A Freudian slip for Rubio? Update: Rubio suggests Portman

posted at 1:01 pm on April 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

His lips say, “No, no, no,” but does Marco Rubio’s subconscious say “Yes, yes, yes“?  National Journal reports that Rubio stumbled over a denial today, calling it a “Freudian slip”:

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said Wednesday that “I don’t want to be the vice president right now, or maybe ever. I really want to do a good job in the Senate.” He said he’d say no even if presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney asked him.

But in an interview at an event kicking off the University of Phoenix/National Journal Next America project, Rubio also demonstrated that the vice presidency is on his mind.

“If in four to five years, if I do a good job as vice president—I’m sorry, as senator—I’ll have the chance to do all sorts of things,” he said.

I’m fairly certain this is not a Freudian slip, because I don’t think Rubio wants the job at all. Being a VP after just a year or so in the Senate and attending funerals for the next eight years isn’t a great career path for Rubio.  He has plenty of natural talent; what he needs now is practical experience and a track record of success.  He’s correct that a solid term in the Senate with some legislative accomplishments, which might come more easily if the GOP wins the Senate and the White House in November, would position Rubio for big things in a few years.  He could run for Governor, and after a term in that office, be ready to run for President in 2020.

Nor, given Mitt Romney’s recent statement on his prerequisites, do I think Romney would offer Rubio the job:

I can tell you that the one quality that comes to mind immediately is that you want someone who, without question, could lead the country as president if that were necessary. I think all of the political considerations pale in comparison with the consideration of who has the capacity to lead America at a critical time. And I hope if I’m the president that eventuality would never occur. But that has to be the key consideration.

As a business executive, it seems doubtful that Romney would consider a single year in the US Senate as sufficient preparation for that role.  He’d be looking for someone with a track record of executive competence and accomplishment.  In my column for The Fiscal Times, I predict that Romney will add another current or former governor to the ticket, and run down the options:

That makes governors, past and present, the strongest possibilities for a running-mate choice. Fortunately, that leaves plenty of options for Romney for either a regional/key state approach or ideological balancing.  The key states in question this election cycle would be Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, all of which the GOP needs to win back from Democrats in order to beat Obama.  The only other potential candidate for the job in Florida besides Rubio would be Jeb Bush, who passed on running for the top job, and whose last name might be a gift to Barack Obama in the election.

Ohio has two potential candidates, Governor John Kasich and Senator Rob Portman.  Kasich, however, has struggled to maintain standing in the state after his union reform efforts flopped.  Portman has had a diverse career in Congress and in the executive branch under Bush, and is popular with the fiscal conservatives in the Republican base, but might not have enough executive experience to meet Romney’s Day One credentials.

The best key-state candidate would probably be Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, whose two-plus years as the top executive in the state comes after three years as Attorney General and another four years in the state legislature.  McDonnell got significant grassroots backing in late 2009 as Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections gave the Tea Party their first opportunity to go after Obama.  McDonnell has a better chance of giving Romney a boost in Virginia than Kasich does in Ohio, and McDonnell gives Romney a regional boost as a Southern governor.

Be sure to read it all; I cover the regional-balance candidates.  The strongest possibilities, in my opinion, would be McDonnell, Bobby Jindal, and Mitch Daniels, but the good news is that Romney has plenty of options.  We will have several months in which to speculate, but I’d expect Romney’s eventual choice to be very well seasoned as an executive and as a political figure.

Update: Marco Rubio again denied any interest in the job in an interview with ABC News, and this time suggested another candidate:

Rubio even went as far as recommending another U.S. senator for Romney to consider in his VP vetting: Ohio Sen. Rob Portman.

“The bigger point is we’ve got a lot of really talented people out there that Mitt Romney can get to pick from,” Rubio said. “And I think a lot, Senator Rob Portman would be a phenomenal choice for vice president. That’s where I would encourage him to look because I’m enjoying my service in the Senate.”

I mention Portman in my column, who might be a good way for Romney to get a better grip on Ohio, but whose executive experience is limited to trade and OMB positions.

Update II: Fora TV has the video of the entire event here:

Greg Hengler has the slip itself here:


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

Birthers, y’all seriously want to disqualify Jindal and Rubio, who spent more of their childhoods in the US of A than Barack 0bama ever did? Face it, there’s not going to be a judge somewhere who will make the last 3.5 years disappear with the bang of a gavel. Give it up.

Sekhmet on April 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM

GOPRanknFile on April 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM

aunursa on April 19, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Hey A–holes, No mention of Palin. Guarantee she runs. If Romney falls flat it will be a Golden Opportunity for Palin to hang it on the Loser Establishment and you a–holes know it.

