Monday, May 23, 2011

2012 Contenders: Recent Winners and Losers

With our Presidential hopefuls dropping like flies, it’s time to recalibrate the field. Who will get whose supporters? Who can step from whose shadow? Enquiring minds want to know. . . which means we should look at winners and losers of recent events. As usual, expect no prisoners to be taken in this contempt-riddled analysis.

1. Newt Implodes:

Loser: Newt Gingrich (candidate). Newt’s ill-advised and unfounded attack on Paul Ryan’s budget plan confirmed everything negative we feared about Newt. And his tar-baby-ish struggles to defend himself alienated the entire conservative base. This has basically sunk his candidacy.

Loser: Newt Gingrich (moronacle). Newt’s role as oracle may be endangered by this debacle. For nearly a decade now, Newt has used his flirtation with running for the Presidency to sell books and get people to come seek his opinion. His implosion has exposed the oracle as perhaps more of a moronacle, and this will likely lessen his influence on the party.

Winner: Sarah Palin (celebrity/moronacle). For every yin there is a yang, and Palin is Gingrich’s yang. She’s been trying very hard to become the female Newt, i.e. a moronacle who uses a flirtation with running to garner fame and fortune. In fact, she and Newt competed for this post throughout the 2010 election primaries by make rival endorsements. Newt’s implosion opens the door for Palin to take his place at Delphi.

Winner: Barack Obama. Obama is the big winner here because Newt’s description of Ryan’s plan as “right-wing social engineering” will be enough to allow Obama to gather leftist and squishy-moderate support to block the plan.

Loser: Medicare. Lack of reform = collapse.

2. The Huckster Drops Out:
Winner: Conservatives. Apparently, God doesn’t want the Huckster as President, which is good because conservatives shouldn't want that either. His version of conservatism, i.e. big government liberalism and leftist social theory masquerading as social conservatism, is a disastrous dead end for conservatism. Now we're spared that. And make no mistake, the Huckster stood an excellent chance of winning because of the evangelical-heavy early primaries.

Winner: Sarah Palin (candidate). Palin and the Huckster had been the prime competitors for evangelical voters. With the Huckster gone, these people will look for a new candidate. Should Palin choose to run, she should be able to pick up most of his support.

Winner: Tim Pawlenty Pawlenty apparently has been working hard to win the backing of the religious right. He’s rather bland and forgettable, but out of those who are left in the race, Pawlenty seems to be the best fit for these voters. So if Palin doesn’t jump into the race (and I think she won’t), then he could win them.

3. Mitch Bails:
Loser: The GOP Establishment. The GOP establishment settled on Daniels some time ago and they’ve been pimping him hard in the MSM as the best candidate. With him gone, they need another candidate. Sadly for them, their favored choice, Jeb Bush, refuses to run in 2012. So now they need to find someone else they can trust to not make any waves.

Winner: Jeb Bush. If Bush wants the nomination, the establishment is ready to give it to him now that Daniels is gone. He just has to say the word. But let me offer a word of caution, I (and many people I know) will NEVER. . . EVER vote for another Bush.

Winner: Chris Christie. Christie is a potential dark horse alternative to Jeb Bush. He sounds conservative and he sounds like he’s a disruptive reformer, but as Commentarama readers know, he’s a safe RINO, which is exactly what the establishment wants. If the misguided "draft Christie" campaigns succeed, expect Bush to stay out and establishment support to shift to Christie. Oh happy day.

Winner: Tim Pawlenty. Yeah, Tim’s bland enough for the establishment. If they can’t get Christie or Bush, expect the establishment to adopt Pawlenty and make him the eventual nominee.

4. Trump Fires Himself:
Winner: My Sanity. nuf said.

Winner: Barack Obama. Obama is the big winner here because Trump was causing Obama fits. Trump constantly raised issues the other Republican candidates were “too polite” to raise and he has a sufficiently large soapbox that people listened. With Trump gone, Obama can now focus on a weak Republican field.

Winner: Small Candidates. Guys like Herman Cain and other “second tier” candidates need to get noticed. The way to get noticed is to say what’s on your mind. . . the more outrageous the better. That was nearly impossible with Trump absorbing all of the media’s attention like some egotistical black hole. Trump’s departure opens the door for guys like Cain and Bolton to get some media attention.

