Quotes of the day

posted at 10:50 pm on October 13, 2010 by Allahpundit

“The latest betting odds for the 2012 presidential election peg President Barack Obama as the favorite. But if the opening odds for the 2008 presidential election are any guide, 2012 could be the year Sarah Palin is elected president.

“President Obama was given 10/1 odds of becoming the next president by Sportsbook.com numbers in early December 2006, identical odds to what Sportsbook now gives Palin for being elected the 45th President of the United States in 2012…

“The favorite for the GOP nomination, according to Bodog.com, is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, followed immediately by Palin. South Dakota Sen. John Thune and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty are also given reasonable odds at 7/1 and 9/1, respectively, according to Bodog.com figures given to TheDC.”

***
“Romney also has to deal with several bracing realities. He has a tepid favorability rating of 30 percent among conservative voters, according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. He’s an establishment kind of guy in an insurgent kind of party. He has a record on health care reform that would be an easy target in a GOP primary. Most of all, the early states aren’t necessarily his friends.

“That means that winning the Republican nomination next time might require a long, Clinton-versus-Obama-style slog. Under those circumstances, Republicans say, those Maryland or Kansas primary voters could end up being important. It might mean that Romney has to bank on winning states like Georgia and Virginia, where he could be competitive in an otherwise inhospitable region…

“‘He’s using his PAC resources to create and cultivate relationships significantly down the primary calendar,’ said one GOP consultant aligned with a potential Romney rival. ‘My hunch is that the thesis is that if it’s Romney versus someone else, which I think a lot of people think this race will winnow to, he wants to have the financial power and depth of relationships to be a candidate that endures.’”

***
“Obama’s aides say they will most likely set up their re-election campaign around next March, roughly the same as when Bush and Clinton incorporated their incumbent campaign operations. They are more optimistic about 2012 than they are about 2010, believing the Tea Party will re-elect Barack Obama by pulling the Republican nominee to the right. They doubt Sarah Palin will run and figure Mitt Romney cannot get the Republican nomination because he enacted his own health care program in Massachusetts. If they had to guess today, some in the White House say that Obama will find himself running against Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor.”


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

The absolute most important aspect of 2012 is getting rid of Obama forever. Not just beating him and his ilk but totally crushing them so that they won’t ever want to come back.

That being said, I think our best chance is with Romney instead of Palin but only because she is radioactive to the left and the MSM. Every move/decision she makes would be 2nd guessed and ridiculed by the usual suspects and it’d be a very uphill 4 (or 8) years. Sarah Palin is not well-received overseas for the most part thanks to the media so that’s another uphill climb. (I live overseas so I know)

Romney probably isn’t as far right as a lot of conservatives would prefer but we need to govern somewhere closer to the center so that we don’t have such a split in the country. He’s by far the best business mind out there on either side of aisle and he really doesn’t have many rabid enemies. I think he’s learned from his RomneyCare days and that’s where experience comes in. You fix the business end of the country and the rest will fall into place naturally.

If Sarah runs and wins the nomination, I will be behind her 110% but we’d all better have our best ‘game’ on to beat the Dems and the media.

JetBlast on October 14, 2010 at 7:03 AM

I think our best chance is with Romney instead of Palin but only because she is radioactive to the left and the MSM

Usually, there’s no reason for that but in this case, it is warranted. She’s a Reality TV show waiting to happen (actually, already happened) and that’s not a good thing.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 7:34 AM

Consider the source.

Last round ’08, voters somehow allowed their opposition and the media to determine their “favorite” RINO winning-loser candidate.

Any candidate but the Romney/Huckabee two-faced coin. And who is this S.Dakota Governor? DeMint, Christie …

If all that conservative America has to offer is the same old batch of losers as last time, with an entourage of newbie progressives, it makes me sick. And yes, that includes Pawlenty who couldn’t rev up any interest/support to make a go of it as a YOUNG up and coming progressive and bipartisan RINO.

maverick muse on October 14, 2010 at 7:42 AM

. They would be as well for Romney, who can’t exactly attack Obama over ObamaCare since the basis of it was RomneyCare in Massachusetts, which is failing miserably.

teke184 on October 13, 2010 at 11:12 PM

I disagree. RomneyCare and ObamaCare are NOT the same.

Moreover, even if Obama modeled his healthcare plan on Romney’s plan doesn’t mean that Obama ever had Romney’s blessing or support for enacting a national health care plan. Here is Mitt Romney explaining that Obama had never reached out to him for advice and explaining that Obama made a crucial mistake in ObamaCare:

“He never gave me a call. Neither he nor any of his colleagues [gave me] a call to ask what worked and did not work, and how would they improve upon it and so forth. If what was done at the state level, they applied at the federal level, they made a mistake. It was not designed for the nation.” (Source)

That’s right. Mitt Romney never endorsed ObamaCare and said that they made a mistake by nationalizing healthcare.

