Romney’s 2012 secret weapon: Sarah Palin?

posted at 7:21 pm on February 19, 2010 by Allahpundit

Deep thoughts from lefty E.J. Dionne. It all makes perfect sense now.

First, compared with Palin, Romney is a plausible president. Many conservatives won’t say that publicly for fear of alienating Palin or her followers, but they believe it. Suddenly, Romney’s looking like a bit — or more than a bit — of a technocrat becomes an asset to him.

Second, Romney is a kind of front-runner for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, and Palin’s huge presence in the media blocks out alternatives to Romney (notably Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who appeared at CPAC today). The media don’t have much time or room for a long list of GOP candidates, and the media obsession with Palin leaves space for only one other candidate. Romney has the best claim on that spot.

Third, I am absolutely convinced that Palin will not run for president, but that it’s in her interest not to say so until the very last moment. Attention is what she needs for all her other enterprises, and being a possible candidate for as long as possible will get her lots of attention. Romney wants her out there as long as possible as his blocking back. This will make it harder and harder for the alternative to him to emerge.

There’s some sense to that. Like it or not, the prefab narrative for the 2012 primaries is Palin vs. anti-Palin, partly because the media wants/needs a moderate opposite their Grim Reaper of “true conservatism” and partly because everyone likes a simplistic binary “hero vs. villain” storyline. Huckabee’s too much like her to qualify as anti-Palin — he’s rural, Christian, and all that other supposedly bad stuff — but Mitt, as a wealthy northeastern child of privilege, fits the role to a T. And of course he’s almost certainly running, so all that’s left to lock in the storyline is for Sarahcuda herself to declare her candidacy. But she has no incentive to do that anytime soon: Like Dionne says, she gets plenty of buzz from the will-she-or-won’t-she speculation, and there’s no point in declaring early when the economy could turn around in a year and start pushing down unemployment, making The One’s reelection all but inevitable. Best to hang back, tease the possibility, and stay out for as long as possible. In fact, if she does decide to run, she has every reason to declare later than usual so that her candidacy comes off looking as some sort of deux ex machina designed to excite a conservative base that’s unhappy with its choices.

Long story short, as long as Palin’s undecided, the primaries will be about her versus Romney, which makes things difficult for Huck, Gingrich, Thune, and everyone else trying to find a niche. Pawlenty has an especially tough challenge since, unlike Huckabee, he doesn’t slide easily into the Palin slot. The fact that he’s northern and not quite as ostentatious about his faith as Palin and Huck makes him more of a rival to Romney as the anti-Palin (his blue-collar cred notwithstanding), although that could change if Huck and Sarahcuda both decide against running, thus leaving the media with a blue-collar/white-collar narrative to cast instead.

An exit question I don’t think I’ve ever asked before: Assuming that Palin did, for whatever reason, decide early that she wasn’t running, whom would she likely endorse? I honestly have no idea.


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 4

The despicable mainstream media is afraid of Palin. Romney not so much.

mike_NC9 on February 20, 2010 at 8:50 AM

Just for fun, suppose it could happen… How about Romney/Palin 2012?

petefrt on February 20, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Just for fun, suppose it could happen… How about Romney/Palin 2012?

petefrt on February 20, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Intuitively speaking, I’d say that works better. However, that’s the same formula as last election. Romney has different baggage than McCain, but the idea that he’s free of the baggage that Palin has is erroneous.

Palin’s baggage is mostly without foundation. Now, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t count! It’s formidible.

But she’s also working through it, piece by piece. Romney would be susceptible to hitting that wave too late to undo it.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 9:02 AM

I wonder if I’m the only one getting Palin overdose.

petunia on February 19, 2010 at 11:57 PM

Believe me, a lot of people here are tired of all the Palin stories, espeically when they are just stupid fights with people who insult her. Even if the Palinistas get their wish and she magically beats Obama, we will still have an inexperienced person as President. She will make the same kinds of mistakes The One is making.

Speedwagon82 on February 20, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Even if the Palinistas get their wish and she magically beats Obama, we will still have an inexperienced person as President. She will make the same kinds of mistakes The One is making.

Speedwagon82 on February 20, 2010 at 9:08 AM

OK, that is just preposterous. You obviously despise the woman and want her to go away, but do you really think she’s going to try to nationalize huge swaths of the economy, steal a company from the shareholders and give it to the unions, take a dump on our allies and kowtow to this country’s enemies, and put our grandchildren and great-grandchildren trillions more into debt? Come on.

Aitch748 on February 20, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Believe me, a lot of people here are tired of all the Palin stories, espeically when they are just stupid fights with people who insult her. Even if the Palinistas get their wish and she magically beats Obama, we will still have an inexperienced person as President. She will make the same kinds of mistakes The One is making.

