Huntsman advisor: We’re doomed in 2012 if Palin’s a major player in the GOP
posted at 7:39 pm on May 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
From the man who brought you John McCain. And before you ask, yes, he was indeed one of the Republican “insiders” who contributed to that National Journal poll declaring her future dead in the water.
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.”…
In addition to being out of the 2012 presidential race, Huntsman is also out of the ongoing debate over the future of the Republican party. Quinn, who met with Huntsman during the visit to South Carolina, says the Utah governor “seemed to be highly motivated to try to re-brand the Republican party as an institution that can win elections all across the country.” Now, Huntsman won’t be doing that, not only because it would not be a proper role for an ambassador but also because he will be thousands of miles away in Beijing.
That leaves the wide-open GOP presidential field even more open than it had been before. Whatever happens, the way forward won’t likely be smooth; Weaver’s “headed for a blowout” comment indicates the depth of division over the GOP’s prospects. “I firmly believe that Huntsman and people like him are the prescription for what ails us,” says Weaver. “But I have the feeling that our party maybe won’t order that prescription in 2012.”
The “prescription” he has in mind isn’t all that different from what most mainstream Republican candidates believe. Like Ramesh Ponnuru says, Huntsman’s vaunted reputation for “moderation” rests mainly on his support for civil unions and the fact that he’s a bit noisier about the environment than most conservatives, two issues on which there’s plenty of room for people like Romney or Sarahcuda to “evolve.” The real sticking point, which Ramesh doesn’t note, is Huntsman’s cheerleading for the stimulus, a position so sour to the Republican base (just ask Specter, who’s now hitting up Hollywood liberals for donations) that I’m frankly amazed he thought he stood a chance in 2012. Although maybe he didn’t; maybe he knew defeat was a fait accompli next time and was thinking of using the campaign simply to build his national profile as the de facto leader of centrist Republicans ahead of the real race he was eyeing in 2016. I still think his new position on Team Barry was taken with that campaign in mind. But as I said on Saturday, I’m not sure how he gets back in the spotlight before then given the dearth of opportunities to run for higher office in Utah.
Here’s an interview he gave on the stimulus back in February, in case you were weeping over his departure. Exit question: Who recently lamented that the GOP is “stuck in a 1980s philosophy”? Hint: It wasn’t Huntsman.
Update: Another McCain comparison from another Huntsman admirer. Do his fans realize that Maverick analogies are emphatically not a good way to try to sell him to the Republican base?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
because the GOP as a party is far more important than chasing the cult of personality some of you are doing in regards to Palin.
Rick Moran has a good piece at Rightwingnuthouse.com about conservatives and the problems their inflexibility is causing. Read it and think about what he is saying before you jump in and yell CUDA!
Bradky on May 18, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Like him or hate he good at wht he does: Dick Morris
He was on BOR show the day Bristol’s taking up the ambassadorship and seemed to know about it before it happened.
Clyde5445 on May 18, 2009 at 10:19 PM
We’ll have to wait and see. One thing I do know, she has the same raw political talent Clinton had. She has it more than Obama, and he knows it. It’s that “something.”
But, unlike Clinton, she’s got the opposite problem that he had. He was so bright and stuffed with knowledge that he had to cut. That’s a far easier problem than trying to expand.
It really does come down to her. We’ll see.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Bradky on May 18, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Moderates are forcing out Rubio for Crist
Moderates demanded we accept John McCain
Moderates Demaned we accept Bob Dole
Moderates Demanded we accept Gerald Ford
Where are we inflexible?
karasoth on May 18, 2009 at 10:21 PM
I posted a theory over at C4P this morning:
This is all a strategic hit on the conservative faction of the pary by the moderates; it’s as simple as that. And currently, Palin is the face of the conservative faction of the party.
It is no coincidence that Weaver tries to tie Palin in with Limbaugh and Cheney; since they think that most Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Limbaugh and Cheney and think of them as hateful, evil and divisive, then tying Palin to these two is their attempt to diminish her influence.
This will be their running theme these next three years: Palin, Limbaugh and Cheney … oh, and I’m sure they’ll throw Bush in there, too.
It’s just a shame that the moderates in the party are all too willing to play this game with Obama. It’s all about attaining and keeping power; they know that Gov. Palin wants to wrestle the power away from the establishment, regardless of parties, and return it to the rightful owners: the people.
yogi41 on May 18, 2009 at 10:23 PM
quite simple — there is no compromise in your world. You have disregarded Reagan’s lesson about someone who agrees with you 80% of the time is not your enemy. You’d rather light the torches and chase out the “heretics’ who are not completely in line with your opinion.