Rommney has been consistent on this point. He has NEVER supported the idea of a national healthcare plan but DOES support the idea that each state is free to fashion their own healthcare plan.

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 7:43 AM

. They would be as well for Romney, who can’t exactly attack Obama over ObamaCare since the basis of it was RomneyCare in Massachusetts, which is failing miserably.

teke184 on October 13, 2010 at 11:12 PM

I disagree. RomneyCare and ObamaCare are NOT the same.

Moreover, even if Obama modeled his healthcare plan on Romney’s plan doesn’t mean that Obama ever had Romney’s blessing or support for enacting a national health care plan. Here is Mitt Romney explaining that Obama had never reached out to him for advice and explaining that Obama made a crucial mistake in ObamaCare:

“He never gave me a call. Neither he nor any of his colleagues [gave me] a call to ask what worked and did not work, and how would they improve upon it and so forth. If what was done at the state level, they applied at the federal level, they made a mistake. It was not designed for the nation.” (Source)

That’s right. Mitt Romney never endorsed ObamaCare and said that they made a mistake by nationalizing healthcare.

Rommney has been consistent on this point. He has NEVER supported the idea of a national healthcare plan but DOES support the idea that each state is free to fashion their own healthcare plan.

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 7:44 AM

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 7:34 AM

Hockey moms are endearing for their avid loyalty. But wearing her heart on her sleeve leaves her vulnerable and invites attack. Those who love her rally round. But unfortunately, reality is overwhelming in the Oval Office. She’d be to Obama’s loyal crew as he is to those who love the Constitution. That could be dealt with if the only source of contention she’d forced upon her administration. But no, the REAL problem would be international. Palin may well have great instincts, but her Bambi eyes yet betray her even at a simple competition like Dancing With the Stars. Up the ante to international confrontations against Putin, President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, Kim and the rest of the Marxist chauvinists, let alone the Muslim theocrats including Ahmadinejad.

Palin’s heart is in the right place. And she may well come to the best conclusions, though more likely she’ll reach the decisions of her advisers. On the spot, she isn’t the one to literally face down those enemies of America. Yet she thinks she is. Even if Palin were to realize that she’d be smart to stay in the Oval Office, not to jet set herself about internationally, WHO IS PALIN TO HAVE AS HER SEC./STATE?

Why not simply begin with Bolton for Potus?

maverick muse on October 14, 2010 at 7:58 AM

Looks like Allahpundit put the picture up of his favorite candidate: Romney.

I would pick Huckabee over Romney. Huckabee was a successful governor who would have handily won reelection in his state, except that there were term limits and he could not run again. He left the state with a 65% approval rating. Romney, not so much. Romney was afraid to run again and left with an approval rating in the 30′s. The people of their own states are telling us who governed best.

Palin quit and thereby forfeited the opportunity to prove to the voters that she was a successful governor. Newt is a no as we want to elect someone with actual governing experience.

In 2008, the Republican debates never focused on key issues like education, medicaid reform, healthcare, etc. Huckabee was the only candidate in the fall 2007 primaries to state that the economy was in trouble. He talked about kitchen table issues and focused on those middle class jobs that were in trouble.

Sounds like the Obama administration will meet their match in Huckabee. Huckabee’s successful 10 1/2 years executive experience compared to Obama’s failed 4 years.

texasconserv on October 14, 2010 at 7:58 AM

I disagree. RomneyCare and ObamaCare are NOT the same.

As Fred Thompson pointed out in debate, RomneyCare is based upon mandates.

maverick muse on October 14, 2010 at 8:00 AM

What is the game changer?

Look forward and ask yourself, what will this man do to change the game?

Hell, ask yourself the same question about all of them, either aisle.

Limerick on October 14, 2010 at 8:00 AM

Romney is playing it so safe at this point I don’t consider him someone who I would vote for. He spends much of his time behind the scenes trying to avoid any sort of comment or action that might catch the media’s scrutiny. Apparently he believes he is a shoe in to be the nominee, and doesn’t have to do anything dangerous to get the slot.

Sorry Mitt, but we can see you for the politician you are this time around….

darkmetal on October 14, 2010 at 8:02 AM

I disagree. RomneyCare and ObamaCare are NOT the same.

As Fred Thompson pointed out in debate, RomneyCare is based upon mandates.

And as Fred Thompson consistently points out on his radio show, mandated health care fails every time, on every level from every state that has attempted to provide healthcare, including Tennessee, to federally mandated healthcare.

