Sarah Palin’s husband, the former First Gentleman of Alaska, has endorsed Newt Gingrich for President. Here’s the piece by ABC News:
Sarah Palin’s husband is endorsing Newt Gingrich for president, Todd Palin told ABC News today.
But Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and John McCain’s 2008 Republican running mate, has yet to decide “who is best able to go up against Barack Obama,” Todd Palin said. Palin said he has not spoken to Gingrich or anyone from the former House speaker’s campaign. But he said he respects Gingrich for what he went through in the 1990s and compared that scrutiny in public life to what Sarah Palin went through during her run for the vice presidency.
Todd Palin said he believes that being in the political trenches and experiencing the highs and lows helps prepare a candidate for the future and the job of president.
He did not criticize any of the other candidates and said his “hat is off to everyone” in the Republican race.
But Todd Palin did point to last summer, when a large portion of Gingrich’s staff resigned and the candidate was left, largely by himself, to run the campaign. Gingrich’s ability to overcome the obstacle and still move up in the polls showed his ability to campaign and survive, according to Todd Palin, who said Gingrich is not one of the typical “beltway types” and that his campaign has “burst out of the political arena and touched many Americans.”
I’m unsure if this helps, hurts, or does nothing at all – but interesting nonetheless.
Remember last week when we were puzzled at why Bob Vander Plaats would endorse Rick Santorum; the candidate who seemed to make the least sense? Well, here is a possible explanation uncovered by ABCNews:
DAVENPORT, Iowa — An Iowa Christian conservative leader who bestowed his highly sought-after endorsement on presidential candidate Rick Santorum this week is now at the center of a controversy over whether he asked for cash in exchange for his public support.
Less than 48-hours after receiving the backing of Bob Vander Plaats, the head of the prominent evangelical group The Family Leader, Santorum disclosed that the prominent Iowan told him he needed money to make the most out of the endorsement.
And sources familiar with talks between the conservative heavyweight and representatives from several of the Republican presidential campaigns went a step further, describing Vander Plaats’ tactics as corrupt.
“Clearly the endorsement was for sale — without a doubt,” one source said.
Essentially the pitch that BVP apparently made to the various campaigns was in order to play his endorsement as big as possible, he was going to need some money to finance it.
BVP’s group is denying it, of course, but even Santorum admits that money was discussed in their endorsement negotiations.
I will end this post with the same comment I made at the close of my previous post on the subject:
Didn’t Sarah Palin refuse to endorse Vander Plaats last year for governor and supported Terry Branstad instead? (So did Mitt as I recall.) I’m beginning to see why.
Suppose for a moment that you are a self-styled leader of the Iowan evangelical-SoCons. You see your niche fractured between three candidates, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum. You want to defeat Romney, Gingrich, and Paul. The way to do that is obviously to coalesce your forces around one of the three candidates.
Well, if you are Bob Vander Plaats, you go with #3. Not being content with doing that, you also call Michele Bachmann on the phone and try to convince her to drop out in favor of the man she has always lead in the polls.
DES MOINES – Iowa evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats called Michele Bachmann and urged her to drop out of the race and endorse Rick Santorum, a source with knowledge of the conversation told POLITICO Tuesday.
The phone call took place Saturday, three days before Vander Plaats announced he – but not his organization, the Family Leader – was backing Santorum.
Bachmann declined, the source said, noting to Vander Plaats that she has consistently polled ahead of Santorum in the race and still does.
Didn’t Sarah Palin refuse to endorse Vander Plaats last year for governor and supported Terry Branstad instead? (So did Mitt as I recall.) I’m beginning to see why.
Also, Gov. Palin encourages Mitt Romney and other candidates to reach out to the Tea Party:
Sarah Palin told Fox Business Network today that she will not be endorsing a candidate in the next few weeks.
“Not before Iowa,” Palin said, in an interview set to air at 10 p.m. EST on FBN. “And Iowa’s not the end of the road. It’s the beginning of the road really. Newt Gingrich, I believe, has risen in the polls because he has been a bit more successful than Romney in reaching out to that base of constitutional conservatives who are part of the tea party movement. He hasn’t been afraid of that movement. He has been engaged in that movement most recently in order for them to hear his solutions and there’s been some forgiveness then on the part of Tea Party Patriots for some of the things in Gingrich’s past.”
“Romney and others need to reach out and convince Tea Party Patriots and constitutional conservatives that he truly believes in smaller, smarter government,” she added.
Full story at NRO.
Palin on Fox News last night, from The Hill:
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin praised GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum on Fox News Thursday night.
“If voters start kind of shifting gears and decided they want ideological consistency then they’re going to start paying attention to say, Rick Santorum,” Palin said in an interview with Sean Hannity.
She went on to commend his consistency on being a “hardliner against Iran to help protect Israel,” as well as sticking to his pro-life beliefs and his mantra to cut income tax.
Hannity repeatedly asked about Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, the current front-runners of the Republican slate, but Palin said that the other GOP contenders are still very much in the race, specifically pointing to Santorum. She predicted that over the next few weeks, “people will start paying attention to some of these other messages from some of the other messengers like Rick Santorum.”
This morning, the rumor mill began working in overdrive when this listing appeared on FoxNews.com:
The wording at the end of that tease — “Palin reveals her 2012 pick On The Record” — led many to believe Palin will be endorsing a GOP candidate tonight. Others said that she was merely answering the other question in the tease: which Republican candidate has the best chance of beating Barack Obama? And still others said the answer to the two questions were one and the same.
Then this afternoon, Greta Van Susteren revealed on her own website that Donald Trump would also be a guest on tonight’s program — and she teased the show with just one simple question: “Who does Donald support for President?”
So tonight, on On The Record at 10:00 eastern, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump may or may not be endorsing somebody for the GOP nomination. My guess? Since we hadn’t heard anything about this until today, there will not end up being any endorsements offered. Plus, I can’t see either one of these celebrities announcing as big a decision as this during a 10pm time slot. This is most likely just a great way for FOX to get some publicity and get some more viewers tonight. But, I could be wrong. In this wacky primary season, crazier things have happened.
