Quotes of the day

posted at 9:00 pm on April 30, 2011 by Allahpundit

“Republican leaders, activists and donors, anxious that the party’s initial presidential field could squander a chance to capture grass-roots energy and build a strong case against President Obama at the outset of the 2012 race, are stepping up appeals for additional candidates to jump in, starting with Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana…

“The first contests of the primary are at least eight months away, and most of the candidates have yet to fully open their campaigns, but some party leaders worry that Republicans are making a bad first impression by appearing tentative about their prospects against Mr. Obama and allowing Donald J. Trump to grab headlines in the news vacuum of the race’s early stages.

“‘The race needs more responsible adults who can actually do the job,’ said Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party…

“To some degree the disquiet about the field reflects tensions between the party establishment and the Tea Party movement about substance and style, with the newly influential grass-roots conservatives more comfortable with provocative messages, unconventional approaches and new faces than their establishment counterparts.”

***
“A ‘fringe’ nominee is unlikely. Democrats are hoping that the Republicans nominate somebody like Barry Goldwater, who satisfied the right wing but alienated independent and moderately Republican voters in 1964. However, that has not happened since the AuH2O candidacy, in large part because primaries now dominate the nomination process. That tends to reduce the influence of the most ideologically committed voters, as a broader cross-section of the electorate participates in primaries than party caucuses. Goldwater – who won the nomination in 1964 because of depth of support, rather than breadth – would probably not have been able to pull it out if the rules of today had been in place back then. His victory depended on his loyal supporters taking control of state and local party organizations, but these units are no longer in charge of the nomination.

“This is why, since the party reforms of the 1970s, most Republican nominees have been downright ‘boring.’ George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain have been the selections in the last 20 years – and even Ronald Reagan was not really an insurgent in 1980. By that point, he had served for two terms as governor of the largest state in the union, and had stood for the GOP nomination twice already. In all likelihood, the nominee in 2012 will be similar to the ones we’ve seen over the last 30 years.”

***
“Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) would be the ‘perfect pick’ for the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, said Tea Party figurehead and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas).

“Armey, in a video posted Friday to the website of the conservative magazine Newsmax, effused praise for Daniels and expressed a preference for one of the other former governors expected to join the race as a possible alternative

“‘I do think we have to look to the governors,’ he said. ‘But once again, the experience of the governors that have really grappled with budgets and dealt with them — right now I think is what we’re looking for.’”

***
“Asked in a public question-and-answer session about his past support for a cap-and-trade-like program limiting carbon emissions, Pawlenty answered: ‘It was a mistake, it was stupid and I’m sorry.’…

“‘I don’t try to defend it. Everybody’s got a couple of clunkers in their record,’ Pawlenty continued, repeating: ‘I don’t try to defend it. It was dumb.’

“To the audience in Manchester, the maneuver was obvious. Pawlenty wasn’t just offering one more recanting of his past support for an environmental policy that’s unpopular with conservatives. He also was preemptively drawing a contrast with Mitt Romney, who has declined to apologize for signing a universal health care law as governor of Massachusetts.”

Via Gateway Pundit:

***
“Romney remains an exceptionally unnatural public speaker. To convey passion and excitement, he raises the pitch of his voice and imbues it with urgency. But it never quite clicks. His tone and affect are like that of an adult doing a dramatic reading of a pirate story to a wide-eyed three year old. It doesn’t help that he speaks too quickly and often trips over his lines. At points during his speech, Romney seemed to slip into a frenzy and start madly free associating economic buzzwords…

“Romney seemed so panicked by the slip up that he rushed ahead to explain how gas prices were set, and briefly and inadvertently shed his ‘candidate’ persona and reverted to ‘businessman’–and then he gave a cogent and authoritative mini-briefing on how prices are set by the expectation of future supply and demand, and thus could be brought down with the right energy policy. No pandering, no buzzword, no mawkish invocation of American exceptionalism. If that Romney were ever to emerge for a sustained period, it’s hard to imagine who could challenge him for the nomination.”

***


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

Dick Armey, David Keene and Grover Norquist are three so-called “conservatives” whom I don’t trust at all. Any of the three would sell their mother’s soul or their country to the devil and not lose a moment’s sleep.

bw222 on April 30, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Feel good post of the weekend, eh?

Valiant on April 30, 2011 at 9:06 PM

the nominee in 2012 will be similar to the ones we’ve seen over the last 30 years.

I highly doubt this.

John the Libertarian on April 30, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Romney announced today he’s finished with the race.

NickDeringer on April 30, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Mitt’s dumber than he looks.

ElectricPhase on April 30, 2011 at 9:11 PM

RINO establishment wishcasting.

Rebar on April 30, 2011 at 9:11 PM

even Ronald Reagan was not really an insurgent in 1980

Now that’s quite a bit of revisionist history!

INC on April 30, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Mark Steyn for Secretary of State.

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 9:12 PM

http://www.telegram.com/article/20110430/NEWS/110439992/1052/RSS01&source=rss

Mitt Romney offered a tepid defense of the Massachusetts health care law, suggesting to an audience last night at the Granite State’s first forum of the 2012 presidential campaign that he would sign it again if given the chance.

“I went to work to try and solve a problem,” Romney said. “It may not be perfect — by the way, it is not perfect.”