Speedwagon82 on February 20, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Actually, I think that Obama’s inexperience has gotten blamed for a few issues that he honestly HAD to take a stand on and, in doing so, offend one group or another. Not everything is about his experience level.

Ditto for Palin.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 9:27 AM

As expected, E.J. Dionne is an idiot.

Blake on February 20, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Actually, I think that Obama’s inexperience has gotten blamed for a few issues that he honestly HAD to take a stand on and, in doing so, offend one group or another. Not everything is about his experience level.

Ditto for Palin.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 9:27 AM

I think you have a point there. Unfortunately, every single time a Obama is faced with a situation where he has to take a stand, he decides to take a stand in favor of increasing gov’t control and intervention and routinely fails to take a stand in favor of liberty.

The problem is his philosophy more than his lack of experience. (He has more than enough experience in Chicago land politics, IMHO.)

bitsy on February 20, 2010 at 9:43 AM

The problem is his philosophy more than his lack of experience. (He has more than enough experience in Chicago land politics, IMHO.)

bitsy on February 20, 2010 at 9:43 AM

That’s politics. He is liberal. Sarah is conservative.

But the accusations from opposition, either left or right, really aren’t always about experience. It’s often about the politics and perspective.

And, honestly, one side or another is going to win elections. Last time, it was the liberals. This mid-term, it’s going to be the conservatives.

Here’s my thought. I think most people are moderates. They’ll calm down after he has to deal with a conservative Congress.

At that point? Other issues will enter into voting thinking.

One: They will not wish to return to GOP same-ole. The liberal blaming of Bush, however tiresome, STILL gets the best polling. People understand that the GOP really was a huge part of the problem, even people who lean to the GOP. I wonder if they’d risk a return to Bush-type governance.

Two: Experience is tricky. McCain had loads of experience in the Senate. He was the consummate guy who knew how DC really worked. He had the best argument of all for being one who also knew how to work with both sides and figure out solutions. And he was beaten. So experience isn’t exactly what the public is honing in on. In fact, I’m not sure that the public exactly knows WHAT they would like to see, but they probably will know it when they see it.

Three: Romney’s record isn’t all that impressive, when you look closely. It looks shiny from a distance. Up close? Not so much. And a presidential campaign, which he has obviously kicked off, will bring out the microscope. And, sorry, but he’s not black, so he’s not going to get any more of a pass than Palin.

I’d look for her stock to rise as the public begins to focus in on Romney.

My theory is that the pundit is wrong on the basic assumption.

Romney will help Palin.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Allapundit, you are pipe dreaming. Just because the elite media (or so they think) believes that Palin is marginalized because of polls they commission and write the questions for, doesn’t mean that she won’t do well should she choose to run. Obama’s numbers weren’t as good this far back of the 2008 election, according to some polling that was cited earlier this week.

Fun to speculate, but damn, man, why do you always speculate against her?

Tennman on February 20, 2010 at 10:06 AM

I don’t think Sarah is going to run either – unless she can boost her standing with Independents which is unlikely. It’s way to early to say who Sarah will endorse since we don’t know the field yet, but I wouldn’t rule out endorsing Romney. If Romney wins the nomination I’m betting he picks DeMint as his running mate. We don’t have to worry about losing a S.C. senate seat to a democrat, so it’s a win win.

Thune is a great guy (although I hate the fact that he’s an ethanol/wind energy advocate) but probably too unknown to catapult to the White House at this point. By all rights, T-Paw should be toast after that jaw-droppingly stupid, sophomoric Elin Woods with a 9 iron analogy.

Buy Danish on February 20, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Even if the Palinistas get their wish and she magically beats Obama, we will still have an inexperienced person as President. She will make the same kinds of mistakes The One is making.

Speedwagon82 on February 20, 2010 at 9:08 AM

To those who want to blow the experience horn, what “experience” is relevant to being president and how much of it is too little? Certainly Obama lacked executive experience, but I believe his failures relate more to being rigidly ideological and inept than to not having good experience.

littleguy on February 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM

One: They will not wish to return to GOP same-ole. The liberal blaming of Bush, however tiresome, STILL gets the best polling. People understand that the GOP really was a huge part of the problem, even people who lean to the GOP. I wonder if they’d risk a return to Bush-type governance.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Exactly what is “Bush-type governance”?

darwin on February 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Romney can never win. Like the guy real well, but he cannot win. Is anybody a tad nervous about Glenn Beck giving the speech tonight? God only knows what will come out of his mouth.

shar61 on February 20, 2010 at 10:11 AM

To those who want to blow the experience horn, what “experience” is relevant to being president and how much of it is too little? Certainly Obama lacked executive experience, but I believe his failures relate more to being rigidly ideological and inept than to not having good experience.

littleguy on February 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM

I agree. No one needs realms of experience. They need common sense, good judgement and good advisors … experts from various fields.

darwin on February 20, 2010 at 10:13 AM

The only person that feeds into the outside the beltway, clean out the garbage mentality amongst the conservative electorate is Sarah Palin.

