Jim Geraghty adds an interesting take to Chris Cillizza's "Ten Republicans to Watch" list.
Both contributions are worth reading, not necessarily as insight into the 2012 campaign cycle - it's too early for that. Yet, those that seriously compete for either spot on the ticket in that year will no doubt come from a crew of Republicans who make a name for themselves as conservative leaders of note in the coming months. That will separate potential contenders from 2012 wannabes.
The ranks of the potential may include Members of Congress who might emerge as new voices for Republicans, GOP Governors who lead their states well and contribute to the national debate, and the Mitt Romneys and Mike Huckabees of the world: people of unique stature capable of fashioning creative leadership roles for themselves.
Comments encouraged on the content of both links above.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 06, 2009 05:19 PM | Email ThisA few thoughts on this ''gang of 10'':
1.. Portman: Combine his extensive OMB expertise with a win in the open OH Senate race, and; yeah: Deserves a position in the top 10 (but needs to win the Senate race to stay there).
2.. Cantor: His leading role in holding all of the House (R)s together in opposition to the maximally-bloated stimulus bill was impressive. I've seen him on the tube several times; and he definitely passes the ''telegenic'' test.
3.. Rush: I'm not a big Limbaugh fan, but clearly huge numbers of people are. Like him or not, he is and will likely continue to be a player.
4.. Huckabee: He wasn't my candidate last time around, but definitely has a good sense of humor; is personally likeable; easily passes the ''I'd have a beer with this guy test''. And he plays a mean guitar. But comment about ~''no room 4 both Palin and Huckabee'' sounds correct.
SIDEBAR on the Huckster: If Obama has the gravitas to sit in the Oval Office, then so does Huckabee.
5.. Pawlenty: His being referred to as a ''Wal-Mart (R)'' is IMO not a liability: Wal-Mart is one of the few doing well in the current deep recession. And I really like his ''shrink state government'' idea (if only we had him in WA). Not especially charismatic, but I won't hold that against him.
6.. Sanford: I know of him, but not enough to really express a detailed opinion. I would say that if SC ever gets competitive in the Presidential race, the ballgame is over; i.e.: Not necessarily his fault, but not in my ''top 5'' (or 6 or 7) for 2012.
7.. Jindal: Liked him more than a year ago. Still do. But; yeah: He needs to bring LA thru the recession and the local budget crises without cratering. IF he can pull that off (which would be a minor miracle in itself), I see him as a major contender in 2016 (easily IN my ''top 5''; probably in my ''top 3'').
8.. Romney: Liked him more than a year ago too. Has not only run a big private sector business and a state, but has done so with relative success. Major economic and professional experience gravitas.
9.. Barbour: Not good as a candidate for Pres, but would be a good chair of (R) Gov Assoc.
10. Palin: Passes the ''guy... er: gal I'd like to have a beer with'' test big time. But believe it's also fair to say that a bunch of people (especially (I)s) came to the conclusion that she was not ready to be Pres yet. That doesn't mean she couldn't eventually be, but the comment in the Geraghty piece about ''Palin the idea better than Palin in practice'' first time around was probably pretty accurate. Off-the-top thought: ''Working well'' with new RNC Chair Michael Steele (and getting a few good PR photo ops with him) wouldn't be a bad place to start.
Posted by: Methow Ken on February 6, 2009 06:40 PMCheck out the site dedicated to drafting him to run www.schiff2010.com
Posted by: Lysander on February 6, 2009 08:49 PMThat beng said, it is my fervent wish that as the leader of our party you will publicly denounce Senators Spector, Snow and Collins and their self-serviing defections in this massive debacle they are calling a stimulus. I would strongly suggest that the RNC pledge to withold any and all monies for their future campaigns and vow to work diligently to find and support primary candidates who are worthy of our party to challenge and unseat them.
Frankly, it would be preferable to have Democrats who are honest about who and what they are in those seats rather than these three who so regularly betray their constituents and party.
Thank you for your time.
I will be praying for you, our country and our party.
As for Ron Paul. Lysander, it ain't gonna happen, let it go. I would like to see a credible alternative and more centrist/ libertarian/ Objectivist candidate emerge. We don't seem to be getting anywhere with nearly identical big government alternatives like Obama and McCain. But Ron Paul appeals to just about no one. He's got many of the same negatives as McCain. He does not have the charisma, nor the restraint to appear credible. If you are coming at it from the center, you have to appear ten times more unflappable than Obama. And Ron Paul has made way too many gaffes, and lost big in 2008. It's game over for him.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2009 11:05 PMAny Blacks that are won over to the conservative side need to be won over on merits, as with all things conservative, and not on color or culture. That's Democrat Slavery party racist garbage that is a dead end.