Winner/Loser: Big Candidates. Despite the circus aftertaste found in the "Nutty Trump Bar," our bigger candidates look like duds by comparison. With Trump gone, they no longer need to face the daily comparison. This is technically a win, though it’s also an indictment as it highlights just how pathetic our current field is.
So what we have here is this. Movement conservatives lost with Newt. The religious right lost with the Huckster. The establishment lost with Daniels. And the lunatic fringe lost with Trump. That's got some perfect symmetry if you ask me.

Thoughts?

55 comments:

T-Rav said...

So Andrew, when you say you will NEVER EVER vote for another Bush, does that hold even if it comes down to Jeb Bush vs. Barack Obama? Because I would certainly never vote for JB in the primaries, of course, but if push comes to shove...

StanH said...

I don’t dispute many of your conclusions, however I’ll use a Dennis Miller line from a few years back talking about Kerry – Bush ’04, (paraphrase) “we don’t need a chess player (Kerry) we ne a checkers player (Bush) right now,” he’s still right. We need someone who can put together the ability to understand, “Mr. President out debt is $14.5 Trillion, our receivables are $13.5 Trillion we are technically bankrupt, what should we do?” And without hesitation our checker player says, “Cut spending, and cut spending now!” The two on your list that have that kind of sense in my opinion, Cain, Palin, we’ll see.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

Nice analysis. I don't think Palin was ever vying for the moronicle position though. Death panels are a reality in Britain and Barack's czar wants to bring them here. She also is right about drilling and oil production.

Palin's positions are credibly nuanced even though they are portrayed as simple by the lame stream media and the Republican Establishment. Two groups which I hold highly suspect. Just because a politician is popular doesn't mean he or she is ruled by populism. It just seems that way.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I'm done with the Bushes and I'm serious. They have sullied the conservative name for three terms now. They destroyed our reputation as competent managers, as the party of fiscal sanity, as the party that only starts wars when our national interests were at stake, and a dozen other things. They've proven to be corrupt, stupid, incompetent, anything but conservative, and yet willing to claim my ideology to cover their story statist butts.

If it wasn't for Obama's sheer incompetence, Bush the younger would have literally destroyed conservatism for a generation. I'm not giving them another chance.

Plus, I HATE the idea of American royalty and so I'm not voting for anymore brothers or kids of the gliterati.

Fini.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, This isn't an endorsement list, it's just an analysis who these recent changes will help or hurt. I'm undecided on both who will win or who should win.

The problem with the checkers player point is look at what Bush turned out to be. He sounded right when he spoke, but then he turned into the biggest lover of big government since Nixon. I want a track record as well as verbiage. Cain has that. I'm not sure Palin does. I don't know that anyone else currently in the race does either.

CrispyRice said...

Nice summary, Andrew. I like Cain and I think he'd make a good prez, but I suspect he won't get that far.

"Plus, I HATE the idea of American royalty and so I'm not voting for anymore brothers or kids of the gliterati."

I agree in spades with this, Andrew. It's another reason I was happy to see Hillary go down. (Though I dread the day Chelsea turns 35, which isn't all that far away...)

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Thanks Joel.

We'll see on Palin. Everything I've seen from her tells me that she's more interested in celebrity than running. I could be wrong, but that's what all the signs point to.

One thing is for sure though, if she wants to run, now is the time to do it before Huckabee's voters find another candidate.

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, I had a similar thought about Hillary -- no more dynasties.

A lot of people say that Chelsea won't run for office because she's not political or interested in politics or whatever.... but I don't buy that. I've seen her handle rope lines and media appearances and she's pure politician to the core.

I suspect that she will spend a couple years establishing some credentials at some think tank or public interest group and then you'll see her run for something smaller first -- like a very safe Congressional seat. If that happens, then expect her to make a run at the Presidency at some point. I think she's been raised that way frankly.

Writer X said...

At this point, the only candidate who has any palpable excitement and fire in his campaign is Herman Cain. I'm beginning to take notice.

