« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Presidential Primary Priorities — UPDATED

The night of the New Hampshire debate after being harassed by my Twitter friends, I broke down my priorities for the GOP candidate. Surely, you’ve decided who you want already, people said. Well, not so much.

So I explained my criteria for the Republican nominee and I offer it to you here, now, before this debate.

1. Anybody but Obama.
I will support a roasted red turnip who claims the Republican mantle over Barack Obama. A root vegetable would know more about foreign and economic policy. People ask, “Even Ron Paul?!” Yes, even him.

2. Executive Experience.
The “executive experience” requirement eliminates some folks, but oh well. I want our next President to know his or her way around the bottom line. He or she should be ok making decisions. A Governor has to be elected by a broad base of folks. A Governor has to stay true to principles but be more pragmatic. A good Governor leads.

So that means no to Cain, Bachmann, Newt, Thad McCotter, Ron Paul, Santorum etc.

That winnows the list to: Romney, Perry, Palin, Pawlenty, Huntsman (ahem) and Johnson (cough).

3. Can win.
I didn’t think the New Hampshire debate was going to be important, but then, it became important for one candidate: Tim Pawlenty. I like Governor Pawlenty. He’s a good man. He has a decent record. But he whiffed. He had the opportunity to knock out Governor Romney on Romneycare in Massachusetts, but he didn’t. The Republican candidate is going to have to be tough. And Governor Pawlenty just hasn’t gotten traction.

Gary Johnson: No chance. Jon Huntsman: Beloved by liberals everywhere. I don’t see him getting traction.

That leaves Romney, Perry and Palin.

The problem at the Iowa debate tonight is that the two biggest contenders to Mitt Romney won’t be there. So, how important is the debate? How important is Iowa?

Every time someone tells me that Iowa is a super important state I think two words: Howard Dean.

Meh. The state and debate is important insomuch as one doesn’t want to fail there, too badly.

Another thing: The straw poll in Iowa is set up so that folks can be bussed in and the tickets paid for by candidates. Who does this favor? Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Both routinely stuff ballots at straw polls. I fully expect their people to do the same here. So, for what that’s worth…

Bottom line, it’s early. I am curious to see how the candidates react to pressure. We know how Sarah Palin reacts and she’s a fighter and has endured.

Romney, though, hasn’t really been tested, interestingly enough. Remember John McCain? The press loved him too. Why? He was eminently beatable. And then, he got the nomination and the press turned like vipers.

Mitt Romney is more moderate. He’s a big government Republican. If the press has to be “stuck” with a Republican, he’s their kind of Republican. Well, he or Jon Huntsman. And then, he’d get the nomination and they will savage him.

Palin and now, Perry, provoke deep-seated, reflexive fear and loathing by liberals. They are outspoken conservatives who represent all things that make them shrink like vampires from the light.

Can Romney, Perry or Palin win against Obama? Oh heck yes they can. All of them can lead, give a speech, rouse a crowd and have experience.

So, the debate tonight is really about Romney and not screwing up. He handled hecklers well early today. I figure he’ll do fine tonight. I also expect Michele Bachmann to do well, too. She’s is absolutely certain of her policy positions and she’s smart and quick on her feet. My only knock? She hasn’t got executive experience. That’s critical and I think that will be critical for the Republican nominee.

P.S. I’m really interested in your thoughts about the debate tonight and the field in general. And I recognize that neither Perry or Palin is officially in the race yet. I just expect they both will be.

P.P.S. Remember Point #1. All of the Presidential contenders on the Republican side are lightyears ahead of President Obama. And at the New Hampshire debate I was so impressed with the depth and breadth of experience of the Republican hopefuls.

UPDATE:

Some analysis…
I think I take it back about Ron Paul. His foreign policy is INSANE. He’s to the left of Obama. Wow.

Bachmann and Pawlenty really hurt themselves and each other going back and forth.

Gingrich did a good job. Got some good zings in. Don’t think anyone is taking him seriously as President.

Pawlenty …. oh man, I think he’s done.

Cain, Santorum, Paul, Huntsman. Just don’t see it happening.

Bret Baier kept things going. The questions were mostly good, but just not enough questions on jobs, entitlement reform and the economy.

Mitt Romney was like the ghost candidate. He was mostly silent. The debate moderators seemed to not want to ask him a question or a tough question or a follow up question. What the heck? Shouldn’t a front runner get questioned?

Anyway, ultimately, I still say this is all relatively irrelevant until Perry and Palin get in the race.

COMMENTS

  • silentcal2012

    Errrr, the press hates Romney, always has. He ran the rabid liberal state of MA where they tried to destroy him daily.

    And he ran fro POTUS in 2008 and withstood withering attacks from all angles, liberals and conservative, and came out standing tall, and is doing it again.

    One of the things that makes him appealing is the fact that he is thoroughly vetted and tested. He can handle a debate as we already saw, he can handle the press, he can handle hecklers…

    Dont know where that comment came from.

    • mikeymike143

      so they can get ”respect”. iran would attack israel the same day that they got nuclear weapons. i think ron paul just wanted to energize his neo- nazi base over at STORMFRONT.

      • youngconstitutionalist

        I’m sad to admit I used to support that nut. I tend to lean against military intervention, but I do believe we have enemies out there that we occasionally need to make war on. I’m against all forms of nation-building, but we should not hesitate to defend ourselves. Furthermore, we should have the wisdom to know that there are people who desire to harm us, and that radical Islam will be a danger, albeit a danger we should handle differently than we are right now.

      • logicalliberty

        And South Korea is still around

        • youngconstitutionalist

          for a point!

      • izoneguy

      • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

        what does this denote?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NT

    • jccbin

      Sorry, Dr. Clouthier, but you are apparently missing your dictionary. Right as you are about his chances, Mr. Cain has executive experience. The Bachmanns and Gingrichs operate businesses, too. (You already included Romney in your tidy group).

      Executive experience in government does not qualify anyone for anything other than lead rear-kisser.