Bradky on May 18, 2009 at 10:24 PM
While the life issue is central to many in the base, most pro-lifers are capable of understanding and voting on more than one issue. In fact, there is significant overlap between social & fiscal conservativism overall.
We don’t have to choose one or the other- the GOP platform generally has appealed to both, especially when it was most successfull.
cs89 on May 18, 2009 at 10:24 PM
I’m not yelling anything right now, other than the fact that a squishy ain’t going to win. Period. Dream on.
Any leader is going to be liable to the charge of having a cult of personality built up around him/her. The GOP can’t be just a nice middling theory, either.
“Inflexibility”? How “flexible” in a big-picture sense have the Democrats been over the past decade or so? “Inflexible” is usually just code for “there are too many mouth-breathing pro-lifers about for my taste”.
ddrintn on May 18, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Interesting article on John Weaver from Politico.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8624.html
Would you trust him?
bw222 on May 18, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Bradky on May 18, 2009 at 10:24 PM
And yet neither are the moderates in the party
We had (arguably) 8 years of Unprincipled Government in the House and Senate Gop
We had (arguably) 8 years of Unprincipled Government in the Whitehouse GOP
and yet when we argue we need principled candidates you say we are inflexible. When we have had over 10 years of selecting your kinds of candidates and this is the situation your people put us in
karasoth on May 18, 2009 at 10:27 PM
The moderate subterfuge was clear sometime back. Why is Kay Bayley suddenly in the race for governor and making a GOP seat competitive? Why was Ridge encouraged to take out Toomey? Why is NRSC endorsing Crist over Rubio? With all the tea parties that are going on, it’d be only a brain dead person who’d advocate the moderate route. Fact is, the moderate wing is deathly afraid that conservatives are in charge and with the likes of Palin waiting in the wings will take over the party; hence, all this pitiable posturing.
promachus on May 18, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Don’t know how old you are, Bradky, ut I would bet that in 1980 you would’ve been singing the praises of John Anderson or George H.W. Bush. Men who were more moderate and flexible. My, how the years have moderated Reagan.
ddrintn on May 18, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Look. Show me one Republican who is socially Liberal and for smaller government. It can’t be done except for the guys who are like Ron Paul (closet members of the Libertarian Party)
Socially Moderate and Liberal republicans are moderate to Liberal on the role of the government in the economy
and if they are the same on social and economic issues as the Dems…. we lose because thats what the Dem Brand is
karasoth on May 18, 2009 at 10:30 PM
ddrintn on May 18, 2009 at 10:27 PM
No pale pastels!
cs89 on May 18, 2009 at 10:30 PM
You have disregarded Reagan’s lesson that if the public is given a choice between a fake Republican and a real Democrat, they’ll choose the real Democrat every time. There has to be a clear alternative stemming from a real difference.
ddrintn on May 18, 2009 at 10:30 PM
ddrintn on May 18, 2009 at 10:30 PM
If their isn’t a real alternative in the race the guy who is a true believer tends to win
its that simple
karasoth on May 18, 2009 at 10:31 PM
What I absolutely hate about the “moderates” right now is that they are willing to be the dupes of Rahm Emmanuel/Axelrod, they are willing to be used by the Dems/MSM combine and using them in return for their own nefarious purposes. Doesn’t matter if it leaves their conservative GOP colleagues twisting unfairly in the wind.
promachus on May 18, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Exactly right. Bold colors.
ddrintn on May 18, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Old enough to have joined the military in the second month of Reagan’s first term. Old enough to remember putting the word Solidarność on the bulletin board in my first dorm room. Old enough to see Reagan concentrate on the most important things and not become a complete idealogue in advancing what he could of his agenda. And certainly old enough to remember that he welcomed people into the party — not chased them away because they didn’t agree on everything.
And old enough to have never made an idol of any politician.
Bradky on May 18, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Gumby seems to think that 20%=s 80%
Reagan didn’t buy that math AFAIK
sven10077 on May 18, 2009 at 10:32 PM
I think trust is truly a huge issue. I know McCain’s policies on immigration, for example, were forward-thinking, compassionate, and absolutely in sync with Hispanic leadership thinking. Yet he lost that group soundly. Why? His bill was beaten down by far-right groups.