CoolChange80 on April 19, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Rubio may not want it. But if asked, he will accept it. Romney makes decisions based on the best person for the job. How anyone believes at this point a more appropriate and capable person exists is beyond me.

Marcus Traianus on April 19, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Really? It is literally beyond your comprehension how anyone could think there is anyone better for the job than your pet candidate (who I like)?

Not one of the successful governors or senators with a track record — it just has to be the guy who’s early into his first term in senate? All other options are inconceivable.

Are you part of Rubio’s PR team, a secret gay lover of his, or did this actually seem reasonable to you when you wrote it?

Mitchell Heisman on April 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I sometimes wonder why my friend posts there, but I think it’s because his ideas are still considered fringe within some circles… that and WND has a publishing arm which he is using. Must be helping him. He’s growing in name recognition. He does his best to keep the nutters responses in order with gentle rebukes.

Logus on April 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Good luck to him.

Mitchell Heisman on April 19, 2012 at 2:51 PM

If we have two Anglo males on the ticket it will not look good. I was hoping for Rubio but he seriously doesn’t sound interested. Oh well.

terryannonline on April 19, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I realize the term ‘anglo’ is used these days to describe white people, but it’s intellectually lazy, and in many cases, meant to be insulting. Rubio doesn’t have the chops to be VP, so if you don’t want an “anglo” ticket, Jindal is the guy to choose.

Lightswitch on April 19, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Hey A–holes, No mention of Palin. Guarantee she runs. If Romney falls flat it will be a Golden Opportunity for Palin to hang it on the Loser Establishment and you a–holes know it.

CoolChange80 on April 19, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Name-calling. That’s awfully mature.

In all seriousness, Palin is a talented woman and was a good Governor, but I don’t see her ever running for office again. Aren’t her favorables, even in Alaska, pretty bad right now? If she does, I don’t see her winning the Republican primary. There are other individuals with more impressive resumes, who can fire up the base, have better favorables, and have more independent appeal.

GOPRanknFile on April 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM

How about Cheney?

Liz.

fogw on April 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM

How about McCain?

Meghan.

OneFreeMan on April 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Aside from your personal attack . . . Palin will not be the VP candidate. Not this close to 2008. Maybe in a 2-3 Presidential election cycles.

I was about to leave a blistering and humorous reply to him about “running for” VP, but then I thought to check the previous page for the context: he was talking about a Presidential run in 2016.

Mitchell Heisman on April 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM

You are missing Sarah Palin! Palin Runs in 2016. You can see wanted to run in 2012. She will absolutely. More likely than Rubio and Rand Paul they have Senate Seats to Defend in 2016. You must be a Palin hater.

CoolChange80 on April 19, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Look, I supported Palin, but she chose not to run when she had the best possible chance to take the presidency. She had the advantages of a fired-up grassroots movement, a very weak incumbent and an establishment candidate that’s widely disliked except for a small cadre of hardcore supporters, and she still took a pass. She really let down a lot of people who were prepared to go to the mat for her and her late decision to not run made it impossible to find a viable alternative to her in time to stop Romney. I find that extremely difficult to forgive – she let her supporters down and made stopping Romney a very rough prospect.

In 2016 she will still be damaged from the smear campaign waged against her, plus she’ll have the stigma of having abandoned her supporters hanging over her head as well, and she’ll be facing a much stronger primary field. I therefore am not supporting her in the 2016 primaries, and if he runs, I will support Mike Pence instead.

Doomberg on April 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

In all seriousness, Palin is a talented woman and was a good Governor for someone who quit in her first term, went on reality TV, and wrote a book in return for a fat advance.

Mitchell Heisman on April 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

How about McCain?

Meghan.

OneFreeMan on April 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM

How about?

Not.

Bitter Clinger on April 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Repeating a comment from the headline thread and my response…

How do you do a good job as vice president?

forest on April 19, 2012 at 12:07 PM

For starters, you preside over the Senate when it is in session. I.E., you actually fulfill your Constitutional role…

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate

When the Vice President isn’t there, the job of the President of the Senate does not go undone… it just gets delegated to the President pro tempore, who is supposed to be a TEMPORARY fill-in for the Vice President.

The sad reality is that usually both the VP and the President pro tempore are too lazy to actually do the job, so they delegate it to a Junior Senator who has no clue what they’re doing, and who usualy have to turn to the unelected Parliamentarian in order to figure out what should be done.

The only candidate that I have EVER heard properly describe the role of Vice President is…

… Sarah Palin.

ITguy on April 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM

How about McCain?

Meghan.

OneFreeMan on April 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM

How about?

Not.

Bitter Clinger on April 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Now there’s a $30 . . . wait . . . I guess I won’t finish that sentence!