William Amos on April 30, 2011 at 9:13 PM

I realize that I am odd man out but finding a Barry Goldwater would be a major turn off for me. In the end he was just another party hack.

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 9:13 PM

finding a Barry Goldwater would be a major turn off for me. In the end he was just another party hack.

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 9:13 PM

How is that?

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Mark Steyn said it best while subbing for Rush. Look what the elites have given us: Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Soetoro. It’s not a 2-party system, it’s a 2-school system. Yale and Harvard. Enough is enough.

SouthernGent on April 30, 2011 at 9:15 PM

“Romney remains an exceptionally unnatural public speaker. To convey passion and excitement, he raises the pitch of his voice and imbues it with urgency. But it never quite clicks. His tone and affect are like that of an adult doing a dramatic reading of a pirate story to a wide-eyed three year old.”

I disagree. I think he’s articulate and more than capable of giving good speeches. The problem is I don’t believe the guy is sincere. There’s something too slick and fake about him that keeps Mittens from being able to connect with voters. And the constant flip-flops and sitting on the sidelines the last 2 1/2 years won’t help endear him to anyone.

The only way he gets the nomination is if everyone else sits out. Seriously, what’s the appeal of Romney? His health care law is a disaster, he wasn’t exactly a popular or successful governor, he gained no traction back in 2008 when it should’ve been much easier to win the nomination, his time in elected office isn’t exactly lengthy or recent, and sorry to say but the Mormon issue will hurt him in the general election.

I’ve said it many times, but it’s worth repeating. We can do better.

Doughboy on April 30, 2011 at 9:15 PM

I’m not excited about any of the current crop of candidates.

txag92 on April 30, 2011 at 9:16 PM

“Republican leaders, activists and donors, anxious that the party’s initial presidential field could squander a chance to capture grass-roots energy…

Translation: Let’s hurry and get in front of where the troops are going so we can pose as leaders!

In all likelihood, the nominee in 2012 will be similar to the ones we’ve seen over the last 30 years.

Translation: Obama gets a second term and smelly tea party folks aren’t welcome!

‘It was a mistake, it was stupid and I’m sorry.’…

So can Obama say sorry and its all good too?

Man, this is quite the line up boys and girls. I think that guy Jack Daniels is looking better and better for 2012!

sharrukin on April 30, 2011 at 9:18 PM

So mitt wants to hang the POTUs? shakes head in shame…

unseen on April 30, 2011 at 9:18 PM

If Obama can be elected then anyone can be elected.

The problem isnt electibility it is the liberal media machine that controls the messages in America.

William Amos on April 30, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Dick Armey, David Keene and Grover Norquist are three so-called “conservatives” whom I don’t trust at all. Any of the three would sell their mother’s soul or their country to the devil and not lose a moment’s sleep.

bw222 on April 30, 2011 at 9:06 PM
I agree, and by the way, is Armey some sort of self-appointed spokesman for the Tea Party?

mobydutch on April 30, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Synopsis:

“Shut up rabble. You have no clue what is best for you. We pick the candidates. Do as you are told and vote for who we say vote for.”, – Republican Establishment

DeathB4Tyranny on April 30, 2011 at 9:19 PM

So Huck will not make up his mind until mid summer….hmmm i wonder who he could be waiting for. He will not fundraise, he will not campaign and he will not be in the early states. thus per the MSM talking points on Palin he isn’t running…..

unseen on April 30, 2011 at 9:21 PM

If Obama can be elected then anyone can be elected.

The problem isnt electibility it is the liberal media machine that controls the messages in America.

William Amos on April 30, 2011 at 9:19 PM
If they still control the messages in America, they will, undoubtably pick another McCain for the Republican nominee.

mobydutch on April 30, 2011 at 9:21 PM

If they still control the messages in America, they will, undoubtably pick another McCain for the Republican nominee.

mobydutch on April 30, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Our only hope is someone that can frame thier own narrative. someone with say 3.0million facebook followers, 500,00 twitter followers and able to make headlines whereever she goes…

unseen on April 30, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Care to elaborate on your Goldwater-was-a-hack comment?

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 9:23 PM

If they still control the messages in America, they will, undoubtably pick another McCain for the Republican nominee.

mobydutch on April 30, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Its called polls. Its why Mitt and Trump are winning polls right now.

William Amos on April 30, 2011 at 9:24 PM

So Huck will not make up his mind until mid summer….hmmm i wonder who he could be waiting for. He will not fundraise, he will not campaign and he will not be in the early states. thus per the MSM talking points on Palin he isn’t running…..

unseen on April 30, 2011 at 9:21 PM

That almost sounds like Huckabee is being held back as a possible weapon against Palin if she later decides to run. Didn’t he do something similar in 2008?

sharrukin on April 30, 2011 at 9:25 PM

MITT 2012 means JEB 2016!!!

PappyD61 on April 30, 2011 at 9:26 PM

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 9:14 PM

After Ronald Reagan and National Review worked hard for him, he threw them over to endorse Gerald Ford. At the end of his life he was not a Conservative but more of a Libertarian. Although he may be a founder of the conservative movement, ultimately he and I didn’t have the same priorities.

