Poll: Romney’s favorables now below 50% among Republicans?

posted at 6:23 pm on November 23, 2009 by Allahpundit

Big caveat right off the bat: PPP is the same polling firm that predicted a Hoffman landslide in NY-23. But (a) they had Mitt’s favorables comparable with Huckabee’s earlier in the year, so it’s not like their data’s historically been screwy, and (b) this isn’t just a one-month snapshot but a trend dating back to July.

What gives?

On our monthly 2012 polls, which began in April, an average of 74% of Republicans have held a favorable opinion of Palin to 66% for Huckabee and 56% for Romney.

The gap hasn’t always been that wide though. On the first three iterations of this survey, from April to June, Palin averaged a 76% favorability number to 67% for Huckabee and 63% for Romney. On the last three runs, from September to November, Palin has averaged 72% to 64% for Huckabee and just 51% for Romney.

He’s at 48 percent this month after having hit 63 percent in June, before the fade began. Even PPP doesn’t have any explanation for it. I’ll give you two possibilities. One: Huck and Palin are in the public eye these days much more than Mitt is, even if it is for the wrong reasons. Romney had better be careful that he doesn’t become an afterthought and end up being seen as a “minor candidate.” Two: With Huck and Palin natural rivals for the religious conservative vote, the perception may be building that Romney’s the RINO in the race by default. He’s always had that rep to some extent, of course, but being the odd man out among the big three only cements it. Although maybe it won’t matter: Mitt’s strategy, I assume, is to position himself as the alternative to whoever emerges from the Huckabee/Palin fracas, counting on the fact that New Hampshire will keep him alive in the early running and the “anyone but Huck/Palin” vote will put him over the top.

Speaking of the fracas, here’s video from last night’s Geraldo of Huck defending the woman of the hour. He and Palin are momentarily neck and neck among Iowa Republicans in terms of their favorables — although among Iowans generally, it’s a very different story. There’s no question, I think, whom Romney would rather face in a two-man race. Click the image to watch.

Update: Early consensus among the commenters is that Mitt’s decline, coinciding as it does with the health-care debate, is attributable mainly to RomneyCare. Probably right. No wonder he’s keeping a low profile these days.

huck-palin


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

You may be right. Sarah Palin may be the “flavor of the moment” because of her book. It really depends on where she goes from here.

NathanG on November 23, 2009 at 9:22 PM

She was supposed to have faded already. Her book was supposed to have drawn forth nothing but a few “who cares?” It’s been a really long “moment”.

ddrintn on November 23, 2009 at 10:12 PM

Palin will win the nomination and pick Mitt for her VP to unite the party. Or, if Mitt is not running, she’ll pick the moderate Pawlenty if he is backed by the GOP leadership.

It will be a uniting the party move like Reagan did.

She’s running. Her Dad is leaning towards her running.

Sapwolf on November 23, 2009 at 9:57 PM

I certainly hope you are wrong. That was the failed strategy that stopped the Reagan revolution dead in it’s tracks.

Reagan didn’t want (or particularly like) Bush 41. He’s the reason we had Clinton, and the conservatives have been ignored for a LONG time.

She needs to find someone who shares all of her vision, her agenda, her conservatism. She needs to find another Sean Parnell.

Personally, and I still don’t know why I say this, I think it will be Rick Perry. But I would love a Michelle Bachmann, or a Jim DeMint.

gary4205 on November 23, 2009 at 10:23 PM

She was supposed to have faded already. Her book was supposed to have drawn forth nothing but a few “who cares?” It’s been a really long “moment”.

ddrintn on November 23, 2009 at 10:12 PM

The pre-orders indicated her book would sell well. Before that, the crowds at her rallies indicated there would be an enthusiastic reception for her book. She’ll be around for a long time. The question is whether she can translate the core enthusiasm into a national political future. The 2008 campaign benefited her book sales, but might be a long-term hindrance to her future electability.

dedalus on November 23, 2009 at 10:26 PM

**Personally, and I still don’t know why I say this, I think it will be Rick Perry. But I would love a Michelle Bachmann, or a Jim DeMint.

gary4205 on November 23, 2009 at 10:23 PM
**

Rick Perry isn’t all that conservative. He may be running to the right of Kay Bailey but he is the guy who wanted to impose mandatory toxic (Gardasil) vaccines on teenage girls.

