|
Post by philunderwood on May 24, 2011 7:06:50 GMT -5
I didn’t say that everyone views the extreme right with distain. I said, or meant to say, that moderates and independents aren’t inclined to vote for someone they view as extreme right. That’s not a wish of mine; it’s an objective observation.
As for social conservatism, I don’t view it with distain, I’m just pointing out that many think of social conservatism when they hear the term conservative. The left does all they can to perpetuate this perception, and they’ll smear any candidate they can with it. It’s largely what is behind the negative feelings toward Sarah Palin.
Ronald Reagan was able to put together a coalition that included social conservatives, but the left and MSM have honed their tactics to a fine art since then, and RR was skilled beyond anyone since.
Perhaps Herman Cain or even Sarah can manage to do it in spite of the propaganda machine they’ll be up against, but it’ll be an uphill battle.
|
|
|
Post by relenemiller on May 24, 2011 7:56:22 GMT -5
Phil, Our country is so polarized at this juncture in history. After the last two years of an overt attempt to annihilate the United States, I believe many (not all of course) Americans desperately want real change. I believe they are seeking unpoliticized, unprofessional, unskilled, anti Washington candidates. They are tired of business as usual and if nothing else came out of this administration, America now knows it can't offer the usual flavor. Palin is not political, neither is Cain. I'm going to hold to my position of a black man and a woman. Part of Obama's success was in his (half black ?) racial profile. People, viewed him based on skin color as the "change" they wanted and ignored evidential facts about him. Now, he prepared, unwittingly for a genuine black American to offer to the GOP a viable candidate. Palin is the woman you love to hate, for some. Regardless of what people think of her, she is non traditional and will not sleep with Washington lobbyists, nor refrain from her stance on other issues.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on May 28, 2011 7:40:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on May 28, 2011 8:18:15 GMT -5
She just might be able to do it; let’s hope so.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jun 1, 2011 7:02:55 GMT -5
Laugh at Palin at Your Own Risk By Roger Simon www.JewishWorldReview.com | I hate to say I told you so. No, that's a lie. I love to say I told you so. I just don't get to do it very often. But 50 weeks ago, I wrote a column that was widely reviled. It was attacked both on blogs and in the mainstream media. People demanded that I produce both a birth certificate and proof of sanity. And all because I wrote in June 2010 a column that began: "Sarah Palin can be the Republican nominee in 2012. I am not saying she will be, but she can be. Those who underestimate her do so at their own risk." I advised her to do seven things: Dump Alaska, surround yourself with people smarter than you are, pick a handful of issues and stick to them, study up, don't believe you can't do it, don't go changing, and don't worry about failure. Today, I am not saying that she is following this advice, or that she even knows it exists. But her recent decision to begin a multi-state bus trip was treated as explosive by the media. On Sunday, I checked Google News. The No. 1 story was: "Sarah Palin causes stir at Rolling Thunder." The No. 2 story was: "In Joplin, Obama offers healing words to residents." I am making no judgment as to which story was really more important. But 50 weeks ago, that ranking would have been considered laughable. And some are still laughing. On NBC's "Meet the Press With David Gregory" on Sunday, New York Times columnist David Brooks dismissed Palin by saying that "running for president is not 'American Idol.' And I think people may agree with her, they may like her, but that doesn't mean they're going to vote for her." Brooks may be right. People might decide to vote for a candidate they don't agree with and don't like. It doesn't happen very often, but I suppose it could happen this time. After all, Mitt Romney is running this time. In The Washington Post Monday, a front-page story referred to Romney as "widely regarded as the front-runner for the nomination," and that is absolutely true. Because it is the media that are doing the "widely regarding." The polls are not. The most recent poll, concluded on May 26 and conducted by CNN, shows Rudy Giuliani as the Republican front-runner by one point over Romney and three points over Palin. The Gallup poll, which concluded on May 24, does show Romney in the lead by two points over Palin, but that poll didn't include Giuliani. One reason Romney is widely considered the front-runner, however, is money, which hugely impresses the media, even though the historical record shows that the candidate who raises the most money before the primaries begin does not always win the nomination. Romney recently raised $10 million in one day, but $10 million is also what he blew on a one-day event -- the Ames, Iowa, straw poll of 2007. He won the straw poll, but he lost the state, rendering that expense a waste. The real trick is to both raise money and spend it wisely. But back to who's on first. Let's look at it another way. Let's not depend on horserace polls, but look at how the voters view the candidates on both a personal and issue-oriented level. Another Gallup poll, released May 26, concludes: "Romney in general has high favorable ratings and low unfavorable ratings, but he does not generate the same type of intense feelings as do other candidates. "Palin, on the other hand, has a more segmented appeal ... she now fares best among Republicans who say social and moral issues are their top concern, and essentially ties for first among those who favor business and the economy and national security/foreign policy. Palin, however, lags among the largest group of Republicans -- those most focused on government spending and power." I realize this sounds like typical poll-speak: On the one hand, but on the other hand, but on the third hand ... So let's look at the only person at this point sure to be on a