Sunday, February 13, 2011
Ann Coulter on 2012: "I'll put it in a nutshell. If we don't run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and we'll lose."
Unfortunately, I agree.
I like Mitt Romney and think that he would be the smartest choice for restarting America's economy -- by a long shot -- but I am terribly worried that he lacks the touch to make it through the general election campaign. Christie has that. But we actually know very little about him (although apparently that is no longer considered disqualifying), and I'm going to give voice to my biggest worry: Does Governor Awesome have the stamina to run for president?
Release the hounds.
I like what I see of Christie, but he's rather one-note. Teachers' unions may suck up a huge chunk of NJ's budget, but there are bigger problems at the federal level.
And budget isn't everything, although it is hugely important. Christie attacks the budget as if it were the primary cause. Problem is, the budget is a symptom of overly-intrusive government.
I'd like to see Christie attack the need for big, expensive government, rather than just trying to rein in the public service unions.
For instance, Christie is pro-gun-control, which is a huge red flag for me. I'd like to see him push hard for removing gun-control laws as a crime-control measure. Return the responsibility for their safety to the people, and watch the need for police drop. I'd love to see him start training a true citizens' militia, and then apply for federal funds under Article 1, Section 8 to arm it. (Oh, for sure he wouldn't get it, but it would be a fun bit of political theater.)
I'd like to see him hack at the choking undergrowth of business and industrial regulation.
I'd like to see state officials and bureaucrats going to prison for corruption. I'd like to see cops go down violating due process on any number of grounds. (So lots of cops refuse to work under such conditions? Good! Reduce the number of laws they're charged with enforcing.)
I'd like to see him attack Obama, on any grounds.
Most of all, though, I'd like to see him show that he wants the job. Instead, he's declared he wants to finish what he started in NJ. I believe him when he says this, and even in the relatively small budgetary arena, I think NJ is damn lucky to have him.
But he has not shown the desire to move to the national level, nor the range needed for the Presidency.
I said, "I'd like to see him push hard for removing gun-control laws as a crime-control measure."
We already know that gun control is not crime control. Far from it.
Instead, I want him to make the positive case that arming the citizenry, increasing liberty, would reduce crime.
Further, I'd like to see say that he's willing to do that because he trusts the people.
Kind of an about face for Ann. She endorsed Romney for president as early as March of '07, when his numbers were in the single digits. For her to now say that he can't win, when nearly every poll in the country shows that he has the best chance of any Republican at beating the president in '12 seems a little disingenuous.
Current and recent polls are extremely limited in scope, and the results all seem to be a "who's who of washed up 2008 candidates."
Romney inspires no confidence with me. He simply bleeds an aura of non-genuineness, not dissimilar from Obama, now that I think about it. Like his ambition is all that matters. Plus, there's that whole Massachusetts RomneyCare issue which he rabidly stands behind; what if it comes to repealing Obamacare in 2013 and he vetoes it? What kind of victory would THAT be?
If we're saddled with the same lineup we had last time, including Mike freaking Huckabee, Mr. Religious-Populist 'I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night' idiot, we're probably going to be gifted with another Obama term. Shit, even *I* would vote for Obama in 2012 over Huckabee if it looked like the Republicans would take Congress.
Everyone complained that the Republican field was so weak for 2008, but everyone now keeps bringing up the same names. We need "new" blood. Let's examine Cain, Christie, and Bolton (for instance) before placing bets on last term's losers.
Be bold. Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie. The country knows government spending is out of control and will support whoever is pushing reform. Christie is slamming Dems, unions and taxes in NJ and is very popular for heaven's sake.
Romney would have had my vote, but for RomneyCare. How anybody with any common sense could support such nonsense is a deal-breaker.
I can forgive Obama for doing it because he is a mindless liberal who thinks the energy crisis will go away if we put air in our tires. Holding him to task on Obama care would be like mocking the Special olympics.
Christie is the perfect Vice President. Why...because the JOB of the Vice President is to say all of the things that the president cannot.
Presidental nominee. Who knows. As long as we don't run a RINO like McCain, conservatives will probably carry the day...hopefully not too late.