DeMint is a Romney supporter. Bachmann received considerable funds and attention from Romney in her own election battle. Neither will jump in the primaries imo.

mistythestripper on November 23, 2009 at 10:32 PM

The question is whether she can translate the core enthusiasm into a national political future.

dedalus on November 23, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Well, I’d agree that that definitely remains to be seen.

The pre-orders showed there’s life in the girl yet. We were reading Palin’s political obituaries in July.

ddrintn on November 23, 2009 at 10:32 PM

DeMint is a Romney supporter. Bachmann received considerable funds and attention from Romney in her own election battle. Neither will jump in the primaries imo.

mistythestripper on November 23, 2009 at 10:32 PM

If Romney starts to look like last decade’s old socks, it won’t matter about those painstakingly-crafted IOUs.

ddrintn on November 23, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Comparing Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan is beyond absurd. There is no comparison.

therightwinger on November 23, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Will. Not. Vote. For. Mitt. Romney. Ever. Period.

Over.

tickleddragon on November 23, 2009 at 10:38 PM

The pre-orders indicated her book would sell well. Before that, the crowds at her rallies indicated there would be an enthusiastic reception for her book. She’ll be around for a long time. The question is whether she can translate the core enthusiasm into a national political future. The 2008 campaign benefited her book sales, but might be a long-term hindrance to her future electability.

dedalus on November 23, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Are you kidding? Seriously?

Read the book. The book is a first step to 2012. It will only sell her to more and more people.

The people who love Sarah Palin are already on board. Once you are in, you are in. You’re not going anywhere.

Sarah’s base will only grow larger and larger. By 2012 it will be unstoppable. Her message is that strong, and that on the mark.

BTW, watching her on Greta, she is knocking it out of the park, again.

gary4205 on November 23, 2009 at 10:42 PM

**If Romney starts to look like last decade’s old socks, it won’t matter about those painstakingly-crafted IOUs.

ddrintn on November 23, 2009 at 10:34 PM
**

The candidate for 2012 will be the anti-Obama – sharp, stable, slightly boring, predictable and dependable; no drama or empty rhetoric. The winning candidate will have a solid grasp of the financial sector because at the rate we are going the economy or what’s left of it will be the focal issue. Social issues will be low on the list. People who are unemployed, hungry and homeless want those immediate issues fixed asap.

mistythestripper on November 23, 2009 at 10:42 PM

The candidate for 2012 will be the anti-Obama – sharp, stable, slightly boring, predictable and dependable; no drama or empty rhetoric.

mistythestripper on November 23, 2009 at 10:42 PM

If a GOP candidate will topple Obama, he/she will indeed be the anti-Obama. But anti-Obama will come from stark ideological differentiation, not in electing some bland vanilla technocratish type. If Romney’s the GOP candidate in 2012, he’ll get annihilated at the polls. Mark it down.

ddrintn on November 23, 2009 at 10:49 PM

If Romney says health care is matter for states to deal with internally and RomneyCare was what he felt was the best for Mass, I think he could actually turn that experience to his advantage.

Buddahpundit on November 23, 2009 at 10:50 PM

Comparing Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan is beyond absurd. There is no comparison.

therightwinger on November 23, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Sarah is the daughter Ronnie wished he’d had. Hell, even his son, Michael, calls her Reagan in a skirt!

Look, it’s obvious from your remarks you know nothing about Sarah Palin, period.

Sarah has studied Reagan all of her life. She’s looked at how he governed, the good and the bad. I’ll say she is not only Reagan, but Reagan 2.0, a bit of an improvement.

Not only does Sarah have Reagan’s foundation, she has her own to build on. It’s a strong one.

Reagan would be incredibly proud of Sarah Palin.

A generation from now, she’ll be the one all of the rest try to measure up to.