The others? No, thank you. But, if push comes to shove, I will vote for any candidate before I'd vote for Obama, no matter how hard he tries to look Irish, conservative, "gutsy", or whatever the flavor of the week is.

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, Cain does seem to be the only one with any excitement, which is a real indictment on guys like Romney who have been running for 4-6 years now. And I think a lot of people are taking notice -- at least a lot of people outside the MSM, who seem determined to act as if he doesn't exist.

With Trump gone, I would expect that Cain will start to get more attention too. I guess we'll see what he does with it?

Other than Bush, I'll vote for anyone before Obama. But I'm serious about not voting for another Bush. I'm done with them.

T-Rav said...

Hmmm. I don't know if I'd go that far, but I understand the irritation. I admit, I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Dubya, no matter how much the last couple years of his presidency disappointed me. But luckily the issue of his brother running for president is probably a moot point.

On another note, is the Yahoo address the official email place for the site? I have my TV review finished, so I just need to send it.

LawHawkRFD said...

Well, I guess I'll run against the tide here. I don't see Pawlenty as either that bland or that establishment. He might not be my top choice (neither of my favorites is in the race), but I think he'd be a good candidate and a good president. He's no Reagan, but as I've said numerous times before, nobody is. I want to see him in some debates, since I think that will be a major determinant of who can handle Obama in the general election.

LawHawkRFD said...

T_Rav: If you send your review to the Yahoo site, both Andrew and I see it, so that's as close to an official site e-mail as we have.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, It's more than just irritation. Both father and son adopted the mantle of conservatism and promptly set about selling out conservatism. They are big business "conservatives" who firmly believe in Big Government and only see conservatism as a cloak they need to use every so often to get votes.

I've heard Jeb isn't like the first two Bushes, but I heard that about W too -- that he wasn't like his "vodoo economics" "kinder, gentler America" father. Also, everything Jeb has said in the past couple year fits the pattern.

My biggest concern is that the establishment loves him. They desperately want him. And if they push hard enough, they might be able to draft him -- especially with this field being so weak. And I'm pretty sure that he would sweep primaries with ease.

So while I hope this never becomes an issue, I am concerned that it will.


Yes, that's a good e-mail to use.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I was going to do Pawlenty next (probably Wednesday) in my series, so my knowledge of his policies is somewhat limited... but you've got to admit the man is bland. The Economist, by the way, picked up on this and was calling him "the placebo."

I'm not saying he wouldn't be a good President, he probably would, but he's not going to set heart aflame.

In any event, for me, the real question is policy not personality unless the personality is like Hannibal Lecter.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I got your e-mail. I didn't know you had an uncle in Nigeria who left you $30 million that you needed to get into the US? I just sent you my bank account information to help you out. :-)

AndrewPrice said...

By the way, this may interest people. According to Michael Barone (who is pretty knowledgeable about the insider world of politics) and Hugh Hewitt, only Pawlenty and Romeny have "assembled first-rate organizations so far."

Organization is actually critical and can trump ideological considerations and popularity. So that could be a sign of where the race is headed.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Pawlenty's record will soon have to be made available to all of us. What I've seen so far looks very good, but it's incomplete. I don't see him as bland, but he's not a fiery orator either. As I've said before (most recently about Daniels and the liberal view), I'm not going to make my decision either way based on what liberals tell me (or the Democrats) to think. I think the left is already using the "boring" trope to set the tone for the attacks on Pawlenty. Some Democratic publications have already started calling him "the placebo." Thank you very much, liberals, I'll make up my own mind. I find him pleasant, which is more than I can say for Obama and some of the Republican candidates. For instance, Esquire recently did a headline story entitled "Ron Paul has been crazy so long he's starting to make sense."

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I appreciate that. There's nothing worse than to be a disgraced and exiled royal, so the uncle's really wanting to start over in America. But I promise you'll be getting a very nice monetary gift in return, as my uncle is very wealthy. He'll be bringing with him a lot of bills, cleverly disguised as play money, so we'll be sure to send some your way.

T-Rav said...