Who do they endorse tonight, if anyone? And the next question, then, is this: what are Palin and Trump’s endorsements worth?
Via Hot Air. The rumor was floated by Lee Davis during his appearance on Dr. Gina Loudon’s talk radio program today. Most of the juiciest information can be found in the second of the three audio files from Loudon’s show. In sum, the sentiment inside Palin World is that Mitt Romney is going to sail to the nomination, similar to Richard Nixon in 1968. The collapse of Perry and now Cain has left Palin World believing that the former Alaska governor could leap into the race and consolidate the RomNot vote just in time for the voting to begin in January. As such, says Davis, Palin’s inner circle has begun trying to determine whether a run is still possible given that the filing deadlines for many of the most important primary states have already passed.
Whether or not there is a single shred of truth behind this rumor I do not know. What I do suspect, though, is that we’re going to continue to hear rumors like this one throughout the next 8 or 9 months, as even when the GOP nomination is all sewn up, the spectre of a third party candidate, such as Donald Trump, will continue to loom over the Republican field. What rumors like this result from is widespread dissatisfaction with the nation’s choices for president, and the popular sentiment that especially unsettling times like these require a larger-than-life figure to emerge to lead the nation.
Echoing Sarah Palin’s facebook commentary the other day, Mitt Romney goes after the Obama’s record on “green jobs”, and the blatant crony capitalism it has bred (emphasis added):
First, the good news: President Barack Obama has finally created some “green jobs.” Now for the bad news: They are not in the United States, but in Finland.
The creation of environmentally friendly jobs has been at the top of Barack Obama’s policy agenda since coming into office. With the first of his now many jobs plans, the President set out to fulfill his campaign promise of spending $150 billion to create ten million green jobs. Alas, things didn’t quite worked out as planned.
First came Solyndra, the solar-panel maker backed by a major Obama campaign-funds bundler, which President Obama hailed as a “true engine of economic growth.” It turned out to be a true engine of bankruptcy. Even as the administration trumpeted its accomplishments, the firm was careening toward insolvency. Taxpayers were left holding a $500 million bill, and the firm was left facing an FBI investigation. Nonetheless, at least one Solyndra-linked fundraiser is helping to organize Tuesday’s presidential cash call in San Francisco.
Now we may be in for more of the same. The Obama administration has shoveled $1 billion out the door to two California-based electric car manufacturers. Fisker Automotive got a $529 million loan from the Department of Energy; Tesla got $465 million. President Obama has hailed such subsidies as a “historic opportunity to ensure that the next generation of fuel-efficient cars and trucks are made in America.”
Sarah Palin has released another Facebook editorial. Her target this time was Crony Capitalism. Entitled “American Crony Capitalism Brings Jobs to Finland”, she takes dead aim at the Obama administration’s poor record in that regard.
Yesterday, another shoe dropped in the chronicles of the Obama administration’s crony capitalism. A start-up electric car company with ties to Al Gore got a $529 million loan guarantee from Obama’s Department of Energy to build luxury electric cars…in Finland! Leaving aside the fact that to date only two of these $97,000 cars have been sold (one of them to a movie star), we might at least hope that this ridiculous exercise in the government picking winners minus any competitive, transparent process (Al Gore’s venture cap firm) and losers (the taxpayers subsidizing a car no one wants) would produce manufacturing jobs in the United States. Isn’t that the alleged purpose of Obama’s stimulus giveaways?
It’s bad enough that we borrow money from foreign countries to give to foreign countries. Now we borrow from foreign countries to finance jobs in foreign countries. (This kind of reminds me of the $2 billion assistance President Obama provided Brazil for their off-shore energy developments, while shutting down or blocking much of our own off-shore domestic drilling. He’s in favor of energy jobs in Brazil. But in America? Not so much.)
It’s a subject that is dear to her heart. It was, after all, the issue that got her elected Governor of Alaska.
A month ago, she went after Rick Perry for the same thing.
Sarah Palin took a hard swipe against her friend Rick Perry in a post-debate TV appearance, calling him out by name for “crony capitalism” for his effort to mandate an HPV vaccine for girls in Texas.
Asked by Greta Van Susteren about someone in Perry’s office going to work for a drug company that made the vaccine, Palin sought to put a finer point on it: “That someone, as Michele Bachmann pointed out, was Governor Perry’s former chief of staff.”
She went on: “That’s crony capitalism. That’s part of the problem that we have in this country is that people are afraid, even in our own party, to call one another out on that. True reform and fighting the corruption and fighting the crony capitalism is a tough thing to do within your own party. You have to go up against the big guns and they will try to destroy you when you call them out on the mistakes that they have made. Believe me, I know that, I have the bumps and bruises to prove it because that’s what I have been doing for the last 20 years … calling out the corruption in government. Michele Bachmann tried to make that point tonight and she’s going to get potentially crucified.”
Van Susteren asked another question, but Palin wasn’t done: “Let me go back to that issue with Governor Perry,” she said. She pointed out that at the time Perry was boosting the vaccine in Texas, she was opposing it in Alaska, and she thought Perry’s order was strange “because it just didn’t sound like Governor Perry,” who she thought was against big government.
“I knew even at that time something was up with that issue. And now we’re finding out, yeah, something was up with that issue,” she said.
From the Christian Scientist Monitor (emphasis added):
Watching Rick Perry’s debate performance Tuesday night, [the author] (along with many observers in the press) was struck by how itching-to-get-out-of-there uncomfortable he looked. It was like watching someone’s half-hearted attempt to engage in polite conversation at a dinner party he was only attending as a favor to his wife.
Which has led us today to this fundamental question: Does Rick Perry really want to be president? Or, more specifically, might the Texas governor regret his decision to jump into the race?
Tellingly, when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie offered up his reasons for passing on a White House run, he said he’d tried to imagine himself in a hotel room in Des Moines “and it’s 5:30 in the morning and it’s 15 below, and it’s time for me to get up and go shake hands at the meatpacking plant.”