Give it time. Eventually people who happen to have darker skin will realize that they have been played for their skin color, and kept down. There's no reason that they don't have every opportunity to assimilate with successful mainstream culture, and when they do, they are wildly successful just like the rest of the skin colors. It's only because of lame, anti-MLK hucksters like Jackson, Sharpton, and the latest crop of Hollywood rappers, etc. that teach blacks to identify themselves first with their race and what has "happened" to them and second the reality of the millions of daily choices we all make that are the most deterministic factors in our outcome and opportunity.
Steele needs to set a new example that transcends even Obama, where merit is the standard, not color. We wouldn't have a black President and a black RNC chair if that new standard was not already the case.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2009 11:17 PMHuckabee might have a chance. He is articulate and is able to get into the nuances of the issues. He could challenge Obama.
Romney will not rise high. He is not articulate and and does not appear genuine.
Limbaugh will always have influence. But let's be frank, not many people listened to gripes in the 2008 Presidential campaign.
Jindal impresses me. He seems to be the most articulate, is conservative and could easily challenge Obama.
Gingrich has always been articulate and does have conservative credentials. He would do fine if he does not get too religious (but he will).
Need to see more of Cantor, Pawlenty and Sanford.
But what the Republican Party needs is someone who is conservative, articulate and has a more realist foreign policy. If the GOP goes with that plan, then and only then, will the GOP move forward.
Posted by: Brian on February 7, 2009 05:16 AMThat brings me to Peter Schiff. he like Paul is on record warning of the issues we are now expereiencing. He like Paul was ridiculed yet keeps his calm. He like Paul has a large grassroots following. And his main opposition is Chris Dodd who will look so foolish and currupt by the time election rolls around that Schiff will win even though Dodd is a long democrat incumbenant in CT.
Question: if he is likely to beat Chris Dodd, why does he need to be drafted? Somebody with the charisma and ideas to beat a well-entrenched incumbent should actually want the job, he shouldn't have to be coaxed to run.
@8
Right on.
@Eric
Unless things go down the pooper for real in the next 3 years (as opposed to what's happening now, where people just think things are going down the pooper, and they're afriad things might go down the pooper), no credible R (one who would have a realistic shot at the nod in 2016) is going to want to challenge a sitting Obama. The GOP's only hope is that somebody comes out of nowhere and is surprisingly charismatic and articulate (best examples I can think of: what Reagan almost did in '76, and Bill Clinton in '92).
Barring the above, Republicans won't have a credible shot at the WH until 2016. But that might be after some of the afformentioned pols fade: (unfortunately) Sanford will be out of the governor's mansion, Bobby Jindal could make some serious missteps, and (fortunately) Tim Pawlenty will be out. So the real list of guys in 2016 is probably unheard of to most right now. (Pop quiz: where was Obama 1 month into Bush's presidency? Beginning his second term in the state senate, sort of like what Mark Schoesler, Phil Rockefeller, Mike Carrell, Craig Pridemore are doing right now. Maybe one of them will be president in 2016.)
My prediction: Eric Cantor is the nominee in 2016. Virginia has off-year gubernatorial elections, and one term term limits. That means whoever wins this year, be it McAuliffe, Moran, or Bob McDonnell, will vacate the office in 2013. Since it's an off year election, Eric Cantor can run without jeopordizing his House seat. So he decides to run. He wins, and in the process, grants himself a larger national profile (every politico pays attention to off year races like VA and NJ gov, since there's not much else to do). In 2015, he starts to campaign for president, because it's not like VA voters can oust him from office, since he'd be term limited anyway. His conservatism and Virginia roots assuages voters in the South, his Jewish heritage and his purple-state success assuages voters in the Northeast (they conclude that Virginia is "barely in the South anyway"), and his ideas and vision assuage the so-called intellectuals (Bill Kristol, David Brooks, Byron York, Ross Douthat, et al.) He wins the primary, then the general, then becomes the first Jewish-American President.
Posted by: SlipperyPete on February 7, 2009 10:44 AMCan you keep your effin' mouth shut on any topic? Any? At all?
This has nothing to do with you.
Posted by: jimg on February 7, 2009 11:01 AMI am not looking for a leader. I am actually looking for someone to sit in the presidency to stop others from being a leader. I am looking for someone to sit in congress to stop them from leading us to destruction.