She is playing her hand very wisely. Doing interviews, becoming more of a known face on TV, getting people comfortable with her, educating herself on policy, helping candidates win, building alliances and attaching herself to the tea party movement.

If anybody thinks she is not building the foundation for a successful run in 2012 is crazy. She will steam roll over any one by the time the end of 2011 comes around.

Unlike, Bush and Obama, she will pick a VP who she sees as succeeding her and continueing the common sense conservative agenda for years. Romney will not be that person. He is not a conservative.

I can envision Bobby Jindal as her running mate. Palin/Jindal….now THAT will shake things up just a tad in Washington.

tatersalad on February 20, 2010 at 10:15 AM

How about Romney/Palin 2012?

Although this is the ONLY thing that could ever get me to pull a lever for ROMNEY, I don’t know if Palin should or will do it. She would really be selling herself out to another RINO and I don’t think she would weather that unless, HER SUPPORTERS WOULD OVERLOOK IT JUST TO GET HER IN AS VEEP, myself included. Otherwise, it has to be either PALIN/FILL IN THE BLANK, 2012 OR FILL IN THE BLANK WITH A CONSERVATIVE OUTSIDER/PALIN, 2012

Dan Pet on February 20, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Glenn Beck giving the speech tonight? God only knows what will come out of his mouth.

shar61 on February 20, 2010 at 10:11 AM

Well, he is a rodeo clown, he’ll probably say something funny.

scalleywag on February 20, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Exactly what is “Bush-type governance”?

darwin on February 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM

You know, Darwin. He was extremely firm on the surge. But he let a ton of stuff slide.

Yes, he warned Congress about the problem with the lending risks with Freddie. But he didn’t really push it. And here we are.

Yes, he should have watched the deficit. It grew and became a problem.

Yes, he let the GOP administration NOT focus on efficiency and, instead, chopped programs that later turned out to be truly valuable. (There’s a smart way to downsize and a dumb way.)

Mostly, I think he was like Obama and, probably, Romney. These guys strike me as excessively detached.

They don’t want their hands too dirty. (Bush focused on the war, and he wasn’t afraid to be unpopular for that cause.)

I’m tired of that approach. I suspect I’m not the only one.

I don’t want some ideologue, either.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:25 AM

I wonder if they’d risk a return to Bush-type governance.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Everything that Bury has done so far is “Bush-type”.

thomasaur on February 20, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Exactly what is “Bush-type governance”?
darwin on February 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM

For all the Bush-bashing among some in the GOP which is fashionable now, his tax cuts and the w.o.t. are the first things I think of. He wasn’t perfect but I do tire of hearing about how he was a “progressive”.

Is anybody a tad nervous about Glenn Beck giving the speech tonight? God only knows what will come out of his mouth.
shar61 on February 20, 2010 at 10:11 AM

If he says that “Republicans are just as bad as Democrats” and isn’t booed, I’ll be pretty p.o.’d. If he sticks to his red phone themes, I’ll be happy.

Buy Danish on February 20, 2010 at 10:27 AM

I don’t think Sarah is going to run either – unless she can boost her standing with Independents which is unlikely.

Hmmmmm* She could fall further, in the polls, of course if she doesn’t pull out of the “competency” factor.

That may dissuade her.

But short of that?

She’s running. Why not? There’s no shame in tossing your hat into the ring. You win some primaries, you lose others.

But it’s still staying in the action.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Everything that Bury has done so far is “Bush-type”.
thomasaur on February 20, 2010 at 10:26 AM

*sigh* As I was saying…

Please. Stop. This. Nonsense.

Buy Danish on February 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Iowandslow and AshleyTKing are trolls, plain and simple. They are getting under Brian’s skin on purpose. If the things that they say were true, all of the MSM would have spouted it 1000 times already. The opposition researchers would have spewed it to Obama long ago or HUFFPO now. Iowandslow and AshleyTKing are losers who sit and think of ways to diminish the Gov and her supporters. I hope they are getting something out of this from someone, because if this is just their idea of fun, they are sad and pathetic.

Dan Pet on February 20, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Buy Danish on February 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM

I don’t do tag BD.

thomasaur on February 20, 2010 at 10:30 AM

s/b tags

thomasaur on February 20, 2010 at 10:31 AM

I’m a Sarah fan. No, I don’t think she is perfect. Yes, I think others are better prepared to be president. She would have been better than BO, but so would many others. Even in 2012, she would be better than just about any of the competition who, although better prepared in some respects, lack the character, the conviction, and the common sense of the average American. And I take no small pleasure in the unhinged response she provokes from the Left and the elitist snobs of all political stripes.