Sarah is the kind of person one only sees once, maybe twice in a lifetime. She is that significant, that special.

gary4205 on November 23, 2009 at 10:52 PM

Comparing Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan is beyond absurd. There is no comparison.

therightwinger on November 23, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Reagan would’ve loved Palin.

ddrintn on November 23, 2009 at 10:55 PM

** But anti-Obama will come from stark ideological differentiation, not in electing some bland vanilla technocratish type. If Romney’s the GOP candidate in 2012, he’ll get annihilated at the polls. Mark it down.

ddrintn on November 23, 2009 at 10:49 PM
**

Your fanaticism affects your judgment. It may not be Romney. It may be a Mike Pence or someone else along those lines but it will not be Sarah Palin. Voters won’t go down that road again. She’s our Obama.

mistythestripper on November 23, 2009 at 11:04 PM

Your fanaticism affects your judgment. It may not be Romney. It may be a Mike Pence or someone else along those lines but it will not be Sarah Palin. Voters won’t go down that road again. She’s our Obama.

mistythestripper on November 23, 2009 at 11:04 PM

I’m not a fanatic. And anyway, anti-Palinism can be just as much fanaticism as any. How do you know it won’t be Sarah Palin? Your Romney fetish won’t allow the possibility?

ddrintn on November 23, 2009 at 11:07 PM

^ By the way, I’d say I’d have a much easier time voting for Romney than you would in voting for Palin. Which one’s the fanatic?

ddrintn on November 23, 2009 at 11:12 PM

I haven’t said a word about Romney or anyone else I support. Why are you so quick to throw that insult because I don’t care for Sarah Palin as a candidate? Is that some unforgiveable sin among the True Conservatives?

mistythestripper on November 23, 2009 at 11:13 PM

I haven’t said a word about Romney or anyone else I support. Why are you so quick to throw that insult because I don’t care for Sarah Palin as a candidate? Is that some unforgiveable sin among the True Conservatives?

mistythestripper on November 23, 2009 at 11:13 PM

It’s OK if you support Romney. Why would you consider that an insult? And you’ve said plenty about him, some of it obliquely.

ddrintn on November 23, 2009 at 11:17 PM

**It’s OK if you support Romney. Why would you consider that an insult?**

Mmmm, you are very good at playing word games. That wasn’t the issue or your insult at all.

Nice try, but no sale. You can troll with someone else because I think you and I have passed the threshold for productive conversation.

mistythestripper on November 23, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Romney has played the whole RomneyCare thing badly. RomneyCare is a godsend for this country. If he couldn’t make socialized medicine work, nobody can. But hey, it looks like MA got what they asked for.

Romney should admit it didn’t work and point to his credentials in the financial sector as proof that it can’t be done and use it as a big stick against ObamaCare.

TechieNotTrekkie on November 23, 2009 at 11:35 PM

April 6th, 2009: Romney endorses Bob Bennett for re-election.
This is the day you lost me Mitt.

SaintGeorgeGentile on November 23, 2009 at 11:37 PM

Romney and his supporters remind me of Clinton and Carville.

Chris_Balsz on November 23, 2009 at 11:47 PM

Romney lost me completely when he admired Obama’s backbone in firing GM’s CEO.

beatcanvas on November 24, 2009 at 12:07 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=3

This was written last November. Blaming MANAGEMENT because labor relations are so bad? Quadrupling federal energy research? That’s neither economically savvy nor fiscally prudent.

Chris_Balsz on November 24, 2009 at 12:15 AM

Romney has always been too pliable in his ideology to suit me.
He looked good against McCain because many Repubs (myself included), wanted anybody but the “maverick.” Now Romney’s record looks more RINO than conservative when compared to two potential candidates who have records that are more conservative. Talking the talk and not having a consistent record of walking the walk is not going to be papered over by words, just words this time.

chickasaw42 on November 24, 2009 at 12:18 AM

Romney was my guy and I said here and in political conversations with other conservatives that I hoped Romney would get out there and give speaches and write political op eds and be very visible and aggressive in his opposition to barry. He’s done some of that but he’s eating Palin’s dust and I’m afraid he’s hooked up with the same kind of slime that ran the mccain campaign. Conservative politicians will not win if they think they need washington insider scum to run their campaigns. They will be torpedoed by the dupicitous, nasty little bottom dwellers.

peacenprosperity on November 24, 2009 at 12:48 AM

duplicitous

peacenprosperity on November 24, 2009 at 12:48 AM

peacenprosperity on November 24, 2009 at 12:48 AM

I spent many hours defending him. I never really considered him to be conservative…more than McCain sure, but he was a luke warm conservative. I don’t consider him a flip flopper on the abortion thing, but I feel really used…I do not want Romney to run in 2012. Like you said, he failed to fight the conservative fight, and I just don’t have the energy to fight for someone who isn’t passionate for Life, Liberty, and the American Way. I think he should be the RNC chair, or head of the fed or sec of state, much more than that is asking too much.