Mitchell Heisman on April 19, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Are you part of Rubio’s PR team, a secret gay lover of his, or did this actually seem reasonable to you when you wrote it?

Ad hominems and incomplete, contra-intellectual thoughts are products of a small, feeble, psychologically challenged mind Mitch. Especially when the conclusions reached are merely projections of your own inner psyche and having nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

But don’t let that keep you from what appears to be a concerted effort to attack almost every single person in this thread.

One has to wonder why HA let’s people such as yourself in here. You exist for no purpose whatsoever and quite obviously make no material contribution to the dialogue.

Marcus Traianus on April 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Ad hominems and incomplete, contra-intellectual thoughts are products of a small, feeble, psychologically challenged mind Mitch.

Then make a case why Marco Rubio is the only conceivable first choice pick for VP and why the other candidates aren’t. It’s an extraordinary claim and requires good evidence and reasoning. As it is, you just stated it full stop, alluding that anyone who didn’t see it that way is way off base.

If you wasn’t to have your comment taken seriously, make the case, Marcus.

Mitchell Heisman on April 19, 2012 at 3:17 PM

*want

(iPhone autocorrect typo)

Mitchell Heisman on April 19, 2012 at 3:18 PM

There are other individuals with more impressive resumes, who can fire up the base, have better favorables, and have more independent appeal.

GOPRanknFile on April 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Who has a more impressive resume than Palin?

Very few can match her record of creating a $12B surplus and fixing corruption with the oil co’s and within the state gov’t and GOP.

whether she ever runs again is a good question, but to critize her accomplishments is intellectually lazy. Many of these other guys like Christie are RINO’s with terrible records on core conservative issues.

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 3:22 PM

In all seriousness, Palin is a talented woman and was a good Governor for someone who quit in her first term, went on reality TV, and wrote a book in return for a fat advance.

Mitchell Heisman on April 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

All those frivolous lawsuits that could’ve made her family go bankrupt had NOTHING to do with her resigning.

God forbid anyone make a profit in this country while promoting conservatism and the state of Alaska.

You sound like Maobama with your disdain for the Governor. Take your garbage to the daily Kos.

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 3:25 PM

In 2016 she will still be damaged from the smear campaign waged against her, plus she’ll have the stigma of having abandoned her supporters hanging over her head as well, and she’ll be facing a much stronger primary field. I therefore am not supporting her in the 2016 primaries, and if he runs, I will support Mike Pence instead.

Doomberg on April 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Look no one is more upset than me that Sarah didnt run but it’s hard to demand she do so when considering all the death threats against her and her family.

Plus she’s already given so much of her life to public service. She’s still the mother of 5 kids, one a special needs child. Hard to become the President if your family wants you to stay home.

As for Pence, I was thinking he was one of the good ones but I thought I read somewhere that he’s supporting Dick Luger??

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM

The strongest possibilities, in my opinion, would be McDonnell, Bobby Jindal, and Mitch Daniels, but the good news is that Romney has plenty of options.

All great choices. I particularly like the way that Jindal handled the BP crisis and when it comes to Dim-o-crats Jindal has no problem getting in their faces.

cicerone on April 19, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Look no one is more upset than me that Sarah didnt run but it’s hard to demand she do so when considering all the death threats against her and her family.

Plus she’s already given so much of her life to public service. She’s still the mother of 5 kids, one a special needs child. Hard to become the President if your family wants you to stay home.

I understand all these reasons. They are good reasons not to run. The problem is she waited until there was no chance for anyone else to build a ground game. Until October, it was basically Palin vs. Romney with everyone else as sideshows. If she’d told us in 2010 she was not running or early last year, I’d have been disappointed, but not the extent she disappointed her supporters in October.

Furthermore, if the reasons you pointed out were good enough to keep her from running in 2012, then she won’t be running in 2016.

As for Pence, I was thinking he was one of the good ones but I thought I read somewhere that he’s supporting Dick Luger??

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM

I hope he isn’t since it looks like Mourdock could beat Lugar currently. If you find a link, let me know.

Doomberg on April 19, 2012 at 3:58 PM

I understand all these reasons. They are good reasons not to run. The problem is she waited until there was no chance for anyone else to build a ground game. Until October, it was basically Palin vs. Romney with everyone else as sideshows. If she’d told us in 2010 she was not running or early last year, I’d have been disappointed, but not the extent she disappointed her supporters in October.

Furthermore, if the reasons you pointed out were good enough to keep her from running in 2012, then she won’t be running in 2016.

I really think Palin was undecided up until the last minute.

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Furthermore, if the reasons you pointed out were good enough to keep her from running in 2012, then she won’t be running in 2016.