That’s the debate, in my mind, anyway. A lot of conservatives want to say that the issue was that McCain wasn’t conservative enough. However, the statistics belie that. The needed potential conservative groups didn’t trust him to not follow a far-right agenda.
So someone has to break out of that pack. And the far-right, with a very narrow agenda, is going to have to be satisfied with a much smaller voice.
In my mind, that’s fair. The minority voice should be heard. It should not necessarily dominate.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 10:35 PM
not chased them away because they didn’t agree on everything.
And old enough to have never made an idol of any politician.
Bradky on May 18, 2009 at 10:32 PM
And yet the Moderates consistantly push us out of the Party and they have since the 60s
karasoth on May 18, 2009 at 10:35 PM
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 10:35 PM
And Yet Anti-Illegal immigration Republicans drew more Hispanic votes then john McCain or George W Bush
So why advocate a failed strategy and instead work with a successful one
karasoth on May 18, 2009 at 10:36 PM
It is not the moderates saying that the conservtives don’t belong in the party.
Bradky on May 18, 2009 at 10:36 PM
GO SARAH!
Herb on May 18, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Who’s chasing anyone away? I’m old enough to remember that Reagan was considered an INSANE ideologue, and stupid to boot.
ddrintn on May 18, 2009 at 10:37 PM
And the bar for President is so low that any “moron” can be equally qualified to be President from now on, can’t they? After all, since 1976 we’ve had the moron, pussy peanut farmer who couldn’t defend our way out of a paper sack for President, a lovable but bumbling actor who worked with monkeys and scripts for a living as President, another lovable buffoon who threw up on our allies and flip-flopped like a fish out of water over taxes as President, a philanderer and a jellyfish who couldn’t take a stand on anything without taking a poll to see which way the wind (and the interns) blew him as President, a drunk dyslexic (albeit with a backbone) as President, and now a lying, socialist, power mad weasel who is more concerned with vanity and hurting his domestic enemies than he is with leading the country out of danger and killing those who would kill us at the drop of a hat, as President.
Given that history, can anyone possibly explain to me how a woman with 5 kids who is a popular and successful Governor of Alaska, keeps the state in the black fiscally, and has never said a truly cross word to anyone on the opposite side of the aisle doesn’t have what it takes to become a decent President of the United States? After all, the track record is so “distinguished”…. don’t you think?
A “moron” with the backbone of Sir Winston Churchill, the Humor of Ronald Reagan, and the grace of Mother Theresa, however unknowledgable about the inner workings of health insurance and intelligence collection and nuclear arms treaties, would be ten times better than what we have now in the most indecisive President since Jimmy Carter.
You RINOS who fear social conservatives so much and you fiscal conservatives who fear what social conservatives might do to people who wouldn’t vote for us in the first place are what is wrong with the GOP. Stop chasing Dhimmicrats’ (who only want power and to disarm you while allowing mullahs and radicals to arm against us, and will sacrifice our troops in uniform to keep from having to ever ask to defend the country themselves) votes, and start standing up together for Honor for those who defend us, Justice for the Oppressed at home and abroad, and Freedom from the tyranny of a despotic and mediocre bureaucracy which insists on telling us what to do, but who don’t know us, don’t understand our needs, and won’t listen to reason because they only know one way…… the Government’s way… to serve us. They tell us to get back in line and shut up and do what we are told! Like we are the children and they own us!
Failure to unite and stop denigrating any and all Republicans who wish to explore a run for President will surely keep out the best and brightest, and will leave us in Limbo forever, while the country is ruined beyond recovery. If Sarah wants to run, stop sniping at her. If Bobby Jindal wants to run, stop cutting him down. If Huck wants to run, quit denigrating him. If Romney wants to run, stop blocking him. And the sh*thead advisors who are so adamant that their advice (and only their advice) is correct over their rivals are liars looking for work. They failed before and will fail again. We listen to them at our country’s peril.
Sarah Palin would be ten times better as President than who we have right now. So would Bobby Jindal and Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson. All these people would have been better than who we have in office and probably would have been better candidates than Sen McCain.
But results are results. More people joined the Republican campaign when Sarah Palin was named for VP nominee, and came out to see her than anyone else on the campaign trail except his Nibs, President Obama. Stop dividing the GOP and start pulling together, and there is no way he can win in 2012, or the Dhimmicrats win in 2010. But playing offense against Dhimmicrats and showing support for fellow Republicans is required first.