Now, Allah, it is pretty clear you are no Sarah fan, and that you enjoy tweaking the noses of her fans even as you exploit her popularity to drive traffic. But about that picture of Sarah you insist on using for every post about her; I have a suggestion:

Print that pic out, 8×10, on some good photo paper. You know, the heavy-duty photo paper. Then, fold it up as small as you can, so there are lots of sharp corners. Then, stick it up your a**.

novaculus on February 20, 2010 at 10:31 AM

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:27 AM

She can win primaries. She can’t win the election. Her negatives are just too strong and I don’t see her overcoming them.

Buy Danish on February 20, 2010 at 10:32 AM

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Thanks, I agree somewhat … but at this point I wouldn’t mind some “Bush type governance”. At least with Bush I didn’t feel the government was a threat to me and the US.

darwin on February 20, 2010 at 10:35 AM

She can win primaries. She can’t win the election. Her negatives are just too strong and I don’t see her overcoming them.

Buy Danish on February 20, 2010 at 10:32 AM

As soon as she’s no longer the “only” one, you’ll see the negatives rise with the others. That’s my point.

Frankly, I think the American voter is going to be allergic to giving total majority.

Obama’s BEST chance at reelection is that the GOP sweeps before 2012.

I don’t think, like some, he’s actually strategizing to make that happen.

But he can’t be totally stupid.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM

I don’t do tag BD.
thomasaur on February 20, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Good for you! Now, as a response to my comment, what does that mean? I clearly don’t speak thomosaurus.

Buy Danish on February 20, 2010 at 10:38 AM

Obama really is a “young” president. At some point, I think they all pull away from their party. They start to identify with the position power more than party power.

That’s actually appropriate, too. The power of the position is how they will contribute, one way or another.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:40 AM

But he can’t be totally stupid.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM

He isn’t … he’s blinded by ideology. This will be his downfall and those democrats that follow him.

darwin on February 20, 2010 at 10:41 AM

but at this point I wouldn’t mind some “Bush type governance”.

He became a very, very mature president. He won my respect by the end.

That may sound odd, coming from someone who leans liberal, but I could see his maturity by the end.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:41 AM

For all the Bush-bashing among some in the GOP which is fashionable now, his tax cuts and the w.o.t. are the first things I think of. He wasn’t perfect but I do tire of hearing about how he was a “progressive”.

Buy Danish on February 20, 2010 at 10:27 AM

I’d like to hear who everyone thinks is the second best president of modern times, if not Bush.

Vashta.Nerada on February 20, 2010 at 10:42 AM

He isn’t … he’s blinded by ideology. This will be his downfall and those democrats that follow him.

darwin on February 20, 2010 at 10:41 AM

Hmmmmm*

Well, my take on Obama so far?

He’s all about chaos. He whips his base around far more than he does his opposition, if you’ll notice.

He’s immature as a leader.

I think Palin is, too, btw…but she’s not in a decisionmaking position right now.

I think I’ve decided that the position itself creates good leaders. None of them arrive mature.

Maybe that sounds disrespectful, but it’s opposite. I think that position creates major world leaders. It’s actually quite amazing to watch.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM

I’d like to hear who everyone thinks is the second best president of modern times, if not Bush.

Vashta.Nerada on February 20, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Trumann and Clinton for me.

But then, well, anyway.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Yes, he warned Congress about the problem with the lending risks with Freddie. But he didn’t really push it. And here we are.

Yes, he should have watched the deficit. It grew and became a problem.

what BS, here is a timeline of Bush attempts to alert Congress there was a problem. Read the whole thing and notice the consistent denial by DEMOCRATS.

http://www.thehispanicconservative.com/fannie-may-and-freddie-mac-debacle.html

Bush started ringing the alarm bell in 2001 and kept ringing it till he left office.

Sorry troll, liberals OWN the mortgage meltdown.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.bicycles.racing/2008-09/msg02668.html

windansea on February 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM

Reagan wasn’t mature when he took office? Even Bush 1 was mature – he just blew it by breaking his tax cut promise, which came from a lack of understanding of trickle down economics – something his son clearly gets.

Buy Danish on February 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Reagan wasn’t mature when he took office?

Definitely not. LOL*

Neither was Clinton, and I adore him.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Whom would she endorse? Who could possibly answer that? She’s endorsed John McCain and Rand Paul. Maybe she’ll endorse Jesse Ventura or Mitch McConnell. Who could know????

Meanwhile, in Kentucky……Tea Partiers raise money for Johnson while the Paul campaign goes batty. As a Kentuckian and a former Palinista, I must say, the Arctic Fox goofed here bigtime.

