Feb
22
Yes!
Filed Under American Politics | 28 Comments
Mitch Daniels is now “open to the idea” of a 2012 candidacy albeit reluctantly.
I don’t like Romney and Huckabee and unfortunately concede that public opinion probably rules out a successful Palin candidacy. Despite Obama’s poll numbers, I still think he’s odds on to win in 2012. But Mitch Daniels would be a game-changer I believe.
Daniels-Rubio?
Feb
16
This Will Please Verity
Filed Under American Politics | 7 Comments
A leading Republican who has been quiet for a while may be throwing his hat in the ring. From race42008.com:
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who still sports a sky-high approval rating, is releasing a tome about “America’s core values” called “On Solid Ground,” co-written with conservative journalist Peter Schweizer — to be dropped July of this year. Now why could this be?
If Jindal’s going to run against Barack Obama, he’s in an awfully tricky spot. The next gubernatorial election is in November 2011 — a mere two months before the Iowa caucuses. It is absolutely impossible for him as a fairly unknown quantity to run a presidential campaign right after a gubernatorial one wraps up.
There remains, of course, another possibility — the only one that makes sense, in the light of the news of this not-campaign-book: that he’s going to announce in early 2011 that he is not running for re-election, instead choosing to focus on a presidential campaign. If he’s releasing a book talking about America’s core values — that is: a nationally-oriented book — then that’s the only thing that makes sense. How often does a sitting governor, interested in remaining governor for the foreseeable future, release a manifesto about bringing America back to its core values by “fundamentally transforming Washington”?
As Obama weakens in popularity, those Republicans who perhaps thought about sitting out 2012 waiting for what initially looked to be a more propitious 2016 cycle might need to start re-evaluating. Especially with numbers like this:
Do you think Barack Obama deserves to be re-elected, or not?
* Yes, deserves re-election 44%
* No, does not deserve re-election 52%
Suddenly it’s starting to look as though waiting for 2016 might mean missing the boat altogether.
Feb
16
Gotcha!
Filed Under American Politics | Leave a Comment
Ha ha. Those clever kids at Daily Kos have put one over on Fox this time for speculating about Evan Bayh’s intention to run against Obama in 2012:
Those pesky kids.
Here’s another politician absolutely ruling out a run for the Presidency in a Tim Russert interview in 2006:
MR. RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?
SEN. OBAMA: I will not.
Because Politicians can be believed when it comes to their future ambitions.
Feb
14
The Right Experience To Be President
Filed Under American Politics | 43 Comments
ABC News/ Washington Post recently conducted a poll looking at Sarah Palin and the Tea Partys. The big story coming out of the poll regarded the perception of Palin’s readiness to be President. Only 26% of those polloed thought she had the necessary qualifications to be President whilst a large 71% felt she didn’t. Even more worrying was the fact that only 46% of Republicans felt she had the necessary qualifications.
Now there’s no way to spin this as a positive, those numbers are going to have to improve drastically if she is to have a chance to win the Presidency. The question is, can they? I’ve always thought that Obama probably had the same problems at the start of his candidacy, that potential voters were unsure about him too, but I haven’t found a poll that looks at the issue of Obama’s qualifications prior to the Democratic primaries. Until now thanks to Conservatives4Palin who link to a CBS poll taken six months before the Iowa caucus that kicked off the Democratic primary season. It’s an interesting comparison:
Qualified to be President?
Palin – 26%
Obama – 29%
Not qualified to be President:
Palin – 71%
Obama – 51%
Considered qualified by members of candidates own party:
Palin – 46%
Obama – 41%
The point of this post is not to try and project that just because Obama had similar numbers, that Palin can follow the same trajectory that Obama did, but just to observe that considerations of a person’s qualifications to be President this far ahead of an election mean very little. There are differences: Palin’s unqualified numbers are much higher than Obama’s and that suggests that more people are aware of Palin than they were of Obama and have made up their mind about her. Not good for Palin. On the other hand, Palin is still more than two years away from a potential first primary which gives her plenty of time to affect her numbers positively. The Obama poll however was taken only six months before his primary season.
The big difference however may well be the role of the media. Obama’s candidacy was one in which the MSM became invested in and supported. Initially, it was to create an opponent to Hillary. There’s nothing more boring than a coronation. And following Obama’s success in the primaries, the media bought into a number of aspects of his candidacy. The desire for the first black President, the underdog nature of his campaign and others. Palin on the other hand is likely to have to gain people’s trust despite the media who are determined to undermine her whenever possible.
Palin’s path to the Presidency will be a tough one should she decide to go that route. But precedence now shows that just because people don’t think you have the necessary experience this early in the process doesn’t mean that the impossible can’t become probable.