Except, of course, that pretty much all the kids except Piper and Trig will be out of the house.

Plus, if Romney does win, he’ll have done enough things wrong to have pissed off most of the Reagan Wing of the Party. They’ll be looking around for the Real Thing, not a store mannequin imitation. Romney is a K-Street tool.

Palin will do fine; she’ll endorse Romney when the time comes and hopefully Romney will win. At some point, though, there will have to be a beat-down between the corrupt Establishment that fronted Romney and the Reagan people whom Palin represents. You people who keep repeating to yourselves that Palin is done are whistling past the graveyard. She’s very young in political years and has a long future ahead of her.

victor82 on April 19, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I can tell you that the one quality that comes to mind immediately is that you want someone who, without question, could lead the country as president if that were necessary. I think all of the political considerations pale in comparison with the consideration of who has the capacity to lead America at a critical time. And I hope if I’m the president that eventuality would never occur. But that has to be the key consideration.

You’re right to assume what Rubio said was not a Freudian Slip, but this statement by Mitt is just a repeat of what he said a very long time ago, so there’s nothing new here. He has always said the veep has to be ready to step in to assume the prez role. It’s common sense, really.

I’ve been saying since the beginning that it’s going to be someone with executive experience like a governor or former governor and not a first term Senator or Congressman, and all this talk about Paul Ryan, Rubio and so forth has essentially been idle speculation.

Regarding McDonnell, I thought he was a great choice initially but there are a few controversies which could alienate women that would be unnecessary distractions. We don’t need to rewind the War on Women theme. Also would not rule Huckabee out, and I like P.R.’s Gov. Fortuno. As for Santorum, absolutely no way he will he choose him. For one thing, Mitt’s not the sort to reward people who behave like whiny children. And Perry? I don’t doubt he’s a great governor but he was a terrible national candidate so I seriously doubt he’s in the running.

Buy Danish on April 19, 2012 at 4:17 PM

How anyone believes at this point a more appropriate and capable person exists is beyond me.

Marcus Traianus on April 19, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Delusions are indignant.

Rubio won’t be asked.

Schadenfreude on April 19, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Huckabee, puke, hurl, throw up and etc.

Schadenfreude on April 19, 2012 at 4:21 PM

You sound like Maobama with your disdain for the Governor. Take your garbage to the daily Kos.

I supported her enthusiastically to start, but she was a weak candidate. There was a lot she didn’t know and she’d talk herself into trouble. She handled media interviews poorly.

Then she quit, sabotaging her resume and reputation for toughness and seriousness.

Then she didn’t do what I and Ace of Spades and Patterico and Karl Rove and anyone with half a brain said she should do: stay out of the limelight and study foreign and military policy and history, she went on reality TV. And was a pundit for friendly media. And wrote a book.

Totally not serious and unqualified for the Presidency. She doesn’t have the right character.

Say what you will about Romney or Santorum, but they are focused and do their homework.

Mitchell Heisman on April 19, 2012 at 4:36 PM

They don’t wing it on their beauty queen charm.

Mitchell Heisman on April 19, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Who has a more impressive resume than Palin?

Very few can match her record of creating a $12B surplus and fixing corruption with the oil co’s and within the state gov’t and GOP.

whether she ever runs again is a good question, but to critize her accomplishments is intellectually lazy. Many of these other guys like Christie are RINO’s with terrible records on core conservative issues.

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Just because I said others have more impressive resumes, it doesn’t mean I’m criticizing her accomplishments. I admitted in my initial post she was a good Governor so I’m not belittling her at all, but she does have other problems. The fact that she quit halfway through will continue to hurt her. Did she have a valid reason? Yes, but you know how uninformed the voters are, in general. All they’re going to remember is that she “quit,” not that she had to continue to fight against smears.

If she had any national ambitions, she should have completed her term. Like I also mentioned, it’s hard to make a sell in the Republican primary when your favorables in your home state, which is a red state, are upside down (last time I checked anyway).

She’s very talented and I think she’s better off as a movement leader/party activist.

GOPRanknFile on April 19, 2012 at 4:51 PM

I agree with Rubio that Portman is actually not a bad choice at all.

crosspatch on April 19, 2012 at 5:04 PM

I supported her enthusiastically to start, but she was a weak candidate. There was a lot she didn’t know and she’d talk herself into trouble. She handled media interviews poorly.

Then she quit, sabotaging her resume and reputation for toughness and seriousness.

Then she didn’t do what I and Ace of Spades and Patterico and Karl Rove and anyone with half a brain said she should do: stay out of the limelight and study foreign and military policy and history, she went on reality TV. And was a pundit for friendly media. And wrote a book.

Totally not serious and unqualified for the Presidency. She doesn’t have the right character.