COULD not disagree more with the fine Ms. Coulter and the mighty TigerHawk. And I feel just as strongly as I opposed McCain back in the day.
The way Democrats keep trying to diminish Romney again lately, is a big sign they fear him the most today.
Ms. Coulter wants to find a Candidate that will make the base feel fine, the Conservative Pundits have greatly aided the problem, by feeding - appeasing fashion.
Christie would indeed make a great Candidate for President - but he is wisely talking about commitments, responsibility, and growing as a CEO.
Romney will win against a Democrat. In the last Primary, he was head and above all others - out debated all. The fashion which overtly hyped a romanticized vision of a Moderate Senator - Actor - coupled with some ugly anti-Mormon bigotry - joined with many Democrat Partisans voting for the Maverick in open primaries stopped the best Candidate we had from taking on the Presidential Run in the General.
Conservatives used to be objective and reasoned. Now we see so many - especially Pundit Celebs, blow with fashionable concepts. Yes, voices are loud with a certain crowd, but they bombed away in the last Primary.
Romney showed recently at CPAC, he is the big heavy weight in the room - many of which are too jealous of his success to get past. Some simply are still biased about the religious identity - case in point, even with a disastrous record, Huckabee polls well in the Conservative base (Huckster taxed and spent more than Clinton over the same length and tenure alone).
No, Romney can win. And this nonsense about an "emotive connection" with a Candidates personality is exactly what gave the USA the disastrous Clinton - Obama folly.
They said the same thing about so many Candidates prior - and we ended up with Dole, the Maverick, Ford, etc.
Sorry, but you don't put the best on the shelf, and go with the "like" factor in Conservative terms.
Experience, accomplishment, capability, articulation, record, stability, vision, strength, etc., are all the basics.
Romney is one of THE most proven CEO's in the Free Market in our Modern History. Trump is a cheap embarrassment in comparison. It would be foolish, to ignore the Romney potential, which is vast.
I am a huge ANNE fan, but she gets it wrong here, worrying over the "base break up" potential. If folks are foolish not to go out and band together to remove Obama with whoever, then they are just as foolish as they were mindlessly talking about "laying down for Pelosi" prior to 2006.
Conservatives blew it after 2004. We cannot do it again. Objectivity and reason. WFB had it right. Too many are too eager for personal acclaim, not thinking of the big picture.
If we get Romney in 2012, even again in 2016, then Christie or someone else later - we are heading on the right path. Just keep Democrats out of any serious power position and we will be just fine.
No one can win the Presidency with a smaller Base vote. The lessons of Delaware, Alaska, Nevada, etc., should not be ignored.
As a NJ state resident I'm hoping Christie sticks around long enough to break the hold the teachers and other public sector unions have on the state. For me everything else is entirely secondary - what we have today is insane and completely unsustainable.
While I was a Romney fan in '08 I'm looking more at Haley Barbour this time around.
And lets face it, no matter who the Rs put up in 2012 the media will paint them as George W. / Sarah Palin / Satan as effectively as they can. If the Republicans can't learn to ignore that and nominate who we like we might as well concede now.
I like Romney, but think Romneycare will be a tremendous obstacle to winning the nomination. Christie, Daniels and Pawlenty are all good potential VPs, but none of them can raise the $ to win. Palin, Huck and Romney can raise the money. And then there's one guy nobody mentions, but I would throw out there as a guy who can win the whole thing - Gov Perry of Texas.
Perry's been an immensely successful governor. Texas is prospering while the nation flounders economically. He will have southern support and money raising capability from Haley Barbour.
Romney is the flavor of the month for the Republican Establishment.
If you're in business, went to an Ivy-ish college, or you're a Mormon ... you may have a blind spot on Romney. But he'd be a horrible candidate. Even for a politician, Romney is transparently full of shit. Being a leader in business -- like being a leader in the military -- doesn't necessarily translate. Were I working for the other side. he's the guy I'd want to run against most. I'd re-run Ted Kennedy's playbook from their Massachusetts Senate contest and beat Romney like a big bass drum.
That's not a knock on Romney personally. He'd make a great Treasury Secretary.
Ann Coulter is pointing out the elephant in the room: Obama should get beat in 2012 but all of the Republican's Usual Suspects have issues.