Thanks for the tip, LawHawk. I also agree about Pawlenty; he's not exactly exciting, but he has satisfied me with his explanations about his past missteps, and frankly the other candidates have failed to impress me thus far.

BevfromNYC said...

First off, Christie has said repeatedly that he will not run. As a matter of fact, this weekend he said "What do I have to do, commit suicide to get you people to understand how much I am not going to run?" That's seems to be a pretty solid "No". And I don't think he is playing any "convince me" games here. He knows his time will come if wants to run, but it's not now. As a side note: Obama's "people" have launched a "get the dirt" campaign on Christie, so he is also someone they fear will run.

The Libs are launching their own racist opposition to Cain. You can imagine exactly how that is going. I am shocked at what Libs will say and actually not think they are racists. It boggles the mind.

And finally, I just can't believe that the Repub. establishment is that stupid that they would run another Bush. I like Jeb, but, like Teddy Kennedy, he will never be President. He should stick to Senator or Rep. from Florida, if he wants to continue his political career. I would vote for him, but he could never win against ANYONE that the Dems run for President.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I've just started looking into Pawlenty, so all I know at this point for sure is what I've heard. I keep hearing "RINO" but I see no evidence for that.

Yeah, I mentioned "the placebo" thing above. And while I won't let the left decide my candidates for me, I also don't dispute that sometimes they put their finger on something. He strikes me as intensely dull. But that could be both good and bad. It's bad if he's too dull to get people to vote for him. But it's good if it lets him put in place solid conservatism without people getting bent out of shape. I would rather have dull and "successful conservative" than noisy and "stupid pretend conservative". . . cough cough Trump.

So we'll see.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I always suspected you were African royalty! LOL! I look forward to meeting your uncle's money! :-)

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav (and Lawhawk), Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying pro or con on Pawlenty yet. I haven't done the research to get at his real record rather than the characterizations I've heard in the press. So I genuinely have no opinion except that he strikes me as very dull... not someone I would want to invite to the old BBQ.

But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. This election in particular will be a referendum on Obama, so dull could be an advantage. The real issue (on dullness) to me is: is he so dull that he can't inspire people to follow him. If not, then it's not a problem. Like I say above, I'd rather have a dull, successful conservative than someone who is very flashy but ultimately achieves nothing.

Patti said...

what about a herman cain/thaddeus mccotter ticket?! i like both. either one for pres/vice. i mean if i can't have my dream team: ted nugent/chuck norris, then this is a suitable second.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, They have been in love with Jeb Bush for years. I'm not sure why unless it's just that they all know his father and brother. He is constantly the subject of "when will he run" speculation and articles about how great he would be compared to W. I frankly don't understand it, but they seem to be very serious about it. So watch for his name to keep cropping up in this.

fyi... Bill Clinton didn't jump into the race until October, so there is still time for more people to jump in.

And if he did run, I'm pretty sure he would easily win the primary. He's got himself positioned as "more conservative than W" to the base and pro-immigration, pro-big business, moderate-everywhere-else to K street. It's a neat trick to be seen as two contradictory things, but he's pulled it off.

I don't know if Christie wants to run or not -- I suspect he's being truthful that he doesn't. But he is also subject to a "draft Christie" campaign because many people mistakenly see him as a conservative offset to Romney. His record belies that, but I don't think his supporters have looked into his record because he talks a good game and they use the excuse "well, he is in New Jersey, so he will need to temper his actions." So until a conservative front runner is found, expect his name to keep appearing.

I haven't heard the attacks on Cain, but I'm not at all surprised. Liberals get intensely racist when they attack conservative blacks. So I'm sure what they are saying is vile. What bothers me more is that Cain gets left out of things like polls and discussions of the candidates even by conservatives.

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, Cain is in the mix. I think he benefits from Trump's exist. Thaddeus isn't running to my knowledge, but he would make an interesting candidate.... not as interesting as Nugent or Norris, but still interesting! :-)

Ed said...

Nice analysis, but this really does highlight just how sad our field is. It sounds like you think this will make Pawlenty the front runner and that kills me. How can we not have anyone better than Pawlenty and Romney and whoever else is on this list?

