Posted on 10/07/2011 7:54:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Two new sets of Republicans are feeling deflated today — the Chris Christie hopefuls and the Sarah Palin stalwarts. The Christie decision didn’t surprise me, perhaps because I grew up in Jersey. In fact, Christie and I attended the same high school. Anyway, Jerseyans are many things (not all of them nice), but slick dissemblers we are not. When Christie said, repeatedly, and in ever more colorful terms, that he wasn’t running, I believed him. And, while I understand the boomlet for him, I’m also a little relieved to see that he is indeed a truthful guy.
Sarah Palin, by contrast, has finally dropped the longest tease in the history of presidential politics. Her bus tours, her visits to Iowa and New Hampshire, her coy references to the importance of finding just the right candidate to challenge Obama (prompting predictable chants of “Run Sarah Run” from her audience). Her refusal to say whether she was in or out. She could use some Jersey straight talk.
Still, there are a few diehards out there who cannot quite relinquish the pursuit of a knight errant. No sooner did Governor Christie reconfirm that he will not be running for president than some of the great mentioners began to whisper that the “big donors” are encouraging Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) to make the race.
Sheesh. It is no reflection on Mr. Cantor to say that this is beginning to look desperate and even a little pathetic. I confess to having participated, to a point, by urging first Gov. Mitch Daniels (choir sounds please) and then Rep. Paul Ryan to run. But those pleas were in December 2010, and August 2011. It’s too late now. The first primaries are only a few weeks away (bad move Florida, but oh well). Preparing to run a presidential race is just too complex. It takes months — even years — to assemble the local activists (also called the ground game), the money, the advisers, the advertising team, the speechwriters, the advance men, and the other necessities of modern campaigning.
Additionally, the candidate him or herself has to bone up on dozens of issues so as not to be caught flat-footed in debates (some of the current crop neglected that part). No one can do all of that at this late date.
So, realistically, we have our field of candidates, and we’re going to have to settle for one of them.
Yes, settle. I’m disappointed, too, that my favorites decided to sit this out. And I wish the Palestinians really wanted peace, that Vladimir Putin were a democrat, and that the San Andreas fault would go quiet. But part of being a conservative, I believe, is taking the world as you find it and dealing with it.
So, how do we feel about Romney? A year ago, I made the bold prediction that he was going nowhere. Romneycare, I believed, would prove a millstone around his neck and he would be unable to recover from it.
I was wrong about how much of a role health care would play in the race. Obamacare remains important, but as a part of the larger issue of the failing economy. And Romney is widely perceived to be strong on economic issues.
Romney has also proved very fortunate in his adversaries. First Tim Pawlenty swung and missed (or, actually, failed to swing). Then Perry stumbled in attempting to recite Romney’s past flip flops. It’s as if some Harry Potter figure has placed a charm on Romney, causing toads to fall from his opponents’ mouths when they open them — or making them produce gibberish.
To be fair, Romney, who was a good candidate in 2008, has become an excellent one in 2012. He’s knowledgeable, unflappable, and dignified. He doesn’t frighten independents and he may be the Republican party’s strongest nominee — and we simply must win in 2012.
But for Romney to overcome the hesitation among conservatives, he needs to shed his excessive caution and boldly embrace a platform of profound reform. This is an epochal political year, pitting competing governing philosophies against one another in the starkest match-up since 1980. On entitlements, the great anchor dragging down the ship of state, Romney has been vague and timid.
Romney’s literature promises that he will repeal Obamacare, yet his proposed reforms are not so much a bold departure from the top-down Obama approach as a promise to be a better manager. His website promises, “Mitt will use limited federal regulation to correct common failures in insurance markets, while eliminating counterproductive federal rules.” It’s proposals like that that make our hearts sink.
— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.
“Is romney better than obama? on some issues. yes”
And that is the issue - no one has any idea if Willard actually believes anything other than his own aspirations.
He has been on both sides of every issue.
He had to hire “conservative advisors” to know what to say to sound conservative.
I do not believe anything Willard says. Not a thing. No vote for Willard.
It’s too early to start that talk. Let’s work on getting someone else as our nominee.
I had a good night's sleep and feel a little mischievous today. Are you sure that her statement was really the last word? She said that it was a 'prayerfully reached' decision: the Command may come down differently in a while when we see who the Pubbies pick. Flame Away!
More than 70% DON’T want Romney
That hardly makes him a ‘front runner’
He has the same set of RINO’S, crossover Dems, and GOP establishment types who always supported him.
but a big majority want someone else.
Palin and Christie both did the right thing. The Establisment would not have permjitted a woman, espcially a Christian woman to become president. Ane Christie wants to finish his job in New Jersey, though the Establishment frantically urged him to run. Why? Because Herman Cain is rising in the polls, threatening Malibu Ken’s lead!