The Republicans are divided into several camps ... Holy Rollers ... Tea Partiers ... Big Statist Establishment ... etc. The current crop of Usual Suspects appeal to different camps -- none appeal to all. Thus, the winner of the nomination could have too narrow general appeal.
The right answer for the Republicans is to go populist and expand their base. Obama and the Democrats are actually quite vulnerable on this front. They just need the right candidate.
Many of us are casting Christie in this role, out of early desperation. Part of Christie's attraction is that we don't know his positions on things like religion and Afghanistan and we say we don't care. But we will.
Right now, I'm intrigued by Jon Huntsman. If your Dad made the big money -- not you -- you can play "populist" ... just ask JFK.
Does Sarah run?
There are four races in February 2012, none in March 2012. If Sarah runs, she'd win South Carolina and Nevada. If Huckabee doesn't run -- so there's no Holy Roller split -- she'd win Iowa. So Sarah would be at least 2-2 or 3-1.
If Romney doesn't win New Hampshire, he's over. New Hampshire lets independents vote in either of the Republican or Democratic primaries. With no challenger in the Democratic race, independents will turn out heavily in the Republican race. Can Romney dominate here? If so, he can gain a big advantage over the rest of the field. A lot will depend on who else is in the field in New Hampshire -- too many Newbies will split the vote to Romney's advantage.
If Sarah doesn't run, she can be King Maker by backing another candidate early. It's her strongest move.
RomneyCare, or at least his unwillingness to attack it, is a complete disqualifier and I don't believe Romney can make it through the earliest primaries. Not the nominee. As good as Daniels is on the budget he is without any discernable personality and has zero TV presence. That may be so superficial a reason for him losing that is hardly can be called a reason, but there you are. Huckabee is not running, and neither is Palin. Gingrich can't get elected, and GOP voters are focusing on electability. Not knowing much about Perry I suppose he might be a possibility, but only if gets started very early (like now). Barbour himself might go for it, and oddly enough he might do better than most other GOP'ers against Obama.
But right now it looks like Obama wins in a walk. He hasn't yet started WW3 after all, so he still has some things left to accomplish.
I'll go a step farther than TH. A Romney nomination would be the ultimate slap in the face to Reagan Republicans by Rockefeller Republicans. If this happens it will be the end of the Republican party as a viable entity in modern American politics. The Tea Party will split from the Republican Party and Democrats will own the Federal Government for the next 20-30 years.
One year ago I did not believe Obama could win a second term. Now I do not believe he can lose.
Republicans should set their sights on 2016. Obama's budget, released today, admits explicitly that the U.S. will run trillion dollar deficits for the next 10 years. I suspect his figures are optimistic, but taken at their word the U.S. national debt will be 25 trillion dollars in 2016, give or take a couple trillion.
The next few years of budget management are the political equivalent of the Alamo for the Republican party. It's do die time. The early indicator is the BABS program. If Republicans cave and reauthorize the BABS program I think you can write them off as a viable political party.
"One year ago I did not believe Obama could win a second term. Now I do not believe he can lose. "
I've been a short seller on Obama's popularity for a long time, but so far I've been wrong. But I still expect a "break" to occur before Nov 2012, driven by circumstances. There's too many things poised to go wrong, too many cans kicked down the road for too long.
Obama's personal popularity has been higher than where it should be because of MSM and the Big Lies that still get perpetrated. The latter includes amazing manipulation of official statisitics like unemployment and inflation.
Obama's budget is unfinanceable long-term. Short-term it depends on Fed machinations and most of the rest of the world sucking even more than we do. Rates are already backing up. Housing is a mess in many parts of the country. Some of our big banks go broke if the mortgage mess is pushed back to them. A few states will go broke soon. GDP growth will stall, or decline. Etc. Etc. These will drive Holy Shit Headlines that MSM can't ignore.
In his CPAC speech, Romney made a big deal about unemployment, etc and Obama's Hoovervilles. Right speech, wrong messenger. Can you say "carried interest"? MSM will, if Romney is the nominee.
The Republicans need to run their best non-Holy Roller populist. It's not Huckabee, it's not Romney. Sarah is too Hot. Developing ....