Part of me wants to disagree with you about Bush, but I can't fault you. I don't want another Bush either, or a Clinton.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: And sure enough, as the night follows the day, The New Republic today has already picked the Republican candidates (Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman), and after telling its readers that money alone will not determine the outcome, it proceeds to explain why Pawlenty won't raise enough money to win. They repeated the "bland" trope, and have tagged him as a moderate (read "RINO" for conservative purists).

I think you're right on the money about the fact that dull real conservative is far more important than bombastic fake conservative. Given what the Economist and the New Republic are saying about Pawlenty, I'm already beginning to like him.

My best guess is that the liberals are praying that Romney gets the nomination, and want the "dull" conservative out of the race. Within the TNR article, they call Pawlenty both the mainstream candidate and the far right candidate. Creating confusion is a well-known liberal tactic. I look forward to your article on Pawlenty.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I think the front runners are Pawlenty and Romney. The establishment really seems to hate Romney for some reason.

And if Pawlenty does drawn both the establishment and the religious right, then he will be hard to beat.

But keep in mind, this is very early to declare a winner. The support is soft all around and fluid, and we don't really know where people will go until the voting starts. So at this point, being the front runner doesn't mean.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Liberals handle contradictions quite nicely because they never engage their brains long enough to see the contradiction.

I'm thinking the left would prefer Romney, but I'm not sure. They could just be going around trying to damage them all at this point.

I think TNR is probably right Pawlenty and Romney will be the most likely nominees -- barring something really unusual. They seem to have the broadest support and the best campaign organizations right now. But we'll see, that's a long way off.

I think they're dreaming about Huntsman. I expect him to drop out fairly soon when he finds that he has no supporters.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, just a word of caution about Huntsman: In January 2008, John McCain had virtually no supporters. Think about that.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I agree. One of the biggest issues in the coming campaign is going to be Obamacare. The left knows that no matter what Romney says, and no matter how hard he tries to backpedal, he can never mount a full-blown attack on socialized medicine because of his own record. Fair or not, the issue will put Romney perpetually on the defensive. That makes him a "me too" candidate who can't fiercely debate one of the hottest topics in the race. As for Huntsman, I think TNR was engaging in wishful thinking more than realpolitik.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's true, BUT McCain had spent 2004-2008 running around the country doing favors for every elected Republican you can find, i.e. giving money, endorsements and technical advice. That's why when the 2008 primaries began, all these people started endorsing him out of the blue and that's how he was able to create a strong ground-organization in every state. He really did lay the groundwork.

Huntsman hasn't done anything like that. He just hoping that by embracing the moderate label, that a large enough percentage of the GOP will support him long enough to get into a 1-1 race against whoever is left standing. . . which he hopes is a Paul or Palin. Then he would play the "conservative enough and electable" card. That's his current plan but it won't work because by the time you get a single front-runner, the party has rallied behind them and won't suddenly dump them on electability issues.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Romney really has made a mess of the ObamaCare issue. He should have repudiated RomenyCare, but he hasn't. And really intensifies the problem you mention. He's not going to be credible on that issue to either side. What's disturbing is that he's had years to work on this issue now and he still came up with the worst possible way to handle it.

Kosh said...

Romney = Obamacare

Newt = Idiot

Pawlenty = cap and trade

Huckster = goofy

Daniels = weak

Trump = EGO

Palin = lightening rod

Bachmann = crushes Chris Matthews tingle on a routine bases. Actually is intelligent and would crush the One with one hand behind her back. Tea Party support

Cain = Tea Party support; very conservative and outside the "establishment"; need more info but so far so good. Would love to see how media handles his racism.

Christy = nonstarter

How about Rick Perry? Governor of large state. Conservative. Takes on federal government routinely.

AndrewPrice said...

Kosh, That's a good summary. LOL!

I haven't looked into Perry because he really hasn't been mentioned as a candidate until recently. But at some point I'll start looking at alternative candidates and he will definitely be one of them. In truth, right now I don't know much about him. I like what I've heard, but I just don't know that much.

LawHawkRFD said...

