Are you ready for Bush 2016?

posted at 8:16 pm on November 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

I sure am. Nothing says “new, young, vibrant GOP” like nominating George W. Bush’s 60-something-year-old brother, who’ll have held no political office for nearly 10 years by election day 2016.

Try to wrap your mind around the fact that, if you had to give odds right this minute, the likeliest presidential match-up four years from now would be a second Bush/Clinton election. That’s what this country and its perverse tolerance of dynastic politics has come to. If that’s where we’re headed, I at least want some honesty from the candidates and the public about what we’re doing. Step one: Repeal the Title of Nobility Clause in Article I and make Jeb and Hillary a duke and duchess, respectively. That’ll help tidy things up for Chelsea and George P. Bush in preparation for the inevitable Bush/Clinton III contest in 2036. Step two: I want a Kennedy on the ticket as Hillary’s VP and maybe Ben Quayle or one of the Romney boys (take your pick) as Jeb’s number two. Let’s really own what we’re doing here. Simple proposition: From now on, no one is eligible to run for president unless he/she is related by blood or marriage to someone who already has.

When former President Bill Clinton rolled through here while campaigning for President Obama, he speculated about Mr. Bush’s intentions with Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist and friend of Mr. Bush. It was no idle topic for Mr. Clinton, given the possibility that his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, could seek the Democratic nomination.

When Senator Marco Rubio of Florida held a strategy session here to discuss his own political future last week, the question of Mr. Bush, a mentor, hung over the room; a decision by Mr. Bush, 59, to seek the Republican nomination would almost certainly halt any plans by Mr. Rubio, 41, to do so or abruptly set off a new intraparty feud.

Mr. Bush is said by friends to be weighing financial and family considerations — between so many years in office and the recession his wealth took a dip, they said, and he has been working hard to restore it — as well as the complicated place within the Republican Party of the Bush brand. Asked this week about whether his father would run, Jeb Bush Jr. told CNN, “I certainly hope so.”…

Still, calls for Jeb Bush to enter the arena in a bigger way represent vindication of a sort. His family’s longstanding advocacy for a more broad-based and “compassionate” Republican Party was largely ignored and eventually repudiated by the populist, small-government conservatives who held sway over the party after Mr. Obama’s election.

Enthusiasm for a Jeb candidacy boils down to two things, the belief that public dissatisfaction with Dubya will have faded by 2016 and the idea that Jeb, almost uniquely, can help win back Latinos to the GOP. On the first point, here’s a memorable data point from this year’s national exit poll:

The financial crisis left a long, lingering stain on Dubya’s economic record, sufficiently so that it may have effectively neutralized Romney’s attacks on Obama over jobs. That might fade a bit in time — or, if the economy finally rebounds in O’s second term, the recovery might make Bush’s record look even uglier by contrast. A Bush lost once before to a Clinton because of the economy; imagine Bill out there making the case that electing Hillary will guarantee 90s-era prosperity while Jeb is out there making the case that electing him won’t result in late 00s-era crisis and panic. Which pitch sounds stronger?

As for Jeb’s pull with Latino voters, it’s true that he did well with them during his runs for governor. But part of his appeal is his support for immigration reform, and congressional Republicans will already have made a deal on that before 2016. If a conservative as usually stalwart as Krauthammer is ready to wave the white flag on amnesty in hopes of capturing a few more Latino votes next election, there must be 25 or so centrist Republicans in the House willing to follow suit. At a bare minimum, there’ll be some sort of DREAM Act passed with GOP cooperation and maybe comprehensive immigration reform too depending upon how hard Obama’s willing to push for it. (He was promising in late October to get comprehensive reform done this year.) If it happens, what’s left of Jeb’s big selling point in 2016? He can run on his biography, i.e. the fact that his wife is Mexican and therefore he understands the Latino experience in America better than most politicians of either party. But of course that’s also true of Rubio. And Rubio, unlike Jeb, might be in a position to actually cast a vote on immigration reform this year.

One more thing about the Latino vote in 2016. Lost in all the breathless reports about how badly Romney lost that demographic to Obama is the fact that Obama didn’t do well with Latino Democrats when he first ran for president in 2008. In fact, in most states, he was roundly crushed by Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee in 2016. Bill Clinton was also tremendously popular with Latino voters, destroying Bob Dole in 1996 by 51 points. You can parse that result in two ways. One: The fact that the Democrats might have a nominee who’s unusually strong among Latinos means the GOP must nominate Jeb or Rubio or someone with some sort of unique outreach to that demographic. Or two: The fact that the Clintons are so strong means that any special biographical appeal brought to bear by Jeb or Rubio will be neutralized, making one of their biggest selling points maybe not so big. No way of knowing how the math on that shakes out without seeing multiple polls, but I agree with other analysts who say that it’s foolish to think Latinos are single-issue voters. They vote like everyone else, based on the economic, social, and foreign policies that they prefer. (I.e. mostly Democratic.) That being so, are we sure a guy named “Bush” would have any more appeal to them than he would to the rest of the electorate that has less-than-fond memories of Dubya’s second term? I’m not convinced.


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 4 5 6 7

Every one of the nine Supreme Court Justices graduated with Ivy League indoctrination, either Harvard or Yale. Every President for the past quarter century has also been indoctrinated by either Harvard or Yale. Jeb Bush does not possess this necessary qualification to judge the people or lead the nation.

Tripwhipper on November 25, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Sarah Palin vs. Hillary Clinton would be something to see.

When you really listen to her, Sarah makes so much sense that in retrospect I regret that the GOP didn’t take the gamble. During the debates, the nation would have been exposed to her, finally unvarnished, and she just may have beaten 0bama once they realized that she wasn’t stupid.

My candidate evolution was:

Palin
Cain
Gingrich
Romney

cane_loader on November 25, 2012 at 6:00 AM

If you personally want to lose in a landslide to Clinton, then I guess it is.

Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Every one of the nine Supreme Court Justices graduated with Ivy League indoctrination, either Harvard or Yale. Every President for the past quarter century has also been indoctrinated by either Harvard or Yale. Jeb Bush does not possess this necessary qualification to judge the people or lead the nation.

Tripwhipper on November 25, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Possibly the only reason I would consider supporting him.

CTSherman on November 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM

nope, had enough of the Bushes for life…

tarpon on November 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM

We need new leaders, new candidates. No RINOs, no retreads. no legacy nominees, no recycled losers.

SurferDoc on November 25, 2012 at 12:43 PM

If Jeb is the best we can expect from the GOP in 2016, I’m voting 3rd party without shame.

love2rumba on November 25, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Another Bush???? You’ve got to be sh*ting me!