Say what you will about Romney or Santorum, but they are focused and do their homework.

Mitchell Heisman on April 19, 2012 at 4:36 PM

You, Karl Rove, and Ace don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about. NO ONE has issued more policy statements over the last few years than Palin. This ranges from Quantitative Easing, to Libya, to Obamacare. And Palin was well in front of these issues while Romney, Newt and others said nothing.

You take one severely edited Couric interview and base your opinion of Palin on that?

The fact that you take what Rove says seriously proves you’re a wishy washy RINO.

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 5:13 PM

If she had any national ambitions, she should have completed her term. Like I also mentioned, it’s hard to make a sell in the Republican primary when your favorables in your home state, which is a red state, are upside down (last time I checked anyway).

She’s very talented and I think she’s better off as a movement leader/party activist.

GOPRanknFile on April 19, 2012 at 4:51 PM

How the heck could Palin have completed her term while having to pay out of pocket for every BS lawsuit??? It would be impossible without going bankrupt!!!

And we’re worse off as a country with Palin only as an activist with the RINO Mitt as our nominee. It’s Bass Ackwards!

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Palin will do fine; she’ll endorse Romney when the time comes…
victor82 on April 19, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I hope she does for the sake of unity. Also it would be interesting to see her devoted legions defend that move after labeling anybody who endorsed Mitt a RINO and a sellout. I hope she does but I doubt she will.

Buttercup on April 19, 2012 at 5:22 PM

How the heck could Palin have completed her term while having to pay out of pocket for every BS lawsuit??? It would be impossible without going bankrupt!!!

Like I said, I’m not saying it was a bad decision on her part. You assume that people will actually care about the valid reasons. Most voters won’t. All they’ll say is that she quit the biggest job she’s ever had and if she can’t handle being the head of one of the least populous states in the nation, why allow her to be the head of the whole country?

And we’re worse off as a country with Palin only as an activist with the RINO Mitt as our nominee. It’s Bass Ackwards!

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 5:14 PM

If you say so. If she felt the same way you did, she should have run. No one stopped her from doing so.

GOPRanknFile on April 19, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I hope she does for the sake of unity. Also it would be interesting to see her devoted legions defend that move after labeling anybody who endorsed Mitt a RINO and a sellout. I hope she does but I doubt she will.

Buttercup on April 19, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Why is this so hard to understand?

The RINO’s supported Mittens in the primary.

Anyone with a brain will support Mittens in the General to beat Maobama!!

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Like I said, I’m not saying it was a bad decision on her part. You assume that people will actually care about the valid reasons. Most voters won’t. All they’ll say is that she quit the biggest job she’s ever had and if she can’t handle being the head of one of the least populous states in the nation, why allow her to be the head of the whole country?

If you say so. If she felt the same way you did, she should have run. No one stopped her from doing so.

GOPRanknFile on April 19, 2012 at 5:29 PM

She handled herself pretty well after constant vicious attacks over the last 3 years, being accused of inciting the Tucson shootings, and reporters going through over 24,000 of her emails.

Yeah nothing stopped her except constant death threats to her and her family.

I’ve seen your posts. I know you’re a RINO who doesn’t like real conservaties. The jig is up.

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Portman? Isn’t that some town in Oregon? No! That’s Portland!!

MaiDee on April 19, 2012 at 5:34 PM

She handled herself pretty well after constant vicious attacks over the last 3 years, being accused of inciting the Tucson shootings, and reporters going through over 24,000 of her emails.

Yeah nothing stopped her except constant death threats to her and her family.

Are you even reading my posts? I never said she handled herself poorly or it was a bad decision on her part. If you read my first post on this thread about Palin, I said I did think she left for valid reasons, but sometimes valid reasons aren’t enough for an uninformed electorate. I know you love Palin, but at least read the whole post.

I’ve seen your posts. I know you’re a RINO who doesn’t like real conservaties. The jig is up.

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Lol you think I’m a RINO? Based on what exactly? Did supporting Rubio over Crist make me a RINO? Did supporting Joe Miller over Murkowski make me a RINO? Perhaps supporting Nikki Haley over McMaster, Bauer, and Barrett made me RINO? If not that, maybe constantly hoping that Romney picks Jindal makes me a RINO?

If you’re going through a charge out there, at least back it up. Believe it or not, as great as Palin may be, she isn’t the be-all, end-all of conservatism. Just because I don’t think she’s electable doesn’t make me a RINO. Conservatism is bigger than one politician. I hope you come to terms with that at some point.