Jan
21
None Of The Above
Filed Under American Politics | 2 Comments
The Republicans are going to have to find someone better than Romney, Palin or Gingrich for 2012. Obama’s numbers are down but the people aren’t enamoured by any of the aforementioned:
* Barack Obama 47%
* Mitt Romney 35%* Barack Obama 55%
* Sarah Palin 31%* Barack Obama 53%
* Newt Gingrich 29%* Barack Obama 48%
* Candidate from Tea Party Movement 23%Among Independents
* Barack Obama 43%
* Mitt Romney 28%* Barack Obama 56%
* Sarah Palin 24%* Barack Obama 53%
* Newt Gingrich 23%* Barack Obama 43%
* Candidate from Tea Party Movement 26%
Dec
17
John Aravosis (again) at Americablog sees the possibility:
Damn, Howard Dean seems to have more backbone that the White House and the Congress combined. Is someone preparing himself for a run for office in 3 years? An op ed in the Post means Dean is serious about challenging the current party leadership on how they are mismanaging health care reform.
Hillary must be hitting her head against the wall.
I can’t see a challenge from the left to Obama, after all, don’t the left get a kick out of taking the mickey out of challenges from the right to ‘RINO’s”? There’s a distinct lack of self-awareness in the left-wingosphere. However, it would be interesting to see where groups like Moveon.org and people like Markos Moulitsas would fall should Howard Dean start suggesting a primary challenge to Obama.
There are two things particularly delicious about the lefts rending of garments over the Public Option. Firstly, the fact that they deserve what they get. It was their ousting of Joe Lieberman from the party over Iraq that has encouraged him to get some retribution; they’re reaping what they sowed. Secondly, it’s incredible that this (probably short-term) disintegration of a liberal consensus is happening so quickly. A year ago things couldn’t have been rosier in the liberal garden. A uniquely popular President to be, a very successful organisation, record level voter registrations against record low registrations for the Republican Party and of course, a congressional super-majority. And yet within the space of a year, Obama’s approval is still falling (now down to the mid-forties), the liberal base is becoming disillusioned, their own blogs are talking of a “catastrophe” in the 2010 elections and they are struggling to pass any meaningful legislation. And it’s all self-inflicted! Imagine how much worse it would be if the GOP got their act together.
Nov
30
And Then There Were Three
Filed Under American Politics | 4 Comments
The potential 2012 GOP candidates have been falling by the wayside a little this past few months. Firstly, Mark Sandford went ‘hiking on the Appalachian Trail’ and killed any chance of running in the Presidential primary. then Newt Gingrich went with the wrong side in NY-23 and set himself against most of his own party and now Mike Huckabee may be seeing his chances of the nomination disappearing.
The Seattle Times reports that the man suspected of shooting four police officers in Washington State was granted clemency in Arkansas nine years ago by then-Governor Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee had reportedly pardoned the suspected shooter, Maurice Clemmons, because he was just 17 when his original crimes were committed. (Clemmons was still on parole, and should apparently have been sent back to jail in Arkansas more recently.) But it’s a tragic, and politically damaging story of the kind that, with the name Willie Horton attached, helped derail Mike Dukakis’s bid for the White House.
It will be interesting to see how damaging this is for him, but it’s perfect ad fodder for opposing candidates. He can hardly lay claim to the tough on crime plank during a campaign.
Though it might not be so damaging; from the same article:
And the story also recalls another act of clemency gone awry: Huckabee advocated for parole for a convicted rapist who — his allies said — had been railroaded by Huckabee predecessor Bill Clinton. The rapist, Wayne DuMond, was released; he raped and murdered another woman.
Mitt Romney made the DuMond story a centerpiece of his campaign against Huckabee in Iowa in 2007.
Mike Huckabee of course won the primary in Iowa. Still, four police officers will not sit well with the Republican base.
And this of course is a terribly sad story. four officers gunned down in cold-blood in an assassination style killing. Awful.
Oct
20
Republicans Should Go Moderate. Really?