His point? To subject yourself to the true grind of a presidential campaign – with the loss of privacy, the discipline of having to be always on message, the tedium of giving the same speech over and over, and the out-and-out hard work required behind the scenes - you have to really, really want it.
And almost by definition, a candidate who jumps in only after some arm twisting by supporters – as Perry did and Christie did not – probably doesn’t want it that bad.
Last time around, we had Fred Thompson. There was a great clamor for him to get in the race, too, but anyone watching real close could see that his heart just wasn’t in it. So when he finally did jump in, his campaign just slowly withered on the vine.
Perry simply was not ready. Everyone convinced him that all he had to do was show up, swagger a bit, talk real big, sling a few half-truths about Mitt Romney, and the nomination was his. He was in no way ready. And it has blown up in his face. Now he’s stuck with sinking polls, $15 millions in the bank, and seemingly hating every minute of it. Now what?
We’ve had a number of candidates this time around whose supporters did everything they could to convince them to join the race, but were wise enough to know that it wasn’t for them. First, there was Mike Huckabee. He was leading the polls when he let it be known that he was not running this time. Mitch Daniels was another. And let’s not forget Haley Barbour and Jim DeMint. Both of them had supporters begging them to run. Even Jeb Bush got some action.
In a bit of news that is sure to warm the cockles of MWS’s* heart, the word is out that Jon Huntsman has won a poll. His total more than doubles Mitt Romney score, who came in second. In fact, his score was better than the next five people combined. That is quite the decisive victory for the former Utah Governor.:
Which ONE of the following people do you think is most qualified to be president?
- Jon Huntsman — 49
- Mitt Romney — 22
- Rudy Giuliani — 10
- Ron Paul — 9
- Chris Christie — 3
- Newt Gingrich — 3
- Herman Cain — 2
- Sarah Palin — 1
- Rick Perry — 1
- Rick Santorum — 0
- Michele Bachmann — 0
Where did Huntsman make his breakthrough? It was in the straw poll taken during the “Take Back the American Dream Conference 2011″ put on by the Democracy Corps/The Campaign for America’s Future people this week.
After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.
My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.
From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.
I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs.
Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation.
In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.
Thank you again for all your support. Let’s unite to restore this country!
God bless America.
– Sarah Palin
ABC News has the story:
According to a source with knowledge of the inner workings of SarahPAC, inside the Palin world it’s still a possibility that she might run. However, as the deadline approaches not even her staff knows what she will decide.
ABC News has separately learned that the Palin team is well aware of the filing deadlines and are keeping abreast of the changes in the deadline. Politico reported Tuesday that a law firm that employs an attorney representing SarahPAC had been making calls to early states inquiring about presidential filing deadlines. SarahPAC would not confirm the report to ABC News. When reached by ABC News, Mark Braden—the attorney mentioned in the Politico report—would also not comment or confirm the report or that he even works with Palin.
Be sure to read the whole thing.
A guest editorial on C4P by Nancy Labonete:
A Third Party Run By Sarah Palin May Not Be Far-Fetched
In a blog post “Which Title Doesn’t Gov. Palin Need?” C4P’s Adrienne Ross questioned whether the title Sarah Palin was referring to was that of “President” or simply the “GOP nominee.” She then presented an interesting theory that perhaps the governor was considering a third party run? Ms. Ross’ article created as much of commenters’ reactions as the governor’s remarks. Given her prominent role in politics, her public writings on national policies heavy on details, quick missives on pertinent issues on the social media, her high-profile bus tours and speeches, a much prolonged decision-making process on whether she’d run or not may seem like a sign of hesitancy. But the possibility of an independent run does make sense and to delay the anouncement of her candidacy may simply be part of a bigger plan. Sarah Palin promised this to be a very unconventional election cycle.
Creating a third party fits that narrative.
To what end? Personally, I have too much respect for Sarah to think that she would do this. She would have to know that any third party run by her would siphon votes from the Republican nominee which would guarantee a shoe-in by Obama next year. Does she spite the Republican Party that much? I highly doubt it.
I suspect that this is a Palin supporter who is focusing more upon what they are fantasizing and wanting and less upon what Sarah really wants. Sarah Palin is her own woman, just as Chris Christie is his own man. She is not going to be buffaloed into running a race that she doesn’t want to run. If she doesn’t think she should run, she will not run.
A quick scan through the comments over at C4P shows a rough ratio of three-to-one against. Even the majority of C4Pers recognize the folly in this. Good for them.
I am normally don’t pay that much attention to Intrade. It’s interesting to be sure, but it’s barely a notch above a straw poll in my book. Nevertheless, “WOW, just Wow!”
Romney shot above 50% this morning on the news that Christie is staying out, and he is heading for 60%. As of right now here are the numbers:
- Romney: 57.9
- Perry: 20.1
- Cain: 5.9
- Palin: 3.9
- Huntsman: 3.9
- Paul: 2.4
Everybody else is down in the noise below 1.5%.
As always, take this with a grain of salt. There is still a lot of time between now and the first caucuses and primaries.
At the beginning of the month Texas Gov. Rick Perry seemed to be picking up unstoppable momentum on his way to the top of the GOP field. But after 3 poor debate performances, serious questions over the his previous positions, and charges of crony capitalism have stalled Perry’s rise. In some states, the governor has even seen a drop in his support, a fact best symbolized by his stunning loss in the Florida P5 straw poll. Despite his rocky month, Gov. Perry is still on pace for a solid first quarter of fundraising and enjoys considerable strengths among evangelicals, southerners, and Tea Party supporters.