national ticket: Barack Obama. Of four national polls completed in May showing a head-to-head race of Obama vs. Romney, Obama wins by a low of six percentage points and a high of 13. Of four national polls completed in May showing a head-to-head race of Obama vs. Palin, Obama wins by a low of 17 percentage points and a high of 21. If you are a Republican, you could look at that and say Romney has less ground to make up in order to beat Obama. Or you could look at that and say, heck, if we're going to lose anyway, we might as well nominate a candidate we really are passionate about, and not a candidate assembled by kit. But who are Republicans really passionate about? Gallup has a poll for that, too. It is called the Positive Intensity Score, and the winner is not Romney at 14 and not Palin at 16, but former pizza-king Herman Cain at 27. The bad news for Cain, however, is that hardly anybody knows who he is. Gallup's conclusion: "There is thus no potential candidate who at this point combines a high name ID with strongly positive reactions among Republicans." So according to the polls, the trick for Palin, who leads all potential Republican candidates with a name recognition of 96 percent (Newt Gingrich is second at 84 and Romney is third at 83), is to build positive reaction among Republicans, especially those most focused on government spending and power. Would that really be so difficult? As some visionary once wrote: Sarah Palin can be the Republican nominee in 2012. I am not saying she will be, but she can be. Those who underestimate her do so at their own risk.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jun 1, 2011 7:36:22 GMT -5
Chasing Sarah: The Boys Behind the Bus By Michelle Malkin www.JewishWorldReview.com | In the 1970s, "The Boys on the Bus" exposed how a clubby pack of male political reporters ruled the road to the White House and shaped the news. Four decades later, an outsider gal from Alaska has commandeered the 2012 media bus — and left Beltway journalism insiders eating her dust. We've come a long way, baby. Amid frenzied speculation over her potential presidential campaign plans, former GOP Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin launched an all-American road trip with her family this Memorial Day weekend. Establishment media types didn't get reserved seats or advance notice of her itinerary. Palin rubbed the Washington media mob's institutional sense of entitlement right back in its face. "I don't think I owe anything to the mainstream media. I want them to have to do a little bit of work on a tour like this," she jabbed. Robbed of the reflexive genuflection customarily paid by publicity-seeking candidates to the political press, scribes, cameramen and producers on the campaign trail began howling louder than the Rolling Thunder Harleys that Palin rode along with on Sunday in Washington, D.C. One miffed CBS News producer, Ryan Corsaro, pouted that the O.J. Simpson-style media caravan giving chase to Palin had created hazardous working conditions for all the intrepid news correspondents. "I just hope to God that one of these young producers with a camera whose bosses are making them follow Sarah Palin as a potential Republican candidate don't get in a car crash, because this is dangerous," Corsaro said. Puh-lease. As if traveling America's highways to historic tourist spots were akin to driving in an armored tank on Baghdad's road of death. In Philadelphia, a pair of news helicopters braved treacherous conditions to monitor the enemy on the ground. Soon, editors tracking the story from their cubbies will be filing workers' comp claims asserting exposure to secondhand exhaust fumes from Palin's bus. And I'm counting the minutes until some cub reporter double-parks somewhere in hot pursuit of Team Sarah and demands that she pay his ticket. I mean, how dare Palin "make them follow" her! As my friend and blogging colleague Doug Powers put it: "Reporters whining about Palin are like kids who can't reach the cookie jar because she keeps moving it." For more than two years, Palin-bashing journalists (on the establishment left and the right) have mocked the conservative supernova while milking her for headlines, circulation, viewership and Web traffic. They lambaste her as trivial, while obsessing over her shoes, glasses and hair — and turning one of her misspelled words on Twitter into Watergate. They label her a grievance-monger for calling out media double standards and then kvetch, moan and wallow in a pool of self-pity when she doesn't spoon-feed them coveted political scoops. They call her dumb and then run around in circles trying to figure out her "mystery" tour and blame her for "faking them out." They blast her for incompetence, but grudgingly acknowledge that she is a master of social media who has changed the rules of the presidential campaign game. The Atlantic's Garance Franke-Ruta griped that "reality TV star Palin" was "treating pol reporters like paparazzi — needing and hating, inviting and making chase." Perhaps Franke-Ruta needs a reminder of what a truly parasitic press-pol relationship looks like. I have stacks of Obama 2008 profiles exulting over his glistening pecs and soaring oratorical skills, followed by countless spurned-lover laments from reporters disappointed about the control freaks who stage-manage his every press appearance.p> What makes Sarah stand out in the national GOP field is that she is beholden to no one and controls her own destiny. She doesn't need media kingmakers to make her. They need her. She doesn't need newspaper or TV producers to drive her story. She drives them. Crazy. The unhinged reaction of the Palin-hating convoy reveals what its attendants fear most: a politician who doesn't fear them.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jun 3, 2011 7:29:43 GMT -5
Cain: With All Due Respect, Obama Couldn't Run a Pizza Joint Thursday, 02 Jun 2011 04:27 PM
By David A. Patten
Fast-rising GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO emerging as a strong contender in the Iowa caucuses, blasted President Barack Obama’s leadership abilities in an exclusive Newsmax interview, saying Obama “could not run one Godfather’s pizza restaurant.”