Kosh: With all due respect, equating Pawlenty with Cap and Trade would be like equating Reagan with Retreat from Lebanon or Easy Abortion. Like Reagan, Pawlenty made a mistake, owned up to it, and promised never to make the same mistake. He has repudiated the entire anthropogenic global warming agenda and the governmental interference in the economy that cap and trade would be.

I like both Cain and Bachmann, but I don't think that requires dismissing Pawlenty on a single mistake. Let's learn more about all of them before we make any final decisions. Any of the candidates who hasn't made a mistake should be in line for savior, not for the presidency. It's what they did with that mistake that counts.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

With all due respect, Cap and Trade is based on thinking carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The closest comparison to that stupidity is taking a hammer to the back of the head in order to get a thought to the front. Yes, this man repudiated it. Why didn't he repudiate it before it became popular to repudiate it?

It is a stupidity that I will never ignore. Pawlenty = Cap and Trade. Kosh is right.

T-Rav said...

Note: Pawlenty made a speech in Iowa today saying that ethanol subsidies need to be done away with. Hello.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Even if you are unforgiving about a single issue, how important will that issue be if we elect a Republican Senate and President? As someone asked above about a different candidate, will you vote for Obama if Pawlenty becomes the candidate, or stay at home and let Obama win by default?

I can't answer for why Pawlenty waited so long, and frankly I don't care. He has repudiated it, and I intend to judge him on those things he believes in and intends to stick with. That still remains to be seen.

Considering my very conservative views on both abortion and no-fault divorce, I could never have voted for former California Governor Reagan for President if I didn't believe his change of mind was considered and genuine. I voted for him for President twice, and I was still a Democrat both times.

Kosh said...

Cap and Trade = fascism

If he wasn't smart enough to figure that out, I'm not sure I want him as president. Over-simplification? I don't think so. It was a means for the government to control EVERYTHING (sorry for the yelling).

LawHawkRFD said...

Kosh: Apparently, you and Joel feel about cap and trade the way I feel about abortion. That's fair, and a principled stand. I don't agree with you on Pawlenty and cap and trade (although we haven't fully vetted that yet). My biggest concern is, and has been since we initiated this site, that single-issue qualification or disqualification of a candidate can be the death-knell of any Republican nominee. And just in case there's any doubt, I have condemned cap and trade in no uncertain terms multiple times right here on Commentarama. Maybe I'm just a bit too forgiving of prodigal sons who have returned home.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

If Cap and Trade was passed, LIKE PAWLENTY WANTED, we would be closer to a dictatorship.

And to answer your question, no I won't vote for Obama, but Pawlenty has to be stupid or devious. Which is worse? I assume he is stupid, but if you change my mind on that then he is devious and dissembling.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I'm going to put in my final two cents on this issue, then wait to see what Andrew comes up with when he does his piece on Pawlenty.

"Cap and Trade" is a nice, broad category to describe the kind of government that you, Kosh and I all oppose vehemently. But there are multiple subsets within the factions which supported it. Pawlenty was no Al Gore. He was overly-fond of government intrusion on environmental issues alone, but he wanted some sort of regional control, not national control. He advanced what I consider to be some silly ideas for a short time in 2007, but his change of mind was not as recent as you've indicated. He publicly rejected all forms of cap and trade in June of 2009.

Pawlenty had formed his own group to investigate climate change and evaluate various plans for mitigating it, if possible. He was big on cap, but not on trade. When the results of the study came in, he recognized that there was too much junk science, too little real science, and realized how much cap and trade represented a fundamental divergence from the republican form of government he supports and the interference in the economy that government does so badly.

It's simply not as black and white, or disingenuous and naive as you suggest. I'm going to wait for more information, more vetting, and more real proposals from Pawlenty and the other candidates before I take a firm stand for or against any of them. As a practical conservative, I'm not willing to cast the first stone--yet. Likewise, I'm not ready to reject any Republican hopeful based on a single issue.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Fair enough. My two cents are he backed Cap and Trade which would have given such power to the federal government as to make life not worth living here in the United States. Whether it stopped in 2009, 2010 or 2011 is immaterial. If Obama wasn't dead set on Obamacare, we would be dealing with Emperor Obama I in a few years. We still might be dealing with a dictatorship if the Republican Establishment are still weanies in January of 2012.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, That makes me happier. It's about time these guys stopped pandering to Iowa. Of course, the question is whether he means it or not.... but I'll take him at face value on that.