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 9:28 PM

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 9:23 PM

I said party hack, not just a hack. Trust me, huge difference and plenty like him to be had.

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Romney announced today he’s finished with the race.

NickDeringer on April 30, 2011 at 9:07 PM

link please. I may even want to bookmark it.

Slowburn on April 30, 2011 at 9:32 PM

It doesn’t help that he speaks too quickly and often trips over his lines. At points during his speech, Romney seemed to slip into a frenzy and start madly free associating economic buzzwords…

George Bush Sr. crossed with Pierre Dupont.

Maybe in 2024, when he’s running for president for the fifth time and down to his family’s last $100 million, he’ll figure out how to contrive the ideal and electable public persona for his time.

rrpjr on April 30, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 9:28 PM

OK, so he endorsed Ford in 1976. He was old right conservative. Does that make him a hack? I thought Ford did an admirable job with Vietnam wrap-up and a spendthrift Congress, given the circumstances after Watergate.

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Don’t trust ARMEY or Forbes. They are Tea Party Barnacles.

PappyD61 on April 30, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Its called polls. Its why Mitt and Trump are winning polls right now.

William Amos on April 30, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Amen. This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. The number of times I’ve heard people on here say, “We WON’T let the media pick our candidate THIS time” is only equaled by the number of times people say they will not vote for someone they would totally vote for except for the fact that they are unelectable (based on the polls).

Anytime the media is reporting on anything other than straight facts – polls, viewer opinions, analysis, etc – and even with ‘just the facts’ they skew things by what details they share and what they overlook, people have got to realize that it is their way of stealing our votes.

miConsevative on April 30, 2011 at 9:37 PM

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Hey, he had his priorities, I have mine. His alliance was not to those who worked hard for him but for the party. Hence, “party” hack. So call me a conservative hack, big whoop. I have no beef with Gerald Ford, he was an admirable man, he just wasn’t the man I wanted. It all worked out.

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 9:37 PM

So call me a conservative hack, big whoop.

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Would not do that. Thank you for explaining your comment.

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 9:39 PM

If they still control the messages in America, they will, undoubtably pick another McCain for the Republican nominee.

mobydutch on April 30, 2011 at 9:21 PM

The GOP needs to close their primaries, for starters.

predator on April 30, 2011 at 9:44 PM

If Obama can be elected then anyone can be elected.

The problem isnt electibility it is the liberal media machine that controls the messages in America.

William Amos on April 30, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Ding! Ding! Ding!

cynccook on April 30, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Too Early

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 9:49 PM

That almost sounds like Huckabee is being held back as a possible weapon against Palin if she later decides to run. Didn’t he do something similar in 2008?

sharrukin on April 30, 2011 at 9:25 PM

huck hiumself has stated on several occasions he will not make up his mind until he sees how Palin does. He said she could run away with it if she enters. Thus he is waiting to see if she gets in and if she catches on. If not he will enter.

Yes we see a moment of leadership in Huck…./

unseen on April 30, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Ummm… ran into something about Pawlenty and was wondering if anyone who knows something could help.

I am finding some hit pieces on leftist websites about an incident with his wife Mary where she had appendicitis and this was a story she told on the radio… The FM 107 morning show (Ian and Margery–A Balanced Breakfast).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=160×26168

If this is true, and thats a BIG if considering the source, it could be very damaging during a campaign.

They are painting it as a nasty episode and I would like a rational source if anyone has it.

sharrukin on April 30, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Huckabee is gaining weight.

petunia on April 30, 2011 at 9:51 PM

huck hiumself has stated on several occasions he will not make up his mind until he sees how Palin does. He said she could run away with it if she enters. Thus he is waiting to see if she gets in and if she catches on. If not he will enter.

unseen on April 30, 2011 at 9:49 PM

OK, thats makes sense of what he is doing. Hope she catches on.

sharrukin on April 30, 2011 at 9:52 PM

I realize that I am odd man out but finding a Barry Goldwater would be a major turn off for me. In the end he was just another party hack.

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 9:13 PM

I don’t think they are being specific about poltics, they mean outside the establishment like Goldwater was.

They have the system set up so that establishment Republicans control the Primary in that state.

petunia on April 30, 2011 at 9:54 PM

“Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) would be the ‘perfect pick’ for the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, said Tea Party figurehead and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas).

Dick Armey?

Failed politician of the 1990′s, political leach looking to suck the Tea Party into his own power base. And I’m sorry if Glenn Beck wants to hold hands with Armey and Forbes with his Tea Party/Freedom Connectors, etc. That’s just a mistake.

PappyD61 on April 30, 2011 at 9:54 PM

They are painting it as a nasty episode and I would like a rational source if anyone has it.

sharrukin on April 30, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Sounds bogus to me and when googling everything points back to the DU hate site.

Knucklehead on April 30, 2011 at 9:57 PM

petunia on April 30, 2011 at 9:54 PM

I agree, and maybe occasionally it work but I wonder how much talent is left undiscovered?

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Sounds bogus to me and when googling everything points back to the DU hate site.

Knucklehead on April 30, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Well its DU so sanity doesn’t have to be a part of it, but they are being rather specific regarding the radio program.
This may just be fabricated garbage but if he becomes the nominee we will be seeing more of it. I hope we have a quick counter-point with the facts available. If its slanted nonsense then we need to know that and what the truth is. If its an outright lie then we should know that too.

sharrukin on April 30, 2011 at 10:03 PM

How is that?