RonRon on November 25, 2012 at 1:44 PM

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 4:21 AM

despite the vote margin this loss was epic in the way it exposed how terrible romney’s campaign was. they were caught unaware. they had ryan visiting michigan late in teh campaign for some reason. yet michigan was called for obama within minutes. romney is supposed to be some great executive yet his people had no clue what the polls were doing. their GOTV system was a disaster, the internal polling had them believing they were competitive in places like minnesota and wisconsin when they couldnt win florida or virginia!! all that time wasted in unreachable places instead of locking down florida, virginia and ohio!

chasdal on November 25, 2012 at 1:47 PM

!! all that time wasted in unreachable places instead of locking down florida, virginia and ohio!

chasdal on November 25, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Good point..That was a mistake in hindsight..:)

Dire Straits on November 25, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Sure, why not. They know all about letting things burn.
The Bushies. Terrific. Where do I sign up?

awaiting HornetSting to show and tell us how ‘pfft’ works, etc.
…like ‘scroomed’.

While we’re at it, let’s bring back W as VP and give Nan her big hammer back.
Sounds like a plan…. I will live without.

Maybe Bob Dole, from the crypt…

In a hundred years, or so, if history is written at that point.
Obamaphones for all the peeps. When asked for an opine, it will be given to.

I can’t get my head around giving tehWon more time to tear it all down.
Yet, here we are. And no, I do not like it one iota.

mickytx on November 25, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Vote or not vote for whomever you want.

But enough of this allowing the left to bash GWB without a rejoinder — or, worse yet, of this agreeing with them.

GWB wasn’t perfect as no president is, but every time you scapegoat him (aside from the basic unfairness of it) you relaminate the Obama administration’s get-out-of-jail-free card.

bmmg39 on November 25, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Gosh.. A Bush syncophant. Like it or not the Bush name is dirt. Obama was able to get reelected by blaming his predecessor. I don’t believe I’m saying this but just nominate Rubio already. He has advatages that Bush doesn’t have like a working class background and public speaking ability.

Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 2:53 PM

And for all the yammering about her being an “unqualified ditz,” more people voted for her and McCain than voted for Romney. I think we all know that they weren’t really voting for McCain. So much for the claim that most of the country rejects her.
There Goes The Neighborhood on November 24, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Sorry, but you are wrong. More people voted for the 2012 ticket than voted for the 2008 a ticket. You need to keep up with things a little better. Ed Morrissey already explained this at length.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 2:48 AM

That’s all you’ve got to say? Quibbling about whether or not Romney may have actually managed to surpass McCain?

You call her an unqualified ditz when it’s clear she was a good governor. You say she resigned in disgrace when it’s clear that the most desperate digging by the most fanatical opponents could not find one real scandal in her administration. You claim the country rejects her when she won as many or more votes than the supposed super-genius Mitt Romney.

Just give up and admit you’re irrational on the subject of Sarah Palin. Come to think of it, we need a few more people rationalizing how Mitt Romney was the best candidate ever, and the loss was totally not his fault at all. Focus on that. It should keep you occupied for a while.

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 25, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Like it or not the Bush name is dirt.

Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 2:53 PM

– which it will be as long as people like you continue to sit on your hands. You don’t need to be a cheerleader or a sycophant; just correct people when they’re wrong.

bmmg39 on November 25, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I was just teasing “there goes the neighborhood” about a fact he got wrong. The cold hard fact is that Romney received more votes than McCain and Palin did. Deal with it. Claiming that Palin did better than the 2012 ticket was a favorite talking point of the Palin cultist crowd, but now they can’t say that anymore, since updated popular vote totals show that more people voted for Romney. Now they are reduced to yammering about population increases and other such desperate gibberish. Oh, and Romney also got a higher percentage of the total popular vote than McCain and Palin managed 4 years ago. What’s more, Romney also received more electoral votes than Palin.

Verdict: Romney/Paul outperformed McCain/Palin

But enough about the past. We need to win in 2016. There is no point in dwelling on gimmicky, jokey candidates like Sarah Palin.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 3:33 AM

Yeah, how could population increases possibly be relevant to the relative popular votes….

Pure gibberish, obviously.

Maybe you should look up the first rule of holes….

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 25, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. There has to be a 2016 first.

Blacklake on November 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Why would anyone fight for the America that exists today? Anyone who joins the military in this day and age is an idiot because we are not one nation anymore. You don’t know what you would be fighting for.

ninjapirate on November 23, 2012 at 8:29 PM

That is exactly what the left wants. They hate the military. They spit on the graves of the men and women who fought and died for this country’s freedom.

rottenrobbie on November 25, 2012 at 3:20 PM

I’m running for POTUS.
Positions of platform to follow at later date.

nimrod on November 25, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Jeb Bush will be the end of the Republican party and the impetus for a third party. Hooray!

Hasn’t the Bush dynasty ruined the US enough?

Sparky5253 on November 25, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Why would anyone fight for the America that exists today? Anyone who joins the military in this day and age is an idiot because we are not one nation anymore. You don’t know what you would be fighting for.

ninjapirate on November 23, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Spot on correct. I’ll go farther in saying this nation used to me a nation that refused to leave it’s fallen on the battlefield.

We saw how that played in Benghazi didn’t we? Men fighting for their lives and the honor of the flag – and being refused support by the nation that put them there in the first place.

HondaV65 on November 25, 2012 at 3:48 PM

I’m sick of checking Hotgas and seeing Jeb Bush’s face.

gatsbysgirlontheside on November 25, 2012 at 3:49 PM

NO.

golfer1 on November 25, 2012 at 4:13 PM

No.

HELL no.

Midas on November 25, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Bleah.

I’ve heard of doubling down on stupid, but this takes the cake. I doubt I’ll even vote. why bother?

hachiban on November 25, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I actually do like Jeb, at least to a fair degree. However, I would oppose his running for numerous reasons.

First, it is unclear the Bush brand will be healed by then. I suspect it won’t be as toxic as it was in 2008, but being less toxic doesn’t mean its an asset either.

Second, while I am not opposed to political legacies, there comes a point where it just gets silly. I mean, if Jeb ran and did win, it’d beg the question if any Republican candidate without the last name Bush could ever win. Besides that, while we desperately need another successful Republican presidency, we more desperately need a successful Republican presidency that doesn’t have anything to do with either Bush or Reagan.

Third, if Jeb running means Rubio is out, then that is reason enough to oppose it. While Jeb could probably appeal to Hispanics better than either McCain or Romney, we really do need a younger face to present a clear break from the past. For this reason, I could far more easily support candidates like Rubio, Ryan, Martinez, or even a freshman Senator like Cruz.