Filed Under Uncategorized | 18 Comments
I made this comment in one of the threads, but I’m going to elevate it to a post because I think it makes for an interesting discussion. It speaks to the issue of whether the Republican Party would be wrong to nominate a conservative instead of a more moderate, or dare I say , a liberal Republican for a run at the Presidency. History certainly teaches that nominating a moderate Republican would be the wrong policy:
2008 – John McCain (famed for his independence and more moderate unconservative views) – Lost
2000 & 2004 – George W Bush (Relied on conservative support both in primaries and general) – Won twice
1996 – Bob Dole – Renowned moderate. (According to Wikipedia – “Dole had a moderate voting record and was widely considered to be one of the few Kansas Republicans who could bridge the gap between the moderate and conservative wings of the Kansas Republican Party”) – Lost
1992 – George HW Bush – Moderate non-conservative Republican – Lost
1988 – George HW Bush – OK, a moderate, but he was VP so is a bit of a fly in what will prove to be a compelling theory) – Won
1980 & 1984 – Ronald Reagan – Not much needs to be said about his conservative credentials – Won twice
1976 – Gerald Ford – self described social moderate – Lost
1968 & 1972 – Richard Nixon – Another who relied on conservative support to get elected – Won
There’a a good reason why Democrats want the GOP to nominate a moderate candidate; they know they’d win. the fact of American politics is that more people identify as Democrats than Republicans. Apart from a brief peiod in the eighties, that has always been the case. And that means that the Republican party need to have very strong get out the vote drives, maximising the support of that base. It is only by directly appealing to a conservative base that the Republicans have any chance of winning the Presidency.
Sep
24
Condoleeza Rice For President?
Filed Under Uncategorized | 40 Comments
So questions Nina Easton.
Rice quashed rumors of a 2008 presidential run and who knows whether she’ll reconsider after she decides to move on from grading papers at Stanford. As Bush’s national security adviser at the launch of the Iraq War, she will never appeal to hardcore Democrats. But to those millions of independents and soft Republicans who pulled Obama over the top in last year’s election — a familiar brand of voter at this Fortune gathering — Rice has allure.
At the end of our interview, as I stood to shake Rice’s hand, I glanced over my shoulder at this audience of women-CEO’s and senior business and government leaders, media opinion-makers and entertainment stars, ground-breaking academics and committed philanthropists. It was an audience I knew, first-hand, viewed the Bush administration with doubts and, in some cases, outright hostility. So what I saw was telling.
Every single woman in that San Diego hotel ballroom was on her feet-giving Condi Rice a standing ovation.
I don’t see it myself. There are two big knocks on her.
1. She is too closely ties to George Bush. That may be forgotten in 4 or 8 years time if it was Bush’s domestic policies that she was linked to and not foreign policy. But Bush’s foreign policy was very unpopular amongst independents and Rice will always have that stigma attached.
2. She’s never run for public office, or shown any real inclination to do so.
I like her. She has an interesting story and she is very smart and would be able to govern from the middle. But I don’t see this happening. But a V.P. candidate for a nominee with little foreign policy experience? Now we’re talking.
Sep
18
Carter And Reagan = Obama And ?????
Filed Under American Politics | 3 Comments
Jimmy Carter suddenly becoming newsworthy again has given conservative bloggers the opportunity to link him with Obama. And Obama’s surrendering of the missile shield only serves to support the premise that like Carter, Obama is not only a purveyor of big government, but is weak on foreign policy too. True, it’s a simplistic comparison, and perhaps a little disingenuous to both Presidents, but it is also a comparison that has the ability to resonate, particularly with seniors and older independents. Because the one thing Carter’s Presidency did, was to create the Reagan conservative coalition. Conservative Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans and conservative Democrats all found a home in Reagan’s coalition.
For those of us who lived through the Carter presidency, it looks depressingly familiar. High spending, government control of the economy (especially on energy), and clear signs of retreat abroad — it looks much more like Jimmy Carter won his second term of office 28 years after getting booted by the American electorate. The entire decade turned into a morass of malaise, a cesspool of economic stagnation, and with Carter’s election, a season of American humiliation abroad.
But Ed notes the problem of comparing then with now. A Reagan coalition needed a Reagan:
Reagan built himself into a formidable candidate by spending years on the speaking circuit discussing politics and philosophy, and then eight years as governor adhering to conservative values. Reagan was no unknown quantity when he led his coalition to power in 1980; people knew exactly what Reagan would do as President.
It is tough to see anyone on the Republican side that can turn worries over big government and, if it pans out, a globally weakened America into strong GOP support. But not only that, a prospective candidate will need to square the circle of exciting the base whilst appealing to independents and moderate Republicans. Because two things are absolutely certain: No Republican will become President in 2012 unless they can appeal to both the base conservatives and those outside of the base.
If Obama continues on his current path, with an ever diminishing support amongst independents and seniors, the GOP will have a chance, but finding a reliably conservative candidate who can retain a degree of independence from the base is going to be tough. For the moment, I can only see two potential candidates out there that fulfill the necessary criteria; Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty. The only other possibility at the moment would be Mitt Romney, but I’m not sure his appeal with the base is strong enough.