Gov. Perry’s stumbles have allowed Gov. Mitt Romney to regain the top spot in the field, a spot he seemed destined to lose just a few weeks ago. Romney’s second run for the presidency is easily his better effort. His team has been extremely disciplined and the candidate has performed better than he ever has in the past. With uncertainty clouding Perry’s campaign, Romney has once again emerged as the candidate who can claim both competency and electability. However, a tougher challenge for Romney will be the possible entry of Gov. Chris Christie into the race.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has spent much of the past year denying any interest at all in running for president. But in the past few weeks Christie’s calculations seemed to have shifted, as scores of GOP leaders and donors have pleaded with the governor to enter the race. After a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, during which supporters openly begged him to toss his hat in the ring, Christie appears to have reconsidered his long-standing refusal to run. Should Christie ultimately take the plunge, he will be greeted with a ready-made campaign and a donor rolodex that has been dormant for much of the campaign cycle. It is easy to see how Christie could become the new frontrunner, however, Romney’s organization and Perry’s evangelical strength combined with an earlier primary calender will make the governor’s path more difficult than some realize.
Sarah Palin has sent several mixed signals lately about a potential run for president. First, her PAC sent out an email to supports suggesting they gear up for a soon-to-be-announced campaign. Then the former governor contradicted this notion on Fox News, once again questioning whether she needs ‘a title’ to make a difference. Palin has also stated that her previous self-imposed deadline of September 30 no longer stands, and that she could take until the end of October to make a decision. The question becomes how much longer will her supporters tolerate being strung along month to month?
Herman Cain was seemingly near the end of his campaign when he shocked the country with a huge upset win in the Florida P5 straw poll. Gov. Rick Perry had set his site on the straw poll and committed resources to winning it, only to be blown out by a surging Cain. Cain has also thrilled the base with his debating style and his catchy 9-9-9 plan. Tea Partiers dissatisfied with the crashing campaign of Rep. Michele Bachmann and the still stumbling Perry seem to be shifting heavily to the Hermanator.
Ron Paul has had another solid quarter of fundraising combined with mixed debate performances. His followers are out in force and are keeping him within the top 3 or 4 in most polls, though room for growth for Paul is difficult to see. Gov. Jon Huntsman closed up shop in Florida and moved his floundering campaign to New Hampshire where he will stay camped out for the next several weeks in the hopes of securing a McCain-like upset. Rick Santorum, along with Mr. Cain, is beginning to pick off supporters of the collapsing Bachmann and the stalling Perry. He has criticized the rest of the field more forcefully and effectively in the debates than the other contenders and may find an opening in Iowa. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich continues to dazzle in debates with little to show for it. Aside from his debate performances, Gingrich’s campaign is a flop and is already in debt. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter was apparently also running for president, but dropped out and endorsed Mitt Romney. Gary Johnson finally got back into the debates, but likely for the last time now that the benchmarks for qualification will begin to be harder for him to reach.
On to the rankings:
VP Watch: 1. Marco Rubio 2. Bob McDonnell 3. Rob Portman 4. Paul Ryan 5. Susana Martinez
After weeks and months of advanced leaked stories and appearances on shows like “The View”, Joe McGinniss’s exposé on Sarah Palin has finally hit the bookshelves. The response has been a bit underwhelming.
According to industry sales numbers reported today from Nielsen Bookscan, the most reliable tracker for the book industry, “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin” by Joe McGinniss sold a total of just 6,034 copies in the first week.
Warehouse sales were also slow for “The Rogue,” with Ingram inventory barely dropping at all the first three days this week. Independent bookstores often order from wholesalers like Ingram and chain bookstores sometimes re-order from wholesalers, so it’s a good gauge of consumer demand.
I wouldn’t mind it one bit if the publisher takes a major hit on this. These slime attacks on Sarah Palin have gone on long enough. It’s time for them to stop.
The Hill has the story:
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has not spoken to close allies in recent days and is set to break her own self-imposed deadline of the end of September to make a decision on a presidential run.
Becky Beach, Palin’s top fundraiser in Iowa and a close friend who is usually kept in the loop on the former governor’s plans, told The Hill that she had not heard from Palin in weeks about whether or not she would run in 2012.
“I don’t have any idea of her decision or her timing. The only thing I’ve heard her say is that the legal deadlines are the real deadlines, and I share her sentiment,” she said.
The deadline to get on the Utah primary ballot is Oct. 15, while the deadlines for many other states land on Oct. 31. In some states it can take weeks to gather petition signatures and get the paperwork ready to make sure candidates get on the ballot, meaning Palin is running out of time should she decide to run.
Be sure to read the full article here.
We are one week removed from what will potentially go down as the worst debate performance in modern presidential history, and the Intrade investors reacted accordingly:
Only candidates who have announced an official candidacy or who have greater than a 3% chance at the nomination are included.
As more polls are released showing Mitt Romney retaking the lead from Rick Perry, I would expect the gap between the two to widen further. A note of caution for Romney fans, however: Rick Perry is not going to just disappear from this race. He still remains strong in the south, his key and natural constituency, and he is for all intents and purposes the only candidate who can to raise enough money to compete with Romney. The question is what he can do to regain the immense amount of momentum he lost from his three debate debacles and two straw poll losses. (Perhaps an announcement of endorsements from Giuliani and Palin would provide the necessary spark…)
The investors are hedging their bets on Sarah Palin after her “Would a title be too shackle-ly?” shtick, but at the same time they are hanging on to Chris Christie for dear life – despite a dozen vehement refusals to get in the race from his spokesman, from his brother, and from Christie himself. Eventually folks will work through their denial and move toward acceptance. Heh.
The person I’d watch right now? Actually, it would be Jon Huntsman. He’s into double digits in New Hampshire while playing a McCain 2008 strategy; meanwhile, he is up to 4% in the most recent national poll as well. If he surprises with a strong second place showing in New Hampshire, he may be able to parlay that into a strong showing in South Carolina as well, given his endorsements from some key figures in the state.
Sarah Palin has an excellent essay on her facebook page. Here are some excerpts:
On Monday, during a fundraiser in California, President Obama declared that Europe’s debt problems and their inability to solve them was “scaring the world.” He went on to explain that Europeans “have not fully healed from the crisis back in 2007 and never fully dealt with the challenges that their banking system faced” and that “they’re trying to take responsible actions, but those actions haven’t been quite as quick as they need to be.”