Fourth, if it indeed Clinton that ends up running, we need to run as the party of fresh ideas. It’s hard to do that if we’re running a Bush on the ticket. Ms Clinton may be relatively popular, but she wouldn’t get many crossover Republican votes, and younger voters likely wouldn’t remember the original Clinton Presidency too well. By running a younger face, you can run against legacy politics itself, which is a large reason why Obama was able to beat Clinton in the 2008 primaries.

Fifth, Bush vs Clinton II is too ironic to live!

WolvenOne on November 25, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Bleah.

I’ve heard of doubling down on stupid, but this takes the cake. I doubt I’ll even vote. why bother?

hachiban on November 25, 2012 at 4:17 PM

That actually was the opinion of my recently separated from the Army best friend.

His attitude “I spend 4 years defending my country (about 20 months or so in an actual combat zone) and I come back to get screwed quickly (Obama) or slowly (Romney) why bother voting? I earned my right to relax in peace at least for a little while so I’m damn well going to do that.”

SgtSVJones on November 25, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. There has to be a 2016 first.

Blacklake on November 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM

It’s looking less likely every time I check Drudge.

pannw on November 25, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Gosh.. A Bush syncophant. Like it or not the Bush name is dirt. Obama was able to get reelected by blaming his predecessor. I don’t believe I’m saying this but just nominate Rubio already. He has advatages that Bush doesn’t have like a working class background and public speaking ability.

Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 2:53 PM

I don’t often agree with you, but you have a valid point, something bluegill is unable to come up with. In 2012 Barack Obama was campaigning against Bush43 as much as he was Mitt Romney.

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 4:48 PM

That is exactly what the left wants. They hate the military. They spit on the graves of the men and women who fought and died for this country’s freedom.

rottenrobbie on November 25, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Unfortunately, today’s U.S. military leadership is comprised of politically correct liberals. General George Casey, chief of staff of the Army at the time, was more concerned about the effect of the Ft. Hood massacre on diversity than he was the victims.

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Dearest Hotairians:

Please decide and resolve, right now, to never mention “Jeb Bush” and “George W Bush” again on Hotair or any other comment watering hole, offline or online. Ever. Say it with me: “I will not mention a Bush until 2017.”

If we starve the clickbeast he will eventually move on to other campgrounds. All gotcha questions from the media referencing him need to be answered with, “Oh, he’s not running – by the way, how many jobs has Obama created today?” ARE YOU LISTENING, RNC?

The only candidates the GOP should even consider, forevermore, should be either female and/or Spanish-speaking, and/or anyone who is not white. Not because I think so, but because the Democrats will run “minority” candidates forever, until they cement enough of a margin to turn the entire country into Mexifornia. As corrupt and stupid as they are, they now know what formula will work, and they have the DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (important) to concoct prove it. If we can’t find successful men and women of conservative character who also happen to be a so-called minority and are willing to run for office, or to be the public face of the party, why are we allowing the GOP to live?

As the Mighty Ingrahammer™ said recently, you don’t go “up against the Chicago Machine in your croquet whites”.

BemusedMalkinite on November 25, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Probably already been said—> Not “no” but “HELL NO!”

ncborn on November 25, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Seriously people, the Bushes (and the Clintons, and the Kennedys and the Romneys) have to learn to let it go. Political dynasties are not good for the Republic. Cemeteries are full of qualified and capable people so there is no shortage of them. I think that Jeb Bush would do a disservice to both America and the US if he were to run in 2016 because, as it has already been said, that would undermine a Rubio candidacy since the latter would be unlikely to run against one of his greatest allies. It would also undermine the US as a whole because I cannot imagine the damage it would be done to the country with another Democrat winning in 2016 (which will be the likely result of Jeb Bush is nominated by the Republican Party). People forget too easily how unpopular the Bush name is outside the Republican base. Regardless of the outcome of an Obama presidency, the Democratic nominee could win the election just by running against the Bush name.

I hope Jeb Bush puts country ahead of his personal ambitions.

p_incorrect on November 25, 2012 at 6:16 PM

We saw how that played in Benghazi didn’t we? Men fighting for their lives and the honor of the flag – and being refused support by the nation that put them there in the first place.

HondaV65 on November 25, 2012 at 3:48 PM

But you went and voted for Obama. Couldn’t have bothered you too much, huh?

Go away, Obama voter. Go give some more $$ to Fauxahontas too.

kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Sarah Palin vs. Hillary Clinton would be something to see.
When you really listen to her, Sarah makes so much sense that in retrospect I regret that the GOP didn’t take the gamble.
cane_loader on November 25, 2012 at 6:00 AM

If you personally want to lose in a landslide to Clinton, then I guess it is.
Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM

I agree with Illinidiva.

Yes, the Bush name is tarnished badly, and so is the Sarah Palin brand. We tried running Palin already, remember? Guess what, it didn’t go so smoothly.

I can hardly believe that some people here are trying to promote Sarah Palin for 2016 and are doing it with a straight face. Sarah Palin would ensure a landslide victory for the Democrat candidate.

As much as I like and admire Palin, I have to mention that the fact of the matter is that most of the country (including many conservatives) views her as an unserious, unqualified, unelectable ditz.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 6:52 PM

As much as I like and admire Palin, I have to mention that the fact of the matter is that most of the country (including many conservatives) views her as an unserious, unqualified, unelectable ditz.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 6:52 PM

The media thanks you for your compliance. We’ll just wait for them to tell us which candidate they won’t completely destroy so we can vote for them.

Like Mitt Romney. Oh wait… that didn’t happen. I was told he was electable.

Ooooops.

kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Jeb Bush/George.P.Bush 2016. Unbeatable. /s

tommy71 on November 25, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Sarah Palin vs. Hillary Clinton would be something to see.
When you really listen to her, Sarah makes so much sense that in retrospect I regret that the GOP didn’t take the gamble.
cane_loader on November 25, 2012 at 6:00 AM

If you personally want to lose in a landslide to Clinton, then I guess it is.
Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM

But that Paul Ryan, boy, there’s you a sure-fire landslide winner, baby!!!! He got the voters SO fired up for Mitt!!!

I am SICK and TIRED of our “electability experts”. They’ve given us two losers in a row. I don’t care if Sarah Palin is “electable” or “landslide beatable” or whatever. We’ve tried the electable route and it’s come up goose eggs. Palin at this point most closely reflects my own values. Period. And she’d have my enthusiastic support IF she were to choose to run.

ddrintn on November 25, 2012 at 7:19 PM

I can hardly believe that some people here are trying to promote Sarah Palin for 2016 and are doing it with a straight face. Sarah Palin would ensure a landslide victory for the Democrat candidate.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 6:52 PM

So what makes you such a f***ing expert on electability? You spent the past year pimping Mr Electability himself. Who, of course, lost.

ddrintn on November 25, 2012 at 7:22 PM

It’s time for the Bush’s to call it quits. I voted for G.W. but I will NOT vote for another. It’s disgusting really to think Jeb is even considering it. Ugh. Enough already.