Stop with the badmouthing. Start with the good words and cordial compliments of your compatriots in arms. Win with kindness and compliments because the attacks will only be useful against the true enemies of Freedom….the Dhimmicratic Party.
Now get your a*ses in gear and start winning. Support your local Tea Party.
Subsunk
Subsunk on May 18, 2009 at 10:37 PM
It is not the moderates saying that the conservtives don’t belong in the party.
Bradky on May 18, 2009 at 10:36 PM
They tried to use the Rule we use to keep insane people like David Duke out of the party on Marco Rubio who is a Center-Right Republican.
No the moderates ARE saying Center-Right republicans don’t belong
karasoth on May 18, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Moderates in the GOP follow, they don’t lead. Reagan brought the moderates around to his way of thinking, not the other way around. At any rate, it was on his terms, not theirs.
ddrintn on May 18, 2009 at 10:39 PM
I’ll put it this way: those Republicans who have more disdain for Sarah Palin than for Barack Obama need to be honest with themselves and the party and make the switch.
ddrintn on May 18, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Lets take a look at Arlen Specter (as an example) he ran away from the party when it was likely the voters were going to reject him. But 6 years ago he had this same problem. Their were ways for Arlen to reach out to us “Bitter gun clingers” without risking his seat. Their were ways for Arlen since Obama won the election of reaching out to us. He did none of that. He expected the party voters to give him the seat. He was entitled to it and so he took whatever steps it took for him to keep it. We said “don’t let the door hit ya on the way out” because Arlen made no effort to win his own primary.
Furthermore the Republican party when he was first elected was VASTLY more socially and economically conservative and Arlen voted for it.
Powell said “Americans want bigger government and bigger taxes.” that statement is dead wrong (based on every poll out there in TV land). But in a more important case if both parties are full of people who want bigger government whats the point of voting republican?
The Republican party needs an identity and smaller government thats less involved in the economy isn’t an unreasonable dividing line. Except for the moderates who support the philosophy of Pork=elections.
Thats why we lost Congress in 06. We lost power by being moderate. And you guys want us to be even more moderate
you don’t want to give us a reason to vote for the party we support
karasoth on May 18, 2009 at 10:45 PM
If Republicans pick someone acceptable to cowards like Weaver, the Democrat noise machine will still rip them to shreds, aided and abetted by the mainstream media. In fact, the more significant the threat to Obama, the more vicious the attacks will be.
Weaver, Frum, Brooks, Parker — these guys are aiming for presentability, while the Democrats are aiming for the femoral artery.
DrSteve on May 18, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Amen brother. Let’s go on offense against the Dims. Stop this infighting.
promachus on May 18, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Anninca is not a Republican or a Conservative in any sense of the word. She is a Hillary supporter. She hijacks threads as she tried to do this one by bring up pro-choice again. She uses pretzel logic on every issue.
Clyde5445 on May 18, 2009 at 11:03 PM
So… why’s the minority “moderate” wing of the GOP trying to shout down the opinions of the base?
cs89 on May 18, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Yeah that running moderates approach worked out great in the 2006 and 2008 elections. I mean look at the gains in the House and Senate that approach gleaned. Look at how well John McCain did, or at least how fired up the base was until he chose a conservative running mate.
Oh, wait, that’s not what happened?
Come on, where are the *real* intelligent people inside the elite part of the RNC? This was just a joke, right? right?
/sometimes ridicule is the only thing left when someone comes up with things this stupid.
Too many posts already, so if this is a repeat, my apologies, but my rapidly devaluing $0.02
AZfederalist on May 18, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Nope, not running the conservatives out. Just telling them to sit down and shut up, or change their principles (Exhibit A- AnninCA: “Yeah, the GOP has had a prolife plank since about 1980, but if you drop that decades-old part of your party identity, you could pick up Moderate votes!)
cs89 on May 18, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Trouble with that is we’re not the ones who started this infighting…the rino’s did…
First by going along with this spending spree with GWB…
and now that the country is turning, although slowly, towards a more pro-life stance…the social issues are starting, or should, to take a back seat to the most pressing…SPENDING AND TAXES…
as far as a voice to unify…we need to get rid of Steele…He is an embarassment.
jerrytbg on May 18, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Everyone who is speaking against conservative leadership of the republican party is part of the problem. John Weaver reminds me of the Tessio character in the movie the Godfather.
scrubjay on May 18, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Huntsman is a pussy.