Posted by: Lysander on February 7, 2009 12:46 PMIn the House: Gene Taylor (D) Mississippi, Mike McIntyre (D) North Carolina, or Any of them would be a MASSIVE improvement over the shrill, highly partisan Pelosi and her ignorance (500 million losing their job every month!).
In the Senate, either Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu. Both would be a big improvement not only in personal ethics (not tied up with illegal land deals like Reid) but again a voice for bipartisanship and common sense.
Of course, the leadership of the Slavery Party has no interest in bipartisanship; it's their way or the highway, and know they'll get the cover needed in their fans the Media.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 7, 2009 02:59 PMRob McKenna (AG to Gov)
Cathy McMorris (CD 5 To Sen)Reagan Dunn (KCC to CD 8)
Doug Ericksen (State House to House Republican Leader)
Kevin Parker (State House to CD 5)
It is, unfortunately, a short bench. No obvious candidate to run for AG when McKenna leaves, no surefire winner to challenge a sitting Murray or Cantwell.
President Bush and the GOP - when they were in control - would at least sit down and talk with the Slavers. Now look at what you have "we won; we don't need you"...
Pelosi is a sorry excuse for a politician, let alone one to be in a position of power.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 7, 2009 06:58 PMNo, no, no, no. She needs to stay in her seat forever and work her way up the leadership ladder. She does NOT need to run for Senate. Sorry, eastern Republicans just cannot win the west side of the state.
If anybody can ever win a Senate seat here again, it'll be McKenna or Reichert.
I agree that Reagan Dunn should take over for Reichert when he retires, however.
Posted by: cliff on February 7, 2009 08:19 PMMost partisan House majority leader - Newt Gingrich, hands down.
Most incompetent House leader: Denny Hastert
Worst and most stupid prediction or factless utterance on Soundpolitics:
Pudge, of course.
Here is a direct quote from Pudgie boy - the delusional psychotic with the massive ego:
"Most companies are reporting huge losses and are cutting back"
"Not even remotely true. A SMALL percentage of companies are reporting huge losses and cutting back. Why are you lying?"
The real facts:
The unemployment numbers are far worse than the previous recessions cited by the Pudge. Yup - this one is the real deal. The Bush depression ranks with the great depression. Look at the graph and it tells the whole story:
Link: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/06/how-bad-is-it/
The nonsensical statements that you feebly attempt to corretlate have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
Your arguements remind me of a 4 yr old...
'Little IncorrectAndNeverRight, the sun is shining go out and play.
But Mommmm, I hate liver and I'm not sleepy'...
and make as much sense.
Seems she's an MD who dabbles a bit in catering when it strikes her fancy.
Plus, after living with Tyson she really knows how to take a punch.
Link: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/06/how-bad-is-it/"
I looked and I can see why Time Magazine and Karen Tumulty (as well as Nancy Pelosi LOL) have won no awards for either economics or statistics!
First of all, their silly chart compares absolute NUMBERS of job losses rather than percentage unemployed. When you have a growing population and a growing labor market, even an equal downturn will have higher NUMBERS of unemployed.
Second, the only comparison that was made was to the recessions in 1990 and in 2001, both fairly mild recessions. Both recessions lasted a total of only 8 months each. I think everyone agrees that this recession is worse than those two mild recessions. Why not compare to a, well, comparable recession such as the recession in 1973-74 or 1981-82, both of which lasted 16 months? But, again, the comparison needs to be in PERCENTAGES, not in absolute numbers.
This recession is currently about 8 months old--I know that some say it started in December 2007, but it really did not start until July 2008. That was when GDP actually turned negative. If it follows the 1973-74 recession, it will not end until around the end of 2009.
Of course, if congress passes the idiot spending bill they seem on the verge of passing, we may come out of this recession, only to enter another one a few years later, as we struggle with the extra debt being larded on with this bill as well as the TARP bill. This was the same course FDR put us on in the 1930's--spend, spend, spend and extended the great depression until WWII.
It's going to be a long ride...
Posted by: Bill H on February 8, 2009 09:37 AMI paid A LOT more in taxes before I retired--i.e. when I was making a good salary. To say that people who make a lot of money don't pay a lot of taxes is just not true. The best way out is to reduce the size and scope of government TREMENDOUSLY, so that government is not operating via the "aristocracy of pull", which is how we operate today. Those who have "pull" within government (Tom Daschle is a perfect example) are able to trade off of that and make a fortune for doing nothing of value for society as a whole.