To support Herman Cain, please send your most generous checks to: Herman Cain INc., Friends of Herman Cain, Inc., P.O Box 2158, Stockbridge, Georgia 30281. If you do it doay, it can be included in the quarter ending October 15, so please do. Thank you so much.
I no longer believe that $$$$ alone is the determining factor. Yes, it helps...but to see it as the DETERMINING factor is to underestimate the American people. The “overly-exposed” Obama has made the same mistake.
See my tagline. I guess when it comes right down to it, if he won the nomination I’d have to vote for him in the general, but it would make me ill to vote for a guy pushing a federal sales tax.
Ummm, have you seen the latest polls, Cain has a 20 point lead now in almost all the polls.
It will change because we have Mittens on the record for getting rid of Obamacare, spending cuts and cutting taxes. A few positive things is better then 20 more bad things with 4 years more of Obummer.
We are poised to take the Senate and maintain the House this time. As long as we hold everyone’s feet to the fire, we can keep things on track. We did it with Bush on Immigration. Romney will be the same way. The days of voting some guy in and sitting back to see what happens are over. No matter who gets in, we will have to stay on top of them.
I would improve it by adding that it only takes 1/2 to lower it
I absolutely HATE the “fair tax” from it's liberal-feel-good name to the zealots insistence on using the ‘tax inclusive’ method of calculation.
But worst of all is the “prebate” of $3500. That is just BEGGING for democraps to come along and say “hey- i think you need a $4500 “prebate” next year so vote for me!
(i am not sure of the exact figure)
RE: Ummm, have you seen the latest polls, Cain has a 20 point lead now in almost all the polls.
The only poll I’ve see that says that Cain has a 20 point lead is Zogby’s.
I’d be happy for any other confirmation from other polling group ( e.g. Rasmussen ). Zogby has not been accurate the past few election cycles.
RE: That is just BEGGING for democraps to come along and say “hey- i think you need a $4500 “prebate” next year so vote for me!
_________________
There’s no reason why we can’t include the same 2/3 votes requirement to prevent that from happening.
some choice:
socialist progressive
or
rino progressive.
Vivid, apt analogy.
Raising Reagan as an issue is a fallacy. Its a weak and shallow attempt to cast aspirations on the decision making of conservatives. This has absolutely nothing to do with Reagan. Reagan was a once in a lifetime conservative, President and American. There will be no second coming of Reagan anytime soon.
I suggest you take you "Mahdi" and shove where the sun don't shine.
oops... make that... “aspersions”
A president kerry second term would likely be much better than the Zero first term...
Something to think about.
It will change because we have Mittens on the record for spending cuts and cutting taxes.
So was Obama. What they say is BS most time. Look at what they DO.
“if we can get more Tea Party people to take the Senate and in the House, we have a better chance of strong arming Mittens into doing what we want. He seems very pliable in his views.”
How many more? I think that we have a better chance of Republican solidarity against the president if he has a (D) after his name. Do you think the established Republicans would fight against an established Republican with similar agenda to the liberal Democrats?
I don’t.
We are between a rock and a hard place - witness the destruction caused by giving them two years to run amuck, and it is easy to say that anybody but O is ok with us. But in the long run, if we can cement a majority in congress opposed to him enough to block him (oh, that failed democracy in action) we may be better off than having a moderate/liberal man with an (R) who will not be sufficiently opposed when he does a lot of the same stupid stuff.
There are probably several people who will get me to go third party if it comes to it, Romney is one of them. I am not sure that the “at least he is better than” argument is sufficient anymore, and that it may have gotten us into this mess in the first place.
Now, with my spending habits for necessities, I am pretty sure that I could come out ahead on the prebate curve, but the Pre-Bate has always struck me as a really odd thing for conservatives to get behind.
We want every taxpayer to get a monthly check from Uncle Sam? How does that minimize his presence in our lives?
How many false tax returns are filed now? Will that number go down when the carrot gets so big? Of course not.
The government response necessary to cut down on fraud will not shrink government either.
And if everyone becomes a tax collector (they will have to be, because the current regulations that say that barter is taxable will have to be stepped up when everyone begins to resort to barter, as we will), how does that help?
If you think the IRS can be unreasonable, try taking on your state’s sales tax division - which reminds me, the quarter just ended...
This whole argument that at least prostitutes, illegals, and drug dealers will have to pay in to system is made by those who don’t understand the limitless capacity of such people to find a way to scam any system. With the proposed rate at 23%, there is every incentive to do so.
Finally, whence comes the notion that businesses will reduce their prices to pass the embedded tax savings back to the consumer?
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.