      I don’t see any of them becoming President, but I note closely that you ignore the REAL WORLD executive experience of these candidates. It seems to speak to an internal, pro-bureaucracy bias on your part. I’ll be da*ned if I will count being a politician as a positive attribute in this race.

      Dr. Clouthier, are you a defender of the political class that continues to destroy this nation? If so, well, I can’t do more here than shake my head in disgust.

      • paulnashtn

        A bit over the top but I was just getting ready to make almost the same point about Cain & Bachman, I had forgotten that Gingrich also has a business.
        Private business IS executive experience, as good, if not better, than government executive

        • jccbin

          It was over the top. However, the in-crowd skulls here tend to be thicker and harder than normal; thus it takes a bigger prod to get their attention.
          And, yes, private business experience is just as you say: “as good, if not better, than government executive” experience.
          To those whose minds are not shielded by titanium egos, I apologize for the hard poke.

      • unclefred

        Executive experience gained in business is quite different than that gained in the political arena.

        For example, private sector employees serve at will, government employees do not. That is a major difference, which has confounded presidents for a very long long time.

        CEO’s do not have to deal with a legislature, let alone one controlled by a totally hostile opposing party. Although I would expect the Republicans to take both bodies in 2012.

        CEO’s are not the head of law enforcement as governors are.

        As much as I like Cain’s successful history as a CEO and VP, it would be foolish to equate that experience with that of a successful governor. It is for each of us to decide the degree to which those differences matter, but Dr. Clouthier is correct to point out Cain’s lack in this regard.

  • DerKrieger

    n/t

  • Sam Gamgee

    I agree with your analysis, except that I wouldn’t completely dismiss Pawlenty yet. Yes, he gave up an important opportunity in New Hampshire, and he is certainly an underdog, but I think he’s still in the running unless and until either Perry or Palin starts to run away with the conservative vote.

    I remember at times in the 2008 election, when McCain looked like he was out of the primary, but he came back and won it.

    On the other hand, if Pawlenty can’t make a good showing in the debate AND beat Bachman in the Ames straw poll (no matter how rigged it is), he’ll be out.

    • Tbone

      It’s his only hope of even being noticed.

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

        not so much

    • nepanyrush

      Pawlenty’s attack on Bachman looked really, really bad and Bachman’s comeback was top of the line. For Pawlenty to basically say that Bachman lies and that she accomplished nothing — points that the left would use against her should she win or be the VP candidate — was beyond the pale. Bachman’s clear citation of how she fought against Obama’s policies was very clearly stated.

      I started out this primary race with Pawlenty as my favorite, based simply on what I read about him. But right now, I am really disgusted with him, and the audience’s reaction reflected that I am not alone in that.

      Romney and Perry are the two clear frontrunners. But I would love to see Bachman as the VP. One very bright and principled woman.

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

        They both gave flat no’s and then went on….

        Paranoia? Justified?

        Obviously it is sometimes necessary to raise taxes, which is proven by the fact that all are for more than 0% taxes. I see why so many do respect Ron Paul.

        • aesthete

          I know that these debates aren’t aimed at the most informed of voters, but do our candidates have to say provably dumb things like “no taxes, ever”? I would probably like a smaller government than even most people on this board would feel comfortable with, but even so, defense, law enforcement, courts, etc cost money.

          I do also have to give grudging respect to Ron Paul: the man’s nuts, but I can see the appeal of a politician who doesn’t shove that sort of garbage in your face. (Of course, the Strange New Respect does nothing to abet Ron Paul’s notable flaws, in particular his ineffectiveness and nuttery.)

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

            ‘thete

          • paulnashtn

            NOONE said

    • Reg

      of 1 answer at a debate nobody watched.

      Pawlenty has the experience to contrast with Obama, profesionalism not to muck it up, and is genuinely conservative and electable. Romney can’t be trusted, and the country isn’t ready for another Texas governor.

      I’m in Bachmann’s district. She is not ready to be president. I’m astounded she’s getting the traction she is. Give her a leadership spot and lets see how she does with something she hasn’t had, executive responsibility. Palin quit her job after 2 years. She should be dropped.

      • Reg

        not elimiante

        • wennejunk

          The voters, not the OP, determine who stays and goes. The article merely reflects reality.

          Pawlenty underwhelms and looks petty in the way he goes after Bachmann.

          She has done well for precisely the reason he has not. She’s focused, energetic and on target, rather than calculating and positioning and sampling the winds.

          He comes across as weak; she as strong. People want the latter and despise the former.

          • BA Cyclone

            Perfectly stated!

          • BA Cyclone

            Perfectly stated!

  • snowshooze

    As an Alaskan, seeing first hand the damage of ACES, Alaka’s clear and equitable share oil tax hike, Trans Canada 500 million dollar pipeling study handout which has netted us nothing, and AGIA, where there was an open bidding season for contractors to actually propose the building of said pipeline, the outcome of that has been WITHELD from us, Even though concluded months ago…they will not disclose the results.
    Ok, I still like Sarah, but she sure made some unforced errors which had she gone the route of pushing the pipe in the way Hickle did, we may have hooked into a market which is now evaporating.
    So, I don’t know too much about Perry, but from what I do know, of the two he would be preferable to me.

  • onemovoter

    Although I think you disqualified Cain too early in your breakdown. Cain was the CEO and leader of the national restaurant association, which is obviously a national business organization that is bigger than any state. He was also CEO and co-owner of Godfathers pizza, another national chain. There was also the NE Burger King chain that he ran, along with Pillsbury, ect.

    However being CEO of a private company is different than the bizzaro world of government. Politicians that are there as a part of the government aren’t there to work in concert with your orders. They are there to smile at you face to face, then knife you in the back as you walk away. For this reason, I would put Cain under your 3rd reason, electability. I still like Cain very much especially his support for the fair tax.