One German newspaper denounced the President’s comments as “overbearing, arrogant, and absurd.” Another wrote: “The gloomy state of the economy is putting a damper on Obama’s future prospects. The optimism of the past is gone, replaced by a cheap search for a scapegoat.” And still another wrote: “That’s not how friends talk to each other. That applies particularly to friends who have themselves failed to get a handle on their own, self-made crisis.”
Can we blame them for feeling this way? Keep in mind this was a President who was supposed to make the rest of the world “like” us again.
This is what happens when we have a leader of the free world that refuses to lead. We get a big stinking mess both domestically and internationally. But oh, did he send a tingle up Chris Matthews’ leg. And one “conservative” pundit was blown away by the sharp crease in Obama’s trousers. He just knew he was in the presence of greatness.
January 20th, 2013 can’t come soon enough.
My favorite character from the old Red Green Show was Hap Shaughnessy. Whenever he appeared, he would regale us with wild stories full of totally outrageous claims. What made it even funnier is that he would tell them with a completely straight face. Everyone around him knew he was lying through his teeth, yet it never seemed to phase him. It was hilarious.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with the character, here is one example:
Since Rick Perry entered the race, I’ve been trying to figure out exactly what his style of bombastic bluster reminded me of. His rhetoric is often way over the top, yet he continues to show a surprising lack of intellectual curiosity. It really shows itself during interviews and debates when he has to go off script and talk of things beyond his memorized sound bites.
Rick is quite good at pointing out problems. He’s a past master of criticizing others. Yet he never seems to offer anything really new or make any detailed suggestions on how to get us out of this mess beyond a handful of conservative platitudes.There is nothing concrete that shows he is thinking deeply about anything beyond trying to win the Presidency.
By way of contrast Romney, Cain, and Huntsman have all published detailed policy analyses that are available for close scrutiny. You might not agree with them, but they are out there. You can know exactly where they stand on these issues.
Even Sarah Palin has gotten in on the act. She writes out long, detailed facebook essays showing that she is thinking carefully about the problems America is facing.
But out of Perry, nothing. We only get Hap Shaughnessy-like over-the-top bluster and bombast that nobody really believes anymore. If the man doesn’t get his act together soon, his campaign will be all over but the shouting.
Here is Sarah Palin last night on Greta:
She was trying to explain that one can accomplish so much more without the confines of an office to hold her.
Quoting from the National Journal:
Acknowledging that “decisions have to be made” quickly, Sarah Palin on Tuesday laid out a case for not running for president in 2012.
Appearing on Fox News’ On the Record, a favorite venue, Palin appeared to be talking herself out of the race in an interview with host Greta Van Susteren.
“Is a campaign too shackling?” she mused. As the GOP’s 2008 vice presidential nominee, Palin said she felt encumbered by “handlers.” Running for office “prohibits the freedom one needs to really make a difference,” said the self-described “rogue” politician.
Added Palin: “You don’t need a title to make a difference.”
I predicted clear back in July of 2009 shortly after she had resigned as Governor of Alaska that Sarah was through with elective office, that she loved the freedom of going wherever she wanted and saying whatever she liked without having to worry about the constraints being Governor or President places upon you. It looks like I might have called that one right.
(Sep. 23-25) (Sep. 9-11) (Aug. 24-25) (Aug 5-7) (July 18-20) Perry 28% 30% 30% 16% 15% Romney 21% 18% 17% 19% 19% Gingrich 10% 5% 6% 6% 4% Cain 7% 5% 3% 4% 6% Palin 7% 15% 12% 16% 15% Paul 7% 12% 6% 12% 10% Bachmann 4% 4% 10% 7% 12% Santorum 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% Huntsman 1% 2% 1% 5% 1% Someone else 3% 2% 6% 6% 5% None/ No one 4% 4% 6% 5% 9% No opinion 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
From 447 Adult Republicans MOE: +/- 4.5
From this poll, it would appear that Perry’s last debate performance was not the killer that everyone assumed. He only fell back two points. Romney only gained three points. That’s only a net gain for Romney of a measly five points. That is hardly earth shattering. Cain, the one that everyone has been buzzing about all weekend only gained two points and remains in mid-single digits.
Palin dropped more than half her support from the last poll. Paul dropped nearly as much. Huntsman is still down in the noise.
The best result has to be for Newt Gingrich who doubled his support to 10%. That is two and a half times the points pickup that Cain had.
As the presidential debate season continues, it is becoming clearer that Governor Rick Perry’s sudden rise in the polls after the Iowa Straw Poll has been a “bubble.” Once again, former Governor Mitt Romney seems about to take the lead in the polls, even as he already leads in many vital state polls. More importantly, he has seemed strong in the debate confrontations with Mr. Perry, and maintained the stage presence of someone in charge. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who herself enjoyed a brief “bubble” rise in the polls lading up to her win of the Iowa Straw Poll, has faded not only in public opinion surveys, but in the public policy arena as well. The departure of Ed Rollins from an active role in her campaign was an ominous sign.
The debates have also produced two other winners. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich continues to be the most impressive GOP debater, producing some of the warmest and most positive responses from debate live audiences. His reputation as the brightest candidate has been reinforced, but his desire to be “the comeback kid of 2012? is hindered by earlier campaign mistakes, weak campaign funding, and a bias (unfounded) that he is either too old or a figure from the past. Herman Cain has injected a vivid personality into the debates, and his business experience has enabled him to make many cogent comments that do not have the usual “political” veneer. But Mr. Cain has a small campaign organization and little money to transform his positive debate persona into a major candidacy.
One more time, we hear rumors of former Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska or current Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey entering the contest, but it is late in the game. It might be possible, as I have suggested, for Mr. Christie to become a force in the campaign, provided he had the campaign funds and the time to spend introducing himself to voters nationally, but time is running out as we approach the Iowa caucus early next year, and the end of the most important part of the debate season.