GOPRanknFile on April 19, 2012 at 5:40 PM

If you’re going through to throw a charge out there, at least back it up. Believe it or not, as great as Palin may be, she isn’t the be-all, end-all of conservatism. Just because I don’t think she’s electable doesn’t make me a RINO. Conservatism is bigger than one politician. I hope you come to terms with that at some point.

GOPRanknFile on April 19, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Sorry. Clearly, I wrote this while multitasking.

GOPRanknFile on April 19, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Why is this so hard to understand?

The RINO’s supported Mittens in the primary.

Anyone with a brain will support Mittens in the General to beat Maobama!!

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 5:30 PM

See you’re defending a move she hasn’t even made yet.
The so called RINO’s who supported Mitt, most recently Rubio, Paul, Daniels, are aware the primary is over. Anyone with a brain knows that. They endorsed Mitt to beat Obama and still they’re called RINO’s yet when/if Sarah does it it would be patriotic. You and Sarah must be the only ones who think the primary is still under way. Get a grip dude.

Buttercup on April 19, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Palin will do fine; she’ll endorse Romney when the time comes…

victor82 on April 19, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Point number 1: The time has already come.
Point number 2: Her silence is golden under any circumstances.

MJBrutus on April 19, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Romney/Portman
Puke/Puke

Perry/West 2012
America must be saved.

Pragmatic on April 19, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Why is this so hard to understand?

The RINO’s supported Mittens in the primary.

Anyone with a brain will support Mittens in the General to beat Maobama!!

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 5:30 PM
See you’re defending a move she hasn’t even made yet.
The so called RINO’s who supported Mitt, most recently Rubio, Paul, Daniels, are aware the primary is over. Anyone with a brain knows that. They endorsed Mitt to beat Obama and still they’re called RINO’s yet when/if Sarah does it it would be patriotic. You and Sarah must be the only ones who think the primary is still under way. Get a grip dude.

Buttercup on April 19, 2012 at 5:47 PM

If Sarah Palin endorses Romney. . .her credibiity gois to ‘zip’!

Pragmatic on April 19, 2012 at 6:02 PM

New PPP poll:

Obama 49-46 over Romney.

With Christie on the ticket, 47-47.

A registered voters poll. I’d guess that with a LVs screen, a Romney/Christie ticket is probably 4-5 points ahead of Obama/Biden.

joana on April 19, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Lol you think I’m a RINO? Based on what exactly? Did supporting Rubio over Crist make me a RINO? Did supporting Joe Miller over Murkowski make me a RINO? Perhaps supporting Nikki Haley over McMaster, Bauer, and Barrett made me RINO? If not that, maybe constantly hoping that Romney picks Jindal makes me a RINO?

If you’re going through a charge out there, at least back it up. Believe it or not, as great as Palin may be, she isn’t the be-all, end-all of conservatism. Just because I don’t think she’s electable doesn’t make me a RINO. Conservatism is bigger than one politician. I hope you come to terms with that at some point.

GOPRanknFile on April 19, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Who would you rather have as President:

Palin or Romney?

Hypothetically, nevermind who you think is or isn’t electable.

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 6:04 PM

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Willard Mitt Romney!!

MJBrutus on April 19, 2012 at 6:06 PM

See you’re defending a move she hasn’t even made yet.
The so called RINO’s who supported Mitt, most recently Rubio, Paul, Daniels, are aware the primary is over. Anyone with a brain knows that. They endorsed Mitt to beat Obama and still they’re called RINO’s yet when/if Sarah does it it would be patriotic. You and Sarah must be the only ones who think the primary is still under way. Get a grip dude.

Buttercup on April 19, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Rubio and Daniels endorsed Mittens while Santorum was still in the race. BIG DIFFERENCE.

His daughters situation was a main reason why Santorum dropped out – he got into the race due to his family and dropped out due to his family.

Newt hasn’t won anything since SC and has no shot.

If Sarah endorses Mittens during the General how is that hypocritical? There’s no one else in the race at that point! She’s said all along it’s all about beating Maobama!

Wake up genius!

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 6:08 PM

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Did it ever occur to you she doesn’t want the job?

Buttercup on April 19, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Who would you rather have as President:

Palin or Romney?

Hypothetically, nevermind who you think is or isn’t electable.

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Based just on their policies, I would pick Palin because she’s a proven conservative. I think Mitt is also capable, but I don’t think we’ve seen his true colors yet because he was Gov. of one of the bluest states in then nation. We’ll see his true colors once he becomes President.

GOPRanknFile on April 19, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Based just on their policies, I would pick Palin because she’s a proven conservative. I think Mitt is also capable, but I don’t think we’ve seen his true colors yet because he was Gov. of one of the bluest states in then nation. We’ll see his true colors once he becomes President.