AndrewPrice said...

Kosh & Joel, Clearly, Pawlenty is going to have a very hard time winning you over.

I am bit torn on the issue. On the one hand, you're right. This was obscene stupidity and it was basically an endorsement of an incredible power-grab by the feds. That shows a serious lack of judgment and should concern us very much.

On the other hand, they all seem to have fallen for this. I'm not saying that's an excuse, but I am willing to accept a true mea culpa... one which includes a clear acknowledgment of why they were wrong so that I know that they "get it" now. What I don't want to hear is "yeah, I changed my mind because people didn't like it" or "because I wanted to run for President" or "because now isn't the time." I want to hear that they truly understand why this was wrong so that I know there isn't something wrong with their view of the relationship between the government and the people.

Making mistakes his human and forgivable... not learning from mistakes is unforgivable.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I'll do my best to gather his record. Clearly though, he will have a difficult time on this issue. But that's true of all of them -- they've all got an issue that will be difficult to overcome.

That's how I took Kosh's breakdown, as a quick assessment of the problem each is facing, not as a complete picture of the candidate.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I tend to believe he meant it. He directed his comments to Iowa voters, after all, so it doesn't make sense that he would try to alienate a critical set of primary voters and then not follow up afterwards. I'm skeptical that he'll actually be ALLOWED to translate it into policy, but I think it makes less sense at the moment to doubt him than to take him seriously.

Also, I was satisfied during the recent debate with his apology for Cap & Trade. Granted, it's not like he could say anything different, but I believed him.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I kind of doubt he will get to put that in place too, but we'll see. If the House Republicans get their way, many sacred cows are going to end up as burgers in 2013. Unfortunately, the Senate will probably stop them.

At this point, I have no reason to doubt him and I haven't looked at his career enough to know how the rest of it looks. So I'm keeping an open mind. He does seem like a sincere guy, but again, I have no evidence to base that on except my sense of whether I trust him or not.

StanH said...

I heard Pawlenty on Rush for a bit today, he was saying all the right things, off coarse it was Rush’s show, was he playing to an audience? We should all keep our powder dry, and fight the right fight, such as closing primaries, bring the Republican party back to the right, etc. We need a standard bearer, but a little patience is a good idea as well, as we vet these candidates, I believe our candidate will emerge, and the Tea Party will hold his or her feet to the fire.

Supporting Global Warming, is boneheaded, Pawlenty has more work to do on that issue, and will he punch, and counterpunch, he said he would today…we’ll see.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I think that's absolutely right -- a little patience is a good idea. Let's hear all the candidates out and see both what they've done and what they claim they want to do, as well as assess the likelihood that they actually will do what they claim.

I'm not saying I support Pawlenty or don't -- I honestly have no idea until I get a better feel for his record and who he is today -- but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until my doubts are confirmed or proven wrong.

Kosh said...

I agree with LawHawk that one issue should not necessarily throw a candidate out. My concern with cap and trade (or cap and trade light) is that it is a disease. It's this idea that when there is a problem, the government will just swoop in and fix it. There are a few things were this is true but most of the time they make everything far worse than doing nothing at all. The fact that he thought there might be an issue with global warming isn't a concern. Most people aren't scientists and the issue is extremely complex. It also doesn't help when a--holes like Hansen run around like chicken little. It was Pawlenty's gestalt toward the idea that government can fix it. This disease is rampent within most beltway politicians. I will remain open to him for now and will see what he further proposes. Getting rid of ethanol subsides is a wonderful first step.

AndrewPrice said...

Kosh, I agree on all points.

First, cap and trade really is a huge issue that really distorts the power of the government and we should not take it lightly.

Secondly, throwing the guy out on one issue for which he's apologized is a bit premature. So we need to see what else he's done pro and con. But it is still a strike against him.

And I definitely agree the killing the ethanol subsidy is a great first step and a good indicator that he's not all bad.

Post a Comment