Conservative Voice on November 24, 2009 at 12:57 AM

TechieNotTrekkie on November 23, 2009 at 11:35 PM

Yep…he should embrace the failure and fight Obamacare head on. His failure to do so made him lose several points in my book.

Conservative Voice on November 24, 2009 at 12:59 AM

I have a question for all of you on Hot Air. During the 2008 primaries, why were a lot of you strong supporters of Mitt Romney? I saw his record in Mass. back then…it didn’t change. I saw that he supported Romneycare which is very liberal, was pro-choice before he was pro-life, used deception to backstab all of the other Republican candidates (whoever was in the lead over him). He was not trustworthy because he didn’t have any principles. Even Ted Kennedy recognized that in him when he ran against him for the Senate (way back). Why didn’t all of you see that in Romney in 2008? He had the nerve to call Huckabee a liberal Republican, when he had the most liberal record and still does. He wasn’t a Conservative and still isn’t. Yet people WANT him to be a Conservative, he SAYS he is a Conservative, but his past record doesn’t lie. He is supposed to be real good with the economy, yet his record in Mass showed that Mass. had one of the highest unemployment records when all the other states stats on unemployment were going up.

You all make fun of Mike Huckabee – not qualified to be President, hick, liberal record, etc. Yet, if any of you would take the time to check out his record and not depend on the MSM or Romney’s attack ads, you might find a man who governed FOR the people in Arkansas, not trying to only do things that he wouldn’t be cricized for later. He CARED more about those people in Arkansas than what people like you would criticize him for as he ran for President. Isn’t that the kind of President we need? A man/woman who governed for the good of all of America, not just the rich, but the poor and middle class. Mike Huckabee was labeled a populist when he ran in 2008, now because Palin is a populist, it’s okay for our candidate to have that trait. (think Limbaugh). You talk about a double standard.

Mike Huckabee was and is a hunter long before it was (popular by Palin), very strong on gun rights and pro-life. He was attacked daily by the media and our own Republican Establishment from Iowa until he left the primary after Texas. Romney was pushed by the Republican radio and TV pundits every day, something like what they are doing now for Sarah Palin.

He went up against vicious Democrats and some Republicans in Arkansas, and yet he accomplished a lot. He said to run for office in Arkansas was MUCH harder than what he had endured in his run for President (and that was a lot). As you can see, he and Sarah have had to go through a lot of the same things.

The last time there was some news that LOOKED LIKE Mike Huckabee was criticizing Sarah Palin, I told you that Mike Huckabee likes Sarah Palin and has complimented her many times. Now do you believe me with the comment he made on “Geraldo’s show?

VFT on November 24, 2009 at 1:12 AM

VFT on November 24, 2009 at 1:12 AM

I seriously looked at Huck, and gave him a fair shake…and found him to be just as liberal as Romney, only I found him to be completely unworthy of my vote as I don’t vote for those who are petty and use religion and class envy as weapons.

Conservative Voice on November 24, 2009 at 1:16 AM

VFT on November 24, 2009 at 1:12 AM

It’s simple as a Palin supporter I do not trust Huck and I feel no explanation is required.

Clyde5445 on November 24, 2009 at 1:26 AM

I know the media covers Sarah Palin and everything surrounding her more than any other figure in the GOP, but Mitt Romney is clearly in the cross hairs of the Obama administration. There are numerous examples, but one must look no further than the most recent example. Just a week ago, Mitt was speaking at a low key event for the Young America’s Foundation, he chastised Obama about foreign policy and David Axelrod felt it necessary to attack Mitt on CNN.

This speech wasn’t televised and got very little news coverage, but the Obama Administration was watching. They also were hurt by Mitt’s words which shows they worry a lot about Mitt.

dnlchisholm on November 24, 2009 at 1:42 AM

Many of the Hot Air comments indicate lost causes. Trying to persuade them is about as effective as trying to show a Democrat that liberalism is harmful. They just don’t care. Some people here can never be reached. We should spend time on people who can be convinced.