TheAudacityofNOPE on November 25, 2012 at 7:24 PM

kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Since the 2008 election, I have not seen Sarah Palin sit for one challenging interview. I have waited and waited for some indication from her that she is able to discuss issues in anything more than a shallow and clichéd way. Although I enthusiastically supported her in 2008, her actions since then have made me less and less likely to want to see her on a national presidential ticket again.

Heck, I cringe every time I see her on Fox News Channel offering some almost worthless analysis. I didn’t want it to be this way. I would have loved to have supported someone with her views, and wish she could have been like our American Margaret Thatcher. But, alas, it wasn’t to be. And you can’t blame the media for all of it. Much of the blame falls on Sarah Palin herself. How can some of you be so blind to her glaringly obvious inadequacies? It is almost like some of you are so emotionally attached to the idea of a Sarah Palin candidacy that you pretend like she is something she isn’t, making excuses for her at every turn and treating her as though she were a child.

Liberal critics love to paint the Republican Party as the stupid party, and candidates like GW Bush and especially Palin make it all too easy for them.

Sarah Palin may be a fine person and right on many issues, but she is far from our brightest conservative light. Let’s aim a little higher than her, okay?

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 7:27 PM

‘Electable’ is just a codeword assigned to squish pubs. Somehow a conservative gives the GOP a heart attack, and they promptly try and tear the conservative apart.

tommy71 on November 25, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Since the 2008 election, I have not seen Sarah Palin sit for one challenging interview. I have waited and waited for some indication from her that she is able to discuss issues in anything more than a shallow and clichéd way.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 7:27 PM

The only thing Romney did in any interviews he did with the MSM was stick his foot in his mouth over global warming and ethanol subsidies and minimum wage indexing. And yet you pimped him as our electable savior.

ddrintn on November 25, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Liberal critics love to paint the Republican Party as the stupid party, and candidates like GW Bush and especially Palin make it all too easy for them.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 7:27 PM

No, what makes it easy is the spectacle of a bunch of squishes pushing some other milquetoast with “electability, baby!!!!!!!” Talk about stupid. You’re totally discredited.

ddrintn on November 25, 2012 at 7:34 PM

If Bush is nominated, I’m voting 3rd party, without a doubt.

so-notbuyingit on November 25, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Since the 2008 election, I have not seen Sarah Palin sit for one challenging interview. I have waited and waited for some indication from her that she is able to discuss issues in anything more than a shallow and clichéd way. Although I enthusiastically supported her in 2008, her actions since then have made me less and less likely to want to see her on a national presidential ticket again.

Why should she? She wasn’t running for anything. No seriously – for what good purpose should she SIT FOR THE FLUKING MEDIA?

Heck, I cringe every time I see her on Fox News Channel offering some almost worthless analysis. I didn’t want it to be this way. I would have loved to have supported someone with her views, and wish she could have been like our American Margaret Thatcher. But, alas, it wasn’t to be. And you can’t blame the media for all of it. Much of the blame falls on Sarah Palin herself. How can some of you be so blind to her glaringly obvious inadequacies? It is almost like some of you are so emotionally attached to the idea of a Sarah Palin candidacy that you pretend like she is something she isn’t, making excuses for her at every turn and treating her as though she were a child.

Funny. I don’t and neither do a lot of others. You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but please don’t try to present it as anything more than your opinion.

Yes, it was her fault that the media (the same media I should note that has been curiously incurious about Obama’s background and education) going through her garbage cans, emails, background, etc, etc, etc.

So forgive me if I don’t buy what the media has sold. It is truly sad that you do, which leads me to believe that there’s something else at play here with you.

We ALL should be furious when they come for one of ours.

Liberal critics love to paint the Republican Party as the stupid party, and candidates like GW Bush and especially Palin make it all too easy for them.

So let’s let them win by not fighting back and letting them set the narrative. Oh noes the libs and media will make fun of us!!!

The media thanks you for your compliance. You make their work all that much more easier. Like I said, did you like it when they took the boots to Romney. I hope you did because that’s what we get for leaving Palin to the wolves and not fighting.

It’s on your head and every other Vichy “republican”.

Sarah Palin may be a fine person and right on many issues, but she is far from our brightest conservative light. Let’s aim a little higher than her, okay?

Like who? Another overeducated stiff that will lose again? Yes, lets find another elite who will lose again while we cower in the corner as the media destroys them because we’ve conceded the meme.

Please. Just call yourself a progressive coward and get it over with. You certainly aren’t a conservative and barely a “moderate”.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 7:27 PM

kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 7:40 PM

For the 2016 candidate, show me a strong conservative governor like Jindal, Walker, McDonnell or Pence, and keep your gimmicky, unserious, unqualified candidates like Donald Trump and Sarah Palin far away from serious consideration.

I wish that some of you Sarah Palin fanatics would spend less time trying to trash anyone who doesn’t bow down and worship in the Sarah Palin cult of personality. We have vastly superior candidates than Palin, who received less votes in 2008 than our 2012 ticket did. It is time we look forward and consider fresh people.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Why should she? She wasn’t running for anything. No seriously – for what good purpose should she SIT FOR THE FLUKING MEDIA?

kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Well, I do remember it wasn’t so long ago that the ‘bot brigade was telling us that it was an ingenious masterstroke on Romney’s part for him to avoid the MSM and camp out on Fox for the past year.

ddrintn on November 25, 2012 at 7:51 PM

We have vastly superior candidates than Palin, who received less votes in 2008 than our 2012 ticket did.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Yeah, I guess that’s all you have to hang your hat on. Mr Electabililty got 60,000 votes more than the 2008 GOP Veep nominee. Pathetic.

ddrintn on November 25, 2012 at 7:53 PM

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Sarah Palin lives 24/7 in what passes for your mind.

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 7:53 PM

For the 2016 candidate, show me a strong conservative governor like Jindal, Walker, McDonnell or Pence, and keep your gimmicky, unserious, unqualified candidates like Donald Trump and Sarah Palin far away from serious consideration.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Well, we’ll just put it this way. If Sarah Palin runs, and those other guys do as well, we’ll see eventually who’s stronger, won’t we? That’s what scares you.

ddrintn on November 25, 2012 at 7:55 PM

For the 2016 candidate, show me a strong conservative governor like Jindal, Walker, McDonnell or Pence, and keep your gimmicky, unserious, unqualified candidates like Donald Trump and Sarah Palin far away from serious consideration.