Romney is stuck on stupid defending HIS colossal failure in the state of Massachusetts. Blaming its bankruptcy on others is pathetic, Obama-esque.

maverick muse on October 14, 2010 at 8:05 AM

Romney said this in the May 2007 about his healthcare plan:

The market can work to solve our health care needs, and that’s the great, exciting news. And 27 other states are working on health care reform right now. It’s a great program, a great opportunity for the entire country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/us/politics/04transcript.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print

Sounds to me like Romney wanted his plan to be implemented by other states. However, since it is bankrupting his former state, he has since changed his mind.

Romney publicly stated support for a key part of President Obama’s health care reform plan, and that simple fact will wreck his presidential bid.

texasconserv on October 14, 2010 at 8:07 AM

If we’re rehashing previous contenders, I’m still with my favorite Republican Fred Thompson for President.

THOMPSON ESTABLISHED THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE PLATFORM

Thompson initiated the “common sense” phraseology in politics.

Palin can attempt to mirror Thompson, imitation and flattery. But I’d rather have the real deal hands down.

maverick muse on October 14, 2010 at 8:09 AM

maverick muse on October 14, 2010 at 7:58 AM

Agree, I like Bolton and Christie.

Everyone else is in their dust.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 8:11 AM

Romney probably isn’t as far right as a lot of conservatives would prefer but we need to govern somewhere closer to the center so that we don’t have such a split in the country.

JetBlast on October 14, 2010 at 7:03 AM

The problem is the “center” has been moved way to the left. We have to go right just to get back to an actual center. Candidates should articulate that.

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 8:15 AM

As a Southerner this is difficult to say, but we need Sherman.

Atlanta, forgive me.

Limerick on October 14, 2010 at 8:16 AM

maverick muse on October 14, 2010 at 7:58 AM

Condescension noted.

But you’re probably right: Palin probably pees her panties every time she gets a moose in her crosshairs.

davidk on October 14, 2010 at 8:17 AM

Palin gave up running on her record when she resigned. It was probably the best thing for her and it probably won’t hurt her in the end but it doesn’t help in in the traditional sort of way. But if she gets it nothing about it will be the traditional way anyway.

Rocks on October 14, 2010 at 1:28 AM

this makes no sense whatsoever. Typical double standard crap. Palin was gov for 3 years. she has a record as that gov of reducing spending, increasing rev, education funding, cutting earmarks, getting things done that 30 years of pervious politicans were unable to do, fighting corruption, ethics reform, placing the state budget online, getting rid of perks. Her record irregardless of her resigning in her last year of office matters. One does not cancel out the other.

Mitt also has a record of rising taxes, increasing the size of government, increasing the MA debt all of which will also come into play.

Your comment is just more evidence of the double standard Palin recieves daily.

unseen on October 14, 2010 at 8:23 AM

we’d all better have our best ‘game’ on to beat the Dems and the media.

JetBlast on October 14, 2010 at 7:03 AM

But we are beating “the Dems and the media.”

Look at the conservative candidates we have on the ballots.

The DhimmicRATs are self-destructing and HotAir et al are eclipsing the LSM.

I am getting tired of all this “Palin can’t win, O’Donnell can’t win” whining. Methinks some of you think the girls just need to go home and bake cookies for the “real candidates.”

davidk on October 14, 2010 at 8:29 AM

Her record irregardless of her resigning in her last year of office matters. One does not cancel out the other.

Maybe not to you, but to a lot of people, it does.

She couldn’t take the heat in Alaska. That’s the minor leagues.

We can’t take a chance of her going to Washington. Stakes are too high.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 8:32 AM

She couldn’t take the heat in Alaska.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 8:32 AM

That’s either a very uninformed statement or an ignorant one. She took on her own party and won. She took on big oil and won. She finally got a natural gas pipeline deal that no prior adiminstration had been able to accomplish.

I’d say she withstood the heat fine.

Since you seem so convinced that she resigned because of the “heat”, how would you have handled it?

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 8:38 AM

That’s either a very uninformed statement or an ignorant one.

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 8:38 AM

I’d go with ignorant.

davidk on October 14, 2010 at 8:43 AM

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 8:38 AM

She’s the one you think should be president. I would think she would not have resigned if she wanted to be taken seriously in the future.

We should have high standards for those we nominate for President.

Resigning in the middle of your term? It’s irrelevant why, but there is no changing it. It’s done.

She was elected by the people to fulfill her term in office and she fled in the middle. She’s a quitter. There’s no getting past that fact.

I would of course support her if she get’s the nomination because Democrats are all atrocious, but I would have absolutely no enthusiasm for her candidacy beyond not wanting another Democrat in the White House.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 8:45 AM

She’s the one you think should be president. I would think she would not have resigned if she wanted to be taken seriously in the future.

We should have high standards for those we nominate for President.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 8:45 AM

Yes, we should have high standards, so what I’m asking is what should she have done instead of resigning? Be specific.

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 8:59 AM

Sounds to me like Romney wanted his plan to be implemented by other states. However, since it is bankrupting his former state, he has since changed his mind.