I’d still pull the lever for her for Prez, though, over anyone else being discussed.

Lisa Graas

gocatholic on February 20, 2010 at 10:55 AM

windansea on February 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM

You’re right about all of that, but Bush’s failure was a failure to communicate. The American people were not aware of any of this. It was not a focus of his talking points.

Buy Danish on February 20, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Oops, I didn’t notice that windsea used the “troll” word. He’s not right about that.

Buy Danish on February 20, 2010 at 10:57 AM

That’s politics. He is liberal. Sarah is conservative.
AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, my gay uncle, and my senile grandpa are all liberals.

Obama is a flat out Commie!

BIG difference.

bitsy on February 20, 2010 at 10:58 AM

None of these 2008 names should return in 2012, perhaps including Palin. More viable candidates so far: Thad McCotter, Allen West, Marco Rubio, Scott Brown, …

Yes, I know none of them has much “experience”, but that’s the point. The Republican party has to come up with the next step, the new thing, in 2012. Look to the new generation coming in after the mid-term elections.

modifiedcontent on February 20, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Romney can never win. Like the guy real well, but he cannot win. Is anybody a tad nervous about Glenn Beck giving the speech tonight? God only knows what will come out of his mouth.

shar61 on February 20, 2010 at 10:11 AM

I think Beck is just a fairly dishonest Rush-type. Rush always reminds people: He’s about ratings.

Beck isn’t quite as solid, so he pretends. He’s all about a 3rd party, because that would great for ratings.

Am I nervous? Heaven’s no. Beck is one wierdo guy. He’s the KO of Fox. He even spits.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:05 AM

BIG difference.

bitsy on February 20, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Nah*….he’s just a politican that’s out of the Black American arm of politics, which is actually pretty well established at this point. He appealed beyond that range, which is why he won. His politics? Straight out of 1960′s Black American politics. That’s his training, his background, and it’s nowhere close to communism.

It IS pretty socialistic. Is that a word? It leans to distributing wealth, for sure.

But then, the idea that we’ve not been on that track for 40 years is absurd.

My own perspective? We throw bones to the poor every once in a decade, to keep them from rioting.

That’s my cynical side, frankly.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Reagan wasn’t mature when he took office? Even Bush 1 was mature – he just blew it by breaking his tax cut promise, which came from a lack of understanding of trickle down economics – something his son clearly gets.

Buy Danish on February 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Actually, we agree. I think the Bush legacy will be profound, due to being prepared to be unpopular. They got past politics in the petty sense pretty fast.

So did the Clintons.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:11 AM

None of these 2008 names should return in 2012, perhaps including Pa

lin. More viable candidates so far: Thad McCotter, Allen West, Marco Rubio, Scott Brown, …

Yes, I know none of them has much “experience”, but that’s the point. The Republican party has to come up with the next step, the new thing, in 2012. Look to the new generation coming in after the mid-term elections.

Or….actually focus on reconfiguring the party in a proactive sense.

That would be the smart way. Why worry over the presidential primaries? As far as I see, let em’ all run.

That’s not relevant. What IS relevant is the solutions adopted that appeal or are obviously the right next step.

modifiedcontent on February 20, 2010 at 11:04 AM

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:14 AM

They got past politics in the petty sense pretty fast.

So did the Clintons.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Surely you jest!

Buy Danish on February 20, 2010 at 11:14 AM

That is a good analysis. I agree Palin probably is not running and she does block the Pawlentys out there. Plus Mitt now has his vulcan grip, which is always a plus.

Mr. Joe on February 20, 2010 at 11:22 AM

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Nope. He’s a commie.

Race has got nuthin to do with it.

bitsy on February 20, 2010 at 11:26 AM

I think terryannonline hit the right combo earlier in the thread…Romney/Rubio would be an excellent ticket!
Double R in 2012!

g2825m on February 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Romney is just the same ole’ GOP as in the past.

They are as vulnerable as Dems.

Look at the polls, folks.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 12:07 PM

EJ Dionne and the rest of the Lefty MSM are trying to select our nominee for us yet again. And just like in 2008, they are pushing a candidate they know will lose to Obama: Romney.

Don’t fall for it.

Norwegian on February 20, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Oops, I didn’t notice that windsea used the “troll” word. He’s not right about that.

Buy Danish on February 20, 2010 at 10:57 AM

I was quoting AnninCa, Hillary supporter and 11,000 comment Huffpost member who I doubt has ever voted Republican and is not here to help us pick out a good candidate for 2012

windansea on February 20, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Beck isn’t quite as solid, so he pretends.
AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Beck needs to ask Rand Paul the truther questions he asked Medina if he is to get any respect at all from me.

gocatholic on February 20, 2010 at 12:29 PM

She will make the same kinds of mistakes The One is making.

