Posted on 11/16/2009 6:36:31 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
“After 2010 you can have a polite conversation about who should be president in 2012,” Norquist continued. “But until then the only thing you’re doing is sucking oxygen out of the room. And you’re not being helpful. If you’re the governor of Indiana and you want to be presidential, don’t send me a press release about how you didn’t raise taxes. Beat [Sen.] Evan Bayh [D-Ind.]. Then I’d say, ‘Hey, there’s a guy to talk to.’”
But Norquist also had an equally strong message for conservative activists — warning that they should not look to enforce ideological purity tests on candidates but rather support the most “Reaganite” person who has a legitimate chance of winning the race.
“My view is every Republican should wish for the most Reaganite candidate that can win the general in your state, which is different in Maine than in Texas. The most Reaganite candidate who can win in the general — that’s who you want. And that’s going to be a different person in Connecticut than in Nevada. We’re not going to throw away the more electable guy than the less electable guy if the difference is 75 and 70 on some sort of vote rating,” Norquist said.
(Excerpt) Read more at rollcall.com ...
I agree with Norquist’s approach. He’s dead on the money on the Presidential candidates. In addition, he rightly points out that a candidate who can win in places like Texas and South Carolina is not the same as a candidate who can win in Illinois, Delaware, and Connecticut.
I agree on both points.
Reagan was Reagan because he won, not just because he was the most conservative in the race.
He could win! And did win!
Norquist is an illegal alien amnesty shill. He has no credibility.
He clamors for the “most Reaganite” in one breadth and ditches the notion of “ideological purity” in another. What the heck is he talking. They are not mutually exclusive. You need to embrace BOTH social and economic conservatism to win. i.e. Sarah Palin.
Palin likely won’t run.
Betcha, she will.
She has no choice but to run. Nobody else can unify and excite the base as she can... but there are plenty of RINO prima donnas with the capability of pissing off the base and replaying 2008.
I wouldn’t say “nobody” else can excite the base. Clearly Sarah is highly popular, but there are other conservatives that can unite and excite the base.
Norquist is inside the beltway and sold out to insiders.
Case in point.
Norquist toured Pennsylvania last year on behalf of that great “tax-cutter” Arlen Specter before his party switch.
Norquist sang the praises of Specter.
Nobody else is in her orbit. Who are these others you had in mind ?
But there are more electable candidates. Palin turns off Independents and more than half don’t think she’s qualified. She needs to go get those numbers turned around to be viable.
He’s right, but there are those who will claim 5 is “moderate” and if we don’t approve of that being the nominee, then we are being “intolerant” of “centrists.”
Again, who are these mythical candidates ? The media and the leftist political establishment doesn’t want her nominated, they are terrified of her. They want another RINO nominated so Zero gets a second term. As for these so-called “numbers”, I call bullcrap. They can spin it any way they want, and they certainly are.
The numbers for Huckabee and Romney look even stronger when GOP voters were asked which candidate they would least like to see get the nomination. Pawlenty came on top in that category with 28%. Palin was second at 21% while 20% named Gingrich. Romney and Huckabee were in the single digits with 9% and 8% respectively.
I don’t buy for two seconds only 9%/8% of the GOP doesn’t want to see Slick Willard or Huckster get the nomination. Slick is almost the most singularly divisive person in the party claiming affiliation with a straight face (although Newt’s recent action in NY may have momentarily thrust him ahead of both in unpopularity). Although I also find Pawlenty thoroughly unacceptable, it makes no logical sense he’d be sitting in first place when he has nowhere reached the level of repugnance as the prior 3 choices. If 21% of the party doesn’t want to see Palin get it, it’s because those are the hardcore Slick Willard/Huckster/McCainiacs.
Believe what you want. I’m just reading from the most accurate pollster. You may know more then him.
Arlen Specter is a crass opportunist. However, it’s largely because of him that Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court. I’ll always be grateful to him for that.
Sarah Palin is a great lady, but is she ready for this? One big case made against her was that she was inexperienced. I don’t blame her for resigning the Governorship, given the legal harassment she endured, but another full term would have undercut the experience case.
You were right that in spite of advancing age, Mitt Romney will run again. He flip-flops with such ease, it’s clear that he stands for nothing at all. To state the obvious, he is not the right choice. Mike Huckabee is more a conservative-talking personality than conservative public official. He has likeability, but his record as Governor of Arkansas was as mediocre as they come. Chuck Norris aside, he’s not the right choice either. Then there is Tim Pawlenty. IMHO, he’s minimally acceptable, but hardly inspriring. Maybe he could be the VP running mate.
Absent a Palin candidacy, and I’m not convinced that she’ll run, who does that leave?
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.