I wish that some of you Sarah Palin fanatics would spend less time trying to trash anyone who doesn’t bow down and worship in the Sarah Palin cult of personality. We have vastly superior candidates than Palin, who received less votes in 2008 than our 2012 ticket did. It is time we look forward and consider fresh people.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Why do you do this to yourself – make yourself look silly?

1. Palin was a strong conservative governor. Please don’t embarrass yourself further by playing Talking Point 116 “The Quit of Palin”. We’ve beaten that dead horse into a wet spot.

2. She wasn’t the head of the ticket. McCain was. Should Ryan be automatically removed from any future run solely on the basis of being on the ticket with Romney. Of course not.

If you can find someone fresh AND a strong conservative, sure. I don’t see one yet. No more RINOs and no more BS about “electability”. It is abundantly clear that you “electability” whiners run at the first sound of media curb stomping.

kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 7:56 PM

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 7:46 PM

We don’t trash you bacause you trash Palin. We trash you because you are a moron … something you demonstrate daily at HA.

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Why should she? She wasn’t running for anything. No seriously – for what good purpose should she SIT FOR THE FLUKING MEDIA?

kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Well, I do remember it wasn’t so long ago that the ‘bot brigade was telling us that it was an ingenious masterstroke on Romney’s part for him to avoid the MSM and camp out on Fox for the past year.

ddrintn on November 25, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Well, yeah, that’s because it’s HER. You know, HER?

kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 7:59 PM

ddrintn on November 25, 2012 at 7:53 PM

I have a challenge for you. I hope you can meet it. Are you able to post a single comment here not attacking Mitt and not whining about Palin, but instead mentioning by name the candidates that you would like to see run in 2016. I know it is very early, but who do you like? I know you can answer. I believe in you. This one comment from you may be the beginning of a new ddrintn on HotAir. One additional rule is that you cannot mention “the establishment.”

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 8:01 PM

I hope Jeb Bush runs just so the Republican party is definitively crushed. It’s time for conservatives to think long-term and start sowing the seeds for a new, and true, opposition party. The Republican party failed us for the last time and it’s time to let them go. The Republicans will never get my vote again.

GMO on November 25, 2012 at 8:02 PM

For the 2016 candidate, show me a strong conservative governor like Jindal, Walker, McDonnell or Pence, and keep your gimmicky, unserious, unqualified candidates like Donald Trump and Sarah Palin far away from serious consideration.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Half the people you mentioned trashed your Golden Boy for making a very forthright statement that he made regarding Obama “buying votes.” Yesterday you suggested Nikki Haley and couldn’t even spell her name correctly.

One of my old high school teachers had a saying that fits you perfectly: “Proudly proclaiming your ignorance to the world.”

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 8:03 PM

OMGWTF NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

sbvft contributor on November 25, 2012 at 8:05 PM

If you can find someone fresh AND a strong conservative, sure. I don’t see one yet. No more RINOs and no more BS about “electability”. It is abundantly clear that you “electability” whiners run at the first sound of media curb stomping.
kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Now you people are just being silly. Of course electability matters. Now, you may disagree about who is the most electable or what makes someone more or less electable, but the suggestion that we should nominate someone just to make ourselves feel good even though we know they would likely lose is pure idiocy.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 8:05 PM

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 8:01 PM

See my comment above about your new heroes. I supported Mitt Romney after the primaries. I even made a contribution to his campaign; something I said I would never do. I think Ann Romney is a fine woman, was an assit to him during the campaign and is uf great support to him now. I despise your new friends who trashed Romney for speaking the truth about Obama “buying votes with goodies.”

Know who hasn’t climbed aboard the bandwagon ot those trashing Romney for his “buying votes” statement? The woman you hate so much.

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 8:13 PM

..ummmmm. Don’t dislike Jeb Bush (he’s a nice, amiable man) but this is not what I meant when I said the GOP should re-tool for 2016.

The War Planner on November 25, 2012 at 8:15 PM

assit = asset

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 8:15 PM

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 8:13 PM

I don’t have to agree with every comment a candidate makes it order to support them. For whatever reason, some potential 2016 candidates felt the need to make the criticisms of Romney that they did. That doesn’t mean that these people are dead to me.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM

If you can find someone fresh AND a strong conservative, sure. I don’t see one yet. No more RINOs and no more BS about “electability”. It is abundantly clear that you “electability” whiners run at the first sound of media curb stomping.
kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Now you people are just being silly. Of course electability matters. Now, you may disagree about who is the most electable or what makes someone more or less electable, but the suggestion that we should nominate someone just to make ourselves feel good even though we know they would likely lose is pure idiocy.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 8:05 PM

lulz. You, of all people, should not be lecturing anyone on electability. Romney lost. We’ve tried your way.

Besides, people were saying the same thing to you and your fellow travelers BEFORE the primary about Romney. They didn’t think he was electable and they turned out to be right. Personally, I didn’t care because I felt (and still do) that if we all stick together and fight then anyone is electable.

We’re not trying your way again. We’re not going to get snowed by who might be the most “electable” by cowards who hide under the bed when the going gets tough and cedes to the media.

kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 8:20 PM

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 8:13 PM

I don’t have to agree with every comment a candidate makes it order to support them. For whatever reason, some potential 2016 candidates felt the need to make the criticisms of Romney that they did. That doesn’t mean that these people are dead to me.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM

They should be. They showed their true colors and showed that they will do and say anything for positioning.

Most importantly, they showed that they’ve learned NOTHING from 2008 and 2012 with respect to the media.

kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 8:22 PM

I like Jeb Bush, but he missed multiple opportunities to stay active in politics. The Florida GOP all but begged him to run against Bill Nelson in 2006, and he probably could have won the nomination fairly easily in 2012. If he had chosen to do this, he’d have been a much stronger competitor against Bill Nelson than Katherine Harris or Connie Mack. God knows, we could have used that seat in the last 6 years and going forward. It also would have given him an opportunity to forge his own path nationally to be differentiated from his father and brother. Losing his first attempt at the Florida governor’s position while his brother went on to win in Texas (and later the Presidency) probably closed off Jeb’s option to become president.

Retreads haven’t worked well for us in recent electoral cycles, even when the candidates weren’t out of office that long. I think Jeb Bush should stay active in volunteer groups and policy debates. We need fresh blood in 2016, and we have a bumper crop of young, experienced, successful, innovative governors to pick from.

Jill1066 on November 25, 2012 at 8:34 PM

The GOP….
Let it Burn!

james23 on November 25, 2012 at 8:37 PM

I have a challenge for you. I hope you can meet it. … I know it is very early, but who do you like? I know you can answer. I believe in you. This one comment from you may be the beginning of a new ddrintn on HotAir. One additional rule is that you cannot mention “the establishment.”