Ignoramus is on a roll lately. I still think Coulter had it right. Romney, impressive individual that he is, would be the GOP's Kerry. He will be pushed onto the defensive over all the changing positions he's taken while seeking higher office. People will never feel confident in his judgement after RomneyCare.
Remember, elections in this country tend to be close. If your supporters hesitate, it's over.
Although Christie might suffer from the claim he's a one trick pony, I don't think it would stick. The big advantage with him, well everything with him is big but I digress, is that he would take it to Obama, and pin him on the ropes, on the issue about which the public trusts him least: his vision of the role of government in our lives and his vision of the resources we should give it.
Romney would be seen as dancing and backing up. Christie would be on the offensive with his best issue.
As to the one trick pony part, call it an ability to focus on the most important issues. He is obviously, improbably, as agile as they come. I don't think national issues would sink him.
There may be others that can win. (Jeb you listening?). Let's hope so. But right now he is the only one I can actually see standing up to Obama and knocking him down for the count.
I think Mr. Ed's on the right track about Romney being potentially the GOP's version of Kerry. I would have liked to have seen him as the nominee in 2008, but at this point, his strengths (and there are some definite ones) are undermined by his many weaknesses (Romneycare, record of flip-flops, etc.).
I don't like the idea of Christie as the nominee at this point. He's great in New Jersey right now, but I'm skeptical about some of the stuff I've read or heard about him on gun control and other issues that are important to the conservative base. Furthermore, it would be nice to see him keep his word about not running in 2012, and I'd like to see him establish a more substantive record of success as a Governor before running: he'd be much stronger as a candidate in 2016 or 2020 than 2012.
Of the names mentioned here so far, I'd say that Perry sounds like the most formidable.
Trouble with Christie making a run is that, by the mere fact of doing so, he would undermine the straight-shooter factor which is his biggest strength. He's said repeatedly that he intends to finish the job in NJ. If he does not do so (even with an "Oh, gosh, you talked me into it" flourish), then his stock instantly drops. He's got time. He's young. He's got accomplishments (and hours on the stairmaster...just sayin') to log before he makes a run for the Big Chair (...).
As for Romneycare...look, it's an albatross and no mistake. But if he's smart (and he surely is) then he'll simply say that the states are where experiments like that SHOULD be run, not at the Federal level. He'll say that it was an idea he felt was a good one, but that it had clearly failed to perform to anything like his expectations. So, nothing of the kind should be undertaken for the Nation as a whole.
Thus he would burnish his Federalist credentials, and doesn't have to backpedal (which would hurt him by being lumped in with other changed positions).
I think Coulter is dead wrong here. Romney is not my first choice (that being Pawlenty), but he's a solid tie for second (with Daniels), and I'd pull the lever for him without ambivalence.
First of all Obama will not be re-elected, there will be a Clinton on the ticket, Hillary or Bill. Romney has no chance nor Huckabee, they are half hearted conservatives at best. Someone a true conservative needs to emerge, if Gov-Awesome was a choice I would vote that way...
Case in point about Ms. Coulter playing the fashion amongst our base - see this one:
"Coulter: For Palin, running for president would be a step down"
Of course, this is nonsense. President is the big deal. And no Conservative would say such nonsense, unless they fear the wrath of a tiny devoted base, which has been peddled absurd levels of hype over the HockeyMom.
Coulter simply cannot say, Sarah Palin won't win a run for the Presidency. She plays the game here. This is not the stuff of WFB, and honest conservatism.
And her overt fear of this rabid fashion, which has foolishly given us a predictable flop in Delaware, Alaska, etc., is pushing her to push another bit of nonsense - that Romney cannot win. He can, and will have a great opportunity once he debates Obama a few times.
Coulter wants Christie, because she believes he is the only one who can unite the fashionable perception of our base. Yet, the fashion players (Allahpundit plays them all the time), originally opposed Christie in NJ - preferring the image of Lonegan. Christie was considered a "RINO" by many in the fashion game - and many still do. They will balk just as much over Christie, as they will Romney - stuck on a fashionable concept.