GOPRanknFile on April 19, 2012 at 6:16 PM

It doesn’t matter that he was gov. of a blue state. What other gov would implement socialist health care working with Teddy Kennedy?

Did he really have to appoint John HOldren as an advisor to implement carbon caps in MA?

What about appointing all those liberal judges?

Mittens will be a bad president. I’ve seen his true colors. Still better than the current Occupier in the White House though.

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 6:20 PM

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Who said anything Sarah about endorsing in the General? You did, not me. The poster I first commented on just said “when the time comes”.

And just because Santorum hadn’t dropped out yet didn’t mean the race wasn’t over, he’s just lousy at losing as are you. You’re pining for someone who never contended.

For someone who constantly insults others intellect you’re not real bright are you? Try to work on your reading comprehension.

Buttercup on April 19, 2012 at 6:22 PM

about Sarah endorsing.

Buttercup on April 19, 2012 at 6:25 PM

You, Karl Rove, and Ace don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about. NO ONE has issued more policy statements over the last few years than Palin.

I didn’t talk about issuing policy statements. I was talking about LEARNING.

Her learning, not her advisers. And I said on foreign and military affairs, and history, specifically.

Sorry, dude. You’re the one who isn’t getting it. She’s not especially bright (although she probably seems like she is to most of her supporters) and there are big gaps in her knowledge base, which she was advised to plug and didn’t.

Instead, reality TV, etc.

Next.

Mitchell Heisman on April 19, 2012 at 6:28 PM

It doesn’t matter that he was gov. of a blue state. What other gov would implement socialist health care working with Teddy Kennedy?

Sure, it matters. Do you realize that Reagan was not particularly conservative when he was Governor of a blue state?

Did he really have to appoint John HOldren as an advisor to implement carbon caps in MA?

I never claimed he was perfect. I just stated that he was the best out of the crop that ran. My candidates didn’t run. Even conservatives makes mistakes. Let’s not forget that Palin supported the “Bridge to Nowhere.”

What about appointing all those liberal judges?

You must not understand how the nominating process works in Massachusetts.

Mittens will be a bad president. I’ve seen his true colors. Still better than the current Occupier in the White House though.

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Unfortunately, I don’t have the prognostication skills you apparently have. I’ll just wait to see what happens after his first term is up.

The same people who say he’ll be a bad President are the same ones who said that he would never win the nomination. Now that he’s won, the same people said he would never take the fight to Obama. Now that he’s proven otherwise, now it’s he won’t govern as a conservative. I hope he keeps proving them wrong.

GOPRanknFile on April 19, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Birthers, y’all seriously want to disqualify Jindal and Rubio, who spent more of their childhoods in the US of A than Barack 0bama ever did?

Idiot, the constitution disqualifies them.

Give it up.

Sekhmet on April 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Go pound sand, Obama lackey constitution hater.

VorDaj on April 19, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Mittens will be a bad president. I’ve seen his true colors.

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Keep sticking your head in that microwave and you will go totally blind.

VorDaj on April 19, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Turn off the lights the parties over

Romney / Ryan 2012

Sparty on April 19, 2012 at 6:45 PM

I didn’t talk about issuing policy statements. I was talking about LEARNING.

Her learning, not her advisers. And I said on foreign and military affairs, and history, specifically.

Sorry, dude. You’re the one who isn’t getting it. She’s not especially bright (although she probably seems like she is to most of her supporters) and there are big gaps in her knowledge base, which she was advised to plug and didn’t.

Instead, reality TV, etc.

Next.

Mitchell Heisman on April 19, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Yeah she’s not bright. According to who? You? Karl Rove? Your moron friends in the lib media??

Like I said she’s only written several brilliant pieces of quantitative easing and the dangers of Obamacare. She’s a real moron!!

She was able to get the corrupt oil companies and statehouse in AK under control to create a $12B surplus!

Palin only turned a hold in the wall city in Wasilla into a thriving metropolis.

But yeah she’s not bright according to you and the lib media.

What we need is more moderates like Mittens implementing socialist healthcare and bending on global warming.

Keep embarrassing yourself!

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Sure, it matters. Do you realize that Reagan was not particularly conservative when he was Governor of a blue state?

I never claimed he was perfect. I just stated that he was the best out of the crop that ran. My candidates didn’t run. Even conservatives makes mistakes. Let’s not forget that Palin supported the “Bridge to Nowhere.”

What about appointing all those liberal judges?

You must not understand how the nominating process works in Massachusetts.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the prognostication skills you apparently have. I’ll just wait to see what happens after his first term is up.

The same people who say he’ll be a bad President are the same ones who said that he would never win the nomination. Now that he’s won, the same people said he would never take the fight to Obama. Now that he’s proven otherwise, now it’s he won’t govern as a conservative. I hope he keeps proving them wrong.