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 8:01 PM

I’ve said many times before, anyone who wants to run should run. I’ve never called for anyone to sit out a primary. That’s what’s been so hilarious about you PDSers: if she’s so stupid and so likely to self-destruct, shouldn’t you be clamoring for her to get into the race?

ddrintn on November 25, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Now you people are just being silly. Of course electability matters.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Give us another sure-fire electable winner!!!! Yeah!!!!!!!

ddrintn on November 25, 2012 at 9:36 PM

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 8:13 PM

I don’t have to agree with every comment a candidate makes it order to support them. For whatever reasonTo gain media approval, some potential 2016 candidates felt the need to make the criticisms of Romney that they did. That doesn’t mean that these people are dead to me.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM

According to some top Romney advisors, Two of the biggest critics (Gingrich and Jindal) were pushing for cabinet appointments the week before the election.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237651/Romney-aides-blast-hypocrites-asked-cabinet-jobs-just-election-trashing-him.html#ixzz2DFtDLu7X

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Reagan had charm, which is what every candidate has lacked except Dubya. I know he became the most hated man in America, but he had a degree of likability and charm.

Clinton had it and still does. I bet if I met him, even though I hate his guts, I’d walk away thinking he liked me. (Sure, it could also be the rufies.)

You most definitely got the sense that Reagan liked you. And there’s no amount of policy that makes up for that.

Yes we need a real conservative, but we need a real conservative who is likable, who doesn’t get easily flustered, who responds firmly when he needs to but can go right back to being charming. And it needs to be a genuine part of his character.

I see no one for 2016 who fits this description. Yet.

Gun to my head, if I had to choose someone, even though I don’t know how likable she is, I’d go with… Nikki Haley. There I said it.

gatsbysgirlontheside on November 25, 2012 at 10:03 PM

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

manwithblackhat on November 25, 2012 at 10:22 PM

But that Paul Ryan, boy, there’s you a sure-fire landslide winner, baby!!!! He got the voters SO fired up for Mitt!!!

I am SICK and TIRED of our “electability experts”. They’ve given us two losers in a row. I don’t care if Sarah Palin is “electable” or “landslide beatable” or whatever. We’ve tried the electable route and it’s come up goose eggs. Palin at this point most closely reflects my own values. Period. And she’d have my enthusiastic support IF she were to choose to run.

ddrintn on November 25, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Umm.. like all the votes that Palin won for McCain. Palin was a net negative. There were people who actively voted against her. Ryan did a cleaner job as the VP nominee. He didn’t win Romney any votes, but he didn’t lose Romney any votes. He also kept the conservative “elite” on board in September before the Red Debate and really made it possible for Romney to win the debate and vault into October. However, Ryan was more a governing pick. Romney really liked Ryan and was intrigued with what he would do as VP. Romney realized that he’d have to work closely with the VP nominee for at least four years so he might as well treat it like a job interview. It’s clear that Ryan did the best in the “interview,” which is why he got the nomination.

As for the future, it wouldn’t shock me if Rubio wins the nomination. The Bushes would be stupid not to push him. There’s a lot better chance that he becomes President than Jeb Bush. However, like AP, I’m interested by what Ryan comes up with in terms of his policies. The whole Ryan on poverty and education reform is a pretty intriguing turn. I’m not sure why the GOP doesn’t encourage Ryan to just spend the next four years in a room with a dry erase board and some markers and see what he comes up with. I don’t feel the same way about Palin as I do about Ryan. Palin was screwed over by the McCain campaign, but she chose to react poorly to the situation. The best thing for Palin to do was stick it out and be an effective governor. This would have shown her critics she wasn’t stupid. She could have generated a whole platform around populist Republicanism, similar to Pawlentry’s Sam’s Club pitch. However, her quitting suggested that her critics were right and that she wasn’t serious. Unlike Ryan, I couldn’t see her spending four years in a room and coming up with intriguing policies.

Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Or, to put it another way:

We need new leaders, new candidates. No RINOs, no retreads. no legacy nominees, no recycled losers.

SurferDoc on November 25, 2012 at 12:43 PM

manwithblackhat on November 25, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Romney, ran away from the Ryan plan, like a scalded dog, there was no follow through; they couldn’t settle on an argument after NFIB vs.Sibelius, didn’t make an argument about the ethical shortcomings of Obamacare, couldn’t really challenge the Auto Task Force’s policies, was conflicted about the Egyptian revolution to put it mildly,

narciso on November 25, 2012 at 10:39 PM

The best thing for Palin to do was stick it out and be an effective governor. This would have shown her critics she wasn’t stupid. She could have generated a whole platform around populist Republicanism, similar to Pawlentry’s Sam’s Club pitch. However, her quitting suggested that her critics were right and that she wasn’t serious.

Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 10:23 PM

This just tells anyone that is reading that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Talking point 116: The last refuge of the person with no argument.

What is it with the lazy, stupid, illogical arguments? Instead of behaving like liberals and telling us what your feelings are making you say/do, why don’t any of you come up with any FACTS, like what she has specifically DONE or HER POLICIES OR ACTIONS.

Oh, that’s right. No one has any actual actions or policies. Just feelings and opinions.

The media thanks you for your compliance. We expect your compliance when we curb stomp your next candidate. Thank you in advance.

kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Tpaw, who couldn’t raise any objection about the IPAB, or the attempt to shut down debate after Tucson, who couldn’t explain the meaning of his ‘Sam’s Club Conservatism’ that tpaw,

narciso on November 25, 2012 at 10:44 PM

One forgets what the ’94 gubernatorial campaign against Lawton Chiles, it was as savage as the current campaign, in 2012 where they through ‘everything including the kitchen sink’ at Jeb,

narciso on November 25, 2012 at 10:49 PM

This just tells anyone that is reading that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Talking point 116: The last refuge of the person with no argument.

What is it with the lazy, stupid, illogical arguments? Instead of behaving like liberals and telling us what your feelings are making you say/do, why don’t any of you come up with any FACTS, like what she has specifically DONE or HER POLICIES OR ACTIONS.

I haven’t actually seen her develop policies out of government. Why she didn’t follow through on something like the renewable energy policy in Alaska is ridiculous? It would have been a good policy for her to discuss and would have made an interesting contrast to Solyndra. The best way for Palin to combat the narrative on her would be to become a policy wonk and work on certain issues. With Ryan, I mentioned that him going into a room and thinking of things for the next four years. Ryan’s whole Jack Kemp “compassionate conservative” turn and his new focus on poverty in America is sort of intriguing. It will be interesting what he has to say in his policy off with Rubio in December.

Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 11:03 PM

One forgets what the ’94 gubernatorial campaign against Lawton Chiles, it was as savage as the current campaign, in 2012 where they through ‘everything including the kitchen sink’ at Jeb,

narciso on November 25, 2012 at 10:49 PM

What did they call him? An elitist? A country club Republican? An advocate of amnesty and open borders? Nasty stuff like that?

By the way, he lost that race.

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Umm.. like all the votes that Palin won for McCain. Palin was a net negative…

Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Do you have a link. Everything I’ve read says the opposite.

Palin brought base excitement to Mcain that he would not have had otherwise. And who ,in thier right mind, thinks Mcain had a shot with indies in 2008? You think Mcain could have been competitive in getting the wishy washy center ,in 2008, if he had he picked a different VP? Do you remember 2008? YOu really think Obama the guilt reliever, light bringer, planet healer could have lost the independents in 2008? After Mcain suspended his campaign as a stunt that looked like a …stunt? You really think Mcain was going to win those independents with a different VP??!?!?!? Really? seriously??? really??

BoxHead1 on November 25, 2012 at 11:14 PM

ANY Bush 2016 = Democrat president!

p51d007 on November 25, 2012 at 11:23 PM

The best thing for Palin to do was stick it out and be an effective governor. This would have shown her critics she wasn’t stupid. She could have generated a whole platform around populist Republicanism, similar to Pawlentry’s Sam’s Club pitch. However, her quitting suggested that her critics were right and that she wasn’t serious.
Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Agree 100%.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Here’s one of the green blogs praising Alaska for it’s green energy policies. It gives all the praise to Sean Parnell and asks, “What would Sarah Palin say?” It ignores the fact that Palin was the one who initiated the state’s renewable policy and that Parnell was Palin’s Lt. Gov.

So many one-sided articles attack Palin and other Republicans but affect the opinion of “low information voters” like bluegill.

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Palin was a net negative.
Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Complete revisionist bullsh*t. Back it up.

McCain shot up in the polls when he chose her. Her convention speech was a consensus smash. Her appearances drew tens of thousands. It was McCain who killed their momentum when he took the brilliant advise of his crack team of insiders (led by Steve Schmidt, the vicious bungler whose jealousy of Palin fueled him well past the election into his slander job in “Game Change”) and suspended his campaign. Despite being isolated and undercut by these insects, Palin kept them all in the game with her rousing 11th hour attacks on Obama.

rrpjr on November 25, 2012 at 11:30 PM

However, her quitting suggested that her critics were right and that she wasn’t serious.

Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Did you ever have $500k (and climbing) in personal legal bills and a $125k salary (having rejected a $25k increase because you froze the salaries of state employees)?

Boy, the harpies are out in force tonight!

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 11:31 PM

I have a challenge for you. I hope you can meet it. … I know it is very early, but who do you like? I know you can answer. I believe in you. This one comment from you may be the beginning of a new ddrintn on HotAir. One additional rule is that you cannot mention “the establishment.”
bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 8:01 PM

I’ve said many times before, anyone who wants to run should run. I’ve never called for anyone to sit out a primary. That’s what’s been so hilarious about you PDSers: if she’s so stupid and so likely to self-destruct, shouldn’t you be clamoring for her to get into the race?
ddrintn on November 25, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Very sneaky of you. You cut out the part where I said you had to name names and tell us who you liked for 2016.

I have a challenge for you. I hope you can meet it. Are you able to post a single comment here not attacking Mitt and not whining about Palin, but instead mentioning by name the candidates that you would like to see run in 2016. I know it is very early, but who do you like? I know you can answer. I believe in you. This one comment from you may be the beginning of a new ddrintn on HotAir. One additional rule is that you cannot mention “the establishment.”
bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 8:01 PM

All you ever do is badmouth every candidate not named Palin and whine about people who don’t worship Palin. The challenge for you was to name who you liked for 2016, even though it is still early. Come on, you can do it. Or can you? How about this. I’ll make it easier for you: why don’t you tell us who you dislike least for 2016. I think I was being a little too hopeful earlier in believing that you could leave your disgruntled Palinista ways so quickly. I guess it will have to happen in baby steps.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 11:33 PM

This just tells anyone that is reading that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Talking point 116: The last refuge of the person with no argument.

What is it with the lazy, stupid, illogical arguments? Instead of behaving like liberals and telling us what your feelings are making you say/do, why don’t any of you come up with any FACTS, like what she has specifically DONE or HER POLICIES OR ACTIONS.

I haven’t actually seen her develop policies out of government. Why she didn’t follow through on something like the renewable energy policy in Alaska is ridiculous? It would have been a good policy for her to discuss and would have made an interesting contrast to Solyndra. The best way for Palin to combat the narrative on her would be to become a policy wonk and work on certain issues. With Ryan, I mentioned that him going into a room and thinking of things for the next four years. Ryan’s whole Jack Kemp “compassionate conservative” turn and his new focus on poverty in America is sort of intriguing. It will be interesting what he has to say in his policy off with Rubio in December.

Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 11:03 PM

So in other words you have no idea what she did in Alaska and what her policies and successes/failures as a governor were.

Don’t forget as well that she managed to be elected for city council and also mayor of Wasilla. So she has won elections, more than Romney has, might I add.

That’s okay. You’ve bought into the media narrative instead of hitting google and finding out for yourself.

kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 11:33 PM

The best thing for Palin to do was stick it out and be an effective governor. This would have shown her critics she wasn’t stupid. She could have generated a whole platform around populist Republicanism, similar to Pawlentry’s Sam’s Club pitch. However, her quitting suggested that her critics were right and that she wasn’t serious.
Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Agree 100%.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Hee hee hee.

kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 11:34 PM

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 11:31 PM

none of that is relevant. her quitting is a big negative if she ever runs for an elected office again. regardless of any explanation. anyone who thinks otherwise is way too deep in the palin cult to reason with.

chasdal on November 25, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Tpaw, who couldn’t raise any objection about the IPAB, or the attempt to shut down debate after Tucson, who couldn’t explain the meaning of his ‘Sam’s Club Conservatism’ that tpaw,

narciso on November 25, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Perhaps TPaw was just a lousy candidate? He quit after the Iowa straw poll before he learned about Christie, Ryan, Palin, etc. not entering and the whole weird fall where we took Herman Cain seriously. There is no reason why a Sarah Palin couldn’t have better articulated that claim in 2012. Both Ryan and Rubio will be playing in that place in 2016 and both have legit credibility to play there. Palin could have been that sort of candidate in 2012 but chose not to be. It was an ugly thing that the McCain team did to Palin; they were looking at her as a last ditch election effort, not a legit politician. McCain has a really retrograde attitude toward the VP position which is why he didn’t take it when offered twice. Romney obviously didn’t and took an approach of person I’d like to spend four years governing with. That’s why I have to respect Romney more than McCain.