He saw Sarah’s rising star and knew he has no chance in 2012 or 2016. So, he takes a cushy job in a country he has already been.
Total pussy. Sarah would have kicked his ass in the primaries.
You hearin any of this Mittens?
Sapwolf on May 18, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Huntsman saw the writin on the wall, and chickened out.
He saw Sarah’s risin star and knew he had NO CHANCE against her.
So, he takes the cushy job to escape.
You hearin any of this Mittens?
Sapwolf on May 18, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Wow, Hillary is so in the past. She’s a non-issue now.
And I sincerely don’t mean to hijack threads. Maybe I’m guilty of bringing up points but, truly, I’m not into hijacking anything.
I think Sarah Palin is fabulous. I love watching real talent. It’s raw, but it’s real.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 11:51 PM
More like fuzzy logic in a camera lens…but the battery is low…
jerrytbg on May 18, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Just for the record, I’m here to investigate.
So you real Republicans……thrash it out.
I have no loyalty whatsoever to your party or anyone in it, so if I vote GOP, and I did for McCain, then it’s strictly because I agree with the positions taken.
That was how I voted McCain.
It was NOT due to Palin. It was McCain I voted for, although I figured he’d find it impossible to implement, since there was such a mountain of anti-Bush sentiment.
8 years is just all that any party can expect to get. If you can’t lose after 8 years, then you’re not really realistic, in my opinion.
AnninCA on May 19, 2009 at 12:02 AM
The latest newcomer is a concern troll.
Sapwolf on May 19, 2009 at 12:07 AM
thank you for proving our point…
jerrytbg on May 19, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Oh definitely, I’m definitely not a Palin for President gal.
Hardly.
I thought she be just fine as VP.
I voted for McCain, not Palin.
AnninCA on May 19, 2009 at 12:29 AM
I’d rather lose with her, where she represents us as Conservatives than lose with a prick like McCain who kisses the left’s arse.
Tim Burton on May 19, 2009 at 1:09 AM
The Future of the GOP.
I predict Palin will be the nominee.
It is going to take more righteous kerbstomping at the polls before the base can let go.
strangelet on May 19, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Contrary to Ann, I voted for Palin not McCain, and I gave to Palin, not McCain. Let’s see who can raise more money, Steele or Palin. Let’s see who can draw more crowds. Let’s see who can put some passion back into the base. Palin is different from almost any other politician in the party. Doesn’t need a teleprompter to speak, speaks from her principles, doesn’t hesitate to criticize the One, is not a wimp (unlike most Repubs), and a real person, not a phony. So far, I’d side with her vs. any RINO and most Republicans.
Christian Conservative on May 19, 2009 at 1:41 AM
When I look at the Calendar it says 2009 not 2010 or 2012…I am reserving who I support until there is actually someone to support but as far as what direction the GOP should go in…hmmm lets see..They ran John McCain and lost…not just because of the economy or the fact we had 8 years of a GOP President but because he is not a serious conservative and did nothing to mobilize the base until he named Gov. Palin as his VP nominee…it seems to me that going towards the middle is the wrong way to go…explain why anyone would vote for a moderate republican when they can vote for a moderate democrat …considering that the incumbent always has an advantage that seems to me to be a losing idea for 2010…just sayin:)
JKotthoff on May 19, 2009 at 1:47 AM
You owe me a new keyboard.
Blacksmith8 on May 19, 2009 at 2:14 AM
You have succinctly stated the case. Cheers.
Blacksmith8 on May 19, 2009 at 2:20 AM
+1
Blacksmith8 on May 19, 2009 at 2:23 AM
HOT AIR Poster: We’re doomed in 2012 if Palin’s IS NOT a major player in the GOP
Kini on May 19, 2009 at 2:28 AM
Subsunk:
I’m with you.
Blacksmith8 on May 19, 2009 at 2:32 AM
Hi Ann..in…CA
One word for you, Smile, your mom was Pro-Life!
Your continued snub to people who value LIFE above convenience is the very reason why people over 70 will not be welcomed in the US under the Govt Mandated Healthcare. I’ve got an 89 year old Great Uncle, who can tell you some of the greatest stories about WWll. I’ve learned from him.
A person who does not stand for innocent life who have NO say and have made NO choice on their own is lowest of the low. I AM a ONE CHOICE person because without LIFE, none of us have a vote!