Cain, who has been rising fast in the polls after his impressive showing in last month’s presidential debate in South Carolina, called the president as an indecisive leader who has lost most Americans' confidence.
“The president has demonstrated that he lacks leadership in a whole lot of ways [and] could not run a company,” Cain told Newsmax. “And I don’t mean to be disrespectful: He could not run one Godfather’s pizza restaurant.
“Instead of being decisive, he dithers,” Cain said. “Instead of having a management structure where he can entrust to some key people responsibility, he has an organization that is unmanageable. When he added 36 czars to go with the ones he already inherited, that is an unmanageable structure. So nobody knows who’s in charge."
Although GOP attacks charging Obama with weak leadership have been muted since the successful U.S. operation to take out Osama bin Laden, those complaints have resurfaced with the growing frustration over the lack of a plausible plan from the administration on reining in entitlements and deficit spending.
“So he’s not decisive, he dithers. He has a structure that doesn’t work,” Cain said. “He’s inconsistent, and he’s broken a lot of promises, and he is losing the confidence not only of a lot of his supporters, but has lost clearly a lot of confidence from the American people.”
Cain, a conservative talk-show host and a respected voice in management circles, is a turnaround specialist who is credited with saving Godfather’s Pizza from bankruptcy during his tenure as its CEO. Cain also served a stint as chairman of the National Restaurant Association, and was chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City from 1995-1996.
Cain’s broadside against Obama might have gone unnoticed before his abrupt emergence on the national political scene. A new Public Policy Polling survey released Wednesday shows Cain is now tied with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in Iowa, behind only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romne, who officially announced his candidacy on Thursday.
Palin and Cain each had 15 percent, compared with 21 percent for Romney. Unlike Cain, however, Palin has yet to toss her hat in the ring.
The Public Policy survey was the third poll in the past week showing Cain near the top of the GOP heap -- all the more impressive considering that he’s still battling relatively low levels of name recognition.
Other highlights from Cain’s exclusive Newsmax interview:
Regarding criticism that he has stumbled over foreign policy issues, Cain openly concedes: “That’s a legitimate criticism of me.” But his common-sense experience and problem-solving skills, he says, can overcome any lack of foreign-policy expertise. “People need to keep in mind: What president has ever taken office who knew everything?” Cain asks. He says that he plans to surround himself with foreign-policy experts, and will ask the right questions to pursue a commonsense approach.
Cain believes the Obama administration has greatly exaggerated to impact failing to raise the debt ceiling would have on the U.S. economy. Cain says that he would consider furloughing federal employees and temporarily shutting down some government operations, rather than increasing the government’s authority to borrow more money, about half of which comes from foreign governments. “I would furlough some federal employees. This is what a businessman does, when it comes to having to save a business,” he says. “You do what you have to do, and make some tough choices.”
He reiterates that he had no problem with the concept of a TARP program to save the banking system from a global financial meltdown. But the implementation of TARP, he says, “was a disaster,” adding: “They picked winners and losers, they used the money for things other than banks, they tried to force money on banks that didn’t want it. The administration used it purely as a discretionary tool.”
He predicts that the GOP presidential nominee will be a grass-roots conservative, rather than an establishment Republican. As evidence of the strength of the grass-roots fervor shaping the political process, he tells Newsmax that donations to his campaign “have gone up dramatically.”