This leaves us with the perception that Mr. Romney is beginning to pull away for the nomination. Of course, until we have actual voter results in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Florida, any judgment remains speculative. But the fact remains that Mr. Romney has so far seemed to run an almost flawless early campaign. Even in 2008, when he was the runner-up to John McCain, Mr. Romney looked the part, but now in 2011, he more and more sounds the part. He has handled the challenges of Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Perry with self-confidence and aplomb. He is very well-funded, and so far is easily winning the contest of endorsements from Republican officials across the nation. His rivals, when they challenged him in the debates, have found him to be a quick and tough opponent.
So what are the Mr Romney’s real drawbacks at the stage of the nominating campaign? They appear to be the same drawbacks that plagued him in 2008, and at the outset of the 2012 campaign. His seemingly more moderate record as governor of Massachusetts has not excited the increasingly conservative (and Tea Party) Republican base. But that base produced the Bachmann and Perry “bubbles,” and most Republicans of all political stripes seem to place the highest priority in defeating President Obama’s re-election. Mr. Romney’s Mormon religion has often been cited as a political problem, especially in the South, but again, most conservatives are unlikely to vote for Mr. Obama over Mr. Romney. Then there is danger that if Mr. Romney were nominated, a third party conservative would run and dilute his vote. The dilution, in that case, might happen, but the result would be the re-election of Barack Obama, a result few if any conservatives want. Finally, some consider Mr. Romney’s long business experience to be primarily limited to “turnaround ” situations, and not to the general management of government.
This latter criticism could be, however, Mr. Romney’ greatest strength. As the United States economy continue to sink, as unemployment remains high and chronic, as American power and influence continues to wane around the world, it might seem that a “turn-around” expert is just what the country needs.
In January, 1992, Governor Bill Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic nomination seemed stalled. He had been the frontrunner, but many in his party thought he had too many political drawbacks to successfully challenge incumbent President George H.W. Bush. After the New Hampshire primary, however, Mr. Clinton asserted he was the “comeback kid,” and the rest in history.
If indeed Mr. Romney holds off the challenge of Mr. Perry, after doing the same to Mrs. Bachmann’s challenge, he would have made his own comeback. Much would take place between then and election day, and anything can happen, but as matters are going now, there may be a powerful appeal that could be made for a leader in 2012 who would turn America’s problems around.
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.
The results from Presidency 5 have shocked the political world. Businessman Herman Cain, who was once thought to be on the verge of dropping out of the race, roared back to life with his victory in Orlando. This win will help propel Cain back into the Republican consciousness. And it couldn’t come at a better time for him.
Rick Perry’s recent troubles have been discussed long and often here so I won’t go into them again but suffice to say, it’s been a rough time for the Texas Governor. Conservatives have started to feel that Perry that he’s not the White Knight that they wanted. However, the other candidate thought to be challenging Perry for the right, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, has seen her campaign collapse. Ever since Perry jumped into the race, Bachmann has struggled to regain her momentum. Her flop over the vaccine issue, her lackluster debate performances and her last place showing at the Presidency 5 Straw Poll all appear to show a campaign that is nearing the end of the line.
Which brings us back to Herman Cain. The defeat of Perry and the collapse of Bachmann are creating an opening on the right of the GOP. Conservative unease with Perry and Bachmann is causing many conservative and Tea Party Republicans to look for an alternative. Cain’s oratorical skills, his 9-9-9 plan, and even his lack of a record to attack are making him an appealing choice for many Republicans. To those who dismiss the thought of Cain making an impact in the race, remember that the GOP does have a spot in its heart for non-elected outsiders, and they can become serious, strong contenders (see Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes).
As we wait to see if the last two undecided holdouts of Christie and Palin to make their choice, there is a festering unease on the right. Dissatisfaction with Perry, distrust of Romney, and Bachmann’s fading effort have left an opening for one of the lower-tier candidates to step up and become the anti-Perry, anti-Romney candidate. And if he seizes the opportunity that Florida has provided him, it might be Herman Cain.
With Gov. Rick Perry’s seeming implosion at last night’s debate, conservatives who desire a Republican nominee not named Mitt Romney seem to be hurting for viable options. To be sure, there are plenty of candidates other than Romney or Perry that remain in the race, but each of these candidates has already been written off by the conventional wisdom as a lower-tier selection that stands no chance of winning the nomination. The best possible outcome for a candidate like, say, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum, is that each will receive a fraction of the Anybody-but-Mitt crowd as it begins to abandon Perry, which will only serve to divide Perry’s supporters so many ways that they cease to be relevant, ensuring an easy Romney nomination. As such, Republicans opposed to Romney as their nominee either need to start practicing saying, “President Mitt,” or need to coax into the race one of the remaining white knights who could consolidate a plurality of Republicans behind his or her fledgling candidacy and snag the nomination.
With the filing deadline for the pivotal Florida primary set for October 31st, any potential white knights must make their intentions known by Halloween should they have any realistic hope of winning the nomination. That means that Gov. Sarah Palin’s recent suggestion that she could put off a decision until as late as November is simply unrealistic, as no Republican presidential candidate is going to win the nomination while skipping Florida. Gov. Palin, to be sure, is one of the few candidates remaining who could qualify as a white knight. Gov. Perry’s collapse would make Gov. Palin the instant Tea Party candidate should she enter the race. And like Ron Paul, Gov. Palin has at her fingertips a grassroots fan base that could quickly and easily be transformed into an army of small donors and volunteers should the ‘Cuda decide to make a late entry into the race.
Another candidate who seems to be unable to escape everyone’s radar is Gov. Chris Christie. The New Jersey governor continues to deny any intention to run, even as establishment wonks and Bush family emissaries attempt to push the larger-than-life Garden State executive into the race. Given the Bush family’s interest in a Christie run, as demonstrated by Michael Gerson’s support for Christie in recent weeks, Christie would likely find himself with an insta-campaign at his fingertips. If Christie entered, he would essentially have the entire “Galactic Empire” of Bushie donors, volunteers, endorsements, and supporters at his command. That reality, combined with Christie’s combative, brusque nature, which is pitch-perfect for an angst-driven election cycle like this one, make Christie a real threat to Mitt Romney and pretty much every other candidate who hopes to win the GOP nomination next year.