Let me know what Reagan did as Gov. that was anywhere near as bad as Romneycare.

And cap and tax that Mittens did for MA is almost as bad.

These are core conservative issues we’re talking about here. Also, look at Mittens record on the 2nd amendment.

ANd he didn’t even put up a fight on those lib judges, just rubber stamped everyone of them.

I’m judging his potential presidency based on his terrible record as governor. You’re the one hoping that suddenly he becomes a conservative out of nowhere when nothing in his lousy record indicates that he will do so.

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Keep sticking your head in that microwave and you will go totally blind.

VorDaj on April 19, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Don’t you have some more Nugent bashing to do?

You seem to hate all conservatives. What do you think of Palin, Rush, Levin, Demint…etc?

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Let me know what Reagan did as Gov. that was anywhere near as bad as Romneycare.

And cap and tax that Mittens did for MA is almost as bad.

These are core conservative issues we’re talking about here. Also, look at Mittens record on the 2nd amendment.

Surely. This is going to be kind of long so bear with me:

“In the first place, Reagan’s record as governor of California – where he had absolutely no access to the nuclear button – was all too moderate. Despite his bravado about having stopped the growth of state government, the actual story is that the California budget grew by 122 percent during his eight years as governor, not much of an improvement on the growth rate of 130 percent during the preceding two terms of free-spending liberal Pat Brown. The state bureaucracy increased during Reagan’s administration from 158,000 to 192,000, a rise of nearly 22 percent – hardly squaring with Reagan’s boast of having ‘stopped the bureaucracy cold.’

Neither is Reagan’s record on taxes any comfort. He started off with a bang by increasing state taxes nearly $1 billion in his first year in office – the biggest tax increase in California history. Income, sales, corporate, bank, liquor, and cigarette taxes were all boosted dramatically. Two more tax hikes – in 1971 and 1972 – raised revenues by another $500 million and $700 million respectively.

By the end of Reagan’s eight years, state income taxes had nearly tripled, from a bite of $7.68 per $1000 of personal income to $19.48. During his administration, California rose in a ranking of the states from twentieth to thirteenth in personal income tax collection per capita, and it rose from fourth to first in per capita revenue from corporate income taxes. As John Vickerman, chief deputy in the legislative analyst’s office in Sacramento, concluded: “Obviously, the tax bite went up under the Reagan regime. It was a significant increase even when you start considering inflationary dollars…. The rate of growth was about the same as his predecessor.” Reagan is now trying to take some credit for Proposition 13 and the popular tax-cutting movements in California. But during his own administration things were quite different; Reagan bitterly fought against similar initiatives in 1968 and 1972.

Moreover, Reagan likes to talk the conservative line that federal programs should, in large part, be turned over to the states, and state programs to the localities, so that government can be closer to the people. But what did he actually do as governor? A large part of his tax increases went to pay for local programs controlled by the state; Reagan accelerated the trend of collecting tax money on the state level to spend on state-controlled local programs. He created seventy-three new state government councils and commissions, with a total budget, in his last year alone, of $12 million. Included was the California Energy Commission, which put the state hip-deep into the energy business: A three-year review process is now required before any new power plant can be constructed in California.

Ronald Reagan is proudest of the welfare reforms he enacted in 1971, which removed more than 510,000 from the welfare rolls by – among other things – forcing adults to support their welfare parents. He then turned around and boosted the amount of welfare paid to those remaining by 43 percent, so that total welfare costs to the taxpayer didn’t decline at all.”

Good enough?

ANd he didn’t even put up a fight on those lib judges, just rubber stamped everyone of them.

Like I already said, if you knew how the process works in MA, then you would know it’s not as easy as you would think. Btw, everyone single judge was tough on crime, which was those positions primarily were based on. Also, Romney has Bork has his judicial advisor. You’re really not going to get more conservative than him.

I’m judging his potential presidency based on his terrible record as governor. You’re the one hoping that suddenly he becomes a conservative out of nowhere when nothing in his lousy record indicates that he will do so.

LevinFan on April 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Massachusetts Republicans/conservatives overwhelmingly supported him in their primary. Liberals in MA hated him. This gives me great comfort.

GOPRanknFile on April 19, 2012 at 10:26 PM

I thought you mean Natalie Portman.

I would strongly support her candidacy.

sultanp on April 20, 2012 at 8:52 AM

I hope he just picks a governor from a really big, really liberal state so he can break the polling statistics stalemate and crush the man in November!

michaelthomas on April 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Gov. Huckabee fits Romney’s requirements. And he’s technically a Florida citizen.

ceruleanblue on April 21, 2012 at 12:52 AM

Comment pages: 1 2