Similarly, the tax code is so complicated that we spend the effort of some of our best minds just tring to figure out how best to reduce the taxes paid under this system. Just think of the amount of intelligence (lawyers, accountants, etc.) that could actually be employed in doing something USEFUL that are currently employed in the tax minimization pursuit.
Posted by: Bill H on February 8, 2009 10:42 AMYou freaking moron. Ted Kennedy wrote No Child Left Behind. It's his friggin' bill!
And once again, you just can't keep your effin' mouth shut on any subject. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with you, but you and your other cohort managed to crap all over it.
Just once I'd like to be able to read comments about a subject that interests me without having to wade through all your bullshit.
Just. Once.
I dare you.
Posted by: jimg on February 8, 2009 11:44 AMPalin caused a lot screed about her from the left, especially liberal women's libs group like N.O.W. Clearly, it is because she posed a threat to them and rightly so - she exposed them for the menopausal shills that they are, with all due respect. The lamestream media successfully made her into a caricature akin to a voodoo doll and it will be very difficult for her to reinvent herself, like those on the left try to pull off on occasion. With that said, let's not lose track of her message for 2012, but to have her as a candidate for POTUS is a sure recipe for Republican party-suicide.
AFSMP - That sounds like a half-a$$ed attempt to quote Ronald Reagan, but your twisted brain will say that Reagan was a hypocrite or the Republicons were all at fault something woefully lame and disingenuous. The fact is that you have no room to talk if you are defending Dimocrats for getting government off of our backs- lest you be a pathological liar.
Posted by: KS on February 8, 2009 04:18 PMSaying the Republicans let Dems help the craft legislation when they were in charge is a pathetic lie.
No, your statement here is a lie. No Child Left Behind - that was Ted Kennedy. The Medicare Prescription Plan - pushed predominantly by the Democrats. The TARP bill - Pelosi, Reid, and the Democrats were all OVER that one. And many, MANY more.
What has Pelosi or Reid or Obama done that is bipartisan? Name ONE piece of significant legislation done.
The Republicans are bipartisan; the Slavers are as partisan and extremist as you can get.
THOSE are the facts, your ignorance notwithstanding.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 8, 2009 07:15 PMHey, I pay zero taxes! None at all... Really! I take to heart Judge Learned Hand's admonition to arrange one's affairs as to minimize taxation. I don't think VP Biden was correct when he said it's patriotic to pay taxes...
Do you think it's patriotic to pay taxes? Then where's your outrage over the tax CHEATS that President Obama has been nominating?
How about even his CHIEF OF STAFF, Rahm Emanuel? He's been living RENT FREE in the apartment of Representative Rosa DeLauro. Who's husband happens to be the Slavery Party pollster Stan Greenberg.
And guess what - Greenberg's firm is a client of the DNC! Which Emanuel headed for 5 years WHILE GETTING FREE RENT! In other words, getting compensation from a client...
And about the households worldwide having the wealth? So you advocate we go in to those other nations and overthrow them, and set up capitalist systems? Because in the US it's nowhere NEAR what you're claiming.
Intervention and corruption - it's what you Slavers do!
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 9, 2009 08:49 AMWell, they now have a graph that addresses both issues:
Comparing this recession to the last five
This current graph refutes NotRight's statement that "The Bush depression ranks with the great depression. Look at the graph and it tells the whole story:"
If Obama and the Democrats go forward with wasting another $1 trillion, we may yet get to the levels of the Great Depression (when unemployment ranged from 15-25% THROUGHOUT the 1930's (thanks to Hoover and FDR!), but we're certainly nowhere near there yet...
Posted by: Bill H on February 9, 2009 10:50 AMYou must come from a "rich" family, both of my parents worked when I was a kid in the 1960's and when I was in college in the 1970's. In fact, my mother was the main breadwinner in the winter, when my Dad had less work as a carpenter.
We did not have 2 cars, we did not have any computers (no one did), we did not have a color tv, only a small black and white. Our home was heated by a coal furnace and we had no heat upstairs--I couldn't take a glass of water to bed in the wintertime because it would freeze in the glass. I was responsible for making sure there was coal in the furnace--if it ran out, the whole house would fill with smoke. Most of my clothes were handed down from my older brothers--much of them had patches.
So yes, low income people are MUCH better off today than they were in the 1960's and 1970's.
And if you go back further, my father had to drop out of school in the 1930's to help support his family--he never did finish high school. Hoover and FDR screwed up the country when my parents were young and it looks like Obama and the Democrats are trying for a repeat!
Posted by: Bill H on February 9, 2009 11:04 AM