If Christie doesn’t run, and if the Bushes continue to fear that their position as the Corleone family of the party is under seige, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush may decide to take the plunge. Jeb would likely enter with the same party machinery behind him as would Christie, though he’d have to work hard to shake off the legacy of his brother, who is still viewed suspiciously by the GOP base and by the nation. Jeb is unlikely to run and would probably only enter the field if Gov. Perry somehow makes a comeback, given that, of the potential nominees for president, only a Perry nomination would truly threaten the Bushes’ places at the table.
Finally, there’s always the chance that Rudy Giuliani may decide to make once last try for the nomination. Watching Rudy plop down in New Hampshire and run unapologetically as himself would be interesting if nothing else. But the hurdles are high for Mayor Giuliani after blowing what was essentially his position as frontrunner during the last presidential race.
Ultimately, though, it’s entirely possible that the field is set, and that Mitt Romney will soon establish himself as the probable nominee. We’ll know in a few short weeks whether to expect any further entries to a race that is beginning to look like Romney’s to lose.
Sarah Palin’s on again, off again flirtation with the GOP nomination has been described by many as merely a scheme to sell more books and claim more media attention. After all, the idea of starting a campaign in September would be madness, let alone in November. Of course, the argument’s made that Ronald Reagan waited until November 1979 to announce his candidacy. But this is not 1980.
However, there’s some strategery here that makes sense for Palin under certain circumstances. Let us assume that Palin only wants to put her name out there if she’s got a serious shot at the nomination. Otherwise, she can continue her Fox News work and writing on her Facebook page and be quite happy.
Palin could be very well be letting the campaign play out a little bit to see if the conservative tea party voters find their candidate. What Palin has witnessed from the sidelines is the political implosion of Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, and Michele Bachmann. Then, Rick Perry entered the race and jumped into the lead. In his first few joint appearance, Perry has struggled mightily. Not only that, he’s irked conservatives on immigration and offered no real jobs plan or Social Security reform plan, plus opposing the Tea Party position on illegal immigration.
There are several situations under which Palin could forego a run. Conservatives could embrace Perry, Bachmann could find resurgance in Iowa, or Romney’s opposition could dissipate. But what if Bachmann doesn’t come back and despite the big money coming in on his behalf, Rick Perry loses support and traction with the conservative base of the party over his crony capitalism problem and illegal immigration?
Palin would have an opening, but could she take advantage of it? In theory, yes. Money and organizational support would come. She has many devoted fans who’d toss in a few thousand dollars. She has more Facebook friends and Twitter followers than any of the active presidential campaigns (for comparison, she has 3 times the Facbeook Fans at Mitt Romney and nearly seven times the number of Twitter followers. While not every fan or follower is a supporter. No doubt that would add up to money and volunteers for a non-traditional campaign. In the past few hours, dozens of requests for Palin to run have popped up on her page.
The strategy would be a straightforward play to take Iowa and then with a grassroots effort, take the GOP by storm.
Could she do it? Sure. She does need to avoid Perry’s pitfalls. (Note: Running on Jobs and not being able to offer a jobs plan is not a good combination.) However, Palin has become more substantive in her Facebook posts and other writings in recent months, perhaps more substantive than many of the candidates running. And for those who saw her in 2008 and 2009, expectations have been set pretty low, so low that it would be easy for her to clear the bar.
Of course, if the perfect storm doesn’t come together, she may find her strategy didn’t work. However, when you have 3 million Facebook fans, there’s always nex
One of the arguments touted by Perry supporters in favor of the Texas governor’s nomination is that Rick Perry supposedly represents the conservative populist wing of the Republican Party, and by “populist,” I am referring to small-p populism, i.e., siding with “We the People” against collective interests that attempt to undermine and co-opt the rights of the folks at the grassroots of society. Perry, say many of his supporters, is one of the few candidates for president with the courage to overturn the apple cart in a way that will break the stranglehold of large interests on Washington and that will restore democracy in America, and actual free markets and capitalism to the American economy. If this were true, Perry might actually be an attractive candidate. But the evidence suggests that this ain’t necessarily so.
Iowans4Palin has published a must-see chart that demonstrates the relationship between the governor’s office in Texas and the corporate interests that currently dominate the Texas economy. This chart is absolutely damning from the point of view of those of us who want to get away from Bush-style bailouts of too-big-to-fail institutions, as well as from legislation like ObamaCare, which fortifies existing companies at the expense of true free market capitalism.
For those who can’t be bothered to click the above link, the chart basically matches up the large corporate donations going into Gov. Perry’s coffers from various donors, with the funds coming out of the pockets of state taxpayers in the form of grants to support business. Interestingly, the corporations receiving the state funds are the same institutions that are funding Gov. Perry’s campaigns.
My point here is not to claim that Gov. Perry is intentionally engaged in what is usually referred to as “crony capitalism.” The reader can take away that message from this set of facts if he or she prefers, but at the very least, Gov. Perry is playing the same sort of game as the Bush and Obama Administrations, governing not as capitalists, but as corporatists, fusing together government and specific large corporate entities and then using taxpayer dollars to prop up those corporations in order to avoid the free market mess that comes with true capitalism.
Corporatism, even when enacted with the best intentions, is the enemy of a free market, as it prevents a free market from truly developing by deciding beforehand who the winners and losers are going to be. The game is rigged, and rigged in a way that benefit those closest to the heart of the governmental-corporate axis. Corporatism is pro-business, but is in no way pro-market. Anyone supporting corporatism is not planning on upending the apple cart, but on replacing the wheels and pushing it forward, full speed ahead.