Speedwagon82 on February 20, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Sarah will make mistakes if elected (all presidents do). There is NO way in on Gods green earth she will make the SAME kind of mistakes!

IowaWoman on February 20, 2010 at 12:45 PM

Anybody see the promo for Huckabee’s interview with Michelle Obama? She admitted she avoids the news. She does admit to “reading headlines.”

Will Katie Couric be aghast?

Disturb the Universe on February 20, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Isn’t there someone in this whole broken country who can beat Obama…besides Romney and anybody??? Sheeesh

DanaSmiles on February 20, 2010 at 12:53 PM

You know who should run in 2012? Fred Thompson! >:>

Jay on February 20, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Believe me, a lot of people here are tired of all the Palin stories, espeically when they are just stupid fights with people who insult her.

And yet the anti-Palinistas apparently can’t resist clicking on a Palin thread. Weird.

Even if the Palinistas get their wish and she magically beats Obama, we will still have an inexperienced person as President. She will make the same kinds of mistakes The One is making.

Speedwagon82 on February 20, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Yeah, she’ll advance PalinCare and Stimuli II and III. Riiiiiight.

ddrintn on February 20, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Why can’t we find someone who hasn’t run before? Why can’t we be looking for someone who has impeccable credentials, who hasn’t lost an election, who hasn’t quit a post, who hasn’t got a lot of baggage to bring to the table? That, IMHO is what we need. Forget about all these pass runners, find someone who is a sure thing.

scalleywag on February 19, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Im with you, I don’t want to see any re-treads in 2012, including Palin

Willie on February 20, 2010 at 1:38 PM

I think its time for a new tack. AP if we bribe you with something, will you go a few days without posting any crazy lefties’ random meandering bile about Palin? Cookies? Wine? Hookers? Prostitutes? We can hook you up man.

Dark Eden on February 20, 2010 at 1:39 PM

There’s some sense to that.

Uh, huh. This columnist is just plain dumb, even by comparison to Broder or Friedman, and that’s a pretty low bar. This snippet shows it.

JDPerren on February 20, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Why can’t we be looking for someone who has impeccable credentials, who hasn’t lost an election, who hasn’t quit a post, who hasn’t got a lot of baggage to bring to the table? That, IMHO is what we need. Forget about all these pass runners, find someone who is a sure thing.

scalleywag on February 19, 2010 at 8:17 PM

LOL, good luck with that. If they don’t have baggage at the beginning, they’ll have it after the media’s done with them. And then all their supporters can bail on them as well.

And there’s no such thing as “impeccable”.

ddrintn on February 20, 2010 at 1:47 PM

I’ve been having a sneaking suspicion that Romney and Palin might be in communication with one another.

Ever notice how they never attempt swipes at each other?

scotash on February 20, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Ever notice how they never attempt swipes at each other?

scotash on February 20, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Palin doesn’t take swipes at other Republicans anyway. Romney did in the past at Palin, with his “I may not be as cute” thing. But that was a year ago. And what would it profit Romney to alienate most of the GOP base?

ddrintn on February 20, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Third, I am absolutely convinced that Palin will not run for president, but that it’s in her interest not to say so until the very last moment. Attention is what she needs for all her other enterprises, and being a possible candidate for as long as possible will get her lots of attention.

Exactly. She needs the attention to build up her Oprah enterprise.

She could stop whining about jokes for one day.

Moesart on February 20, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Romney is just the same ole’ GOP as in the past.

They are as vulnerable as Dems.

Look at the polls, folks.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 12:07 PM

O.K., let’s take a look at the polls. “Asked how they would vote in the November House elections, Americans split evenly — 46 percent siding with the Democrats, 46 percent with the Republicans. As recently as four months ago, Democrats held a 51 to 39 percent advantage on this question.” That does not demonstrate vulnerability to me. It demonstrates the GOP trending upward and on its way to surpassing the Dems in the very near future.

After the Mount Vernon Statement, there is no going back to the “same ole’ GOP.” There will be a renewed GOP faithful to this statement, and as he was in the middle of Senator Brown’s success, Mitt Romney will be in the middle of additional successes of a resurgent GOP. Attempts to characterize him as insignificant will look increasingly foolish with each passing day.

OneVision on February 20, 2010 at 3:22 PM

One more quote, to put an exclamation point on my previous post:

“The spirit of political revolution is in the air in Washington, and the Left should take note. As a series of Gallup polls have categorically shown over the past few months, the United States is not only a conservative nation, but one that is becoming significantly more conservative in the face of the Obama administration. Conservatism is not the past for America, it is the country’s future.”

Source

OneVision on February 20, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Mitt Romney will be in the middle of additional successes of a resurgent GOP.