Romney publicly stated support for a key part of President Obama’s health care reform plan, and that simple fact will wreck his presidential bid.

texasconserv on October 14, 2010 at 8:07 AM

Wrong.

Romney does NOT want every state to copy his plan.

Each state has its own unique demands and challenges with regard to providing health care to its citizens and as a result, each state is free to fashion its health care plan to address these unique issues.

One state is not like the the other and therefore, a cookie cutter plan for each state will not work. Neither will a nationalized healthcare plan.

Secondly, Mitt has never, ever, endorsed, supported or any key or minor provision or section of ObamaCare. Romney was and still is opposed to ObamaCare.

Finally, Romney’s health care plan under Romney was doing fine. Mitt Romney left the state with a 2 billion dollar surplus at the end of his administration.

Its the current Democratic Governor and Congress who have mismanaged RomneyCare. Just as Obama can’t blame his predecessor for the current financial woes, Massachusetts Democrats cant’ blame Romney either since they’re the one’s who mismanaged the program.

They were given at two billion dollar surplus from Romney and squandered it. They were given a healthcare plan and they ruined it.

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 8:59 AM

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 8:59 AM

What’s the point of going back in history?

She had the choice to complete her term or resign. She resigned.

That does it for me. I am uninterested in her reasons.

She did what she thought best for her and her family. I have no problem with her as a person for that.

The bottom line though is that she quit. She couldn’t cut it. Few people can. Even fewer should be President.

I don’t want a candidate I have to make excuses for.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Bottm line: Government run healthcare, whether at the state level or the federal level, is socialism. It is taking, by the government, from those who have and giving to those who don’t.

Legalized theft is still theft.

davidk on October 14, 2010 at 9:06 AM

I am uninterested in her reasons.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Don’t bother me with the facts.

davidk on October 14, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 8:59 AM

That’s exactly the problem with Romney. Unless he wants to be King forever people in government will always make the wrong descisions. Small, constrained government even on the local level is the only way to true freedom and prosperity. He wants to run the country like a business and it doesn’t work that way.

wheelgun on October 14, 2010 at 9:09 AM

davidk on October 14, 2010 at 9:07 AM

The fact is, she resigned in the middle of her term. That’s the only fact that is relevant to me and unless you can disprove that one, we have nothing further to discuss.

If you buy her excuses, fine, support her.

I don’t want a president that has to make excuses. We have one of those now, how is that working out?

This issue is not going to go away and it will be one of the reasons she won’t get nominated.

If she were truly presidential material, she would have thought long-term.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Bottm line: Government run healthcare, whether at the state level or the federal level, is socialism. It is taking, by the government, from those who have and giving to those who don’t.

Legalized theft is still theft.

davidk on October 14, 2010 at 9:06 AM

No, RomneyCare isn’t socialist at all. People are NOT required to join a state run health care plan. People in Massachusetts are free to join any health care they want. Most people will join a private health care plan. Few will opt for a government healthcare plan. The only government intervention is federal funds given to assist people who cannot afford health care.

ObamaCare on the other hand requires people to join a federal health care plan. Obama lied about the idea keeping your own healthcare plan. At some point, you will join a governemnt health care plan under Obama.

That’s a BIG difference. You have a choice to join a private or public healthcare plan under RomneyCare. Under ObamaCare, you don’t have a choice. You will join a government plan at some point or another.

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 9:15 AM

The second-best scenario for the Democrats is that the GOP gets the House but not the Senate, overreaches and comes up with a trumped-up Clinton-type impeachment that fails. Obama gets a popular bounce and 2012 brings the House back to the Democrats.

JEM on October 14, 2010 at 12:31 AM

1. He would have to be popular, which is the opposite of what is happening now, and

2. Who is the third party candidate that is necessary to triangulate the vote? Clinton topped out at 48%.

Vashta.Nerada on October 14, 2010 at 9:15 AM

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 8:45 AM

yeah right because we want career politicans in Washington that sit down and shut up when things get tough in order to “save” their seat.

As far as “taking the heat” Palin has faced more heat, more attack press, more slings and more arrows than any other politican in the history of this land and she is still standing.

Her programs and policies are still in effect in AK. Her pick to take over the gov position in AK for all intents has kept her polices and programs. She was able to accomplish more in three years than most can accomplish in a lifetime. Yet she isn’t done.

unseen on October 14, 2010 at 9:15 AM

yeah right because we want career politicans in Washington that sit down and shut up when things get tough in order to “save” their seat.

She should have fought to keep the position the people in Alaska elected her to assume.

She folded to Alaska Democrats. How’s she going to do against DC Democrats?

She could be another Schwarzenegger for all I know. Talk tough, take a beat-down by the Dems and the media, then all of a sudden decide it’s easier to do what they want and be loved.