Cain tells Newsmax he now has “almost 175,000 online volunteers ready to go to work for the Herman Cain presidential campaign.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jun 6, 2011 7:56:42 GMT -5
Amid media circus, Palin lays out policy positions By Byron York www.JewishWorldReview.com | In the last week Sarah Palin has commanded the attention of the national press corps simply by taking in a few tourist sites on the East Coast. Whenever she stops her "One Nation" bus, reporters lucky or canny enough to keep up with her have asked about her political intentions. Will she run for president? Is she thinking about running for president? If she ran for president, how would she campaign? One thing many viewers have probably missed in all the horse-race speculation is that Palin is perfectly willing to discuss her positions on key issues, if anyone wants to ask. In fact, in recent days, weeks, and months, we've seen a lot of policy commentary from the former Alaska governor. For example, during the bus trip, Palin took a stand on an issue that is crucial for candidates considering a run in the Iowa caucuses. "I think that all of our energy subsidies need to be re-looked at today and eliminated," Palin told RealClearPolitics. "We've got to allow the free market to dictate what's most efficient and economical for our nation's economy." What that means is Palin opposes the infamous ethanol subsidy that some presidential aspirants are afraid to question, lest they lose support in heavily agricultural Iowa. Palin has also been speaking out in support of Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan -- another question that Republicans, and certainly all Republican presidential candidates, have had to answer. Palin supports the Ryan plan and even adds that she'd like to include Social Security in the deficit-cutting mix (something Ryan left out). And when Palin criticizes President Obama's inaction on the deficit, even David Brooks, the New York Times columnist who once said Palin "represents a fatal cancer to the Republican Party," observes that, "Sarah Palin is right about that. He has no plan." Palin has also been talking about foreign policy. In an extended on-the-bus interview with Fox News' Greta van Susteren, Palin addressed a proposal for $2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt. "We don't have the $2 billion!" Palin said. "Where are we going to get it? We're going to go borrow it perhaps from China? We'll borrow money from foreign countries to give to foreign countries." The problem would be far worse, Palin said, if the Muslim Brotherhood plays a significant role in a new Egyptian government and "our U.S. dollars go to support a government that perhaps will not be friendly to the American government." When van Susteren wondered whether U.S. aid would "help us rather than hurt us," Palin shot back: "We're going to buy their good will?… Hey, here's two billion bucks that we had to borrow. We'll give this to you, and you know, we'll cross our fingers and hope it does some good?" Palin also questioned the usefulness of the billions in aid that the United States has given to Pakistan. For those interested in her positions on issues, Palin's Facebook page is filled with notes and commentary. Recent entries include titles like "New Afghanistan Development Dangerous to NATO," "Obama's Strange Strategy: Borrow Foreign Money to Give to Foreign Countries," "Barack Obama's Disregard for [Israel's] Security Begs Clarity," "Obama's Failed Energy Policy," and "Removing the Boot from the Throat of American Businesses." They're not think-tank white papers, but they are substantive statements on key issues. To critics, publishing statements on Facebook seems less serious than releasing them from an office. But Palin has three million followers on the social media website. That's an important forum, especially when combined with Palin's books and television commentary. None of that, not even a bus trip that might include stops in Iowa and South Carolina in addition to New Hampshire, necessarily equals a Palin presidential candidacy. Palin is teasing the political world every step of the way of her current trip, saying she hasn't made any decisions about her future and that she simply wants to bring attention to America's founding principles. But she's careful to say there would be room for her, if she chose to run. "The field isn't set yet, not by a long shot," Palin said during a visit to Gettsyburg, Pa. "It's going to change up a lot. And I think there will be more strong candidates jumping in." Will Palin be one of them? The political professionals who cite her utter lack of a campaign organization still say no, and they're probably right. But run or not, Palin is establishing herself as a long-lasting voice in the Republican Party.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on Jun 6, 2011 11:37:23 GMT -5
All these beltway pundits are just dreaming when they say she probably won't run. Don't they get it? She's ALREADY running. She just hasn't publicly declared her candidacy yet. We ordinary folks can figure that out just fine. They must add stupid spice to the water in DC.
|
|
|
Post by relenemiller on Jun 6, 2011 14:43:51 GMT -5
"stupid spice" ;D is that yours because I've never heard it before.
Palin is, as you suggest, either already running or waiting for the right running mate. I could be wrong, but I don't think that any "politician" or hint of a DC gopher will be accepted by the people....even the GOP is treading nicely, providing for everyone to throw their hats in the ring. Personally, I'd like to see Palin Cain again....both kick against conformity and the current system. I believe that is what people are looking for. Palin is a viable threat to both platforms because she took her marbles and went home...Cain is a TP stronghold and will present the best of two worlds..the IP and the black heritage (yes, a real black heritage).