OneVision on February 20, 2010 at 3:22 PM

LOL…he’ll be in the middle all right. As in “riding a wave”. He hasn’t exactly been leading it.

ddrintn on February 20, 2010 at 3:44 PM

LOL…he’ll be in the middle all right. As in “riding a wave”. He hasn’t exactly been leading it.

ddrintn on February 20, 2010 at 3:44 PM

He then introduced Mr. Romney, calling him “one of the Republican party’s bright lights.”

Go ahead, LOL to yourself, and disagree with Scott Brown if you want to.

OneVision on February 20, 2010 at 3:54 PM

He then introduced Mr. Romney, calling him “one of the Republican party’s bright lights.”

Go ahead, LOL to yourself, and disagree with Scott Brown if you want to.

OneVision on February 20, 2010 at 3:54 PM

I’d say that about Romney too if he handed me a bunch of cash.

ddrintn on February 20, 2010 at 3:56 PM

He hasn’t exactly been leading it.

ddrintn on February 20, 2010 at 3:44 PM

I’d say that about Romney too if he handed me a bunch of cash.

ddrintn on February 20, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Interesting change of heart when money is on the table, huh?

OneVision on February 20, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Interesting change of heart when money is on the table, huh?

OneVision on February 20, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Raising cash in itself isn’t leading.

ddrintn on February 20, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Raising cash in itself isn’t leading.

ddrintn on February 20, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Mitt Romney’s role in Senator Brown’s victory went beyond cash, whether you like it or not:

“Indeed, several key figures in Brown’s victory — notably Eric Fehrnstrom, Beth Myers, and Peter Flaherty — were and continue to be Romney people.

Brown’s campaign manager, Beth Lindstrom, was a member of Romney’s Cabinet; his press secretary, Felix Browne, was a deputy press secretary under Gov. Romney; Brown finance director Priscilla Ruzzo held that same post in Romney’s 1994 Senate race; and Will Ritter was a key advance staffer for Romney before he worked for Brown’s campaign.”

Source

So what’s next? No, wait, let me guess: “Rasising cash and not directing one’s political team to secure victory for a GOP candidate, in itself, isn’t leading.”

OneVision on February 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM

So sick of Palin.

You-Eh-Vee on February 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM

This makes the 3rd year in a row that $$$arah has been a no-show at CPAC. She reneged at the last minute on her CPAC commitments in both 2009 and 2008. It boggles the mind how anyone could think that $$$arah is dependable and honorable considering her history, which includes quitting her job as Governor of Alaska.

Romney can be counted on to fulfill his commitments and that is something we should look for in a president.

Shelby on February 20, 2010 at 5:38 PM

So what’s next? No, wait, let me guess: “Rasising cash and not directing one’s political team to secure victory for a GOP candidate, in itself, isn’t leading.”

OneVision on February 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Here’s what’s next: Romney isn’t a conservative leader, period. He’ll ride the wave of conservative discontent, probably to the nomination and then to defeat in the general election.

ddrintn on February 20, 2010 at 6:09 PM

Romney can be counted on to fulfill his commitments and that is something we should look for in a president.

Shelby on February 20, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Thats what most conservatives are afraid of.

Better if he is lying about the nonsense he supports/supported/now doesn’t support/etc.

sharrukin on February 20, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Well, it’s time for the LSM to pick our candidate.

I will not vote for another McCain!

davidk on February 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM

I think EJ makes a valid point. As long as Palin is sucking the air out of the campaigns of all of Mitt’s other opponents it is a win-win situation for Mitt Romney. Romney will remain the most qualified, competent, well-known GOP candidate for 2012. I hope Palin stays in as long as possible and then decides not to run (due to her very high negatives) and endorses Mitt. I think she’d make a great Energy Secretary where she can shine in an area in which she is knowledgeable and comfortable. Another win-win.

PollyTix101 on February 21, 2010 at 4:10 AM

Just for fun, suppose it could happen… How about Romney/Palin 2012?

petefrt on February 20, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Unless Palin’s high negatives improve, she would be a liability as VP on anyone’s ticket. While she probably could win the GOP nomination (since the base normally votes in the primaries in higher numbers), the high negatives will stop her from ever winning the general election. She’d be a drag on the ticket in either the 1st or 2nd spot. Unless things change dramatically, I can’t see her being Mitt’s VP pick. His Secretary of Energy? Yes!

PollyTix101 on February 21, 2010 at 4:22 AM

You really are hell bent on giving Obama another 4 years.

It is time for America to wake up!