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Goldwater was really more of a libertarian than a conservative and took a sharp left turn later in his career. Goldwater was always pro-choice, but it was not an issue in 1964 (seven years before Roe vs. Wade). He and his wives were supporters of Planned Parenthood and he was quite pro-gay in his later years.

I used to be a big Goldwater fan, but the more I learn about the man the less respect I have for him. If you check his election margins, they were razor-thin the last few times he ran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

bw222 on April 30, 2011 at 10:06 PM

In all likelihood, the nominee in 2012 will be similar to the ones we’ve seen over the last 30 years.

Then we’ll lose.

Here’s a newsflash for ya, Jay: The electoral map doesn’t look like it did in the 1970s. News isn’t “reported” like it was back then. The only way to go up against an extreme liberal candidate like Obama is to provide a true alternative to leftism. If you give voters a choice between socialism and RINOism, the choice is clear, esp. when the socialist candidate is slickly packaged and marketed to the masses. If you give them an alternative in a honest-to-goodness conservative candidate, then we have a race. Goldwater might win if he were running today. Or maybe not; he seemed to lack the charisma that Reagan had, even if they were almost indistinguishable on philosophical grounds. If our conservative candidate happens to have a personality equally as dazzling as the media presents Obama’s to be, then I think that only weighs in our favor.

NoLeftTurn on April 30, 2011 at 10:09 PM

They are painting it as a nasty episode and I would like a rational source if anyone has it.

sharrukin on April 30, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Absolutely the only reference to this supposed episode that I could find exists on the democratic underground website. They even caption it as “time to resurrect the mary pawlenty appendicitis thread.” Nothing suspect about that, now, is there? “Resurrect” it because somehow, despite their prior efforts, it must have “died,” either due to lack of interest or lack of merit.

cynccook on April 30, 2011 at 10:09 PM

PappyD61 on April 30, 2011 at 9:54 PM

After his Congressional career, Dick Armey became a college instructor and was accused of harassment by a number of co-eds. One transferred to another school. He divorced his long-time wife and married a former student so the charges are likely true.

bw222 on April 30, 2011 at 10:12 PM

They even caption it as “time to resurrect the mary pawlenty appendicitis thread.” Nothing suspect about that, now, is there? “Resurrect” it because somehow, despite their prior efforts, it must have “died,” either due to lack of interest or lack of merit.

cynccook on April 30, 2011 at 10:09 PM

OK, sounds like total crap then.

I hope the respective campaigns have researchers looking into these things because the leftists are going to try to ‘Palinize’ any candidate we run.

I hope they are better prepared than McCain was.

sharrukin on April 30, 2011 at 10:13 PM

“Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) would be the ‘perfect pick’ for the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, said Tea Party figurehead and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas).

Dick Armey?
Someone in the Tea Party needs to tell this guy to get lost. He is trouble!!!!

mobydutch on April 30, 2011 at 10:16 PM

So Huck will not make up his mind until mid summer….hmmm i wonder who he could be waiting for. He will not fundraise, he will not campaign and he will not be in the early states. thus per the MSM talking points on Palin he isn’t running…..

unseen on April 30, 2011 at 9:21 PM

He’s pretty stupid to lay his cards on the table this way. Now she knows what he’s going to do and she can afford to wait him out. She doesn’t need to get in until the late fall if she wants to. Same goes for anyone else who is going to peg their decision to run on what she does. They forget that she is unconventional. She will run an unconventional campaign, which means she’s not going to follow anyone else’s timetable about when to declare. She’ll do it when she feels it is right for her.

LOL – I have to laugh at how they continually underestimate her. It’s great fun, really.

NoLeftTurn on April 30, 2011 at 10:19 PM

“To some degree the disquiet about the field reflects tensions between the party establishment and the Tea Party movement about substance and style, with the newly influential grass-roots conservatives more comfortable with provocative messages, unconventional approaches and new faces than their establishment counterparts.”

Ahhh, our “thought leaders” want the peons to shut up and leave the room…

Gohawgs on April 30, 2011 at 10:23 PM

We don’t need another beltway weasel or born again bureaucrat whose big talent is being able to operate the machine as it stands. The machine is broken!
We need a designer, not an operator.
Mitt and all of his conventional cohorts are yesterday’s players, and they don’t even comprehend the problem much less have the solution.

Lew on April 30, 2011 at 10:25 PM

bw222 on April 30, 2011 at 10:06 PM

That’s what I don’t understand. Even Ayn Rand and Objectivists supported Ford over Reagan and they were never enthused by Reagan. Even today, they seem to be more opposed to Palin than any of the RINOs. Why is that? Why are the libertarians aligning with moderate republicans who are always statists than with the small government types? What I find most perplexing is that Palin is even libertarian, not even full on social conservative like Bush or Huckabee. And yet, they find her more objectionable than Romney or Daniels. Why is that?

promachus on April 30, 2011 at 10:29 PM

promachus on April 30, 2011 at 10:29 PM

She doesn’t shy away from her Christianity.

kingsjester on April 30, 2011 at 10:32 PM

We don’t need another beltway weasel or born again bureaucrat whose big talent is being able to operate the machine as it stands. The machine is broken!
We need a designer, not an operator.
Mitt and all of his conventional cohorts are yesterday’s players, and they don’t even comprehend the problem much less have the solution.