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Jun 6, 2011 17:24:29 GMT -5
"stupid spice" ;D is that yours because I've never heard it before. I've never heard of "Stupid Spice" but here are Scary Spice, Baby Spice, Ginger Spice, Posh Spice, and Sporty Spice. Not sure who is who.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jun 8, 2011 7:54:46 GMT -5
That ‘twit’ knows her history --- and continues to outsmart the media By Jack Kelly www.JewishWorldReview.com | The dimwit ditz has struck again. The anchors on the cable news shows could barely contain their glee as they reported on Sarah Palin's latest gaffe. As the former Alaska governor emerged with her family from a visit to the Old North Church in Boston, reporters asked her if she knew who Paul Revere was. "He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms," Ms. Palin responded. "Of course, Revere was in fact trying to warning Samuel Adams and John Hancock about the approaching British army," said Sheila Marikar of ABC News. "Had he warned the people with whom America was at war, Palin's bus tour through the Northeast might have chugged through the Northeast on the left side of the road." Ms. Palin is a "ninny pretending to be a leader of this country without having much understanding of history," said Rick Ungar of Forbes magazine. Liberal snarking was interrupted when historians said Sarah Palin was right. Toward the end of his ride Paul Revere was detained by the British, and - as Mr. Revere said in his 1798 account- he warned them "there would be 500 Americans there in a short time because I had alarmed the Country all the way up." "Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British he did say to them, 'Look, there is a mobilization going on that you'll be confronting,' and the British are aware as they are marching down the countryside they hear church bells ringing - she was right about that - and warning shots being fired. That's accurate," Boston University history professor Brendan McConville told the Boston Herald. This isn't the first time liberal snark about Ms. Palin's alleged historical ignorance has backfired. At a Tea Party rally in Nevada last October, she cautioned that it was too early "to party like its 1773." "OMG, will this blithering idiot ever shut up?" said liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos). Surely everyone knows the American Revolution began in 1775. Gwen Ifill of PBS was among the snarkers. Ms. Palin was speaking at a Tea Party rally. She knew - as her critics evidently did not - that the Boston Tea Party took place in 1773. Ms. Palin should expect no apologies. To acknowledge they have falsely maligned a person with whom they disagree politically requires a fundamental decency most liberals lack. The visit to the Old North Church was part of a bus tour the Palin family took of historic sites in the Northeast. Coverage of it illustrated the eagerness of journalists to say something critical of Ms. Palin, no matter how flimsy the pretext. The tour began with a visit to the Rolling Thunder motorcycle rally over the Memorial Day weekend. MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell reported, incorrectly, that Ms. Palin hadn't been invited to attend. The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan wondered why Piper, the Palins' youngest daughter, wasn't in school. (Had he done a little checking before mouthing off, Mr. Sullivan would have learned summer vacation for students in Alaska already had begun.) MSNBC anchor Martin Bashir asserted the American flag painted on the Palin bus might be illegal. This was both ridiculous, and a criticism Mr. Bashir has never made of President Barack Obama, who displays the flag prominently in his campaign materials (as do most other politicians). What really frosted journalists was Ms. Palin's unwillingness to give them an itinerary of her bus tour. Some complained this endangered their lives by forcing them to chase after her bus. These journalists were trying to demean her, but it was they who came off as whiny and petulant. "Palin hasn't conducted a listening tour so much as much as a lesson for observers to see how the media treat her, and the spectacle belongs solely to them," said Web logger Ed Morrissey (Hot Air). The spectacle was because journalists suspect the bus tour is a precursor to a presidential run by Ms. Palin. If so, it was shrewd of her to use it both to embarrass her critics in the news media, and to overshadow the formal entrance into the race of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who likely would be her most formidable opponent if she does run. If liberal journalists were more introspective than they are, they would reflect on why it is that a woman they regard as so stupid seems to outsmart them so often.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jun 13, 2011 8:31:49 GMT -5