Crux Australis on February 21, 2010 at 6:36 AM

What a screwy thread. E. J. Dionne has been sucking on Obama’s tail pipe for so long now that his judgement has to be placed somewhere between disoriented and misguided. Who gives a rats a$$ what this ultra liberal journalist thinks. He has been pushing every big government agenda item that the democrats have been touting since they came into power. Romney sure has the big bun huggers pulling for him now. Kind of reminds me of how the left stream media were in the McCain camp back during the 2008 republican primaries. Yeah, they were for McCain all the way up until he won the republican nomination. Once it was a lock, the left stream media retreated from republicanism and resumed to come up with fictional stories to undermine any or all of the positive messages from senator McCain. If the left wants Romney, then it’s time to watch the turkey thermostat probe. The left will give it the good old ivy league college try and boost up Romney’s numbers through the 2012 republican primaries, once he’s a lock, the vipers in the press will release all those not so flattering stories about Romney. It won’t matter if they are true or just the left wings run of the mill made up stories, they will run them 24/7 against the candidate they oh so favaored just a few short months before. It must really suck to be them. I mean Alinsky tactics are so out of vogue now that they’ll be back in vogue just in time for the general election. ACORN, Americorp & the SEIU will be so well funded and mobilized that only a true and authentic republican candidate will be able to overwhelm the anticipated tsunami of voter fraud.

Americannodash on February 21, 2010 at 7:03 AM

Americannodash on February 21, 2010 at 7:03 AM

And this is exactly how America is destroyed.

How many times have I got to say this to you idiots. You obviously don’t care enough about America otherwise you would change things.

Crux Australis on February 21, 2010 at 7:33 AM

Crux Australis on February 21, 2010 at 7:33 AM

Are you really from down under? Could you clear up a question posed to me by a Canadian recently? Is it a matter of fact that Australians mount their loos on the ceiling just to watch water go clockwise?

All kidding aside, Wyatt Earp had the right idea but this isn’t the wild west anymore and changes are a coming but not necessarily on the time table that suits this center right country. You just keep the hatches battoned down down under and we’ll be heading them off at the pass before you know it. BTW, is your middle initial “Y?” Anyway, talk to later CA, or is it CYA?

Americannodash on February 21, 2010 at 8:19 AM

Dion’s an idiot.

He can’t think two seconds in front of his nose. He seems to think that Palin will allow some “air of chaos” to be perpetuated so that someone she’s not too fond of will get the nomination. LOL – that’s not happening. Apparently Palin is a bit of better chess player than Dion is.

If Palin doesn’t run – she’ll get behind someone, and I doubt it will be Romney. She’ll throw her energy behind someone – and Romney will have to fight that.

Does that sound like an ideal situation for Romney? LOL – no.

HondaV65 on February 21, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Gee, Allah, I didn’t know that E.J. Dionne had deep thoughts.

molonlabe28 on February 21, 2010 at 2:28 PM

“First, compared with Palin, Romney is a plausible president.”

I could compare any potential candidate with a person of my choice and make any point I desire.

Sooo…???

Kabuki theater opening at a place near you soon.

percysunshine on February 21, 2010 at 2:49 PM

No. She won’t. He is far too left with way too much baggage. She may voice support for him if he gets the nomination, but that’s it.

archer52 on February 22, 2010 at 10:28 AM

The media don’t have much time or room for a long list of GOP candidates, and the media obsession with Palin leaves space for only one other candidate.

Based on the last presidential election cycle, this is a fantastic admission. Too bad most Republicans (as opposed to Conservatives) still don’t understand this fact. The media picks the candidates and they don’t like lots of Conservatives and won’t give them much of the time of day. That’s how we end up with the pathetic batch of candidates year after year. No one wants to vote for no-names even if what they say is great.

Thank goodness for Tea Partiers and hopefully they defy the Political Wisdom of the MSM. If they can keep it together for the next 3 years things will be good all around. Thanks to them we have a Mark Rubio vs a Crist. No MSM would be giving Rubio the air time without them.

This is also why you should listen to grassroots Tea Partiers from around the nation talk about local races. Instead of giving money to the GOP conglomerate, we need to pass the money directly to the candidates that move our hearts and minds. This is how we stop the MSM from picking our candidates and deciding who is or isn’t news worthy.

Sultry Beauty on February 22, 2010 at 12:33 PM

This makes the 3rd year in a row that $$$arah has been a no-show at CPAC. She reneged at the last minute on her CPAC commitments in both 2009 and 2008. It boggles the mind how anyone could think that $$$arah is dependable and honorable considering her history, which includes quitting her job as Governor of Alaska.
Romney can be counted on to fulfill his commitments and that is something we should look for in a president.
Shelby on February 20, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Holy cow!

A wind up troll

emptying the closet for SP

Sonosam on February 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM

I’ll take a supposedly not-conservative-enough Romney over a supposedly centrist Obama any day.

JimRich on February 22, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4