DC. You might not care about this issue, or the people that live under tyranny, but Republicans do. Cain needs to clarify his meaning. You can’t say that gun control should be left to the states AND say the Constitution gives every law abiding citizen the right to Keep and BEAR arms.

  • Doc Holliday

    unless you pay thousands of dollars and jump threw 50 hoops? I don’t need Hot Air to convince me, I saw what Cain said. It was either one more gaffe, or he is going to have a 2A problem.

  • powertothepeople

    with current news. DeMint made it clear he is not running, out of respect to his supporters he did think about it and discuss it with his family, but that he came to the decision it is not his time to run.

    I agree, would love for him to run. I would do my best to be his biggest supporter, but it is not going to happen this go around. May as well move on, find another you can support, and put your support behind them.

  • Doc Holliday

    Kind of like when you “know” something bad is going to happen. He had it all, all the superficial things people like and he trashed Bush at every turn. The sheeple were trained to respond favorably to this, even to the point of fainting and building Greek temple’s.

  • lineholder

    I didn’t throw daggers at you, so there’s no need that I see to get on the defensive.

    Put your own interpretation on it then. Spin it as much as you want. We’ll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

  • cpaguy

    To be honest, my few sentences were not in direct response to you personally.

    Though I guess you are a Ron Paul fan….lol…if you are…realize there is a reason why his followers get a bad rap…

    In general…this seems to be an issue only on a couple websites. For the most part, the people who initially got all upset about Cain’s response have been shown to be utterly foolish by others who actually went upon what the man said.

  • Doc Holliday

    well I guess it is possible, but I doubt many other Republicans care much about right of return, other than it is not our business, it is Israel’s.

    This makes me think of the time in 2000 when Bush was stumped by a gotcha question asking who was the leader or Pakistan. I think Limbaugh said that if someone asked that question to Reagan, Reagan would have said, “It is not for me to know him, it is for him to know me!”

    America needs to get its swagger back. We are looking for someone to protect our nation, this is not a spelling bee.

  • Doc Holliday

    I don’t want to get a bad rap.

  • Doc Holliday

    I wouldn’t say I threw any daggers at you either, not even an exclamation mark. I am not spinning anything because I said just recently I am supporting Cain, that was before this 2a comment. I have noticed he has made several errors, these are the facts. And your right, we don’t have to agree on everything, but don’t accuse me of spinning, I said what I meant, it is how I feel.

  • cpaguy

    I have Cain as 1A and Pawlenty as 1b (small b).

    One of the two I hope comes on top.

    I’m a Texan…and while I would support Perry for President if the GOP field was just filled with Romney, Huntsman, and Palin…I think a good candidate will come out the current crop.

    The more conservatives find out about Perry…the more they will hate him…

    There is a reason why Texas conservatives aren’t drooling over themselves in regards to Perry (when Bush ran…everybody was behind him….not so with Perry).

    I was kinda hoping for him to give it a go last year before I found out all his dealings with forcing vaccines on people and his involvment in the Texas Transcorridor scandal.

    I absolutely love Rick’s rhetoric, but I see too much evidence (forced vaccines, highway scandal, shakiness on immigration, past life as a democrat, love for press) that he is all hat no cattle. Thank God that the conservatives in the new state legislature (despite being lead by a big time squishy) have done a lot to keep Texas…Texas.

    That said….Perry>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kay Baily Hutchinson

  • lineholder

    I just think that this is one case in particular where Cain, who is adamant in his support of the Constitution and of 2nd Amendment rights, would encourage NOTHING that would interfere with those rights. I’ve heard him talk about this one in the past, and he’s not in support of states regulating control of guns in any way that would strip 2nd amendment rights. Common sense laws at a state level? Yes. He would see that as being state territory and wouldn’t want the feds involved in it.

  • edintexas

    cpaguy wrote: “He was not trying to give some deep response about how he feels about the nature of the rights of (or from) the Federal a nd State governments.”

    This is troubling only because you seem to indicate that you agree with those Democrats who think our “rights” come “from government”. The statement might have been inadvertent, but we need to be sure we make accurate statements.

  • snowshooze

    It would appear that Cain is Pro-2nd amendment at the Federal level, however he is ambivilant about State regulation.
    ” An issue best left to the States ” ( We are thrown to the dogs.)
    So I am not satisfied with that answer as it is a bridge to the gutting of the entire Bill of Rights. My whole point being mission creep.
    Have no doubt, I am a dyed in the wool gun nut. It is a big issue, but as pointed out by everybody and their dog… the second amendment is the sitting duck, the best target they have to begin selectively nullifying the Bill of Rights. Ok, well… the fist amendment is in just as bad of shape with the Government just dying to control, censor, tax and regulate the internet…also under the guise of National Security and every other thing they can dream up.
    But anyway, the 2nd amendment issue is a good indicator of how one views individual liberties, and this is why is raised a red flag with me.
    I have enjoyed and applauded everything I have heard from Cain up until this point, but if he is of the mind that States need not observe either the Constitution or Bill of Rights… that is fatal error.
    My thanks to each and every one of you who threw in their two cents worth

  • Flagstaff

    the eventual candidate can use the support of all the others. The biggest thing they can all do to help gain a victory in 2012 is to focus their energies on showing how they will be better than Obama, not better than each other.

    This election definitely needs practical application of the 11th commandment.

  • Flagstaff

    Now let’s get these folks working on some Obama spots.

  • Flagstaff

    I can now also declare that there are more than a few of our guys who give every indication of being the next Ike W. McCain, which means they are questionable when it comes to their ability to stand up to “accepted knowledge” and temptation to reach across the aisle.