    I’m still wondering about Palin. I currently have to agree with others that she will be king maker instead of running. She put the following paragraph at the end of her latest Facebook entries –

    “Our destiny is still in our own hands if we pick ourselves up and act responsibly and quickly. We must all get involved. Concerned Americans must seek truth, work harder than ever, and be willing to sacrifice today to ensure freedom tomorrow. Please get engaged in 2012 electoral politics and support experienced, vetted, pro-free market fiscal conservatives who will dedicate all to preserving our Republic and protecting our Constitution.” – Sarah Palin

    That makes me say “hhmmmm…”.

    • snowshooze

      If he can get a foothold, he know business.
      In the Godfathers deal, he was handed winners and losers. He had to cull out several non-producing branches, he did it.
      Don’t know what else he did there, but he IS NOT Mr. Pizza.
      But he can work with one. He has a great Resume.

  • Menlo

    Not one peep about the government’s unjust and unconstitutional systematic raping of individuals at airports from any potential candidate, and no one seems to care. That’s something the President can do without Congress.

  • smitch61

    Nothing personal, I just never watch until the primaries are won. I know who my candidate is. It is unfortunate to say, but no matter how it turns out I am in the anybody but column.

  • snowshooze

    nt

    • carolina

      That it gives me hope.
      Come on 2012!

  • kraig

    or does Ron Paul look like Martin Crane from Frasier?

  • eugenio

    Don’t be too quick to scratch off candidates simply because they don’t have executive experience in the political arena. Abraham Lincoln served only one term in the House and was chiefly known for his opposition to the Mexican War. Truman served as a senator before becoming FDR’s veep. No one could argue that he was not a strong executive. It’s nice to have on one’s resume, but it’s not a crucial factor for me. I’d much rather have a principled conservative anyday.

    • Adjoran

      Lincoln took over a federal government with few cabinet offices and few responsibilities. There was not the need to experience running a large organization, because the federal government wasn’t one.

      Truman was no strong executive. Aside from following through on FDR’s plan to drop the A-bombs if Japan wouldn’t surrender, his Presidency was pretty much a complete failure. You’ve been reading too many history books written by Democrats. He was a feisty guy, but a failed President by every measure.

      • eugenio

        At least you knew Truman was in control. He was not AWOL like Carter, Clinton, and Barry. It’s true that Lincoln did not have the bureaucratic behemoth that is the Federal government today. However doesn’t the fact that he was able to see the country through the greatest crisis in American history impress you? Are you also aware of the fact that most of his cabinet members conspired against him, yet he was still able to have the political and administrative skill to get them to surrender their egos in order to win the Civil War? The generals under his command were no better, yet he eventually found the right ones. I still say a principled conservative is much better than executive experience and based on that, people like Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain are better than Romney or Huntsman any day. BTW, Bush 43 had executive experience and was a miserable president. And no, I didn’t have to read any history books written by liberals to know that.

  • snowshooze

    And it looks like Newt / Cain are hooking up

    • wonkish1

      While unlikely to win. I would be hard pressed to believe anybody would be happier without him in the race.

      Anybody that can make that is good at marketing conservatism on stage belongs on that stage even if they wont win.

      • JSobieski

        Sometimes he really nails it. Other times he shoots both feet with one bullet.

        • wonkish1

          When a candidate is perpetually bold those 1 or 2 huge “foot in mouth” moments stand out a lot more than the dozens of great hits. That is a curse of being bold guy.

          It will be interesting to see the national poll numbers next week. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him pop up 5-8 pts. But since the battleground states are being carved up already and he has no money you can bet any poll numbers he gets are meaningless.

  • Getting_Back_to_Basics

    I think I’d stay home or vote for a third party if he is at the top of the ticket. Though after tonight, I don’t think I will need to worry about that scenario.

    • Reg

      Her biggest accomplishment is a lighbulb bill that didn’t pass.

      • gekster

        Educate yourself before you comment. ;)

        • Reg

          I’m in her district, there are none. She’s a talking head, that’s it.

          • gekster

            George Washingtons legislative accomplishments.
            Samual adams legislative accomplishments.
            Abraham Lincoln legislative accomplishments.
            Ulysses S Grants legislative accomplishments.
            Franklin D Roosevelt legislative accomplishments.
            John Kennedys legislative accomplishments.
            Richard Nixons legislative accomplishments.
            Bill Clintons legislative accomplishments.
            George Bushs 1 legislative accomplishments.
            George Bushs 2 legislative accomplishments.
            Barac Obamas legislative accomplishments.
            Show me yours and I will show you mine.

          • Reg

            I said legislative accomplishments because Bachmann has no military or executive experience. Other than Obama, Kennedy, and Lincoln, the others had a much more significant record than Bachmann.

          • Reg

            she may be an Obama or a Kennedy. Inexperienced and over their heads.

          • gekster

            And ect. ect.
            Still not a disqualifier.

          • gekster

            None of them have legislative accomplishments.
            That is not a disqualifier for President.
            You are just grasping at reasons not to support Bachmann.

          • Reg

            Is that a question you will answer? That’s what I want to know. Giving good answers on Fox News isn’t sufficient.

            I say this as somebody who agrees with her that the stimulus was wrong, the debt ceiling should not be raised, and I should be free to buy incandescent light bulbs.

          • gekster

            What makes her not a good candidate.

          • gekster

            Oh, yeah, Reagan.
            But he was a lousy President, wasn’t he. ;)

          • JSobieski

            Reagan was nothing like Bachmann in terms of executive experience. Reagan had a lot of both—ideology and experience.

            Liberals have learned over the past two years that ideology is not enough for a successful presidency. Lets not teach ourselves that lesson in 2013.

          • BA Cyclone

            The Pawlenty soft comparison of Bachmann to Obama as an empty suit full of mere rhetoric is no more ridiculous out of his mouth than it is on a blog.

          • Reg

            if that’s all it takes.

            She’s no more experienced than Obama was when he ran.

          • snowshooze

            And she is over 35
            Verifiable US born natural citizen.. ( Can’t help the stab )
            Fights like a pit bull.
            The girl scout with a switchblade.