Stewardship? Or ideology? By Charles Krauthammer www.JewishWorldReview.com | The Republicans swept November's midterm election by making it highly ideological, a referendum on two years of hyper-liberalism — of arrogant, overreaching, intrusive government drowning in debt and running deficits of $1.5 trillion annually. It's not complicated. To govern left in a center-right country where four out of five citizens are non-liberal is a prescription for electoral defeat. Which suggested an obvious Republican strategy for 2012: Recapitulate 2010. Keep it ideological. Choose a presidential nominee who can best make the case. But in recent weeks, the landscape has changed. For two reasons: NY-26 and the May economic numbers. Last month, Democrats turned the race for the 26th congressional district of New York into a referendum on Medicare, and more specifically on the Paul Ryan plan for reforming it. The Republicans lost the seat — after having held it for more than four decades. Problem was, their candidate was weak, defensive, unschooled and unskilled in dealing with the issue. Republicans have a year to cure that. If they can train their candidates to be just half as fluent as Ryan in defending their Medicare plan, they would be able to neutralize the issue. But that in and of itself is a tactical victory for Democrats. Republicans are on the defensive. Democratic cynicism has worked. By deciding to do nothing about debt and entitlements, and instead to simply accuse Republicans of tossing granny off a cliff, they have given themselves an issue. And more than just an issue. It gives President Obama the perfect opportunity to reposition himself to the center. After his midterm shellacking, he began the (ostensible) move: appointing moderates such as William Daley to high White House positions; making pro-business, anti-regulatory noises; even offering last month a token relaxation of his hard line against oil drilling. Ostentatious but not very convincing. Now, however, the Obama pitch is stronger: Leftist? On the contrary, I bestride the center like a colossus, protecting Medicare from Republican right-wing social engineering. It's not that the ideological case against Obama cannot be made. ObamaCare with its individual mandate remains unpopular. The near-trillion-dollar stimulus remains an albatross. Even the failed attempt at cap-and-trade — government control of energy pricing — shows Obama's determination to fundamentally transform America. And he is sure to try again to complete his coveted European-style social-democratic project if you give him four more years. Medicare has nonetheless partially blunted that line of ideological attack. Yet, just as the Democrats were rejoicing in the fruits of their cynicism, in came the latest economic numbers. They were awful. Housing price declines were the worst since the 1930s. Unemployment rising again. Underemployment disastrously high. And as for chronic unemployment, the average time for finding a new job is now 40 weeks, the highest ever recorded. These numbers gravely undermine Obama's story line that we're in a recovery, just a bit slow and bumpy. Suddenly, the election theme has changed. The Republican line in 2010 was: He's a leftist. Now it is: He's a failure. The issue is shifting from ideology to stewardship. As in 1992, it's the economy, with everything else a distant second. The economic numbers explain why Obama's job approval has fallen, why the bin Laden bump disappeared so quickly and why Mitt Romney is running even with the president. Romney is the candidate least able to carry the ideological attack against Obama — exhibit A of Obama's hyper-liberalism is ObamaCare, and Romney cannot rid himself of the similar plan he gave Massachusetts. But when it comes to being solid on economics, competent in business and highly experienced in governance, Romney is the prohibitive front-runner. The changing nature of the campaign is also a boost for Tim Pawlenty, the successful two-term governor of a very liberal state, and possibly for another ex-governor, Jon Huntsman, depending on who he decides to run as. Nonetheless, despite the changed conditions, I would still prefer to see the Republican challenger make 2012 a decisive choice between two distinct visions of government. We are in the midst of a once-in-a-generation debate about the nature of the welfare state (entitlement versus safety net) and, indeed, of the social contract between citizen and state (e.g., whether Congress can mandate — compel — you to purchase whatever it wills). Let's finish that debate. Start with Obama's abysmal stewardship, root it in his out-of-touch social-democratic ideology, and win. That would create the strongest mandate for conservative governance since the Reagan era.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Jun 13, 2011 19:27:10 GMT -5
OK, I'm confused.
There is a Republican primary debate on CNN. Michele Bachmann is a participant, yet she is not an official candidate last I heard. Yet Gary Johnson, an announced, official candidate, was dis-invited.
Please explain.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Jun 13, 2011 20:41:47 GMT -5
Nevermind. She announced during the debate. She's got like 26 kids!
|
|
|
Post by relenemiller on Jun 13, 2011 22:47:14 GMT -5
I didn't even know there was a debate, it seems so soon into this show....