Example: We can agree that Reagan is one of our heroes. Reagan, whom signed the most liberal pro-abortion law in the nation and turned around to become our greatest modern President. Reagan flip-flopped. For some reason readers here forget that fact constantly.

Romney will also make a great President.

Thankfully the Hot Air fringe comments against Romney don’t reflect majority of the voting public.

scotash on November 24, 2009 at 2:24 AM

I still think Mitt Romney is, and will continue to be the BEST candidate for 2012! I sure hope he runs.

Mitt Romney/Liz Cheney ’12
Mitt Romney/Michelle Bachman ’12

Yup, both those would be awesome tickets!!

Snicker_Snort on November 24, 2009 at 2:26 AM

Go ahead and support Romney and you will ASSURE Obunghole a win in 2012.

nelsonknows on November 24, 2009 at 3:20 AM

Huckleberry is OK on T.V. but I wouldn’t vote for him as dog catcher.
Romney is a FRAUD which means the G.O.P. will nominate him.

nelsonknows on November 24, 2009 at 3:24 AM

People on HA occasionally get upset over who supported which candidate during the 2008 GOP primaries. Simply, you have 5+ horses in a race. You have to lay down your bet before the horse is run. However the difference is you get to transfer your loyalty to another horse as the race is being contested.

Having said that, you still have the choose among the horses that are running the race. You cannot back a horse who has not paid the entry fee. In 2008 if you were a conservative I can see someone backing Romney or Huckabee. But in 2012 with Palin a possibility, if you are a conservative many of these folks might not consider Romney this time out (the subject of this thread).

technopeasant on November 24, 2009 at 5:18 AM

four reasons he is fading

1) Lack of leadership. simple we have the biggest socailist take over in the history of the country occurring on a daily basis and Mitt is too “PC” to come out swinging. silence in this sit is taken as consent for Obama’s policies

2) NY23 showed you were leaders and who were not. It hurt Mitt and to some extent huck. Huck at leaset came out and supportd the message if not the candidate Mitt did not

3) healthcare

4) Mitt is and always will be part of the elite. Elites suck donkey balls

unseen on November 24, 2009 at 5:44 AM

angryed on November 23, 2009 at 7:46 PM

I am a Palin supporter but I am curious why you feel that way about Huck. I’m not trying to be cute here; I would really like to know.

technopeasant on November 23, 2009 at 7:49 PM

A little late but here is my reply nonetheless…

I am fiscally uber conservative. But socially I would consider myself middle of the road to slightly conservative and I am not at all religious. So the idea of a former minister as president is rather unpleasant for me. Don’t all gang up on me and accuse me of hating Christians. I don’t. I just don’t want a religious leader as president. I would feel the same way about a former imam or rabbi running as well.

angryed on November 24, 2009 at 6:49 AM

How Romney can turn RomneyCare to his advantage.

Say: “I screwed up, and vow never, ever, to anything like that again as long as I live with ANY idea for government ‘help’.”

If he wants to be viable with me, those are words I need to hear from his lips, without caveats, exceptions, no ‘ifs’, no ‘ands’ and no ‘buts’. No equivocations at all. If the system is broke and government is in it, get government out of it and let it fix itself. Because when its ‘fixed’ to put government in charge, the ‘fix is in’.

ajacksonian on November 24, 2009 at 8:40 AM

Romney ftw

therightwinger on November 24, 2009 at 9:21 AM

ABO = Anybody But Obama

That said, I’m going to wait until people actually throw their hat in the ring and I hear what they have to say in a debate.

A candidate that the media won’t completely destroy would probably be helpful because we really need the the current guy out of office before he does any more damage.

JetBlast on November 24, 2009 at 9:56 AM

The problem with Romney is that he’s a loser.

The 2012 candidate has to go up against Obama
and beat him.

Romney couldn’t even beat McCain.

Next!

Rev Snow on November 24, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Many of the Hot Air comments indicate lost causes. Trying to persuade them is about as effective as trying to show a Democrat that liberalism is harmful. They just don’t care. Some people here can never be reached. We should spend time on people who can be convinced.

Example: We can agree that Reagan is one of our heroes. Reagan, whom signed the most liberal pro-abortion law in the nation and turned around to become our greatest modern President. Reagan flip-flopped. For some reason readers here forget that fact constantly.