          • gekster

            Manage a household budget, keep 23 adopted kids from fighting with each other, and when they do, manage to keep the peace, (kids always fight amongst themselves), and run a buisiness and keep it from going under.
            Feed them all and keep them happy and ocupied.
            All at the same time.
            Thats’s not Presidentiol material.
            You see. she, has to be a man in order to do it.

          • Reg

            Your list of qualifications is getting more ridiculous. Pretty soon you’ll be pulling Obama’s argument that campaign success shows she’s qualified.

          • gekster

            Conservatives don’t buy ibno that.
            The HuffPo is calling.
            And now you earn the monicor of idiot.
            And I’m sorry for insulting idiots at this time.

          • gekster

            Conservatives don’t buy into that.
            The HuffPo is calling.
            And now you earn the monicor of idiot.
            And I’m sorry for insulting idiots at this time.

          • Reg

            I have a thick skin, but others may not, so I’d suggest you tone it down and quit accusing people of bigotry before you get in trouble.

          • acat

            but I do prefer, as Melissa pointed out above, one with government executive experience.

            It’s one thing to run a company, or a law firm, or a trade group where everyone is pulling in relatively the same direction. Managing the motley collection of in-fighting departmental warlords that is a government .. that’s different on a whole lot of levels – the most obvious one being that a good percentage of supposed subordinates, especially at more lib-centric departments like State, are going to actively work *against* a GOP POTUS.

            Plumbing doesn’t even enter in, gekster.

            Mew.

          • redtillimdead

            All had something Bachmann doesn’t: Executive experience. As Obama has shown, career legislators are horrible Presidents, especially one’s with no accomplishments. Now, tell us one bill Bachmann authored or sponsored that was signed into law?

          • gekster

            And I will leave it at that.

          • gekster

            Had his own business, a family farm, and was the first President.
            Never proposed any bills.
            Do a search on “bachmann sponsers legislation” and find out for yourself.
            (I found plenty)
            Just come out and say it, you don’t like conservative women.

          • Reg

            Bachmann is no George Washington

          • gekster

            Clinton wasn’t a general, and got elected.
            Grant wasn’t in any legislature, and got elected.
            Kennedy never proposed any bills, and got elected.
            Taft was fat. and got elected.
            Your reasons for not wanting Bachmann is childish at best.
            If you don’t like her, you havn’t given a good reason besides you own childish wants.

          • JSobieski

            Executive experience isn’t needed to become President, but it is really helpful in actually carrying out the job as President.

            Grant, Kennedy, and Taft were clearly below average Presidents. Clinton was merely mediocre.

            So we are shooting for mediocre?

            If ideology is all that matters, lets just vote in Rush and be done with it.

          • gekster

            See the sarcasm.

          • JSobieski

            the lack of executive experience does matter.

            A legislator can quite easily decide to vote in a very philosophically consistent matter without much consequence. Thus, a person can say I won’t vote for anything that isn’t 100% of what I want.

            Executives don’t have that kind of option. Reagan signed a lot of stuff that he only agreed with 60-70% of.

            Being governor really is kind of a necessary prerequisite for making a meaningful assessment of what kind of President a candidate will be. Lincoln was from a different era. Truman was a VP who was plugged into a WWII administration. Kennedy was largely a failure despite the fact that he was talented as a politician.

            Being a governor doesn’t make someone a good candidate for President, but not being a governor pretty much makes someone a inferior candidate.

            I like Bachman alot, but none of her principled stands have ever mattered. In contrast, the executive almost always matters.

          • gekster

            it doesn’t disqualify her for the job.
            There are more things that qualify others, but that is a none starter.

          • JSobieski

            Would I vote for her over Obama? Sure. I might even vote her over any other candidate without executive experience.

            I think we are playing with fire if we elect someone with exclusively legislative experience. Its simply to easy to be a legislator.

          • Reg

            She hasn’t even had any leadership roles or major bills. We ripped Obama for that extensively.

            I’d like to see her follow the same path John Kasich did. Build up a good reputation in the house, after an early run for president, go back and run for governor. In 10 years she’ll be ready for a serious run.

          • gekster

            That doesn’t mean that they were bad Presidents.
            On the same token, you could pick any President, and find things that would disqualify them, and that doesn’t mean they were bad.
            Until the person has actually searved as President, you just can’t say wether they willl be a good one or a bad one.
            All you have now is your own personal likes and dislikes.
            And this person has lame excuses for dislikes.
            If he wants to win the arguement, then you win.
            Bachmann is a horible bitch who should not be in public office.
            There, are you happy now.

          • JSobieski

            of future failure. Lincoln and Truman are the only clear non-failure Presidents without executive experience, and neither one served as President in the modern era. Obama is a great example of why legislators have problems. You don’t think Obama was as ideological as Bachmann? Its not stopping him from floundering now.

            Bachmann is NOT a “horrible bitch”. Asserting that such a statement makes anyone happy is not the most mature of responses.

            Bachmann is actually a good politician in many respects. However, we should be honest with ourselves as to what makes an effective President.

            The Presidency is a not a job on talk radio. It is not a job publishing a conservative magazine. Nor is is a legislative job.

            Different kinds of jobs require different kinds of experience. I wouldn’t have my heart surgeon repair the plumbing in my house and I wouldn’t have my priest manage a team of litigation attorneys.

          • BA Cyclone

            I would love to have the luxury of disqualifying anyone that hasn’t already been a Governor. My problem is that in this race, when we do that we get a bunch of squishes on conservative principles. Those principles are my non-negotiables.

            My first criteria for evaluating the candidates is ultimately conservative ideals. Who will best be a champion of my life, liberty, and property in Washington…AND get elected and be an effective President?

            To say you first have to be elected Governor for me is a really-nice-to-have, except what it does (for me) to the existing field of candidates.

            Not having that, I have to judge and discern a candidate for those qualities on an individual basis. Do they have what it takes to be an effective political executive?