Ironically, again, repeating the same thing - the same fashion debased our best interests after 2004, throwing a temper tantrum and turning against GW Bush and Company. Soon, we ended up with Pelosi and Reid running Congress, McCain and Obama heading for the WH.
We seem eager to cut our noses, to spite our faces. Yet, in regards to NJ, the best candidate for the job won the GOP Primary, and has proven to be the most outstanding (even when he was being labeled in the worst manner by both sides as a Bush Administration lacky).
Thank goodness cooler heads prevailed in the NJ GOP Primary, and then in a disastrous Democratic Partisan monopoly we call the Garden State.
I will wager so much again, if Romney takes the nomination, (even after hurting himself with the mistake of MASS Health Care reform), he will take the White House.
Palin, Palin, and Palin. Those are the choices for a nominee.
We can't send up anything less than a rock star against Obama. Like her or not, Palin is our rock star.
Generally, people who know her like her. People who don't like her don't know her, they only now what they'be heard second hand.
There is a huge advantage in running a candidate who is and will be perceived as a real person rather than a professing politician.
The election will be a referendum on Obama. Who is more not Obama than Sarah Palin?
My memories of Mitt Romneycare: The story I saw long ago about his group of financiers shuttering an American factory and moving it to China, to make items to sell here, plus another story about how he wanted the GOP to cut a deal on amnesty so he wouldn't have to discuss it come 2012.
Sorry, I'm interested in this guy becoming the GOP nominee never no how no way not at all. His supposed excellence re matters financial and economic boils down to close factories here, open elsewhere, reap profit. Any supposed political expertise boils down to cut a deal to make the bad press go away. FAIL FAIL FAIL.
If he gets the nomination he will lose. Not because he's stupid, mormon, republican, whatever- but because he rings up as just another politician who stands for nothing regular Americans care about. Just like Obama- and better the devil we know than some guy with perfect hair minus a long list of "accomplishments" that no one likes.
Romney is so strange. He is Judge Smails from Caddyshack. I realize he was governor of Massachusetts, but somehow he seems so tone-deaf to those who'd he'd need to persuade (whereas Christie is amazingly precise in seeing how to talk sincerely to the persuadable middle).
I think any Republican will win in '12; if it's a governor, they'll need to work on their foreign policy credentials and pick a Senator as VP.
Palin is a bimbo. She is. Accept it.
Unless she's in a structured setting she quickly gets that deer in the headlights look and loses the faith of the independent middle.
If Palin runs, the GOP might lose.
I have Obama's presser on the budget on in the background. The White House press corps has been asking some very good, very direct questions .. which Obama has been ducking. It's like we have a CEO reporting a shocking 2010 loss by saying that he's going to eliminate fresh cut flowers in the lobby ... who can't tell the difference between a thousand ... a million ... a billion ... a trillion.
Phrase of the day: "unjustifiable spending through the tax code" That's Newspeak for the Bush tax cuts, etc. Obama is still intent on eliminating them.
We are truly fucked on current trajectory. Actual spending keeps coming in higher than even one-year projections, while actual revenues keep coming in lower. The actual gap is now still over 10% of GDP. We're still borrowing over 40 cents of every dollar spent.
Federal spending is now over 25% of GDP, up from an historic baseline of 18% to 20%. That's bad, but federal revenues are now just over 14% ... down from an historic baseline of 16% to 18%. Obama's budget wants to eliminate the Bush tax cuts to bring revenues up to 20% -- but we'll never get there.
Obama was asked very directly about whether his assumed tax increases would kill off job growth. "Not if we invest in infrastructure and the jobs of the future."
It's now abundantly clear that going into 2012 Obama wants to blame painful spending cuts on Republican intransigence on the Bush tax cuts.
So Obama didn't get the 2010 mid-term memo: It's the spending stupid!
Right now, Christie and Ryan are the best Republicans on this topic. Romney would be the worst ... can you say "carried interest."
Well, we now know where the President stands on fiscal sanity. He's against it.
Sadly, the GOP Congressional leadership is scared stiff, and they made clear over the last two weeks of cosmetic surgery on the Continuing Resolution that their fears have left them politically paralyzed. They're scared of seniors, and won't cut entitlements. They're scared of the Presideny, and are mad as hell he won't "lead" on spending. Really Republicans-- you were waiting for Obama to lead on spending?!!! They're scared of their constituents, and are pretty sure citizens will revolt faster if Congress doesn't spend than they will if it does. Republicans are craven pantywaists.