Romney will also make a great President.

Thankfully the Hot Air fringe comments against Romney don’t reflect majority of the voting public.

scotash on November 24, 2009 at 2:24 AM

Maybe if you got Romney to understand liberalism is destructive?

This is what I meant by Clinton/Carville: it’s not that Romney is good, it’s that we’re too stupid or mean or weak or dishonest to know how necessary he is, just like that lying snake Reagan. We need to demonstrate our own value by voting for Mitt Romney. Don’t be one of the fringe. Prove yourself worthy.

Chris_Balsz on November 24, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Palin and Bachmann 2012

That is a winning ticket right there.

SGinNC on November 24, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Early consensus among the commenters is that Mitt’s decline, coinciding as it does with the health-care debate, is attributable mainly to RomneyCare. Probably right. No wonder he’s keeping a low profile these days.

And by keeping a low profile, he goes off the radar. The press is keeping hands off Romney

Romney is in a jam on health care. The press doesn’t want him in the mix because his real life State healthcare plan might be better or as bad as the Obama federal healthcare. Failed parts of his state solution could be used to critique similar parts in the Obama plan. Romney has made statements about things he would have done differently. The press doesn’t want alternatives suggested while they are promoting Obamacare.

Romney would have had to move aggressively and come out with some data showing the good and bad in his plan, and build a case how it could be fixed, but he had to do it before the Obamapress shut him down. If Romney could not prove his plan was at least a good first start, and not a burden on the people, he becomes a mini mess up

He probably decided it was safest to remain mum

entagor on November 24, 2009 at 11:11 AM

I followed the 2008 primaries closer than any other political race in my life and I can say that an extraordinary series of unfortunate events had to occur one after the other for McCain to beat Romney. That said, Romney is extremely intelligent and has no-doubt learned a lot from that experience. He will be a very formidable opponent against Obama.

Also, I find it ridiculous that so many view Romney as part of the elite. Romney has held 1 elected office in his ENTIRE LIFE. Romney may be doing a lot of fundraisers for other republicans now, and a lot of republicans in Congress may value Mitt’s opinion, but that isn’t a bad thing. Mitt is just doing what he thinks is best for the country and the republican party. It’s fine if you disagree with him, but he is definitely not some republican elite RINO that some of you paint him out to be. He is Mitt Romney…nothing more…nothing less.

dnlchisholm on November 24, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Romney’s a Rino. Huckabee is a bigger Rino. Jim DeMint for President!

ncjetsfan on November 24, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Republican only like dumb people, this is not a surprise to me.

Falz on November 24, 2009 at 12:02 PM

2012 is for Romney. He will definitely lose. Obama will have his second term.

America will be a third world country starting 2015.

Then an All-American woman named Sarah Palin will save the day by 2016.

By 2023, America will return again to greatness.

>>>>>

2009-2016 will be called the Age of Tribulation.

That’s my worst but hopeful scenario. Knowing how incompetent the dufus in the WH is, we do not have enough means to last until 2016.

If people want to end their tribulation … THEY BETTER OPEN UP THEIR EYES “NOW” AND …. THINK …. AND ACT QUICKLY.

TheAlamos on November 24, 2009 at 12:11 PM

***
Maybe Mitt Romney could learn to play a guitar!
***
Governor Sarah Palin stands out in comparison to the other “conservative” (aka RINO) candidates. In her personal life and in the good job she did for the people of Alaska. She put them–and economic sanity–first there.
***
Who else do you see “taking point” against Comrade Obama (PBUH) and his “democRAT” / liberal / socialist / statist / marxist / communist ilk in congress? Who is bringing out what President Nixon called THE SILENT MAJORITY? The RINO’s are hanging back and letting her “do the heavy lifting”.
***
SARAH’CUDA for POTUS, JOHN BOLTON for VP in 2012–the AMERICA FIRST ticket. She can pick qualified people for her cabinet and government positions–like Abraham Lincoln did during the Civil War–to provide real expertise in the areas she is unskilled in.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on November 24, 2009 at 12:34 PM

unseen on November 24, 2009 at 5:44 AM

Wealth does not equal elite. You were right in your assessment that Romney is not coming out strong to support conservatives…but is playing it safe. He’s become chewed gum that has been in the mouth too long.