            I’m fine with Michele Bachmann as a candidate because I think she does have what it takes. She has not demonstrated that as being a Governor of a state, but I do feel she has demonstrated this aptitude in other ways.

            I think keeping the selection criteria artificially rigid risks not selecting the best candidate. If there was a candidate out there with Bachmann’s profile on conservative principles AND was a successful Governor, I’d be for them. But I don’t presently see that person, so for me I prefer Bachmann.

          • BA Cyclone

            I would love to have the luxury of disqualifying anyone that hasn’t already been a Governor. My problem is that in this race, when we do that we get a bunch of squishes on conservative principles. Those principles are my non-negotiables.

            My first criteria for evaluating the candidates is ultimately conservative ideals. Who will best be a champion of my life, liberty, and property in Washington…AND get elected and be an effective President?

            To say you first have to be elected Governor for me is a really-nice-to-have, except what it does (for me) to the existing field of candidates.

            Not having that, I have to judge and discern a candidate for those qualities on an individual basis. Do they have what it takes to be an effective political executive?

            I’m fine with Michele Bachmann as a candidate because I think she does have what it takes. She has not demonstrated that as being a Governor of a state, but I do feel she has demonstrated this aptitude in other ways.

            I think keeping the selection criteria artificially rigid risks not selecting the best candidate. If there was a candidate out there with Bachmann’s profile on conservative principles AND was a successful Governor, I’d be for them. But I don’t presently see that person, so for me I prefer Bachmann.

          • JSobieski

            I like Bachmann in many ways, but it is easy for her to say I wont vote for anything that doesn’t have X, Y and Z in it because her vote won’t actually make a difference.

            She knew TARP would pass. She knew the debt ceiling would pass.

            How principled would her stands be if she knew that her decision would actually impact the outcome? We don’t know.

            We have no evidence that Bachmann has any negotiation experience. One of the reasons why Reagan was so effective was that he learned to negotiate as a union President.

            A President needs to articulate ideas clearly (Bachmann does this), build coalitions to mobilize support (Bachmann maybe has this), make prudent judgments about tradeoffs (we have no evidence of this), and negotiate well (again, no evidence).

          • Reg

            I’d vote for her for governor or senator, or president in a general election, but not in the primary.

            This is not a popularity contest, which is how you seem to be vieweing it.

            Who was the last successful Republican candidate that was not a governor or VP? Eisenhower.

            Do you really think Michele Bachmann will be the next? Really??

            Look at history. Governors get elected president and succeed as presidents. Who is the most conservative governor? Pawlenty or Perry. Jeb Bush would work. Romney is not conservative. The others are just sideshows.

  • Doc Holliday

    someone should shame Paul out of this race, he basically took Iran’s side against the USA.

    • eugenio

      . . .despite his common sense approach to fiscal matters. His foreign policy beliefs are almost in line with Jeremiah Wright.

      • aesthete

        I haven’t heard his comment, but I’m sure it’s the same putrid garbage that spewed forth last time around.

        • Doc Holliday

          with Iran by supporting the Shah. And no one seems to be standing up for Israel, and I don’t know…how about Europe? Paul said Iran has a right to nuclear weapons.

          • aesthete

            It’s always interesting to see Ron Paul defending statists abroad as he sees them around every corner at home: in the case of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddegh was a demagogue who used oil nationalization as a way to gain power.

            It is never mentioned that his chief rival on the issue (besides the Shah, of course) was assassinated by an Islamic militant group. It is also rarely mentioned that the Shah, while brutal, did modernize and liberalize Iran during his tenure, and was arguably our best ally in the region (an even better friend than Israel, in many respects). I’ve also never heard any mainstream source note Mosaddegh’s support for reform allowing illiterates to “vote” (as if that has ever been anything but a tool for frauds and demagogues). Lastly, it’s worth noting that while Mosaddegh was himself not a communist, his political success depended almost exclusively on the Iranian communist, socialist and workers’ parties — almost all of which were controlled or under the influence of the USSR.

            Again, Paul proves his idiocy: Mosaddegh was incredibly belligerent against the Brits simply because they committed the high crime of being d*mned good at operating in the petroleum industry (competition being the basis of capitalism), and Ron Paul calls the Brits the bad guys for doing right by their people — and by the Iranians themselves, as far as I’m concerned.

      • youngconstitutionalist

        You have to understand that the type of libertarian Ron Paul is emerged in direct opposition to Marxism. It is basically an academic reverse-Marxism that has free market capitalism eventually producing utopia rather than communism.

        • acat

          Utopia is impossible. Can’t be done.

          The best we can do is to minimize the harm we can do to one another through limited government.

          It won’t create a utopia, but it will foster a dystopia where individual liberty and self-determination are possible; where people are masters of their own destiny rather than serving kings or czars or bureaucrats.

          Ron Paul claims to be a libertarian, but .. he claims many things. Rather than listening to him, I watch his actions, and I conclude his only loyalty is to himself.

          Mew

  • Xasteius

    What idiots!

  • jkines

    Any “commentary” that attempts to assrert the utter delusion that Sarah Palin is a viable candidate is utter sophistry. The surest way to condemn us all to another 4 years of Obama is to nominate Sarah Palin.

    • gekster

      Why do you believe that.

      • Aaron Gardner

        That’s all I got.

        • gekster

          But if she did get in, it would be a game changer, and she would have as good a shot as anyone else.

          • Aaron Gardner

            That said, she would have a hard time defeating Perry when the two have to go head to head.

            With Perry in the worst possible thing that could happen is Palin entering as well.

        • Scope

          She wants to be a kingmaker, not the king, or in Palin’s case the Queen. Palin is massaging her supporters, keeping them at frantic levels, keeping them in her court, keeping them engaged to send her PAC money. I was a FT supporter, all the way. When FT decided to back out after SC, I felt like a close family friend had died. I truly felt like I was in mourning when Fred left the race. I wonder what the Palin supporters will do when Palin announces she will not be running.