You don’t think that would happen? I could completely see it happening.

I don’t have to worry about that happening to a Bolton or a Christie.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 9:23 AM

I keep hearing that Romney is playing politics, staying out. That’s so silly to me.

He has zero courage, that’s all. No risk Romney, I call him.

I wouldn’t ever vote for him. He’s way, way too much of the type of politician that I think has truly harmed our country.

AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 9:26 AM

Great, Romney, another hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils candidate. Schmuck needs to keep his day job and pay attention to the Peter Principle.

Kissmygrits on October 14, 2010 at 9:27 AM

What’s the point of going back in history?

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Then why do you keep bringing it up?

It’s also telling that you don’t have any idea what you would have done.

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 9:27 AM

She should have fought to keep the position the people in Alaska elected her to assume.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 9:23 AM

How?

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 9:28 AM

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 9:27 AM

What’s telling about it?

I perhaps would have done the same thing she did. How is that relevant?

I’m not claiming to be qualified to be president. Very few people are. I do have high standards for the very small group of people who I would consider voting for or supporting and she doesn’t meet them. I think a lot of Republicans would agree with me.

As far as rehashing the situation she faced, I am uninterested because it always goes back to what she did when faced with a challenge. She quit.

If she truly had presidential judgement, she should have know that resigning in the middle of her term would likely torpedo her future prospects.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 9:34 AM

I keep hearing that Romney is playing politics, staying out. That’s so silly to me.

He has zero courage, that’s all. No risk Romney, I call him.

I wouldn’t ever vote for him. He’s way, way too much of the type of politician that I think has truly harmed our country.

AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 9:26 AM

Mitt Romney staying out of the 2010 elections? He’s doing nothing!?

Not true.

Mitt Romney is THE most active politician in the 2010 races and has been giving support the to 2010 races “at a much higher level than anyone else

Romney is a risk taker. Both in the private sector and in the public sector. Moreover, He’s been risking ALOT…for Republican candidates in this 2012 election.

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 9:42 AM

If she truly had presidential judgement, she should have know that resigning in the middle of her term would likely torpedo her future prospects.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Yeah, maybe she wasn’t thinking about her future prospects … you know, like a politician would, but was doing what she thought was best for the state of Alaska and her family. You know, making the tough decision, like presidents have to do.

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 9:44 AM

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 9:44 AM

“When the donkey reared its ugly head, she bravely turned her tail and fled, brave, brave, brave, brave Sarah Palin.”

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

I’ll bet you $100 she doesn’t make it through the primary in 2012 and if she does, I will gladly give it to her campaign.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Sorry, handing out money doesn’t count to me as risk-taking.

AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Romneycare. Sorry, no vota.

unclesmrgol on October 14, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Sorry, handing out money doesn’t count to me as risk-taking.

AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Fine. How’s this for risk taking?

In perhaps his riskiest early-state move this year, Romney backed South Carolina state Rep. Nikki Haley for governor in March, long before she took off as a national sensation.

“That was when she was still fourth in the polls, and that’s not an easy thing to do, considering South Carolina’s role in the presidential primary and what the governor’s plans appear to be, going forward,” said Haley aide Tim Pearson.

It was only in a mid-May Rasmussen Reports poll that Haley finally registered as a leading candidate, jumping to the top of the field days after Palin endorsed her. (Source.)

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 10:10 AM

She sunk her own boat when she quit the Gov office.

That would be like dropping out of boot camp but still wanting the Title of Marine because you thought you could do better outside the system.

Alden Pyle on October 14, 2010 at 10:13 AM

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Sounds good.

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 10:14 AM

I don’t know how reliable the source is, but this sounds interesting:

After her 30-minute speech, Ms. Palin agreed to take questions from audience members who paid up to $500 each to attend. Many of the queries from the floor allowed the former Republican vice-presidential candidate to tee off on the “lame stream media.” She seemed to agree with one person who suggested she allowed herself to be too programmed by Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s handlers during the pair’s bid for the White House.

“Thanks for the advice,” said Ms. Palin, at the event ostensibly to plug her book Going Rogue. “When I do run again I will be more rogue.”

When? Not if?

Hmmm…

cs89 on October 14, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Forgot the link- Apparently, from a speech in Vancouver.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/sarah-palin-promises-to-be-more-rogue/article1756357/

cs89 on October 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Romney is depending on the fact that he’s the next guy in line. His main problem is that it’s no longer a “next guy in line” kind of environment. If he is serious about running for president in 2012 he’s just going to have to come out of “retirement.” After all, there have been many important battles these last 20 months and he has been AWOL in all of them. You can no longer wait for the last minute and then jump in front of the parade in the US.

Fred 2 on October 14, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Romney or Huckabee?!?! Noooooooooo.