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jun 15, 2011 12:01:14 GMT -5
www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/debate-tea-party-gop/2011/06/14/id/400058?s=al&promo_code=C708-1Pollsters: Debate Confirms Tea Party's Dominance in GOP Tuesday, 14 Jun 2011 04:26 PM By Martin Gould The real winner of Monday night’s Republican presidential debate wasn’t any of the seven candidates on the stage, it was the tea party, analysts agree. While Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann garnered most of the plaudits for the New Hampshire debate it was the growing influence of the party-within-a-Party that set the tone and the agenda for the two-hour debate. Even left-leaning MSNBC acknowledged the inevitable. “We’re all tea partiers now,” the TV station’s web blog admitted. Independent pollsters John Zogby and Matt Towery both agreed with that assessment in interviews with Newsmax on the day following the first major debate of the campaign. “The tea party set the agenda. It is driving the debate so far and likely to drive it into the primary season,” said Zogby. “They are clearly the most intense Republican primary voters – and the loudest – and the proof was at the debate.” Towery said the tea party is more than a party, it’s a “state of mind,” that the rest of the GOP is now catching up to. “The Republican electorate as a whole has drifted in the direction of the principles and the issues that the tea party was initially concerned about when people weren’t focusing.” And that has helped those candidates backed by the movement, including Bachmann who pointed out during the debate that she is chairman of the tea party caucus on Capitol Hill. “The candidates who appealed to the tea party positions did the best,” said Towery. “Bachmann did very well. Most everyone feels like she has emerged to be a top tier candidate.” Dick Armey, the movement’s éminence grise, said the debate “reflected the profound influence that the tea party has had so far on the Republican field,” adding, “Now comes the rigorous work of identifying the candidates who can walk the walk. That’s what the primary process is for. “I firmly believe that the candidate that can unite independent Tea Partiers and Republicans will be the one most able to defeat Barack Obama next November," Armey added. Other tea party leaders were equally ecstatic. Mark Meckler, national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, said, “The issues and positions were defined by the movement, and the differences between the candidates were measured only in the degree of their adherence to tea party principles. “The person with the most to gain, Michele Bachmann, gained the most. This was her first debate appearance, and she seemed comfortable and in command of the issues. It was a solid introduction to the nation.” The general view among pundits was that Bachmann shone. Ezra Klein in the Washington Post, said, “Bachmann is the candidate that Sarah Palin was supposed to be. If you wanted a Mama Grizzly, Bachmann repeatedly reminded you that she'd fostered more than 20 children. If you wanted someone who wasn't a career politician, Bachmann didn't run for office until 2006. “Her candidacy has mostly been greeted as a longshot bid, but on the stage last night, she came across as one of the primary's clear heavyweights.” One of the debate questions expressed concern among more traditional Republicans that the tea party is taking over. “I’m not a libertarian Republican. I’m not a Tea Party Republican. I’m just a mainstream Republican,” said Terry Pfaff, a former candidate for New Hampshire State Senate. “How can you convince me and assure me that you’ll bring a balance and you won’t be torn to one side or the other for many factions within the party?” Working within time constraints, moderator John King only asked Bachmann and other tea party-aligned candidates, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain for answers. Bachmann described the movement as a “wide swath of America” including disaffected Democrats, independents and the non-political as well as Republicans and libertarians “That’s why the left fears it so much, because they’re people who simply want to take the country back.” Santorum called the tea party “a great backstop for America,” adding, “It is absolutely essential that we have that backbone to the Republican Party going into this election,” while Cain said fears that tea party members are too negative and critical are unfounded. It was questions and comments like these that show how the tea party is now in the catbird seat when it comes to influencing the GOP’s pick for the White House, say both Zogby and Towery. “The debaters were all on the right,” said Zogby, chairman of IBOPE Zogby International. “No-one was staking out more moderate ground – and that is surprising in New Hampshire.” But he warned the race is not over yet. “It won’t be enough just to say we hate Obama. When you go into a general election you have to have some kind of appeal to moderates and I don’t know if they can do that. “What happens in Congress is going to define where we are in September and October,” Zogby added. “On the debt limit and the budget, are the tea party representatives in Congress going to say to their voters I got things done but I had to sell out, or are they going to say I held on to my principles and got nothing done?” Towery, president and CEO of InsiderAdvantage agreed with that analysis. “There’s no doubt the whole Republican debate has gone to the right,” he said. “I can’t imagine a McCain-like candidate emerging in 2012.”