          • youngconstitutionalist

            I love how everyone just knows Palin isn’t entering the race. I guess it’s just the conventional wisdom, and if you don’t believe it, you just aren’t one of the smart people. All the signs point to her running if you actually follow her. I mean. she actually tweeted an article the other day that compared her to the other announced/possible candidates and went after Perry. Yeah, that’s a “kingmaker” for you. You sound like you believe the media lies about her, given that you seem to believe she has her supporters on the hook with all this, as if she were a teenage girl teasing some boy to get attention.

            As for whether she can win or not, one thing I agree with Ron Paul on is that if your name is on the ballot, you can win. Stranger things have happened than an unpopular recovering their popularity and surging to a lead. Given Obama’s disaster of a Presidency, I’m willing to say that the odds of that happening are decent. Given that all of our people will be hounded by the media in the tank for Obama, it’s safe to say that they will attempt to “Palinize” any one of our candidates.

      • Remington_Steele

        I like Sarah a lot, and she has support of the base, but her negatives or unfavorable rating is just way too high. That’s why she can’t win directly. She would have to spend a lot of money to change a lot of minds from unfavorable to favorable. In other words, she would be distracted trying to convince a lot of independents she isn’t what she has already been painted out to be.

        I think Sarah’s strategy is to stay a sideline cheerleader until one of her allies wins the nomination and then she goes for the VP spot again. She’s young enough to be patient for 8 years and then run on her record as VP.

      • Remington_Steele

        I like Sarah a lot, and she has support of the base, but her negatives or unfavorable rating is just way too high. That’s why she can’t win directly. She would have to spend a lot of money to change a lot of minds from unfavorable to favorable. In other words, she would be distracted trying to convince a lot of independents she isn’t what she has already been painted out to be.

        I think Sarah’s strategy is to stay a sideline cheerleader until one of her allies wins the nomination and then she goes for the VP spot again. She’s young enough to be patient for 8 years and then run on her record as VP.

    • statenislandcon

      She quit.

      Yeah, she has some executive experience. In reality its precious little at a big league level, but perhaps enough to avoid disqualification. I’m blown away, though, that Melissa can write this: “I am curious to see how the candidates react to pressure. We know how Sarah Palin reacts and she

      • Reg

        But she threw it away for a bus tour and some cable shows. Bad decision.

  • Doc Holliday

    these are the important social issues? They are just attempts to tear apart the Republican candidates!

    I don’t know, try something crazy like ask them all for their views on gun control.

    • carolina

      .

      • Doc Holliday

        .

        • wonkish1

          To win Ratings.

          The last couple of debates got a little boring so now they are trying to keep the viewers.

          • wonkish1

            Though that it shouldn’t be up to a moderator to dominate a debate to get ratings.

            I think they would be surprised that if they actually asked allowed the candidates to ask each other questions and hash out topics on their own they would be surprised at how interesting the responses would be.

          • gekster

          • gekster

            oopsy :)

          • Scope

            At the beginning of the debate, it almost seemed like the whole debate was going to be with Bachmann and Pawlenty. It took so much oxygen that I, and many others were starting to wonder if the whole debate would be between those two. After that, there were plenty of exchanges between the candidates, with rebuttal time given to many.

          • wonkish1

            To have a moderator throw out the most provocative crap, chiding a particular candidate to attack another and then watch as the two go at it is completely different than one candidate asking the other “What would your prefer, cutting anti competitive taxes like the corporate tax or cutting tax rates across the board?” Or “Hey, candidate x, do you like vouchers or charter schools more?” etc.

            In the case of the former, a moderator doing that on these forums would be labeled a troll in the case of the latter you would think of the most enjoyable exchanges in any arena of discussion.

          • Scope

            the way you would have wanted them to, they went back and forth about specific policy about legislation that was brought forth in MN. It was all very specific about what each stood for. It was clearly a debate about policy, and where each stood on that policy.

            The entire debate was about bringing acrimony between the candidates, and how they each reacted. I loved the hard questions, and you saw how each would react under pressure. Do you think the general election debates will be a piece of cake, or a walk in the park, when going against Obama? Gingrich was correct with his first gatcha point, but after that he looked like a winer, or maybe a Weiner.

          • wonkish1

            That the types of back and forth’s would be very different if they were doing it themselves than a moderator chiding them.

            And since that piece between Pawlenty and Bachman is on again right now, I can assure you that battle was very much provoked by Wallace. Not a “gotcha” question more like a “troll” question.

            P.S. rehashing a quoted sentence from a candidate several years ago and commenting about it is an example of what shows up in a negative ad… I wouldn’t call that a discussion about how people stand on policy.

          • wonkish1

            A debate about 5 years ago that was Lincoln Douglas style. I know it’s a superior method. One of the most interesting debates I’ve ever watched.

            Instead they are going the other direction with less than 1 minute responses and “So and so called you a**hole, please respond.”

          • aesthete

            nt

          • Doc Holliday

            it is not that difficult really. “to all candidates, will you sign any new federal gun control laws? “to all candidates, what would you do about illegal immigration?

            this versus questions like “will you submit to your husband when you are the president?”

            I mean, these guys are paid to do this stuff, they are supposed to be better at it than random guys like me, right?

          • wonkish1

            But even that would be better than a lot of crap that was asked tonight.

          • Scope

            Because the questions didn’t make all of them shine? Wasn’t this a test about how everyone of them can react under pressure? As president, they will be going up against Pelosi, Wasserman-Shultz, Van Hollen who can and will slam a box turtle against the ground, and have no remorse?

          • wonkish1

            Remind of the Iowa debate in 08 when Fred Thompson shoved it back in that wench from the Des Moines Register’s face when she was asking loaded “Raise the Hand” questions.

          • JSobieski

            I had to turn it off. It was disappointing all the way around—starting but not ending with the moderators

          • Doc Holliday

            We need a CNBC debate to deal with fiscal issues. We need an Outdoor TV debate on gun control. Add your additions here.

