Romney - I consider him a moderate. He's traditionally been relatively liberal on social issues (although he doesn't seem to care about them), supportive of health care reform, and pro-business. On foreign policy, he echoes a lot of George Bush's ideas, although without the swagger and arrogance that would likely lead us into another ill-conceived war. He's mostly supported by upper-class, educated, urban, moderate Republicans.
Pawlenty - Ever since he waded into a possible presidential run, I think he's been trying to position himself as the generic Republican who toes the party line and doesn't piss anyone off. I think that strategy is unlikely to work, but it is what it is. Although he hasn't taken strong stances on much of anything, I would describe him as a "big government conservative." He'll probably appeal to the few people who don't like any of the other Republican candidates. Not a winning strategy IMO.
Daniels - Although not a libertarian by any means, Mitch Daniels is probably the closest thing to a small-government conservative among the serious contenders. As a governor, he has been a big proponent of busting unions and cutting spending. He's asked for a "truce" on social issues, which I interpret as an indication that he's moderate-to-liberal on them. He has shown little interest in foreign policy, indicating that he may be more supportive of a moderate approach than he lets on. I think he appeals to well-educated conservatives.
Huckabee - Mike Huckabee tends to be the most overtly religious candidate in the race, and wears his Christianity on his sleeve. He's plainly a social conservative, but has sharp disagreements with the Republican orthodoxy on foreign policy. He described Bush's foreign policy as "arrogant" way back in 2007, even before it was cool for Republicans to do that. On economic issues, I think he's a moderate populist who probably fits into the "big government conservative" category as well. I think he'll mainly appeal to evangelical Christians and rural Republicans.
Palin - She's the populist of the crowd, constantly attacking bureaucrats, bankers, and the elite. She favors an aggressive foreign policy, a conservative social agenda, and lower taxes. It's unclear if she has any plans to cut spending. I think she appeals mainly to the low-income, uneducated subset of Republicans.
Of course someone will. I'm merely giving a "March 2011" POV from a conservative stance using the 2010 elections as a guide based on the rise of the tea party mentality driving conservatives to the polls. Cept Huckabee, that smarmy SOB can go suck an egg.Ya, but keep in mind that there was a laundry list of reasons why each of the potential Republican nominees in 2008 was unacceptable to the base. And they were, to some extent. But the problem with this reasoning overlooks the obvious fact that SOMEONE will win the nomination.
Romney - I consider him a moderate. He's traditionally been relatively liberal on social issues (although he hasn't shown much backbone on them), supportive of health care reform, and pro-business. On foreign policy, he echoes a lot of George Bush's ideas, although without the swagger and arrogance that would likely lead us into another ill-conceived war. He's mostly supported by upper-class, educated, urban, moderate Republicans.
Pawlenty - Ever since he waded into a possible presidential run, I think he's been trying to position himself as the generic Republican who toes the party line and doesn't piss anyone off. I think that strategy is unlikely to work, but it is what it is. Although he hasn't taken strong stances on much of anything, I would describe him as a "big government conservative." He'll probably appeal to the few people who don't like any of the other Republican candidates. Not a winning strategy IMO.
Daniels - Although not a libertarian by any means, Mitch Daniels is probably the closest thing to a small-government conservative among the serious contenders. As a governor, he has been a big proponent of busting unions and cutting spending. He's asked for a "truce" on social issues, which I interpret as an indication that he's moderate-to-liberal on them. He has shown little interest in foreign policy, indicating that he may be more supportive of a moderate approach than he lets on. I think he appeals to well-educated libertarians and conservatives.
Huckabee - Mike Huckabee tends to be the most overtly religious candidate in the race, and wears his Christianity on his sleeve. He's plainly a social conservative, but has sharp disagreements with the Republican orthodoxy on foreign policy. He described Bush's foreign policy as "arrogant" way back in 2007, even before it was cool for Republicans to do that. On economic issues, I think he's a moderate populist who probably fits into the "big government conservative" category as well. I think he'll mainly appeal to evangelical Christians and rural Republicans.
Palin - She's the populist of the crowd, constantly attacking government bureaucrats, bankers, universities, the media, and the elite. She favors an aggressive foreign policy, a conservative social agenda, and lower taxes. It's unclear if she has any plans to cut spending. I think she appeals mainly to the low-income, uneducated subset of Republicans. But she may not even want to run for president.