Lew on April 30, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Bravo.

rrpjr on April 30, 2011 at 10:37 PM

. And yet, they find her more objectionable than Romney or Daniels. Why is that?

promachus on April 30, 2011 at 10:29 PM

I think Ayn Rand answered your question already.

There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist.
Ayn Rand

Dr Evil on April 30, 2011 at 10:44 PM

What I find most perplexing is that Palin is even libertarian, not even full on social conservative like Bush or Huckabee. And yet, they find her more objectionable than Romney or Daniels. Why is that?

promachus on April 30, 2011 at 10:29 PM

The only complaint I regularly hear with Palin is the ‘unelectbility’ claim. Every now and then, you get the ‘quitter’ thing, but that’s typically a mask for something else. I’m guessing it has something to do with the status quo – wondering out loud if libertarians are more ‘don’t take away any of the rights that I’m comfortable with having now because I’m not a fan of change’ than even they realize. Change may be what they fight against more than anything – hence why they’ve been backing Ron Paul for 600 years and no one else, and perhaps why they prefer establishment to unconventional.

I may be wrong, more thinking out loud than anything.

miConsevative on April 30, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Memo to Mitt: No Apology.

Buy Danish on April 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Thanks rrpjr, I just had to vent. I’ve been active in the Republican Party for a very long time and I’m so tired of busting my hump for these garden variety schmucks I could scream.
As a life-long student of history, I can’t help but think of the hundreds of thousands who paid an unimaginably terrible price to get us here. And now we stand on the last precipice about to lose the last shred of everything they passed down to us, and all these dunces can do is argue about how to save socialism from itself, and still look good enough on camera to get reelected.
We need someone who is willing to reboot America….while it’s still alive at all!

Lew on April 30, 2011 at 10:57 PM

promachus on April 30, 2011 at 10:29 PM

I cannot speak for Ayn Rand and Objectivists, but Goldwater had changed (evolved) a lot in the 12 years between his presidential run and 1976. As I said earlier, Goldwater and both wives were big supporters of Planned Parenthood. Goldwater was never a social conservative (but that wasn’t an issue in 1964). He loathed the religious right. Perhaps his relationship with Ford was closer than it was with Reagan.

To show you how Goldwater hacked off Arizona voters, here are the results of the 1980 Election in Arizona:

President: Reagan 873,945 (60%), Carter 282,843 (28%)
Senate: Goldwater 432,371 (49%), Schultz 422,972 (48%)

bw222 on April 30, 2011 at 11:00 PM

That’s what I don’t understand. Even Ayn Rand and Objectivists supported Ford over Reagan and they were never enthused by Reagan. Even today, they seem to be more opposed to Palin than any of the RINOs. Why is that? Why are the libertarians aligning with moderate republicans who are always statists than with the small government types? What I find most perplexing is that Palin is even libertarian, not even full on social conservative like Bush or Huckabee. And yet, they find her more objectionable than Romney or Daniels. Why is that?

promachus on April 30, 2011 at 10:29 PM

First, don’t conflate libertarians and Objectivists: the latter believe there are moral absolutes, such as natural rights. Objectivist problems with Reagan stemmed from his religious fundamentalism and his bringing the religious right into the mainstream of the GOP. I think that was becoming more pronounced in Reagan overtime, especially after his near death experience in 1981. Interestingly, he was pro-Choice too, like Goldwater, in the 1960s, if I recall correctly.

miConsevative on April 30, 2011 at 10:51 PM

I can’t speak for Libertarians, because I’m not one. My own problem with Palin is that she scares me. I think she abused power when she was governor and that right there is a huge disqualifier, without even getting into her disastrous oil tax policy and her populist bashing of big business while governor. It wasn’t restricted to only oil companies. It could be fish processors one day, or Wall Street the next. One of her closest aids, Frank Bailey, has a book coming out soon on her abuse of power.

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Glad to see Mike Huckabee setting the record straight.

Mike Huckabee: That South Carolina Report is an Absolute Lie

Looks like Huckabee had an awesome NRA convention speech. I hope Hotair will post it.

texasconserv on April 30, 2011 at 11:29 PM

From National Review – The Corner 2006

Jonah’s column on Goldwater revisionism is very good. The line about how Goldwater’s wife may have influenced his views on social issues took me back to the best Goldwater biography available — the one by Lee Edwards, published in 1995. Lee was a veteran of the 1964 campaign and admired Goldwater. But he also wrote a fair and balanced book that revealed some interesting facts. As late as 1988, Goldwater said he personally opposed abortion. But Lee, based on his own research, reports the following:

When [Goldwater's] daughter Joanne, not yet twenty and still in school, became pregnant with the child of her intended husband and told her father that she did not want to have the child, Goldwater said, “I’ll take care of it.” He arranged for Joanne to fly back to Washington and have a then-illegal abortion (it was 1955) in the converted dining room or a large three-story house in the suburbs. “I just want to prevent anyone from going through that,” says Joanne Goldwater, who admits that all three of her daughters have had abortions.