            Fox beclowned itself, and it did nothing to enlighten viewers as to the issues of the day. Gingrich was right, we finally see that inside the beltway “newsmen” can’t ask anything, other than gotcha questions about Capitol Hill pie fights.

            Fox has some good people, I would rather see Charles Payne and Neil Cavuto at the next debate than the two male questioners who made fools of themselves tonight.

          • wonkish1

            Cavuto would make a great moderator.

          • gekster

            But god loved him more than us.
            You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.
            God Bless him.

          • acat

            I’d suggest involving COPS on law and order issues, but .. America’s Most Wanted would be better.

            What I’d love to see is “Dirty Jobs” .. let’s see who knows how to roll up their sleeves and work. I’m sure Palin and Perry and likely Bachmann would do fine.

            Mew

  • chieftain

    Imagine the debates.
    Perry vs. Obama
    Bachmann vs Biden
    The first women VP would drawn some of the “feelings” crowd away from Democrats.
    Military experience
    Solvent state
    Tax experience
    Budget
    Economy
    Winners!

    • redtillimdead

      You mean the same way Palin did for McCain?

  • tankertodd

    And it leads me to Perry. Romney is not credible as a small government president, and Palin doesn’t have a lot of executive experience. Not to mention you could argue that the media made sure she couldn’t win independents. That gives us Perry. He’s it.

    Air Force vet. Pilot to boot.
    12 years as governor of the most prosperous state,
    Former Democrat (like Reagan).
    Pro-10th Amendment.
    Gets the evangelicals on-board, as well as the libertarians. I can’t see anyone else pulling that miracle off.

    He’s got it all. Of course the media hasn’t assassinated him yet. Fortunately they’ll come out guns blazing right soon so we can get it all out there.

    • wonkish1

      I think you’ll be surprised!!!

  • Reg

    The guy isn’t a republican or a conservative. He’s a joke.

  • Reg

    I still don’t know what he’s about, other than getting elected. I don’t know how to explain his polls, other than that he has a lot of Mormon money backing him.

  • tea4me

    Gingrich is relevant again

    Pawlenty is done and should just go home.

    Romney is a milk toast. He’s just a suit on a stage

    Perry…I haven’t a clue about him

    The rest are basically irrelevant

    • Reg

      I honestly don’t get how Bachmann is receiving the support she does. We just spent 5 years criticizing the experience of a legislator named Barack Obama, so we go find our own equally inexperienced legislator to run against him?

      I also don’t get Romney’s support. I don’t think he’s conservative.

      Perry and Pawlenty look fine. They are both conservative and competent and will keep the fire on Obama and not themselves.

      • tea4me

        The facts are.

        Bachmann is the ONLY true conservative on that stage. Every one else is a go along to get along establishment politician.

        Bachmann has stood for conservative principles ever since she hit the stage on MSLSD and she became the Pariah of the left.

        No one else on that stage can claim the same.

        It’s no longer got anything to do with executive experience. It’s principle and standing on it that matters to conservatives. And if you don’t see this in her. You simple aren’t looking and have another agenda,

        And Pawlenty is done. Finished. Nada. Start sticking the forks in him.

        • Reg

          She’s not electable without more experience.

          Governors have the most success in presidential elections. So, Republicans should pick the most conservative, electable governor. That’s Pawlenty or Perry right now.

          • tea4me

            And there’s really no point in debating this with you.

          • tea4me

            we’ve had to put up with with all the left wing haters against Sarah Palin.

            I’m not buying it. Try peddling it to somelone else.

          • Reg

            Had she hung around and won another election as governor, I’d be her biggest supporter.

          • tea4me

            I think you may have hit the wrong link. We’re you possibly looking for the Huffington Post?

          • Reg

            I assume we both want to elect the most conservative president possible who will have a successful presidency.

            I think that’s Pawlenty or Perry. You obviously disagree. That’s fine.

          • gekster

            And there is no debating a leftist.
            When confronted with facts and reason, they do tend to change the subject.
            (as you have with me).

          • Reg

            like Bachmann’s and Cain’s inexperience, Palin quitting her job for no reason, Newt squandered his career to marry some campaign floozy, Paul’s stated foreign policy positions are to the left of Obama, Romney’s clear pro-choice positions and terrible health care bill, Pawlenty expressed mild support for a CO2 cap-and-trade and approved a cigarrette tax, etc.

            Nobody has a perfect record, but its easier to appear that way if you don’t do anything, like Bachmann.

          • gekster

            It appears you don’t have anything else.

          • gekster

            There they all are in agreement with what you say. ;)

          • JSobieski

            A dangerous methodology for choosing a candidate

            (1) Lefties are often wrong about who the true threat is. Remember, lefties wanted Reagan in 1980.

            (2) Letting your enemies determine your leaders isjust bad decision making.

            Nobody on this thread hates Bachmann. I like her, but I would Palin over Bachmann since Palin actually has some executive experience.

          • tea4me

            How about Lincoln. He didn’t even go to college. And served only 1 term in the House of Representatives..

            What executive experience did he have?

            How about George Washington. He led the military. Otherwise he was a farmer. Does that qualify as executive experience?

            Eisenhower was a general too.

            You might want to recheck your history.

          • JSobieski

            In fact, the executive experience of people like Washington and Eisenhower were the best possible experience to have before becoming President.

            In terms of Lincoln, he was President far before the modern era. As a student of history, I am sure you realize that the size and complexity of the federal government is far different now than it was in 1860. The sheer size of the modern federal government, coupled with a 24/7 media makes the job a current President challenging in ways that weren’t applicable in Lincoln’s day.

            Lincoln was the one a million exception. I don’t make personal finance decisions based on an assumption that I win the lottery.

          • tea4me

            executive experience, executive experience, executive experience

            She started and ran an income tax business. Why is that any different than what Romney or Huntsman did? Scale?

            They both got their political experience with daddy’s money. What makes them more qualified than someone who did in by herself?