Ann Coulter says that if Christie doesn't run we will lose the election, and I suppose that as far as it goes her comment is probably true. But the reality is much worse than losing the next presidential election. Much worse.
If Christie doesn't run, and lead- actually lead!- on entitlement reform no one else will. We know that now. The future is bleak, and Chris Christie has to step up. Without him our country is not going to survive because no other electable candidate is willing to take on the foul mess that is Congress and it's budget.
Well it's a fine fix we're in. In Ryan, Christie, Rubio, and West we have an absolutely boffo, smart, articulate and wise team of real leaders for 2016. But another 4 years of Obama will turn the Court into an advocate for the State, and sink our economy completely.
I think Coulter knows Christie is not going to put an organization together in time. That means, of course, that Christie should be at a financial and organizational disadvantage to Obama who is reported to be budgeting One Billion for re-election (Greek columns aren't getting any cheaper). And Christie should be taken at his word when he says he's not running, he wants to complete his term as governor.
The guys at Powerline ran some posts a while back called "What Price Chrisitie?" It was a play on billboards that cropped up in London in July 1939, which read "What Price Churchill." As disaster gathered over the horizon, people knew that a strong and trustworthy leader was needed, and one in particular.
My view is that Christie, using the tools of our time, will have to be drafted. We will have to write him into the process, into the primaries and into the caucuses. If convention arrives, with no outright winner, and Christie has a respectable block of committed delegates, he will have a face-saving way to say "yes", that does not undermine his previous statements and commitments. If he can stand on the stage as an equal to the others, he will by the force of personality carry the nomination in a stirring fashion. Under those circumstances enough money will come his way.
The road to victory is clear. Welcome to Tea Party II. It's time to do for a candidate, what we all did in our own idiosyncratic, internet connected way, for a few ideas in 2010. Let the man be governor, that's his job. Let's get him his delegates, that's our job.
At least one guy in DC is willing to touch the third rail:
"Eagle Scout" Paul Ryan earlier today castigated the White House... "Why did you duck?"
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said Tuesday that President Obama "punted on the budget" and that entitlement programs are driving the national debt. "You have to do entitlement reforms if you are serious about this budget, if you are serious about this debt," Ryan said. "The sooner we tackle it, the better off everyone is."
Ryan addressed these looming fears of a government shutdown. "We don't want to see shutdown occur," he said, but "we don't want to rubber-stamp these extremely high and elevated spending levels."
Whoever gets the GOP nomination will get the full-blown Alinsky treatment. Few politicians survive that. Gingrich, Bush II, DeLay and Ford come to mind. Palin has been subjected to worse than any of those gentlemen, and yet she has emerged stronger than ever. That speaks to immense personal courage and strength of character.
Would she be good presidential material? Her track record suggest she has solid executive skills, strong negotiating skills, and integrity. She destroyed the corrupt old bastards club that had been running the Alaskan GOP and she came down hard on their buddies in big oil.
Her many FB notes on Obamacare have been effective. Compare her thinking:
with Romney's, as expressed in Romneycare. I can't see Romney getting past that albatross, and I can see her clobbering Romney in any debate on the subject.
I don't see Christie going any where. His positions on immigration and cosiness with Muslim radicals will soon come out. And he will be subjected to merciless attack from the Left and MSM. He's doing good where he is, showing governors how to start attacking spending at the state level.
The problem all the GOP contenders face is that Palin can drown them out with a tweet, a FB post, or a verbal jab. She also has a ready made campaign organization that costs her nothing; it is voluntary, motivated and large. Many of her supporters are active in the Tea Party movement and 9.12 groups and they are learning fast. Her FB fan base is huge - 2.7 million strong and growing.