BTW: If the Baby is Female, shouldn’t she have a choice of her own body!
will sass u on May 19, 2009 at 6:39 AM
Palin was mishandled…on purpose. Prior to the Bank Selloff, McCain had picked up four points over the Won.
I saw her in GA with Chambliss, she energized the crowds
Everywhere she went..they were energized. Just like the paid ACORN workers showing up at the Won’s parties yet these were common folk.
She will be a fresh voice…if the republic stands after all the won is doing.
will sass u on May 19, 2009 at 6:41 AM
More like Fredo
will sass u on May 19, 2009 at 6:43 AM
Well for one thing, Huntsman is going to be the ambassador to China for the Obama administration in the very near future…for another it was John McCain that put Palin on the ticket and made her a national figure.
I keep hearing all the McCain bashers using what these guys say about Palin to attack McCain, but McCain is not the guy saying these things, he is the guy who had enough confidence in Sarah Palin to run with her.
So maybe a lot of these experts do not know what they are talking about.
Terrye on May 19, 2009 at 7:06 AM
Rick Moran has a good piece at Rightwingnuthouse.com about conservatives and the problems their inflexibility is causing. Read it and think about what he is saying before you jump in and yell CUDA!
Reading something that is another person’s opinion that happens to match your own is going to do WHAT?
What I DO know and IS a fact is that people that are of “your” way of thinking, “moderate” ie “socialist democrat light” have been in charge of the party, even here in Utah with Huntsman for a couple of decades. YOU are the ones losing people like me, because you refuse to speak for, or understand me.
Noelie on May 19, 2009 at 7:58 AM
I keep hearing all the McCain bashers using what these guys say about Palin to attack McCain, but McCain is not the guy saying these things, he is the guy who had enough confidence in Sarah Palin to run with her.
Uh, after the party was over and all the “campaign people” came out bashing Palin and McCain said……_______________
Exactly
How bout the Wardrobe Mess?
How bout the Couric Interview? Palin said they sent her back in after the first one was really bad and wondered “why”
How bout the Charlie Gibbons Interview?
She should have done Rush, Ingrham, and some “friendly” ones first to get her sea legs. She was majorly mishandled.
Your right, McCain gave her the light with no support! That same mistake won’t happen again!
will sass u on May 19, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Jonathan Martin, Politico
“Palin camp eyed Clinton alliance”
Typical twist of the truth from Mr. Martin. No, Palin did not eye the Clinton alliance. Mr. Coale has been nagging Palin to do so, and has been told no. And Mr. Coale tells Palin that a financial contribution to Hillary Clinton would buy protection from Hillary’s media. That’s EXTORTION, and all things considered from media abuse, blackmail. And Palin is merely amiable to cooperative conversations with Bill and/or Hillary Clinton, leaving the appropriate amount of time between requests and responses so as not to be abrupt, feeding that fodder critic machine.
Sick, Jonathan Martin, as if YOU wanted in on that extortion. “I’ll report nice talk if you just bribe me.”
maverick muse on May 19, 2009 at 8:25 AM
What is left UNSAID speaks volumes, revealing more about the man playing mute than the target being abused.
maverick muse on May 19, 2009 at 8:28 AM
1980-1992. I like Bush I, but he lost because he did not continue Reagan’s focus on low taxes and allowed himself to be steamrolled on the economy.
The American public did not tire of a conservative social/fiscal policy, but lost trust in the “no new taxes” pledge breaker. Clinton was able to come in on a wave of “the economy’s suffering and Bush doesn’t care.”
cs89 on May 19, 2009 at 8:37 AM
And if winning the election is the only objective and the GOP nominates someone you need a magnifying glass to find what actually makes them different from the LEFT – we don’t need the GOP.
Huntsman could hardly have been considered a major player if the majority of general voters outside his region had never heard of him.
The GOP “strategists” dismiss Gov Palin and the Conservative base at their own peril. GOP “moderates” can not win the presidency by drawing Independents when Dems pretend they’re moderates. Dems are much better liars. GOP insiders continue to count on Conservatives holding their noses to vote for the REP squish in hopes of him being better than the Dem. At some point Conservatives are going to realize that the RINOs think as little of them as the Dems do.
katiejane on May 19, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Conservatives believe in a core set of ideals, that traditionally have formed the planks of the Republican party…
Promotion of freedom through limited government.
Fiscal responsibility.
Freedom to practice religion.
Gun ownership.
Constitutional law of the land.
…and yes, babies should not be killed for “convenience”.