He needs to come out strong against Obamacare…that is what is killing him more than anything.

Conservative Voice on November 24, 2009 at 12:36 PM

rocketman on November 24, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Exactly…you have to make waves and swing hard and mean it.

Conservative Voice on November 24, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Comparing Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan is beyond absurd. There is no comparison.

themisnamedrightwinger on November 23, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Yeah, I am sure you were a big RR fan/

james23 on November 24, 2009 at 1:10 PM

scotash on November 24, 2009 at 2:24 AM

Your argument seems to be, Reagan made some mistakes and he did great. Mitt has made some whoppers, therefore he should be terrific, too. Really, is that the best you can say for Romney?

Look, if Mittens was President right now, national Romneycare would be a done deal and many of us would be looking for a free society to emigrate to. Why on Earth should a conservative support an early proponent of socialized medicine?

james23 on November 24, 2009 at 1:17 PM

All I know is this, as I finish up Sarah Palin’s incredible book, one thing is quite clear, the more people read her book, the less anyone else will matter.
gary4205 on November 23, 2009 at 7:35 PM

I’m halfway through Sarah’s book and I am impressed with her political savvy.
skree on November 23, 2009 at 8:00 PM

People forget that Mitt Romney has a book coming out in March of 2010.

And while the release of that book is far away, I think people ought to wait and see what Mitt says in his book.

I am 100% confident that he will address the issue of healthcare in his book. It will remain to be see what he says? Will he admit it was a mistake or will he continue to support it? Maybe he will give us additional information about what happened with his plan. Who knows!?

But I think people ought to with hold judgment about Romney until 2012. If you can’t wait until then, just wait and see what he says in his book.

Mitt’s too classy to mix it up with or try to compete with Palin. Timing is important and he’s saving his face time.

PaCadle on November 23, 2009 at 8:12 PM

Mitt Romney will be out in the public eye when that book comes out and you will be seeing him all over the news promoting his book.

But don’t count Mitt Romney out simply because he’s not in the public eye like Palin or Huckster.

Its like Obama with his press conferences. Pretty soon, people are just tired of seeing him on televison all the time. I think sooner or later, people are going to be fatigued with seeing Palin and Huckabee on television all the time.

Its entirely possible that by 2012, people will be tired of seeing Huckabee and Palin on television all the freakin time.

Right now, he’s laying low. Timing is important and he’s saving his face time. He’s not going to blow his face time all at once. Instead, he spending his face time wisely and making his television appearances count.

Mitt Romney/Michelle Bachman ‘12

Snicker_Snort on November 24, 2009 at 2:26 AM

Personally, I like Bachman more than I like Palin.

A Romney/Bachman ticket would be AWESOME!

Conservative Samizdat on November 24, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Why on Earth should a conservative support an early proponent of socialized medicine?

james23 on November 24, 2009 at 1:17 PM

If the politician is truly repentant and works double hard to fix it. Saul who turned to Paul comes to mind.

Conservative Samizdat on November 24, 2009 at 1:38 PM
While I agree that timing is important, so is consistency, esp. with regards to Romney as he has an uphill battle to prove he doesn’t just say things to get elected. He needs to say the hard things when they are hard to be taken seriously.

Conservative Voice on November 24, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Mitt’s healtcare crap in MA is what cinches it for me when compared to Sarah.
I take Sarah over Mitt & Mitt over Huckabee.
Just accidently listening to the Huckabee report on the radio has given more than enough info on that guy to NEVER vote for him.
Moron.

Badger40 on November 24, 2009 at 2:06 PM

While I like Romney, I love Palin. Romney would make a great Treasury Secretary in her administration.

If she were to run and win. And if he would accept the position if offered.

itzWicks on November 24, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Noooo!
We have to stick with Romney!!! He is our only hope!! If you don’t support Romney, you must be a RINO!!! Everybody knows Palinistas are unsophisticated racists who shop at Walmart!
If you are a smart Republican and in-good with the DC GOP crowd, ya gotta go with Mitt!!!