However, Palin was a woman in her mid-40s and perhaps she should have said “no” to the whole proposition. So we can feel bad for Palin up to a point, but it was a buyer beware/ learning experience. Women in their mid-40s who have great executive powers and want to be President have to learn to bounce back from such a situation. Palin did quite a bit to repair her image with her interviews after the election.. as in right after. Why not continue doing that in Alaska? It was ugly was Steve Schmidt did to her, but here is someone who wants to be in charge of the U.S. nuclear codes. She’d have to deal with Al Qaeda and Iran and she is sulking because the Republican establishment was mean to her.

One forgets what the ’94 gubernatorial campaign against Lawton Chiles, it was as savage as the current campaign, in 2012 where they through ‘everything including the kitchen sink’ at Jeb,

narciso on November 25, 2012 at 10:49 PM

It’s very clear Jeb was being groomed for the Presidency in the Bush family, not Dubya. However, the whole Jeb running for President in 2000 only worked if Jeb became Governor in 1994. He didn’t. I’m sorry. Game over. And I’d like to point out that Senior Bush was thought of well enough in 1994 that two of his sons could run credible campaigns for governor… Just saying. We can thank Karl Rove for the glorious Bush Second Term.

Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 11:37 PM

kim roy on November 25, 2012 at 11:33 PM

i know she did this which is about as far from conservative ideals as you can get.

chasdal on November 25, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Palin was a net negative.

Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 10:23 PM

According to Rasmussen’s daily polling, the ONLY time John McCain led Barack Obama was from the time he named Palin to the ticket until the genius suspended his campaign because of TARP. Prior to naming Palin to the ticket, Meghan McCain outweighed many of John McCain’s audiences.

Sarah Palin accomplishes more in most weeks than some women accomplish in their entire lives … and it eats them alive.

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 11:39 PM

According to Rasmussen’s daily polling, the ONLY time John McCain led Barack Obama was from the time he named Palin to the ticket until the genius suspended his campaign because of TARP.
bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Yes, but don’t forget how dramatically Palin’s favorable numbers plummeted the more people saw and heard of her. Yes, she was treated very unfairly in the media, but she didn’t do herself a whole lot of good either during those disastrous network TV interviews. Palin was extremely popular when people knew little about her. Unfortunately, she couldn’t deliver the substance and live up to the hype. But, boy, could she read a speech at the convention. That she did very well, and I give a lot of credit to the speechwriter.

I just don’t think she was ready.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 11:46 PM

chasdal on November 25, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Read the Alaska State Constitution (Artivle VII) and you’ll have a better understanding of why Palin acted as she did.

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 11:47 PM

And something else that really bothered me was that Palin, as the face of the Republican Party and as the representative for conservatives, reinforced the favorite liberal notion that conservatives are dumb.

It’s not fun having a nominee that you have to constantly make excuses for.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Do you have a link. Everything I’ve read says the opposite.

Palin brought base excitement to Mcain that he would not have had otherwise. And who ,in thier right mind, thinks Mcain had a shot with indies in 2008? You think Mcain could have been competitive in getting the wishy washy center ,in 2008, if he had he picked a different VP? Do you remember 2008? YOu really think Obama the guilt reliever, light bringer, planet healer could have lost the independents in 2008? After Mcain suspended his campaign as a stunt that looked like a …stunt? You really think Mcain was going to win those independents with a different VP??!?!?!? Really? seriously??? really??

BoxHead1 on November 25, 2012 at 11:14 PM

1. After the stock market tanked and the whole financial system collapsed, there was no way in hell that McCain was going to win.
2. In a D+6 electorate, one better win indies big. There are just more leeches on society rather than Republicans. The Rs better make plans to win indies 10+ or 15+ in the future if the Obama leeches turn out.
3. Palin wasn’t ready for prime time and that hurt her big time. She wasn’t prepped or groomed for the spotlight and someone like a Steve Schmidt didn’t think to put her on Meet the Press because that would suggest that she was a serious VP candidate and they wanted to keep it secret. Something like that would have really helped Palin get ready for the big time, but that wasn’t offered. I think that the Romney campaign ultimately didn’t pick Rubio because he similarly wasn’t ready for prime time despite being on the Sunday shows. Which actually helped Rubio. I think that Rubio would have given a gorgeous speech at the convention, but the Biden debate would have really screwed him over. Rubio has four years to prep thanks to Romney and get over stupid answers like the age of the Earth one.

Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 11:51 PM

With Ryan, I mentioned that him going into a room and thinking of things for the next four years. Ryan’s whole Jack Kemp “compassionate conservative” turn and his new focus on poverty in America is sort of intriguing. It will be interesting what he has to say in his policy off with Rubio in December.

Illinidiva on November 25, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Ryan voted for and supported massively increased government spending and that is who you admire. You prefer cheap talk to real action.

You dismiss Palin of course…

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/07/who-is-the-real-sarah-palin

Palin cut state spending between 2007 and 2010 by 9.5% while also reducing federal earmark requests by more than 80% during her tenure. She used her line-item veto to cut more than a quarter billion in superfluous spending in both 2007 and 2008. In 2009, she instituted a temporary hiring freeze, while at the same time reducing spending by more than 33% between FY2009 and FY2010.

Why would Ryan’s thinking be of any interest to someone who wants government reduced in size? His ‘thinking’ led him to support the government gravy train, so it doesn’t strike me as anything of value.

sharrukin on November 25, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Man, I love how Palin can still get in people’s heads. You all just can’t get over her, can you?

GMO on November 25, 2012 at 11:55 PM

I just don’t think she was ready.

bluegill on November 25, 2012 at 11:46 PM

I honestly believe there were people within the McCain campaign (Schmidt and the Wallaces come immediately to mind) that set out to sabotage the campaign – not just Palin but the entire campaign.

Nicolle Wallace ordered the $125k wardrobe and Palin took the hit for it. Wallace was the one that set up the four hour meeting-interview with her friend, Katie Couric. Why would you set up a four hour interview with someone you know is supporting your opponent? As the result of the election became obvious (mid-October), the first objective of Schmidt and the Wallaces was to build on their relationship with the liberal media so they would have plenty of friends and well-paying gigs after the 2008 election.

Romney and Ryan learned from this and did a minimal amount of taped interviews. While many of the Romney campaign team were incompetent hacks, I don’t see any evidence of betrayal.

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 11:57 PM

bw222 on November 25, 2012 at 11:47 PM

not needed, it was a populist redistributionist policy. someone who claims to be a conservative has no business pushing for it.

chasdal on November 25, 2012 at 11:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7