I really do not like Pawlenty, at all. He's a typical yes-man, and he has ZERO charisma. Even if he won a debate on substance, Bammy's flippant flowery bilge would override the court of public opinion.
Unfortunately Romney is the man to beat. I like him as a person, but he has a lot of political baggage, and most evangelicals are too bigoted to vote for a follower of Joseph Smith.
I do think someone unexpected will rise in the end, but Romney's infrastructure and cash are going to be a tough battle.
I wouldn't vote for anyone named after a piece of sports equipment. Why do you think Pad Buchanan never got anywhere?
As much as I'd like Palin to be the Republican nominee for purely cynical reasons, I don't think it's going to happen. According to InTrade, she's now the FIFTH most likely nominee, behind Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, and Huckabee. In fact, InTrade is skeptical that she'll even run for president at all. Her odds of announcing a presidential bid by the end of 2011 are only trading at 43%.
Of course someone will. I'm merely giving a "March 2011" POV from a conservative stance using the 2010 elections as a guide based on the rise of the tea party mentality driving conservatives to the polls. Cept Huckabee, that smarmy SOB can go suck an egg.
Romney has the albatross of being a Mass. Gov that instituted a big government healthcare system.
Pawlenty is a warmer, a big government can save the earth type that looks to Jimmy Carter for wisdom... that's gonna haunt him in the primaries.
Daniels really says a lot of good things but his Indiana plan is gonna be a tough thing to over come.
Palin probably won't even run and if she does it's unlikely she'd win. The media did a bang up job of destroying her, so now it's impossible ot have an honest discussion about her. She isn't perfect, but she's not the bumbling hick moron that so many claim she is.
I think it's gonna be a dark horse, someone no one is really talking about right now.
What is the meaning of this, you ask? I would call it Conservatives coming to their senses.
Article is here.
The nation is sick of politics. Obama and his scandalous methods have worn us out.
Don't buy it....its just propoganda from the GOP elite who are trying to keep Sarah Palin off the ticket. They know that the people of the GOP want Palin as their nominee but they want the nomination to go to someone within their power structure. They are trying to convince people that Palin isn't electable and if too many people buy into it, she won't be.
This is good news. I've been watching/listening and been worried that she'd end up a nominee. Well, I guess she still could, but I really don't think she could win it. And that's a very good thing in my book. Just can't figure out what her game is...unless it's "shill."
This is good news. I've been watching/listening and been worried that she'd end up a nominee. Well, I guess she still could, but I really don't think she could win it. And that's a very good thing in my book. Just can't figure out what her game is...unless it's "shill."
Andalublue: Yes Palin had a poor moment with Couric. Big deal. Obama gaffed his way through the campaign, sloughs off tough questions (and the press lets him), and is still in hiding. 2+ years has revealed what a moron our Dear Leader is, and what he thinks of us and this country... and you actually cite one instance Palin didn't do well as an example of her not being able to be elected? (Face Palm Icon) If that's the standard, Obama's past 2+ years is his send-off to spend a life sentence at The Gulag for Political Invalids.
He was unqualified,
You think 31 months in charge of a state with the population of a medium-sized city and the complexity of a minor county is really qualification enough for highest office? At least Obama had spent time in Congress.
Either Daniels or Pawlenty works for me. Huckabee? No way. I actually supported him until he made the statement that, if elected, he would change the Constitution for Jesus Christ. And Palin. You already know where I stand there.
Her game is to play victim as she has been doing since at least the 2008 elections.
I will be blunt here. If you really want a change from Obama, you are going to have to support someone who is not an idiot, and who is also electable. Palin fails on both counts. She is a cult of personality, rather than an infusion of ideas to the GOP.
Spent time in congress, my fanny! Present, here, present, here, no vote.....
You think 31 months in charge of a state with the population of a medium-sized city and the complexity of a minor county is really qualification enough for highest office? At least Obama had spent time in Congress.
The substantive Daniels is a credible candidate, but he has one ugly wart: He was GW Bush's OMB Director. The Bush budget was nothing by incredible imagination. Daniel's biggest single blunder in his tenure there (aside from being associated with a bad cast of characters), was his assertion that the Iraqi conflict would cost a mere $50B (even admonishing someone else that said it would cost $200B). The currrent direct price tag is close to $1T.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?