Sarah Palin I know you read HA….PLEASE RUN!

bitsy on October 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM

After all, there have been many important battles these last 20 months and he has been AWOL in all of them. You can no longer wait for the last minute and then jump in front of the parade in the US.

Fred 2 on October 14, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Have you been hiding under a rock for the last 20 months!?

Mitt Romney is the most aggressive 2012 potential candidate out right now and has been supporting conservative candidates at the local, state and federal level in this 2012 election.

In fact, no other conservative is keeping a campaign schedule like Mitt:

“Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has parachuted into a handful of major events, including big-venue rallies for Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Georgia gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has made several early-state and regional campaign swings, balancing his responsibilities as a sitting governor with his surrogate work as vice chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

Other possible candidates — like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — have picked their targets even more selectively, helping out contenders they have personal relationships with or diving into especially hot races like the gubernatorial primaries in Florida and Georgia.”

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Can’t you just see it now in the debates?

Obama blames George Bush

Romney blames Deval Patrick

Yeah, that’s a winner (eyeroll)

I think I will pass on Romney and Romneycare.

texasconserv on October 14, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM

You are likely right. Romney has been raising money, donating money, and making appearances.

So where has the media coverage, or the large crowds at rallies featuring him, been?

IMHO, Romney has a charisma deficit. He had to spend heavily last time around, largely to get his name out there. He may get a little more bang for his buck this cycle, as more of a known quantity. However, I think that if Romney and Palin have anywhere close to similar fundraising numbers, she will blow him away with crowds, passion, and primary voters coming out of the woodwork to help her get the nomination.

I could be wrong. And if Romney gets the nomination, I will vote for him. Just don’t see it happening, personally.

cs89 on October 14, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Can’t you just see it now in the debates?

Obama blames George Bush

Romney blames Deval Patrick

Yeah, that’s a winner (eyeroll)

I think I will pass on Romney and Romneycare.

texasconserv on October 14, 2010 at 11:13 AM

The problem with your analogy is that Obama is attempting to blame Bush for his own inexperience in the White House. Obama has been president long enough that he can’t do that anymore because the economy is still not recovering.

Romney has a legitimate point in blaming the democrats. He left the state with a 2 Billion dollar suprplus and a health care plan at the end of his administration.

Both were mismanaged AFTER Romney left office.

So where has the media coverage, or the large crowds at rallies featuring him, been?

IMHO, Romney has a charisma deficit. He had to spend heavily last time around, largely to get his name out there. He may get a little more bang for his buck this cycle, as more of a known quantity. However, I think that if Romney and Palin have anywhere close to similar fundraising numbers, she will blow him away with crowds, passion, and primary voters coming out of the woodwork to help her get the nomination.

I could be wrong. And if Romney gets the nomination, I will vote for him. Just don’t see it happening, personally.

cs89 on October 14, 2010 at 11:13 AM

LOL, you’re asking where all the media coverage of Romney is even though I provided you with a Politico article describing Mitt’s ambitious endorsement tour?

Secondly, if you’re measuring a candidate strictly on charisma, then that’s a bad way to judge a politician. Look at Obama who had no experience, but LOTS of charisma.

Look at how he’s doing as the President now.

I would rather take a President who might be boring and dry than a candidate who has lots of charisma but sucks at being POTUS.

Experience is a stronger factor that charisma. Charisma means squat to me. It should for you too.

What’s more important? Charisma or experience?

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Lot of Romney apologists on this thread asserting that RomneyCare differs from ObamaCare. I’ve read big chunks of both bills. I disagree. Massachusetts is certainly the leftie model that was used for ObamaCare. The same foundations bankrolled both efforts.

Now, please try to change my mind with some facts. Give me specific examples of how RomneyCare differs from ObamaCare in major aspects of its design and construction. Those examples should also discuss why RomneyCare was the best policy option available.

And please, no dodging the issue by saying that the legislature did more or less than Romney wanted. He supported the individual mandate. When a politician supports transferring that much power to government, the inevitable result is a special interest feeding frenzy. If he couldn’t see that coming he doesn’t have good judgment and is the last person we need in the White House.

secant on October 14, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Let’s get real.

Christie, Bolton or other “flava of the month” candidates won’t have a chance in 2012. How much did their PAC’s raise in the last quarter? Do they even have a PAC? What is their ground organization in Iowa? Do they even have a ground organization? The primaries will cost tens of $millions, and will require a massive organization. Each cycle it becomes more & more expensive to be competitive.

The only candidates with national PACs, national name recognition and ground organizations in place is Palin, Romney, Huckabee and Gingrich.

The nominee will be one of these 4, and my money is on Palin.

Norwegian on October 14, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 7:43 AM

No one’s saying that RomneyCare and ObamaCare are exactly the same.