/sarcasm

Lothar on November 24, 2009 at 2:20 PM

VFT on November 24, 2009 at 1:12 AM

I seriously looked at Huck, and gave him a fair shake…and found him to be just as liberal as Romney, only I found him to be completely unworthy of my vote as I don’t vote for those who are petty and use religion and class envy as weapons.

Conservative Voice on November 24, 2009 at 1:16 AM

I wasn’t crazy about the huck running traffic for Mccain like he was his butt buddy. Wasn’t crazy about the anti-mormon stuff coming from his supporters.
I’m not all that crazy about him being silent on the NY23 election. I am not that crazy about him not challenging Blanch Lincoln and putting pressure on her.
He has this weakness about him that we just don’t need. Like his stupid answer for amnesty (we are better than that blah blah)

I can live without Romney and I can live without Pawlenty.
I want Ann Coulter to run really, someone who will just attack. Liberalism has to be defeated not reasoned with

kangjie on November 24, 2009 at 2:50 PM

People forget that Mitt Romney has a book coming out in March of 2010.

Conservative Samizdat on November 24, 2009 at 1:38 PM

My, how could we have forgotten…

Nice try, but no sale. You can troll with someone else because I think you and I have passed the threshold for productive conversation.

mistythestripper on November 23, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Maybe you should learn the definition of “troll”.

ddrintn on November 24, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Palin/Giuliani?

They’re pals. Both tough on foreign policy, and while she would get the heartland and the south, he could garner the east and west coast votes.

While Rudy is a social liberal, he’s not so stupid as to alienate the people by jamming that kind of agenda down their throats – he said he would leave it up to the states to decide on abortion, marriage, etc… and that’s fine with me, a social conservative.

Rudy said he’s not running for governor of NY, I believe, so his running card is open. I think it’s a winning ticket and a possibility.

atheling on November 24, 2009 at 6:24 PM

atheling on November 24, 2009 at 6:24 PM

no. I like Rudy, but much better to have two strong conservatives. Reagan gave us Bush…ick.

Conservative Voice on November 24, 2009 at 6:56 PM

I would have no problem voting for Romney or Palin. If Huckabee was the candidate, I would have a hard time pulling the lever. But who is to say these will be the candidates in 2012?

WyoMike on November 24, 2009 at 7:01 PM

What if Romney married Palin? Bolton as veep. No more crazy than Barry being POTUS.

BHO Jonestown on November 24, 2009 at 9:02 PM

Palin raised taxes, Romney didn’t

PrezHussein on November 24, 2009 at 10:33 PM

GOP won’t trust an elitist Ayatollah anymore. They got us into this mess. Too bad for Mitt – he’s a nice guy but he has no hopes for 2012.

The GOP nominee will have the silver wind of the liberty movement at his back.

He’ll be a Palin or Jim DeMint type. Someone who connects with the WalMart folks. The david frums and peggy noonans can stick it – they are irrelevant.

HondaV65 on November 25, 2009 at 12:38 AM

I think sooner or later, people are going to be fatigued with seeing Palin and Huckabee on television all the time.

Its entirely possible that by 2012, people will be tired of seeing Huckabee and Palin on television all the freakin time.

Conservative Samizdat on November 24, 2009 at 1:38 PM

What I have said about too much coverage of Palin will result in people getting tired of her being on television all the time has come true:

Nearly one-in-five Republicans (18%) say they paid very close attention to news about Palin and her new book, “Going Rogue,” compared with 11% of independents and just 3% of Democrats. Yet small percentages in all three groups say this was the story they followed most closely (5% among Republicans, 1% among Democrats, 2% among independents).

Overall, the proportion saying they are hearing too much about Palin has risen from 38% in July to 52% currently. Virtually all of the increase has come among Democrats and independents. Fully 72% of Democrats say they are hearing too much about Palin, up from 45% in July. Half of independents express this view, up more modestly from 38% four months ago.

Republicans’ views about the amount of coverage of Palin have changed very little from July. As was the case at that time, nearly half of Republicans (48%) say they are hearing the right amount about Palin; 29% say they are hearing too much about the former Alaska governor while 15% say they are hearing too little.

Source.

Palin “fevah” is now Palin fatigue.

Conservative Samizdat on November 25, 2009 at 9:11 PM

Conservative Samizdat on November 25, 2009 at 9:11 PM

* Romney supporter grasping at straws *

Norwegian on February 9, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3