The problem with Romney as a candidate is that he is, ultimately, an unlikeable person. In 2008, the more he ran, the less people liked him. He comes off as disingenuous. He can be a kingmaker but will never be king. Palin is good for the base but the rest of the country will never vote for her. Nominate someone like Barbour or Huckabee and all people see are southern bigots. The Republican party so far has no viable candidate that can beat Obama, no matter what you all say about him. The election is his to lose now and if you all keep on this track he will have no competition. Nominate someone like you did in 2008 and it will be a cake walk for Obama.
While one of your less offensive and more reasoned posts here, Vicki, this:
"Nominate someone like Barbour or Huckabee and all people see are southern bigots."
is true to form. It either 1) is a statement of belief that Southerners are bigots, or 2) an observation that Southern politicians are commonly considered as such and dead in the water politically.
For possibility #1, that simply makes you a bigot. Congratulations, and savor the irony.
For possibility #2, consider this list.
Bill Clinton, the 'first black president,' Arkansas.
Al Gore, Tennessee.
Jimmy Carter, Georgia.
Lyndon Johnson, Texas.
Harry Truman, who desegregated the military BTW, Missouri.
Huh. Look at all those bigoted Democrats. In fact, Woodrow Wilson was the last openly racially bigoted President (who SEGREGATED the federal government), originally from Virginia. Oh, and a Democrat.
If you were trying to assert that it was only a special handicap for those fucking racist Republicans (like President Lincoln, and the Reconstruction-era black congressmen), well... there's no helping that kind of self-deceit. But President Bush (Texas) wishes you well, I'm sure.
The 2012 Republican nominee will be ... drum roll please .....
Whoever Sarah Palin wants.
Does Chris Christie even have 20% national name recognition? He has young kids, He's says he won't run. He's only a first term governor. Pondering .
When you eliminate all the plausible, you look to the implausible:
It's Sarah Palin. With a strong early call cabinet team. Romney at Treasury, etc.
Where am I wrong?
My guess would be this:
21% of the population has seen Christie. 1%, mainly teachers and public employees, can't stand him.
99% of the population has seen Palin (who I like). 40% can't stand her.
Still, it's only a guess.
At NumbersUSA.com, Chris Christie and Sarah Palin both recieved "F"s on their stance for Immigration and Immigration reform. It is here at http://www.numbersusa.com/content/node/11556
The only decent candidate is a Michelle Bachman. I will be voting for her. She is the only one that has a "B" rating, everybody is a "C" or below.
Immigration is the biggest thing out there with the Debt. We must end "Birth-right" citizenship, Chain-citizenship and Non-European immigration! Our Universities must also end their foreign entanglements.
Palin doesn't have it. She's become a cartoon character and will be very effective in distracting attention, raising money, and needling the opposition.
Christie may have a rap of some sort of one-trick pony, with his focus on the Teacher's union, but let's be honest: if you can take on the lofted teacher's union, you can also take on cops and other labor unions. The reality is that although the talking heads tell you that only 20% or so is discretionary, we all know that's both bullshit and an absurd answer. If it's true, then we're a very long way to a balanced budget, and just on the not so long slide to bankrupcty (I'd submit we're there under at least one definition).
Any businessperson knows that you cut budgets to 'encourage' folks to spend less. I don't care if it's paperclips, pencils and copy paper, salaries, benefits, A-grade to B-grade facilities, whatever. We are simply spending too much. A 1.6 trillion deficit? holy crap batman, that is NOT sustainable, and that before we implement Obamacare?!
The answer should be a simple wiseguy statement: there's budget, 2.1 trillion of it, not a penny more than we expect to take in. Here's your piece, and what I expect done. You get it monthly, you must pay all payables by month end. Period. If you can't, you are unemployed and the next team will get it done.
Tough it out over a Maytag box for 'housing' if you must.
I love Christie's willingness to say what needs to be said and do what needs to be done (and think that most Americans will respond to his chutzpah), but I agree that if he runs after saying he wouldn't, he loses some of the very quality that I like best in him.
The more I read about Mitch Daniels, the better I like him. This is an excerpt from an article (Ride Along With Mitch) in The Weekly Standard:
--He treats waste in government as a moral offense... “Never take a dollar from a free citizen through the coercion of taxation without a very legitimate purpose,” he said in an interview last year. “We have a solemn duty to spend that dollar as carefully as possible, because when we took it we diminished that person’s freedom.” --