Well – they are the same if you look at the fact that they both promise something for nothing and RomneyCare is quickly bankrupting Mass while ObamaCare promises to bankrupt the nation.

Face it – Romney isn’t the answer – he compromises with Socialists – and then doesn’t even have the good sense to admit that he was wrong. He stands by RomneyCare to this day. It’s totally ridiculous. And the argument that Romney did a good thing by limiting RomneyCare (because “supposedly” Democrats wanted a vastly larger system) … that argument holds no water. When you have 0 dollars in the bank you don’t pat yourself on the back because you spent 15 dollars instead of 30. Crazy – you’re broke – spend NO money.

Romney won’t be the one – and if he is – it’ll be a fluke and he’ll be tremendously whipped by Obama.

HondaV65 on October 14, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Romney is depending on the fact that he’s the next guy in line….
Fred 2 on October 14, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Bob Dole was also ‘next in line’, -”it’s Bob Dole’s turn”. We know how well that ended.

slickwillie2001 on October 14, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Something tells me the “nah nah nah nah boo boo” folks who stick out their tongues and say, “She resigned, that’s it,” are supporting another candidate. Duh, you think? They wouldn’t have voted for her if she’d stayed in the Alaska state house and chained herself to the chair in her office (which is what staying there would have meant — every time she left the state, someone demanded an ethics investigation).

But that’s obvious.

The more interesting point is that, had she not resigned and set herself about the task of standing in the breech, in front of this disaster of an administration and it’s deluded leader, rallying the opposition, raising money and supporting (early and fearlessly) candidates of common sense across this nation, the wave you are all so looking forward to riding in November wouldn’t be nearly so high. The people you’re supporting across America in this grand push to take back our nation would, in several critical cases, have been less likely to win their primaries and less likely to win this watershed election on the horizon.

It makes no rational sense (only partisan sense — not the same thing) for you to rail against Gov. Palin for escaping the chains with which they were trying to shackle her in Alaska, while thanking your lucky charms for the brave, smart and informed work she is doing to help common sense candidates across America.

Let’s put it this way. If Sarah Palin had NOT resigned and had stayed in Alaska, we would not be having this so-called discussion about her possible election to the Presidency. So, your argument is not that she should simply have completed her entire term as Governor, but rather that she should have stayed in Alaska and not run for President.

I prefer the alternative.

IndieDogg on October 14, 2010 at 11:52 AM

secant on October 14, 2010 at 11:29 AM

HondaV65 on October 14, 2010 at 11:39 AM

I’ll address my responses to both of you at the same time:

Do know who first proposed the idea of an individual mandate? Was it a liberal or a conservative?

It It was the conservative think tank, Heritage Foundation who came up with the idea. The idea was born out of the national debate over HilliaryCare. It was an alternative to Hilliary Clinton’s health care plan for the United States.

In fact, the conservative think tank The Club for Growth has flipped flopped in their support for RomneyCare. They used to support it:

“Governor Romney Deserves Credit For Proposing A Plan That Encourages Individually-Owned Health Insurance…” “Given these limitations, Governor Romney deserves credit for proposing (and to a lesser extent, enacting) a plan that encourages individually-owned health insurance and circumvents some of the inequities carved into the federal tax code.” (The Club For Growth, “Mitt Romney’s Record On Economic Issues,” Press Release, 8/21/2007)

Now Club for Growth is against it.

But the idea that RomneyCare is socialist is the most stupidest argument I’ve ever heard. There’s NO transfer of power to the state government and NO state takeover of health care. People are required to get health care but are FREE to choose a private healthcare plan or a state healthcare plan. People who couldn’t even afford to get their healthcare plan got federal aid. That’s the only government involvment in RomneyCare.

On the other hand…ObamaCare IS socialist healthcare. Its a federally mandated plan in which everyone must join. NO choices on who you can join. It is a massive transfer of power and a destruction of the private health care industry. At some point, ObamaCare will become a single payer plan.

If you can’t understand the fundamental difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare…you’re dumb.

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 12:08 PM

As far as rehashing the situation she faced, I am uninterested because it always goes back to what she did when faced with a challenge. She quit.

If she truly had presidential judgement, she should have know that resigning in the middle of her term would likely torpedo her future prospects.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Yeah, because none of the other challenges that she met and conquered to get where she did–matter…right? It only matters that she didn’t put her political ambitions in front of the needs of Alaska and her family as an end to the countless litigation trials. I see what you mean now…

lovingmyUSA on October 14, 2010 at 12:24 PM

She sunk her own boat when she quit the Gov office.

That would be like dropping out of boot camp but still wanting the Title of Marine because you thought you could do better outside the system.

Alden Pyle on October 14, 2010 at 10:13 AM

No, that’s more like jumping on the grenade…

lovingmyUSA on October 14, 2010 at 12:25 PM

I’ve got to run to work so I’ll have to continue the Obamacare v. RomneyCare debate tonight.