Given this family pattern, it is not surprising that Goldwater ultimately assumed a pro-abortion position.

bw222 on April 30, 2011 at 11:39 PM

she abused power when she was governor

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Please enumerate…

Gohawgs on April 30, 2011 at 11:46 PM

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 11:16 PM

You preferred the “sweetheart deals” Frank Murkowski and the politicians who ended up in jail had with the oil companies?

bw222 on April 30, 2011 at 11:51 PM

What I don’t like about Romney:

1. He’s had a shot and couldn’t pull it off. (Loser:but without Mcain?)

2. He tries to come off as purist but toyed with socialized health care himself. (Liar: or learned his mistake?)

3. He looks and acts like a slick pol. (Dealmaker: more of the same)?

What I Do Like:

1. He runs economic enterprises like a business.(smart:jobs)

2. He’s not Obama (nuff said)

Rea1ityCheck on April 30, 2011 at 11:52 PM

Going to bed.
I’ll be back…

OmahaConservative on April 30, 2011 at 11:53 PM

One of the most interesting points that Governor Palin brought up in her interview with Brett Baier last Friday was that Obama’s proposal to decrease or eliminate the $4 billion in subsidies for oil and gas companies would negatively impact independent oil producers and explorers rather than Big Oil. It was interesting because I haven’t heard any other high-profile Republican articulate that one of the reasons why we shouldn’t just go along with Obama’s proposal to end the oil subsidies is because independent and smaller oil companies, rather than Big Oil, will be hurt if these subsidies are taken away. Quite frankly, Brett Baier missed an opportunity to go deeper into this issue during his interview with the Governor as she may have just come up with the best argument our side can use to fight Obama’s proposal to take away the $4 billion in subsidies.

One of the reasons why other Republicans haven’t used Governor Palin’s argument is that they simply do not understand the oil and gas industry. They don’t have the same level of experience that Governor Palin does in dealing with oil companies and probably don’t comprehend that tax incentives and subsidies don’t impact all oil and gas companies the same way. Unlike Governor Palin, hacks like Romney and Pawlenty, con-men like Trump and Huckabee, and space cadets like Bachmann have been unable to explain how the oil industry works in a way that goes beyond trite and tired talking points.

Today, Democrat Martin Frost effectively conceded that Palin’s analysis of the oil industry was correct. Here’s the video courtesy of PalinTV (transcript included with emphasis added). Smart Republicans will start using the argument that Governor Palin introduced during her interview with Baier about the deleterious impact that eliminating such subsidies will have on independent oil and gas producers. Please help us spread the youtube video and this post as the liberal media and certain elements of the conservative media will try their best to ignore what we have presented.

http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/04/democrat-martin-frost-effectively-concedes-palins-analysis-of-the-oil-industry-is-accurate.html

amazing how a dumb person is right 100% of the time isn’t it…

unseen on April 30, 2011 at 11:55 PM

T-Paw did a good job of handling those trap questions!..:)

Dire Straits on April 30, 2011 at 11:58 PM

Palin: As for the government subsidies that we’re hearing Obama flirting with right now in wanting to decrease those or eliminate those, we’re only talking about four billion dollars. Compare that to the fourteen trillion dollar debt that he, our President, has certainly contributed to and four billion dollars is a drop in the bucket and he shouldn’t assume that the four billion dollars is going to affect Big Oil. No, it’s the independent explorers that we want out there with their entrepreneurial spirit and their manpower and their job creating ability to be out there exploring and responsibly exploiting and extracting our god-given natural resources.

Frost: I’m a supporter of the President’s. I’m concerned that he’s going to lose credibility on this oil and gas issue because he’s not telling the truth entirely. What he is saying is that you need to eliminate four billion dollars worth of tax breaks for major oil companies because major oil companies have obscene profits. The problem with this is that one of the big tax breaks that he’s citing -intangible drilling costs- excuse me -percentage depletion- was repealed by Congress, excuse me, in 1975, 36 years ago, as it affects major oil companies. The only ones that get percentage depletion anymore are domestic independents who drill most of the wells in the United States and employ four million people. Now the press doesn’t do a very good job of covering oil and gas tax issues. They don’t understand them. But if the press ever picks up that the President is not telling the truth about the depletion allowance, that it doesn’t go the major oil companies, he’s going to have additional problems, I believe, in the polls.

Palin: Again, you have to remember that President Obama, and I’m going to say this with all due respect to the office of the Presidency, he doesn’t know what he’s doing when it comes to energy. He does not know, as I just pointed out, that the four billion dollars that he thinks he’s gonna stick it to Exxon, BP, Conaco Phillips that no, it’s going to be the independent producers, the explorers that we want out there creating jobs that are going to be hit with an end of subsidy.

unseen on April 30, 2011 at 11:58 PM

I think she abused power when she was governor and that right there is a huge disqualifier, without even getting into her disastrous oil tax policy and her populist bashing of big business while governor. It wasn’t restricted to only oil companies. It could be fish processors one day, or Wall Street the next.

Yeah, Alaska was an authoritarian socialist hellhole during that accursed Palin regime. She was a regular Huey P. Long. Support someone else then. Bleagh.