If you feel the need to support 80% of these ideals, then you should… and not try to CHANGE those core ideals of the party. Moderates are the truly inflexible ones.
Conservatives only want to chase out those “heretics” who would pervert and change the party to match their ideals.
We should welcome all, but do not expect us to change to gain your support.
dominigan on May 19, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Ever consider that if McCain had any leadership standing in the GOP he could rein in those attacking Palin? The fact that his people continue to try and kneecap her leaves us with several options:
a) He agrees with them but not wanting to appears like an idiot for picking her, he is having them do the dirty work.
b) He is resentful of her popularity because he never generated that type of appeal so he enjoys the snipers taking her down.
c) He disagrees with the bashers but he is such a non-player that they don’t care if he objects.
And none of those options speak positively for McCain.
katiejane on May 19, 2009 at 9:14 AM
HOMERUN!
will sass u on May 19, 2009 at 9:17 AM
I still haven’t found my give-a-damn about Huntsman himself. Now I’m supposed to care about what some unknown “strategist” says? Please!
SKYFOX on May 19, 2009 at 9:25 AM
That’s not dumb. If you think we elect a government to feed hungry children.
Wait. Which party is he supposed to be the head of, again?
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on May 19, 2009 at 9:31 AM
It is not the moderates saying that the conservtives don’t belong in the party.
You’re right. We’re not being chased out of the party.
We’re told to shut up and sit at the back of the bus, where we belong. Oh, and open up our wallets.
Marco Rubio is being told not to bother running for the Senate ’cause his betters favor Crist. Sarah Palin is the target of a whisper campaign. Do you people fear her that much that you don’t think you can beat her in a stand up fight?
Ever watch Serenity? Shepard Book warns Mal that the Alliance will send an operative, and that “they’ll come at you sideways, because that’s how they think”. Why are those “inclusive” “moderate” Republican’s coming at Palin sideways?
I R A Darth Aggie on May 19, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Huntsman and o sittin’ in a tree.
Give me a break, that briar patch nonsense is stupid.
Go Cuda
Defeat would be better than watching McCain like candidate.
“O is great, O will be good pres., No nasty talk (facts) against dems. or O.
Want to do that again.
nondhimmie on May 19, 2009 at 1:34 PM
In order to win the presidency, you have to have a candidate that will inspire people not only to vote, but also give money, make calls, put up signs, lean on friends and family, etc. As of now there is only one GOPer who can generate that type of heat – SP.
We don’t know what the political climate will be like in late Summer/Fall of 2012. If 0bama’s chickens are coming home to roost, an army of Palinistas can win the day.
Lou Budvis on May 19, 2009 at 1:50 PM
I’ll just make the obvious point that what we need is unity now and not this stupid infighting.
That applies to all of us. All sides. It’s dumb.
Palin remains important for some reason and if people want her there then she should be there. If she can do something positive then it will be all for the good. If she does something negative then it will probably mean she won’t be relevant again on the national stage.
Either way there’s no profit in inhibiting her.
Really guys… there is no faction of the party we can do without these days. Driving out existing allies when you need MORE allies is foolishness. There seems to be a juvenile attraction to going down in a blaze of glory but that only makes sense when you’re about to die or something. if you live after that then you’re going to miss the burned bridges and the sacrifices.
We can’t afford to be that stupid.
Karmashock on May 19, 2009 at 3:48 PM
I’ve read somewhere that “Reagan will be president someday” was once a joke.
ddrintn on May 19, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Exactly so. Social conservatives generally vote fiscally conservative. Fiscal conservatives don’t reliably vote as social conservatives.
So why not a candidate that both want?
Because the candidates who don’t care about social issues want to be elected, and are willing to cast away the social conservatives as long as they get power.
It’s all about power for the Rockefeller Wing of the party, and they figure that the social conservatives are also fiscal/national defense conservatives, and will have no choice but to vote for them. In effect, they treat the social conservatives as a captive voting bloc, and figure they don’t have to do anything to please them.
Why can’t Republicans get along? Because different factions are trying to build political power, and accomplishing it by destroying all possible competitors.
The ugly truth is that Sarah Palin is attacked every bit as much by Republican rivals as she is by Democrats. The obvious corollary to that is that there are certain people who want the Republicans to win — but only they’re the winning Republicans.
Reagan’s famous Eleventh Commandment would have been completely ignored if he hadn’t settled the sturggles for political power in the Republican party by assuming that power himself.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on May 19, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3