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Some folks like the silent types. I don’t. Mitt would never get my vote.

He’s just irrelevant to me.

AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 12:32 PM

It’s going to be someone we don’t see coming and it’s going to be one of the younger guys, Pence, Ryan, Jindal, etc. Book it.

cpaulus on October 14, 2010 at 12:39 PM

It’s going to be someone we don’t see coming and it’s going to be one of the younger guys, Pence, Ryan, Jindal, etc. Book it.

cpaulus on October 14, 2010 at 12:39 PM

LOL, well I suggest you book it on InTrade. Your return on investment will be in excess of 1000% if one of these longshots make it. Not going to happen.

Norwegian on October 14, 2010 at 12:40 PM

If Huckabee is the nominee, I’ll vote against Obama.
If Romney is the nominee, I’ll vote against Obama.
If Daniels is the nominee, I’ll vote against Obama.
If Thune is the nominee, I’ll vote against Obama.
If Pawlenty is the nominee, I’ll vote against Obama.
If Palin is the nominee, I’ll vote for Palin.

I just want someone to vote FOR; I’m tired of voting against people.

jimmy2shoes on October 14, 2010 at 12:41 PM

How many times do GOP candidates get to lose primaries before you guys get to say, “This one isn’t going to be a player?”

Won’t this be his third try?

AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Cristie is the only one I could see coming out of left field. But nobody really knows that much about him, either.

AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 12:48 PM

It’s going to be someone we don’t see coming and it’s going to be one of the younger guys, Pence, Ryan, Jindal, etc. Book it.

cpaulus on October 14, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Hope so. I’m looking for an entirely new slate in the primary, with no holdovers from the 2008 primary.

slickwillie2001 on October 14, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Handful of jokes coming about re the miners, like -”Obama is watching the mine rescue in Chile very closely, he’s interested in ways of getting out of a very deep hole.”

slickwillie2001 on October 14, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Conservative Samizdat says that there was no transfer of power to government in RomneyCare. In my world, power is transferred any time the government gets to tell me that I have to buy a product that it gets to define.

In Massachusetts, my health insurance would not count as credible coverage. The deductible is too high and it doesn’t include things that I don’t need but Massachusetts requires that everyone purchase. Forcing me to by something I don’t want and don’t need is indeed a transfer of power to government.

Claiming that the Heritage Foundation invented individiual mandates by linking to a 2003 paper by Stuart Butler has nothing to do with anything. Individual mandates are wrong whether conservative think tanks support them or not.

Unfortunately for Conservative Samizdat, the history of mandates goes much further back. They were, for example, included in the Clinton era Health Security Act.

secant on October 14, 2010 at 12:52 PM

What’s more important? Charisma or experience?

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Experience is more important to do the job, but charisma is more important to get the job.

Like I said, IF Romney gets the nod I’ll vote for him. He was 2nd on my list when the caucus rolled around in my state in 2008.

Just don’t see it happening, personally. Could be wrong.

cs89 on October 14, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Said it before, I’ll keep saying it – the mere fact Romney thought Romneycare was a good idea is enough for me to not vote for him – even against Obama; just like I did not vote for McCain. I’ve stopped voting for “OK” conservative candidates; that’s the only way we’re going to finish getting rid of RINOs.

Over50 on October 14, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Mitt Romney: “I like mandates.”
next

james23 on October 14, 2010 at 1:37 PM

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 8:15 AM

I believe you will see that the center has actually moved back to the right after Nov. 2.

davidk on October 14, 2010 at 8:29 AM

I never hinted that Palin couldn’t win. I only commented that if she runs (and then wins) that we’ll have 4-8 years of relentless bashing by many organizations that will make the MSM during the Bush years look unbiased.

JetBlast on October 14, 2010 at 2:04 PM

How many times do GOP candidates get to lose primaries before you guys get to say, “This one isn’t going to be a player?”

Won’t this be his third try?

AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Who are you talking about? 2012 will be, for a few candidates, their 2nd attempt to become POTUS.

For others, it will be their first time running for POTUS.

John McCain, I believe has ran for President three times.

Just FYU…Ronald Reagan ran in the 1976 Presidential campaign and lost. He then went on to win in 1980.

Conservative Samizdat on October 14, 2010 at 2:10 PM

I thought this would Romney’s third try. That’s all.

AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 3:37 PM

How about Bob Dole? Is he still around? Or maybe McCain again?

Skandia Recluse on October 13, 2010 at 11:06 PM

..or McCain’s crazy-weird daughter..or The Other McCain..or an old pair of used sweat socks.

Oh, sorry, I forgot that you guys said you didn’t want Huckabee.

The War Planner on October 14, 2010 at 8:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2