Corporatism also looks very much like a new sort of feudalism, a form of organization of society that was thought to be long gone. I wrote last year about how both the Bush bailouts and ObamaCare resembled feudalism, with the government as the Crown, making a pact with the Nobles (in this case, big banks, large health insurance companies, etc.), with the Nobles in turn promising to take good care of the Serfs. In case you haven’t figured it out by now, we’re the Serfs. So under ObamaCare, Anthem and Aetna agree to provide health care to all in exchange for a forced customer base, just as a medieval Baron might have agreed to ensure that his Serfs had bread and water in exchange for the Crown fortifying his fiefdom. Government strikes a Faustian bargain with too-big-to-fail institutions while the actual people who were intended to run this country become an afterthought.
Perry appears to be quite comfortable playing the corporatist game too, but that’s not to say that he is alone. Indeed, excepting Ron Paul, pretty much all of the GOP candidates for president are ignoring the populist angle in this election, something that seems surprising given the grassroots angst that naturally exists in a nation with 9 percent unemployment. In early 2010, I was certain that a Republican would emerge as an anti-bailout, anti-ObamaCare, anti-corporatist candidate, challenging the conventional wisdom that the only way forward is to prop up stale, old, existing institutions, instead of letting the market work and letting new players do what the current concoction of government and too-big-to-fail institutions cannot. Other than Ron Paul, the only potential candidate for president addressing this issue is Sarah Palin:
“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”
Reaganite journalist Roger Stone, Jr., tweeted that this message reminded him of Reaganism, circa 1976. It’s conservative populism, as even Ralph Nader noted, and the antithesis of Perry’s right-wing corporatism.
Ultimately, there may be a lot of reasons to vote for Rick Perry. But the idea that he is an anti-establishment reformer who is going to take Washington by the horns is simply not supported by the facts. Perry’s reign in Texas has been just as “establishment” as the last decade of Bush-Obama presidencies in Washington. As such, there’s absolutely no reason to suspect that a Perry presidency would be anything other than more of the same.
Here is some of the data given out. First the head-to-head vs. Obama numbers for several Republicans:
Obama Candidate Margin Giuliani 42 49 +7 Romney 46 44 -2 Palin 49 44 -5 Perry 50 41 -9 Bachmann 53 40 -13
From these numbers, Rudy Giuliani would appear to be the best candidate against Obama. Romney is essentially tied against him. Perry is nearly ten points behind the President, while Bachmann continues to trail such a match-up by double digits.
The most interesting result, however, has to be that for Sarah Palin. After trailing Obama by twenty and more points in various polls for quite some time, she is now within five points of Obama. In fact according to Marist, she does better than either Perry or Bachmann. Not bad, Sarah. Not bad at all. You go girl.
Unfortunately there is another set of numbers which aren’t so good for her. By a ratio of 72 to 24 — a 48 point difference — Republicans and Republican leaning Independents do NOT want Sarah to run. That makes winning the nomination for a chance to take on Obama a bit problematic for her.
She is not alone in that respect. The man who actually leads Obama head-to-head, Rudy Giuliani, is also not wanted by a majority of Republicans. The ratio against him running is 58 to 32 percent — a twenty-six point margin. In other words nearly two out of every three Republicans want to see Rudy remain on the sidelines; which is still better than the nearly three out of every four Republicans that don’t want to see Sarah Palin in the race. Ouch! That is downright brutal.
Here are the horse race poll numbers provided in the same poll:
Perry 30 Romney 22 Bachmann 12 Paul 7 Gingrich 6 Cain 5 Santorum 2 Huntsman 1
McClatchy states that, “…Palin and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani — would trail Perry but jump into the top tier along with Romney and Bachmann…“, but they give no figures.
This survey of 1,042 adults was conducted on Sept. 13-14. Adults 18 and older residing in the continental United States were interviewed by telephone. Telephone numbers were selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. To increase coverage, this land-line sample was supplemented by respondents reached through random dialing of cell phone numbers. The two samples were then combined. Results are statistically significant within plus or minus 3.0 percentage points. There are 825 registered voters. The results for this subset are statistically significant within plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. There are 317 Republicans and Republican leaning independents. The results for this subset are statistically significant within plus or minus 5.5 percentage points. The error margin increases for cross-tabulations.
2012 Republican Presidential Nomination
|Poll||Average||CBS / NYT||Bloomberg||PPP||CNN||ABC / WaPo||NBC / WSJ||Politico / GWU Battleground||FOX News|
|Date||8/27 – 9/12||9/10 – 9/15||9/9 – 9/12||9/8 – 9/11||9/9 – 9/11||8/29 – 9/1||8/27 – 8/31||8/28 – 8/31||8/29 – 8/31|
It’s probably the case that Rick Perry has peaked. How hard and fast his star will fall depends on how well he maintains himself from here on out. By staying aloof but substantive, Perry could manage to level off a few points ahead of Romney. It might be wise for Perry, at this point, to completely ignore his Republican competitors and launch an all-out offensive against Obama, trying to convey himself as the best general election choice. I’ve been surprised at how quickly Romney went into attack mode against Perry, and kind of disappointed at the weakness of some of Romney’s anti-Perry arguments (Criticizing the “Social Security is a Ponzi scheme” comment in this Tea Party day and age? Really? Does Romney not know that most of the conservative base these days agrees with Perry on this?).
In any case, I think it would also be wisest for Romney to ignore Perry, focus on Obama, and just wait for Perry to trip up (Perry’s debate performances have, after all, been horribly painful to watch–I can almost see the gears in his brain struggling to turn during those long, awkward pauses). History favors a Romney nomination anyway.
Bachmann seems to be leveling, after most of the star dust from her first debate performance was shaken loose by several weeks of attacks by Democrats and startled Republican competitors. Gingrich’s “be everybody’s friend but the media’s” strategy also seems to be paying a little bit of dividend, as his slide into single digits has halted, and he has seen a slight uptick in support over the past couple weeks.
Meanwhile, Huntsman’s failure to gain polling traction is becoming so worrisome that some news sources have pointed out he’s actually risking missing the cut for some of the upcoming debates. Johnson, on the other hand, after being inexplicably removed from CNN’s polls (right after tying with Cain and doubling Santorum/Huntsman’s support) can look forward to being added to PPP’s polling to replace Sarah Palin, for whom the window to enter has all but passed.