Posted on 05/18/2009 7:22:04 AM PDT by redk
The Republican strategist who helped Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman prepare for a possible presidential run says the Republican party is in for a devastating defeat if its guiding lights are Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney. "If it's 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we're headed for a blowout," says strategist John Weaver, who advised Huntsman and was for years a close adviser to Sen. John McCain. "That's just the truth."
Huntsman, a favorite of GOP moderates, left the Republican presidential race last week after accepting President Obama's offer to become U.S. ambassador to China. Before that, Huntsman appeared to be working hard on preparations for 2012. "He had not made a decision to run for president, but he had made a decision to prepare to run," says Weaver. "We were probably a month away from announcing the formation of a political action committee, so we were pretty far down the road."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
BTW, how do you define "very small majority?"
Meandog's a McCain man (which is an order of magnitude worse than Romney).
Mr. Romney "Disses" Amateur Radio In Televised Town Meeting
versus
My ideal candidate would be Gen. David Petraeus. I only said I suspect that Romney would be the standard bearer in 2012. I base that upon the credible primary race he ran his first time around. BTW, I wasn't a supporter of Romney in 2008 though I do not find him "truly despicable" as you apparently do.
Then obviously Huntsan is copying McCain and listening to Powell.
Do these idiots even TALK to anyone who is not an old, out of shape shriveled old GOP political wanabe?
Has anyone been to a GOP LOCAL meeting lately?
It is mostly retired old timers who are CLUELESS about social networking. They think just because they have email they actually are internet savy. It is excruciatinly frustrating because such idiots are needed by the Steeles and McCains in order to maintain the RINO stranglehold on the party escaping from the jimmy carter republicans.
We need to desperatly control the locals in order to control the national party.
Now that is funny, you may want to look into that a little deeper. Try googling biggest landslide in American history and you will see Reagan mentioned (1984 election).
In 1980 Reagan only carried 44 states, winning 489 electoral votes and beating Carter by a 10 point margin in the popular vote.
I'll deny that anything you're parroting from the nutroots' talking points are even a little bit relevant. After the current president and his plagiarizing horse's ass of a running mate (who also had five deferments) beat the Great War Hero, none of it matters anymore.
And last I checked, Rush wasn't running for anything, so his divorces are a moot point. Besides, it wasn't like he cheated on one of them with a beer heiress beauty queen after she was in a horrible car accident.
It is the “hired gun” advisors who are embeded in the DC beltway country club.
no principles of right or wrong just elected win or lose.
A man that reveals such a compulsion to lie is despicable, claiming that he marched with MLK, owns guns, lifetime hunter, that Reagan was "adamantly" pro-choice, "I longed to serve in Vietnam", and you know that the list continues, this kind of lying goes far beyond political spin, these are the lies of a man that can't control himself, it destroys any claim to morality that the man can make.
I don't believe the post was directed to you WPTGY...nonetheless, you'll get no argument from me about Biden's apparent draft-dodging cowardice. But this isn't about him, is it? It was about Cheney and Rush (who incidentally got deferred for a cyst on his butt) and Palin as the "pure" examples of unsullied conservative Republicans that hold the keys to lead the GOP to victory in 2012. I believe the keys lie more in line with someone espousing a limited government and a strong defense but, as well, someone who has walked the mile or two in a pair of combat boots and worn a uniform to back it up...apparently you feel differently.
Well, I said he wasn't my choice in 2008 (mainly because of his religious deferment during Vietnam) but, in his defense, I believe it was his father whom he claimed marched with MLK. But I still don't find him "truly despicable" ... "truly Machiavellian" perhaps.
A public compulsive liar is despicable, Romney has made both claims at different times about just his dad marching and also Mitt and his dad marching. Remember this lying stuff goes back several decades.
I don’t care if was directed at me or not. Nobody gives a damn about draft deferments that happened 40 years ago. Lose the silly DK talking point.
WASHINGTON House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bluntly accused the CIA on Thursday of misleading her and other lawmakers about its use of waterboarding during the Bush administration, escalating a controversy grown to include both political parties, the spy agency and the White House. "It is not the policy of this agency to mislead the United States Congress," responded CIA spokesman George Little, although he refused to answer directly when asked whether Pelosi's accusation was accurate.
This is Not
Ft DODGE, IA -- A defensive Romney was peppered with questions today on exactly what he meant when he said -- most recently on Meet the Press -- that he "saw" his father march with Martin Luther King Jr. Recent articles have indicated that his father, the late Michigan Gov. George Romney, didn't march with the civil-rights leader. Admitting that he didn't see the march with his own eyes, he said, "I 'saw' him in the figurative sense." "The reference of seeing my father lead in civil rights," he said, "and seeing my father march with Martin Luther King is in the sense of this figurative awareness of and recognition of his leadership." "I've tried to be as accurate as I can be," he continued, smiling firmly. "If you look at the literature or look at the dictionary, the term 'saw' includes being aware of -- in the sense I've described." The questioning did not relent. "I'm an English literature major," he insisted at one point. "When we say I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn't necessarily mean you were there." (He meant the Super Bowl, of course.)
I care...because I was there! Find some reason to be thankful for the men and women who provide service to your country.
So you would rather have an outright leftist like Obama for a second term?
If anything Anderson took votes from moderate republicans, by 1984 Reagan went from overwhelming victory in 1980 to historical landslide in 1984.
1980 Presidential campaign
“In the 1980 presidential election, Anderson entered the Republican primary for the U.S. Presidential election, in a crowded field that included Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and therefore did not run for reelection to the House. He received little media notice until a Republican debate. Candidates were asked if there were any actions in their past that they had come to regret. Most of them dodged the question, but Anderson took it head-on, telling viewers that, if he could, he would reverse his vote for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. His popularity increased dramatically overnight.
His best showing was on March 4, finishing a strong second to George Bush in the Massachusetts primary and Ronald Reagan in the Vermont primary, losing both contests by less than a thousand votes. That spring, following the Wisconsin primary, at which time it was apparent that Reagan would win the nomination, he dropped out of the primary race to run as an independent candidate for the fall general election.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.