            And Perry. I heard he ran Al Gore’s campaign. Puts a big question mark in my mind as to his judgement and conservative values.

          • tea4me

            Guess we should look to Huntsman as our candidate then…eh???

          • JSobieski

            I am not a fan of picking a candidate based on who libs hate or who libs like. You are the person who supports Bachmann because libs hate her.

            I don’t let libs impact my decision making process.

          • Reg

            She was a tax attorney for the IRS suing folks who didn’t pay their taxes,.

            Romney and Huntsman were governors, that is experience. Though I won’t send a dime to either one because they aren’t conservative.

            Interesting info about Perry, I didn’t know that. Maybe I’ll stick with Pawlenty. A lot of good conservatives in the South were former democrats. Also, Reagan was a new deal democrat. People can change, though we should verify that.

          • LoneStarSon

            for Texas in the 1988 Presidential Primaries. This was during the time when Perry was still a Democrat, albeit a conservative Democrat. At that time, Gore was running as a conservative Democrat.

            You need to understand that in the South, especially so in Texas, most democrats were conservative. When Perry chaired the Texas part of Gore campaign, this was still the case. However, it was soon after the campaign and subsequent election that Perry and Gore both realized just how liberal the democrats were becoming. Perry switched parties and became a conservative Republican. Gore became a liberal Democrat.

            The Gore of the 1980′s is not the Gore we have all grown to know and hate.

            Perry is not perfect, only Christ is and He is not running. However, after having him as Lt. Governor and now Governor, I have no problem supporting him for President of the United States.

          • Reg

            Explain the route Michele Bachmann takes to defeat Obama in the general election. I don’t see anything similar in history, and no special circumstances that would show a way for her here.

            The closest comparison is Obama’s own primary victory and election.

          • snowshooze

            That is about all it would take if she won the nomination.

      • drothgery

        People like Romney and Rudy and Christie and Huntsman would be in the party of the left, and we wouldn’t be terrified about losing elections. In the real world, the GOP is the non-crazy party, and as such has a significant minority that aren’t conservatives (and Romney has pretty much 100% support from non-conservative, non-radical libertarian Republicans; only Huntsman is even trying for that block, and he’s nowhere near as good as Mitt at appealing to them).

  • wonkish1

    And I of course mean no offense to this.

    I do not agree with the desire to make every step in the primary process your opportunity to persuade others to your thoughts on particular candidates a year a half, a year, or even 6 months prematurely.

    This thread should have been about the debates, ideas, strategies, campaigns, and candidates *today* not be another person’s attempt at trying to solve all or most of the GOP’s future challenges in one evening.

    And I think that desire comes fundamentally from a place where you don’t trust your fellow conservatives and Red Staters to be able to make smart, principled, and rational choices as the time approaches and to compensate have to start persuading them early.

    I can say that I do trust my fellow conservatives and Red Staters and am perfectly content and actually more interested talking about what is going on today than what is supposed to go on months down the road.

    And sorry to the OP for making you the “whipping girl” on this.

    • Reg

      campaign for your guy in the comments.

  • jdrummerboy

    That would be pure entertainment. Being a geek for analysis, I’d love to see Lean Six Sigma applied to the federal government, although I don’t know how many people watching know what that’s all about.

    I heard a lot of common themes; balanced budget, massive repeal of regulations, lower taxes and major tax reform, significant transfer of power to state and local level, and actual specific ideas to grow the economy and allow the market to create jobs.

    I thought Cain nailed it with his comment about instilling certainty in the market and thought he had a strong showing tonight. But has he abandoned the Fair Tax?? His performance was greatly improved over the last debate. He seemed far more prepared, with a better grasp of the issues. I would love to see him debate Obama. I got a bit uncomfortable with the Pawlenty/Bachman exchange. I realize they need to differentiate themselves, but calling each other liars goes a bit too far. Debate ideas, fine, but that whole thing seemed a bit over the top to me. That said, Romney is probably still the leader, He didn’t hurt himself at all I don’t think, but with Perry getting in, who knows?

    Overall, I think the contrast with Obama was clear with all of the candidates (maybe excepting RP’s position on Iran!). I’m hopeful. I think that the majority of Americans believe far more of what they heard tonight than what they hear from President Obama. I just hope that people are sufficiently fired up and understand how hugely important this election is for our future as a country. It should be a no brainer that whoever the nominee is steamrolls Obama in the general, but we all know it won’t be that easy.

    I don’t post here a lot, but I’m hear everyday, generally just learning and enjoying the conversation. It gives me hope that there are people that get it. Thanks to everyone who contributes.

    • melissatx

      EPIC FAILURE.

  • wonkish1

    If Obama has put in an exception to Obamacare granting various businesses “waivers”. What’s to stop the next president to grant every single State, county, city, business, and person a “waiver”?

    I would like to see Democrats argue there way out of that one in court after their own president set the precedent.

    • acat

      it doesn’t do away with any of the new agencies, stop paying any of the bureaucrats’ salaries, lower any of the taxes, fix the money deallocated from medicare/medicaid…

      It needs to be repealed, not left as a land mine for a future Dem POTUS to un-waiver.

      Mew

      • wonkish1

        I’m just saying that actually is a good option if you can’t muster the votes to repeal it.

  • wonkish1

    This is the second time that I wasn’t able to pull up the site for about an hour.

  • Heffalump

    Does Romney still believe in Mann-made global warming? If so, he should be out….

  • keysconservative

    I think Newt helped himself the most. He kept focus on the solutions to the problems we face without getting dragged into tit-for-tat nonsense. His answers were clear, direct and logical. Just what the people need.
    Ditto for Cain.
    Pawlenty hurt himself badly, I think. He looked petty and hyper-political. The opposite of Newt.
    Paul and Huntsman should give it up. Paul is a nutjob and Huntsman looked confused.
    No net gain for Romney, Bachman, or Santorum.
    Last night’s biggest losers? Pawlenty and FoxNews.