One of her closest aids, Frank Bailey, has a book coming out soon on her abuse of power.

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Sounds like it might possibly be a hatchet job to cash in on Palin. Just might be. And you’ll believe every salacious word.

Republican leaders, activists and donors, anxious that the party’s initial presidential field could squander a chance to capture grass-roots energy and build a strong case against President Obama at the outset of the 2012 race, are stepping up appeals for additional candidates to jump in, starting with Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana…

“Why won’t those rubes fall in love with the guys we tell them to fall in love with?” They’ve got to concoct some grassroots love for Mitch.

pseudoforce on April 30, 2011 at 11:59 PM

My own problem with Palin is that she scares me…
AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Childish and absurd.

How Palin took on corrupt Alaskan establishment:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122057381593001741.html

Palin confidently wrestled down Big Oil but rather than demagogue her victory immediately brought parties together in the interests of her state. That’s what true executives do.

The success of ACES and defeat of corruption:

http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/03/governor-palin-the-success-of-aces-and-the-defeat-of-corruption-part-i.html

As for Frank Bailey, that you’re referencing him here indicates either your ignorance of his notorious lack of credibility or your own PDS.

The center-Left Business Insider dismisses Bailey’s unsubstantiated swill of a book.

In Palin’s defense, if the anecdotes of the book that have been released are the worst things Bailey can find to say about her in 456 pages, she has nothing to fear.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/sarah-palin-aide-book-2011-2#ixzz1L4MUBr00

Read more here:
http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/02/frank-bailey-and-extremist-jeanne-devon-fail-to-provide-substantiated-evidence-that-governor-palin-coordinated-with-the-rga-in-2006.html

rrpjr on May 1, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Huckabee made a very good point at the end of the video!..:)

Dire Straits on May 1, 2011 at 12:03 AM

The GOP is a stupid flock of cannibalistic sheep. Obama will be re-elected.

pseudoforce on May 1, 2011 at 12:05 AM

The Republican leadership has to ask themselves: Was it more fun running as go along moderates in 2006 and 2008 and getting decimated in the elections, or was it more fun in 2010 with a strong Conservative wind at their backs and real power at their fingertips after the elections?

If they run an establishment rino in 2012, they lose.

RJL on May 1, 2011 at 12:08 AM

Wow. RINO-Palooza!

None of these SOBs highlighted have the sense God gave canned cling peaches. I’m talking about the candidates AND the morons quoted pumping them up.

If one of these idiots is the nominee I’ll be parked on Rick Perry’s doorstep until he agrees to take Texas back to it’s roots and secede!

Doesn’t matter if Obama wins, or Willard, Mitch, Huckabee, T-Paw, or whatever other democrat in Republican clothes prevails. America is finished. Over. Done.

Democrat light is not what America needs to survive. We need a BOLD leader with EXPERIENCE and a RECORD of PERFORMANCE of making POSITIVE change.

That would be Sarah Palin.

This bunch is a sure ticket to hell.

gary4205 on May 1, 2011 at 12:11 AM

unseen on April 30, 2011 at 11:58 PM

The $4 billion for medium size and small oil companies is less than the combined U.S. Export/Import Bank loans to Petrobras (fot deepsea drilling off Brazil) and Columbia for a new refinery.

bw222 on May 1, 2011 at 12:13 AM

AshleyTKing is one of the leading Palin-haters at HA. She claims to live in Alaska.

bw222 on May 1, 2011 at 12:14 AM

I hear you Ashley. How dare Governor Palin leave the state of Alaska a 12 billion dollar surplus.

This great book that Ashley is touting was written by Frank Baily and Jeanne Devon. A disgruntled former employee and an ankle-biting blogger from Alaska.

Enjoy the fiction Ashley.

chief on May 1, 2011 at 12:23 AM

You preferred the “sweetheart deals” Frank Murkowski and the politicians who ended up in jail had with the oil companies?

bw222 on April 30, 2011 at 11:51 PM

Frank, yes. The Veco scandals, no. That was one bad apple and a few corrupt politicians.

And to criticize is not to hate, a word overused and abused.

AshleyTKing on May 1, 2011 at 12:27 AM

Enjoy the fiction Ashley.

chief on May 1, 2011 at 12:23 AM

No, fiction is the world you inhabit.

AshleyTKing on May 1, 2011 at 12:28 AM

The Canadian loonie is a better investment than the U.S. dollar.

We have to focus on winning this. Everyone can’t have their favorite choice. This race is too important to divide up into camps.

One goal: save our country.

petunia on May 1, 2011 at 12:28 AM

To say Frank Murkowski is corrupt is being kind.

bw222 on May 1, 2011 at 12:31 AM

AshleyTKing on May 1, 2011 at 12:28 AM

Oh Ashley… You are not talking to rational people. Somehow every mild question about Palin sounds to them like a hateful screed.

They spend time on the leftie websites listening to what ever is being said there. Then they can’t tell the difference between that and real hesitance about Palin. It all sounds the same to them.

So good luck, maybe you can convince them you have honest problems with Palin, but not likely.

petunia on May 1, 2011 at 12:33 AM

pseudoforce on April 30, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Frank Bailey loved that woman. He just got to see what went on behind the scenes.