    Even today, our Republican House is contemplating a “deal” with the Obamites to raise the debt ceiling in return for a phantom budget cut plan. We need a President who can recognize the snake oil when it comes out, and I’m not sure they all can.

    All better than Obie Won? You bet. But if we elect Ike W. McCain and he squishes on command, I can envision the demise of the Republican Party. We would immediately lose the Tea Partiers and conservative independents to the mantra, “not a dime’s worth of difference,” and it wouldn’t matter that it isn’t true because it will be true enough.

  • gracie

    I heard him at RedState; I was ready to like him.

    Israel is one of our most important allies and it WAS the subject of the week. Right of return….should he not be studying up on that?

    Plus his “ask the experts” foreign policy…like I said, Pawlenty has an answer for each and every country over there. Time to study up and have an opinion!

    Now his 2ndA gun opinion…..decide in the States! He is a great guy but is he ready to be President. As time goes on I have to wonder.

  • sccrenny

    “would take an extraordinary set of circumstances” for him to enter the race. There’s a rally June 18 in his hometown of Greenville, SC to try to convince him that Mitt Romney getting the nomination- as polls indicate at this time is likely- is an extraordinary circumstance.

    Thanks for the advice, but there is plenty of time to settle for what I would consider second-best after a concerted effort to convince Sen. DeMint to run. That’s why they call it a “draft” movement.

  • cpaguy

    Rights come from God.

    However, as it relates to gun regulation…yes, the state is involved…whether you like it or not.

  • Doc Holliday

    since violent crime is already illegal, gun control’s ONLY purpose is to curtail the rights of law abiding citizens. Criminals who are willing to kill don’t care about gun control laws, nor do they care about no guns stickers on bank doors.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Doc Holliday

    he better study quick, he also needs some really good advisers and a Cheney like VP.

  • powertothepeople

    to draft DeMint as much as your want and if you are successful, I would be extremely happy. But DeMint has never played Huckster type games, he says what he means and does what he says.

    I believe him when he says he has little to no interest in being president at this time, I believe him when he states that he did consider the whole thing out of respect for his supporters, and I take him at his word when he says now is not the time. Extraordinary circumstances is not a draft league or outspoken supporters, it is the absence of a single conservative and that is not the case this time. They may not be the conservatives we want, but there are conservatives in the race so DeMint will not get in. He has stated many times that he has a lot to do in Congress and that is the job he loves. He will not run for president this time and maybe never.

    And Mitt Romney may win, but it will not be because of these early polls. They mean nothing. These polls reflect nothing more than name recognition and the fact that most of the other contenders have not really gotten their campaign effort in gear. Just like in 08, he will slide into his rightful place which will not be first.

  • cpaguy

    I’m not against your position or anything.

    But as it relates to Cain, he has already shown that he is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendement. His comments didn’t contradict that. His statements reflected reality….not some alternate version of the USA.

    Context is important…unless you want a squishy to be President.

    Even as it relates to the 14th amendment, the intent wasn’t to curtail the ability of the State’s to curtail regulation (even in regards to guns). It was an effort (not fully recognized until very recently by the Supreme Court) to make sure that the State’s didn’t use their POWER to curtail inherent rights (primarily the rights of newly freed slaves). It certainly wasn’t a specific address to gun ownership/regulation.

    As such, from a strict-constructivist view, it is tough to find evidence that firearms can’t/shouldn’t be regulated by the State.

  • Doc Holliday

    but i can find evidence that gun rights should not be infringed, that evidence is in the US Constitution. Should states be able to tinker with the idea all men are created equal? you know, because different states might view that differently?

  • cpaguy

    Unfortunately, we live in a Federal Republic. The State’s have plenty of rights both from the Federal government and for what they can do to their populace.

    The 14th Amendment along with a fairly recent verdict from the Supreme Court ensure that citizens can own guns.

    However, the 2nd Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and even the Supreme Court have never challenged the validity of the state to regulate the conditions of ownership.

  • cpaguy

    Unfortunately, we live in a Federal Republic. The State’s have plenty of rights both from the Federal government and for what they can do to their populace.

    The 14th Amendment along with a fairly recent verdict from the Supreme Court ensure that citizens can own guns.

    However, the 2nd Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and even the Supreme Court have never challenged the validity of the state to regulate the conditions of ownership.

  • Doc Holliday

    what you want to be true is false. You want us to be gun grabbers, when we know we need to push the pendulum way back to “reasonable”. We won’t get “common sense” gun control until we kill about five thousand absurd state laws. I am don’t discussing this with you, you are just not on board, period. When a man decides politicians have the right to decide whether he can defend himself and his family, I have nothing to teach him.

  • Doc Holliday
  • Doc Holliday

    The Constitution recognizes the rights of the people and allocates some power to the federal government, the rest of the power is left to the states, not given by the feds.

  • cpaguy

    I don’t disagree with you on that.

    However, in regards to the 2nd amendment, you don’t seem to grasp it from the context of the States.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth
  • Doc Holliday

    The Constitution recognizes the self evident truth of the right to keep and bear arms that SHALL NOT be infringed.

    The states and the FEDS both infringe. Some of us are luckier than others and live in states that do have “common sense” gun controls.
    But other states have common senseless gun controls that enslave their people, and we should fight to free them.

    Furthermore, I don’t care where you live, there are statists looking for any and every change to infringe on your rights. The battle for freedom is constant, and any let up will be exploited.

  • Doc Holliday

    yes, the quote about self-evident truths comes from the Declaration. Still, the meaning is the same, the Bill or Rights is not rights given from man, but rights OF man, given by God in my opinion.

    I would not say prohibition and its repeal were divinely inspired.

  • acat
  • glaucon

    Now that the debate is over, we can see that Bachmann really did do well. She ended up with a healthy bump form this debate.