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jun 17, 2011 9:17:27 GMT -5
www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0616lz.htmlLuigi Zingales The GOP’s Strongest Candidate Someone who favors free markets but not big business 16 June 2011 Having dodged the Trump bullet, the Republican Party is still searching for a candidate who can win. This early in the race, of course, it’s usually hard to spot a winner. How many people would have bet in 2007 that an inexperienced African-American senator could become president? Yet in 2012, it’s clear what a Republican candidate needs to win: he or she must harness the support of the Tea Party without alienating independent voters. Without the enthusiasm of the Tea Party, the candidate cannot energize the Republican base. Without the support of independents, the candidate cannot win a majority in the general election. The midterm elections demonstrated this principle: candidates who could straddle the two groups won, while candidates who couldn’t lost. The good news is that this isn’t an impossible task. The Tea Party coalesced around economic issues, not the social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, that tend to alienate independents. Fiscal discipline, low taxes, and smaller government appeal to both Tea Party activists and independents. Even the populist, anti-establishment strain that pervades the Tea Party finds some sympathy among independent voters. The bad news is that populism puts Tea Party activists on a collision course with the Republican establishment. The best way to see this problem is to group voters along two dimensions: the support they express for free markets and the fear they have that big business distorts market functioning. This past December, according to the Chicago Booth/Kellogg School Trust Index, which I help direct, 58 percent of Americans expressed agreement with the statement that “the free market is the best system to generate wealth”; 26 percent were neutral, and 16 percent disagreed. The strongest support for free markets came from Tea Party sympathizers (84 percent of whom agreed with the statement), followed by Republicans (75 percent), independents (67), and then—a distant last—Democrats (46). Similarly, 53 percent of Americans agree with the statement that “big business distorts the functioning of markets to its own advantage,” while 28 percent are neutral and 19 percent disagree. But here, the ranking is almost inverted: Democrats express the most support for this statement (60 percent), followed by independents (56 percent), Tea Party sympathizers (47), and finally Republicans (43). These data suggest that by articulating a platform that defends free markets but remains autonomous from big business, the Republican Party can gather support from both the Tea Party and independents. In fact, a combined analysis of the data sets for those two statements reveals that 38 percent of Tea Party sympathizers and 32 percent of independents identify with a pro-market, not pro-business, political platform. This position is particularly popular among Tea Party sympathizers not registered as Republican. Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan says that he’s not running, and I assume he means it, but the GOP clearly needs a candidate more like Ryan than like Mitt Romney, currently the party’s leading candidate and a favorite of the establishment. A candidate in Ryan’s mold, from the Jack Kemp tradition of libertarian conservatives who helped make the GOP great, would be a strong believer in free markets who is not beholden to the bailout-addicted big-business establishment. This kind of candidate, if the GOP could only find him, could win in 2012 and help get the nation’s economy back on track. Luigi Zingales is a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a contributing editor of City Journal.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Jun 21, 2011 20:17:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jun 22, 2011 5:32:16 GMT -5
Who Is Gary Johnson? By John Stossel www.JewishWorldReview.com | Someone was missing from last week's Republican presidential debate, and that's too bad. He's an announced candidate who was a two-term governor of New Mexico, and he makes a case for strongly limited government. Who is he? Gary Johnson. He was left off the platform because the sponsors say he didn't meet their criteria: an average 2 percent showing in at least three opinion polls. But I grilled him because I think people might want to hear from him. When he was governor, he vetoed 750 bills and shed a thousand state jobs. That made Republican and Democratic politicians mad, but in a state with a two-to-one Democratic advantage, this Republican was re-elected. "I got re-elected … by saying no to the government," he told me. "I was a penny- pincher." His political philosophy comes down to this: "The government has a role to protect me against individuals that would do me harm — whether that be property damage or physical harm. The federal government has an obligation to protect us against foreign governments that would raise arms again us. But beyond that, government does way too much." What about education? "The number one thing that the federal government could do to improve education in this country would be to eliminate the Department of Education (and) give education back to the states — 50 laboratories of innovation … ." Johnson is not a social conservative, which leads some political observers to say he has no shot at the GOP nomination — ever. He doesn't buy it. "I respect the views of social conservatives," he said. Yet "I think that 60 percent of Americans describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I would argue that perhaps it's not socially liberal — that it's really classically liberal, which is the notion that less government is better government, the notion that (the) best thing that the government can do for me is to let me be the individual that I might be." He takes a position on the drug war that differs from most Republicans, though it's not fully libertarian. "I would legalize marijuana. … When it comes to all of the other drugs, we should look at the drug problem first as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue." Johnson believes the country is "just two years away from being at a tipping point" on marijuana. "I have smoked marijuana. I have drunk alcohol, although I don't do either today," he said. "The big difference between marijuana and alcohol is that marijuana is a lot safer." And what about foreign policy? "I was opposed to Iraq from the get-go," he said. "I did not see a military threat from Iraq. … I think that military intervention in Libya is unwarranted. Where was the military threat from Libya? Where was the congressional authorization to go into Libya? Where in the Constitution does this say that because we don't like a foreign leader we should go in and topple that foreign leader? (We) need to look at the unintended consequences of these actions we take. … We do all of these good things in the name of liberty, and the consequence oftentimes is much different." On trade and economics, Johnson is a true libertarian. He opposes tariffs and other government interventions. "I believe in free markets," he said. "There is a magic to free markets. Department of Commerce might be a good one to eliminate. … What we do in this country is pass laws that advantage corporations, individuals, groups that are well-connected politically — as opposed to creating an environment where we all have a level playing field … access to the American dream." Nor is he a fan of stimulus spending and bailouts. "Banks that made horrible decisions were bailed out at all of our expense. They should have been allowed to fail." I'm glad Johnson is in the race, along with Ron Paul. I don't hear a consistent limited-government message from Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty or Newt Gingrich. We sure didn't get one from George W. Bush or John McCain. I'm eager to hear more from Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain. I plan to talk with them soon.
|
|