AshleyTKing on May 1, 2011 at 12:34 AM

petunia on May 1, 2011 at 12:33 AM

Thank you, oh sweet flower!

AshleyTKing on May 1, 2011 at 12:36 AM

I can’t speak for Libertarians, because I’m not one. My own problem with Palin is that she scares me. I think she abused power when she was governor and that right there is a huge disqualifier, without even getting into her disastrous oil tax policy and her populist bashing of big business while governor. It wasn’t restricted to only oil companies. It could be fish processors one day, or Wall Street the next. One of her closest aids, Frank Bailey, has a book coming out soon on her abuse of power.

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Palin didn’t abuse her power at all. Oh, Obama’s hand picked thugs filed about two dozen “ethics” complaints, but none of them stuck. All were thrown out. So was “Troopergate” The Obama lackeys in the Alaska Senate that started that even used the wrong statute against her. But, Senator Kim Elton was still given a “make work” Job at the Dept of Interior by Obama as payoff for his “job well done.” Sheer corrupt hackery.

By the way, this Bailey jackass was NOT a “close Palin aide.” He was just a a supporter of hers during the election who she thought did OK and gave a low level staff job to.

He turned out to be a total screw up and was to be fired, more than once, but his wife went crying and begging for his job every time.

This moron is the one who took it upon himself to make the calls that started the “Troopergate” nonsense to start with. If you look up the transcripts of the investigation you’ll see he admits it.

Independent investigator Timothy Petumenos, in his report hammering the “Troopergate” witch hunt found Elton, “Gunny” French (who got his nickname because he claimed he served in the Marines, but didn’t) and others, just made crap up.

Petumenos found there was NO contact between Sarah, her husband, or anyone else in the family,and Walt Monegan as alleged. It was all a lie.

BTW, the ONLY reason Bailey wasn’t fired is because they felt sorry for him. And how does he repay his boss? By sitting down with vile loser Jeanne Devon and creating phony e-mails (which Devon admits to) and writing a complete piece of fiction slamming her.

I hope no one is ever stupid enough to hire Bailey again, because he’s an ungrateful POS and cannot be trusted.

gary4205 on May 1, 2011 at 12:36 AM

I wish my world was fiction. I would be doing something else besides typing on a laptop at 12:40 AM.

So are you saying this Baily book is not going to be the same rumors that Shannyn Moore, Jeanne Devon, the adorable Gryphon and the crew across the pond that runs ‘Palingates’ have been spouting for years?

Well Ashley, if you find anything new when you read the book then let me know.

Do you know if Baily and Devon will finally prove that Trig is not Sarah Palin’s son?

chief on May 1, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Then they can’t tell the difference between that and real hesitance about Palin.
petunia on May 1, 2011 at 12:33 AM

Yes, this was “real hesitance”:

“she scares me… I think she abused power… her disastrous oil tax policy and her populist bashing of big business… It could be fish processors one day, or Wall Street the next. One of her closest aids, Frank Bailey, has a book coming out soon on her abuse of power.”

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 11:16 PM

That you’re referencing Frank Bailey indicates either your ignorance of his notorious lack of credibility or your obvious own PDS.

The center-Left Business Insider dismisses Bailey’s unsubstantiated swill.

In Palin’s defense, if the anecdotes of the book that have been released are the worst things Bailey can find to say about her in 456 pages, she has nothing to fear.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/sarah-palin-aide-book-2011-2#ixzz1L4MUBr00

Read more here:
http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/02/frank-bailey-and-extremist-jeanne-devon-fail-to-provide-substantiated-evidence-that-governor-palin-coordinated-with-the-rga-in-2006.html

rrpjr on May 1, 2011 at 12:41 AM

petunia on May 1, 2011 at 12:33 AM

Speaking of not rational…

Ashley wrote

she abused power when she was governor

AshleyTKing on April 30, 2011 at 11:16 PM

That is not a mild statement, petunia. He/she has not enumerated any such abuses while citing a book written by a former State employee and one of the people that filed numerous frivolous and unfounded ethics complaints against Palin…

Gohawgs on May 1, 2011 at 12:51 AM

Frank Bailey loved that woman.

AshleyTKing on May 1, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Sure Ashley. He just loves money a whole lot more.

bw222 on May 1, 2011 at 12:53 AM

*Hands petunia a tissue*

chief on May 1, 2011 at 12:57 AM

Gohawgs on May 1, 2011 at 12:51 AM

How the whole issue of how the Trooper-in-law and the Chief-of-Police was handled.

AshleyTKing on May 1, 2011 at 12:59 AM

The Canadian loonie is a better investment than the U.S. dollar.

petunia on May 1, 2011 at 12:28 AM

You’re right. Today the Canadian dollar is worth about $1.04. 7-8 years ago the Canadian dollar hit a low of 56 cents.

You know … this is the first time I recall you being right about anything.

bw222 on May 1, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Ah, Troopergate.

Palin is finished now for sure.

chief on May 1, 2011 at 1:05 AM

At least Palin didn’t spend $2.7 million of the state’s money on a personal luxury jet that was too big to land on 90% of the airports (landing strips) in the state like your boy Frank.

On second thought, to say Frank Murkowski is a crook is kind.

bw222 on May 1, 2011 at 1:06 AM

Comment pages: 1 2